Order! Last Friday, 21 March, I allowed the hon. member for Mooi River to use the following words with reference to the hon. the Minister of Public Works: “He is the biggest White political chicken that history has been in South Africa.”

On reflection this expression worried me.

†I shall appreciate it very much if the hon. member for Mooi River would, even at this late stage, withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, at your request, I withdraw those words. I do want to say I did not intend to reflect on the hon. the Minister, for whom I have a deep regard. I do think the words were taken far more seriously than they were intended.

Mr. Chairman, a matter dealt with in clause 1 is an amount of R73,3 million in respect of interest payable by the Railways Administration to the Treasury in respect of capital invested in railway passenger services, which is going to be remitted by the Treasury to the Railway Administration. We dealt with this matter at some considerable length during the Railways debate, when it was pointed out that during the year in question an amount of approximately R350 million was lost on passenger services by the S.A. Railways.

I see the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs is looking somewhat alarmed at this. I just want to point out to him that I am reading from the explanatory memorandum and that if he has a quarrel he should quarrel with the explanatory memorandum rather than with me.

This remittance is in respect of certain socio-economic services rendered by the Railways Administration but which should really not be the responsibility of the S.A. Railways themselves to finance. It is quite right and we accept that they should be remitted in all services rendered by the Railways for the general good and in the public interest. In other words, this money is money that is being paid specifically in respect of services rendered. What interests me is the question of why this sum should be R73,3 million. If we look at clause 2 we see the amount of R50 million is mentioned. In this clause, however, the amount is R73,3 million. I do not know on what basis the sum of R73,3 million is calculated. I do not know what proportion this is of the total value of the socioeconomic services rendered. I do not know exactly how this sum was arrived at. Presumably the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs got together and argued it out, finally reaching this answer. We on this side of the House will be very interested to know whether there is a formula in terms of which the hon. the Minister has arrived at this particular sum. We should also like to know what formula will apply in future, because we are likely to get this type of Finance Bill clause every year from now on. The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs has already announced that during the coming year we will have a further amount remitted from central Treasury funds. We should like to know on what basis this sum is granted and whether or not this is a principle we are now going to accept for the future.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs is in the House. He was not here yesterday during the Second Reading of this Bill.

I was in the Other Place.

I should just like to clarify the points I made during Second Reading, and I should like to do so for the benefit of the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs.

From the explanatory memorandum it is clear that some R350 million is being paid by the Railways Administration for providing socio-economic services on the passenger services of the Railways. That is to say, if I may put it in clearer terms, that the Railways are subsidizing certain users of the rail transportation services of the Administration to the tune of R350 million. We in these benches have made it very clear over the years that we do not believe that the Railways, and through them, the users of the railways—that is to say the people who use the railways for the transportation of goods and other passenger services—should subsidize those services which the Railways provide for a certain socio-economic group of people in South Africa who cannot afford what it is actually costing the Railways.

We have often said that the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the Exchequer, should in fact subsidize these people in the interests of the State. This is a point of principle on which the NRP has stood over the years. We are now pleased to see that for the first time the hon. the Minister of Finance has seen fit to subsidize these people. As I said yesterday, however, I am not particularly pleased with the way in which this is now being done. I appreciate the fact that is an accounting measure for the past year, but I sincerely hope that in future the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs will make sure that this subsidy is clearly seen to be a subsidy.

I beg your pardon?

The hon. the Minister and the hon. the Minister of Finance should make sure that this subsidy of the passenger services of the Railways is clearly seen as a subsidy. This particular clause makes provision for interest payments to the tune of R73,3 million to be exempted. The Railways is exempted from paying R73,3 million interest on loans which the State has granted to the Railways over the years. In this particular year the hon. the Minister of Finance has seen fit to exempt the Railways from paying this amount. I think this is wrong, and I am talking in terms of the future. I think that in future the Railways should pay the interest that is due to the Consolidated Revenue Fund or to the hon. the Minister of Finance. The amount of any subsidy, I think, should be clearly seen as a subsidy from the hon. the Minister of Finance.

It is not a subsidy. It is compensation for services rendered.

The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs says this is compensation for services rendered. I agree with him. The subsidy is given to the users of the railway. However, this is an accounting measure, and I believe it is in the interest of the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs that this should not be seen as a reduction in his interest payments. I think it is important for costs incurred to be clearly seen, in the books of the Railways, as being costs incurred. The Railways has obviously borrowed large sums of money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, in fact to the extent that R73,3 million in interest is due on it. So I think the Railway accounts should show, in the future, that R73,3 million in interest is due. This should be done so that the users of the Railways know exactly how much the Railways’ capital investments have been. If the State has asked the Railways to provide certain services to underprivileged people, the State should clearly be seen to be giving the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs, and the Railways Administration, fair payment for those services rendered. I hope the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs understands what I am getting at?

Well, that is a legitimate argument for now, but there is also the future to consider.

I am talking about the future. I am saying that we shall not oppose this particular clause, but since the hon. the Deputy Minister is here, let me say that I hope that next year, when he and the hon. the Minister of Finance get together to determine how much money the State should pay the Railways for services rendered to underprivileged people, the amount of money involved will be seen as an amount of money paid by the State to the Railways. I hope it will not just be a question of exemption from interest payment, which I think is bad business practice.

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer the hon. member for Amanzimtoti to the explanatory memorandum which he has to hand. The answer is right there, and I quote—

That is very clear. I want, however, to elaborate further on this point. That hon. member and the hon. member for Orange Grove also asked how we arrived at the amount of R73 300 000. I want to explain to the hon. member for Orange Grove that this is based on the estimated capital expenditure on passenger services, an amount of R1 870 million. The interest paid by the Railways to the Treasury on that invested amount is R165 million per year. The R73 million is only the interest for a period of five months. I hope that is very clear to the hon. member for Orange Grove.

*I also want to put it very clearly to hon. members that losses on passenger services are not unique to South Africa. It is a world-wide phenomenon. All transport services throughout the world face that problem. Because we appreciate this problem, and because we appreciate that the people in the lower-income groups are the very people who should receive assistance in this regard, the Franzsen Committee was appointed. The committee was appointed not only to consider Railway passenger transport, but to consider all aspects of passenger transport as well. Of course, transport by bus, etc., is involved as well. As I said in my Second Reading speech yesterday, Prof. Franzsen is still conducting his investigation. This is an expert investigation. We expect a very meaningful report to emerge, a report which the Government will consider when it is submitted to it.

Furthermore, I should like to refer briefly to the point that was made that this subsidy, this exemption from the payment of interest, if I may put it that way, was in fact being used to “subsidize” the passengers of the Blue Train as well. This is indeed not so, because, as was announced by the hon. the Minister for Transport Affairs, his loss on passenger services for the financial year 1979-’80 was R350 million. The total amount mentioned here, is far less than that total loss. Therefore, the conclusion cannot be drawn that the passengers of the Blue Train are being subsidized as well.

Mr. Chairman, as the hon. the Deputy Minister says, this is a result of recommendations by the Franzsen Committee which is sitting at present. We would be most interested to know what exactly the recommendation of the Franzsen Committee was in this respect. We know there is some fairly arbitrary amount decided on and the hon. the Deputy Minister did answer my question to an extent. He said that this was the interest on the estimated capital expenditure of R165 million for the particular year. The total interest for the year would have been R165 million. So presumably we are now accepting a principle that all the interest on the estimated capital expenditure for the provision of socio-economic services is going to be paid every year to the Railways from the Treasury. We are trying to establish what the principle involved is. It would help if the hon. the Deputy Minister would say what the recommendation of the Franzsen Committee in this respect actually is. Do they recommend that all the interest should be paid by the Treasury? It appears so from what we see before us. When we get to clause 2, we get on to a more complicated situation because there we will be concerned with the relatively arbitrary amount of R50 million. Again, we would like to know why an amount of R50 million was decided upon. That, however, relates to the next clause. At this stage I want to know whether it is an established principle that we are going to have paid over to the Railways each year the full amount of the interest on capital expenditure for socioeconomic services.

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer back to the explanatory memorandum.

But it says nothing about socio-economic services.

There it is stated quite clearly that this is decided upon on a year-to-year basis. Let me say at once that we have not received the report of the Franzsen Committee yet. We recognize, however, that there is a problem. We want to reduce the increases in the tariffs, to dampen them, and we do not yet have the Franzsen Committee’s report. That is the point. We have as yet accepted no principle whatsoever, because we are still awaiting the Franzsen Committee’s report.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that I think a degree of confusion is creeping into his reply. The explanatory memorandum to which he refers does not by as much as a word or a sentence contain a reference to the fact that the amount of R73,3 million is in respect of an allowance being granted in order to assist services in a particular socio-economic group. It said nothing of the sort.

I did not say that.

In fact, what it says is that this is a subsidy to deal with losses in respect of Railways passenger services as a whole.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has given us some figures. He has said that the total interest burden is approximately R165 million for the year. Is that correct?

Yes.

Right. He then said he was providing R73,3 million of that which, as he said, is for five months, i.e. the interest for 5/12ths of the year. What he is now suggesting is that what he is giving the Railways is 5/12ths of the interest the Railways have to pay on their loan indebtedness. What magic figure is this 5/12ths? Why is it 5/12ths? The hon. members for Orange Grove and Amanzimtoti have been talking about socio-economic services, the hon. the Deputy Minister is talking about services as a whole and the explanatory memorandum talks about services as a whole. Is he now suggesting that that 5/12ths of the passenger services relate to socio-economic matters? [Interjections.] Is the hon. the Deputy Minister saying that losses in respect of socio-economic services are R73,3 million plus R50 million? What are the losses in respect of these services for a particular socio-economic group? That is what we need to know. Merely to take two figures and say that that is what we are going to give to the Railways, is meaningless in the extreme.

The second point which I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to deal with is the question of the principle of dealing with this in retrospect. The explanatory memorandum correctly states that in respect of future allowance it is going to be dealt with in the estimates. However, is it not a wrong principle that here, at the end of a financial year, we should hurriedly take away from the Exchequer an amount of money to the sum of R123 million and put that into the Railways? Is that a principle which we could accept? What will happen next year? If the losses are bigger, are we going to top them up again at the end of the year? What is the purpose of doing it in retrospect, and is here not a financial principle which is wrong? The other question which I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister—and it pertains particularly to the portfolio where he is the Deputy Minister—is what is the effect going to be on the accounting for the current financial year in terms of which there should be a surplus of a further R123 million. What will the effect be when he and his hon. Minister account to Parliament for the expenditure for this year on Wednesday? If that amount is going to come off either the surplus or the deficit—and presumably it is going to be a substantial surplus—surely, if we take R123 million away from the Exchequer, the hon. the Deputy Minister has an obligation to the House to say what the effect will be that this amount will have on the accounts for the current financial year. Those are the questions I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to answer.

The third question which has to be put is that if we are now going to separate the Railways in respect of certain services which are profitable and certain services which are not profitable, and if we do not accept the concept in regard to the services which are rendered below cost for a particular socioeconomic group because of the policy of the Government, should we not also look at the services which we are rendering in respect of the goods traffic in South Africa, many aspects of which are in fact being conducted on a subsidized basis? We are not charging an economic tariff. Is the hon. the Deputy Minister going to say again in future that we now have to do it on the basis that there are some goods services which are not economic either and that therefore we should also give a subsidy for those. We are embarking here on very dangerous ground, because the only principle on which one can actually make this money available if the Railways is to be run as a separate business entity, is the principle of giving a subsidy for the services rendered for an underprivileged group. However, if one is going to subsidize services because some of them are being carried at the expense of others, one is going to end up with a situation where the Railways will show a tremendous profit on those services which are economic, but in respect of everything else they are going to say that it is uneconomic and that therefore they want a subsidy from the Government. This is a dangerous principle on which we are embarking, and I should like to hear what the principle is that the Government is adopting in regard to this subsidy. Is it purely in respect of a subsidy for a group of people who, by reason of their socio-economic circumstances and the policy of the Government, have to be subsidized in regard to their use of the rail services?

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I want to say to the hon. member for Yeoville that he is maintaining here that the Railways is showing a loss on its railway services as a result of Government policy. I should now like to know whether the Government’s policy is also implemented in other countries of the world, since they, too, show losses on passenger services? [Interjections.] Surely our policy does not apply to other passenger services in the world that also show losses. That is an absurd statement which the hon. member for Yeoville made, and he knows that it is untrue.

The Canadian-Pacific Railways run at a tremendous profit.

I want to say to the hon. member that he has made an unsubstantiated allegation. I would not have expected a person of his intelligence to make such a statement here. Surely that is general knowledge, is it not? During the discussion of his appropriation, the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs debated this matter. We are here discussing a clause in the Finance Bill, and therefore I do not believe that the principle of rail transport can be debated now. The hon. member asked how we were going to show this subsidy of R73 million we are giving to the Railways in the budget. I now want to let out a budget secret. It will be indicated in the budget tomorrow as R73 million less in interest revenue accruing to the State. It is as simple as that. We shall not try to mislead hon. members with all kinds of manipulations. That is the fact of the matter. The deficit announced last year by the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs in his 1979-’80 budget was R350 million. This year the hon. the Minister spoke about a deficit of R484 million on passenger services, and whereas we are now granting a subsidy which less than the total loss suffered by the Railways and transport services, this does not mean that one can say that we are subsidizing any specific class of passengers. Surely it is very simple. If the Treasury had borne the full loss, that would have meant that everything was being subsidized, but it is not specified what transport service we are subsidizing here. One can of course deduce what one wishes. The hon. member made a further point which I do not believe is worth reacting to at this point.

As regards the policy relating to the issue of passenger services I want to repeat that the Government realizes that transport is an important component of the expenditure of the lower income groups, and it was for that very reason that the Government appointed the Franzsen Commission. In the course of the Railway budget debate the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs also referred to the investigation by the Franzsen Commission. I want to give hon. members the assurance that once the Government has received the final recommendation of the Franzsen Commission we shall consider the financial implications and will then come forward with consequential measures. I want to stress that the funds involved here— because we recognize there is a problem—are being allocated with the purpose of affording aid in an effort to alleviate increases in tariffs. This is the aim behind this whole matter.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make my party’s position on this aspect quite clear. We are not opposed to the subsidizing of uneconomic passenger services which are provided by the Railways through the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

By subsidizing the Blue Train?

The hon. member for Yeoville talks about subsidizing the Blue Train. I do not believe that his argument is correct. I am inclined to sympathize with the hon. the Deputy Minister in this respect. The explanatory memorandum states that the total loss on passenger services was in the order of R350 million, and the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs has told us that this figure is likely to be R485 million in the coming year. The amount of money offered here by the Exchequer is in the order of R123,3 million. Thus it is nowhere near the total amount of money which the passenger services are losing. I would like to predict that with the increase of 25% in the Blue Train’s tariffs, those tariffs are getting pretty close to the actual cost. The R123,3 million which is now being given to the Railways is, I think a fair amount of subsidy to cover what it costs the Railways to provide these socio-economic services in the last financial year. That, however, is not my argument with the hon. the Deputy Minister and I hope he understands that. We are in agreement with the principle of subsidization of certain services.

Our party has over the years said: Why should the other users of the Railways be forced to subsidize socio-economic services provided for underprivileged people in South Africa? We believe the whole of South Africa should subsidize it, and therefore it should be paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. My point is that I believe the way in which it is being done for this year which is coming to an end, is wrong because if this goes through it will show that the Consolidated Revenue Fund has less revenue, viz. R73,3 million, coming into its coffers, and as a result the Railways are going to have R73,3 million less interest to pay. What this in fact means—and I have just calculated this mentally—is that the hon. the Minister of Finance has agreed to reduce the interest rate to the Railways on its loan of R1 870 million from about 8,75% to about 5,25%. This is an arbitrary figure which has just been sucked out of the air. What I am saying is that if the money market insists that the rate of interest should be 8,75%, the Railways should be seen to pay it. It is better for the State to be seen to pay its share in providing these services by giving a grant or a subsidy or whatever one wants to call it. This year it happens to be R123,3 million. Next year it may be R250 million, but it should be seen to be the total amount of the subsidy. I say this because I believe everything has a value and everything has a worth. I think that if we are subsidizing the underprivileged people in South Africa as far as transport is concerned, the State should be seen to be subsidizing to that amount, because if we do not do this then the people who are receiving the benefits will not appreciate them. There have been strikes in various parts of the country with regard to bus fares and so on and negotiations in this regard are difficult. I think it is extremely important that if the State subsidizes any service, the extent of that subsidy should be seen to its full and should not be hidden as we are doing here. I think it is wrong to hide cost in any business. I think it is in the interest of the State, of the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs and of the Railways Administration’s that what I am saying is accepted by the hon. the Deputy Minister. I sincerely hope that when he sits down with the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs and the officials, they will see the wisdom of what we are saying, viz. that if the State is subsidizing transport, especially socioeconomic passenger services, the users of those services should know the extent to which they are being subsidized. That is the point I want to make.

Mr. Chairman, I have taken the hon. member’s point as far as that is concerned, and I have no quarrel with him on that point whatsoever. I just want to make myself clear on this: I have no quarrel with that whatsoever.

Mr. Chairman, up to a point one can understand that the hon. the Deputy Minister has a sense of mounting irritation in dealing with us because he feels he is being given the run around and is being harried and hassled from a number of quarters. This situation often arises in life when one has a discussion on a complicated matter which, in addition, is being presented on the basis of sloppy instead of clear thinking. The hon. the Deputy Minister expressed his irritation with the hon. member for Yeoville by saying: How dare the hon. member for Yeoville suggest that this is happening as a result of Government policy? The hon. the Deputy Minister points out that passenger services lose in other countries too. Certainly they do, but there is no other country that I know of where the bulk of the working force is compelled by special laws, which are discriminatory and which apply to them only on the grounds of race, to live at a greater distance from their places of work than workers normally do in other countries. This is the point my hon. friend was making, and it is absolutely incontrovertible. It is for that reason that this Government and its predecessors have in various forms made various sorts of subsidies available, precisely because they have recognized that point.

Starting from there, the hon. the Deputy Minister says that he cannot say that he is subsidizing precisely this group of passengers or that group of passengers. But this is exactly where we want him to stop his sloppy thinking and to get things clear, because there is only a basis for subsidy on the basis that one defines the group of passengers which deserves to be subsidized. One may do this on purely socio-economic criteria and say that those people who earn under a certain income are entitled to be subsidized, or one may do it along the lines upon which I have just touched, viz. that those people who are forced to live in particular localities because of their skin colour, are entitled to subsidy. Either way this should be clearly defined.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti said in passing that he would not be surprised if the Blue Train was now approaching a breakeven point rather than a profitable stage and that the cost of operating the Blue Train might have risen to the point that it is not covered by its revenue. I do not know whether that is so or not, but the point I am making is that if that is so, then the day the Blue Train stops making money, the prices for travelling on the Blue Train must be increased. The fares should be put up, and there should be no question of subsidy in that case. Nor should there be any question of subsidy in the case of ordinary suburban commuters who are income tax payers, people living in reasonably comfortable circumstances and who are using the trains to get to work. If the train cannot get them to work economically, then other forms of transport must be considered and there must be competition. I do not want to get involved in an elementary lecture on the principles of free enterprise, but surely this ought to be clear.

Again, it was the hon. member for Amanzimtoti who said that he was not quarrelling with the hon. the Deputy Minister to the extent that we are because, after all, the loss is in the order of R350 million a year and if the Government gives R123 million, that is a sort of rough justice and that sum can perhaps be taken to cover that portion of the market which it ought to cover. As far as that argument goes, that is all right, but what I am concerned about is that one does not run a business like that. One tells one’s shareholders what money one is appropriating and for what purpose. What we require is that, while we do not have the Franzsen report yet and do not have a precise measurement yet a sensible estimate be made of the cost of transporting those people, either the Black urban township users of the Railways or some other category, if the hon. the Deputy Minister will define it clearly, and we want that amount paid as an open subsidy to the Railways. In this regard I share the point of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti that the interest should be seen to be paid. Then we shall know what we are doing. Then we need not have such a run around and such a hassle. Things will really be easier for the Minister if he will prepare his case in that sort of way.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Parktown really disappointed me today. Apparently I have again been guilty of over-estimating the hon. member’s insight. The hon. member stated that South Africa was the only place in the world where people have to live far from their places of employment on so-called ideological grounds, and have then to be transported over long distances to their places of employment. The hon. member need only go to the Scandinavian countries and he will see that there, too, residential areas are being moved far out of the cities. People travel long distances to work every day. That is a fact. The hon. member maintains that we are moving people away from their places of employment for ideological reasons. The hon. member is now succeeding in making an apartheid debate out of this clause which deals with finance. Is it the Government’s ideology which causes the people who live in Parow and Bellville to have to travel into the centre of Cape Town by train every day?

If they want to, they can come and live here.

Wait a moment. The hon. member for Parktown said that people had to travel long distances every day in order to get to their places of employment purely on the basis of colour discrimination. Is it the result of the Government’s policy that the people who live in Bellville and further away and work in Cape Town, live there and not here?

If they want to, they can come and live here, but the Blacks cannot.

What White people are prohibited from living in Cape Town?

That is not what I said.

Wait a moment. That is what the hon. member is implying. Those, without substance, are the hon. member’s arguments. It is an absolutely ridiculous argument to say that South Africa is the only country in the world where people have to commute long distances to their jobs every day. Surely that is untrue. That is absolute nonsense, and the hon. member advanced a very weak argument. I cannot quite make out what lies behind the hon. member’s arguments but I do infer that they are trying to calculate the price which the State will in fact have to pay for the Government’s policy. In my opinion, that is what is behind the whole argument.

We are dealing here with a natural phenomenon, the phenomenon that as a metropolis develops, people, irrespective of their skin colour, moved outwards to the suburbs. This necessarily entails that they have to travel longer distances every day to their places of employment. That is all I want to say in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, I am very disappointed in the answer of the hon. the Deputy Minister. One of his answers in particular I found most extraordinary. He has said that the report of the Franzsen Committee has not yet been received—and we know it has not yet reported in full—but that he recognizes that a problem exists and that that is why this money has been made available to the Railways. He nods his head. So he agrees with that. Well, I may say that this is in direct contradiction to what the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs said when he introduced the Railway budget. He said then that it was as a result of interim recommendations of the Franzsen Committee that this money was being made available by the Treasury. So this money is not made available just out of the goodness of the heart of the hon. the Deputy Minister and his department and because they recognize that a problem exists. Is the correct answer that it has been done as a result of an interim recommendation by the Franzsen Committee or is the correct answer that it has been done just because they have recognized that a problem exists? I do not know. I am asking the hon. the Deputy Minister to tell us on what basis it has been done. Has it been done on the basis of some interim recommendation by the Franzsen Committee and, if so, what is that recommendation? We do not know. The hon. the Deputy Minister has said that at this stage the principle has not yet been established. So it seems to me to be a completely arbitrary matter. Is he paying out this money because the hon. the Minister of Finance has so much money in his kitty at the moment that he is prepared to give away money left, right and centre for anything? What is the principle behind the giving of this amount of money?

The hon. the Deputy Minister has not given the answer, but I am prepared to give it for him if he likes. The decision has only been taken after the seventh month of the financial year as a result of recommendations by the Franzsen Committee. It was only for the last five months of the financial year that money was paid from the Treasury. I might be wrong. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister will put me right on this. However, we know that for next year’s financial operation an amount of R241 million will somehow or other be obtained from the Treasury. The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs has told us that an amount of R241 million will be provided. Where is that going to come from? On what basis has the amount of R241 million been worked out? Is it as a result of interim recommendations by the Franzsen Committee, or are we to believe the hon. the Deputy Minister instead of the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs that no special principle is involved at this stage and that he merely recognizes that a problem exists, as a result of which they are prepared to shell out this money? On what basis are they prepared to shell it out? We are totally unaware of what the guiding principle is which determines what percentage of the Railways losses is going to be paid because it is estimated that that particular percentage is the part of the Railways losses that can be attributed to socio-economic services. Are we going to be subjected to a sort of arbitrary decision, just because so much money happens to be in the Treasury at the present time, money of which the Treasury must get rid of somehow? Would the hon. the Deputy Minister not consider reducing taxation a little more instead of just paying this money because there happens to be money in the Treasury? If he is going to just give money to the Railway willy-nilly, without any particular principles being involved, we should like to know about it, because it will alter our attitude. We in these benches have believed all along that it should not be the responsibility of the Railways to have to pay money towards socioeconomic services rendered, but now the hon. the Deputy Minister has changed the whole tenor of the debate by saying that no socio-economic services are being rendered for Black commuters who live a long way from town. Through many Railway debates it has been absolutely clear to me that on that side of the House it is an accepted fact that there are many Black people who for ideological reasons have to live far away from their places of work. I am not just talking about commuters; I am also talking about people who live in Bophuthatswana or in homeland areas. It is reasonable to consider that those people should be allowed to go back to their homeland to see their families over weekends. The Government has always been prepared to concede that. If this is not a socio-economic service in which assistance from the Treasury should be forthcoming, I do not know what it is. I do not believe the hon. the Deputy Minister is correct when he says that we are just making a contribution in view of the losses on passenger services. I believe this amount is made available specifically because the Government has a particular ideology.

But you have been asking for this for years.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says we have talked about this for many years.

You pleaded for it.

Yes, we pleaded for it because it is the correct thing to do, but the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance has now told us that we do not get what we have asked for. He says out of the goodness of his heart he is giving this money to the Railways, and it has nothing to do with ideological considerations.

I think the Government has to make up its mind. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister should get together with the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs and they should decide which one is correct and is telling the House the true facts. At the moment we have two different stories. The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs says the Franzsen Committee has made interim recommendations and as a result of those interim recommendations the Railways will get so much money, but the hon. the Deputy Minister says that the Franzsen Committee has not yet reported and out of the goodness of the Treasury’s heart, because they know about the difficulty which exists in this area, the money will be paid. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister, having consulted with his officials, will now tell us the true story and the full factual situation. He should tell us on what basis this amount is calculated.

Mr. Chairman, I should very much like to reply to the speech by the hon. member for Orange Grove. His big problem is that he is unable to understand. In the first place he cannot understand the explanatory memorandum.

I understand every word of it.

It seems to me that the hon. member simply cannot understand it properly. Perhaps that is the problem. He is now asking us what we are going to do next year and the year thereafter. I shall now reread it for the hon. member’s benefit. I hope that this time he will not only hear it, but also understand. After all, it is stated in very clear terms—

I hope that even the hon. member for Orange Grove now understands what is stated here. Perhaps I had better explain it yet again: In accordance with what is stated here, this will be considered every year.

The hon. member is putting words in my mouth by maintaining that I supposedly said “out of the goodness of our heart we are now giving the money to the Railways”. That is absolutely untrue.

Yes, there is no goodness in your heart.

I said that we gave these funds to the Railways in order to limit the severity of the tariff increases. That is our aim in doing this. We are not giving it out of the goodness of our hearts, but we do want to limit the severity of the tariff increases.

Then there is the second point. This the hon. member apparently did not hear, but I repeat it for his edification. I said that the Franzsen Committee had made certain interim recommendations to us. It is not a secret committee. Prof. Franzsen comes and visits us regularly and we discuss the whole problem surrounding the conveyance of passengers. On the basis of Prof. Franzsen’s interim report we decided to adopt these measures. What I find strange is that after I said this a moment ago, the hon. member suddenly discovered how we calculated the amount of R73 million. He discovered this after I had explained it to him. After all, I just said that the amount that the Railways invested in passenger services came to R1 870 million. The interest payable to the Public Debt Commissioner is R165 million every year. Five-twelfths of 165 is equal to 73.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member is quite right. I said so a moment ago, but I am saying it again. That is a fact.

The hon. member went on to maintain that due to its ideological policy, the Government had to pay subsidies on transport and that transport costs in this country were so high as a result of that, etc. Also due to its ideological policy, according to the hon. member, the Railways is supposedly suffering losses on its passenger services. That is what the hon. member said. However, I want to call in a witness to confirm that this is not the case here in South Africa alone, but elsewhere as well. On 6 March 1978 an hon. member said the following in this House (Hansard, Vol. 72, col. 2436)—

The hon. member who uttered these words was the hon. member for East London North, who is now sitting at the back over there. [Interjections.] He mentioned these figures. Therefore, when he next has an opportunity to speak in his caucus, he can inform hon. members of his party that it is not only here in South Africa, for ideological reasons, that it happens that losses are suffered by the Railways. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister has now held forth at great length a whole series of irrelevances, but he has not actually answered the one pertinent question. That is the question of how much of this money is actually going towards the subsidization of services for a group who, by reason of its socio-economic conditions requires a subsidy. The principle we have said throughout we are prepared to accept, is the principle that those people must be subsidized. We have great difficulty, however, in subsidizing the Blue Train. That is why I asked the question about the Blue Train. The question I put to the hon. the Deputy Minister is that he should inform us—and he will not get away without doing it—how much the loss is in respect of the services for that particular group of people who, by reason of their socio-economic conditions, are in need of being subsidized. That is the 64 million dollar question, and everything else is irrelevant.

If we are debating the question of whether the whole of the Railways passenger services should be subsidized, whether someone travelling in the first class from Parow to Bellville should be subsidized, we are debating an entirely different thing. Then we are on a different plane altogether. We have been told, however, that the concept is that the Railways are being run on a business basis. The only reason why a subsidy should be paid is because there is a group of people the State wishes not to charge the full economic rate for the service rendered to them. That group we have identified. What is the loss that is suffered in respect of that group? That is the simple question.

If we talk about comparisons with other countries it is all right of course. If we look at the figures, however, the hon. the Deputy Minister has just quoted himself, we see that the subsidy per head of the population in South Africa is much bigger than it is anywhere else in the world. That is what we have to look at as well. Then the hon. the Deputy Minister says this is not taking place anywhere in the world. I would invite the hon. the Deputy Minister to go to the library and look up the figures for some other transport organizations in the world. He would find that in Canada, for instance, there are two railway systems. There is, in fact, competition. There is the Trans-Canadian Railway and there is the Canadian Pacific Railway. The Canadian Pacific Railway is owned by a company which has private shareholders and happens to pay dividends. In other words, it makes a profit. Let no one tell me that that situation is unique to Canada. So when talking about free enterprise, perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister should listen to that very simple first-year economics lecture from which the hon. member for Parktown quoted to him a moment ago, because perhaps that is what is needed for those in the Government benches to understand what free enterprise really means. Free enterprise, in this context, does not mean that the Railways can merely say that it is a business enterprise that runs on economic lines, but that for all its passenger services it nevertheless requires some form of subsidization. I therefore repeat the simple question I asked at the beginning. What is the amount which is being allocated for those people who, by reason of their socio-economic situation, require subsidization? What is that amount, what is the Railways’ loss on that and what amount is the hon. the Deputy Minister allocating to cover that? That is the $64 000 question.

Mr. Chairman, I really cannot understand the hon. members of the PFP here today. They want to try to make political capital out of this debate. Over the years they have advocated that tariffs should not be increased and that the cost of passenger services should not increase, because they maintain that we should then be causing the Black people in this country to pay unreasonable amounts for passenger transport. Over the years such pleas have been made in this House. I myself took part in the Railway debate two years ago and said that we should have to approach the Treasury for assistance. I am particularly grateful today that the Treasury did in fact agree to accommodate the users of Railway services by way of a subsidy or a remission of interest. The hon. member for Yeoville is the one who says that we only feed the “fat cats”. Again today he tried to maintain that we subsidize the people who use the Blue Train service in South Africa. However, I just want to make a very simple statement. As far as I know, the Blue Train operates twice a week. There are 52 weeks in a year, and therefore the Blue Train runs 104 times every year. However there are thousands, I could almost say millions of trains running in this country, and who uses those trains? Surely it is those people who receive the subsidy. If one has a deficit of R350 million on one’s passenger services, does that hon. member want to intimate that a train that runs twice a week is the service that is subsidized? Surely that is a ridiculous argument. There are deficits in regard to all long distance trains, and who uses those trains? There are approximately 20 million Black people in this country as against a meagre 4½ million Whites, and the Blacks are the people who are subsidized. When one subsidizes bread, one does it for everyone. One does not ask whether one is subsidizing the rich man. However, that hon. member wants the Railways to place the Blue Train in a separate compartment and perform a calculation for the Blue Train alone. Surely that is a ridiculous argument to advance in this House.

Now I come to the hon. member of the NRP who said that we were concealing this subsidy. However, how does one conceal a subsidy if one comes to Parliament with it? We have been arguing for almost an hour about this clause. Surely this Parliament is approving that amount and surely the world knows what the Treasury is donating to the user of these services. Really, I have seldom in my life heard such ridiculous arguments as I have heard from the hon. member for Yeoville today.

Mr. Chairman, we have had a long debate on clause 1 and the issue in regard to clause 2 is identical to that in clause 1. I merely want to repeat the simple request I made to the hon. the Minister and then I shall sit down and not prolong the debate. Will he tell us what the loss is in respect of those services concerning which it is Government policy that the group of people involved face such socio-economic conditions that those services should be subsidized. What is the loss in respect of that and what is being allocated to them? If the hon. the Deputy Minister will answer that question, we will let the debate proceed. I ask him to answer that because without that the whole key to this debate has not yet been solved. The question must be answered, because otherwise we will have to press the hon. the Minister again. Let him therefore please deal with this. If he does not have the figure here, let him get up and say so and give it to us at some other time, but we require that figure. It is vital to this whole question.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is high time there is a little pure, rational thinking in this debate. [Interjections.] Hon. members are participating in the debate without any background knowledge whatsoever of Railway financing. In order to have any understanding of the situation with regard to clause 2, hon. members must realize that there are a variety of subsidies relating to Railway financing. For example, one has subsidization of high-rated traffic as regards low-rated traffic. One has subsidization of the Railways by the pipeline, the Airways and the harbours. One has subsidization of the total operating account of the Railways in regard to socio-economic services. Now, the lack of pure logical thinking on the part of the Opposition is attributable to the fact that they do not understand what socio-economic services are. They see socio-economic services through coloured glasses. That is the basic problem. Socio-economic services include all passenger services, irrespective of race and colour. Passenger services are operated at a loss, and because the passenger services concern everyone, Whites and people of colour, because they include passenger services between the Cape and Johannesburg and those between Soweto and Johannesburg, and because Soweto as a whole derives benefit from this, these services have to be subsidized. Basically, that is all that is envisaged by this clause. The aim is to subsidize socioeconomic services provided by the Railways, to the benefit of South Africa as a whole— and no race or colour is involved here. That, basically, is all. It is pointless wanting to argue here that due to Government policy the general taxpayer must now pay a certain amount for the purposes of a subsidy. That is not the case. The essence of the matter is that all passenger services show a working loss. Now the passenger services are being subsidized in the interests of South Africa. This is being done on the basis of a certain formula with which I am unacquainted—perhaps the hon. the Minister can provide the details. In this way, therefore, passenger services are subsidized.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville asked me what the losses were in regard to the various services of the Railways. In the nature of the matter it is unfair to put that question to the Minister of Finance. This is a matter which could rather be debated in the Railway debate. However, I shall rely on my memory. I think—and I say this under correction—that the loss in respect of first-class passengers came to a little more than R100 million. As I have said, the total loss amounts to R350 million. The two amounts at issue here total R125 million. The losses on second-class and third-class passengers are therefore far greater than the subsidy we are providing.

It seems to me that the hon. members have a problem because that money is not being allocated specifically to people of colour…

No, that is untrue.

… and to the lower income groups. That is the big problem. The hon. member referred to the Blue Train. He said that it was being subsidized, that the rich people were being subsidized. The poor people have to pay higher tariffs, but the rich are subsidized. That was implicit. That was the connotation of the argument. The hon. members spoke about the people who are ostensibly being removed as a result of Government policy and maintained that it was the Coloured people who had to pay, and asked why the whole subsidy was not for their benefit. Surely there are poor people among the Whites as well. [Interjections.] I can tell hon. members that a separate operating account is kept in respect of the Blue Train.

Give us the figure.

The Government is not prepared to pay a subsidy to the Railways on a racist basis. The Government will subsidize all needy persons. We are not so racist as to link everything we say to race or colour. I wish to state openly that if White people also enjoy the benefits of this subsidy, I have no objection to that, because I wish the poor White people to have the benefit of it. I wish the poor White people in South Africa, too, to have the benefit of a State subsidy. I am not as racist-oriented as the hon. members on the other side of the House who are apparently concerned that the Whites in South Africa are also going to receive a subsidy. I want to tell hon. members that frankly.

Mr. Chairman, I have told the hon. the Deputy Minister that we would leave this matter if he answered the question, but instead of doing that he took the opportunity to climb on his soapbox and to make a racist speech, something at which he is rather good. I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that if he knew anything about the Railways, he would know that one of the few services that the Railways offers where one has all races is on the Blue Train. Does he not know that?

I know that. You need not tell me that.

I am just telling the hon. the Deputy Minister. Why does he then try to create a false impression in this House? Why does he try to create the impression that we do not want White people who need subsidizing to get that subsidy? The reality is that the hon. the Deputy Minister has created a false impression. The interesting thing is that in everything I have said on clause 1 of this Bill, I never once used the words “people of colour”. I have talked about people of a certain socio-economic group who need assistance. How dare the hon. the Deputy Minister infer that I was talking about colour? It is an impertinence. He is the one who has introduced racism into this debate. He has introduced racism into the debate because he has no answer. The problem is that if one comes to this House and asks Parliament to vote money for a subsidy, the very least one should be able to do is to say what the breakdown is, where the losses are what the subsidy is needed for. The truth is that if one is asking for a subsidy for a socio-economic group, one should be able to say what that socio-economic group needs. That is the reality of the situation. The hon. the Deputy Minister must not ask for subsidies in general terms and then, when he finds himself in trouble, start a racist debate. We do not fall for that trick. From these benches we have tried to make a stand on behalf of all the people who are underprivileged and who need assistance. We do this regardless of race. It is the hon. the Deputy Minister who has introduced the element of race into this debate, and no one else.

Mr. Chairman, I want to state categorically that the Opposition said that losses were being suffered on passenger services due to the ideological policy of the Government. The Opposition was not satisfied with the general subsidy on passenger services. I come to ask Parliament to approve a subsidy for the passengers of South Africa. I did not come here obsessed with race. However, when I requested approval for this, the hon. member sprang up and asked who would receive the subsidy and said that it was the Government’s apartheid policy that caused it If the hon. member wants to fight on a political basis, he will find that I am always ready for that. The hon. member asked who would receive the subsidy. The hon. member is afraid that we are now going to do something for the Whites as well. I am not angry with him, but I want to tell him frankly that he broached the issue of the element of the Government’s policy relating to the resettlement and removal of people in this debate. It cannot be expected of the Minister of Finance to spell out the details of the Railway budget here. There is a Railway budget debate in which to do that, and the hon. member have ample opportunity to debate those matters there. All I require is that Parliament approve amounts of R73 million and R50 million so that the Railways can utilize them in order to ensure that the extent of the tariff increases is not too great.

I think that I have now accounted to Parliament in full with regard to this matter. If hon. members require further details about these amounts, they can use the Railway budget debate for that purpose.

Mr. Chairman, it appears that we have been talking past each other both during the discussions on the first clause and this one to a certain extent. I must now ask the hon. the Deputy Minister actually to develop the theme introduced by the hon. member for Bellville. He said that he went along with the hon. the Deputy Minister when he said that all he was trying to do by prying this subsidy was to cushion the effect of tariff increases. The hon. member for Bellville then went on to say that the hon. the Minister worked out, in accordance with a certain formula, how much money should be paid over. However, the question is, in the first place, what the “certain” formula is which the hon. member for Bellville was talking about. All that we want to know—and we want the hon. the Deputy Minister to enlighten us—is whether this is a purely arbitrary figure or whether it has indeed been worked out to a certain formula. We have a figure of R50 million, but we do not know whether he has sucked the amount of R50 million out of his thumb or whether that amount of money just happened to be available in the Treasury to cushion the tariff increases. What was it? Was it the result of a specific recommendation of the Franzsen Committee that 20% of this loss should be financed from the central Treasury? What was the formula? The hon. member for Bellville obviously knows more about it than we do. He said that there was a “certain” formula. All that we have been asking right through this debate—and the hon. the Deputy Minister has been running around in circles, answering everything but the original question—was what that formula is. That is a very crisp and simple question.

Mr. Chairman, I have explained how that amount of R73 million was arrived at. It is 5/12ths of R165 million. In this case, the extent of the tariff increases announced by the Railways was taken into consideration, and in order to cushion it—and this decision was arbitrary—R50 million more was appropriated. That is the reply.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that that is not acceptable. The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs came to this House and increased passenger service tariffs by a certain percentage. He raised the tariffs. Then we found that we had to deal with a situation where that money was actually being paid back out of the central Treasury. They take it from the taxpayer.

That is not true.

That is exactly what is happening. I wish that the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs had been here to listen to the answers from that hon. Deputy Minister, because they contradicted everything that that hon. Minister said during the Railway debate. That is what has been worrying us. I go along with the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs, but I cannot accept what the hon. the Deputy Minister has been saying this afternoon. If the hon. the Deputy Minister’s argument is to be followed to its logical conclusion, all that was necessary, was for the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs not to raise his tariffs quite as high as he has done, if the central Treasury was going to cushion it by paying this amount. However, I should like to hear from the hon. the Deputy Minister what the formula is if there is indeed a formula. If there is no formula, if it is just in general terms, he is contradicting the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs, who categorically said in the Railway debate that these sums of money were being made available by the central Treasury because of certain interim recommendations of the Franzsen Committee. The two stories just do not hang together.

Mr. Chairman, surely I have said that there was in fact an interim recommendation by the Franzsen Committee. I cannot discuss it in detail now, but the fact is that the Franzsen Committee recommended that interim relief be granted. After all, the idea is to place this whole question of passenger services and their financing, as well as the bearing of losses, on a firm foundation in the future. Because the report has not yet been finalized, the Franzsen Committee recommended as an interim measure that relief be granted so that tariffs need not be so drastically increased. From the nature of the case, before one comes to fixed formulas, this decision is arbitrary. That is my reply to Parliament, and I believe that Parliament should welcome the fact that these amounts are being appropriated here. That is actually what the hon. member is asking for.

I think this point has now been adequately answered.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is any reason to object to this clause, but there are certain features of it which are difficult to understand and I hope that we may ask the hon. the Deputy Minister for an explanation. I wish to begin with paragraph (b), which deletes subsection (4) of section 10 of the Electricity Act, 1958. Subsection 10(4) of the Electricity Act reads—

Broadly speaking, this concerns the issue of guarantees. So the deletion of subsection (4) has the effect that the hon. the Minister of Finance will now take direct responsibility for the issuing of guarantees and not delegate to anybody of his choosing. We support this and regard it as a sensible part of the rationalization and the tightening up of the whole guarantee structure. My problem of comprehension, however, relates to paragraph (a) of clause 4. Paragraph (a) substitutes a new subsection (3) for the existing subsection, and I can only make my point by reading them out. They are both quite brief. The existing subsection (3) states—

The proviso to subsection (2) must be borne in mind at the same time to enable us to understand what we are dealing with. Subsection (2) reads—

The first schedule is a long document, if I may remind hon. members, setting forth the conditions on which Escom borrows money—

And this is the important thing—

The State President has the power to vary the conditions of a loan when that loan is outside the Republic. The proposed subsection (3) reads—

All of this is not very easy to follow. As I understand it, a guarantee may only be issued if the State President has varied the terms of schedule I in some way. In the Act as it now stands, he can only do that if the loan was being raised outside the Republic, and he may now also do it if the loan is raised inside the Republic. But in either case, if schedule I remains intact, then the Minister is precluded from issuing a guarantee. It is only after the State President has varied schedule I that the Minister is entitled to issue a guarantee. I do not know what the reasons for this are, and as I have not been able, after some research, to discover what they are, I should be very grateful if the hon. the Deputy Minister could enlighten me.

Mr. Chairman, in reality the status quo of the Escom Act is simply being maintained in so far as the authority to issue a guarantee is now being given in the Exchequer and Audit Act. Furthermore it is at Escom’s request that we are changing this matter as little as possible. This is more or less the reply I can give the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that I am rising again, but may I just draw the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister to the following aspect of what I said a moment ago, viz. that in section 10(2) of Act No. 40 of 1958 the following is stated—

Is it the intention with the amendment that it is also applicable only in respect of foreign loans that the contents of schedule I may be varied, or is that not the intention?

Mr. Chairman, that is correct. It is only in respect of foreign loans. The assent of the State President is also required.

Mr. Chairman, the vital question to which the hon. the Deputy Minister has not given an answer is why it is necessary that this can only be done when the schedule is altered. Why can it not be done when the schedule is unaltered? This is the simple question.

Mr. Chairman, that was already decided in the 1952 Act. This is the provision in the old Act of 1952. That was already decided in 1952.

That does not answer the question.

Mr. Chairman, what we are asking in all fairness is: Does the hon. the Deputy Minister perhaps know why it was stated in that way in 1952?

Mr. Chairman, no, but it was explained in the 1952 debate. One would have to look it up. I do not know why the Act was stated in that way in 1952. We are merely retaining it in an unaltered form.

Mr. Chairman, we are re-enacting the law as it was in 1952, by way of a new section.

Is the hon. member speaking on the clause?

I am speaking on clause 4 and I am dealing with the provision which says—

So we are actually doing that today. If we did something strange in 1952—and I must watch my language here—is there any reason why we should be equally strange in 1980?

Mr. Chairman, I can only point out that the whole question of a direction from the State President is being retained at the request of Escom, and their reason is that they would not like to change their Act without one being able to give a good reason for doing so. If one sees the matter in this light, “a direction by the State President” may sound a little more impressive than something else.

Impressive?

Mr. Chairman, I raised this question in the Second Reading and I think the hon. the Deputy Minister misunderstood what I was trying to say to him, namely that at the present moment what is happening is that the office of the Auditor-General is the office to which a provincial auditor owes his responsibility whereas it was previously to the Department of Finance. I have no quarrel with that aspect. What I raised with the hon. the Deputy Minister was whether in fact by reason of provincial autonomy—the hon. the Deputy Minister knows what I am talking about because we often debated this in another place—in those circumstances it would not be more appropriate if the office of the provincial auditor was actually controlled by the office of the Administrator in the province concerned. In other words, would that not be something which would give the provinces a feeling of greater autonomy as opposed to having it under the office of the Auditor-General? If the intention is that the central Government, because it has money there, should have its own auditor in order to do the audit, that would be a logical reason why it remains under the office of the Auditor-General, but if it is that the accounts should be audited in the province on behalf of the province, it would be more logical to have it there. I would like to hear from the hon. the Deputy Minister on that principle, not on the principle whether it should be the Department of Finance or the Auditor-General, but on the principle whether the hon. the Deputy Minister thinks it should be under the central Government or whether it should be under the provinces.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that this step arises from the proposals for the rationalization of the Public Service. That is the first point I wish to make. Where they used to be officers of the Department of Finance, they will now be officials of the Auditor-General. However, I just want to tell the hon. member that it is certainly not the intention to detract in any way from provincial autonomy or provincial government. I want to add that the provincial administrations have their own auditors in any event. The hon. member really must not regard this step as one that detracts from the provincial system or authority. That is not the intention.

Mr. Chairman, at Second Reading I raised with the hon. the Deputy Minister the question that when there was doubt as to who was the responsible Minister, the matter should be handled by the hon. the Prime Minister and not by the hon. the Minister of Finance. I regret that in his reply he has not adequately dealt with that issue at all. It seems to me that if there are disputes between various Ministers as to who is to be responsible, the hon. the Minister of Finance, being amongst his peers, should not be the one who should decide. Primus inter pares is the hon. the Prime Minister and therefore he should be the one who should make the decision as to who is the responsible Minister. The hon. the Minister of Finance is really a Minister like all the others. He is no more senior and no more junior than the others. The hon. the Prime Minister is the one who should make the decision. However, we do not feel strongly about it as this question is not likely to arise very often, but it does seem to me to be logical.

The second question I have raised is the question as to what happens if companies are involved. The hon. the Deputy Minister answered that it would be the hon. the Minister of Finance who would decide in respect of private companies. But is that right? If a fisheries company is involved, would the hon. the Minister of Finance deal with it? If an agricultural company is involved, would the hon. the Minister of Agriculture then deal with it? Or is it intended that all private companies should in fact fall under the hon. the Minister of Finance? I regret that we have not had a very satisfactory answer to that.

Mr. Chairman, in the unlikely event of a dispute arising between the Minister of Finance and other Ministers as to which Minister should be designated as the responsible Minister, the matter will in practice be referred to the Cabinet, which is chaired by the Prime Minister.

It does not say so.

That is what will happen in practice. If there is a dispute about it, it will surely be referred to the Cabinet.

The hon. member for Yeoville also raised the question of companies. In that case it will be referred to the responsible Minister, be it the Minister of Industries, of Agriculture, or any of the others. It all depends on what kind of company it is.

Mr. Chairman, at Second Reading I raised with the hon. the Deputy Minister the question of the wording in line 58: “save in so far as the Minister may provide otherwise …”. The hon. the Deputy Minister replied that this would really only apply to the identity of the banks concerned or other institutions and to the current country concerned. If that is what is sought not to be published so that there should be no embarrassment when we obtain facilities from a particular source, I completely understand it and have no problem with it. But it could be used in a wider form. The purpose of my rising is to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether I understand him correctly that he is giving us the undertaking that it will not be used except for the bank or other institution and country. Furthermore it will not be used to keep back other information in respect of which there is no question of embarrassment if there is money from that particular source. In other words, all information which can be given without there being any disclosure of source which might result in adverse action against those people in the countries concerned, will be given. Will the hon. the Deputy Minister give us such an undertaking?

Mr. Chairman, I pointed out in a speech that the publishing of information about our international financial relations is a sensitive matter. It is necessary to strike a healthy balance between the furnishing of information in accordance with the principles of a democratic State on the one hand and the protection of the interest of the State and those with whom it deals on the other hand. I can, however, give that assurance to the hon. member for Yeoville.

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate I raised the issue that here the head of the Department of Finance could be given a direction by a junior to him in the Treasury in order to change the identity of the accounting officer. The reply was given that that really would not happen because technically the Minister is in charge. If that is so, then instead of the Bill having a provision “unless otherwise directed by the Treasury” it should have a provision “unless otherwise directed by the Minister”. I rise to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he would accept an amendment on that basis because that would solve the problem. Otherwise it would mean that the head of the Department of Finance could be removed from his own office by somebody who is his junior.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to read the definition of the “Treasury” for the benefit of the hon. member for Yeoville.

*Section 1 of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1975, provides that—

The words “deals with that matter” are a qualification. It is unthinkable, actually impracticable, for an official in the Treasury as we know it, to make a recommendation about who should be the accounting officer of the new Department of Finance. The accounting officer of the Department of Finance will of course be the Director-General of Finance. It is unthinkable that a junior official should make such a recommendation, for surely such an official is not, in terms of the definition, an official dealing with such a matter. So that is a matter which the hon. the Minister will deal with. What will happen in practice if a junior official wishes to appoint an accounting officer is that he will make a laughing-stock of himself.

I quite concede to the hon. member for Yeoville that the provision sounds very strange, but it will not happen in practice.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the problem of the hon. the Deputy Minister, but he is talking about what will happen in practice. When one makes laws, however, one does not rely on things happening in practice; one prescribes them by law. I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister that between now and the date on which he introduces this legislation into the Other Place he should take some further advice on this and perhaps move an amendment there to replace the word “Treasury” with “Minister”. I think then he will put the matter beyond all doubt. One can really not rely on what happens in practice; what we are obliged to do is to make laws which are certain, obvious and clear.

Mr. Chairman, I shall think about it.

Mr. Chairman, I regard this clause as the most important of all the clauses of this Bill. So do other hon. members as well, and that is indeed why there was a discussion of its contents during Second Reading. We have here two rather similar subsections and then a third one which is quite different.

Firstly, where clause 12 seeks to substitute for section 35 of the Exchequer and Audit Act a proposed new section 35(1), it is said that under certain circumstances and according to certain definitions the Minister responsible, with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance, if he is not the responsible Minister, may issue guarantees. The proposed new section 35(2) says that the Minister of Finance, with the concurrence of the responsible Minister concerned, if the Minister of Finance is not that responsible Minister, may issue guarantees. The proposed new section 35(3) I shall come to presently.

Our first problem is that nowhere is it made explicitly clear what the difference is between the guarantees contemplated under the proposed new section 35(1) and those contemplated under the proposed new section 35(2). There has been a sort of suggestion floating around the place that the proposed new section 35(2) refers to external loans, while the proposed new section 35(1) refers to internal loans. As the hon. member for Yeoville, however, was saying in another connection just now, it is very desirable that a law should be certain and clear. As drafted, clause 12 is not particularly clear to us. If indeed we are expected to divine somehow that the proposed new section 35(1) deals with local loans and the proposed new section 35(2) deals with foreign loans, the confusion is worse confounded by the phrase—

… as it appears in the proposed new subsection 35(1). It appears that one is dealing here with internal loans which may in fact be offered by a bank, company or juristic person outside the Republic, in some instances. We should appreciate a good deal of clarification of this point.

The second point—and that also relates to the proposed new section 35(1)—is that power is being taken here to guarantee not only loans incurred by this Government or by bodies existing by virtue of South African statutes, but—

The hon. the Deputy Minister did assist us during Second Reading by saying in his reply that there were people who might not wish to obtain a loan from the Government, but who would rather prefer to have it from a bank, company or juristic person. I think we do understand that. The phrase “any government”, however, I believe, requires to be spelt out before we are asked to approve of this clause.

As regards the proposed new section 35(2) one merely wants to stress again that it is not defined what the difference is between the guarantees contemplated under the proposed new section 35(2) and those contemplated under the proposed new section 35(1). We really need to know this, particularly because of the proposed new section 35(3), to which I now come, and which provides that—

and it specifically excludes “subsection (1)”—

In other words, the strongest possible language is used in the proposed new subsection (3) in order to make any guarantee issued in terms of the proposed new subsection (2) absolutely copper-bottomed. First of all one must ask whether this is wise. Does this not reflect something weaker or something lesser about the guarantee provided in terms of the proposed new section 35(1)? If that is so, is that really the hon. the Deputy Minister’s intention? Is it desirable that there should be any class of guarantee which is not absolutely 100% copper-bottomed, to use that word again? I would have thought that the proposed new subsection (3) or some other provision should be made to apply to all the guarantees contemplated under the proposed new subsections (1) and (2). Better still, because I believe this will facilitate the drafting of the measure, the proposed new subsections (1) and (2) should be put together in some form. If there is a real and meaningful distinction between the proposed new subsections (1) and (2) we need to have it spelt out. What is more, I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister will agree that we do not merely need to have an assurance given by him today, immortal, I am sure, as his words generally are, but that we should much prefer to see it in black and white in the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, let me reply to the hon. member by saying that the solicitors of foreign bankers have indicated that their wide experience shows that it is very difficult to provide a formal definition distinguishing between domestic and foreign loans—and that is on the basis of resident and non-resident loans—without giving rise, in certain cases, to practical legal difficulties in the application of such a definition.

Now I come to the proposed new subsection (3). The words to be emphasized in this proposed subsection are “by itself’. The meaning of this concept is that a guarantee, indemnity or security issued in terms of the proposed new subsection (2) will “by itself” be the unconditional and irrevocable commitment of the Republic in the case of non-fulfilment by the debtor. It is a question of proof. As explained, it is the intention to apply the proposed new subsection (1) in the case of domestic loans, in which event the State Liability Act, Act No. 20 of 1957, would automatically apply. As hon. members know, the State Liability Act in effect provides that the State shall be as liable as any other citizen of the Republic. As also explained, it is the intention to apply the proposed new subsection (2) in the case of foreign loans, in which event the State Liability Act would not necessarily apply. To satisfy foreign creditors about the Republic’s full faith in credit it is necessary, as is done in the proposed new subsection (3), to provide for the State’s liability as a basis of security for the giving of foreign credit.

Mr. Chairman, I regret to have to say that we still have some difficulty with the hon. the Deputy Minister’s explanation. To my mind the distinction between the proposed new subsections (1) and (2) has not been completely clarified. I am sure that the ingenuity of any draftsman should have been able to draw up one provision to cover the two contingencies. As far as the principle is concerned, however, we have no differences with the hon. the Deputy Minister. We think there should be such a power, and we think it should be capable of reasonable interpretation. It is in that light that we are approaching this matter. So let me ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to deal with certain matters that consequently arise. If one needs the provisions of the proposed new subsection (3) to make it clear that any guarantee in terms of the proposed new subsection (2) is by itself an unconditional and irrevocable commitment of the Republic, the existence of that provision, as it only applies to the proposed new subsection (2), tends to cast a doubt on the interpretation of the proposed new subsection (1). In other words, is a guarantee, indemnity or security, as indicated in the proposed new subsection (1), then not by itself an unconditional and irrevocable commitment of the Republic?

That is the question.

That is the real issue, and I think that by this distinction between the proposed new subsection (1) and the proposed new subsection (2) one is actually creating a problem in terms of commitments under the proposed new subsection (1). Let me explain why. The courts will say that because the proposed new subsection (3) is only being made applicable to the proposed new subsection (2), this has been done deliberately, and therefore it can be said that one did not want any commitment in terms of the proposed new subsection (1) by itself to be an unconditional and irrevocable commitment of the Republic. Then a further issue is going to arise. When one gives a guarantee in terms of the proposed new subsection (1), that is a guarantee in terms of which one has bound oneself as surety and principal co-debtor with the renunciation of the benefit of excussion. In other words, the question at issue will be whether, in fact, one does not have to excuse the principal debtor first, because it is stated in the proposed new subsection (3) that it is only a commitment in terms of the proposed new subsection (2) which by itself is an unconditional and irrevocable commitment. So I think one is creating an interpretation problem as a result of the manner in which this has been done.

There is a second point I should like to raise. What actually is meant, in the proposed new subsection (1), by the term “any financial commitment”? In a normal interpretation of those words, a financial commitment would involve some amount of money and that has to be paid, but what about a performance guarantee in terms of which no amount of money has to be paid but in terms of which the obligation to perform has to be guaranteed and from which a claim for damages might arise? Is it the intention that that should be covered? I think the term “financial commitment” is too narrow. I think it should be “any commitment” which should be guaranteed, because there may well be commitments which are not of a financial nature directly which should be capable of being guaranteed by the central Government.

Then I want to draw attention to two other aspects of subsection (1). The first is that by using the words that the Minister of Finance considers it to be “in the public interest”, a completely subjective test is introduced. It means that almost anything can be guaranteed, because it rests with his opinion. His opinion might not be based on an objective test. It is purely a subjective test which is applied and I think that this may result in problems arising.

Secondly, I want to come back to the issue that has been raised in respect of guaranteeing banks, companies or juristic persons. The explanation is that there might be other people who would not like to deal directly with a Government body. That is fine. The difficulty is that we have here a situation which could—and I stress “could”—be abused. The hon. the Minister yesterday said I had not referred to aspects of the difficult past, but he knows we have had a situation in South Africa where the obligations of a company, in particular, have been guaranteed which should never have been guaranteed. In those circumstances one needs some form of safeguard where it is not a public body whose obligations are being guaranteed. I personally would like to see that, where any liability in respect of a bank, a company or a juristic person has to be guaranteed, it should go to the Cabinet so that there will be Cabinet responsibility when we enter this somewhat grey area. I should like to hear the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reaction to that, because it seems to me to be important.

There is also a point I should like to raise with the hon. the Deputy Minister in regard to subsection (2). In paragraph (a) reference is made to—

In my experience the other entity, which is a Government entity, which would fall into this category as one borrowing money, is the SABC. Why is the SABC not included in paragraph (a) in respect of which the Minister of Finance alone is the person to decide? Why is that particular entity left out here?

Mr. Chairman, as I have indicated, the State Liability Act is the guarantee for the domestic borrower. That act protects anyone within the country. However, the law advisers and the overseas bankers requested us to stay away from concepts like “domestic loan” and “foreign loan” because they are subject to varying interpretations. This is a difficult matter to sort out. They virtually requested us to approach this matter in the manner we did here because of the question of interpretation, etc. I do not believe we should argue that borrowers in terms of subsection (1), would to some extent be prejudiced because of the insertion of subsection (3). This is very clearly aimed at affording foreign bankers and financiers more security as regards legal procedures which may arise from default.

As regards the guarantee, the hon. member for Yeoville made the point that we are only talking about financial guarantees and not contractual guarantees as well. In the case of the amendment of the Iscor legislation the contractual commitments are guaranteed, too, as the hon. member remarked. But here we are dealing with financial guarantees only and not with contractual guarantees. So that is not at issue here.

The hon. member made the further point that the Cabinet should approve the guarantee of loans by State corporations and other bodies which do not fall directly under the State. I can give the hon. member the assurance that any aspect which involves financial commitments goes to the relevant Cabinet committee and is then ultimately approved or rejected by the Cabinet. But it most certainly goes to the relevant Cabinet committee first and then to the whole Cabinet. So there is some control in this regard. The SABC does not have its own budget, of course, and for what reason it is exempted.

Mr. Chairman, I want to return to the principle. I raised the issue that money which has not been spent under a Vote at the end of a financial year should go back to the Treasury. I also said this was creating a bad precedent. In his reply the hon. the Deputy Minister virtually agreed with me but despite the fact that he agrees with me he is not doing it. He is saying that as the money is going to be used next year, it will be taken into account next year. With due respect, that is not a good explanation and he knows it. I think this money should go back into the Exchequer, the budget for next year should provide the amount which is then required and normal budgeting procedures should be followed. I want to issue a word of caution that once these precedents are created other people quote them in the future and one will have the same problem in respect of other departments. I can give the hon. the Deputy Minister examples of what has happened outside the House where people are already trying to do that sort of thing. For obvious reasons I cannot refer to them in the House. However, it is a bad precedent which is being created here.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. member. We do not like measures of this nature. However, I can assure the hon. member that we shall not create a precedent here which could be exploited in future. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member that if there are surpluses which are not spent by the particular State department, those funds should be redeposited in the Exchequer, otherwise departments and bodies will be able to build up huge funds which will actually not be utilized. This is not sound financing, of course.

The point at issue here, however, is that this is being done because of the special circumstances of South West Africa. Because of the special circumstances which prevailed there at the time when this matter was decided, these funds were not returned, but will in fact be utilized next year. The fact that we have come to Parliament and informed hon. members that the funds would not be redeposited, but that we have left them there, is in my opinion fair towards Parliament. Parliament is being fully informed that such a concession is being made by way of a rare exception. However, I want to give the hon. member for Yeoville the assurance that we are opposed in principle to such a course of action. This will not create a precedent that will soon be repeated, and if any institution should try to benefit from this, they will come up against the strongest opposition on the part of the Treasury.

Mr. Chairman, I want to put a fairly simple question. The clause provides for certain words, i.e. “except in so far as section 35 of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1975 (Act No. 66 of 1975), provides otherwise”, to be inserted at the beginning of section 26 of the South African Iron and Steel Corporation, Limited, Act. This concerns the new section 35 which is being inserted in the Exchequer and Audit Act by clause 12 of the Bill. I have studied the proposed new section very carefully and I could not find where there could be any provisions different to those already contained in the old section 26 of the South African Iron and Steel Industrial Corporation, Limited, Act. Could the hon. the Deputy Minister explain why these new words are necessary?

Mr. Chairman, as the present provision now reads, one can enter into a contractual commitment only, and in the proposed clause, it is stated beyond any doubt that financial commitments will also be guaranteed.

Mr. Chairman, has it not always been the very intention with section 35 of the Exchequer and Audit Act to guarantee financial commitments? I have always interpreted it like that.

Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that section 26 of the Exchequer and Audit Act provides for guarantees in respect of contractual obligations— in other words, for more than mere financial obligations—it is necessary to qualify the provisions of that section so that guarantees in respect of financial obligations will be furnished in terms of the new section 35.

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately that is not an answer, because the words which we are inserting say—

The difficulty is that section 35 of the Exchequer and Audit Act does not provide otherwise. Therefore, on the face of it, the words are superfluous and there seems to be no reason for their insertion.

They are for financial contracts.

It does not say that. It says—

There is nothing to the contrary in section 35. Therefore the insertion of these words appears to us to be utterly superfluous.

The answer lies in clause 12, line 57, on page 7 of the Bill.

That does not help at all.

Mr. Chairman, I think that what the hon. the Deputy Minister is now drawing to our attention are the words in line 57, viz. “a guarantee, indemnity or security in respect of any financial commitment incurred.” I think I am correct in saying that that is what the hon. the Deputy Minister is referring to. Perhaps it is just that I am stupid, but I am still trying to understand what this means in relation to clause 14. If the words “any financial commitment” indeed provide that all that may be guaranteed is financial commitments, then presumably section 35 would nullify section 26, and we are assured that it is not intended to do that. Section 26 of the Iscor Act, as it has stood, seems to make it quite clear that the Minister can issue performance guarantees. I do not know what else we want to say now. If the hon. the Deputy Minister is now telling us that the words “financial commitment” in the proposed section 35 mean that guarantees are only available under financial commitments, then it would seem to mean that no performance guarantee at all could be issued, and that cannot be the meaning. So I just get more confused.

Mr. Chairman, as the present Act reads now, that is all. Now clear provision is being made for two things to be guaranteed, viz. a financial guarantee and a contractual guarantee and for a distinction to be drawn between financial and non-financial guarantees.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have had quite a long Committee Stage, because this is in fact a Committee Stage Bill in the true sense of the word. There are, however, still very many things in respect of which, unfortunately, the explanations that have been given to us are not entirely satisfactory. Firstly, in regard to clauses 1 and 2, it is quite clear that particulars have still not been given to us as to what portion of these moneys that are being voted are going to services which require subsidization by reason of the socio-economic conditions of the persons who use those services. However, we believe that a substantial portion of this money obviously goes to that end and therefore we do not want to hold up what is in fact a measure which would provide relief in regard to that.

Secondly, in regard to some of the other aspects, particularly the matters which relate to the guarantees, we think that the provisions are important and should be on the Statute Book, but unfortunately we have great difficulties in regard to some of the technical aspects of them. They have not been entirely cleared up to our satisfaction, but again, because it is important for these things to go through, we shall vote for the Third Reading, although we do so with some degree of reluctance. We only hope that in the time that will be available hereafter, these things will be looked at again and that we shall get amending legislation at some future date which will remove all those difficulties which we have pointed out.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Yeoville said we did have differences of opinion in debating this Bill, but the point is that as far as clauses 1 and 2 are concerned, the Government feels inclined to assist the S.A. Railways in respect of the losses suffered on passenger services. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that as regards the aspects which we probably did not clear up with each other entirely, or where there may still be a difference of opinion, we shall be prepared, as we move forward and problems crop up, and when it becomes apparent that there might be weak points in this legislation, to reconsider them.

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned last night, I made two brief remarks with regard to the attacks that the Opposition had launched on this short amending Bill. I shall let what I said last night, suffice.

In terms of the Constitution, the constituencies were pegged in 1973 at 55 for the Cape Province, 20 for Natal, 14 for the Orange Free State and 76 for Transvaal. The introduction of the Act in question that was passed at the time was preceded by a Select Committee. I just want to remind this House who served on that particular committee at the time. They were Mr. G. F. Botha, who came from Transvaal and was the former member for Ermelo, Mr. S. F. Kotzá, who is now the hon. Deputy Minister, the late Mr. J. P. C. le Roux from Natal, Mr. Lionel Murray, who supported the United Party at the time and came from the Cape, Mr. P. A. Pyper of Natal, who represented the United Party, Mr. Vause Raw of the United Party, Mr. Van Breda of the Cape and myself. Then, too, there were Messrs. H. J. van Eck of the United Party, J. L. van Tonder of the Transvaal and Van Wyk of the Free State. I refer to this because the Select Committee concerned went about its task in a pleasant atmosphere and with a good attitude, as should be the case when such legislation is discussed. The parties in question had the fullest confidence in one another. The submissions were included in the report of the Select Committee. I now want to say that all the parties serving on the Select Committee were unanimous at the time that this number should be fixed and pegged for 10 years. The Transvaal members who served on the Select Committee at the time were in agreement with this and are now in honour bound to keep their word. Accordingly we cannot under any circumstances detract from that good attitude that prevailed at the time nor the honour binding us. If there are parties and hon. members that have come to this House after 1973 and do not understand the spirit, atmosphere and attitude that prevailed in that Select Committee, they can dissociate themselves from it. In the nature of the matter, therefore, we cannot take notice of such hon. members. We must dissociate ourselves from hon. members who became members of the House of Assembly after 1973 and seek to adopt other standpoints.

He was also a United Party supporter at that time.

He was a rather poor United Party supporter.

The only issue now is the question whether delimitation within the provinces is to be effected in accordance with a Republican or a provincial quota. In this regard I agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister. As far as the previous Delimitation Commission of 1974 is concerned, I want to support my argument by quoting the following—

I quote further—

And then—

I also want to say that section 42 of the Constitution provides that delimitation must be carried out at intervals of at least five years and at most 10 years. This means that the next delimitation can only be carried out in five years’ time at the earliest. The period fixed is now 12 years instead of the period of 10 years laid down in 1973. Changes to constituencies can therefore only be considered in 12 years’ time instead of in 10 years’ time, calculated from 1973. One can take it that at that juncture the Government will be able to reconsider the position in the light of the circumstances prevailing then because such an undertaking is implicit in the proposed period of 10 years. Perhaps at that stage consideration could again be given to the principle in this regard, which was included in the Bill introduced by this Government in 1977 and referred to the Select Committee in question. The Select Committee recommended that the Act be amended to read as it stands at present. The principle was that each province would be guaranteed a minimum number of seats, and the Opposition agreed with that. Then, too, the provinces with a growing number of voters had to be granted the increase they were entitled to. The fact that this may result in the House of Assembly having more members after each delimitation than in the previous delimitation is no reason why this principle cannot work.

I therefore want to sum up by saying that I myself recognize, in the light of history, the historical reality of the existence and the rights of the four provinces. Accordingly I also recognize that there must be a minimum number of seats for each province. The second principle which came into being and which I accept and am willing to comply with is, that the rural parts of our provinces should be recognized in such a way that they, too, will be given their rightful representation in this House. The third principle is that provision must be made for the provinces with a growing number of voters. The number of seats for such provinces must also increase as the number of voters increases.

I therefore take pleasure in supporting this amendment in the spirit and the attitude displayed at that time and I also express the confidence that when, in the future we again have a Select Committee which the Government will appoint at the appropriate time, we shall consider the problems which have arisen in the meantime. I trust that future parties that will serve on the Select Committee will also look after the interests of our voters in the same spirit and with the same attitude.

Mr. Speaker, what was really astonishing about the speech the hon. member for Rissik has just made here, was the last point he made. If I understood the hon. member correctly, the third of the three points he stated as his personal creed in the matter was that those provinces in which there was a marked increase in population, should accordingly receive additional electoral divisions. I think that was what the hon. member said, namely that allowance should be made for the population increase in the provinces where this takes place.

That was the principle in the 1973 Act.

I do not really expect that the hon. member is going to cross the floor just now and come and vote with us. I rather expect that within a few minutes, within a few hours, or whenever it may be, he is going to vote for a Bill that denies the very principle which he has just stated he is supporting because, as I am now going to indicate, if there is anything this legislation does it is to deny the principle that the province, particularly the Transvaal, where the population growth is most rapid, should obtain the additional electoral divisions which it obviously deserves.

Further, the hon. member reminded us earlier on of the excellent spirit that prevailed in the Select Committee of 1973. Evidently the hon. member felt for that reason that it was somewhat unfair, that it was not cricket under these circumstances to oppose the Bill today. The fact is that although something could have been lacking in the far-sightedness of that Select Committee, the figures they determined for the provinces at the time were more or less in accordance with the number of voters existing at the time.

The whole reason why this Bill is so unacceptable to us is that since then the demographic changes in the composition of our population have had the effect that what was reasonably acceptable in 1973, is hopelessly unacceptable today in terms of ordinary fairness. The hon. member for Rissik was only the last of several members who participated in this debate who were experts in the field of delimitation. I make no such claim on my own behalf. Perhaps an hon. member who is somewhat ignorant about the technical aspects of the matter, is also permitted just to emphasize a few obvious truths, as a humble contribution to the debate.

The hon. the Deputy Minister is a very able and well-known man in our politics. Most of the things he does, he does well. Moreover, he usually does them with a smile. Yesterday, with an uninterrupted smile, he made a remarkable little speech here. [Interjections.] It was a remarkable little speech because it was so utterly meaningless. I shall quote just a few sentences from that little speech to prove my point. The hon. the Deputy Minister started off by saying (Hansard, 24 March 1980)—

He went on to say—

Then the hon. the Deputy Minister continued by quoting a fairly lengthy extract from the report of the Delimitation Commission of 1974. He then came to the following conclusion (Hansard, 24 March 1980)—

However, there was no motivation, for this inference, either in the words of the hon. the Deputy Minister or in the lengthy quotation. With his broad smile, he simply arrived at where he wanted to be. His whole object was simply that the Bill should be supported merely because it was there, as the man said who had climbed Everest. [Interjections.]

What are we actually engaged in here? The first two sentences of the hon. the Deputy Minister’s Second Reading speech clearly show what we are dealing with here. We are dealing with two Acts here, each of which contains a principle. These two legal principles, if one may call them that, have as a result of practical demographic developments in our country reached a stage where they are now in conflict with each other. One could not delimit the electoral divisions according to the provincial quota without violating the Republican quota. Nor could one delimit the electoral divisions in accordance with the Republican quota without violating the provincial quota. A choice simply has to be made. We could maintain one or the other. We could dispense with the provincial quota and maintain a Republican quota, or vice versa. That is the actual choice we could make.

No, we cannot do it the other way round.

Why not?

That is the real choice.

One of them is in existence already. We cannot get away from that.

Both exist already.

Both exist already, and one of them has been in existence much longer than the other. That is a weak argument in any event. I am going to try to advance better arguments than that.

I hope so.

Either we retain the idea of a Republican quota—“retain” is the key word—in which case we would have to relinquish the fixed number of electoral divisions for each province, and therefore also the Act of 1973, or we retain the Act of 1973 and therefore abandon the Republican quota. One now has to try to compare these two things with each other.

What does the Act of 1973 provide? The Act of 1973, which the hon. the Deputy Minister, with his smile and all, has elevated to the status of a sacred cow here, is a measure of convenience at the very most. The hon. member for Rissik has once again emphasized that this Act should under all circumstances be regarded as a temporary measure. It is just that the “temporary” of the hon. member is much longer than mine would have been. The hon. member nevertheless concedes that where there is a population increase in a province, sooner or later that province should obtain additional electoral divisions. All we are saying is that such a province should obtain them immediately. I repeat that the Act of 1973 is a measure of convenience at the very most. The Republican quota, on the other hand, is based on, and is a consequence of, the basic principle of democracy, i.e., “one vote, one value”. It means that as far as possible every vote should have an equal value. It should be clear, after all, that where these two are in conflict, it should be the temporary measure of convenience that is abandoned, and not the other Act, an Act based on a principle much older than our Republic, or even our country. What I advocate, therefore, and what, to me, is so obviously necessary, is first to repeal the Act of 1973 and then to proceed with delimitation. If I may say so in passing, we are really not very much in favour of the loading and deloading of electoral divisions by almost 15%. However, at the time there was a reason for that and if I am not mistaken the reason was mentioned in this debate by the hon. member for Umlazi. There is possibly still something to be said today in favour of a rural deloading and an urban loading although, as I have said, one does not like the extent to which this is being allowed. That provision is in any event a time-honoured one. What are we doing here, however? I do not wish to repeat the figures which were mentioned in this debate and which hon. members on both sides conceded to be correct. However, what it amounts to is, that the electoral divisions of the Transvaal are going to be loaded by approximately 10% and that electoral divisions in the other provinces are going to be deloaded by approximately 10%. The latest figures show that the average electoral division in the Cape Province would have 12 269 voters, whereas the average constituency in the Transvaal would have 15 131. What this amounts to is that the value of a vote in the Cape Province is going to be approximately 20% greater than that of vote in the Transvaal. One therefore asks oneself: According to what logic, according to what principle and with what possible justification is this being done? It is simply discriminatory against the Transvaal voters, and if I may use a topical phrase, this is discrimination which is both unnecessary and hurtful.

Whom does it hurt?

What have the Transvalers done that the hon. the Deputy Minister should treat them in this way? In view of the immense contribution the Transvaal has made towards the prosperity of our country as a whole, I suggest that the treatment of the Transvalers by the hon. the Deputy Minister amounts to ingratitude. This helps to give one some idea of what it must be like to be a Coloured or a Black in this country if there is discrimination such as this even against one’s own people. [Interjections.]

I really do not know what the hon. the Deputy Minister’s intentions are in this regard. I know that some of my hon. colleagues have expressed the view that this has something to do with the power struggle within his own party. That may be so, but I am no expert in that field. I am merely placing on record my total lack of understanding when it comes to what the hon. the Deputy Minister is trying to achieve with his obvious discrimination against the Transvaal. [Interjections.] May I quote a simple example? Like many other hon. members, I have a home here and one in the Transvaal. I think if I wanted to, I should be entitled to register as a voter here in the Cape since I am living in the Sea Point constituency. It is by no means my intention to do so, but if I were to do so, I should immediately be increasing my voting power, my share, as a voter, in the Government of this country, by one fifth.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. the Deputy Minister may argue about a decimal point or two, but that is nevertheless what it amounts to.

Your vote would be worth 45% less than one in Gordonia.

Now the hon. the Deputy Minister is raising something else. That has to do with the Act which provides for constituencies with a large surface area. That is another matter, Mr. Speaker, and I do not think you would want us to debate that here. [Interjections.] I am concerned about one simple matter. The hon. member for Rissik referred to the necessity of giving every province its due. To me, however, it is much more important to give every individual South African voter his due, and that is what is being denied by this legislation. Allow me to repeat my point What the legislation does is very clear. It discriminates against the Transvaal voters. Why the legislation discriminates against the voters of the Transvaal, is something which the hon. the Deputy Minister should have explained, but he did not do so. Perhaps he will still do so in his reply. There is no necessity to behave like this. There are other courses open to the Minister. Moreover, as the hon. member for Sea Point has very clearly indicated, there is no urgent necessity to act now. This could wait longer. All these things are patently clear. Nevertheless the hon. the Deputy Minister has something up his sleeve and he does not want either the House or the country to know what it is. Until such time as we receive an explanation, there is not the slightest possibility that we can support the Bill. In fact, I sincerely doubt whether we should be able to do so even if we were to hear what the hon. the Minister’s real intention is in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, it really surprises me that the PFP are dragging far-fetched arguments into this debate. The hon. member for Parktown has just said that if he had wanted to increase his voting power by one-fifth, he could register in Sea Point. He should just realize to what extent he would be diminishing his voting power by getting poorer representation in the House if he were to do that. [Interjections.] Then the hon. member put forward the nonsensical argument that the delimitation effects a watering down of the principle of “one vote, one value”. I wish to state that if there not to be a delimitation now, if the delimitation were to be postponed until 1983 as could lawfully be done, then in terms of the Constitution an election would have to be held not later than five years after the previous election, namely in November 1982. Then the disproportion in the number of voters in the various electoral divisions could intensify. The number of voters in central municipal electoral divisions could then decrease still further and increase still further in growth points. Then we could have the position we already have now, except that it would get worse, i.e. that an electoral division in Central Johannesburg would have 9 500 voters on the basis of last year’s registration whereas an electoral division on the outskirts of Cape Town would have 23 500 voters. Now the hon. member is saying that this Bill would entail that there would be a difference in the value of votes in the various provinces. However, if the delimitation were not to take place in accordance with this Bill, there would still be a substantial difference in the value of votes since on the one hand there is an electoral division in the Cape Province with 23 500 voters, and on the other hand an electoral division with only 9 500 voters in central Johannesburg. Surely it is an absolutely nonsensical argument the PFP is advancing.

Yesterday they also came forward with the idea that since there was a loading and a deloading, it would be harmful to democracy in the country. Surely that is arrant nonsense. Even if there were to be exactly the same number of voters in every electoral division after the delimination, there would in any system based on the British system of electoral divisions, be electoral divisions where the majorities would be very small. I could refer to the electoral division of Bezuidenhout, where the majority was approximately 50 votes. I could also refer to electoral divisions won by the NP, where the majorities were in excess of 10 000 votes. Furthermore, I could also refer to the fact that there were more uncontested NP, constituencies than the total number of constituencies represented by the PFP and the NRP in the House. Then they still talk about the value of votes! Their allegations are nonsense and nothing but politicking. Surely they know that it has nothing to do with the fact that there are deloadings and loadings. In any case, this aspect also has nothing to do with the proposed amendment. The proposed amendments are a purely practical arrangement.

I wish to turn the argument around to prove how wrong they are. If the delimitation were not to take place this year, and if it were to be postponed until the latest possible date in terms of the provisions of the Act, the delimitations would have taken place in 1983. I have already indicated that the next general election will have to be held before November 1982, that is, five years after the previous one. The delimitation would then have to take place after the general election of 1982 at the very latest. However, then the seats would still be pegged in accordance with the agreement reached by all the parties in 1973. In other words, the pegging could apply until the delimitation that would take place in 1983, and then such delimitation could remain in force until 1993. Surely that would be nonsensical.

However, the delimitation has been advanced and it is taking place in 1980. The fact that there is now going to be a delimitation and that there has been a movement of voters between the provinces, confronts us with a practical problem that we have to let matters take their course in a way that would be practical and equitable under the circumstances. That is all that is involved in this legislation. Surely it would be impracticable if, at this stage, we were to have to register on a national basis or in accordance with a Republican quota. In 1973 the judges serving on the commission referred to the problems which had arisen with that delimitation and which had resulted from an allocation which virtually amounted to equal quotas per constituency allocation in each province. Now other changes have set in, however, and we have a purely practical arrangement here.

So it is absolute nonsense to allege that there are political motives behind the Bill before the House. It is a fact that in 1973 it was accepted that the pegging of electoral divisions should take place for a period of ten years, but it has to be taken into account that the Schlebusch Commission is now sitting to consider a possibly new constitution for the future. It is possible that the pegging could be amended by the Schlebusch Commission if the Commission, which consists of representatives of all parties, deems it advisable to do so. To propose at this stage that the moral agreement reached in 1973 should now be revoked, is surely immoral. Constitutionally speaking, Parliament is sovereign and can effect changes, but after having agreed in 1973 to peg the seats for ten years, we are at least morally committed to do so. That is why I submit that we could assume that the PFP would try a political tack, but they advanced a series of fallacious arguments and everyone who realizes what the facts are should support this legislation. It is absolute nonsense to want to force a division on this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder when last there was an occasion when this House had to listen to an hon. member’s emotional defence of an indefensible cause as was the case this afternoon with the hon. member for Klip River. The hon. member defended the Government on the standpoint they have adopted in regard to the legislation at present before the House. Perhaps the hon. member does not realize it, but his whole speech was clearly an indication of the fact that the NP itself does not believe in what this legislation contains. This was also evident from the speeches of other speakers on the other side of the House. You, Mr. Speaker, probably also noted that only one miserable (“armsalige”) member of the Transvaal team took part in this debate.

Order!

An hon. miserable member, Mr. Speaker.

Order! It is not parliamentary language to talk about “miserable” members. The hon. member must withdraw the word “miserable”.

If you wish, I withdraw that word. I did not mean it in a bad way. The hon. member for Rissik and I are old friends and I do not want to slight him at this point.

I now wish to come back to the hon. member for Klip River. For at least five to ten minutes the hon. member made a big fuss here about the fact that it would be impractical to establish a fair national quota in South Africa. He said that that was quite impossible, that it was impractical and that it could not be done, for some reason or other. He said that at the time of the last delimitation, the delimitation commission had found that it would be difficult to work under those circumstances. Surely that is entirely untrue. There is not a grain of truth in the statement that hon. member made. There would be no difficulty involved in amending the legislation now to provide that a fair national quota could be implemented in South Africa. There is no problem whatsoever in this regard. Only that hon. member sees a problem, and he sees a problem for the one simple reason that he now has to make an excuse. He has to make an excuse and provide explanations for legislation for which there can be no justification whatsoever.

Then the hon. member spoke about the Schlebusch Commission and the fact that the Schlebusch Commission had not yet completed its work. Does that hon. member realize that if this legislation is pushed through this House at this stage, it will not be possible to consider the proposals of the Schlebusch Commission and this situation will have to continue for the next ten years, whatever proposals may be made by the Schlebusch Commission? The hon. member also said that the Government was morally bound in regard to the agreement entered into in 1973. Since when, then, is this Government so concerned about moral agreements? Let us think back a little. Surely it was this Government that violated the entrenched clauses as far back as 1952—that was early in their career—in order to give effect to their ideological objectives. I have mentioned this as one example. There are thousands of examples of cases where the Government has given no attention to any so-called committedness to moral considerations.

I now come to the hon. member for Rissik. I have said that I am a friend of the hon. member for Rissik and I was really sorry to see him being so embarrassed by having to try to defend this legislation in this House. The hon. member floundered like a fish out of water. [Interjections.] He came along with a long story and he was also very proud of the fact that he had served on the Select Committee at the time. I can understand a man being proud of serving on a Select Committee of that nature. However, one cannot be proud of the work done there. Nor can one be proud of the recommendations adopted there, nor can one be proud of the consequences of those recommendations.

This poor hon. member is now in trouble, because he is an hon. member who comes from Transvaal; in other words, a member of the team of the hon. the Minister of Tourism. They woke up very late in the day and found out that the hon. the Deputy Minister had caught them with a clever trick and a broad smile. It took them a long time to understand it, and when they realized it, he, as a member from the North, from Transvaal, was told to play his part to assist the hon. the Minister and the Government and help them out of this mess. The hon. member then came along with a long story about his conduct on the Select Committee and he even mentioned the names of the hon. members who had served on that committee, one after the other, in order to impress us. I do not know why he thought that we would be impressed by the mention of those names. Then he said—and he stressed this—that a certain mystic atmosphere and attitude had prevailed in that committee and that the people had learnt to love one another to such an extent in those circumstances, and the relations established there were so good, that he could in no circumstances back down from the agreements reached between him and the other hon. members of the party. I have an idea that it concerns a plan that may have been worked out between the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. the Minister on the other side of the House who is sitting and smiling again. I have an idea that those two put their heads together in an effort to achieve certain aims. There were certain other motives which were not necessarily of a purely technical nature.

Order! The hon. member should confine himself more to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I shall do so with pleasure. I had not realized that I was digressing.

The hon. member for Rissik made much of the atmosphere and the attitude that had prevailed there, which gave rise to the recommendations which flowed from the findings of that committee. He then stated two contradictory standpoints, which were probably also the result of this atmosphere. He said that in the first place it was necessary at the time to determine that a certain specific number of seats had to be allocated to each of the four provinces, and that it was accordingly decided that the Transvaal would get 76, the Cape 55, the Orange Free State 14 and Natal 20 seats. He then said—and he put it very clearly because I take it that this was a message which he wanted to convey with regard to his own men—that a Select Committee would now have to be appointed to go into this matter once again. In other words, he gave notice here that although he was prepared to stand up for the NP and the Government at this stage, he felt that a Select Committee should be appointed now in order to go into this whole matter again. I now want to put a question to the hon. member across the floor of this House. Was that Select Committee to which he referred in his speech, referred to at the caucus, and was it discussed there? Did the hon. the Minister say that he would accept a Select Committee or was that simply something which the hon. member sucked out of his thumb to help him out of a mess? We should very much like to know, because if a Select Committee is to be appointed immediately, what could such a committee do? We already have the Schlebusch Commission which is investigating the whole matter, but now the Schlebusch Commission is being restricted totally by means of this legislation. It is being hamstrung. It can do nothing, whatever proposals it puts forward, because this amendment provides that those numbers will not be changed over the next ten years. [Interjections.] That is the truth. Ask the hon. member for Rissik and the hon. the Minister. Surely that is so.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I believe that I owe it to this House, and more particularly to the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Defence, to motivate and to explain why I called for this debate on behalf of the official Opposition. It concerns a difficult and a delicate matter. Because it concerns the prestige of the Defence Force, emotions should not be stirred up unnecessarily about this matter. However, I want to add that it would have been a grave dereliction of duty and disregard of its responsibilities on the part of the Opposition not to have called for this debate.

The report allegedly compiled by the Defence Force contains certain statements which have direct implications for the functioning of and respect for the parliamentary system. It is said in the report, for example, that it is the purpose of that particular report to nullify the Opposition’s attack on the Prime Minister during the budget debate. It is also said that it is undesirable that certain matters should be exploited by the Opposition to the detriment of the Government. Furthermore, it says that the Opposition’s tactics over the next few weeks will be watched by the Defence Force, and that if any other sensitive matters are raised, those matters should be reported to the Chief of Staff. This statement reflects a dismal ignorance and a contempt for the functioning of the parliamentary system, and for that reason, this matter must be regarded as one of urgent public importance.

Both the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Defence have dissociated themselves from this report, and I want to say at once that it is a good thing that they have done so and that it is also reassuring to the rest of South Africa. In addition, the hon. the Prime Minister has pointed a one-man commission which is to report to him before he decides what steps have to be taken. That is also good, but not good enough. I now wish to motivate this.

It is not only an internal departmental affair that is at issue here. It concerns the relationship of the Defence Force to Parliament, and for that reason, a Select Committee of this House to investigate this matter is absolutely necessary. Every hon. member of this House is affected by that report and its contents.

†The hon. the Prime Minister has a justifiably proud record of keeping party politics and language issues out of the Defence Force as well as out of promotions in the Defence Force. We have heard this from all quarters, also from the political opponents of the hon. the Prime Minister. This very morning The Cape Times said the following in an editorial—

However, what now appears to be the case, is that, whereas the hon. the Prime Minister has kept politics out of the Defence Force, the Defence Force allegedly does not want to keep out of politics. In fact, according to this report, it actively seeks to promote the interests of one party, viz. the NP, against the Opposition. This is the most dangerous and divisive development imaginable.

Military service in South Africa is compulsory. Everyone has to do it, irrespective of party-political conviction. I need not stress it to the House, nor to the hon. the Prime Minister, that if an image is created that the Defence Force is simply the NP in uniform, this country will split from top to bottom. Not only will there be a split amongst the Whites, but also between White and Black. It is perhaps the most important responsibility of this House to see to it that such an image does not exist and is not encouraged. This danger in itself is enough justification for a parliamentary Select Committee.

*The possible involvement of the Defence Force in the party-political arena has another, or rather fundamental, implication which further underlines the need for a parliamentary Select Committee. Such involvement blurs the basic distinction between legitimate opposition on the one hand and subversion on the other. When the Opposition’s tactics are allegedly watched by the Defence Force and the mass media are to be manipulated in order to nullify attacks on the Government and the hon. the Prime Minister, the lawfully elected Opposition in Parliament is treated as an enemy of the State, and this would lead to a totally untenable situation. The Defence Force is the servant of all parties in this House. That is its constitutional position. If there is the slightest possibility that the Defence Force does not understand the position, or even deliberately disregards it, it is the responsibility of this House to investigate the matter. This is a responsibility which the House has towards itself as well as the taxpayer.

The hon. the Prime Minister has repeatedly emphasized the need for a total strategy to counter the total onslaught on South Africa. I want to make it clear that if the possibility exists that there are responsible people in the Defence Force who believe that their role as a part of this strategy is to nullify criticism of the hon. the Prime Minister expressed by the parliamentary Opposition, this changes from a total strategy into a totalitarian strategy. This House would be denying its own right of existence and would be disloyal to the Constitution if it did not immediately investigate and defeat such a possibility. A fundamental parliamentary right, at least of the Whites, is the right to oppose in this House. A central task of the Defence Force is to protect this right against violent change so that peaceful constitutional change may take place in our country. When there is the slightest possibility that the Defence Force is not only not protecting this right, but deliberately disregarding it, this House, if it has any respect for its constitutional responsibility, must investigate the possibility and destroy its existence.

What is particularly troubling is the fact that the document has been circulating in the Defence Force since 12 February 1980. It has also been sent to various chiefs of the Defence Force. It is urgently necessary to find out to what extent there was an awareness of the document and whether the instructions contained in it were accepted without question. If this is so, it testifies to a spirit and a climate in the top echelons of the Defence Force which is disquieting, to say the least. The question arises, quite rightly, what right of existence the Defence Force grants a parliamentary Opposition. What measure of progress on the part of such an Opposition will be tolerated? These questions cannot be left unanswered by this House, for its integrity is vitally affected by this.

All these reasons constitute an overwhelming motivation for the appointment of a parliamentary committee. Every disquieting statement in the document shoots like an arrow into the heart of the parliamentary institution. A parliamentary Select Committee consisting of members of all parties in the House is the bulwark which is necessary to render these arrows harmless.

†When I say this, I want to make it quite clear that we in no way question the integrity of the gentleman that the hon. the Prime Minister has appointed to head that inquiry. We accept his bona fides. We accept his loyalty towards the country, but such a one man committee of inquiry has certain inadequacies, and I want to mention just four of them.

In the first place, it creates the impression of a purely departmental inquiry, and as I have just said, what is fundamentally involved in the contents of that report, is not only the department, but the very institution of Parliament, and therefore Parliament must be involved in the inquiry.

Secondly, another deficiency or inadequacy is that it is not an independent inquiry. Whatever the merits of the hon. gentleman who conducts this inquiry, he is a former member of the very department that he has to investigzte. This does create certain dilemmas. It also means that an independent inquiry by this House, by Parliament itself, is being excluded. Thirdly, the report of that hon. gentleman does not necessarily have to be tabled in Parliament or made available to Parliament. That report simply goes to the hon. the Prime Minister himself. Fourthly, the hon. the Prime Minister himself has the final discretion with regard to how he will act on the recommendations or the conclusions of that report. It is for these reasons that we believe it is inadequate to have this commission of inquiry in respect of this particular problem confronting us. It does not do justice to the fact that the parliamentary institution as such is being touched by the contents of that report.

I say this in all honesty and sincerity, with the view that we in South Africa must keep the Defence Force above suspicion. We cannot allow, under any circumstances, the Defence Force to become a divisive issue in the context of the South African situation or in the problems confronting our society. It must be a source and a symbol of unity, and not one of division.

Another alarming fact is that both the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Defence were quite unaware of this document although it has been in circulation since 12 February this year, and that they both dissociated themselves subsequently from the contents thereof. This does raise the question of whether more ministerial attention is not necessary in respect of this particular department. The hon. the Prime Minister has an enormous workload already in his capacity as Prime Minister, and the time appears to be ripe for this particular portfolio to be made the responsibility of one Cabinet Minister alone so that more attention can be given to the Defence Force. By that I mean it could result in a better liaison being created between the institution of Parliament and this particular branch of the Civil Service, namely the S.A. Defence Force.

The hon. the Prime Minister has committed himself to clean administration. This was his fundamental point of departure when he accepted the position he is now occupying. It is the responsibility of Parliament to assist the hon. the Prime Minister in this by means of appointing a Select Committee to investigate what is undoubtedly one of the most disturbing and potentially disrupting incidents concerning the Defence Force over the past decade. When I ask for such a Select Committee to be appointed I in no way deny the right of the Defence Force to improve its image, to improve its own internal administration. Obviously that has to be done. I also in no way deny them the right to boost the morale of the members of the Defence Force or to recruit to the best of their ability. I do, however, deny them the right to see as part of their responsibility the practice of developing strategies to nullify this Opposition’s criticism of the Government.

Mr. Speaker, allow me at the outset to express my appreciation of the compliment which is being paid to me by hon. members on the Government side who insist on hearing my views before entering into the debate themselves.

I want to say immediately that the words of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the parliamentary institution and to the threat which a document of this nature imposes on it, have my full support. I am in complete agreement with him on that. I believe everything he said concerning the relationship between the Defence Force and Parliament, which represents the people served by that Force, is correct. Therefore I completely support that point of view as put forward by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

There is no doubt that this House has a responsibility to ensure that the democratic system and the democratic tradition are kept alive. I have one or two problems with specific aspects, but I shall deal with those in a moment. This, of course, goes further than the mere institution of Parliament. Before I come back to the political and parliamentary aspects, which I shall deal with in a moment, I want to deal with the other consequence which has not been touched on yet. That is another consequence of the instruction or the order issued by the Civil Action Division of the Defence Force.

I am referring to its consequences in regard to our national security as a whole. It is common cause that there is a phychological war being waged against South Africa, and the counter-weapon to psychological warfare is the morale and motivation of one’s own people and one’s own Forces. I can therefore think of nothing that could have done more harm to the motivation and morale of the South African Forces than a document of this sort. I can think of nothing more stupid, clumsy and idiotic, playing into the hands of those seeking to undermine our morale, than a document that implies that this Parliament is, in fact, being watched, that the Opposition is being watched and that the Defence Force has become an instrument to protect the political arm of administration in this country. To have created this opening, to have had a thing like this splashed about and given the publicity it has been given, as I believe done great harm to South Africa, and what is more it has undermined the credibility of everything that is said and written about the Defence Force. I say this because when people now read things about the Defence Force, they are going to ask: Is this part of the psychological warfare plan? This, to my mind, is one of the major aspects of the damage done to South Africa, an aspect which must be considered hand in hand with its effect on parliamentary administration and the institution of Parliament. I want to say very clearly that the S.A. Defence Force is not an arm of NP Government administration, nor do I believe that it sees itself as such an arm. I have had a long association with, and interest in, defence affairs. Tragically enough there was a time when attempts were made to politicize the Defence Force. Political influences were there. I have watched and tried to contribute, and sometimes I have watched and contributed with great pleasure, to the gradual change from that atmosphere of partisanship, of politicizing, to the new spirit that has imbued our Defence Forces over the last few years. It is something that I believe has been of tremendous importance and value to South Africa. I agree with the hon. the Prime Minister that under his Ministership, and before him that of his predecessor, every effort was made to take politics right out of defence, and the Opposition has played its part in doing that. Pride has been restored in units, in unit traditions and in the service itself, and today I believe that the S.A. Defence Force serves South Africa and South Africa’s people and is not fighting for Nationalist policy. That makes it all the more tragic that this impression should have been created, that what suspicion may have lingered on from the past should be blown up and given credibility by what has happened now.

Let me say in passing that another aspect that has, I think, contributed to this is the careless use of terminology, e.g. the use of the word “Government” in speeches and other public utterances and in official documents, when what is actually meant is “the State” or “South Africa”. In motivation lectures and in public pronouncements people are told that the S.A. Defence Force is protecting the Government, that when it is attacked it is the Government that is being attacked and that when it is criticized it is the Government that is being criticized. I do not believe that that is what is meant. What is meant is the State. But the confusion between State and Government is a terribly dangerous tendency, because it starts with the wrong use of a word and it develops into a concept which I believe has been tolerated instead of being eliminated from the terminology of defence. This gives those who want to see the undermining of morale and motivation an additional weapon with which to attack us.

This brings me back to the political aspect and the relationship to Parliament. Obviously, together with the hon. Leader of the Opposition I totally condemn an attempt of any sort not only by the Defence Force, but by any department to interfere in the rights and privileges of Parliament as an institution, as the voice of the people of South Africa. I want to resist the temptation—and it is an easy temptation—to go overboard with wild allegation that in fact Parliament has been undermined.

We have before us a document, and I think the first thing is to establish—and that is why I accept the action the hon. the Prime Minister has taken—“the source, the compilation and the contents of the document and relevant matters”. We must be careful that we do not get ourselves into a state of hysteria and then find that in fact it is not the Defence Force itself as a whole, or not the leadership of the Defence Force, which has created this situation and this impression of attacks on Parliament.

Before I accept that point of view, I think I am entitled to ask two questions. I put them specifically to the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister. The first is: Have there been any other previous documents of this nature of which they are aware? I think we are entitled to demand a clear undertaking that there have been none such or an admission that there have been similar documents in the past which have had or carried similar implications. The second thing I think Parliament is entitled to know is whether the leadership of the SADF—and, as I know them, I hope the answer will be an unequivocal “no”—whether the Chief of the SADF, the Chief of the Army, the Chief of the Air Force and the top leadership were at any time aware of this document and, if so, why they did not immediately take action. I think we are entitled to ask that question and to ask for a clear and specific answer to it. I know the people concerned and I cannot believe that they would have had knowledge of an instruction of this nature and let it go without taking action in regard to it.

You are very naïve.

I am not naïve. I happen to work with people whom I trust, who I believe are serving South Africa and in whose integrity I have the greatest confidence.

They have hoodwinked you.

Mr. Speaker, I will not respond to that interjection. I think it is most unfortunate. I can think of one answer and that is that I love South Africa and respect the people who serve South Africa. I know them and I have had sufficient experience of enjoying their confidence to reciprocate that confidence. If people have confidence in me and give me information of a sensitive nature, they have earned my respect for their integrity and their devotion and dedication to what they are doing. I am not one of those who is suspicious about everyone I know and everyone I see merely for the sake of suspicion.

This makes me now do something which I do not like doing, but I think it is only fair in the interests of the Defence Force itself and of the officer concerned. If I thought that the person who had issued that instruction was some sinister Broederbonder who was planning in dark corners to undermine Parliament, I would be the first to say this is something we have to take with deadly earnestness. But I happen to know the people and as far as I know the officer concerned is anything but a Broederbonder. If anything, he would feel completely opposed to anything of that nature. Therefore I believe that this Parliament must establish the source of and the responsibility for this document, the extent to which this document has been distributed and the extent to which this document in fact reflects the attitude of the command of the Defence Force at any level. Then, I believe, the time would come for us to act upon that information. I want to ask for an assurance that, when the Biermann Committee has established those facts, that information will be made public. On that basis we, as Parliament, will have to determine whether this is a threat to Parliament, whether it is an infringement of parliamentary rights and whether we, as Parliament, must then take action. I cannot see how one can have two investigations going on into the same matter, how one can have a Select Committee of Parliament and a committee inquiring into the same thing at the same time.

Which would you prefer?

I would like to have the facts established and then I would like Parliament to play its part as Parliament. I believe that is the correct sequence. I am not here to protect anything that is wrong. I cannot in any way defend or justify what stands in this instruction, but I can say that I do not believe that we must jump to conclusions until we have more information on the exact facts surrounding it.

The aspects which deal with the interference with Parliament are totally unacceptable. The use or misuse of the media is totally unacceptable, but I believe it is the duty of the Defence Force to remove sources of complaint and things that are wrong. I have here a handful of cases of which I received information only today and which are dealt with in this document. These concern the pay issue. Nothing is going to silence us when it comes to dealing with that. We will deal with it, but I object to the abuse of the media to try and cover anything up. That is the issue on which I take a stand.

I must say, because it affects me, that I was not pressurized to be part of this. Nobody pressurized me to write an article. I was approached on, I think, 6 February and I was willing to do so. The hon. the Deputy Minister will confirm that I have given him a copy of Omkeer, the insidious communist document seeking to undermine morale. It is the second time I have given this undermining propaganda to the hon. the Deputy Minister and I wrote that article because I believed in what I said and not because anyone pressurized me. I do not believe that the Press are so weak that they can be manipulated, but I do believe that we have to make sure that they are not manipulated and that is why I believe that the facts must now be clearly established and that, when they are established, Parliament must then consider them as Parliament. I would like to see the first inquiry carried out, the facts placed before us and publicized and then we, as Parliament, must judge them. I do not believe that we can be both prosecutor and judge. I believe that we must judge on the facts which are placed before us. I am opposed to everything that this document stands for, but I believe that we must act responsibly in our reaction to it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition moved a motion, and his handling of the motion convinced me that the real point which we are arguing about today is the politicizing or the depoliticizing of the Defence Force. I want to proceed from the standpoint that whereas the NP and the Government are doing their best to keep the Defence Force out of the political arena, the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition today—and what was also said by some hon. members of his party who stated their case in the newspapers—was very clearly aimed at dragging the Defence Force into politics. [Interjections.] This motion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition followed a statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister in which he made it very clear that he and the hon. the Deputy Minister dissociated themselves completely from the contents of that document, because it was in no way the Government’s intention to bring the Defence Force into the constitutional party political struggle or arena. Everyone must clearly understand this.

I must also say at once that I am arguing today on the basis of what appeared in The Cape Times. I am not entitled, nor do I want to be entitled to examine a document which is classified. When we examine the document, as reported in The Cape Times, as an indivisible document, as something which stands on its own, totally and completely, the document is unacceptable because it contains phrases which cannot be supported. However, if we regard the document as one which can be divided, if we remove those portions which do not belong in it, because they are perhaps poorly phrased, it is in reality a document which one could, for the most part, go along with.

The inquiry now being instituted by Adml. Biermann is undoubtedly the quickest way of gaining finality and clarity on the origin, content and drafting of this document, and in the interests of clean national administration this rapid action is something which must be appreciated.

However, the important question I want to ask is: What is the effect of the hon. the Prime Minister’s dissociating himself from this document? If the hon. the Prime Minister dissociates himself from this document, it is a depoliticizing of the issue and we, the NP, agree that the document is undesirable. Then the matter is withdrawn from the political arena, and once it is out of the political arena a Select Committee is completely unnecessary. Once it is depoliticized, we must try our best not to drag it into politics again.

If the internal affairs of the Defence Force now have to be investigated—this is no longer a political matter—I can think of no one better than Adml. Biermann, who is acquainted with the inner workings of the Defence Force, to inquire into the matter. It is clear that this matter must be depoliticized, and on that point I agree with the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member for Yeoville said “When you serve in the Defence Force you do not serve a particular party or a particular philosophy; you serve South Africa.” I agree entirely with the hon. member for Yeoville on these statements.

Having said that, I want to make it clear that at this stage of my argument two things are very clear. The first is that the hon. the Prime Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister and the Cabinet are not involved in this matter in any way. This is very clear and we understand it. The second thing we have to understand very clearly is that the NP is not involved in this matter in any way. On that basis I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the NRP that I appreciate his handling of the affair. This attests to a person who has background knowledge and knows what it is all about. I want to thank him for the words he spoke here.

If I am correct in what I have said up to now, we must examine what the official Opposition is in actual fact engaged in doing. If it cannot be an attack on the NP, the Cabinet and the hon. the Prime Minister, what are they attacking then? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition almost said in so many words that the attack was in actual fact on the S.A. Defence Force and its general-officers. It was a poorly concealed, emotional attack on the S.A. Defence Force. It was a denigration of the image of the Defence Force where it is politically impartial. But what is more: It was a subversion of the Defence Force’s image of political impartiality. This is in reality what happened. It was the worst subversion in 14 years, since 1966. [Interjections.] However, it was the handling of the document which is important. I do not approve of everything contained in it—let us understand one another very well—but a balance must be maintained. We cannot simply condemn everything. The question is: On what is this over-reaction of the PFP based? The principal objection must be to the purpose, the “mission”, as set out in the document, viz. “to nullify the Opposition’s attack”. I agree that this is not correct and that it is a misrepresentation of the object. However, I want to go further and say that this object was in truth incorrectly formulated in this document, for if we examine the targets which are identified in this document, as well as the proposed actions, they do not in fact reflect the purpose as it is defined there. The object was incorrectly formulated, but little can be said against what follows. We must bear this in mind, because we must take cognizance of what is stated in it. It states that the recruiting of certain Black people must be accorded top priority. It is also stated in the document that the payment of allowances must please be expedited at all costs. It is also stated that the Citizen Force must act in a motivated way and that national servicemen must be motivated. It also states that illegal hunting must be halted. And what is wrong with that? There is nothing wrong with that. The object should have read: “To promote the image of the S.A. Defence Force.” If the object had been stated in that way, what followed would have been completely correct. I should like you to consider what I have just said.

What is the Opposition’s reaction? Their first reaction is a blatant lack of condemnation of the fact that such a classified document was bruited abroad. But we do not hear a word of condemnation. Is this really the extent to which the PFP is interested in the Defence Force? The second reaction is the reaction to Admiral Biermann’s appointment According to The Cape Times Mr. Schwarz said—

This is what the newspaper reports. This is by implication an identification of the NP with the Defence Force and Admiral Biermann. This is a politicizing of the whole aspect and this is what is at issue today. Our Opposition is politicizing the Defence Force. However, there is still a further, a third reaction. It was said by the hon. member for Yeoville, according to The Cape Times—

This is what is stated in the newspaper. I now challenge that hon. member to prove where that process is involved in this Parliament in any way. He is still entitled to criticize and to ask questions and those rights are not affected in any way. That hon. member and chief spokesman on Defence of the Opposition were approached to say something about this document. If it were the intention of this document to drag politics and the NP into this document, it would have been the stupidest thing in the world to ask the hon. member for Yeoville to comment. The hon. member for Yeoville said the following in Paratus—

The S.A. Defence Force allowed him to declare in its magazine that one should not support a specific political party. Surely this is a clear demonstration that what follows after the aim stated in the document, has nothing whatsoever to do with politics. The official Opposition is trying to politicize the Defence Force, whereas we are trying to prevent this.

All things considered, I want to tell the Defence Force that what is wrong must be rectified, and what is right is appreciated. We on this side of the House will not allow the Defence Force to be dragged willy-nilly into the arena of constitutional party politics in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I only have eight minutes at my disposal. Therefore I am unable to deal with the matters raised by the hon. member who has just sat down. Much of what he said, could, however, more properly have been dealt with by the Biermann investigation. Yesterday the hon. the Prime Minister stated that he had read a Defence Force document, the document which is the subject of this debate, which was allegedly distributed in the Defence Force for internal use. He said that he dissociated himself from the contents of that document. He then announced that an inquiry under the chairmanship of Admiral Biermann into the source, the compilation and the contents of the document would be held. Under these circumstances I withhold further comment until the inquiry has been held and until a report has been made to the hon. the Minister of Defence. [Interjections.] Since an inquiry is to be held by a man of the status of Admiral Biermann, I feel it is quite wrong for Parliament at this stage to be asked to appoint a Select Committee as the hon. member for Yeoville has been reported to have demanded and as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has requested today. I have the fullest confidence in Admiral Biermann and I am quite sure that all South Africans that I know have equal confidence in him. I think that if there is to be any Select Committee it must be appointed, I think, when his inquiry has been completed and the hon. the Minister of Defence has seen fit to table the report in this House. If, for security reasons, he does not table this report in this House, I think he should call in the leaders of the three Opposition parties and give them his reasons for not doing so, as well as acquainting them with the findings of the inquiry by Admiral Biermann.

What is appropriate, at this stage, is to express my deep concern at the fact that an internal Defence document should have found its way into the hands of the Sunday Times. [Interjections.] This is not the first time that a confidential document has been passed on to the Press, and one is left with the very strong impression that something is seriously wrong with the security arrangements … [Interjections] … of some Government Departments.

Next I want to say that the person—if one could call such a creature a person—who gave the document to the Press, should instead have gone straight to the hon. the Minister of Defence, to whom he was responsible, the hon. the Prime Minister, if he had the slightest element of loyalty in him. Only if he had not then received satisfaction from the hon. the Prime Minister, would he perhaps have been justified in going to the Press. The hon. the Prime Minister has, in his capacity as the Minister of Defence, gone to great lengths to try to find a reasonable accommodation with the Press in reporting both Defence and security matters. This being so, it is shocking to me that the newspaper concerned did also not go to the hon. the Prime Minister for an explanation before printing something that undoubtedly disturbs the morale of the serving men in South Africa and arouses public suspicion and deep concern. What is more, the newspaper knew that the document it received was a classified document, because it had been told so by Gen. Dutton. I want to ask whether this is the way newspapers reciprocate the efforts of the hon. the Prime Minister to strike a balance between State security and Press freedom.

The next question I want to ask is: When was the document given to the Sunday Times? If it had been received several weeks ago, why was it then deliberately held back to the eve of the budget debate?

I wish to express the hope today that the inquiry will be broadened to enable Admiral Biermann to inquire into those very alarming aspects which seriously question Defence security and the bona fides of the Sunday Times. I imagine there are some people in South Africa at the moment who do believe that the Sunday Times must have some bona fides as it has a wide circulation! However, remembering other leaks, and the way in which they have been handled by newspapers like the Sunday Times to the detriment of our country, I call on the hon. the Prime Minister not to try to accommodate those newspapers that have betrayed the trust placed in them by publishing classified or background information. They do not seek the downfall of the Government, but the downfall of the Republic as we know it.

You are talking tripe! [Interjections.]

They do not operate in isolation.

You are talking nonsense.

Others who seek our downfall, and revolutionary change in the Republic, are their willing collaborators, if not their instigators, in the onslaught on this country.

My heart bleeds for the hon. member for Yeoville …

My heart does not bleed for you.

… who has complained that he was pressurized to write an article for Paratus on military service. Surely he wrote that article willingly, and because he believed in it, and not because he was pressurized to do so? As I have known him, that gentleman has never shown any great reluctance to write articles, to make statements or comments or to receive any of the available limelight that might be around. [Interjections.] Who pressurized the hon. member? I do not think it could have been the Young Progs or their political mother!

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member has been dying to make contentious speeches on the Defence Force for a very long time, and now he has seized his opportunity to do so. That hon. gentleman’s support … [Interjections] … for defence measures, and his exaggerated postures of patriotism, are no more than a strategy for building a particular image for himself and trying to remove an albatross from around the neck of the party to which he belongs. The hon. member is no reluctant bride when it comes to publicity. [Interjections.]

What I want to say is the following. I want to make an earnest appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister …

You call yourself an Opposition party!

… to table the Biermann inquiry report. I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that the morale of our serving men and the confidence of the public of South Africa in the Defence Force must be placed beyond all doubt, and publication will, I believe, achieve this objective.

Why do you not crawl across the floor and join the NP? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the first thing I would like to say is that I would have preferred it if there had been no need for this debate at all. [Interjections.]

Pious old angel.

I would have preferred it had there never been a letter of this nature that we have to debate. If there are hon. members here who, because of their twisted minds, talk about exaggerated postures, perhaps they are only …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to refer to hon. members of the House as having twisted minds? [Interjections.]

What I said was that “if” there are hon. members who have twisted minds …

Order! In any case, I think the hon. member must withdraw that word.

I said “if there are hon. members”. [Interjections.]

The hon. member can say anything by just preceding it with the word “if”. He must withdraw the word.

I withdraw the word. However, if there are people in this House who, in their own exaggerated postures advocating ultra right-wing causes, see fit to turn a serious debate into a matter of irrelevances and attacks upon the Press, then those hon. members must be judged by the public and by their electorate. It is hardly worth wasting time on them. [Interjections.]

May I say that the debate has actually taken quite a remarkable turn, because the hon. member for Pretoria West suggested that when a document is published in terms of which the Opposition in Parliament—and it appears that it is quite clear there is really only one Opposition in Parliament and that is the official Opposition; that has been demonstrated today—is attacked, it is remarkable that that Opposition should react and should comment upon it. When it appears that there has been grossness of action within the Defence Force in respect of political activity, the allegation is turned around and it is alleged that others are seeking to politize the Defence Force. It is remarkable how these things can be turned around.

I think that what we need to do really is to have a look at what this was all about. Let us look at what was contained in the document. The purpose of the operation, whoever formulated it—and I will deal in a moment with where it came from—was to mount a military-style activity against an identified enemy with a specific object. The military situation was that there were contentious subjects which the enemy could exploit to the detriment of the object to be protected. The contentious subjects were identified and five of them were listed. The enemy was identified. It was stated specifically that it was the Opposition. The enemy was to be monitored for a change of tactics. The object to be protected was the Nationalist Government and the hon. the Prime Minister in particular. The object of the operation was stated specifically as being to nullify the Opposition attack. That is namely that the hon. the Prime Minister must come out on top in the Defence debate. That was the object of the exercise. There is no question of a bad choice of words in the document. This was a political exercise with no holds barred, embarked upon with the money of the taxpayers of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Have you the evidence?

I have the evidence. I have it right here. This is no exercise to give to a Cabinet Minister information to answer questions. Was it perhaps an exercise clearly to remedy a wrong? It is “a psychological action plan” to create “the right climate to nullify the Opposition’s attack” and to monitor the Opposition “as the Opposition’s tactics develop”. That they knew that this was wrong is supported by the document itself. In para. 12 of the document the following is said—

“Circumspection” is the word that is used. It must be avoided at all costs that a situation is worsened by lack of judgement. Those are the words which are contained in this document and that is their operation. That is what this was all about, and that is what was involved. What is the significance of this document? Let us look at it. Firstly it purports to originate from the office of the Chief of the Defence Force. It says so at the head of the document, and at the end of the document somebody signs who holds a senior rank, somebody who holds—unless the signature is a forgery—the rank of major-general in the Defence Force, and who signs for the Chief of the S.A. Defence Force. It comes from the office of the Chief of the Defence Force. It purports to be signed for the Chief of the Defence Force. It is headed: “It is a psychological action plan.” It is not, as the hon. member for Pretoria West suggests, a plan aimed at the correcting of faults or at the correcting of information. To use the words of the document, it is a psychological action plan, and to use the very words contained in the letter, “creating the right climate”. What kind of climate do they want to create in that particular Vote? What is it that they are after? It provides for the monitoring of Opposition tactics. In other words the Opposition has to be watched. I quote—

That means the careful eye has to be kept on us. This is not a casual circular, but it came about as a result of a calculated investigation and decision. I quote from the letter—

The question somebody should answer is by whom it was decided upon and who in fact made these decisions. The actions against the Opposition in the Defence Vote were to be monitored, as I have said, like a military operation. In the document itself they assess the situation. I refer now to para. 1 of the document. In para. 3 they state the mission. In para. 4 they deal with the execution, and from para. 6 onwards they list the targets of this military operation. One thing is very clear, however, and I think the hon. the Prime Minister should be very concerned about this. It demonstrates the effectiveness of the Opposition in the eyes of some people. That is why they appear to believe that an operation of this nature has to be mounted, with the manpower and the money involved, in order to deal with this Opposition and assist the hon. the Prime Minister. I thought the hon. the Prime Minister could look after himself in this situation. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Durban Point dealt with the question of the State and of the Government. When it comes to this confusion in the minds of top military personnel it is not a semantic confusion; it is a question of confusion between their duty to the State and to its people and their allegiance to a political Government in control. They are concerned, and I quote again—

Meaning the contentious subjects—

They have no confusion in their minds about what is meant by the term “government”, because when it came to the article in Paratus, which I shall deal with in a moment, they said: “Why we support national service by the RSA Government’s political opponents.” In that I include the hon. members who have spoken here earlier today, even though I have very serious doubts about one of them. So there is no question about their not knowing what the word “government” means. There is no question about their knowing who they are supporting when it comes to the question of “the Government”.

The other significant point is that senior military men are clearly prepared to play a political role when they feel that acts detrimental to the Government may be committed and when there may be a political attack on a leading Government personality. Another aspect is that the hon. member for Durban Point said he did not believe that anybody else knew, but on the face of it not only does this document emanate from the office of the Chief of the S.A. Defence Force, but at the foot of the document it is stated that it is circulated or distributed for action, inter alia, to the Chief of the Army and the Chief of the Air Force. More than six weeks have elapsed, but no one has made any adverse comment on it. No one has said that when he received a copy of this document he asked the Chief of the Defence Force: Have you seen this, do you agree with it and do you think this should be done? No one has said that one of the generals telephoned the hon. the Deputy Minister or the hon. the Prime Minister and asked: Look here, do you know what is going on and do you agree with it? There is no indication that anybody, over a period of six weeks, made any response to this at all.

As I see it there is, in the approach in this document, an utter disregard for the fact that there are Opposition supporters who serve in the Forces and who must obviously, if they found out about this, react adversely. How could they take kindly to this kind of action in respect of the Opposition? If it is known that there are faults in the Forces, and if we point them out, what should be done, if preparation is to be made for the debate, is to remove those faults, not to have a campaign that seeks to manipulate the media. That is not what one should do in such circumstances.

Let me take the example of target No. 1—

Instead of launching a campaign involving all sorts of things to “glamourize”—let me use their own description—the situation in the glossy publications, why does somebody not do something to remove that fault. Then they would have a complete answer to our criticism. Then we would be demolished in the debate because that fault will have disappeared. That is not, however, what is recommended here.

There is reference to recruiting not being as successful as it could be owing to this particular fact, but let me give a simple example to show how wrong they are in assessing what the Opposition is going to do or say. I put a question to the hon. the Prime Minister in his capacity of Minister of Defence. I asked him how many Coloured men had volunteered for national service and how many of them could be accommodated. The answer was that 1 910 had volunteered but that only 1 500 could be accommodated. If that is not an error of judgment, the problem is not, as they say in their own document, that they are not recruiting enough. The problem is that they cannot accommodate those they do recruit. They do not even understand the problem. [Interjections.] So if only they could accurately assess the situation, they would be able to deal with the problems. This is how they set about this. It is amazing that this kind of thing should happen.

We have made it clear, and I repeat, that there is no objection to the Defence Force projecting its image, but not only the Defence Force, because we believe that the morale of both the serving personnel and their families must be high and that the Defence Force must be seen to be capable of defending our country. This projection does not, however, necessitate the manipulation of the media. People will co-operate if their assistance is sought in a frank and open manner. That is why I stand by every single word I said in my Paratus article. I would have written it whatever the circumstances put to me, but why try to pressurize a man into doing something that you then want to use against him at some time in debates. Why do that when the person concerned is actually quite willing to make those statements in any kind of circumstances. [Interjections.] What is remarkable about this article is that the very first words in it are—

What kind of cynicism is it on the part of the people who manipulated this situation to seek to obtain an article to publish it when in fact one has this kind of thing done? [Interjections.]

It is a big joke!

They think it is very funny.

The cynicism with which this is done is unbelievable in the circumstances. It is unbelievable that this can be done.

What needs to be established beyond question is that the Defence Force serves the country and not a political party. It must not have a political face, but it must have a South African face. There appears to be a blurring in the minds of certain Defence personnel in respect of that particular issue. I want to say in all fairness to the hon. the Prime Minister that, if in fact there is the attitude—and we have tried to make sure that there will not be—that Nationalist policies are to be defended, people will have very serious problems and we shall actually enter a major crisis in South Africa. I believe that those who are responsible for this document, those who did not act when they became aware of it and those who now seek to defend it are letting those of us down who have argued that by defending South Africa one does not identify with Nationalist philosophy and one is not defending apartheid, but one is in our view defending South Africa. That is why I said in the article in Paratus—and I stand by it—

This message, which we try to put across, is being hampered by the people who are trying to do that, and project the attitude, to which I have referred.

Sir, why do we want a parliamentary inquiry? We are not saying, as has been suggested, that there should be two inquiries going at the same time. We want a parliamentary inquiry because parliamentary rights are affected, because Opposition rights are affected, because the rights of members of Parliament are affected, because the Opposition supporters’ rights are affected. This action has been a political action. It is not, as has been suggested by the hon. member for Pretoria West, an internal domestic affair of the Department of Defence. It is our rights that are affected, our rights as an Opposition, our rights as members of Parliament, and the correct instrument for this type of inquiry is Parliament.

I have indicated and I want to repeat—and the hon. the Prime Minister can correct me if I am wrong—that he has not appointed a commission but has ordered a formal inquiry. I do not know what powers that Board of Inquiry has. I do not know whether it has the powers of a commission. I do not know what is intended. But at the moment, on what the hon. the Prime Minister has said, there is no right of any Opposition supporter to be present, there is no indication under what law the inquiry is being conducted and what powers Admiral Biermann will have and there is no undertaking so far that the report will be tabled in Parliament.

There are some other things, in addition to the Select Committee, for which we want to ask. We have not heard a word up until now from the Head of the Defence Force as to his involvement and his knowledge of this, or to the effect that he is not involved. Nor have we heard one word of regret or one word of apology. We have had no assurance that incorrect actions are being stopped and we have had no indication as to what action the military themselves want to take in connection with this. These are things we ask for and require. We would have preferred this debate not to have taken place. We believe that the defence of South Africa has nothing to do with party politics, but now that it has been exposed in this fashion, there must be a full parliamentary inquiry so that parliamentary government and the rights of hon. members and the rights of the Opposition supporters can be safeguarded.

Mr. Speaker, apart from what I said yesterday, I reserve judgment on the matter until a proper investigation has been completed. Consequently I do not want to talk about the document which is under discussion, except to say that there are certain paragraphs in the document, in my opinion three, which cannot be approved, and it is those three paragraphs in particular that I want investigated. I shall come to the rest of the document, with which I associate myself wholeheartedly, at a later stage. I should like to make a further announcement in order to eliminate the confusion which seems to have arisen in the mind of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He stormed in here like a young bull rhinoceros, without having all the facts at his disposal. [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has this habit of rushing into things. The other day he rushed in to see me about a matter until I set him straight, and he came out of it ignominiously. He must be careful of this kind of thing, of lending out his ears to people who egg him on …

Was that a confidential interview or not?

… because they will break him, just as they broke his predecessor.

Who do you think you are?

In the first place I want to thank the hon. members for Durban Point and Simonstown for the dignified way in which they spoke here, but I cannot associate myself with the tirades of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Yeoville.

Tirades?

I say they were tirades which were calculated to disparage and harm the S.A. Defence Force. [Interjections.] That is why I asked the Chief of the Defence Force to appoint a Board of Inquiry with Admiral Hugo Biermann as president with Commodore Roeloff Andries van Rensburg Olivier and Captain Thomas William Higgs as members, and Commander Eric Walter Dunn as secretary to the board. The board shalt inquire into and report and make recommendations on the question, firstly, whether there was a deviation from or difference in the directive as contained in telex memo 077 of the Chief of the S.A. Defence Force, dated 4 February 1980, and the directive contained in the document under discussion, of which portions were published in the Sunday Times; secondly, who compiled the document of 12 February and authorized it for distribution, and to whom; thirdly, whether any unauthorized person or bodies were placed in possession of the document dated 12 February 1980 and if so, how, where and by whom; fourthly, whether there was any wilfulness or negligence on the part of any person concerned in the preparation, authorization, handling or distribution of document HSOPS 504/1/1 of 12 February and, fifthly, whether there is any other irregularity in respect of any other matter pertaining to the relevant document of 12 February 1980. This Board of Inquiry will comply strictly with all applicable provisions of the Defence Act, 1957, and the Code of Discipline. In other words, the inquiry will take place in terms of the provisions of the Defence Act.

In the second place I wish to say that this is not a matter for a Select Committee because Parliament is not supposed to take disciplinary action against officers in the Defence Force. If there has to be disciplinary action there must be a Board of Inquiry or a court martial, conducted in terms of the regulations under the Defence Act, which then takes action in accordance with the prescriptions of that Act.

We are dealing here in the first instance with allegations that certain officers committed certain acts. I made a comparison between the instructions of the Chief of the Defence Force and this particular document, and I found major differences.

[Inaudible.]

If only that hon. member would confine himself to his chicken farming activities we could proceed with other matters. This is not, in the first instance, a parliamentary matter; it is a disciplinary matter within a Defence Force context. I am not going to allow any witch-hunt in the S.A. Defence Force. What is being envisaged here is a witch-hunt against senior officers of this country, in whose hands lie the safety of South Africa against a communist enemy.

So a Select Committee is a witch-hunt?

I am not going to allow any cheap politicking against the Defence Force Chiefs. [Interjections.] The official policy in regard to the attitude to the public of the Defence Force is embodied in section 15 of the regulations governed by the Defence Act. It is clearly stated there what the attitude of the Defence Force to the public should be.

What would the attitude of the Defence Force be to … [Interjections.]

Order!

Since I became Minister of Defence 14 years ago, I have gone out of my way to keep the Defence Force above party politics. Regular visits were arranged for members of the House of Assembly, including hon. members of the Opposition, to Defence Force installations and bases, and we showed them everything.

In the second place, members of the Opposition were regularly briefed on a confidential basis. Of my own accord, without the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asking me to do this, I have already briefed him on confidential matters on three occasions since he became leader of the Opposition.

That is standard practice in a Western democracy.

What do you know about it?

In the third place, newspaper editors are briefed every month by means of a Press Union, liaison committee. In the fourth place, all the newspaper editors are given regular briefings on the onslaught on our national service system. In the fifth place, in spite of the unsavoury article which appeared in one of our evening newspapers— that the SABC had allegedly been manipulated into building up the image of the Defence Force; and that was done by an anonymous correspondent who did not have the courage to put his name to his report, probably a toady who is paid for his reprehensible conduct—the top echelous of the SABC received regular briefings from the Defence Force, and it was the duty of the SABC and of the television service to present a correct image of the only Defence Force of South Africa.

In the sixth place, a system of military correspondents of all newspapers was established through my personal initiative. They were accredited with the S. A. Defence Force; they completed courses and they were given privileges which others did not have. This is something unique of its kind in the Western world; there is nothing else like it. And we have always treated them with the greatest courtesy and decency. They receive regular briefings.

In the seventh place, I gave instructions this week that an invitation was to be issued to the editors of all the newspapers to visit our armaments factories as the guests of Armscor. There we would have provided them with further information on a confidential basis, even on classified matters. However, I cancelled those instructions today.

In the eighth place, I want to say that an error of judgment by one or two officers— and they are not senior officers …

Corporals.

That hon. member cannot even become a corporal; he is too stupid. [Interjections.] An error of judgment on the part of one or two officers—and, as I have said, they are not senior officers—as in the case of the document in issue, is being blown up out of all proportion, and this evening our enemies are smiling about this.

In the ninth place, we involved the Black leaders of South Africa in these Defence Force briefings. We took them to the operational areas, showed them the armaments factory and briefed them, and they expressed their appreciation for this in public. What right does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition have to unleash such a tirade as the one he unleashed this afternoon and to say that the Defence Force is participating in politics? It is a disgrace, and he ought to be ashamed of himself.

I did not say that.

He allows people to take advantage of him by encouraging him to act in an irresponsible way here. [Interjections.]

I now wish to talk about the Sunday Times. By Saturday the Sunday Times had had the document in its possession for several days, and when they were requested not to publish it, not because it was a secret document—it was classified “confidential”—they refused and said they had consulted their legal advisers and that they were in fact going to publish it.

To think he is the Prime Minister of South Africa.

They were requested by a senior officer not to do so, by a respected senior officer, a person who cannot be accused of being a hireling of this party. Moreover they did not, although they knew where to find me on Saturday, and in spite of the Press Union agreement, have the decency to telephone me and ask for my comment on the matter. If the Sunday Times had had the courtesy and decency to look after the interests of the Defence Force they would not have bruited a one-sided story abroad. They would have afforded the Minister of Defence an opportunity of commenting on the matter so that the public would then have been able to judge for itself. They did not do that. I want to say that when one receives the editor of the Sunday Times, Mr. Myburgh, in one’s office, butter would not melt in his mouth.

Margarine!

He published it with the one purpose only, and that was to encourage people who refused to do national service. [Interjections.] In my opinion it was disgraceful conduct on the part of this newspaper that it did not draw back in order to protect the Defence Force.

I come now to the document itself. There are certain sections of this document which I cannot condone, and I stated my standpoint on them yesterday. But I now wish to state what I do in fact approve. The Chief of the Defence Force issued an instruction to the Defence Force in connection with the recruiting and training of non-White members of the S.A. Defence Force. That meets with my approval. In the second place he instructed that scrupulous attention be given to the payment of soldiers, and that, too, meets with my approval. In the third place he issued an instruction to the effect that the positive side of citizen force training should be emphasized, and that, too, meets with my approval.

All of us agree with that.

In the fourth place the Chief of the Defence Force said that the Defence Force should steel itself and harness all its resources to combat the subversion of national service, which action he considers to be essential. As far as this matter is concerned, I associate myself with the Chief of the Defence Force. Any attempt to slander the Chief of the Defence Force, to disparage him or to weaken his position in the Defence Force, does not meet with my approval. In addition I just wish to say that the vast majority of officers would protect him against any reprehensible external attack.

I now wish to ask the Opposition, and also the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, whether they are opposed to any of these steps which the Chief of the Defence Force had urged. [Interjections.] If they are not, why are they kicking up such a fuss about a minor slip which certain people made … [Interjections.]

You are prejudging the findings of the board.

We are discussing this matter in Parliament now and I am giving my opinion on the document. If I do not give it, you would accuse me of being cowardly— and I am not like you.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order …

Order! I think the hon. the Minister has gone too far.

But I do not think that I have gone too far. [Interjections.]

Order!

I said that the S.A. Defence Force …

Order! The hon. the Minister said: “ … you will accuse me of being cowardly—and I am not like you.”

No, I said: “I am not cowardly. I am not like you.”

Yes. I am of the opinion that the hon. the Minister intimated thereby that hon. members on the opposite side of the House are cowardly.

I find it extremely difficult after everything that has been done in connection with this debate. [Interjections.]

Throw him out!

Order!

I find it extremely difficult, but I shall do so only because the rules of the House lay down that I must. [Interjections.]

Order! I just wish to tell the hon. the Minister that I would not have accepted such a withdrawal from an ordinary hon. member. He must help me and withdraw it.

Yes, but I am not receiving much assistance with the many interjections which the Opposition are making. [Interjections.]

Throw him out!

Order!

I shall withdraw it.

I called Opposition members to order several times …

I shall withdraw it, but I just wish to say that they have been noisy throughout. [Interjections.] The S.A. Defence Force is not only an instrument for ensuring the safety of the Republic of South Africa, but also an instrument against communist agitation, communist infiltration and the communist onslaught on South Africa. In that sense the Defence Force, in conjunction with the Government, is engaged in a political struggle against communism. Let the whole world know it now. I shall continue to organize the Defence Force in that struggle against communists, their fellow-travellers and all who come up for communists in South Africa.

I wish to come now to the hon. member for Yeoville.

Honest Joe!

He was pressurized. Let us consider this “pressurized” member.

He is as flat as a pancake.

What was the reason which I was given for this being necessary?

Order!

Let us consider this “pressurized” member. This document under discussion was signed and circulated on 12 February, but the appointment, to have an interview with the hon. member for Yeoville, was made with him on 6 February.

The statement was made on 12 February …

The appointment with him was made on 6 February, six days before this document was drawn up.

Look at the document and you will see it was the 12th.

The interview with him took place on 11 February and not on the 12th.

On 12 February the document was …

In other words, the hon. member was “pressurized” before the document was drawn up. [Interjections.]

Appoint a Select Committee.

The difficulty with the hon. member for Yeoville is that he wants to be the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral. [Interjections.]

I challenge you to appoint a Select Committee of this House. [Interjections.] You do not have the guts. [Interjections.]

Order!

I say this debate should never have taken place. The Department of Defence should have had the opportunity to take disciplinary action, to institute an inquiry and to take action against people if any contraventions had occurred. But this debate should not have taken place, and this nasty newspaper, the Sunday Times, this newspaper which serves South Africa’s enemies, should not have begun its campaign against the S.A. Defence Force, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should not have lent himself to this reprehensible conduct of his this afternoon against the S.A. Defence Force.

And you are a reprehensible Prime Minister.

I think it is disgraceful. The hon. the Leader did himself harm, and I think he humiliated himself here this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, may I address you on a point of order?

No. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Groote Schuur wishes to raise a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister allowed to use the word “reprehensible” in respect of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition? [Interjections.]

Order! Yes, I do not deem it unparliamentary.

He is a reprehensible Prime Minister. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Durban Point put a fair question to me. He wanted to know from me whether there were other documents similar to this one.

Mr. Speaker …

Mr. Speaker, would you please shut that man up.

Order! I have replied to the point of order.

The hon. member for Durban Point wanted to know whether there were other documents similar to this one. To the best of the Chief of the Defence Force’s knowledge, and also to the best of my knowledge, there are no other documents similar to this one. In the second place the hon. member wanted to know whether the Chief of the S.A. Defence Force …

Mr. Speaker, may I address you on a point of order? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Groote Schuur is wasting my time.

Too bad.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: In terms of rule 26 of the Standing Orders, I believe that each speaker is allowed a maximum of 20 minutes.

The hon. the Minister has already gone two minutes beyond his time.

Order! I am keeping record of the time. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

I just wish to reply to this one question. The Chief of the S.A. Defence Force informs me that he heard of the existence of this particular document for the first time last week. Whatever the circumstances pertaining to the document are is a matter which will be investigated by a reliable board of inquiry. I agree with the hon. member for Simonstown that whoever erred should be brought to book. However, I am not going to allow a witch-hunt in the top echelons of the S.A. Defence Force, in spite of all the noise made by an irresponsible, disloyal Opposition. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister is probably the most senior member of this House, while I am one of the most junior members of this House. The hon. the Minister uses words such as “young rhinoceros bull” and “tirade”. My only reaction to that is that I hope I shall never speak to the hon. the Minister on that level.

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

More than that I do not wish to say. In the second place, I want to point out that at no stage in my speech—it is a typewritten speech and I shall give it to the hon. Minister—did I make any allegation to the effect that the Defence Force had compiled this document mala fides.

What does it say in your motion, then?

I asked for the appointment of a Select Committee because I was upset about the very three paragraphs to which the hon. the Minister also referred. Surely I have the right to be dissatisfied about that. Those three paragraphs refer to this Parliament, the highest institution in the country. I am the official Leader of the Opposition, and in that document the allegation is made that the official Opposition is being watched by the Defence Force. For that reason, I have every right to call for a special debate on this subject. For that reason, too, I have every right to ask for the appointment of a Select Committee.

You did not prove that it was the Defence Force.

I did not suggest for one moment that the Defence Force should be politicized. What I said was precisely the opposite. I said that this implied that the Defence Force was in fact being politicized.

[Inaudible.]

My request was precisely that we should prevent this. That was what I was asking for.

You behaved in a petty way here this afternoon. [Interjections.]

Order!

Furthermore, I want to allege that there is a fundamental difference between the so-called Biermann inquiry and an inquiry by a Select Committee of Parliament. A Select Committee of Parliament is concerned with the role of Parliament and not at all with the internal problems of the Defence Force. I did not suggest for a moment that a Select Committee of this House should take disciplinary action against the Defence Force. I said a Select Committee should come to a finding, a finding which could be submitted to the hon. the Minister of Defence, and to which he could then react.

[Inaudible.]

A Select Committee consists of more than just Defence Force personalities. In a Select Committee, wider questions will be asked. Why? Because it affects our rights as members of this House. This is the highest assembly in the country, not the Defence Force. The Defence Force is a servant of this House, including this party. [Interjections.] Under the circumstances, I must say, the hon. the Prime Minister did not advance a single valid argument as to why a Select Committee should not be appointed. [Interjections.] I consider the tone with which the hon. the Prime Minister lowered the level of this debate to be reprehensible, and I cannot associate myself with it. [Interjections.]

Very well. Now we understand each other. From now on I shall ignore you. [Interjections.]

Order!

[Inaudible.]

Helen, you have never been in the service of the Defence Force. You have always been an enemy of the Police and the Defence Force.

Order!