Mr Speaker, in March 1988 Parliament voted the sum of R38.924 billion in the main Budget for 1988-89. After addition of the estimated statutory commitments of R15.041 billion the total estimated State expenditure under Part I of the main Budget came to R53.965 billion. Pending certain structural adjustment investigations R100 million of this was suspended on the SA Defence Force Vote as mentioned in my Budget Speech last year. This brought the expected expenditure to R53.865 billion.

With about six weeks to run to the end of the current fiscal year the revised total expenditure is now put at R56,556 billion, made up as follows:

Net over-expenditures were thus R2,591 billion, that is after expected savings of R150 million have been offset against the gross over-expenditure of R2.741 billion.

Expressed as a proportion of expected total expenditure in the main Budget this is 4,8%. The major part of this over-expenditure derives from two or three items—the improvement in service conditions and increased pensions, changes in the security situation and the higher cost of servicing the public debt.

I should like to expand somewhat on this. Nearly a year ago the hon the State President announced that there would be no general salary increase for the Public Service in the 1988-89 financial year.

At that time there were cogent reasons for this step, and the announcement was, among other things, meant as a signal to the private sector in the expectation that they would follow suit. In the event, however, the demand for qualified and skilled labour by the private sector increased markedly on account of, inter alia, the gratifying economic growth of some 3% achieved during the year. To a marked degree this increased demand was satisfied by drawing skilled and experienced labour from the Public Service.

Acting responsibly and in order to avert a threatening manpower crisis, the Government had no alternative but to advance by three months the general salary adjustment that was to take place on 1 April 1989. Social, civil and military pensions were also raised.

Another notable case of unforeseen expenditure was that arising from the changed security situation in South West Africa and Angola, which inevitably brought in its wake additional expenditure by the South African Defence Force. An amount of R460 million is sought for this purpose.

The underlying buoyancy of the economy in 1988 and the resultant pressure on the balance of payments called for a tighter monetary policy, which resulted in a higher interest rate pattern. This unavoidably added to the cost of servicing the public debt.

The over-expenditures on the foregoing four items comprise R1,832 billion of the total overexpenditure of R2,591 billion. The remaining R759 million required for all other services constitutes only 1,4% of the expenditure contemplated by the main Budget. Charges that the State in general and Government departments in particular have lost control over spending, and that financial discipline is not applied, are therefore exaggerated.

Mr Speaker, I am sure you will permit me to express to my relevant ministerial colleagues and their departmental heads my personal warm appreciation for the way they have worked together in the national interest.

In the debate to come, my colleagues will give a detailed exposition of the additional amounts sought. I shall therefore confine myself to the following broad comment.

*Firstly, I want to refer to the statutory overexpenditure of R978,5 million. Statutory overexpenditure will be required as follows: Transfers to the various accounts for provincial services, R517,1 million; additional expenditure with regard to servicing the public debt, R450,5 million; transfers to governments of self-governing territories, R10 million; increased salaries for members of Parliament, R0,7 million; pensions for former State Presidents or their widows, R0,2 million. That gives a total of R978,5 million.

The additional funds required by the various provincial administrations, are dealt with in schedules 2 to 5 of the Additional Appropriation Bill for 1989. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, presently the Acting State President, will, if necessary, further elucidate the additional expenditure of the provinces, which is broken down as follows: Cape, R190,9 million; Natal, R166,8 million; Free State, R40,2 million; Transvaal, R364,2 million—a total of R762,1 million minus increased own income and savings of R245 million. That brings us to statutory transfers of R517,1 million to the various accounts for provincial services.

The additional public debt servicing cost is the other statutory amount and is chiefly attributable to the rise in the interest rate pattern, the larger amount borrowed, as well as the exchange rate losses that are associated with normal interest payments and the redemption of the State’s foreign loan obligations.

An amount of R1,762 billion has been included in the Additional Appropriation Bill for appropriation. Consequently, I should like to refer to a few of the most important services which require additional funding.

Public order and safety

An additional amount of R35 million is required by the SA Police for, inter alia, a medical fund for its members as well as for logistical support. Unforeseen services such as security at the time of the municipal elections also contributed to the additional expenditure.

The SA Defence Force is requesting R560 million. The deferred amount of R100 million to which reference was made in the 1988 budget speech may be deducted from this so that the additional sum required for appropriation amounts to R460 million. Owing to the altered strategic situation which has resulted from the Defence Force’s withdrawal from Angola, the Defence Force has had to revise its planning and effect certain adjustments to its power structure.

The aforegoing, together with additional expenditure owing to exchange rate movements, the abolition of mutual concessions between the State and the SATS, and the repairing of flood damage, are the chief causes of the aforementioned additional expenditure.

Improvement of conditions of service

Against the background that was sketched earlier, a general salary adjustment for treasury personnel was awarded on 1 January 1989, as well as job-specific improvements for, inter alia, educators, legal personnel, tax officials, etc, at an additional cost of R656 million. Based on experience, it is expected that savings of R120 million will arise in the departments, which may be set off against this expenditure. Parliament is therefore being requested to vote an additional amount of R536 million for the improvement of conditions of service.

Social pensions

As has already been mentioned, social pensions were also increased with effect from 1 January 1989, which entails a resultant expenditure of R248,3 million.

Flood damage

In the main Budget for 1988-89 a provisional amount of R249,7 million was voted for flood damage.

However, the estimates of Government departments and of the provinces concerned in respect of those repair costs for which the Treasury is responsible, indicate that an additional amount of R187,4 million will be required as follows:

However, not all flood damage will be repaired before 31 March 1989. Consequently, expenditure in this regard will spill over into the 1989-90 financial year.

Administrations (Own affairs)

The following additional amounts are being requested by the various own affairs administrations:

Expenditure in respect of the flood disaster and on salary and social pension increases is chiefly responsible for this additional expenditure. Details of this will be furnished during the discussion of the administrations’ Additional Appropriation Bills in the respective Houses.

Capital income

Hon members will recall that the importance of privatisation, and the Government’s policy in this regard, were dealt with and emphasised last year in the hon the State President’s opening address, as well as in the Budget Speech itself. Provisional steps towards the privatisation of Iscor could, in fact, be taken during the 1988-89 financial year when the State sold a portion of its interest in Iscor to the IDC. The Government saw fit to utilise the latitude created by the yield of R600 million in the form of capital expenditure. The following capital programmes and contributions may consequently be afforded out of this: Development Bank of Southern Africa, R371 million; Loans Fund Local Authorities, R100 million; SBDC, R50 million; South African Housing Trust, R45 million; and emergency housing, R34 million. That is a total of R600 million.

Financing

The payment of R600 million by the IDC, together with the loan receipts, will be dealt with as capital income in the Appropriation and therefore form part of available financing. This income is therefore not being used to reduce the deficit before borrowing.

Without anticipating the customary complete review of State finances and the financing of over-expenditure which is given on Budget day, I can give hon members the assurance that adequate additional funds and loans receipts will be available to finance the net over-expenditure of R2,591 billion on a healthy basis. Moreover, it is expected that the deficit before borrowing, expressed as a percentage of the growth national product, will be somewhat smaller than the 4,9% which was predicted in the Budget Speech and for which we are very grateful.

Mr Speaker, in terms of the ruling that was given last year, this debate cannot be conducted over a broad spectrum; consequently one will have to attempt to restrict oneself to what actually appears in the Additional Appropriation.

I hope you will permit me, however, to refer to the general objective set as a target by the hon the Minister of Finance in his Budget Speech last year.

I also want to refer to certain of the objectives formulated by the hon the State President in his opening address last year, viz that State expenditure should be curbed and brought down to more realistic levels.

When the hon the Minister of Finance submitted the Main Budget of R53,965 billion last year, he boasted proudly that this was only 12,6% more than the revised budget of the previous year, when we had a real increase of 18,9% to contend with. The hon the Minister indicated that he had the situation under control. What do we find now, however? Whereas he could boast during the previous year that the additional amount he had requested from 1984-85 to 1987-88 had gradually decreased to as little as 2,1% last year, there is an increase, in his own words, of 4,8% this year.

We accept that certain essential expenditure simply cannot be avoided, and I am referring in particular to the flood damage. One accepts that these are emergency conditions and that the Government of necessity has to incur expenditure which cannot always be anticipated.

One of the main components of the additional expenditure is salaries, and it is our opinion that when the hon the Minister froze public servants’ salaries last year, he was over-optimistic in expecting the private sector to be either willing or capable of doing the same. In a capitalist system such as ours, there is no getting away from the fact that when the private sector deems it necessary to increase the salaries of its personnel in short supply, it is going to do so, regardless of any appeals the hon the Minister may make.

We found it rather strange that the hon the Minister announced the salary increases shortly before the municipal elections, whereas they would come into operation only on 1 January this year.

This also applies to the increase in social pensions. One probably cannot object to this, but the hon the Minister thought fit to make those announcements before the municipal elections as well. One wonders whether this was done because the hon the Minister wanted to give the salary increases, or in an attempt to influence the voting pattern. I think the latter was the case.

I find it simply amazing that the statutory allocations to the provinces are being increased so tremendously. In the case of the Cape Province, the allocation is being increased by 6,95%; Natal, 12,7%—there is an explanation for that, however, viz the huge expenditure with regard to flood damage; the Orange Free State, 6,4%; and the Transvaal, 11,18%. When one looks at that, naturally one has to deduct the increased revenue generated by each of the respective provinces, of which I do not have all the figures here now.

This enormous increase is unacceptable. We know that certain central government functions have been devolved to the provinces, but surely that should have been anticipated last year when the hon the Minister of Finance drew up his Budget.

An important increase is that in the cost of the servicing of public debt, which once again shows an increase of an enormous amount of as much as R450 million in a single year. This is much more than it was even last year, with the result that this single item on the Government’s Budget, the servicing of public debt, is increasing hand over fist from year to year. This can only be due to the over-expenditure of the Government in the past.

We are pleased that the hon the Minister of Finance could tell us this afternoon that his estimate of his deficit before loans was not quite correct, and that in all probability the deficit would be less. In other words, we shall have a smaller deficit than he originally estimated. I am grateful that he could say that. I assume that at present the hon the Minister is not able to give us the exact figure.

The hon the Minister could even have boasted with it, but related to that is the fact that the minimum taxation of companies has come into operation in the meantime. I assume the hon the Minister received much more money from that source than he had budgeted for. We shall have to see. In addition there was the increased fuel tax which also must have made a contribution.

The hon the Minister also referred to the sale of the Iscor interests to the Industrial Development Corporation as a form of privatisation. I still cannot see how in its present form it can be a form of privatisation, because this was merely money that was taken from one bag and put in another. The hon the Minister is nodding his head in agreement.

We want to repeat what we said in the past, viz that Government expenditure remains unacceptably high. This year the hon the Minister is almost 5% out on his initial budget, and we find that Government expenditure has once again increased in real terms for the present financial year. The hon the Minister expressed the opinion that we were an overtaxed country and he told us he was going to attempt to curb Government expenditure, but this was not realised in practice.

Consequently we are very sorry to have to say that we cannot be excited about what the hon the Minister has.put forward, because the old pattern of the past has simply repeated itself.

Mr Speaker, during this type of debate four questions inevitably arise. Firstly, could the expenditure have been reasonably foreseen? Secondly, is the expenditure necessary? Thirdly, is the money to finance this expenditure available? Fourthly, is the method of financing of an acceptable nature if one bears in mind the state of the economy?

The hon the Minister has indicated that the money is available and he has argued that the expenditure is necessary. He has not tried to argue that it could not have been foreseen in every case, which I thought was wise on his part. I do not think, however, that he dealt adequately with the question of financing in an acceptable fashion. I think some of the expenditure is both desirable and necessary. Let me deal with two of the items. The first is the question of defence. I think there is a fallacy in the public mind that with the peace in Angola we are going to be able to reduce defence expenditure substantially. It may well be that the price of peace in Angola is higher than the price of war. There are going to be longer borders, different strategic considerations and matters of different relative importance regarding the activities of the SADF. I think one should not be surprised if the hon the Minister of Defence makes greater demands on the Exchequer.

The second item is the question of the police and the extra expenditure that occurred. I would like the hon the Minister of Law and Order to convey to the members of his Police Force that it was a considerable achievement that they kept the level of violence so low during the municipal elections, if one keeps the threats of intimidation and boycotts in mind. I believe that the tremendous task the police had to perform to maintain law and order during the municipal elections has not been recognised. We only have to think of the number of polling booths that there were in order to realize the immense task that confronted the police at that time.

Obviously the extra money that is spent on housing is welcome. It comes out of the Iscor moneys on which we have had a considerable debate. That debate is still not finished because the taking of money in this way, judged by commercial standards and by the principles of public finance, is without doubt not satisfactory. The question that is going to have to be asked and is going to have to be dealt with is whether in fact housing is to be regarded as a matter of current expenditure or capital expenditure. I believe we are going to have to spend some time on this matter.

The most contentious aspect of the additional estimates is the question of staff increases, and the reason why they had to come in January instead of April has as yet not been explained adequately. If in terms of a mild upswing—and there was only a mild upswing—there is a drain away of manpower to the private sector, what is going to happen if ever we have a boom in South Africa? It will be an unmitigated disaster if this is what in fact happens during a mild upswing. The truth is that this is being caused by the failure of the policies of training and education of the past. We have a shortage, and because of our failures in the past, we have to pay a price.

How high are the salaries going to rise in the public service? Talking of competitive situations, the current cost to the State of the remuneration package of a Director General, including all his perks, is just under a quarter of a million rand per year. How much higher than a quarter of a million rand for a remuneration package can one go? Certainly there must be a limit.

Insofar as the handling of the salary increases in the public service is concerned, a lot more explanations have to be given and we cannot only ascribe it to the municipal elections. I think we need to debate this at far greater length in the future. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, it is always an honour to speak after the hon member for Yeoville because he sets the tenor of the debate and he steals all that we have to say because we know he is an expert on finance and the watchdog of Parliament as far as financial expenditure is concerned.

However, let me tell the hon the Minister this afternoon that I want to compliment him upon keeping a good check on expenditure as far as other ministries are concerned. Although we know that there are a few ministries which have overspent the number of ministries that have overspent are down to a minimum this year. We know that he has asked us for an additional R539 million, or an increase of 151%, for the public servants’ salary increase. This is more than 30% of the requirements of the additional budget.

Government spending has been overshot by R1,76 billion. This is 4,5% higher than was originally budgeted for. I agree that we have overspent. The Department of Foreign Affairs has overspent to the tune of R123 million, which will mostly be for salary adjustments. This is not only for the South African staff’s salary adjustments, but also for those in some of the independent states. I presume the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs will give us an explanation as to the extent of our involvement in the secondment of public servants to the TBVC states.

The Department of Finance has overspent, as we note, a sum of approximately R13 million, which we presume the hon the Minister will give an explanation for.

As far as what the Margo Report has said with regard to spending on the collection of taxes is concerned, we in South Africa spend the lowest amount of money in the collection of revenue compared with countries overseas.

We spend something like 1,9% of our total Budget on the collection of revenue, whilst other countries spend as much as 8% or 9%. I hope that the R13 million which the hon the Minister’s department overspent, was used to collect more money for us.

To come back to the provinces, one of the problems we have, is with the overspending of the Transvaal Provincial Administration. Here I want to question the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. Hospital services are in such a chaotic state at the moment and health services in the Transvaal have come to a standstill. We know of the commissioning of a new hospital in Ellisras, the commissioning of additional beds at hospitals in Johannesburg such as Baragwanath Hospital, the commissioning of the new hospital for Indians in Lenasia and the hospital at Laudium. However, it makes me look silly this afternoon to say that the post of superintendent at the local hospital in Laudium has been frozen because it has been restricted by the Commission for Administration to the sum of only R85 000. We cannot find the money to get a superintendent for that hospital, yet the province has overspent by some R800 million—R813 million in all. I find this unacceptable.

We know that the Department of Defence is asking us to approve the biggest slice of overexpenditure, namely R460 million. We give it to them because we know of the peace initiatives in Angola and South West Africa and we know this is for a very good cause.

The previous speaker, the hon member for Yeoville, mentioned the overspending of the Police Force. We agree that the Police Force had no option but to overspend the R35 million which is required. However, here too, the amount which has been overspent must be properly budgeted for. We must look at the Vote: Law and Order in this year’s Budget so that they do not overspend next year. We must make adequate provision for the extra amount. They have problems and we must support the Department of Law and Order.

Mr Speaker, the hon member who spoke before me usually makes a positive contribution and I therefore take pleasure in following him. I should like to refer to the two contributions by the hon members for Barberton and Yeoville. The hon member for Barberton was obviously fully entitled to express criticism of the hon the Minister’s Additional Appropriation.

He forgot, however, to ask the question which was put by the hon member for Yeoville, which is whether it was essential and whether it was possible to avoid.

I think that the hon member did not provide himself with the answer to this question because, if one stops at that point and deducts the amount related to flood damage—it amounts to R187 million—plus expenditure related to the Defence Force—here he and I will agree that we dare not touch this—plus provincial expenditure, one finds that only a very small amount remains. The percentage difference between the Main Appropriation and the Additional Appropriation is less than 2%. That is why I cannot support the hon member for Barberton’s argument that the hon the Minister had not taken careful note of certain aspects and that the Additional Appropriation was indefensible.

I think the hon member for Yeoville put four relevant questions and placed this perception in the correct context.

†I want to agree with the hon member for Yeoville that the SADF will have to look at their situation, and so should we as Parliament, to see whether it is possible that we could have a cheaper peace than the war we have in Angola.

*I think the hon member has a case in his reference to the matter of personnel budgets but to my mind his case reaches only a certain point. I agree with him that we shall have to examine increases which are being given. It might be interesting in this regard if the hon the Minister would take us further into his confidence by telling us whether it was a net increase of 15% or whether there were additional increases apart from the 15%. This might explain the big difference.

The point at which the hon member for Yeoville and I start differing radically with one another—I do not really consider it a difference; it is actually a matter of perception—is that I am of the opinion that it does not matter how much one pays a person providing he earns it in the first place.

†I think the hon member will agree with me that one must pay somebody whatever he earns if he deserves it. I think he and I will also agree that if one pays somebody such a fantastic salary he should deliver the goods. Therefore, what both he and I suggest to the hon the Minister is that we will have to start thinking about drastically reducing the staff that we have at our disposal at the moment because that is the only way to contain the expenditure that is rising annually. That actually coincides with what the hon member for Laudium said.

*The hon the Minister and I were in contact with each other as regards the way in which the Spanish additional appropriation is financed and that is by means of insurance. I gave the hon the Minister a circular on the subject. That is why I think that we should perhaps consider insuring against serious damage through flood or drought. I am of the opinion that in extraordinary situations we should deal with them in that way or at least investigate it and see whether this cannot perhaps provide a solution.

The fifth and last question which we should put to ourselves—I am referring to the hon member for Barberton and the hon member for Yeoville’s four questions—is whether the expenditure budgeted for in the Additional Appropriation should possibly have been given preference among other priorities. I want to put only one point, which is that I think as regards provincial expenditure an effort should perhaps be made to exercise greater control over it and to link it up with the main machinery. This perhaps remains somewhat of a weak link to which the hon the Minister could possibly attend.

Mr Chairman, when we come to the Additional Appropriation Bill for this year as a charge against the State Revenue Account dealing with moneys for the requirements of the State in respect of the financial year ending 31 March 1989,1 say firstly: Let us congratulate the hon the Minister on the fact that, despite certain limitations and factors militating against his concept …

Order! Will the hon member please speak up a bit?

I am sorry if I spoke too softly. I am a very nice soft-spoken guy in case you do not know it!

Firstly then, let us congratulate the hon the Minister on the fact that despite certain limitations and factors militating against his concept of financial control, he has somehow managed to exercise and keep control over the monetary situation. This was well illustrated when he said in his speech here today that, for example, under item 5 of the additional appropriation the actual amount as originally projected and which is to be charged to the State Revenue Account is about a R100 million less. Well, a R100 million is quite a bit to save.

Then I have to comment on pensions. The proposed charge to the State Revenue Account in respect of pensions seems at a glance to be reasonable and gratifying. However, he did not give me the figures for Black pensions and I would like to have them if the hon the Minister can oblige me at some time or other.

When we read under item 9, Administration: House of Assembly: Improvement of social pensions and allowances, R8 765 million, we have no problem with that. We also have no problem with item 24, Administration: House of Representatives: Improvement of social pensions and allowances, R30 805 million. Neither do we have problems with item 25, Administration: House of Delegates: Improvement of social pensions and allowances, R7 066 million.

I would like and expect the figure for the Blacks to be much more than the figure of R30 million for the House of Representatives. I hope the hon the Minister is going to tell me it is going to be approximately R105 million.

I want to put a query to the hon the Minister with regard to the subsidising of transport for Blacks. We know that the subsidising of transport for Coloureds and Indians is dealt with by a separate Act that was passed by Parliament in 1966. We look at those figures and hear of the subsidies being given directly to the bigger transport companies like Putco, Eastern Province Tramways and City Tramways. A new mode of transport, namely kombi-taxis, has now come into being. This is used largely by Blacks and most of the Coloured people on the Cape Flats and in other places.

I want to return to the figure of R1 247 000 for the subsidising of transport for Blacks. How is this money distributed? Will the whole happy lot go to these transport companies that are run by Whites or will provision be made to make these subsidies available to associations like Sabta and others and to the smaller Black companies that are now operating?

Even under the laws relating to transport services for Coloureds and Indians—perhaps I should query this at another stage—in terms of which most of that money goes to companies like City Tramways, Eastern Province Tramways and Putco, are we not considering finding some modus vivendi whereby some of that subsidisation can be channelled through to the private companies of the small taxi-owners or to some association or other so that even they can benefit from these subsidies? I put that to the hon the Minister and I hope he will supply me with some answers. For the rest, I want to congratulate him on his whole exercise here.

Mr Speaker, at the outset I want to refer briefly to certain aspects of the Additional Appropriation Bill and I wish to express, as a Natalian, deep appreciation for the flood assistance that was made available for Natal in particular. I must point out that the effects of this flood damage will be visible for many years to come. While the contribution the Government has made has helped materially in meeting present problems, the scars will be evident for many years to come.

I also want to mention that I fully appreciate and understand the increased allocations that are required for the police and for defence. I think that it is very relevant that we should particularly take note of the feelings of the people in the townships. This is where I do not subscribe in any way to certain sentiments of people with more liberal philosophies than myself who are strongly convinced that the presence of the police and the Defence Force in the townships must be removed. When one speaks to the inhabitants of these townships, one is assured by those who lead responsible lives and by those who can be classified as responsible people that they require this form of presence in the townships. We must accept the fact that this is going to be an additional expense on the taxpayer.

I think, when assessing aspects of the Bill, one should take into consideration the role that inflation has played in making it necessary for the hon the Minister to seek additional funds for the purpose of running the country.

It is a source of considerable concern that domestically consumers in this country are becoming so punch-drunk from price increases that they tend to accept these increases as a matter of course. I make bold to say that because of this attitude consumers are allowing themselves to be made the victims of exploitation, of profiteering and of plain avarice. My question to the hon the Minister is: What precautions are observed in Government departments to ensure that as far as possible, and despite the system of tender, these departments are not also victims of the trend whereby local prices and costings have in many cases been allowed to escalate to a level approaching that of import parity? I must warn that the trend to move towards a basis of pricing South African goods on that of import parity will have detrimental effects in the long term, particularly in the consumption of locally produced commodities. It is imperative that the consumption of locally manufactured goods be stimulated, but at the same time these goods must not be the subject of consumer exploitation in relation to pricing.

I too wish to voice my concern at the incidence of corruption that has taken place within some Government departments, to say nothing of that of certain public representatives as well. One appreciates too certain action that has been taken, but I must emphasise that there must be no question of irregular actions being condoned in any way. By that I mean that if certain procedures have not been followed steps must be taken to remove those responsible from office forthwith. I wish to warn that the public is becoming increasingly impatient at reports that are filtering through regarding exchange control contraventions. One appreciates the fact that Government has tended to be more effective in its control over Government spending, but it is still inadequate, as the taxpayer in this country is feeling bruised and is becoming increasingly conscious of the burden he is required to carry. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the prevailing view of the Government’s management and control of the economy is that it is essentially sound enough to weather any storm. This view appears to be growing fainter and convictions appear to be diminishing as Budget Day approaches and as the fiscal and monetary pundits get busy crossing the t’s and dotting the i’s on policy documents that are to shape the nation’s budgetary future. The most obvious manifestation hereof is visible in the motivation given by the hon the Minister of Finance today for an additional expense or appropriation to tide him over in the meantime, and also in the pre-Budget lobbying now under way by industry and commerce through groups such as Assocom and the South African Federated Chamber of Industries.

They have gone beyond the predictable exercise of only seeking tax concessions. They are in fact now beginning to express concern that unless the Government controls expenditure and mobilises its resources more efficiently, even the projected growth rate identified by the hon the Minister may not be achieved.

While I acknowledge that various contingencies are imposed upon us and are invariably unforeseen—hence the additional appropriation which the hon the Minister seeks—I believe that the hon the Minister must relentlessly pursue his commitment to control without controls. He must in other words lift strangulatory regulations, foster greater competitiveness and cut down even further on Government expenditure in the public sector.

We cannot allow immediate policy decisions to overtake long term planning, for instance, the latest hikes in the administered price of fuel, sugar and other tariffs, sometimes by double digit percentages. They are to my mind pre-election gambits. The idea is that with a resource crunch staring the country in the face the Government can mop up some additional revenue in this way in order to narrow the deficit and avoid presenting a politically unpalatable budget in Parliament on 15 March.

This sort of stop-gap measure is harmful and therefore the need for an additional appropriation. The hon the Minister should know the ancient economic dictum that when one wants more of something, subsidise it and when one wants less, tax it. In giving benefits to the public sector, which in most cases fail to generate their own resources, the Government is seen to be espousing a cause which it claims to be opposed to. I concede that while the hikes may help temporarily to moblise some resources, the effect on the consumer may be harsh in terms of the inflation associated with correlated rises in the price of public transport, freight charges etc.

While we may be assured of a drop in the inflation rate, we cannot overlook the fact that a major part of the reason for inflation is the continuing budgetary deficit. The gap between what the Government spends and the resources available to it is routinely met by simply asking for more money, in other words the Additional Appropriation Bill. Where the money will come from is anybody’s guess, but that raising it will fuel inflation is a certainty.

Finally, we seem to be caught between unproductive political goals and programmes that are really unnecessary and price increases. We appear to be caught in a pincer movement and therefore I support the view that what is urgently needed is a revision of the Government’s entire economic philosophy.

Mr Speaker, I should like to thank hon members for their contributions to this debate. This is the first time the Additional Appropriation is being debated in this fashion, and it is quite an interesting way to do so.

I immediately want to refer to hon members’ remarks and try to deal with them as quickly as possible. I am very grateful for the fact that the hon member for Barberton—his criticism notwithstanding—here and there at least had some understanding of certain essential expenditure.

As far as the question of salaries is concerned, we must understand one another very well. The municipal election did not feature in the debate about this matter which took place in the Cabinet. I stated very clearly what our basic motivation was. As far as the Department of Finance was concerned, at that stage I was informed by the Chief Director: Administration that we had already lost 10 economists. My hon colleague, the hon the Minister of National Education, reported to the Cabinet that there was an exodus of highly qualified people from education. Justice is another example. What about the SA Defence Force?

The hon member could perhaps say that in this way we were being a little over-optimistic in thinking that the private sector would necessarily play along with us. One could have a very long argument about this, but the simple truth of the matter is that for a very long time those in the public sector have had a reasonable degree of job security in comparison with those in the private sector. In the private sector thousands of people were dismissed. In the private sector people received no increases at all.

There is nevertheless a difference in basic remuneration structures. The economy grew a bit more rapidly than was planned, and the exodus of the best qualified people from the Public Service and the overall public sector began. The Government was left with no other choice but to announce, even long before the time, that there were certain prospects and that there was light at the end of the tunnel. The Government urged people not to resign merely because they thought they would not be getting any increases at all.

Let me put it this way. It would have been a very irresponsible government which, having obtained the figures—inter alia also those made public by the teachers’ associations—did not react to those figures. There is nothing sinister in the fact that this was announced long before the time. The mere fact of prospects for better salaries resulted in valuable manpower remaining in the Public Service.

There is an aspect which the hon member must discount in the statement he made about our having made that announcement with a view to the municipal election. I trust that was not his intention, but from that the conclusion can be drawn that the hon member thinks the officials can be bought, because in granting a salary increase we would be creating a better atmosphere to obtain support for us in a specific election. I do not think that loyal officials deserve to have such a suggestion made. I think that some or other time the hon member must give his unequivocal view on this matter, because the officials would no doubt greatly appreciate this.

The hon member spoke of the overspending in the provinces being so high. In the case of the provinces we have a formula in terms of which we work. There is always something that comes back at the end of the financial year. If I may put this in plain language, we still have the remnants of the deferred-payment culture.

In the case of two provinces the hospital budgets have been exceeded to a considerable degree. I am extremely concerned about that. I have not had a chance to check up on this again, but if I remember correctly, in the case of the Transvaal it is an amount of R150 million and in the case of the Cape an amount of R100 million. If we simply cut those amounts off, this would cause tremendous misery in some quarters. In two of the biggest provinces these are the causes of the overspending.

At the moment an exhaustive investigation is being made into the financing of hospitals and health services. In this regard I want to say that we will have to look very closely at the utilisation of existing facilities. We shall have to ascertain what savings can be made. Eventually we will have to face up to the unavoidable effect of possible privatisation, but I do not want to anticipate matters. These are the matters which we are going to examine closely and which very definitely can be brought to our attention.

The hon member also referred to public debt servicing costs. Yes, I have said this frequently in public. It is a tragedy that at this stage of the game the third largest Vote is none other than serving the public debt. I have said repeatedly that there are the times in which we are living. In recent years we have financed a very large amount by way of loans, an amount devoted to current expenditure. This is a fact and basically this is where the volume of public debt was given very great impetus, which resulted in interest payable being far higher than before.

I have also told the hon member that we have this tremendous dilemma in this regard. At present we have these tremendous demands being made on the Treasury; on the one hand from the Security Services to maintain order in South Africa and to safeguard our borders, and on the other we have these tremendous demands being made in the social sphere.

A large number of children are flocking to the schools, whereas in the highly qualified sectors, or should I say high-level education, constant large investments must be made to ensure that, in accordance with the recommendation by the Economic Advisory Council, the First-World component, the head that must sustain this big body, does not flag, because South Africa cannot afford to lag behind technologically.

A dual purpose has consequently been served with regard to education and with regard to housing which is a fundamental regulating measure and which also gave us a useful stimulus. It solved a social problem, but as one of the basic requirements for economic growth, or one of the basic multipliers, it provided a stimulus to get the economy going. I could carry on in this vein.

The confluence of conflict-controlling expenditure, which came to a head as never before in our history, with the expenditure we must incur in respect of demands made in the social sphere on those investments, which we must make to reduce the potential for conflict, together with a blighted economy, is undoubtedly something we have never experienced to the same extent before. For that reason I have no difficulty in standing here and defending the fact that we had a very big increase in the Public Debt in recent years, and I am prepared to admit that we spent very large sums by way of loans on current expenditure and that we really could not do anything else.

A few days ago in this Chamber I quoted the hon member for Barberton a passage from a presidential economic report from the USA in which it was stated categorically that expenditure on education was a capital investment, an investment in human capital. Consequently, ifwe are striving to reach the figure of 3% as an ideal, we are not doing so because it is the ideal ratio from the IMF point of view, but we are considering what the structure of capital expenditure is at the moment.

For that reason I want to argue that even if the servicing of the Public Debt is a very high figure today, all the figures incorporated in it in recent years are justifiable, and the definition of this as simply being current expenditure cannot be perfectly justified. We could also have an exhaustive discussion on this.

In one respect the hon member is quite right, because we did have a considerable increase in State revenue owing to the minimum tax on companies, the tax on fuel and the phasing out of debtor allowances as far as GST is concerned. That is why when the announcement was made, we insisted that the financing be done.

†That brings me to the point that the hon member for Yeoville made, namely whether we could have foreseen this expenditure. Maybe we could have foreseen it but at that stage we were conducting a series of interviews with private sector interests in order to see whether we could not give it a final death blow, and, if not, then at least give this vicious circle of salary increases and increases in costs a decent interruption.

In spite of the fact that we had to go back on our own expectations and grant salary increases towards the end of the financial year, I do believe that we have made an impact. To the extent that it already manifests itself in last year’s inflation figure I dare say that that particular approach, if not by way of salary increases right up to the end of the financial year, at least made some contribution towards the breaking of this vicious circle of cost and salary increases.

I would also like to refer to the whole question of privatisation and the Iscor transaction. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must please lower their voices. This cannot go on. The hon the Minister may proceed.

On various occasions I have explicitly said that that R600 million transaction was a preliminary step towards privatisation. The main purpose of generating that R600 million was that here we had the IDC, extremely well capitalised and maybe in terms of the broad perspective of South Africa’s financial situation at that stage relatively over-capitalised, and here there was the Development Bank of Southern Africa, the Small Business Development Corporation and also various housing institutions which were under-capitalised. That R600 million was used by and large to effect a better distribution of available capital to make sure that we would be addressing those places where the need is the greatest.

We can talk about the best possible way to utilise that amount and I will immediately concede that our number one priority for the application of the proceeds of privatisation will be to reduce the public debt. That is a fundamental problem, as I have already indicated in my remarks.

The eventual benefit of a reduction in the public debt to the taxpayer is also less pressure on the tax burden. It must eventually make a contribution towards alleviating the plight of the taxpayer.

*The hon member for Barberton said that State expenditure remained unacceptably high. The hon member must tell me whether he really thinks that State expenditure, as we on the Government side interpret it, can be reduced, on the scale he would appear to be propagating, by drastically curtailing the expenditure by way of Treasury allocations to the national and independent states, for example. I should very much like to know.

I want to state categorically—the other day I asked to be given figures, and my hon colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, argues this point over and over again—that the per capita expenditure in the TBVC countries from the Treasury of the Republic of South Africa is lower than in the self-governing national states. This in turn, is lower than in the metropolitan areas, because matters are jumbled together in the metropolitan areas and one can consequently not always identify them in isolation and budget for them.

Hospital and other services are provided for a hotchpotch of population groups and one cannot therefore identify them on a per capita basis. It is impossible to disentangle this unless one is prepared to run off into the desert like a lunatic! That entanglement of the South African economy is after all final, and for that reason it is difficult to make calculations. However, that is not the point.

The point is that the CP must look at the so-called “big spenders” in the economy. Firstly they must tell us frankly whether or not they are prepared to cut back on the largest single Vote, National Education. It is easy to give us that answer. The hon member said that State expenditure was unacceptably high. I am now asking him to stand up in this Chamber and tell us how much money we must take away from education under National Education, because that is the so-called “big spender”.

It is no use talking here about the small departments which spend R20 million, R30 million or R40 million—these are relatively small amounts. In their case we save 10%; in the long run we may then save 25% of that department’s budget. But what is RIO million when we are talking about the tax burden?

Who is the second “big spender”? Of course it is the Defence Force. The CP must stand up in this Chamber and tell us whether we must take money away from the Defence Force. After all, the Defence Force is a “big spender”. That is where large sums of money are being spent. The CP must tell us whether they want us to spend less money there.

The hon the Minister of Law and Order has approximately R2 billion. Must we take money away from him? In any event, he is not even in the same league as the really big spenders. He is not there yet. When I look at his face, it seems as if he would very much like to be there. [Interjections.] Yes, that is also the impression I get when I look at hon members in this Chamber who are asking for bigger expenditure on the SA Police Force.

Sir, these are the two big spenders. Where must that money be taken from? I now want to refer to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

How dreadful!

The expenditure there is relatively low in comparison with what is achieved. Let us look at the provinces. Must we take money from that source? We have already cut the expenditure of the provinces to the bone. I want to hear what the hon members of the CP have to say about this. The hon member for Barberton made a statement here that State expenditure remained unacceptably high. We all have our own priorities. I have argued many times in the Cabinet, and in public, that a Government’s pattern of expenditure reflects its priorities in accordance with its understanding of the mandate it received at the polls.

Let us now pretend that the CP has received a mandate from the voters, and let us see, in one of the forthcoming financial debates, how the CP would draw up a budget in order to make State expenditure acceptable. After all, it is no use our simply being given such generalities; we must know what kind of political opponents and opposing political and fiscal measures we are dealing with. What is the alternative for the voters when the CP tells them they will pay less tax because the CP is going to lower State expenditure? Let us tell the voters of South Africa, via Parliament, what the CP is going to take away from them when it comes to services. What are the CPIs priorities? I feel they owe us an answer in this regard.

†The hon member for Yeoville very concisely gave us the yardsticks for evaluating the additional appropriation. He accepted our argument on the basis of what is necessary and of whether the money is available. Another question is whether we have in fact financed it on a healthy basis. That we will only learn when the main Budget is submitted to Parliament. However, as far as the foreseen side of this is concerned, I think he will agree with me on one point: that maybe criticism can be levelled at us on account of our extra expenditure on salaries. However, I sincerely feel that on all the others, I do not think that this particular criterion is frustrated through the actions that we have taken.

The hon member made an interesting statement, namely that the price of peace may be higher than the price of war. I think that statement is fundamentally true in certain circumstances and I think we should consider that.

The hon member is absolutely correct: We all know that we have a desperate shortage of skilled people in this country, and the moment this economy grows, one finds bottlenecks in all the skilled categories of employment. That is one of the main reasons for relatively low productivity or, to put it differently, overpayment for certain basic skills. We are investing massive amounts of money in trying to rectify this issue.

I should like to ask the hon members for Laudium and Matroosfontein, as well as other hon members who had specific questions, please to use the next stage of the debate to repeat those questions. That is the reason for the very existence of this debate, namely to ask specific Ministers specific questions. I am therefore not now in a position to respond to specific questions.

*The hon member for Vasco apologised for being unable to be present, but I merely want to tell him that in addition to the 15%, there were, in fact, occupational-specific adjustments, namely R140 million for education; for tax officials, R9 million; and for various others, a total of R248 million. This gives a grand total, for occupational-specific adjustments in this financial year, of R397 million, with a considerably larger carryover effect to the following financial year.

†I wish to thank the hon member for Matroosfontein and the hon member for Laudium and other hon members who expressed words of congratulation. 1 appreciate them sincerely.

To the hon member for Mooi River I want to say that the investment by the public of South Africa in natural disasters such as the drought and the floods in the past number of years must be running into more than R2 billion by now. I am now talking about direct contributions by the fiscus. This is something that we could not foresee and it certainly places a very heavy additional burden on the taxpayer.

The hon member referred to exchange control contraventions. I spent considerable time on that particular issue in a previous debate. I just want to assure him that we are monitoring that situation every day and that we have to be very careful when allowing or disallowing the application of the financial rand so that it will be in South Africa’s best interests.

I would like to differ with the hon member for Moorcross. The Budget deficit is certainly not the major contributory factor to the rate of inflation we have in this country. Inflation in our particular case is a very complex issue and I believe it warrants a debate in the near future so that it can be properly analysed.

Debate concluded.

Question put to the House of Assembly: That the Bill be now read a first time.

Division demanded.

Declarations of vote:

Mr Speaker, we would again have preferred to have had the old procedure in terms of which we could ask for undertakings from the Minister before the voting of funds because that is the traditional and historical manner in which this vote has been dealt with in the past and in the normal course one asks for undertakings before one votes and if those undertakings are not given, one votes against the proposal.

This however regrettably we cannot do. Therefore we must record our vote against the proposal and I am here to say that the PFP will vote against the Additional Appropriation Bill for while the party recognises that there are certain necessary and unforeseen expenditure items contained in it, the Bill also seeks to appropriate funds for other activities which should have been foreseen and others which could have been avoided or delayed.

Secondly we will vote against the Bill because the additional estimates give proof of the failure of the education and training policy of the authorities which will inevitably cause bottlenecks in the skilled and semi-skilled manpower requirements of the country.

The PFP is furthermore concerned as to the value of the Budget as an instrument to lay down a plan for the fiscal element of economic policy for a particular year. We are concerned particularly as not only can proposed expenditure figures not be regarded as being reliable, but new forms and levels of taxation not referred to in either the Budget Speech or the taxation legislation are imposed during the year. For these reasons we intend to vote against the proposal.

Mr Speaker, the CP will also vote against this measure, briefly for the following reasons. The hon the Minister did not succeed in reaching his target in curtailing State expenditure. In his Main Budget last year the hon the Minister did not make provision for foreseeable expenditure which was already foreseeable, and I am referring in particular to the expenditure of the Department of Information. In some departments there is no proper control over the appropriation of State funds. Here I am referring in particular to the Department of Education and Training. For these and other reasons we shall vote against the measure.

Mr Speaker, the NP wishes to concur with the statement made by the hon the Minister in regard to this Additional Appropriation.

We wish to identify ourselves with that which is needed to keep the State machinery in working order. We also want to congratulate the respective Ministers and departments for their success in curbing State expenditure to the extent that we see before us today. It is of the utmost importance that we pay attention to it in future and we trust that the pattern that emerged here will be maintained in the future. Accordingly, we support this measure.

Question put to House of Representatives: That the Bill be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Question put to House of Delegates: That the Bill be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

The House of Assembly divided:

AYES—81: Alant, T G; Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Bekker, H J; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J van R; Botha, R F; Brazelie, J A; Breytenbach, W N; Camerer, S M; Chait, E J; Clase, P J; Cunningham, J H; De Beer, S J; De Klerk, F W; De Villiers, D J; Dilley, L H M; Du Plessis, B J; Durr, K D S; Edwards, B V; Fick, L H; Fourie, A; Geldenhuys, B L; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, P G W; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Heunis, J C; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; Jager, R; Jooste, J A; King, T J; Kotze, G J; Kriel, H J; Lemmer, J J; Ligthelm, C J; Louw, E vd M; Louw, M H; Malan, M A de M; Marais, G; Maree, J W; Matthee, J C; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, R P; Niemann, J J; Odendaal, W A; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Radue, R J; Retief, J L; Scheepers, J H L; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Schutte, D P A; Smit, F P; Smit, H A; Snyman, A J J; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, K D; Thompson, A G; Van Breda, A; Van der Merwe, C J; Van Deventer, F J; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Niekerk, A I; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Wyk, J A; Van Zyl, J G; Veldman, M H; Venter, A A; Viljoen, GvN; Vlok, A J; Welgemoed, P J; Wentzel, J J G; Wessels, L.

Tellers: Jordaan, A L; Kritzinger, W T; Meyer, W D; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside).

NOES—32: Andrew, K M; Barnard, M S; Burrows, R M; Coetzee, H J; De Beer, Z J; De Jager, C D; De Ville, J R; Hardingham, R W; Hartzenberg, F; Jacobs, S C; Le Roux, F J; Lorimer, R J; Mentz, M J; Mulder, P W A; Nolte, D G H; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Prinsloo, J J S; Schoeman, C B; Schwarz, H H; Snyman, W J; Soal, P G; Suzman, H; Swart, R A F; Treurnicht, A P; Uys, C; Van der Merwe, S S; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Wyk, W J D; Walsh, J J.

Tellers: Dalling, D J; Malcomess, D J N.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a first time.

Consideration of Schedules

Order! In view of the fact that the Houses are going to discuss the schedule of a money bill in a joint meeting for the first time since the commencement of the new Rules, I want to lay down the following guidelines for hon members.

We shall deviate from the normal procedure in that no speeches will be made from the central podium, but from podiums on the floor of the Chamber. There are six microphones for this purpose. A member who wishes to ask a question or make a speech must take his keycard out of the compartment in the desk drawer and ensure that his name, initials and constituency, whether he is an indirectly elected or nominated member, as the case may be, are correctly indicated on the card. Then he must go to the floor podium nearest to him and insert the card in the slot in front of the podium. The yellow light will come on. When the card has been inserted in the slot the member must press the black button on the right so that the green light starts flashing. The microphone will now be activated so that the member can commence his speech.

Schedule 1:

Vote No 2—“Parliament”:

Mr Speaker, as a result of the extended 1988 session, additional funds are being requested under various heads in the explanatory memorandum to this Vote. As hon members know, we had an abortive Parliamentary session from 22 August to 2 September 1988. A further session followed from 26 to 30 September 1988.1 should like the hon Leader of the House to tell me the cost of these two abortive sessions of 1988 during which these Bills were discussed and nearly all dropped.

Secondly, I should like to know from the hon Leader of the House in the Assembly whether additional costs have become payable as a result of the sittings of extended public committees on provincial matters in Pretoria, Bloemfontein and Pietermaritzburg and, if so, what the costs were.

Mr Chairman, I can give the hon member comprehensive details of the way in which this amount was made up. In total, there was additional expenditure of R1 152 000. On the other hand there were savings of R707 000. A large part of the increased expenditure was due to the additional session which the hon member referred to in such a derogatory manner as “abortive sessions”. If hon members had been more constructive we would have had shorter sessions. We have many abortive debates as a result of their poor conduct in the Chamber.

The main items responsible for the increase are R316 000 for staff expenses and R135 000 for transfer payments which have nothing to do with those sessions. Then there was miscellaneous expenditure of R701 000 which related to the loss incurred by the parliamentary catering service; R380 000 for the increased State contribution for Parmed—it has nothing to do with the “abortive sessions” the hon member referred to—and decreased group insurance premiums.

On the other hand there were savings of R232 000 on administrative expenditure and R459 000 on stores. According to the Treasury classification, the correct heading is “Stores and livestock”, but I have not been able to ascertain whether we have any dogs or cats or any other animals in Parliament. [Interjections.] Then there was a saving of R9 000 on equipment and R7 000 on professional services.

To summarise, therefore, total expenditure under the three headings is as follows: Personnel expenditure—R316 000; transfer payments—R135 000 and miscellaneous expenditure—R701 000. I have given hon members the details relating to miscellaneous expenditures in general.

The savings in respect of administration, stores, equipment and professional services amount to R707 000.

Mr Chairman, with respect, the hon the Leader of the House has not answered my question at all. We can all read, because what he has just said, is all contained in this explanatory memorandum. The question is what those two abortive sessions cost, and the hon the Leader of the House must not give an abortive answer to this.

We want to know what it cost Parliament to go to Pietermaritzburg, Bloemfontein and Pretoria. We spoke about this last year during the sittings, and we want to know from the hon the Leader of the House what the relevant amounts are, as wells as all the details. We do not want him to quote what already appears in this explanatory memorandum.

Mr Chairman, it will serve no purpose for the hon member to adopt a hard-line approach. Parliament’s budget is not drawn up to suit the CP, but in accordance with prescribed heads. Funds are allocated under those heads.

Surely I told the hon member that I could give him a detailed analysis of the increase of R316 000 under administrative expenditure. The payment of salaries is also related to the longer session, namely R179 000. Additional funds for housing subsidies and additional staff amount to R60 000. This has nothing to do with it. Miscellaneous increases—pro sano, motor vehicle allowances, service bonuses, overtime payments—amount to R77 000 as far as the Additional Appropriation is concerned. This is what it is all about. Funds are not budgeted for a session on a weekly basis, but are appropriated under certain headings. Then there are all the credits, and if the hon member does not require these details, I shall go no further, because he does not seem to be interested in this information.

Transfer payments amount to R135 000, and this is for the payment of secretarial assistance grants to members for a longer period than was expected. This is also related to the longer duration of the session.

Miscellaneous expenditure amounted to R701 000. This was as a result of a greater losses incurred by the catering service, which are also to a certain extent related to the longer 1988 session.

Increased State contributions to Parmed—this has nothing to do with it—amounted to R380 000, and reduced group insurance premiums, which likewise have nothing to do with it, R69 000.

According to all the information I could obtain, there was no additional expenditure which could in any way be attributed to the provincial sittings. Consequently, in accordance with the information supplied to me by the secretariat, I must accept that this was dealt with within the confines of the budget.

Debate concluded.

Vote No 3—“Bureau for Information”:

Mr Chairman, this additional appropriation is a request for an increase of 74%, which is an enormous amount of money and something we cannot support. We will vote against it.

At a time when the Government is engulfed in wide-ranging accusations of corruption it is hugely inappropriate to request almost R6 million to promote the NP policy of separate local authorities. After all, Sir, it is only the NP, the CP and the AWB who want separate town councils for race groups. Therefore, a request for an additional appropriation to promote a minority view with funds from the majority is a disgrace and is totally unacceptable to this side of the House, particularly as some of the information in the programme was incorrect. We believe the programme, as much as we were opposed to it, was incompetent and unsuccessful.

I would also like to know from the hon the Minister whether a total amount of R7,934 million is being requested. Although the amount requested is shown as almost R6 million, if one adds up the various amounts in the programmes they appear to come to the amount of R7,934 million. Is that the amount being requested, or is it almost R6 million?

The other major appropriation is in respect of the film industry, that is almost R9 million. I believe the hon the Minister owes this House an explanation regarding the details of the more than R9 million requested. Then, will he inform the House regarding the details of the film Back to Freedom in which a Miss Both was involved? How much has this cost, has the movie been sold, if so, to whom, and what has been the income?

About the R2 million provided for the communication strategy for deregulation, I understand the hon the Minister responsible for privatisation does not want anything to do with the bureau promoting his programme as that will be the kiss of death.

Mr Chairman, at the time of the municipal elections the hon member for Johannesburg North alleged that the bureau’s campaign for the municipal elections was simply to promote NP policy. At that stage I challenged him publicly—he was forever attacking me publicly—to produce the slightest shred of evidence that we were propagating NP policy.

†We did not even promote the concept of separate local authorities. We did not even promote that. The only thing we did was to give information to people as to how the elections worked and we encouraged people to participate in those elections. Now, if the hon member has any problem with the principle of participation in those elections, then I think his entire party should take its whole stance into consideration again—whether they should in fact themselves participate in local elections. According to what the hon member said at the time, it would be decided by local PFP branches whether they would participate on an official level in the elections.

He, on the other hand, says it is immoral to have such a policy. If it is immoral to have such a policy his party should also not participate in those elections or in Parliament whatsoever.

I repeat my challenge to the hon member that if he can show in any way that that campaign promoted anything else but participation in the election I would love to have such evidence. This hon member has an automatic knee-jerk reaction whenever the Bureau for Information does anything. He does not even take the trouble to find out what it is all about. His first and automatic reaction is that if the Bureau for Information touches it, it must be bad. I suppose it is the opposite of the Midas touch which one could perhaps call the “caecus” touch or something like that. I really cannot take notice of the criticism of the hon member for Johannesburg North, the official PFP spokesman on information, because of the ill-considered type of criticism that he levels at us every time.

He wants me to explain the R13 million budgeted for for the local film industry. It is very easy to explain. This is a function that has been transferred from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Bureau for Information and the initial R9 million that is involved, was approved in the main budget. It is an approved function. There is nothing new about it. It was transferred. We have requested an additional amount of R3,8 million. The way in which this functions, is that a subsidy formula for productions for the local market is worked out. That is then given out to the industry.

The Government is then obliged—it is a contractual obligation towards the industry—to comply with those criteria of the subsidy system. We cannot accurately predict how many films will be made in any given year. If there are fewer films made, then we need less money but if more films are made, then we need more money. Towards the end of the year we have to ask for an additional amount to cover the actual costs of the subsidy scheme.

The film Back to Freedom had nothing whatsoever to do with this scheme. It is true that, if it is registered, it will also come into consideration for a subsidy depending on its performance on the local market but there was no Government money involved in the making of the film and nothing of the R13 million has been invested in the production costs of that film. The whole question is therefore out of order.

The question was also asked what the actual cost of the municipal election promotion was. It had several aspects. The one aspect was the nationwide campaign which was run through an advertising agency and the cost of that was approximately R4,7 million but this also had several facets. A wide variety of advertisements were made, and the hon member may say that it was a bad idea to do so. He said that it is a waste of money. He said now, and he has said before, that this is a form of corruption.

We also do some market research regarding our own campaigns. In fact, we did a market survey at approximately the beginning of October while this campaign was running. We asked White voters in the Witwatersrand area—they include the type of people whom he purports to represent—to comment on the campaign. Of those people 48,6% thought this type of campaign was a “good idea”, and a further 29% thought it was an “excellent idea”. That means that 77% of those people thought it was either a “good idea” or an “excellent idea”. [Interjections.] Only about 10% of the people who were interviewed thought it was a “bad idea”.

Again regarding specifically the choice of the squirrels, or the animated characters, 38,8% of the people thought it was a “good idea”, and a further 18,2% thought it was an “excellent idea”, so that 57% thought it was either a “good” or an “excellent idea”. Only 23% thought it was “not a very good idea” or “not a good idea at all”. [Interjections.] That was the response of the people on whose behalf the hon member for Johannesburg North thinks that he is speaking when he brings all sorts of accusations like those against these campaigns. [Interjections.]

I think I shall limit my comments to that, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, I think the Additional Appropriation gives one an idea of the state of affairs in a particular department. I believe that the higher the Additional Appropriation of a department, the more mistaken the particular hon Minister was in his initial proposed estimates and planning for his Main Budget, and probably the weaker his planning and control within that department was.

This House is being requested, today, to approve an additional amount of R23 million for the Bureau for Information. At a glance it appears to be a question of the usual annual over-expenditure which, ultimately, is not that serious. When judging such an Additional Appropriation, I believe that one should consider whether these amounts could not perhaps have been provided for in the Main Budget.

One takes it for granted that a flood disaster cannot be predicted, and it is logical that it should appear in such an additional appropriation. Last year the sum of R1,6 million was requested in this additional appropriation. That constituted 5% of the initial amount, and one could say that the hon the Minister miscalculated by about 5% in his planning. He would then have been within reasonable limits.

This year, the hon the Minister is requesting R23 million, which is 75% of the amount that he requested initially. In other words, in his original budget he miscalculated by 75%. Can it be that the over-expenditure of the department is, so to speak, equal to its initial budget? A massive, unforeseen flood disaster must have hit that department. The question is whether it was not possible to have made provision for these amounts. What were these unexpected flood disasters which befell the hon the Minister, which he was unable to predict and for which he could not budget in the Main Budget?

They were inter alia the squirrels that we saw during the municipal elections, and I am referring specifically to the item of approximately R6 million which, according to an explanatory memorandum, was used for the Government’s advertising campaign during the municipal elections. That is the money that we now have to approve; the money for the squirrels on television which told us to vote for the Government, and ultimately, for the policy of the NP.

I should like to react to this by quoting one of the objectives and recommendations of the McCann Report as it appears in Hansard (Assembly, Vol 20, col 12592). The aim of the campaign is:

That is the system of the NP—

Which is the system of the Government—

The NP’s vision—

That is one of the objectives of the McCann Report as it was set out.

My question then is whether that expenditure could not have been provided for in the normal budget which was submitted initially? With regard to the evaluation … The hon member here in front of me should either keep quiet or obtain a microphone and then speak to me … The hon the Minister said that an evaluation was made and that people were asked whether they thought it was a good idea.

I think that merely to ask people whether they think something is a good idea, is to do inadequate research. If one is going to spend that amount of money, one must be sure that the person in question is planning to react accordingly. That a person thinks something is a good idea, does not mean that he will vote. Did the hon the Minister’s campaign succeed in persuading people, Black, Coloured or White to vote, because that was the aim of the campaign? If so, then we were successful, and I should like to see research results in that regard.

Mr Chairman, the first of the hon member’s two questions was basically whether we could not have foreseen this expenditure. Secondly, he asked a question with regard to research. It was a little mischievous of the hon member to play with these large amounts and to say that we had overspent by 75%. That is the same type of story that some newspapers use. The hon member is doing this even though he must know in his heart of hearts that a very major amount—the greater portion of this amount—relates to a portfolio that was added to my duties and which was transferred from one department to another. In other words, there was no way that this could have been foreseen when the previous Budget was being compiled. Furthermore, this does not represent an additional expenditure. Nine million rand of it—more than R9 million—had already been approved beforehand in the main Budget. Surely it is extremely unfair of the hon member to now lump everything together in this regard, as if I had been hit by an unforeseen flood disaster. I have just explained to the hon member for Johannesburg North where the other R3,8 million with regard to the film industry came from. It is not possible to establish beforehand how many films will be considered for a subsidy in the coming year. For that reason, we have to make adjustments in the course of the year, because by making the subsidy system public, we are actually incurring a contractual obligation towards the film industry, and we must then fulfil that obligation. That brings it to R13 million.

With regard to the other amounts, it is not possible to predict in advance exactly what major campaigns will have to be undertaken in a financial year. As the hon member is aware, whenever decisions are made with regard to communications, or whenever it becomes necessary, these things must be done there and then. We cannot foresee now exactly what campaigns will have to be undertaken in 1991, for example. It is simply not possible to do so.

In that regard, I just want to indicate that the Bureau for Information has adhered very strictly to the items that were budgeted for in the Budget. In fact, savings on the expenditure of the previous financial year were shown. In other words, we did not in any way exceed our normal activities or those that were assigned to us. However, additional circumstances arose which were not foreseeable and which necessitated the request for additional amounts. I do not, therefore, feel at all guilty. I do not, by any means, feel that there was a question of poor administration, because these amounts were used for a very good purpose.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon the Minister for his reply. I understand the many problems he has. The Bureau for Information is a difficult department, but the fact remains that we are here dealing with the concept of having been able to foresee things. It is true that one is not always able to foresee communications campaigns, but the particular case we are dealing with here involves the amount of R5 million relating to the municipal elections. I think these could have been foreseen so that it would not now have been necessary to include them in an Additional Appropriation.

We knew almost a year before the time that 26 October would be the date on which the campaign would take place. My information is that the Cabinet eventually gave it its stamp of approval in May or thereabouts. If I remember correctly, our debate in the Main Appropriation on the budget of the Bureau for Information was on Wednesday, 1 June 1988.1 understand that at that stage the hon the Minister did not have all the facts yet. It must nevertheless have been submitted in writing long before this, and the hon the Minister could merely have stated, at that stage, that the launching of such a campaign was foreseen and that it would be included in the Additional appropriation. After the hon member for Lichtenburg had spoken, following the Appropriation, about the thriller which jumped out of the fax, the hon the Minister said that he had in any case wanted to announce the campaign over the weekend. I just want to be quite clear as to whether there is a possibility that he could have foreseen and prevented such large-scale overspending this year, which would have meant less trouble for him.

Mr Chairman, one could argue until the cows came home about whether one should have been able to foresee, as early as the previous October, that one was going to undertake a campaign of that precise scope. The point is that even when one foresees, at an early stage, that one is going to undertake a campaign, one cannot go to the Treasury and ask for an amount of between R1 million and RIO million because one would like to conduct a campaign. One must first determine the needs that exist and find out precisely what one wants to do, and then draw up an estimate for that. Only then can one approach the Government and the Treasury to ask for the money. Therefore this could not have been done long before the time.

On the other hand, there was never any intention on our part to conceal that campaign. From the outset it had been determined that when the final decisions were taken we would inform the Press of this long before we launched the campaign.

It serves no purpose for the hon member to quote long passages from the McCann Report, because those were not our decisions. It is true that those people submitted certain considerations to us, but the fact that we accepted their campaign proposals does not mean that we accepted all their arguments in every respect or fully agreed with them. Broadly speaking it was their concepts which were unacceptable to us. That is the fact of the matter. They might perhaps, tongue-in-cheek, say to us “but this is what your people think of you”, or something in that vein, but they cannot lay those considerations at the door of the Bureau for Information or the Government. The reasons why we accept their concepts are different from the considerations they submit to us to indicate why they think the campaign should be conducted.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I believe you have not as yet put the Vote. Do you intend to put it at the end of the discussion or will you put it now?

Yes, I think I will put it at the end of the discussion. We might save time in that manner.

Debate concluded.

Vote No 4—“Commission for Administration”:

Mr Chairman, I should like to ask the relevant hon Minister what progress has been made with the naturalisation of all the people in the country so that general affairs can come into their own in this Parliament and also in Government.

Mr Chairman, the question from the hon member for Mamre has no bearing on the Additional Appropriation, but I can tell the hon member that the interests of all population groups in the Public Service are constantly under scrutiny.

Debate concluded.

Vote No 5—“Improvement of conditions of service”:

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Yeoville has touched already on the extension of the amount required for conditions of service. It is the largest section of the Additional Appropriation Bill making up an increase of 151% on the amount originally voted last year.

We have particular problems with the reply the hon the Minister of Finance has already given. Let me just trace if I may the history of events. The hon the State President when he opened Parliament last year made a point to speak on the economy and made a particular point to speak on conditions of service of the public service. He said:

The hon the Minister of Finance carried on later last year on the part appropriation, during the very debate we are having now. He said:

He justified where there should be no increase last year. The situation continued with the hon the Minister for Administration and Privatisation, who will be replying to this vote, issuing a Press statement on 13 June 1988 after discussions, in particular with the teaching profession—he was aware at that stage it was suffering from a terminal sickness through people leaving—in which he said after giving an additional R205 million it must be emphasised that only the most urgent and serious problems can be addressed.

Then out of the blue in September comes this 151% increase. Against that I want to attack the hon the Minister by stating that the 21 pay levels he has in the public service cannot be justified. A 15% increase at the top of the public service is a very good increase but when one gives a 15% increase to somebody below the poverty datum line he will go on strike as they struck in hospitals and schools in Durban last year.

Mr Chairman, with reference to Vote 5, we find the following explanation on page 1:

My question in this regard is what contribution was made to the savings by each department concerned in this regard.

In conjunction with this we now have to deduce that, if the question of salary improvements had not come up by way of conditions of service, R120 million could not have been saved in this connection. The third question refers to page 2, subparagraph (e) of the explanatory memorandum, according to which it appears that—

My question in this regard is what this amount was originally intended for and how it came about that this amount could be added to the Vote concerned.

Mr Chairman, if I may, I should like first of all to answer the hon member for Losberg’s question in connection with the R160 000 which was withheld from the Department of Manpower’s budget and added to the improvement of conditions of service. This was an occupationally specific adjustment concerning occupational safety personnel. Payment of amounts may be suspended in terms of powers vested in the Treasury. In this case it happened after an inquiry had been carried out by the commission on occupationally specific adjustments in a variety of occupational groups. The amount was again allocated to the commission for the financing of this improvement.

†The hon member for Pinetown referred to the statement made by the hon the State President at the beginning of last year. He is quite correct. It was the intention to keep salaries down as much as possible. The market did however change regardless of a request to the private sector to contain salary increases. There was a general rise in salaries right through the market.

My colleague the hon the Minister of Finance indicated that we had problems retaining some of our staff. I can think of a number of professional groups we had particular problems with in regard to retaining personnel in the public service and therefore we had to reconsider the situation towards the end of the year.

The State’s income—the funds flowing into the State’s coffers—was of such a nature that it was apparent we could finance a salary increase without imposing additional taxes. These increases—the point was also raised by the hon member for Yeoville—could therefore be financed in a sound manner.

So, the situation changed from the beginning of the year towards the end of the year, and the Government had to take cognizance of the pressures exerted on the employees of the State. To provide an adequate service we had therefore to consider increases in salaries. The most important point here is that they could be financed in a sound manner.

*Mr Chairman, as regards the hon member for Losberg, total savings in consequence of available posts which were not filled—vacancies which exist—were R120 million. The hon member will recall that the Cabinet decided, over and above existing personnel standstill measures, to do away with all posts for which departments had not budgeted and to remove all vacant posts from the establishment which could not be filled within six months for the further purpose of cutting down on the Public Service establishment.

In addition there is also the normal staff turnover which gives rise to savings and total savings of R120 million could be contributed in this way by departments to the ultimate financing of the salary increase.

Debate concluded.

Vote No 6—“Development Planning”:

Mr Chairman, much has been said about the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act in this House and in the Press. With Boksburg becoming synonymous with the total application of racist and discriminatory NP legislation, my question to the hon the Minister is what the intentions of the Government are. Will they, firstly, scrap this Act as something which is morally indefensible? Secondly, will they merely substitute this Act by another, so that it is known by a different name, as intimated by the hon the Minister of National Education and the leader-in-chief of the NP in a Network interview—I think he referred to it as a “community relations Bill” or something of that nature? Thirdly, are they intending to maintain this atrocious Act on the Statute Book?

I note that in item 2.7.1 provision is made for R9,7 million for beaches etc in Walvis Bay. We see that in terms of the agreement, Walvis Bay is to remain part of South Africa. The question to the hon the Minister is: Is this money to be spent to develop separate beaches in Walvis Bay, is it to maintain the separate beaches and resorts there, or is it for the purposes of opening all the beaches and developing more open beaches? The differences between Swakopmund and Walvis Bay are tremendous. It would appear that Walvis Bay is to be our little Boksburg in Namibia.

Then, in particular, there is the question of King’s Beach, with which we are all familiar, and which the White people of Port Elizabeth voted in a referendum to open. The city council voted for it to be opened, and referred it to the Administrator about two years ago. The Supreme Court found that the beach had never been properly demarcated, and that the beach was therefore an open beach. The hon the Minister and the Administrator have appealed against this, and I should like to know whether the hon the Minister is prepared to withdraw his appeal in the Supreme Court. Alternatively, does the Administrator wish to maintain King’s Beach as a separate White beach?

Order! I was not aware of the fact that this matter was sub judice. Apparently that is the case and that makes it difficult for me to allow discussion thereon. Apparently there is an appeal pending.

It has been going on ad infinitum, Sir. Two seasons have already passed

Order! The matter is still sub judice.

Mr Chairman, I do not think the matter raised by the hon member for Addo falls under the discussion of the additional expenditure and for that reason I do not think I have to reply to his question concerning the situation in Boksburg. I will deal with that matter on a suitable occasion.

On the second question concerning Walvis Bay I would like to say that two allocations were made in connection with the upgrading of Langstrand and Dolphin Park. According to my knowledge the one beach is open and the other is not. Both are being upgraded according to the allocation mentioned in the additional appropriation.

As far as the beach situation in Port Elizabeth is concerned I do not think that that falls under the discussion of this additional appropriation either. I do not think this is a suitable occasion to reply to that question either. We can deal with it when we discuss the provincial allocation. That matter may come up for consideration on that occasion.

Mr Chairman, I am not quite sure what the hon the Deputy Minister’s answer is. Are they going to keep the one beach in Walvis Bay closed and the other open? Is that the intention of the Government?

As regards King’s Beach, who is going to bear the cost of that court case?

Mr Chairman, under Programme 4 an additional amount of R29 million is requested in respect of three items, namely incentives for private road transport, housing subsidies and relocation costs. The first question which arises is whether all three items which are mentioned here are connected with projects from abroad or whether this need arises merely as regards relocation costs of projects from abroad.

The question of incentives for private road transport creates a problem nowadays because incentives can very easily be misinterpreted at present. The following questions have occurred to us. What is the nature of these incentives? Are they subsidies or are they merely casual additional payments or what are they exactly? Are they incentives open to everyone or are they selective incentives and what is the amount involved?

We should like to know the following as regards the housing subsidy. Is it connected with projects from abroad or not? Where is the housing situated which is at issue here and what is the amount involved?

Lastly, we should like to know the following on the matter of relocation costs for projects from abroad. What costs are at issue here and where are these projects located? How do they originate in connection with the resurgence of the economy? What is the relationship? We also wish to know how these costs connected with projects from abroad fall under the concept of regional development.

Mr Chairman, as far as the hon member for Ermelo’s question is concerned, I want to say briefly that the amount by which this programme is to be increased, that is R29 million, certainly represents substantial growth as regards activities in this connection. In fact, at this stage it appears to cover growth of approximately 16% as regards projects attached to regional development. I think this is a most heartening sign. I think it is a very good and effective investment, in other words, to bring about growth of 16% at a total increase of only 9% as regards expenditure on regional industrial projects from the preceding financial year to this one. I should like the hon member to consider this in the first place.

I cannot give him details now on each project connected with housing and subsidisation of transport. I should very much like to make them available to him in writing. If I were to go into detail on this subject now, we would take up the time of the House unnecessarily. From the nature of the case this covers the total regarding all projects which are involved. I should like to emphasise that the growth which is represented here is certainly to be ascribed to the fact that there is growth and a resurgence in the economy which, in other words, resulted in a total growth of 16% in the projects which are at issue here for subsidisation.

Mr Chairman, unfortunately we have not yet had any reply regarding the aspect of the “incentives” which are a mystery to us. May I enquire, as regards the additional amount of approximately R32 million which forms part of the Vote under Programme 6, whether this is further unforeseen urban development. In other words, did urbanisation at a specific place occur even faster than was foreseen? Secondly, the same question arises regarding squatting and we should also like a reply to that. We want to know in the first place, however—as we asked in the very first question—what the incentives are. How a person is to be provided with incentives for private road transport presents us with somewhat of a problem.

Mr Chairman, maybe I should first come back to the hon member for Addo. I think he raised a question to which I have not replied.

According to my information, the one beach at Walvis Bay is open to all races and the other one is closed at the moment. I am not quite sure what the position will be in the future as far as that is concerned, but that is the situation at the moment.

As I have said earlier, that particular question is not really part of this budget. We can consider the whole position when we come to that Vote on a later occasion. [Interjections.]

*As regards Programme 6, the hon member for Ermelo asked whether unforeseen urbanisation was the issue here now. I should like to refer him to the explanatory memorandum, item 2.6, in which the amounts are set out. Provision is made inter alia for an amount of R34 million for use in connection with problems arising from squatting. He deduced from this that the lion’s share of this amount would be used to deal with specific situations concerning squatting.

I can furnish the hon member with details—I have them here—on where the various provinces intend using these amounts but I shall not take up the time of the House with this. I can merely tell him that Natal can use an amount of approximately R3,6 million for this. This includes certain urban as well as certain rural areas. The Free State has R1,5 million, the Northern Cape R1,3 million, the Eastern Cape R3,9 million, almost R4 million, the Western Cape almost R5 million and the Transvaal almost R18 million at their disposal. This represents a reasonable spread of urban and semi-urban as well as rural areas where these amounts will be used for specific problems regarding squatting. These are situations which arose in consequence of the process of urbanisation and which were not necessarily clearly indicated or foreseen at the beginning of the financial year although they obviously form part of the continuous handling of problems with squatters and urbanisation.

As regards the hon member’s question on Programme 4, I have already told him that I do not wish to take up the time of the House now by analysing all the details of each project for him because this would mean that we would have to work our way through long lists. Nevertheless I should be pleased to make these available to him in writing if he is really serious about them.

Vote No 7—“Foreign Affairs”:

Mr Chairman, I would like to know from the hon the Minister if there has been an increase in the funds to promote the positive changes in South Africa in the outside world; if not, why not, and the hon the Minister’s comments on this matter.

Mr Chairman, I want to refer to Programmes 2 and 3 under this heading. Programme 2 refers to an amount of some R36 million. In the explanatory memorandum it lists four items of expenditure or four possible headings which may relate to this expenditure.

In the first instance I would like to ask the hon the Minister to give us a break-down as to how the additional amount required is divided between these four items. The items are as follows, and I quote from the memorandum:

1. (A) A deficit as a result of a decrease in the value of the rand.
2. (B) Unexpected expenditure on physical security at missions abroad.
3. (C) Expenditures arising from the peace negotiations in respect of SWA/Angola.
4. (D) Unexpected expenditure in connection with the expansion of South African representation abroad.

I would like a break-down of these items. I would also like the hon the Minister to tell us what expansion has taken place in relation to the last item and why it was unexpected.

According to the memorandum, Programme 3 entails “additional budgeting aid to countries within the Economic Community of Southern Africa”. I want to say to the hon the Minister that he ought to be aware that there is very grave concern in the country over the control of expenditure in these states insofar as South African taxpayers’ money is concerned. One realises that this is an item relating to salary adjustments and I would like to know from the hon the Minister whether any control or prior discussions took place between our Government and the governments of those states relating to the arrangement of salary adjustments in those states. I would like to know if there is any surveillance as to the administration of these adjustments.

We read with pleasure that amongst the amounts are additional social pension benefits. We want to be sure that they get to the people concerned.

Mr Chairman, arising from Programme 2—“Foreign Relations”—I should like to ask the hon the Minister if the aircraft of Mr Albert Vermaas, or one of the companies under his control, were ever used or rented? If so, how much was he paid?

Mr Chairman, the question I want to ask links up with the question of the hon member for Berea. It relates to Programme 3—“Foreign Aid and Development Co-operation” —which concerns additional budgetary aid to the TBVC countries. General salary adjustments for teaching and other Public Service staff are mentioned here. What is unclear to us is whether this refers to public servants in the employ of the South African Government, or public servants in the employ of the TBVC countries?

The media recently made special mention of the exceptionally high salaries of this country’s presidents and members of the cabinet, salaries which compare favourably with those of other Western countries. That is why I think it would be appropriate if the hon the Minister took this opportunity to tell the South African public whether their tax money is involved.

I am also asking this question because the social pension benefits—which are included in this amount of R126,3 million—are surely amounts which are decided upon in those countries themselves. It is unclear why there must be an additional appropriation for this in the Parliament of South Africa.

Mr Speaker, firstly I would like to refer to the question raised by the hon member for Bonteheuwel who wanted to know whether there has been an increase in the funds used for promoting the positive changes in South Africa in the outside world. There is not exactly such an item in the additional amounts that my department is asking for. I presume, however, that in respect of a number of items where our missions in general undertake promotion work abroad a certain percentage would have gone into the effort to promote South Africa’s image in regard to positive changes.

The hon member for Berea asked for a more detailed analysis of Programme 2 where an additional amount of R36 million is being asked for. I think the hon member will agree with me that my department is particularly vulnerable to fluctuations in the exchange rate. We make a lot of payments abroad. The bulk of our communications, shipments, telephone calls etc, are with countries abroad. The Department of Foreign Affairs is therefore directly and primarily affected by exchange rate changes, and when one is dealing with an annual budget, it is extremely difficult to foresee what the exchange rate will be for that year. As a result of the weakening of the rand as against other currencies, almost R30 million of the additional amount of R36 million is needed for this purpose.

*The take-over of certain security services on a seconded basis cost R4 million. I would appreciate it if the hon member did not put pressure on me to elaborate any further in this connection in public. It deals with the physical protection of South African personnel serving abroad. This brings the amount up to R34 million.

Expenses resulting from the peace negotiations in respect of the independence of South West Africa and the Cuban withdrawal from Angola amount to R 1,6 million, which is 1% of the total additional amount we are requesting and not, as some newspapers claimed over the weekend, the entire amount of R167 million. These were additional expenses which we were not able to foresee. It is rather difficult at the beginning of the year, when no one can predict whether one is ever going to make progress with the negotiations to go into such a negotiation process without knowing how many times one is going to meet again. It is as simple as that. Sometimes we did not know whether a subsequent meeting was going to take place.

I respectfully suggest therefore that I am not aware of anyone that can tell my department, when one enters upon into such an historic negotiation process as the independence of South West Africa and the Cuban withdrawal from Angola, how many times one is going to meet again and what the costs are going to be. I think the additional amount of R1,6 million for such an historic undertaking is very little. The reason for that inter alia is that we who participated in it frequently had to take along our own food in order to save costs. I wonder whether our people know what we had to sacrifice in order to do our work.

In addition there was an amount to make provision for expenses arising from the opening of a new office and the establishment of representation in certain countries. Once again I want to make an appeal to the hon member. I am quite prepared to inform him on a confidential basis of where this establishment of representation for South Africa, in the unconventional sense of the word, occurred. However, it would embarrass the countries in which they find themselves if I simply disclosed this information here today. It is in certain countries on our continent. That brings us to the amount of R36 million.

I think the hon member for Berea also asked me to furnish more specific details in regard to Programme 3. That is easy. Firstly, R25,5 million is for salary increases for teaching staff in the four independent states that received their independence from us. This was done to bring them up to the same level as their colleagues in the Republic.

When these countries became independent I was not the Minister responsible for the independence agreements concluded with these countries. In fact, some of my friends in the CP were Ministers responsible for the conclusion of those independent agreements. What I have to do today is in many respects what they omitted to do when they concluded those agreements. I must rectify their mistakes after the independence process and after my department inherited those mistakes. We have to rectify the mistakes of Ministers who were in the NP at the time but who are now members of the CP. If I had been in control at the time I would have tried to prevent these mistakes. I now insist that if any new state ever receives independence from this country there will be financial control over the expenditure of that country by an official appointed by myself for as long as that state receives funds from this Parliament.

Once and for all I want to make this point clear here today. My department did not make these countries independent. The officials are in fact carrying out Government policy. But they have to rectify the mistakes—if one has to call them mistakes—that were made in the agreements when it fell under the discipline of other departments. We have learnt bitter lessons.

Some of the hon members who are present sitting in the CP told some of these countries that if they were to become independent they would not be worse off than the national states that were not independent. That was the whole rationale of independence.

There is an hon member in the CP who, at the time of the independence of a certain state, when I was attending the independence celebrations, told me one evening when I said to him that that country was not ripe for independence: “Oh please man, they are overripe. Just let them become independent.” As Minister of Foreign Affairs I was worried.

I am speaking candidly today. It is no use concealing the truth.

The second amount of approximately R72 million, which also falls under Programme 3, was spent on salary adjustments for public service personnel, the public servants of the four countries, and not the seconded officials falling under the budget of my department. In Bophuthatswana we have 266 seconded officials. In the Ciskei there are 504, in the Transkei 85 and in Venda 235. This also includes judges paid by my department. This is the number of officials. They received increases when the public service personnel of the RSA received increases.

This amount which is being requested, however, is for the public service personnel in these four countries. Once again, in terms of an agreement with them, we shall, when we give our own public service personnel increases and they were not in a position to budget for their increases because it was an expense which they could not have foreseen, help them to supplement that budget deficit. Otherwise a backlog begins to build up and it means that an official in a national state which is not yet independent, for example Lebowa, receives an increase in terms of our increases, while an official in Venda does not.

I do not think it is necessary to argue about what unacceptable consequences that would entail for us. The initial salary increases for the officials of these four countries amounted to R115 million. It was as a result of delicate negotiations on my part, which were conducted with an appreciation of the position of these states and their dilemmas, that we succeeded in scaling down this amount from R115 million to R72 million.

The third large amount under this head was for increasing social pensions in these countries in order to bring them into line with what was introduced in the Republic of South Africa, and that amounted to R29 million.

The hon member for Berea referred to control. My department went out of its way to introduce greater control. I shall take hon members into my confidence. At one stage I refused transfer payments from, I think, the customs pool money of a certain state, the Transkei. That meant that they would not have been able to pay their officials their salaries at the end of the month. The Prime Minister of that country then came to see me in Pretoria. I told him there was only one way in which I would approve those payments and that was if he appointed a commission of inquiry into the activities of a certain department in his country. That was how the Van Reenen Commission came into existence. The Van Reenen Commission brought out a report which indicated that there had been unsavoury practices. Then the Alexander Commission came into existence. That government then told me that they did not have the money to pay for such a commission. My department, at my request, then withdrew money from a certain project and placed it in a trust fund, so that we could pay the Alexander Commission. The moment the Alexander Commission began its activities, opposition newspapers attacked me in regard to the fees which the commissioners and the advocates who had served on that commission received. Now, on the other hand, they are attacking one in regard to the malpractices that were exposed. The Harms Commission was a direct outcome of the Alexander Commission.

I should like to have this placed on record today because a gossip campaign, the likes of which I have never encountered in my life before, has been unleashed in this country. An absolute gossip campaign! Anyone can make any allegation and the newspapers dish them up and they are believed in all imaginable quarters. Particularly in opposition quarters in this country.

Together with the Development Bank of Southern Africa—under the personal direction of Dr Simon Brand—we have established financial adjustment committees in respect of all four of these independent governments. We have worked out a programme in terms of which these states, over a certain number of years, must arrive at a point at which the huge deficit on their budget must not be supplemented with overdraft facilities. All these states are in a crisis. There expenditure has outstripped their income.

These adjustment committees are doing thorough work, unlike the allegations made by certain sectors of the Press. They are doing thorough work; they track down the problem area in time if a malpractice arise; they track it down in time if an item appears on the budget on one of these countries which we know full well that country will not be able to afford or which will, as a result of the interest, increase its burden of debt so that its budgetary planning will deteriorate even further.

That work has been done. I think I must also say this: If, for arguments sake, these countries had never become independent, their territories will still have had to be administered; clinics and hospitals, as well as proper administrative offices, houses, sports stadiums and recreation facilities would still have been necessary.

My request is that we should not look only at the negative side and the mistakes that have been made. Yes, mistakes have been made. Go to these countries, however, and see how many successful achievements there have been. Look at the housing schemes that have been launched. Go to Mmabatho and see how splendidly that place is developing.

In a conversation with President Mangope I spoke about a power station which they had built with assistance from abroad—I think—while the power generated could not be introduced into our power system because our Escom people said that that power would be too expensive.

I argued the matter with him and wanted to know why they had planned that power station. He replied to me asking whether we had not also built factories such as Atlantis in which certain items such as tractors were being manufactured, far more expensively than we could import them. My answer was that we had done so for strategic reasons. He than asked me where they were to receive their power from if a party were to come into power in South Africa which isolated them and cut their power off. One could argue that this will not happen. I told President Mangope that not even the CP was likely to cut of their power if they took office. The fact of the matter, however, is that we must be a little more careful before we say that these people simply make their own plans without reason.

Take for example the airport they built. I also thought it was too expensive, but the hon Minister of Transport Affairs has told me that it will serve the SAA as an alternative airport and as a training airport for its pilots, so that they do not disrupt traffic at Jan Smuts Airport. He is now negotiating to acquire it as an alternative night airport for our airline, so that we can use it when other airports are perhaps covered in fog or when cloudy weather makes landings difficult. It is an ideal airport en route to the rest of South Africa. Its weather conditions are usually favourable for landings and take-offs, and it was therefore not a waste of money.

A great deal has been said about the sports stadium in Bophuthatswana. President Mangope told me that their needs were different to ours. He wants to allow his people to participate in sport and in healthy recreation on a Sunday. He wants to keep them away from the possible commission or planning of crimes. If one compares the cost of a seat in that stadium with that of one at Loftus Versfeld or Ellis Park, his is considerably cheaper. May he not create an amenity for his people where they can get together and can have a pleasant time over the weekends?

My request is that we should understand these things and not always say that there is no control and that these people are merely wasting money. Their income is small, that is why the government launched a decentralisation policy.

That was why we began to encourage industrialists to decentralise and to establish their factories in these underdeveloped parts of Southern Africa so that people could find work near their families and live a healthier community life. We were criticised for that.

We have a macro-concept of the problem and this Government did something positive about it, something of which the whole of South Africa can really be proud. It must be borne in mind that the income base of these countries is small. It is no use our trying to argue this away. Frequently they struggle to keep the essential services going. They have a problem generating additional capital for capital investment in their own countries.

They are not recognised by the rest of the world. In a certain sense they are paying the price for my Government’s policy, as well as that of the CP. The world does not recognise them. They have no access to international monetary funds or world bank finance. They only have access to South African financial institutions. They also want to establish symbols of independence and pride, precisely because they are not recognised and because they frequently find themselves out in the cold of rejection, and have to live with us in that isolation. Seen as a whole governments have developed here, faults or no faults, that are doing their best to make the grade.

As regards the question of economic development in Southern Africa, the question of the achievement of solutions to our problems in a peaceful and not a violent way, in the sphere of security and in all these spheres, they form part of the larger, growing South African constellation of states which will one day, whether it is in 5 of 50 years times, form one great Southern Africa with rail, air and telecommunications networks and which in the sphere of medicine, industrial development, labour and all these other spheres will supplement one another, will enjoy autonomy and will be able to grow economically into the giant which Southern Africa can still become.

The hon member for Brakpan asked whether, under the head “auxiliary funds” in connection with the peace talks on SWA and Cuban withdrawal, we made use of some of Mr Vermaas’ aircraft.

Yes. Out of approximately 90 flights since 1985 my department made use of Chieftain Air three times. We were in contact, on an ongoing basis, with the altogether 8 or 9 companies that had aircraft, as aircraft were available depending on the distances we had to travel.

I can now tell the hon member that the number of companies in South Africa that have aircraft today with a range that includes Brazzaville and a little further one could almost count on the fingers of one hand, inter alia owing to the success of economic sanctions against South Africa in that sphere. I am sorry that my enemy now has to hear about a weakness on our part, but I have been forced to make this public. I did not want to do so, but I have now been forced to do so. [Interjections.]

No, hon members must not laugh. The department of Foreign Affairs and those hon members ought to know that if one new aircraft with that range comes into the country the whole of South Africa knows it. Those hon members know it. The people who placed these aircraft at the disposal of my department did not ask to do so. It was my department that was in an embarrassing position. Any hon member who knows anything about supply and demand will understand that it sometimes happens that we ask Dr Rupert, or Anglo Vaal or Mr Louis Luyt whether we may use their aircraft, and when their aircraft are not available we are in a fix. Now it happens that our team of negotiators in Brazzaville may phone me and ask me whether the hon the Minister of Defence and I cannot join them within the next 10,15 hours, because they have a problem. Now I have to go and ask for tenders. Where must I ask for tenders to get to Brazzaville? [Interjections.] I once asked a staff member of mine to implore Dr Louis Luyt to put off a journey of his to the USA so that we could have an aircraft in order to conduct negotiations in the interests of South Africa. I refuse to endure this humiliation any longer.

I want to bring the facts of this matter home to the hon members once and for all. They must try to get hold of an aircraft with a range of 7 000,8 000 km, and tell me how easy it is to do. We were once in a position of having to fly from a country in Europe to Johannesburg by air, from where that aircraft had to take us to a point in Africa and bring us back again, after which that aircraft had to return to Europe. In view of these realities, does South Africa expect me to explain why my Department charters aircraft from any South African company that has aircraft available?

These are the facts, that is how simple it is. Mr Vermaas’s aircraft were used at stages in which other aircraft were not available in any case.

I want to put an end to this gossip-mongering. I went to the Cabinet with my department’s problems and told it that the department of Foreign Affairs had an exceptional problem. We had to conduct these negotiations in Africa, and I needed special arrangements. We proposed that we negotiate with a specific South African company, so that, together, we could arrange for an aircraft, so that my Department, with the help of this group of companies, would be in a position to do its work better. That company is not Mr Vermaas’ company, but another one.

I want to make this matter clear here, once and for all, because I am tired of the gossip-mongering that is constantly in progress around this subject. [Interjections] Not only are we working under difficult circumstances, but the efforts which we inevitable have to make to arrive at our destinations are being disparaged.

Debate concluded.

Vote No 8—“National Education”:

Mr Chairman, I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether the grants-in-aid, as set out in the schedule, comprise grants-in-aid to declared institutions and bodies across the colour line. The hon the Minister is presently involved in the implementation of the 10-year plan. Consequently I am asking whether the figures include the reform that has been incorporated in the 10-year plan, or do the figures not include it?

Mr Chairman, the answer in so far as the first question is concerned, is yes. The amounts in column two include the improvement in the appropriations of quite a number of declared institutions. With regard to the savings that could be effected—because we are actually underfinancing most of these declared institutions in accordance with the formula—we have found it possible to effect a distribution of these in a reasonably uniform manner.

I can tell hon members that whereas the average financing was formerly 93,7%, we have been able to push up this average in these appropriations to 97,7%. I can give hon members a few facts. The declared cultural institutions received an amount of R1 150 000. This represents approximately R806 000 for a whole series of museums, R179 000 for the National Zoological Gardens, and R48 000 for the Library for the Blind. I could give further detailed particulars, if the hon member feels this is necessary—particulars regarding which institutions specifically benefitted from this. In addition, further amounts were also added to this. There was, for example, the amount of R747 000, of which have large sums accrued, inter alia, to the National Monuments Council for a revolving fund, so that they can also do more with regard to capital expenditure on the maintenance of national monuments.

As far as the second question is concerned, these appropriations do not all relate to the budgets of the various education departments. The additional money which is being requested, is therefore completely unconnected to education as such. The education budgets have been allocated to the various education departments and the ten-year plan does not feature in this Additional Appropriation as such.

Debate concluded.

Vote No 9—“Administration: House of Assembly”:

Mr Chairman, the National Flood Disaster Fund falls under the Administration: House of Assembly. In terms of the need that exists in Ladysmith in Natal it is quite understandable that long-term solutions have to be found for the people who are living in that little town.

I am aware that the various own affairs departments are making an attempt to address the long term problems which exist there. However, I want to know whether the hon the Minister knows that there are people who have suffered their fourth flooding. I only found out about this during a meeting in Ladysmith on Saturday. These people are mopping up the results of the flood while we are talking here. Up to now some of them have received absolutely no compensation since the fund was established.

Mr Chairman, to the best of my knowledge, there are certain facets of the flood damage which were catered for particularly out of the agricultural appropriation of the Administration: House of Assembly, but it was a totally co-ordinated effort. The chief co-ordinator was the chairman of the special Cabinet committee, the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development.

The various items which received attention therefore came from various appropriations. For this reason we cannot say that specific aid for Ladismith, or wherever, came from this Appropriation. As far as I know, the assistance which was forthcoming from the Appropriation of the Administration: House of Assembly, stemmed from agricultural aid which was given in those instances where cattle had died and farmlands had been flooded. Assistance of a more social nature came from other appropriations.

Order! Before we proceed to the next Vote, I would just like to say to the hon Whips of all parties that I will be very pleased if they will consider supplying me with a list of the Votes against which their parties will vote, if any. This will make it much easier for the Chair to expedite matters towards the end of the discussion.

Debate concluded.

Vote No 10—“Development Aid”:

Mr Chairman, I would like to know from the hon the Minister what total additional amount is tucked away in the various programmes for the consolidation of the self-governing states. It is well-known that we in the PFP are opposed to the principle of consolidation and particularly at this time we are opposed to the wasting of financial resources on the artificial bringing together of people who do not necessarily want to be brought together. This is in respect of the self-governing states.

In addition we are opposed to the spending of large sums of money enforcing communities such as Botshabelo and Moutse against their will into being brought under the administrative control of self-governing states. These were two of the many court cases, that is Moutsi and Botshabelo, that the Government lost last year, where they saw their bottom, so to speak. We want to know what total amount is been included in this additional appropriation for the consolidation of the self-governing states. R87 million is a great deal of money and the public deserves to know.

Mr Chairman, with regard to the consolidation of land in the self-governing states no additional funds are made available in this budget. In fact there is a decrease of R543 000 which is an amount taken away from the consolidation funds and made available to the KwaNdebele Development Corporation in order to maintain certain farming and tourist assets which have been transferred to that development corporation and regarding which they have run into unexpected financial expenses for which these funds are being made available. There are no additional funds for consolidation in this budget.

Mr Chairman, I owe this House certain important information about the handling of irregularities and alleged criminal transgressions by members of the staff of the Department of Development Aid. Hon members will know that the Auditor General in his recent report referred to certain irregularities and to steps which have been taken by the Department of Development Aid to counter such irregularities.

I would also like to refer to a statement I made on 7 December 1988 when I pointed out that as a result of information made available by both the Advocate General and the Auditor General, I ordered the suspension from service of two senior officials and that we also introduced a thorough revision of all delegations to individuals for making recommendations or taking decisions with regard to the conclusion of contracts, and have subjected these decisions to a committee under the chairmanship of at least a deputy director-general.

We have meanwhile also appointed a management consultant, Mr L W Dekker, from outside the department to investigate and provide us with recommendations about the tightening-up of existing procedures with regard to the granting and conclusion of contracts and obtaining material and stores.

As a result of further investigations by the department, we have in the course of this weekend approved the suspension of a further nine officials against whom clear evidence of serious misconduct and serious transgressions exists, and they are suspended from office pending the formulation of formal charges against them and taking steps for criminal prosecution.

Mr Chairman, I was not prepared for this item as it is not included in the Additional Appropriation Bill, but I believe that this hon Minister has mishandled his portfolio to the extent that we have dismissals or suspensions almost on a daily basis, not only in the Department of Development Aid, but also in the Department of Education and Training. I believe that the administration of his departments has deteriorated to such an extent that he should seriously consider resigning from the Cabinet.

I believe his portfolio needs a firmer control of the two departments under his control and that he should seriously consider resigning and handing the portfolios to someone more competent to handle the very involved matters that fall under the control of his departments.

Mr Chairman, I have all along declared my firm intention of identifying and eradicating any cases of irregularity and maladministration in the departments for which I am responsible.

I have in the course of time taken steps against officials who were found guilty of neglect of duty or of improper conduct in several spheres.

In the cases I have just mentioned I think a clear illustration is given of the determination with which we are identifying irregularities and bringing to book people who are guilty of neglect or criminal transgressions in respect of their duties.

We shall continue to do so until all vestiges of improper conduct or maladministration have been firmly eradicated.

Debate concluded.

Vote No 11—“Education and Training”:

Mr Chairman, arising immediately from the previous point made by the hon the Minister there is no question of his own behaviour or honesty. That is not what is in question. What does arise, though, is the fact that in two departments of which he has been the Minister in charge for a number of years there are continual, repeated and widespread problems of maladministration and, in certain instances, alleged corruption. This also has to be a management problem and he has to bear some of that responsibility—not on the basis of honesty or otherwise, but on the basis of efficiency or otherwise. I might also add that in respect of the Department of Education and Training it was only thanks to the PFP pushing relentlessly for a proper judicial commission of inquiry that the previous Director-General was made to give up his post and a proper inquiry was held. That hon Minister resisted this for hours in a heated debate in the House of Assembly. He did not want to have that judicial commission of inquiry, which has now revealed all sorts of other things as well.

Today I particularly wish to address the subprogramme “Examination services” of Programme 9 in this Vote. The matric results achieved by children at the Department of Education and Training’s schools are appalling. However, even more inexcusable is the delay that regularly occurs in the issuing of results and the inaccuracies in the results issued. White parents and pupils would not put up with this inefficiency and there is no reason why the Black community should be expected to do so. Expenditure budgeted for examination services was down by one third despite rapid increases in the number of matriculants. I would like to ask the hon the Minister why that was so. An amount of R6,3 million was budgeted, compared with R9,7 million in the previous year. The increase here reflected, of R891 000 up to R7,191 million, is still down by 25%. This would be in order if there were greater efficiency.

Mr Chairman, while I acknowledge that there are shortcomings in the handling of the matric examination and results, I think that the overall handling thereof is a matter for great pride on the part of the department. [Interjections.] When one considers that the number of candidates writing that examination was 374 000, while a few years ago there were fewer than 50 000 in the examination administered by this department, I believe that the fact that the announcement of the results has been pushed forward from somewhere in January to before Christmas for the third or fourth consecutive year, is a matter for pride and credit on the part of the officials who handled these examinations.

In addition the total number of Black students passing the matric examination has now attained the 84 000 mark which is considerably more than the total number of 62 000 for White students. It shows what the Department of Education and Training is achieving in terms of secondary education and especially in leading pupils up to the matric examination, which is really going to influence the progress of South Africa materially in terms of quality of manpower.

Therefore I deny that there have been unusual or unacceptable delays this year. There have been delays in respect of the private candidates—the candidates who were not enrolled through schools—because their enrolment has not yet been computerised in the administration. We are in the process of finalising the computerisation and at the next examination the private pupils’ results will also be available much earlier than in the past and at the same rate as the results of the full-time school registered pupils.

I would also like to record with pride and gratitude the improvement in the pass rate as 55% of the candidates passed the examination this year. That is still poor and needs to be improved but it shows progress in relation to the previous year, especially when one keeps in mind that in more than 40 schools pupils achieved a pass rate of between 80% and 100%. It shows it can be done. It shows it can be done with the proper training of teachers, the proper organisation of the school and the necessary commitment and motivation on the part of the pupils and their parents.

It must also be kept in mind that pupils in some regions under the control of the department, for instance the Northern Transvaal region, which includes areas such as Pretoria, the West Rand and the Western Transvaal, achieved a pass rate of 67% in this examination. That is progress and what we want to achieve in other regions and in other sectors of the Black community taking this examination.

Let me say that what is most disappointing is the poor performance in the Soweto region—the Johannesburg region, where we had a pass rate of only 38%. In 1987 it was as low as 32%. Why is this? It is because of the continuing politicisation of education in those areas. They are, as it were, cutting off their noses to spite their faces by refusing to make proper use of the educational facilities, and this in an area where the teacherpupil ratio is much more advantageous than in any of the other regions of this country. They ought therefore to produce the best results, not the worst of all.

Overall, contrary to what the hon member for Cape Town Gardens has said, I think we really have reason to be proud of the progress made with regard to the matriculation results. Once again I acknowledge that there are still shortcomings, and we are working on them. We are going to eliminate them.

Mr Chairman, I am referring to Programme 9—“Auxiliary and Associated Services”: subprogramme “Examination Services”. There is information available that the staff who mark papers are being accommodated in expensive hotels—three to five-star hotels—while marking papers. I should like to know from the hon the Minister what the effect of this would be on the increase described here as being due to an usual growth in the number of examination papers, as well as a 10% increase in the tariffs for the marking of papers. I should also like to know what the so-called expense defraying allowances—including that hotel accommodation—of such markers would be.

As regards Programme 7—“Teacher Training”, there is a considerable decrease, which according to the memorandum is attributable to the fact that tenders for new colleges were allocated at a very late stage due to circumstances beyond the control of the Department. This reminds me that we had the same situation last year, and that the hon the Minister used words to the following effect: “we had hoped that the planning would have been completed, that the contracts would have been advertised and allocated timeously, but delays in this regard …’’etc. The question is what are the reasons for what would seem to be a recurring delay? In the second place we want an assurance that the delays will not result in the quality of teacher training which, I hear, is taking place in temporary buildings, deteriorating.

The last question is the following. Mention has already been made of the wide-spread irregularities and alleged irregularities in the hon the Minister’s department. I do not want to elaborate on this except to ask whether the cost of innumerable investigations into these irregularities and alleged irregularities in the Department of Education and Training, are reflected in this Estimate of Additional Expenditure, and in which part.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister did not reply to the question I asked him, viz why, with increasing numbers, does he believe he can reduce the costs of providing these examination services. I think he is out of touch with reality when he talks about the results and the satisfaction in that regard. There are schools which had up to three schedules of results before the department gave their schools the correct results. Private students in institutions administered by his department had to wait till February before they received their results.

The fact is that the timing and the quality of the issuing of matric results was at best unsatisfactory and, more descriptively, shambolic. Matriculants were unable to finalize their plans for 1989 whatever they were going to do and they did not have their correct results in good time. This is not a new problem.

Mr Chairman, in reply to the question which the hon member for Potgietersrus asked, I want to put it to him that the examiners who mark examination papers, receive a fixed compensation and subsistence allowance. If they get themselves accommodation which exceeds that allowance, they must of course do so at their own expense. Unfortunately I do not have information on precisely what the allowances are, but I assume that they are either the same as the allowances of the Public Service or the same as those of all the other education departments which mutually co-ordinate compensation and allowances in respect of examinations as well as examination tariffs.

As regards the hon member’s remark in respect of savings in connection with teacher training, I want to explain it to him as follows. This saving of an estimated R7,9 million resulted from the fact that two important new teachers’ training colleges, the construction for which should have taken place early in the present financial year, is in actual fact now going to start very late. The reason for this is that the second phase building tenders of the Sebokeng Teachers’ Training College closed in February, but the tenders received were higher than the limits laid down by the Treasury Committee for Buildings Norms and Cost Limits. Consequently new tenders had to be invited, and the new tenders were only invited in August 1988. The lowest tender was within the cost limit and was accepted, but the contractor indicated that he could not start building before January of this year. Therefore it seems to me that it is not a matter of inefficiency. We simply did not want to accept an unreasonably high tender, and we therefore invited new tenders.

For a second college, the East Rand Teachers’ Training College, no tenders were received when tenders were first invited, and tenders were then invited a second time. We expect the building to begin in the financial year, but the amount which can be spent, will most probably have to be scaled down a great deal.

It is true that the delay in this building is having an effect on the academic and training activities of the relevant colleges. However we are satisfied that the staff are dealing successfully with this awkward situation in the temporary accommodation which they have and which they have been using for a number of years now.

By the way I can mention that we are extremely glad about the increase in the performance level of the matriculation certificates of new candidates for teacher training, which have emerged during the past two years, as well as this year. We therefore hope that this matter will not have a negative effect, which the hon member is justifiably concerned about.

He spoke about the many investigations being made. Only one investigation has been made in connection with the problems in the Department of Education and Training. It has now become known as the Van den Heever Commission of Inquiry. The cost of this inquiry is not reflected in this additional expenditure, but will be accommodated in the Appropriation for the new financial year.

†I hope I understood the hon member for Cape Town Gardens correctly. His question was in regard to what he called a reduction in the costs for the matric examination.

Compared to last year.

Compared to last year. The schedule explaining the situation shows, in fact, that for examination services we do not have a reduction of costs but an increase of R891 000.

Not compared to the last financial year.

Well, this compared to the budget that has been tabled this year. Insofar as the costs are lower, it is important to note that as a result of computerisation and the elimination of a lot of manual and clerical work the whole administration of the examination has been modernised. In that respect it is also much cheaper. On the other hand an agreement was reached with the education departments of the self-governing territories, whose candidates also take this examination, that they would in future, as from last year, contribute financially towards the costs of the examination as far as their candidates were concerned. Previously that had not been the case.

In other words, in that respect there was also an additional saving.

In respect of the delay of results, I would emphasise again that this year about 90% of the full-time candidates at the Department of Education and Training had their results on the same date before Christmas. There was a delay with regard to the results of 10%. In the past, delays were usually due to some irregularity occurring with regard to the confidentiality in the writing of the examination. Last year we reduced the number of candidates affected by such irregularities from 10 000 the previous year to just under 2 000. Unfortunately a new problem cropped up, namely that departments—not our department—making use of this service and which have to submit year marks with regard to practical or oral work—which form a part of the final mark in language, science and other practical courses—seriously delayed sending up those marks. When the department was on the point of finalising the results it was found that, as far as a number of candidates were concerned, this information was still lacking. It was decided to proceed with the publication of the names of the vast majority of candidates whose results were complete. We have taken steps to talk very seriously to those departments which allowed this late sending up of practical and oral year marks. We hope this sort of delay will effectively be eliminated or at least considerably reduced in future.

It is unfair to create the impression that a vast percentage of the total number of students were affected by delays or by incorrect results. Where it did occur, due to the factors which I have just set out, it affected only a small minority of students.

Debate concluded.

Vote No 12—“Defence”:

Mr Chairman, I see that the hon the Minister of Defence is requesting R460 million for allocation in his Vote. In Annexure A, on page 12-2 of the Estimate of Additional Expenditure, particulars are given of the Special Defence Account. In this regard R526,596 million is being requested for allocation. Seeing that transfers are made from the “Defence” Vote to the Special Defence Account, I should like to ask the hon the Minister to give further information on how a larger amount is being added to the Special Defence Account than is allocated in the Vote.

Mr Chairman, I would like to put a question to the hon the Minister. The global amount that the hon the Minister is asking be approved is R460 million. The original amount was R560 million but there are savings of R100 million. A big part of this has been apportioned to the withdrawal of the SA Defence Force from Angola and South West Africa. Could the hon the Minister tell us if he anticipates saving on this Vote because of our withdrawal from Angola if the peace initiatives are successful?

Mr Chairman, we all know that peace in Southern Africa is a very expensive undertaking. I should like to ask the hon the Minister to explain what he means by “further strategic change”, and how this links up with the implementation of Resolution 435.

Mr Chairman, I am going to start with the last question. I want to put it to hon members as follows. Since the 1984-85 financial year this department has never asked for additional funds. What I am saying is that this department has managed every time on the funds allocated to it. If something out of the ordinary happens we must ask for additional funds.

I think the hon member for Yeoville made a very valid point here this afternoon. He said that one must use as a yardstick for the funds to be agreed to for the additional appropriation, whether this is unforeseen or essential expenditure, whether it could have been prevented, and whether the amount requested was a reasonable amount. In all these cases, as well as the questions put by hon members, this applied and I can categorically answer in the affirmative.

I should like to discuss the question regarding the additional expenditure required owing to the changed strategic situation and the resultant structural changes which were made. This strategic situation actually arose as a result of the withdrawal of the South African Defence Force from Angola, after they had given the Cubans and the MPLA a tremendous beating. Hon members will recall that last year after this operation 15 000 more Cubans were brought into the country and that during the negotiations in which we were engaged, the Cubans moved south of the Benguela railway line to the border between South West Africa and Angola.

This resulted in a totally new situation in respect of SWA/Namibia and Angola. Hon members can rightly remind themselves that owing to the movement to the south, far more sophisticated equipment came in and the numbers were brought there far more quickly. This placed me, as the responsible Minister, and the SA Defence Force in a very difficult position, because a tremendously unpredictable situation was suddenly developing on the northern border of Namibia. At that stage no agreement had been signed yet. The question one must ask oneself in such circumstances is whether, in the spirit of the negotiations which are taking place, one can count on the Cubans and the MPLA not making opportunist raids across the SWA border.

Any such opportunist raids would have to be contained. In other words the flexibility and intensity of the presence of SA Defence Force arms and staff had to be reconsidered immediately. Consequently drastic steps were taken in the planning and provision in respect of the availability of equipment and ammunition, the increased number of staff and logistic supplies. This situation affected not only that specific geographic area, but the rest of Southern Africa as well. The SA Defence Force had to reconsider its planning. For example, it had to ascertain whether the “leading times” for certain production systems—in actual fact these are arms systems—could not be shortened; whether the time of development projects did not have to be shortened so that more sophisticated and technologically developed arms could be available.

What actually happened? The hon member for Yeoville told us this afternoon, when he asked whether this was the price one had to pay for peace. For the first time we found that the SA Defence Force had to change over from an offensive position to a defensive position. That is precisely what the hon member said when he asked whether it was not cheaper to be inside Angola than outside it. That is a fact. We must actually thank the Defence Force for adopting an offensive position for all those years, because when one is on the offensive one needs certain arms, but one’s mobility gives one the upper hand over the enemy. On the other hand, if one is defensive one needs different arms and this requires a far larger capital investment. This change which took place was the main reason for this additional appropriation.

I must tell hon members that the SA Defence Force learned many lessons from this. Hon members must remember that this strategic situation which developed there, only applied in South-Western Africa. The Defence Force then had to consider its position in the RSA, because it is not affected by these negotiations. With the lessons it learned there in respect of the rapid appearance of extremely sophisticated equipment which arrived in large quantities, the Defence Force had to take into account whether it should not review its own available equipment, its own sophistication and its own armaments. Hon members know that this country is subject to an arms embargo and consequently it cannot purchase its equipment on the open market. At the same time it has to ensure that its soldiers are well trained, that they are well motivated, and funds were also needed for this and will still be needed in future.

To conclude this aspect in respect of the strategic situation, I want to tell hon members that the situation in respect of the RSA has in no way changed after the settlement we have reached. I actually want to say that the onslaught on the RSA is going to increase in intensity. To tell the truth, I am very sure that the time-scales for this increase in the intensity of the onslaught may be far shorter than we may generally think. In other words, this means that the RSA must be ready and prepared quite possibly to increase its investment in its security forces if we want stability in which we can experience economic prosperity in future.

The hon member Mr Douw asked about the R460 million, and I think that was basically the question the hon member for Laudium asked too. The amount is R460 million, yet an additional R560 million is needed. Where did this R100 million come from? This R100 million was actually in the Main Appropriation, but it was suspended by the Treasury. Consequently it was in the Special Defence Account, but the department was not allowed to use it. Now the Treasury has lifted this suspension and it can consequently be used for this Additional Appropriation. That is why the amount is R460 million plus a further R100 million.

The hon member for Laudium also asked me whether we would need additional funds and whether there would be a reduction in funds—as he put it—because we have now withdrawn from Angola. I want to put it to the hon member as follows. I spelt out in the explanatory memorandum what this new strategic situation meant. I actually answered the question there. I want to put it as follows. Angola never actually required additional funds. There are no funds in this Additional Appropriation which are earmarked for any aspect or actions or operations which took place in Angola.

To tell the truth, the greatest expenditure on a defence force is to make it available where it can carry out operations, where it is already equipped, and where it is trained and has the motivated manpower. We have that in any case. Hon members have already made that investment and are still earning dividends on their investment because they have such a South African Defence Force. The only thing that changed was that some of these units, staff and equipment went to the operational area. They would have been used in South West Africa in any case. When the situation arose in Angola these units were sent across the border to look after the interests of South Africa. There was, therefore, a small additional expense.

If they did not participate in that kind of exercise, training or operations, we would have to call them up here in the RSA to participate in training exercises such as “Exercise Thunder Chariot” which I think the hon member also attended. This entails just as much expenditure.

The reply to the hon member’s question is therefore actually no, but from the point of view of experience and exposure it was worthwhile to do it.

Debate concluded.

Vote No 13—“Manpower”:

Mr Chairman, I should like to ask the hon the Acting Minister why there is no terrific reduction under Programme 1, because after the resignation of Mr Piet du Plessis we no longer have a Minister of Manpower, or is the hon the Acting Minister going to get a double salary for acting in that capacity? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, that is really just a silly remark. I do not claim any amounts for that purpose in these documents before us.

Debate concluded.

Vote No 14—“Public Works and Land Affairs”:

Mr Chairman, I should like to talk about Programme 3—“Surveys and Deeds”. There is an increase of R9,339 million for the 1988-89 financial year, an increase of approximately 100% in comparison with the 1987-88 financial year.

Fifteen per cent is for salary adjustments; that means that 80%, as indicated in the programme, is for the replacement of essential photogrammetric and surveying equipment which has become obsolete, as well as for photographic material, the further development of the national land-orientated information system and the systematic computerisation of the activities of the deeds office. I should like to know what the obsolete equipment will be used for. What is the hon the Minister going to do with it? Can it be employed for further technological use?

Then there is the question of the surveyor-general’s and deeds office. This is lagging years behind, despite this expensive and modern equipment. What is the problem? When one makes enquiries it takes ages before one gets a proper answer, especially when it comes to crown land and land which belongs to the local authorities, etc. Sometimes one does not receive any reply at all. I should like to know whether it is necessary to spend millions of rand if one does not receive proper service as a result.

In many cases the surveyors-generals’ and deeds offices cannot identify the so-called group land. This delays progress and development. Although we do not agree with the idea of group land, it is Government policy and consequently the Government must either abandon it or accelerate its pace.

Mr Chairman, I see there is an enormous increase of R31 million under Programme 5—“Provision of buildings, structures and equipment”. I should like the hon the Minister to tell me whether the rental payable by the department for the building in Volkstem Avenue, Pretoria, which is rented from a company in which the son of Mr P T C du Plessis, the former Minister of Manpower and of Public Works and Land Affairs, has the main interest, is included in the increased amount. If so, how large is that amount?

Mr Chairman, with reference to the question of the hon member for Wuppertal I can say in the first place that with regard to obsolete photographic material which can no longer be used, we are going to try to get rid of it. If it is possible to sell it, that is done, but a lot of this equipment simply can no longer be used. I can get more details for the hon member if he requires further information on that point.

With reference to his question about the deeds office, I am told that the deeds office is up to date. Activities are concluded within eight days. A delay of eight days is actually very good if the volume of work is taken into account.

The hon member for Carletonville was simply trying to be difficult. The increase in the rental of office accommodation under Programme 5 is attributable to the fact that many of the contracts that were concluded a few years ago had to be renewed this year. During the 1986-87 financial year the rental market was favourable for renting. Since then rental tariffs have increased rather drastically in general, and in cases in which new contracts had to be concluded during the past year, higher rentals had to be offered and ultimately accepted for the accommodation.

An increase in the needs of departments also contributed to this increase. The SAP, the SADF and the Departments of Finance, Home Affairs and Education and Training identified increased needs which had to be met. The allocated amount of R158 million is insufficient to cover the expected expenditure. More than 600 000 m2 is rented in Pretoria alone.

Debate concluded.

Vote No 15—“Justice”:

Mr Chairman, I notice that no provision has been made in the Additional Appropriation or the State Revenue Fund for an increase in the salaries of judges. I should like to know from the hon the Minister whether an increase is envisaged and if so, when. I also want to know whether there was an increase during the past few months as in the case of public servants. I know that in this case judges do not fall under public servants, but I should like to know when an increase is envisaged.

I should also like the hon the Minister to tell me whether or not judges also get a thirteenth cheque and housing benefits as other judicial officials do. I do not want to know what their salaries are—that is not my question—but I want to hear what the general situation is with regard to salary increases.

How does the remuneration received by the regional court president and other senior regional court magistrates compare with that of a judge, and how does the salary of the Attorney-General compare with the salaries paid to legal officials in other departments of the Public Service?

I may mention that I see, for example, that the Receiver of Revenue is advertising a post for a tax attorney, and the remuneration package is approximately R125 000. Is the salary of the Attorney-General in that region, or does he receive less?

Mr Chairman, I see that the hon the Minister is asking for extra money for the appointment of two committees and also for a commission of inquiry. Perhaps the hon the Minister will tell us more about the committees he wants to appoint and the commission of inquiry. A suggestion that we do have is that perhaps one of those committees be a committee to promote people other than Whites onto the Bench of the Supreme Court.

Mr Chairman, my first set of replies to the hon member for Bethal is the following. I think the hon member for Bethal attributes far more value to what does not appear in the Additional Appropriation Bill than to what does appear there. I can go a long way with that kind of spokesman in the Official Opposition, because that means the hon member is availing himself of an opportunity to promote the administration of justice, and naturally that is what he has done. I find nothing wrong with his doing so in this way. I think I could have dismissed it by saying it had no point of contact with the printed matter in front of us. I think that would have been wrong, because the hon member’s intentions are pure and correct, viz to obtain information that he regards as relevant.

With reference to the judges’ salaries, it is true that the decision as announced was that all people who were remunerated from the Treasury would be entitled to a 15% increase. Therefore a 15% increase for the judges is a definite factor. In terms of the legislation we passed approximately two years ago, it is possible to increase judges’ salaries by means of a tabling. Nevertheless it is my opinion, given the pressure of the private sector for legal knowledge, the extremely high incomes within the reach of and earned by advocates, that it is necessary for us to take a good look at the salaries of the Bench, so that they will not receive only an increase of 15%, but may even be placed in an even more competitive position. Since it is impossible to table an increase of 15% now, and possibly a further increase in a month or so—I do not want to rouse expectations—I have an agreement and an appointment with the Chief Justice and the Judges President who are the judges’ spokesmen, and we are involved in negotiations in this regard at present. When negotiations have been concluded in a few weeks’ time, I shall approach the Government with proposals in this connection.

With reference to the question about the thirteenth cheque and housing benefits, I want to point out that judges are not public servants. They have no point of contact with public servants in the sense that they can be compared absolutely with every other sector of the national economy. They are what we call sui generis. Consequently these benefits are not available to them; nor do they want them. We do not want them to be treated absolutely like Ministers on the one hand and absolutely like officials on the other. They have an own dispensation which excludes a thirteenth cheque and housing benefits. At this stage, therefore, that is not at issue and we are endeavouring to give them a dignified dispensation of their own which is comparable with that in the private sector.

Until recently it was possible to say that judges enjoyed a good dispensation. Hon members must remember that a tax-free amount of R3 000 is (included in their package. In addition they do not contribute to a pension fund. They also receive other benefits, but I think it would be unseemly and unwise to spell out everything here before I go to the Cabinet and ultimately come to Parliament with more concrete proposals. I hope the hon member accepts it in that light. I know he will.

With reference to the question about how the regional court presidents, chief magistrates and so on compare—I do not know exactly what the hon member wants to compare them with, but I assume he has the private sector in mind—the hon member must know that we specifically instituted a vocationally directed dispensation for Justice officials, magistrates and other experts last year. According to all the feedback I received, this was received very, very favourably within the Government context, and it also compares very favourably with the private sector. The feedback I have received is that for the first time in a long time our Justice officials are now in a very favourable position in comparison with people in the private sector.

We have no problem with entrants, or even with certain ranks, but experts on justice and experienced lawyers are constantly being sought and this brings us into competition with the private sector time and again. We have to accept that philosophically, but we do effect adjustments when necessary.

The hon member asked me about the position with regard to the Attorneys-General. The Attorneys-General are in a favourable position; not as favourable as I should like it to be, but percentage-wise—I am not going to make people’s private affairs known here—their adjustments were impressive. Once again I say that the adjustments were definitely not as favourable as I should like them to have been, but I do not think we can compare this with any other post the State contracts for. The hon member could just as well tell me—he would be correct—what per day we pay outside advocates in the private sector who deal with our cases for us per day. The figures are impressive—much higher than this figure that was advertised for an income tax attorney. The hon member could just as well have asked me that, but it does not bear examination because different factors are involved. I do not think the person who contracts is necessarily entitled to a pension. I think he enters into an agreement for a fixed amount. I do not have particulars, but that is how it works, also in respect of those people from outside to whom we give out contracts. They get no other benefits which an Attorney-General, for example, or any other person who is remunerated from the State coffers would get. I think I have given the hon member a comprehensive reply. That brings me to the hon member for Bonteheuwel.

†The position is that the R200 000 that is on the budget relates to those advisory committees that have been appointed in terms of the Internal Security Act. It relates to certain organisations that have come under the scrutiny of these committees. These investigations have been completed and I may be in a position somewhere in the near future to report on the findings of these committees; it does not necessarily follow that the Government will react to these committees, it is possible that these committees’ recommendations will not be reacted to at all.

In regard to the hon member’s question on the R100 000, this relates to the Harms Commission. I am under the impression that the hon member does not object to the Harms Commission and I am not going to belabour this point any further.

In lighter vein the hon member suggests that we should have a commission on the issue of the appointment of people other than White to the Bench. We do not have to have a commission. I can tell the hon member right now that the principle is that people are appointed on merit regardless of race, colour or creed. That is the situation. The hon member is shaking his head, I challenge the hon member to say to me that that is not the case.

The hon member should do his utmost to persuade people to join our lower courts in various capacities, because the sky is the limit. As a matter of fact, that is not even the limit.

With regard to the Supreme Court Bench, merit is the qualification and that will always be the case. If the hon member knows of any person of merit whom he thinks we are overlooking, he is most welcome to come and tell us.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister is not correct when he says I shook my head. I did not—someone else did. I have just heard that someone else did. However, since the hon the Minister has got me down again, may I ask this: If people are to be promoted on merit, is there anyone in line for promotion at the moment? Is there a possibility that someone may be appointed to the Bench?

Mr Chairman, yes. The answer is yes. The hon member is not listening. The answer is yes. There are people of merit whom we may approach, but I want to emphasise that this is not part of the additional budget.

Debate concluded.

Vote No 17—“Agricultural Economics and Marketing”:

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon the Minister of Agriculture about the amount of R32 million allocated for industry subsidies and assistance. As we know, it is stated in the accompanying memorandum that subsidy payments are linked to the prevailing economic situation.

However, I do think that hon members deserve a little more detail than this. I should like to know exactly what specific aspects of the economic situation have brought this about, what we are subsidising and what assistance we are giving.

Mr Chairman, I should like the hon the Minister to tell me the extent of resignations by officials from his department as viewed against the background of part 1 of his budget. He must tell us whether this is a result of shrinking funds. Secondly, he must tell us whether there will be an extension of projects which have been launched and whether they are to be scaled down or abandoned and, thirdly, how the hon the Minister envisages further development of his agricultural advisory centres if so many people are resigning from his department.

Mr Chairman, the reply to the first question on the amount of R32 million is that they are additional funds which were spent to subsidise the bread price further. The normal position is that at the end of a wheat year—this usually lasts until 1 October but was extended to 1 November this year—the situation has arisen owing to the increased sales of standard bread. It is only standard bread which is subsidised. About 60% of all bread which is sold in South Africa is standard bread. We found that, before the end of the wheat year, the subsidisation fund was exhausted in this connection and that at that stage, this was on 8 August, we were already selling standard bread below cost.

As a result of this, we went to the Government to request these additional funds. There is also a further reason. At the end of a wheat year further cost increases in the baking and milling industry have to be taken into account. This caused us to increase the price of bread by a small amount at that stage—four cents on a loaf of white bread and six cents on a loaf of brown bread. As as result we did not set the price of bread too high. If we had been unable to obtain the R32 million, the price of a loaf of white bread would have risen by 7,4% and that of a brown loaf by 17,5%.

I want to say at once that the R32 million which was made available was not the only funding which we were able to obtain in this connection. The wheat industry made R20 million available—RIO million from the Wheat Board’s own funds and R5 million each from the baking and milling industry. In other words, we then had a total additional amount of R52 million available to subsidise the bread price further and to prevent a drastic price increase. The industry regards it as essential that it should also make a contribution from its own stabilisation fund because hon members can appreciate that the cheaper the price of bread, the easier it is for the consumer to use it and consequently this increases demand.

The hon member for Delmas put a question to me on resignations from the department. The saving of R1 800 000 which we accomplished here resulted mainly from an appeal which the hon the Minister of Finance made to all departments to save a further half of a percentage on their budgets. We are able to mention these few items to the hon member as examples of where we were actually able to save. These were mainly posts which were vacant at that stage and we could therefore make that saving.

The hon member asked about the idea of advisory services which we want to introduce later. I really want to say that I do not think it concerns this Appropriation now. We shall discuss it at some later opportunity. The advisory services have not been linked in yet; this is a new dispensation and action which we are launching and it is not reflected in this Appropriation.

Debate concluded.

Vote No 23—“Transport”:

Mr Chairman, an amount of R13,074 million is indicated under Programme No 2, “Civil aviation”, as provision for the Helderberg air disaster. I want the hon the Minister to assure me whether I am correct in deducing that these are costs regarding the salvage operation related to this aircraft. I should also like to know in this connection what portion this is of total costs which are involved in this effort.

In connection with Programme 3, “Overland transport”, there is an increase of R750 000 for the number of items published in the Government Gazette. What is the nature of the items published? I assume that it is advertisements or legal notices which have increased but I want to make sure what the nature of these published items is.

Mr Chairman, as regards the first question under Programme 2, the hon member asked whether the R13 million was related chiefly to the search for the Helderberg. It is correct that it is chiefly ascribable to that. If I may speak from memory, the total amount related to preliminary investigations as well as the search by the salvage ship “Senna Workhorse” is one of almost R23 million. For the information of hon members I can say that I am often asked whether it is worthwhile continuing the search there. I have to reply that it is the case because we have to obtain the best possible evidence to submit to the commission. It is important that our pilots, the public, the airline and we ourselves know what the cause was and whether there were criminal motives. In addition we have entered into a contract for a search lasting 100 days and that period expires on 6 March. I have no intention of pursuing the search any further then. I hope that we shall have the necessary information by that time to enable the commission to produce findings.

As regards the second question, the matter of R750 000, this is related to the increase in advertisement costs after the number of applications for passenger licences rose by more than 300% after the publication of the White Paper.

Debate concluded.

Vote No 26—“National Health and Population Development”:

Mr Chairman, as regards Programme 2—“Infectious, communicable and other diseases: Decrease”, an additional amount is requested under Programme 2.2.2 to initiate the Aids-control campaign. Could the hon the Minister please supply details in connection with this?

As regards Programme 6: “Auxiliary and associated services: Increase”, there is mention in paragraph 2.6.2—“Subprogramme: Research: Contribution to SA Institute for Medical Research” that no provision was made for such a savings measure but it was subsequently ascertained that the Department was contractually bound to pay this contribution and an amount of R21 000 is requested for the purpose. Could the hon the Minister also please furnish details on this item?

Mr Chairman, to answer the question asked by the hon member for Pietersburg with regard to the amount that had to be paid to the South African Institute for Medical Research, I want to say that it was a mistake resulting from an oversight. As a savings measure, no provision was made in the above-mentioned case, and it was established afterwards that in terms of a contract it was in fact necessary to pay the amount to them. This had to be reflected in the budget in some or other way.

We now come to the question of contagious and communicable diseases, in Programme 2. In the total programme, in which there is a decrease of R5.5 million, the Aids control campaign, as it was announced and which included the printing and distribution of brochures, resulted in an expenditure of R900 000. Furthermore, training centres were opened in Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, Bloemfontein, Durban and Johannesburg where personnel had to be appointed and apparatus had to be purchased. An average amount of R52 000 was spent on each of these centres, while the total expenditure in this regard was R260 000. The initial announcement of the programme, along with the printing of brochures and the staffing of the training centres, gives us the total of R1,160 million. This increase is, therefore, self-explanatory. I think that answers all the questions.

Debate concluded.

Schedule 1 put.

Votes Nos 1 and 2 agreed to.

Vote No 3 put to House of Assembly.

Division demanded.

Declarations of vote:

Mr Chairman, we will be voting against this Vote because we do not believe that we have been given satisfactory answers regarding the spending of State money to promote the policies of the NP.

The hon the Minister asked me to produce one shred of evidence to prove that the programme to promote the municipal elections was NP policy. Apart from the many instances that I personally had given, one came from the hon the Minister himself when he said that the programme was designed to encourage people to participate in the municipal elections and the municipal elections were held for people to be elected to separate municipal councils which is the policy of the NP, CP and AWB as I have said frequently. I do not understand why the hon the Minister gets so angry with me because this gives him an opportunity to sound off for a long time against the points that I have raised.

Secondly, we are going to vote against this application for an additional appropriation because of the film Back to Freedom. I accept that the hon the Minister said that this was not part of the R13 million appropriated for the film industry but he did not satisfactorily answer as to where the money came from. He did not satisfy us in telling us whether it came from the SABC or the bureau. There will be an opportunity at a later stage to pursue this matter but we are interested in the progress of this film.

Thirdly, we are going to vote against this because of the question of the R2 million for the promoting of the idea of privatisation. We are aware that the hon Minister responsible for privatisation does not want the bureau to have anything to do with his programme because, as I have said, it will be the kiss of death. We therefore cannot understand why the R2 million has to be spent on this programme and the hon the Minister has not satisfactorily answered that. No doubt we will have a further opportunity to debate that matter but for those three reasons we will be voting against the hon the Minister’s request for an additional appropriation.

Mr Chairman, the CP is also voting against this Vote because, in the first place, we believe that most of the funds in the Additional Appropriation constitute expenditure that could have been provided for in the Main Budget. Here, I am referring specifically to the advertising campaign which was conducted with a view to the municipal elections, seeing that that the election date was announced almost a year in advance.

Secondly, we are voting against this because we believe that the campaign in question, which had to make use of animated squirrels because the Government had no more credibility than that, was not successful. Ultimately, it was a large scale waste of the taxpayer’s money—and that at a time when South Africa was struggling financially and could not afford the luxury of such campaigns.

Thirdly, we are voting against this because, in its attempt to provide the public with information—this is particulary noticeable in some of these campaigns—the Government shows no sensitivity for the difference between Government information, on one hand, and party propaganda on the other.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister has said in public, and again today, that hon members should provide proof as to where the NP’s policy has been promoted. The hon the Minister also made it clear that it was the right and the duty of the Bureau for Information to convey Government policy. As a result of the fact that no proof was provided, the allegations which hon members made to the effect that NP policy was being promoted, fall away.

Secondly, hon members will remember that the ANC said that they would consider it a success for their organisation if they were able to limit the percentage vote to less than 6%. In the light of the fact that the percentage vote with regard to all population groups was much higher than 6%, I think one can rightly say that the ANC lost this round. The Bureau for Information also played a significant role here and contributed to this. Therefore, it is not only a great privilege for the NP to support the Vote, but we would also like to thank the Bureau for Information for what they have succeeded in doing in the interests of South Africa.

Vote No 3 put to House of Representatives.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 3 put to House of Delegates.

Vote agreed to.

The House of Assembly divided:

AYES—88: Alant, T G; Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Badenhorst, P J; Bekker, H J; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J v R; Botha, J C G; Brazelie, J A; Breytenbach, W N; Camerer, S M; Chait, E J; Clase, P J; Cunningham, J H; De Beer, S J; De Klerk, F W; Delport, J T; Dilley, L H M; Du Plessis, B J; Edwards, B V; Fick, L H; Fourie, A; Geldenhuys, B L; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Heine, W J; Heyns, J H; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; Jager, R; Jooste, J A; Jordaan, A L; King, T J; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kotze, G J; Kriel, H J; Kritzinger, W T; Kruger, T A P; Le Roux. DET; Lemmer, J J; Ligthelm, C J; Louw, EvdM; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Malan, M A de M; Malherbe, G J; Marais, G; Marê, P L; Maree, J W; Matthee, J C; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, A T; Meyer, R P; Meyer, W D; Myburgh, G B;Niemann, J J; Odendaal, W A; Olivier, P J S; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Radue, R J; Retief, J L; Scheepers, J H L; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J; Schoeman, S J;Schoeman, W J; Schutte, D P A; Smit, F P; Smit, H A; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Thompson, A G; Van Breda, A; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Niekerk, A I; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Zyl, J G; Van der Merwe, C J; Van de Vyver, J H; Veldman, M H; Venter, A A; Viljoen, GvN; Vlok, A J; Welgemoed, P J; Wentzel, J J G.

NOES—25: Burrows, R M; Coetzee, H J; Dalling, D J; De Beer, Z J; De Jager, C D; De Ville, J R; Hartzenberg, F; Jacobs, S C; Le Roux, F J; Lorimer, R J; Malcomess, D J N; Mentz, M J; Mulder, C P; Mulder, P W A; Nolte, D G H; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Prinsloo, J J S; Schwarz, H H; Snyman, W J; Soal, P G; Suzman, H; Treurnicht, A P; Van Wyk, W J D; Van der Merwe, S S.

Vote agreed to.

Votes Nos 4 to 29 agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Remaining Votes and Schedules agreed to.

Second Reading debate

The hon member for Yeoville …

There is no time allocated to the hon member for Yeoville …

I have three minutes and the hon member knows that.

Order! I have no indication of the time allotted to the hon member. The hon member for Yeoville may proceed.

Mr Chairman, just to get the record straight, I was informed by the Chief Whip of my party that I have three minutes in which to speak. That time is available to me and I do not intend to abuse it but merely to use the time that has been allocated to me.

This brings me right to the point, viz that the procedure which has been adopted here today in regard to time, is not a success. It is utterly unacceptable to minority parties. In fact those of us who have to speak, are being allocated very little time to do so. We cannot speak on every Vote and we cannot even ask questions on every Vote while the Ministers have unlimited time. That to my mind is a completely undesirable and undemocratic situation. [Interjections.] The LP was told to stop asking questions. That is a majority party in one of the Houses and it has been given a minimum amount of time. This is a ridiculous situation and we cannot put up with it without protest.

Secondly, as regards the question of salary increases, the hon the Minister referred to the question of the non co-operation of the private sector.

I must tell you that I think an inability on the part of the Government to come to terms with the private sector on a voluntary basis on an important matter such as this, is to my mind a tragic admission of the failure of negotiations. To my mind negotiations are so key in South Africa that we cannot ignore this failure.

The second point I want to make is that, regrettably—and we have had the situation where one of the Ministers has excused his conduct in regard to this—the issue that arises in this House is not the maladministration or the inefficiency or the dishonesty of a Minister. That is not an issue. What is in issue is a ministerial responsibility. The traditions of Parliament are that if a department fails in a major respect, if there is a matter of consequence which is important, where a department has failed as there has clearly been demonstrated in the case of a number of departments, then, as a matter of honour, the Minister concerned tenders his resignation. Unfortunately, there are too many examples where this tradition is not being obeyed and where it is ignored. That really cannot be allowed to continue if the traditions of Parliament are to survive.

The third point that I want to make is the relationship between South Africa and the TBVC countries. There is concern about the use of money in the TBVC countries which has its origins in South Africa. There is a concern on the part of taxpayers at that abuse of money which comes from their pockets. There is a concern about the TBVC countries in some cases being used as a platform for abuse. The reality is that while there is a realization that as South Africans we are responsible for the welfare of the people who live there in this subcontinent, I think that people in South Africa also believe there is an action which is required from the homelands governments, namely that they show responsibility in regard to their relationship with South Africa.

Unfortunately there are too many examples now creeping in, not from all the homelands, but certainly from a number of the independent homelands, where that reciprocal responsibility is in fact not being shown.

We regret that all these things have taken place. We regret that there are many faults in what is happening. We regret that, for instance, when it comes to the process of privatisation, we now find ourselves in a new ball game. When South Africa needed to produce its own steel, it created Iscor. When it needed to produce its own fertilizers, it created Foscor. When it needed to produce its own fuel, it created Sasol. Now, what South Africa needs, is to educate and train its people and to give them a higher quality of life and to create jobs for them. That is what is in fact the urgent priority for South Africa and to that we should be devoting our money.

In these circumstances we ask that the hon the Minister takes another look at what his priorities for public expenditure are, to see that in fact we work in order to create a peaceful South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I am amazed at this performance of the hon member for Yeoville. We have both been in this Parliament now for fifteen years and consistently we have always run out of time when it comes to question time, as allocated in the debate on the Additional Appropriation Bill. I can vividly recall in my own mind how many times we did not even cover one-third or maybe even a quarter of the Votes. On top of that, whose fault is it?

The hon member did not mention or put on record that the time allocation today had been agreed upon by the Whips. [Interjections.] Yes, where did the time allocation come from then? I have been informed, and I believe my Whips, that the time allocation had been agreed upon. [Interjections.] I wonder whether it should not be properly investigated then. Perhaps we have conflicting information.

After all, if we were informed that each party had been allocated a certain amount of time and all of a sudden this is being denied, then I think that somebody is not telling the truth. I am quite inclined to believe the Whips on my side of the House.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon Minister a question?

Order! Is the hon the Minister prepared to take a question?

Yes, the hon member may ask a question.

Is it alleged by the hon the Minister that there is any agreement between the parties as to the time Ministers may use in this debate? [Interjections.]

That is obviously not what I said.

That is the issue.

Ministers were not given any time quota. One can ask a very simple question which will need an awfully long time to reply to properly. I do not know whether it is feasible or viable to allocate a certain time to Ministers. It needs to be investigated. [Interjections.]

Order! There is no point in having recriminations about what should or should not have been done. There are rules and hon members are entitled to take points of order. Let us bear in mind that if hon members did not take points of order that is what they should have done. Hon members must give the hon the Minister the opportunity now to complete his speech.

I will try to reply as briefly as possible.

I remind myself that the other day the hon member for Yeoville out of hand rejected a suggestion by the hon member for Vasco that we should reconsider the two debates, the Part Appropriation Bill and the Additional Appropriation Bill.

He rejected it out of hand, while the hon member for Vasco clearly debated on the basis that more time should be allocated to this particular debate and less time to the other debate, which invariably develops into a political debate. The hon member said that we should allocate more time to financial debates and that is the whole point. I also do not think it is practical to try to place a time limit on a Minister, particularly when it comes to difficult questions relating to a whole series of figures. I think it is practical to try to structure it the way it has been done so far.

I would like to refer briefly to the content of some of the hon member’s remarks here. In the first place the hon member for Yeoville referred to salaries and he accused the Government—if I heard and understood him correctly—of not having negotiated an agreement properly with the private sector.

I quoted you!

Mr Chairman, I could not have been quoted, because I have my speech in my hand. I said the following earlier today, and I will repeat it:

Now, Sir, according to this statement a signal was obviously given to the private sector. They did not follow suit and immediately the main reason for it is stated, namely a marked increase in the demand for qualified and skilled labour. This was the whole motivation. The moving to an earlier date of salary increases was decided upon by Government in order to counter the outflow of properly qualified and skilled people. That was the motivation for it, Sir. This is clearly what I also said in my opening remarks today. The inference therefore is that the Government just used statements and did not talk to the private sector at all. I think it should be placed on record … [Interjections.] … Well, that is the inference.

The hon the State President approached his Economic Advisory Council and he talked to individuals in the private sector. I was personally involved in a whole series of meetings with various trade unions and staff associations. The hon the State President devoted hours upon hours of his time in order to get this message through:

Look, let us take hands between public and private sector and let us see whether it will be possible to break the chain of events between salary increases and the increases in costs.

It was specifically said that in the event of higher salaries for the public sector, particularly those paid from the exchequer, at that point in time it would appear that more taxes would be needed. However, later on in the year it became clear that we had underestimated certain of the revenue sources—they were terribly difficult to anticipate correctly in advance—and then it became a feasible proposition.

The hon State President also clearly said on television—I was in West Berlin at the time—that one has to finance the salaries properly. That inferred or implied immediately that it would not be done by raising any loan moneys. My earlier remarks today clearly indicated that the private sector was compelled by the demands in the economy to recruit people, also from the public sector, at substantially higher salaries.

What is the alternative? What alternative could the private sector have followed in that set of circumstances? There is no way even with the best possible agreement with them and having taken negotiations to the utmost pinnacle of success—at that point when the economy demanded skilled people—that the private sector would have said to each other: Now look, old fellow, having agreed with the State President, I will not fill my position and therefore I will forfeit a certain contract. I will not recruit from you or anybody else and I will not raise salaries in order to retain my own people.

I think this is purely theoretical. In my opinion it is, in fact, absolutely crazy to think that an agreement would have made it possible for the State to avert the necessity of increasing its salaries as from 1 January. That particular argument of the hon member does not hold any water and I would like to place that on record properly.

Finally, we are not in a new ball game as far as privatisation proceeds are concerned. The hon the State President clearly outlined the priorities during the opening of Parliament at the beginning of last year. He clearly indicated that the top priority would be a reduction in the public debt. He also made reference to certain development projects, capital projects and other infrastructure. That is exactly what we are doing.

How many times did we as Government spokesmen not use that very same argument that the hon member raised today? We said that there was a time in the history of South Africa when it was necessary to create an Iscor, a Foscor and others. The money belonging to the people and the capital belonging to the public at large, the taxpayers, was pumped into those organisations.

A time has now come when this country is in desperate need of further development capital. Through a process of privatisation we are converting State capital that is just lying there and that is replaceable by private sector investment, into capital now needed in other spheres of economic activity in South Africa with a view to creating jobs and better circumstances.

A lot of that money will go into job creation. That is why we sent it to the SBDC and to the Development Bank of Southern Africa. Those institutions have been created and exist for the very purpose of developing the under-developed areas and communities in South Africa. Therefore it is nothing new to say today that money from the proceeds of privatisation will go that way.

We are not in a new ball game and we are playing open cards when it comes to the application of the proceeds of privatisation. We have nothing to hide. We would like to do this in the best possible interest of South Africa. In the first place, we are not crazy enough to finance current expenditure from the proceeds of privatisation. That is something that simply cannot be done.

Furthermore, when it comes to the real needs of South Africa we must allow some flexibility and that is why a redefinition actually occurred last year when the hon the State President made the announcement in his opening address.

Therefore, I do not think that this particular debate was really the right place for all the things that were said today, but I do think that it will serve a very good purpose if the hon member for Vasco, in his capacity as chairman of the Joint Committee on Finance, could have discussions with the chief spokesmen on finance issues from all the other Houses and political parties. They could have a discussion and maybe arrive at some recommendations so that we could see whether we can iron out certain problems with regard to these particular debates. I still say that the suggestion mooted by the hon member for Vasco is something really worth following up very soon.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.