Mr Chairman, I move:

1. (1) to prevent money from being brought into the Republic to be used there to endanger the safety of the public or the maintenance of public order or to create a state of emergency or to delay or prevent the termination of a state of emergency;
2. (2) in affirmation of the principles that political aims and objectives should be pursued in the Republic—
   1. (a) without instigation of feelings of hostility or violence; and
   2. (b) without interference, financial or otherwise, from outside the Republic,

and, if so, the question whether the Promotion of Orderly Internal Politics Bill [B 50—88 (GA)], which is hereby referred to the committee, satisfies such a need, the joint committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers and to submit legislation in this regard.

Mr Chairman, I believe that no one in this House can argue with much that is contained in the hon the Minister’s motion. The PFP is, for instance, absolutely opposed to money being brought into the Republic for the reasons referred to in the motion, viz:

It is common cause that the PFP has long argued for a speedy end to the state of emergency and the regulations administered in terms of it.

We can clearly also agree with the affirmation that political aims and objectives should be pursued in the Republic without instigation of feelings of hostility or violence and without interference, financial or otherwise, from outside the Republic.

If any of these things are happening—I am referring to the evils mentioned in the first part of the motion—I believe they should be stopped. We do not need British, American or any other large sources of money to fund the destruction of our society.

I think all of us in this House agree in differing ways that much reform is needed in our country. Some of us would go so far as to say that a complete change of direction is needed. All South Africans of all colours need to be drawn into the democratic process, and the PFP will continue to castigate the Government for its failures in this regard as it has done in the past. We do not, however, need to be confronted with foreign interference in the form of funds channelled into the Republic to foster revolution or disorder. Few groups of people are more concerned than the PFP at the growth of what can only be described as a revolutionary climate in South Africa, and to the extent that foreign funding plays a role in this, we condemn it and wish to help stop the flow of such funds.

The right to change our society belongs to the people of South Africa alone, Black and White. It is not a right which we can willingly grant to outsiders, no matter how noble their motives may be. We cannot, however, blame foreign interference for all our problems. The roots of the problems of our country lie neither in London nor Stockholm; they lie here, at the door of this Government, which has consistently denied basic human rights of citizenship to the overwhelming majority of our people.

In perpetuating this denial of rights and in the course of enforcing its norms on all of us in recent months, we have seen since October of last year clamp-downs on the Press, clamp-downs on the trade unions and restrictions and clamp-downs on extra parliamentary political organizations. We have even witnessed attempts to bring to heel the non-Nationalist universities of South Africa.

Order! As I understand it, the question before the House is whether a select committee should be appointed or not. I would like the hon member to address that particular question rather than to give a broad policy speech.

Thank you for your guidance, Mr Chairman, I shall certainly do that.

The hon member may continue.

Mr Chairman, now we have this motion before us. I believe notice of this motion was first given in the speech of the hon the State President when he addressed Parliament on 19 May 1987. After listing several political activities of which the hon the State President did not approve, activities of which none of us could approve, the hon the State President said 19 May, 1987, [Hansard, col 20]:

In this way an oblique preview of things to come was allowed to those of us who were prepared to listen and understand.

There is no doubt in my mind that it is the right and the duty of a government to introduce legislation which it deems necessary in the overall interests of the country, for passing by Parliament. Proper and well established machinery to do this is in existence. Except in very special circumstances, all Bills are introduced by a Minister and then referred to the relevant standing committee for investigation, possible amendment and, in the end result, for acceptance or rejection.

Why has the Standing Committee on Justice been bypassed in this case? It, that is the Standing Committee on Justice, already has the same powers and authority as this proposed special joint select committee will have. The Standing Committee on Justice which has long been constituted for its legal expertise, can take evidence as mentioned in this motion, can call for papers and it can enquire into any circumstances relating to the contents of the specified Bill mentioned or background relating to the need and desirability for such a Bill.

Why is the Standing Committee on Justice not being used in the normal course of events? Why is this obviously suitable forum being avoided? Is it because the Government does not trust the members of the standing committee to reach an objective decision or is it because the Government regards the chairman of the standing committee as being too legalistic and perhaps not sufficiently strong on security? I do not think that is the case.

I predict, though, that when constituted, this joint select committee will in fact closely resemble the existing Standing Committee on Justice. Its powers will be no different, its procedures will not vary and in all probability the result of the deliberations will be no different either.

I have now had an opportunity of reading only a summary of the draft Bill which is to be the subject of this new investigation. The actual Bill arrived on members’ desks approximately ten minutes before this House commenced its sitting this afternoon. Obviously, very few members, if any, have had an opportunity to read the Bill and to study it properly.

The main thrust of the Government’s intention is that any organization—be it Idasa, be it the South African Institute of Race Relations; perhaps even the Natal/KwaZulu Indaba can be declared what is now termed a “restricted” organization or person—here I paraphrase the memorandum given to me by the Department—if it engages in politics or if it is used as a channel to bring into the Republic funds to be used for subversion and has received moneys from outside the Republic.

It is my submission that this new select committee is neither necessary nor desirable. In terms of the Affected Organizations Act, No 31 of 1974, if the State President is satisfied that politics are being engaged in by or through an organisation with the aid of, or in co-operation with, or in consultation with, or under the influence of any organisation or person abroad, he then has the power to prohibit the canvassing or receiving or using of moneys by a specified organisation from any source whatsoever. That is specified in the Affected Organizations Act.

Machinery is set up in that Act to deal with such moneys, and the flow of these moneys can effectively be stopped. I notice that, just having had a quick glance at this Bill—I must say that I have not read the whole Bill—and looking at the memorandum, that the Affected Organizations Act seems to be mentioned once. It states here:

What I would like to ask is this: Why is the Affected Organizations Act, as amended, not adequate to cope with the problem which the hon the Minister is trying to identify? Why is this new and almost identical legislation required at this time by the Government? If foreign moneys are coming into South Africa and are being abused for political purposes, why has the Government not acted already? Why, if this is the case, has it neglected its duty? The Government already has the widest powers imaginable. Why then is this new duplication of existing law necessary at this time, and in such a rush? Why is there such a rush to decide upon this committee when the Bill which the hon the Minister wishes the committee to consider, has not even been read by hon members of this House at all? Why is there this rush? Surely we are owed by this hon Minister a full motivation as to why this new initiative is needed so urgently?

I wonder if the hon the Minister is aware of the provisions of section 9 of Act 9 of 1933? That is the Currency and Exchanges Act of 1933. I think the hon the Minister is probably not aware of the provisions of that section of the Act. I was not aware of them either until they were pointed out to me by an hon colleague earlier today. For the record I wish to point out that that section grants blanket power to the State President to restrict the entry of any moneys—and I stress the words “any moneys”—into the Republic, in terms of exchange control regulations. Therefore, in terms of the Currency and Exchanges Act of 1933, section 9, the hon the State President has the full power to invoke the currency exchange regulations to stop the inflow into the country of any moneys of any sort for any purpose, should he so wish.

The question now is, if these evils which are mentioned by the hon the Minister are occurring, why have these laws then not been used? They are on the Statute Book and are perfectly adequate to cope with any political abuse of moneys coming into the Republic. Surely we do not need at this time in our history another high-profile, Schlebusch-type investigation which in the end result will achieve little, but in the further we will alienate people here and isolate our country from the Western democracies and from our friends abroad, few though they may be.

From what I have said it must be clear to hon members in this House that, firstly, we oppose foreign moneys being used for political aims within the Republic. Secondly, we believe that South Africans, Black and White, must sort out their future themselves without leaning on foreign influences. Thirdly, we believe that solutions will be found in the area of negotiation, reform and change, and not by making attacks on the fundamental rights of citizens.

Finally, we firmly believe that there are already sufficient laws on the Statute Book to cope with any abuses or improper financial interference in the affairs of our country. Therefore, I accordingly move the following amendment to the hon the Minister’s motion:

Mr Chairman, I find it really strange that the PFP never seems to learn from its mistakes. Hon members will recall that after the last election the PFP blamed us for the fact that they were no longer the Official Opposition. They said that we told the public that they were soft on security. Surely they were asking for it! Today they proved it again. The same pattern was followed which we find every time when it comes to the security of our country. First of all there is a vote in favour of security, but then the word “but” follows. What follows after the “but” is precisely the opposite of what preceded it. This time they are saying that they are in favour of everything being decided on a local level; that there is no money from outside entering the country. But then they say there is sufficient legislation to enforce this.

What was very interesting was what the hon member for Sandton said about fundamental rights in his last few sentences. That is the real issue. They consider it to be a fundamental right that one may obtain money wherever one likes.

At least we do not steal taxpayers’ money!

The hon member for Green Point said we stole taxpayers’ money. I think it is unparliamentary to say that we on this side of the House steal taxpayers’ money. Mr Chairman, on a point of order, I want to say I think the hon member must withdraw that.

Order! Unfortunately I did not hear what the hon member said. Did the hon member say that hon members on this side of the House were implicated in the theft of money?

Mr Chairman, I said that at least we do not steal taxpayers’ money by conveying people to political meetings in Government helicopters. [Interjections.]

Order! I cannot take that to be anything but a reflection on one person in this House. The hon member must withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, I am not prepared to withdraw it.

Order! Then the hon member must withdraw from the Chamber for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

[Whereupon the hon member withdrew from the Chamber.]

Mr Chairman, the fact that the hon member for Green Point, who has just withdrawn from the Chamber, first walked in the wrong direction, is merely another demonstration that he is completely off course. [Interjections.]

To motivate the standpoint of this side of the House I want to bring the following to the attention of hon members. There is no doubt at all in our minds that we are experiencing a revolutionary onslaught against the RSA which is carefully orchestrated and conducted from Moscow. Years ago our hon State President said that a total onslaught was developing against our country. Many people then said we were looking for Communists behind every bush. Can hon members remember that? What are we experiencing today? Today we are experiencing a total onslaught against every facet of the South African way of life.

It is very clear that this revolution cannot succeed without money. Money has become the lifeblood of revolution. It is necessary to keep the so-called “leaders in exile” in luxury. It is necessary to train the terrorists, to make international propaganda against our country and to undertake itinerant international diplomacy.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he does not believe that the present security apparatus and the present laws are adequate to control the inflow of these funds. If they are not adequate then surely it is his party’s fault.

Now this is very interesting. When hon members examine the notice of motion they will see that we refer there to “take evidence and call for papers”. We are constantly being accused of high-handedness by that side of the House. They say we do not take them into our confidence, take decisions without having any evidence for doing so, and we do not consult them in this regard. We now want to appoint a committee on which those hon members can serve so that we have a basis in fact and evidence for our actions. Now the hon member is terribly surprised that we are doing this. I do not think that is good enough.

Are you not going to answer the question?

I have replied to the question now. If that hon member does not understand it, it is not my fault. Of course there are not sufficient mechanisms; otherwise we would surely not have moved this motion. We are not looking for work.

It is very clear that revolutionary forces throughout the world have access to money. Examples in the international sphere, which I have just mentioned, are activities taking place abroad. Surely it is ironic that the onslaught against us is being orchestrated by Moscow and paid for by the West. Is that not nasty?

Internally the onslaught against us is being waged for the hearts and the minds of the people. Front organisations are being used for this purpose.

There is no doubt at all about that. The fact of the matter is that these front organisations cannot operate without finances. For example there is a struggle to hijack the organisations relating to trade unions and for that they need money. So, too, there are organisations concentrating on scholars and students, and for that they need money. In the social sphere there are people who do not want us to succeed in our attempt to cause development to take place on that level. They need money for that. There are such organisations in the ecclesiastical sphere, and even in our legal system there is an onslaught by means of expensive and protracted court cases in an attempt to cripple our legal system, which is held in high esteem in the world.

We do in fact have control over this type of thing. Money is donated from abroad under the pretext of it being reform. Money is being donated from abroad to get rid of the so-called oppressors. That is why it is important to remember the old adage: He who pays the piper calls the tune. It is important that we appoint this committee to see who pays the piper. Secondly, it is important for us to establish the conditions under which that piper is being paid. I do not want to anticipate the findings of this select committee, but we shall find that the conditions for contributions are that unrest, violence and destabilisation have to be promoted in this country of ours.

Ironically enough we in South Africa, who want to adopt a course of reform, also need money. We need money in particular for reform in the economic and social sphere. Consequently we cannot afford the destabilisation of our country which will lead to a weaker economy and unemployment, which in turn will provide a breeding ground for revolution.

The word “reform” consists of two components, viz change which is the road to improvement, and stability. We cannot have the one without the other. Reform and stability must go hand in hand.

What lies behind this motion of the hon the Minister is to ensure further that we shall have stability in this country on the road to reform. Consequently, while we are tilling our soil, we must have one hand on the sword and the other on the spade. That is the course we are adopting. We cannot allow the outside world to pour money into our country in order to destabilise us here. This is not an investigation for the purpose of starting a witch-hunt but an honest attempt to establish whether our legislation is adequate and whether, on the basis of the facts that will be submitted to us, it is necessary for us to take action against foreign intervention by way of the provision of funds.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Parow devoted a large part of his speech to the total onslaught and the revolutionary onslaught, and it was a pity to hear again that he saw the solution in fighting one onslaught with a total onslaught and in that way placing the two existing poles in a position in which they would merely continue to repel one another. As long as we try to find a solution by means of a total onslaught, whether on the part of the Government or on the part of the ANC, our conflict potential is merely going to increase.

If one consequently wants to find a political solution in the longer term—that is what those of us in the NDM are working for—one must try to widen the political involvement of the South African population and make it possible to involve more people politically.

The Bill’s title gives an indication that the promotion of orderly internal politics is the object of the Bill, but when one examines the clauses contained in the Bill—we had very little time to read them—it is clear from the start that provision is being made in certain clauses for very strict action against people who, according to the Government’s criterion, are a political danger. Our approach is that any action which may perhaps be classified as security action, must serve in the long term to involve a larger percentage of the South African population in politics. It is well known that we in the NDM …

Order! We are not going to listen to the policy of the hon member’s party here. The discussion is merely concerned with whether a select committee should be appointed to investigate that legislation or not. The other questions can be discussed on the select committee, and will subsequently come before this House. The only question now is whether a select committee should be appointed or not.

Mr Chairman, allow me then to proceed to reply to a few of the points raised by the hon member for Parow.

I shall only allow that in respect of the question of whether this select committee should be appointed or not. I cannot allow hon members to use the speech made by the hon member for Parow to go beyond the scope of this motion.

With this investigation an attempt can be made to establish whether the funds entering the country are being used to further subversive objectives, or whether they are being used to broaden the political spectrum by making it possible for more South Africans to be involved.

We in the NDM think that if such a committee could cast more light on the question of whether the money is in fact being used for greater involvement in the total political scene, the participation of the NDM on such a committee ought to play a positive role. We think we can make a contribution in making this clear, not only on the committee, but also to the Government and the public that greater acceptance of other political organisations, groups the Government now considers to be part of the onslaught, is a far better approach and solution in regard to our long-term political objectives and long-term stability.

We intend to participate in the activities of the select committee if we are afforded an opportunity to do so, in order, to try through our contributions to persuade people to open their political eyes; to strive for a long-term security which is not based on emergency situations or on total onslaught rhetoric, but on the participation and involvement of all South Africans in the process, so that we can seek our solutions in that direction together.

Mr Chairman, the participation of the hon member for Durban Central in this select committee will most certainly be welcomed, because its purpose is in fact that people should participate in order to unravel matters and make public the facts that can withstand the test of daylight, because it is causing concern to us on this side of the House that funds are being made available to certain organisations and bodies, to enable them not only to undertake excursions which we do not think are in the interests of internal security and order, but are most certainly suspicious. The hon member has a special contribution to make on such a committee. On occasion the hon member’s trips have been the subject of discussion, and I think this affords him an opportunity to play a role in the concretisation of the motion under discussion.

If there is one thing we must guard jealously in this country it is that no person or body, no fund or foreign intervention of any kind must create the impression that this Government is not the legitimate government of this country. In view of this we must resist everything from abroad which is aimed at interfering illegitimately in the events in this country.

The second aspect, which is most certainly just as important, deals with the image and the importance of this Parliament. We cannot allow this to be harmed, no matter what the political mobilisation and political opinions outside this Parliament are.

The fact of the matter is that this Parliament must ultimately deal with those opinions and the product of that political mobilisation here in Parliament. Consequently we dare not allow any leeway. Therefore we dare not allow this Parliament and parliamentary processes to be dismissed as being irrelevant. In view of this we are making out an exceptional case for claiming that the motion of the hon the Minister is not premature; it is a timeous motion.

†With great respect, Sir, the argument advanced by the hon member for Sandton is not a valid one although we thank him for his support in opposition to foreign intervention. He made the clear statement that South Africans would have to sort out their own problems and difficulties in South Africa among themselves, and I could not agree more with him when he said that we would have a future constitutional dispensation by way of negotiation and power-sharing. He has, however, conceded that he has not studied the Bill. I do not blame him for that, but I think a prima facie case can be argued that current legislation is not adequate to deal with the situation.

*Sir, I do not in any way want to create the impression that we think South Africa’s problems can only be dealt with, and solved by, security action. Not at all.

The fact of the matter is that we are all thoroughly aware of the fact that we will all have to work so much harder and in greater earnest, so much more imaginatively, in order to outlive this image, as it were. There is no other solution.

Sir, I am not trying to score political points off anyone in regard to intra-parliamentary and extra-parliamentary organisations. I think that by now extra-parliamentary organisations already have representation in this Parliament. [Interjections.] Those hon gentlemen will most certainly make out a case for themselves on the committee both inside and outside Parliament. That is why I think we should postpone that debate until a later date.

Mr Chairman, the matter now being discussed by this House merely entails the wisdom, or otherwise, of appointing a select committee to investigate the matters set out in the motion on the Order Paper.

It is part of the democratic process that matters of this nature should be investigated. In the nature of things, we as a party are opposed to it being possible for money from abroad to be utilised to threaten the safety of the Republic, and this is a matter which should of course be investigated. We merely feel that the motion, at this stage, is stated a little too broadly, particularly in view of the fact that this select committee will also, and I am quoting from the motion, have to examine the following:

1. (a) without instigation of feelings of hostility or violence …

Hostility can have a very wide meaning, Mr Chairman. I do not know what to say. We also experience hostilities in politics. For example I cannot say that our relations with the NP are friendly. [Interjections.] Sir, these are matters that must be investigated. By agreeing to serve on this select committee we are of course not in agreement with many of the things stated in the envisaged Bill. Consequently we therefore reserve the right to state our standpoints on such a select committee. Nevertheless we have no objection to such a select committee being appointed.

Mr Chairman, today I want to express my strongest opposition to the envisaged select committee under discussion. [Interjections.] If it is true that money from abroad is being used to endanger the safety of the Republic, or will really endanger the maintenance of public order, I believe that sufficient channels exist to put a stop to it. In the first place, however, I should like to receive evidence of such operations from the NP.

†Sir, this motion asking for the appointment of a select committee, as well as the proposed Orderly Internal Politics Bill, represents yet another leg in the total onslaught on the majority of South Africans. I can state that the object of this proposed Bill, which is to promote, for example, orderly internal politics, will never be accomplished as long as the Government in South Africa is not elected by the majority of South Africans. This motion, as well as the proposed Bill, is aimed at stopping moneys coming into South Africa for the funding of what, I believe, are anti-apartheid actions and organisations. These are not aimed at organisations which are trying to create disorder in this country, Sir. That is not the aim of the motion before the House today. It is aimed at people who are trying to obtain money for their fight against apartheid— not to undermine law and order; I want to state that quite clearly. [Interjections.]

*Mr Chairman, there is no revolutionary onslaught on South Africa. [Interjections.] Attempts are being made to use violence. South Africa’s problems, however, are internal political problems. [Interjections.] There is a total onslaught on the part of this Government on democracy in South Africa. This Government ostensibly wants to broaden democracy, while it is in reality breaking it down and destroying it.

†This minority Government, as borne out by the motion before the House, as well as by the proposed legislation and by actions against South Africans protesting peacefully such as Boesak and Tutu, can justifiably be called today one of the most repressive authoritarian regimes in the Western World.

Order! The hon member cannot continue in that vein. If he does I shall have to order him to resume his seat. He has heard my rulings in this regard. I have given a number of rulings since the beginning of this debate. I ask him now to obey those rulings. The hon member may continue.

Mr Chairman, I gladly obey your ruling.

*In the motion before the House reference is made to the feelings of hostility which should not be instigated. At this moment laws are being applied that do exactly that; laws which instigate precisely that hostility. That is happening at this moment in South Africa.

†I want to ask the hon the Minister to tell me when he replies to the debate whether this motion, together with the legislation, is aimed at Dr Van Zyl Slabbert’s institute, Idasa. Is that one of the organisations which he would consider to be receiving money for the purposes which he has defined within the motion? I want to know today whether the proposed committee as well as the legislation is aimed at acting against legal organisations which are working quite peacefully and completely aboveboard for a democratic future and are using peaceful means.

Why do you not ask that hon member?

The hon the Minister asks me to ask another hon member, but the hon the Minister has moved the motion and therefore I think he should tell us what is happening today.

*Internally the Government has paralysed the entire Black opposition. They are being prevented from organising, prevented from canvassing support and consequently from receiving money. The result of those disruptive measures in this country is that many of the anti-apartheid organizations do receive money from abroad, and that money is being utilized openly to fight against apartheid. That is what is happening at this stage, and the hon the Minister knows it to be the case. He and his party want to prevent those anti-apartheid organizations from receiving that money. That is the object, not to maintain law and order, but to maintain apartheid.

Mr Chairman, as was to be expected, the hon member for Claremont objected vehemently to this motion. He denied that there was any external onslaught on this country, but what does this motion say? It reads—

More absolutely neutral than that one cannot make it. I want to suggest, with all due respect, that any reasonable person in this country, who strongly supports law and order and justice, cannot but support this motion.

The hon member for Sandton began very moderately. He supported the principle very strongly, and we have great appreciation for that. Afterwards his major objection was that adequate measures existed. I want to suggest that it is strange, when one adheres so strongly to principles, that one will draw back if the opportunity presented itself for one to make a contribution to strengthen measures that also strengthen those principles. That is why I suggest that this strong standpoint on principles is not entirely credible.

The hon member did not go further and refer to what is stated in clause 16 of the Bill. He also omitted to refer to paragraph (2) (a) of the motion, from which it is clearly apparent that stringent steps will be taken against people who instigate feelings of hostility or violence. The fact that hon members of the PFP oppose this motion consequently means that they do not agree with that aspect either.

I suggest that the time for an investigation such as the one now being envisaged was never riper than right now. No self-respecting state can allow funds from abroad to be used to engage in internal politics or try to incite unrest in this country, and in particular it cannot allow intermediaries to be used for that purpose. If there are any loopholes, they must be eliminated now.

We are dealing with an exceptional situation. An undeclared war is being waged against us, which is being funded and planned from abroad. This is not ordinary crime, and the ordinary measures laid down by the Criminal Procedure Act, are just not adequate to combat these aspects. That is why we need exceptional and strong measures to maintain order for the sake of progress in the economic and political spheres, and that is consequently why I should like to support this motion.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon members who support this motion for the way in which they stated their case, the clarity with which they expressed their arguments and also for the fact that quite a number of points, such as those raised by the hon members for Sandton and Claremont, were dealt with in the course of their arguments.

While I am referring in this vein to the hon members for Parow, Krugersdorp and Pietermaritzburg North, it brings me to the arguments and questions from hon members on the opposite side of the House, for example the hon member for Sandton. He asked why we were bypassing the Standing Committee on Justice. Surely that is not true in the sense in which he stated it. We do not have other motives, but we definitely have many other disciplines we have to serve. The hon member himself served on such a joint committee, namely the committee on the family court, a concept initiated by the Ministry of Justice and one which the hon member supported.

Why did we do it in that way, namely that every House constituted its own select committee to serve as part of a joint committee of Parliament? We did so because the matter was of a multidisciplinary nature, in the sense that various departments were involved because various disciplines had to be served. In the case of the family court we were dealing with welfare, justice matters and a wide series of other matters. The same applies in this case, and perhaps more so.

When one sees what aspects are being addressed in the Bill, one sees that the Department of National Health and Population Development once again has an interest in it, because we want to amend the Fund-raising Act, and there are quite a number of clauses dealing with it. In the context of the motion it is very clear that we are also dealing with the discipline that is controlled by the Minister of Law and Order. It is also possible that specific information facets will have to become prominent, which is within the purview of various departments.

The practice has arisen—to my mind it is a good practice—to give multi-disciplinary recognition to the interests of other departments. This was clearly demonstrated from our front benches when the chairmen of the Standing Committees on Protection Services and Justice both participated here. Surely that illustrates the point. [Interjections.]

Consequently we definitely did not do so with any other motive but that of giving a multi-disciplinary character to this committee.

There are other considerations as well. With this we are not only affording this House an opportunity, but the entire Parliament. This is the first time in our history that the other Houses will also be able to make their contribution in connection with security matters. This is the answer to the hon members for Claremont and Sandton, because I have just heard a report that the other two Houses have resolved to appoint similar select committees. I think it is a breakthrough in this country that those other Houses are going to avail themselves of an opportunity to make their contributions to security matters.

I think the hon member for Sandton has now let an opportunity to make a similar contribution slip through his fingers. Instead the PFP has deviated from its age-old standpoint of wanting to have nothing to do with security matters.

Today it is mounting a new platform and criticising the Government because the Government did not act in time, and besides, the Government must apply two other Acts—the 1933 Act and the Affected Organisations Act, that we have to adapt. The hon member for Sandton said so. In other words he was endorsing the principles of the Affected Organisations Act, something which he never did before.

The above must be seen in the context of his condemnation of funds entering this country from abroad to effect change. Surely that is a complete change of front on the part of the PFP! The hon member for Parow illustrated this well when he discussed this point.

Why do we not simply let the Affected Organisations Act suffice? If that is the case, I am asking the hon member to tell me without qualification whether he would support amendments to make the Affected Organisations Act more effective.

Mr Chairman, we will consider any amendments.

Mr Chairman, is the hon member now saying that we must put the instrument we have to better use? The Act has certain shortcomings. One of the shortcomings we have to deal with is that an organisation can only be declared an affected organisation in terms of that Act.

The second shortcoming is that it does not affect a person as well. It is a fact that a technique has developed of using persons as agents or agencies to bring funds into the country. Does the hon member support the amendment that a person may also be declared an affected person, in order to make the legislation more effective?

Mr Chairman, if the hon Minister puts an amendment on the Table, we will consider it.

Mr Chairman, the hon member and his party will consider it, but in the meantime he is reproaching me without qualification because we are coming forward with a Bill here which also adapts the Affected Organisations Act. Besides, the Affected Organisations Act entails that when an organisation is declared to be an affected organisation, that virtually puts an end to its business.

With the motion before the House we are developing a second model alongside the affected organisation, and we are asking the hon members to consider enabling us to declare an organisation or a person “restricted” so that a person’s business is not completely closed down and so that such funds that do enter the country are allowed through for good, commendable purposes.

In the case of an affected organisation, however, there is an absolute prohibition. We are therefore being very fair, but as a result of this fair approach, the hon member for Sandton does not want to give the motion his support. How does one understand that? He gave us the key to his refusal to support the motion. Towards the end of his contribution the hon member said “We do not need another Schlebusch-type investigation!”

†Why did the hon member say that? Because that investigation destroyed the UP. It caused great division in their ranks which, of course, was beneficial for the country; the country benefited in the end and not the UP. Does the hon member for Sandton perhaps fear what such an investigation will bring to light? Is that perhaps the true reason?

That is not the reason.

What are we doing? For the first time we are giving Parliament the opportunity to investigate the reasons for the Government’s proposed legislation.

*They are being afforded an opportunity of judging whether our judgment was sound. Parliament is being given that right, and the hon member for Sandton rejects it. Consequently I do not think that he served his cause in any way at all; least of all did his amendment, when all is said and done, in any way support his true resistance to the inflow of funds. He was merely paying lip service, and did not really succeed with his amendment.

Are you saying that …

His amendment does not in fact support his speech.

There are just one or two more points that I want to address. The hon member for Durban Central did say that he would serve on such a committee, if he was afforded an opportunity to do so. We want to thank him for that. I think that is a very fair approach. I just want to add something. The intention of the way in which this matter has been dealt with is in fact to create a climate in South Africa which will make it possible for reform to take place. As long as funds are streaming into our country, this cannot happen, because such funds are like petrol on a fire.

Not all of them.

Our motion is in fact seeking to draw that distinction. Consequently the support of the hon member in this regard is responsible support.

There is another reason why I think that the hon member for Sandton did not perhaps get to the heart of the matter. We are dealing here with a very serious matter, namely the creation of hostility between persons, nationalities, cultures, religious groups, etc. [Interjections.] We already have legislation in this regard on the Statute Book, but it is not being properly applied because the onus of proof is difficult. We are now changing the onus of proof in this regard. We are making it possible—at this stage there are at most proposals in this regard—for certain banners, badges, emblems, symbols and slogans to be ruled out of order by way of a proclamation in the Gazette, and if these are related to a specific action, the burden of proof is also placed on such a person. Such a measure can have a wide impact, but it is for the committee to decide about that and make recommendations.

†There is a further principle really at stake in this issue. No one can fault the principle that the internal politics of any country should be conducted in the best interests of that country. It is not in the best interests of any group that opposing political factions should pursue their political objectives by the instigation of hostility between groups, or by violent action. The acceptance of funds from outside the country for the pursuance of political objectives inside the country lays the recipient open to being prescribed to by the donor. The risk that foreign donors will act in their own interests and not necessarily in the interests of the recipient country is overwhelming. It is therefore an accepted principle that internal political parties should not receive money from outside the country.

The Bill referred to in the motion has been drafted with the affirmation and implementation of these principles in mind. This I wish to point out and emphasise: The status of the Bill is therefore that of a document that may serve as a point of departure, and does not purport to bind either the Government or those participating in the committee. The committee is therefore at liberty to amend the Bill or to propose a new Bill altogether. Naturally the Government may also submit to the committee new or adjusted proposals.

It is therefore proper that all political parties represented in Parliament should have the opportunity, and should seize the opportunity, to hear all the evidence on the subject and to take part in the deliberations on issues such as what the guiding principles should be on the issue, whether legislation is needed in affirmation of these principles, and whether the Bill referred to the committee satisfies these legislative needs. The main players in the game should in the interests of the game try to find consensus on what the rules of the game should be.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided.

As fewer than fifteen members (viz Andrew, K M; Barnard, M S; Dalling, D J; Eglin, C W; Hulley, R R; Lorimer, R J; Malcomess, D J N; Olivier, N J J; Schwarz, H H; Suzman, H; Swart, R A F; Van Gend, J B de R, and Walsh, J J) appeared on one side,

Question declared affirmed and amendment dropped.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Although an additional amount of R121 645 million is being requested, in the Additional Appropriation Bill at present before the House, for the 1987-88 financial year, the question before the House is, in point of fact, the voting of an additional amount of only R22 million, representing an increase of a mere 0,4%.

Because the Administration: House of Assembly—for this I wish to thank my colleagues in the Ministers’ Council—is acting in the spirit of the hon the State President’s appeal for the curtailing of State expenditure as far as is practicable, it has been possible for us to obtain, from our own funds, R67 322 million of the additional funds needed to balance the books. The remaining R33 323 million represents the amount for the improvement of conditions of service which now has to be made good as a result of an under-allocation of funds to the Administration: House of Assembly and which therefore cannot be regarded as overspending.

The departments constituting the Administration: House of Assembly are executive departments which render a direct service to the public and in regard to which it is extremely difficult to effect savings, which in many cases can only be effected by the curtailment of sensitive services.

The deficit of R121 645 million will be financed as follows: An amount of R64 955 is being made available by the Ministers’ Council from surpluses from previous financial years. An amount of R32 323 million is being made available for the under-allocation of funds for the improvement of conditions of service. An amount of R22 million is being made available by the Minister of Finance, and an amount of R2,367 million was frozen and is now being released. This brings the total to R121 645 million, equal to the deficit which has to be financed.

†I would now like to deal briefly with the amounts required in respect of individual votes.

Vote 1—“Health Services”:

Vote 2—“Agriculture and Water Supply”:

The amount of R370 million has accordingly been suspended by the Treasury of the Administration: House of Assembly and will be appropriated in the forthcoming financial year for financing the administration’s expenditure. When I introduce the main Budget I will provide further details in this regard. At this stage, however, I wish to assure hon members that the total amount of R370 million will eventually be spent on agriculture.

Vote 3—“Education and Culture”:

An additional amount of R64,795 million is required in respect of this Vote. The revised amounts reflected in the additional estimates, show that this increase can be attributed mainly to the increase under Programme 2: Pre-primary, primary and secondary education and teacher training.

The Administration: House of Assembly is still in a consolidating phase in respect of the transfer of educational functions from the provinces. Although progress has been made in preliminary work for the implementation of the financial management system, the diverse financial systems which are being applied in the four provincial education departments will of necessity delay an early implementation.

The Ministers’ Council of the House of Assembly, being aware of this, has decided to alleviate the financial problems which are being experienced by the education department by allocating an amount of R42,795 million out of its own surplus funds. This amount will be in addition to the amount of R22 million which has been made available by the Minister of Finance.

Vote 4—“Local Government, Housing and Works”:

An additional amount of R18,061 million is needed in respect of this Vote. The whole of this amount will be provided for by using surplus funds.

This increase can be attributed mainly to the shortages which are being experienced in respect of buildings, structures and equipment as well as subsidies paid to local areas.

Vote 5—“Budgetary and Auxiliary Services”:

An amount of R1 867 million is required for this Vote. This amount includes an amount of R1,7 million which is required for the expenditure involved in auditing the accounts of the various education departments. These costs will, in future, be paid by the Administration: House of Assembly.

A further amount of R167 000 was included in the estimates to provide for a possible enlargement of the department’s establishment as a result of the transfer of public resorts from the provincial administrations to the Administration: House of Assembly. If these transfers cannot be finalised before the end of this financial year, which at this stage seems unlikely, this amount will revert to the Revenue Account of the Administration: House of Assembly.

*Vote 6—“Improvement of Conditions of Service”:

The request for an increased amount of R32 323 million under this Vote is chiefly for teaching staff and, as has been stated, it can be ascribed to an under-allocation of funds to the Administration: House of Assembly when the initial allocations for the improvement of conditions of service were made. This under-allocation of funds, in turn, should be ascribed to the process of establishing the educational function under the auspices of the Administration: House of Assembly.

Vote 7—“Welfare”:

An additional amount of R3 845 million is being requested for this vote. Comprehensive economy measures were implemented by the department on Programme 4: Child Welfare in order to relieve the greater need in regard to the care of the aged, in regard to which there was an increase in the number of beneficiaries. The deficit of R3 845 million is being offset fully from the surplus in the Revenue Account: House of Assembly.

In addition the request for the additional amount of R121 645 million can be ascribed to unforeseen circumstances of which there was no knowledge when the Main Budget for 1987-88 was drawn up. There is no doubt, however, that during the prevailing very difficult financial conditions, the Administration: House of Assembly is making a definite contribution towards further curtailing expenditure and introducing savings in all spheres. As I have already said, however, this is an extremely difficult task when one bears in mind the nature of the services furnished by the respective departments of the Administration. Nevertheless strict control of expenditure and financial discipline is being carefully implemented by all departments. The Ministers’ Council is constantly geared to investigating suitable methods for improving financial control.

My colleagues in the Ministers’ Council will furnish further information about the particulars of additional expenditure. I now request the House to approve the request for an additional amount of R121 645 million.

Mr Chairman, I shall try to abide by the ruling the Chairman gave yesterday in regard to the debate on the Additional Appropriation for general affairs. I take it the same ruling will also apply here. I do not know whether you want to give a different ruling in this regard, Mr Chairman.

I note at the very beginning that the hon the Minister said that he attributed the request for the additional amount to unforeseen circumstances of which there was no knowledge when the Main Budget was drawn up. I find that strange, owing to the explanation furnished in the explanatory memorandums we received from the respective departments—I am referring, in particular, to the allocation for education in which provision is made for an additional amount for pre-primary, primary and secondary education and teacher training—which reads as follows:

It reads further:

Scandalous!

Is that possible?

What we now have is the fact that the hon the Minister was informed, or ought to have been informed, that the amount voted last year was too little to provide certain basic services. One consequently asks oneself whether the Minister of the Budget is indeed a Minister of the budget. It seems to me as if the hon the Minister receives a certain amount from the hon the Minister of Finance and then has to make do. I can draw no other conclusion.

We want to object in the strongest possible terms. We represent White voters in this House. We want to object in the strongest possible terms to this Government’s deliberate under-provision— as now appears to be the case—as far as the education of our White children are concerned, and we would like to have the hon the Minister’s reply, and in particular that of the Minister of Education and Culture as well.

What I now find somewhat strange—I regret having to refer to this—is the situation in regard to agriculture. Last year there was a great deal of propaganda and a tremendous fuss about the massive aid the NP was granting the agricultural industry, so much so that numerous city and town dwellers grew rather rebellious at the fact that hundreds of millions of rand were being given to agriculture. Promises were made and explanations were furnished, and now, almost a year later, the hon the Minister of Agriculture spoke in this House last week. When the hon member for Lichtenburg asked what he done with that R400 million, of which they boasted so lavishly during the by-elections in two agricultural constituencies, saying that it was supposedly being employed as assistance to agriculture, he had to explain. What did that hon Minister say in this House on 23 February of this year? He said:

Sir, it is not merely a dormant reserve! It is a reserve that has stopped dead!

It is a failure, a total failure!

It is invisible!

This is not the first year in which we are experiencing economic problems in agriculture! Now, after years …

Why do you not first speak about the assistance?

Assistance? I am tempted to laugh—only R30 million of the R400 million has been spent!

Now the hon the Minister of Agriculture comes along and says that we are going to think the matter over and that now, after investigations have been carried out, we are going to decide on how to spend that money. I am grateful to the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare for having told us that at least there is still R370 million of that amount left. If one looks at the Additional Appropriation one sees that last year under the heading “Agricultural financing”, under Vote 2, R53 million was voted for capital repayment, after provision had been made for various allocations. Now the hon the Minister states in the Additional Appropriation that the amount is R100 million. I find that rather strange!

Provision has been made for received interest of R22 million. They estimate this at R25 million now, but there is a credit balance for this department, transferred since last year—a credit balance of R64 million. That is an amount the hon the Minister did not spend during the previous year either. The nearest figure we gleaned from the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare this afternoon was an allocation of R370 million for agriculture. This is the amount which this House of Assembly voted for the financing of agriculture and which was not used at all. That amount was not used at all by the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply, Sir.

But the people did not ask for the money!

The people did not ask for it! What? [Interjections.] The hon member for Meyerton is living in a dream-world, Sir. When a person must apply to reach a settlement with his creditors and in doing so runs the risk of having the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply and the hon the Minister of Finance—ie when he has obtained a guaranteed production loan—demand that he be sequestrated, what person would then still approach the Government for financial assistance. Instead of the Government, by the action it takes, trying to keep farmers on their land, the hon the Minister of Finance and the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply are now forcing the co-operatives to sequestrate farmers. Is that how agriculture is being assisted? [Interjections.] Then the hon member for Meyerton is still amazed when farmers do not come forward to apply for assistance.

Total failure!

No, Sir, we are saying that the agricultural industry in South Africa has been shabbily treated. It has been shabbily treated for the simple reason—I regret having to say this here—that our present hon Minister of Agriculture and Water supply is not able to hold his own against the hon the Minister of Finance. [Interjections.] I regret most sincerely having to say this, Sir. It does not go beyond promises, because when it comes to carrying out those promises, what do we have? What do we have then, Sir?

My time is limited. I want to conclude. At a later juncture, during the committee stage, we shall be putting questions to the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply in particular. In conclusion I want to reiterate that as far as I am concerned the hon the Minister of the Budget is not a Minister of the budget. We could just as well have appointed an accountant to do his work.

The only thing he keeps an eye on is the AWB! [Interjections.]

We could just as well have appointed an accountant to do that work. In any event, that hon Minister does not have any elbow-room. Let me also reiterate what we have previously said. This artificial dichotomy—a completely artificial dichotomy—between agriculture: general affairs and agriculture: own affairs is nothing but a huge farce. Who does the Government think it is bluffing? Agricultural Economics and Marketing is a general affair. The promotion of plant production and research, in contrast, is a White own affair. Do the Coloureds, Indians and Blacks have no interest in that? I am merely asking. I am also asking how long we are still going to continue this artificial dichotomy.

Sir, do you know why this artificial dichotomy is being maintained? It is being done so that the Whites can ultimately be told: “But just look at how many millions of rands this good NP Government has voted for White own affairs.” The Government could possibly succeed in bluffing the voters for a long time. They will not, however, succeed in bluffing them forever.

You are misleading the voters! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to ask the hon member for Barberton who it is he wants to bluff. Whom does he want to bluff, Sir? Has the hon member had a look at what the figure was after last year’s Additional Appropriation? Has he done so? The figure last year was R507,497 million. If he had looked at the explanatory memorandum, he would have known that the figure indicated there was R991 million— almost twice that of last year.

And that is without the R400 million!

That is the amount to be spent, and that is over and above the R400 million. The other day I explained how the R400 million had been employed.

Cas cannot read!

The hon the Minister of the Budget has just explained what happened to that R400 million. We used R13 million of that amount for land conversion. I am now asking whom the hon member wants to bluff. [Interjections.] This year’s amount is almost R500 million more than that of last year. I think that is a massive increase in agricultural expenditure. If he would only look at this memorandum and the budget, he would see that as a result of capital and interest repaid we have more money. We budgeted for R53 million and have more than R100 million. We expect to have R125 million in capital and interest flowing back into the fund.

If the hon member would examine Programme 6, he would see that our allocation ultimately increased from R561 million to R618 million. On agricultural loans alone there was an increase of R47 million, which is a very clear indication that we foresaw an additional demand on the basis of capital repaid.

The hon member knows about the revolving fund which makes it possible for agriculture to balance its accounts in the budget, but it does not mean that if one has a credit balance, one should blow all that money. That is why we transfer a balance to the following year. It is therefore a reserve that we have for the balancing of our accounts.

An agricultural budget is extremely complex and difficult, because one cannot predict what one’s needs are going to be. That is why there are determinations and virement campaigns that have to be conducted during the course of the year. The hon member’s statement that we are trying to bluff someone is incorrect. I am asking why he did not use last year’s figure to weigh up this budget. I think the hon member’s statement here was unfair. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, hon members in this House obviously have an interest in the farming community. [Interjections.] However, I will be delighted when the Schweizer-Reneke and Standerton by-elections are behind us and the one at Randfontein is in the air, because we will then also be able to talk about pensioners, teachers and other people in South Africa. Just in case anybody does not know this, I should mention that there are people other than farmers in South Africa. I say this merely to put the record absolutely straight. [Interjections.] I think some of us who represent urban constituencies feel that the needs of the city-dweller should receive rather more attention from some sections of this House than they are presently receiving.

The additional estimates here are a rather fanciful and creative accounting exercise on the part of the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare. The fascinating thing is that it now appears—the signs were already there last year—that when money is appropriated for own affairs in a general affairs appropriation, it does not necessarily mean that that money is actually going to be used by the own affairs administration. A kind of creative accounting game is being played in which one cannot actually reconcile the two figures because there is a method of dealing with these funds which results in those figures not balancing.

Allow me to give an example. When we drew attention to the fact that certain moneys had not been spent during the 1986-87 financial year, the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare gave the following answer:

That means that an amount of money was allocated in the general affairs additional appropriation and not appropriated by the own affairs administration, and a balance of funds is lying somewhere in mythical suspension. Now we suddenly discover that whereas the general affairs additional appropriation allocated R22 million to the Administration: House of Assembly, this administration’s own additional appropriation amounts to R121,645 million.

Then the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare said the following—I am again quoting him so that there is no misunderstanding:

What that has to do with it is another matter—

*What are those own funds? If hon members would look at the sources of revenue of this House, they would see that one could not obtain that amount of R67 million from own affairs funds, unless one obtained it from the central Government. The hon the Minister does not have it. The hon the Minister must explain to me where that money is coming from, because he does not have such own affairs sources for this purpose. There is a kind of bookkeeping being done in this House which leaves one in the dark about what is, in fact, happening from one year to the next with this House’s finances, unless one looks at the Auditor-General’s report.

It goes on to state that the balance of R32,323 million represents the amount for the improvement of conditions of service. This must make good an under-allocation of funds to the Administration: House of Assembly.

What does this mean? Was it, in actual fact, allocated to us in this House in the general affairs appropriation or not? If it was allocated to us, surely it would have been recorded in the books of this House. One no longer has any inkling of what is going on as far as this kind of bookkeeping is concerned. One does not even have the slightest idea, any longer, whether all the money spent on this House of Assembly by general affairs ever reaches the House of Assembly or whether it is ever used. One does not know what available funds are not being utilised.

What is left of the own funds not yet used in this financial year if this R67 million is being financed out of own funds?

†One of the matters we are dealing with here is budgetary and auxiliary services. Among other things money is presumably provided for the ministerial representatives. If that money is being provided for the ministerial representatives, the question I want to ask the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare is what these people are actually doing. They were supposed to bring Government closer to the people, help formulate policy, be advisory, have a certain public conduct, but they really are a type of duplicate provincial executive committee.

To which item is the hon member referring?

I am referring to the item “Budgetary and Auxiliary Services”, R1,867 million, in column 1.

I would like the hon the Minister to explain to the House whether this is not an unnecessary luxury of political appointment which this House could well do without. I think we could well do without it. To my mind these political functionaries are a duplication of the provincial executive committee, and that has virtually been conceded in previous debates. They perform the same function. This money need not be voted for this purpose. That is why it is under the additional estimate.

Order! I am accepting the correctness of the hon member’s supposition that this amount does relate to the subject he is referring to.

Mr Chairman, if it does not, the explanatory memorandum, which has been furnished to us, is terribly misleading, and who am I to suggest that these are misleading words which are used in an explanatory memorandum? I cannot believe they would mislead us in such a way; it would be terrible.

The hon member may continue.

Mr Chairman, I want to refer to the “Welfare” Vote and the question of social welfare services and pensions.

The issue that arises here—I raise the issue because the money is included in the estimates— is that the increases for social pensioners are below the inflation rate. Why does the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare think that it is correct to give increases below the inflation rate to some of the most underprivileged and the most deserving people in our community? [Interjections.] Why does he think that it is enough to give increases below the inflation rate?

Secondly, does he intend to perpetuate this concept that social pensioners are only to receive the increases in October? Is there any logic behind it, and is there any reason for this?

The last thing I wish to mention is that it is started in the explanatory memorandum that there is an increase in the number of social pensioners. That is what it says. If there is in fact an increase in the number of social pensioners, one would expect to know what the population growth is. One would then be able to provide for it and there would not have to be unexpected expenditure. If that argument is not right—in other words, if he does not know what the population growth is—there can be one other explanation, and that is that the increase in the number of social pensioners is due to a deterioration in the social condition of our elderly people, and that there are more who are in need. If that is so because of the deterioration in social conditions, it is an extremely serious position, and it is one that this House needs to apply its mind to. If the conditions are such that our economic position is deteriorating to such an extent that more and more of our aged are in need of social pensions than was the case proportionately in the past, it needs very urgent attention, and we need to look at the social conditions in which our people live.

Mr Chairman, more questions have been asked in this discussion than I can briefly reply to. Let me suggest that those questions relating to the respective Ministers’ portfolios be put to the respective hon Ministers during the Committee Stage.

I merely want to respond briefly to the questions of the hon member for Barberton who complained that in the explanatory memorandum it was stated that the deficit under programme 2 was due to the fact that there were insufficient funds to provide for basic educational needs. Then the hon member simply went on to argue that we did not make adequate provision for education. But that is the very reason why the additional appropriation has been tabled here today. In the same paragraph to which the hon member referred it is stated that there was ultimately a shortfall of R80,9 million. We are wiping out that deficit in the additional appropriation. Therefore the hon member’s whole argument falls flat. It is specifically in the additional appropriation that we are making provision for the deficits so that the services furnished by the respective departments can be furnished satisfactorily.

The hon member for Yeoville put a whole series of questions, and it seems to me the hon member still does not or does not want to understand how own affairs administrations function. I think the hon member is intelligent enough to understand it, but in his heart of hearts he simply does not want to understand it and that is why he asks such questions.

Firstly let me explain to the hon member the question of the funds which we have at our disposal and which we can employ for partial allocation in this additional appropriation. These are funds that emanate from savings. How does this come about? It is provided in law that surplus funds of the Administration: House of Assembly need not be paid into the central treasury but can be employed by the Administration: House of Assembly.

†Yesterday the hon member made a few valid observations about the process of budgeting, and with particular reference to the additional budget. If I remember correctly, he said that an additional budget is not wrong in principle.

It is not unacceptable, because one must judge the need for a particular item, whether there is a need for such financing. One must also contemplate whether that particular need has been foreseen; in other words, whether there has been proper planning. One must also consider the affordability of that particular item.

I am sure one could add to that other qualifications, such as the state of the economy, whether the economy should be stimulated at that stage, or whether the State should reduce its involvement in the economy. Other factors can also be taken into account. However, when it comes to the budget of the House of Assembly one has to differentiate between the additional appropriation of the hon the Minister of Finance and the budget of the House of Assembly’s own administration. The hon the Minister of Finance has available fiscal means and other financial instruments through which to finance his additional amounts. The Administration: House of Assembly does not have those instruments available.

*Our budget differs. We have a specific, fixed amount within which to operate. That makes it extremely difficult to draw up the budget.

Now where are the own funds?

I want to come to the savings. The legislation provides that the Administration: House of Assembly has its own treasury. The legislation also provides that the savings, or let me say surplus funds, available to the various departments in a specific financial year do not revert to the central Treasury. They remain in the Treasury of the Administration: House of Assembly. [Interjections.] In every department there is either overspending in a specific year or there are surplus funds, because it is so extremely difficult, with large amounts, to determine precisely how much is going to be spent in a specific year. The hon the Minister of Education and Culture’s budget is R3,3 billion. It is not possible to determine precisely how much one is going to spend. The fact of the matter is that we can bring about savings and that those funds can be retained by the Administration: House of Assembly. Those funds give a cushioning effect, making it possible to deal with future situations.

How much is in that secret kitty of yours?

I can tell the hon member that we have virtually exhausted it. The sound discipline of recent years has enabled us, in this difficult financial year, to employ those funds to keep the additional appropriation at lower levels. I think that is an achievement. Not single hon member of the Official Opposition, or even the hon member for Yeoville, who at least knows how budgetary bookkeeping is done, should actually have neglected—not for the hon the Minister of the Budget’s sake—to thank the departments and the department heads who, with difficulty, kept their budgets within the fixed parameters. I think this budget is an exceptional achievement and a clear example of good financial planning and discipline. A small amount such as this by which the budget has been exceeded deserves a bit of thanks for the relevant departments and officials, especially when one considers that the services furnished by these departments are sensitive ones. All these departments furnish services to people. They are important services such as health, agricultural, educational and welfare services. Those are not services which one can simply scale down or in regard to which one can effect savings. If, for the wellbeing of the economy, it is then necessary to curtail that expenditure and to remain within one’s budgetary limits, it becomes so much more difficult for these departments, which furnish services to the public, to remain within their fixed parameters and budgetary limits. That is particularly so when greater pressure is exerted by way of greater demands. The hon member himself referred to the increase in the number of pensioners.

It is not merely a question of keeping an eye on the population growth and determining, on the strength of that growth, how many new pensioners will be applying for assistance annually. There are also other factors. The increase granted to pensioners annually, as was done last year, results in the means test having to be adapted. An adaption or increase in the means test immediately means that people who did not qualify previously, now do qualify and can, on that basis, apply for such pensions. So there are several factors contributing to annual increases in the number of applications for the provision of pensions. That is my reply to the hon member’s question about own funds.

The hon member also complained about the improvement of conditions of service that was paid over to us. The Administration: House of Assembly cannot simply accept that there will be salary increases in a specific financial year. We must work and budget within the context of the existing situation. So if an increase in salaries is granted by the Minister of Finance, this would, of course, mean that we would not have the necessary funds. That amount would have to be made good, as the hon the Minister of Finance, in this case, made an excess payment for those additional funds needed for salary increases. It is not that we do not budget for that eventuality. This only occurred during the present financial year. [Interjections.]

But it is not in the budget for general affairs.

It is not in any budget! The Minister of Finance makes provision for that; when our budget is submitted, we cannot make provision for salary increases announced by the hon the Minister in the course of the year.

The hon member complained about insufficient clarity in the explanatory memorandum. I again read the wording, and I can find no reference to indicate any ministerial representatives. I can assure him that those amounts have nothing to do with ministerial representatives.

In regard to the hon member’s question about why, last year, the increase given to pensioners was less than the rate of inflation, that hon member is trying to score political debating points off us. The hon member knows—we have debated this on previous occasions—that we would, of course, like to spend a great deal more and make a great deal more available to the aged. The Minister of Finance, however, also has his restrictions. He makes an amount available, and the respective administrations and bodies which pay out pensions must then make allocations within the limits of that amount. On the grounds of the available funds a determination is ultimately made of what the increase in pensions will be. It is not simply an arbitrary decision. It is determined by the funds the hon the Minister of Finance has available at a specific time. We would be able to do so at an earlier stage. I personally think we should try to make the payments at an early stage, but that would mean we would have a longer year over which to distribute the funds, and that would mean a smaller amount. One would have to weigh up whether it is better to grant the increase at an early stage and to make it a smaller increase, or whether those payments should be made, as is customary, on 1 October.

I want to conclude by thanking my hon colleague, who reacted to the hon member for Barberton’s speech, for his answers. I also thank other hon members who participated in the debate. I am sorry that the hon members of the opposition did not see their way clear to at least expressing a word of appreciation for a budget displaying such a degree of discipline. I very sincerely want to thank the respective departments, department heads and also my colleagues for their help in this connection.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Schedule:

Vote No 4—“Local Government, Housing and Works”:

Mr Chairman, to assist the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare I want to ask him to look at the English text of the explanatory memorandum in regard to Vote 4: Local Government, Housing and Works, page 10:

Whatever that is—

There they are—

I should like to ask the hon the Minister who is in charge of this Vote what the “smoothly involvement” is that he is referring to here.

[Inaudible.]

What is that “smoothly involvement”?

No, it is Afrikaans, Harry.

No, it is English. I am reading in English. [Interjections.]

No, that is Afrikaans.

No, I am reading in English and the hon member for Sandton must please not interject.

I also want to know what is actually meant here by their contribution in regard to this low cost housing. This is the very question I asked the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare. What are these people doing? They are being paid and somebody should tell us what they are doing. If the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare does not want to tell us what they are doing, we want this hon Minister to tell us what they are doing. That is a simple question and I repeat it.

The second issue—it cannot be said that this is out of order, because this is in the memorandum—is a paragraph on page 10 to which I want to refer the hon the Minister. It reads:

Would the hon the Minister please be so kind to explain to me what this “pride main seat of the House of Assembly” is? I am very sentimentally attached to the Old Raadsaal and I spent many happy hours taunting Nationalists there, but what is this “pride main seat of the House of Assembly” and what is actually happening to the Old Raadsaal?

It is waiting for the Boerevolkstaat.

Is it waiting for the Boerevolkstaat? Well, I am not going to be allowed in there then!

I should like to know what it is going to be used for. The Chamber is there and the building has been renovated and improved. What is the purpose of the Old Raadsaal going to be? What have we spent this money for? I should really like to know what the “pride main seat of the House of Assembly” is.

Mr Chairman, I shall first reply to the hon member for Yeoville on the last matter he raised. The Old Raadsaal was handed over to the Administration: House of Assembly on 14 February 1986 by the Transvaal Provincial Council. It was decided, at the time, to restore the old building to what it was during the time of the old Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek under President Paul Kruger. [Interjections.] Our aim is to use the Old Raadsaal as a living museum, as the hon member rightly indicated, and to use the offices as accommodation for the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and his staff, and also for the Director-General of the Administration: House of Assembly. The Raadsaal itself will be used for meetings and functions of the Administration: House of Assembly.

As a result of the exceptional scope of the work and the strong cultural-historic aspects that have to be borne in mind, it has also been decided to appoint knowledgeable architects, well-versed in restoration work, to carry out the task.

Since the hon member has referred to this aspect, let me say that the expenditure on this restoration work in the relevant financial year—hon members will find it under programme 5—amounted to R6,182 million. A saving of R1,409 million was effected, and expenditure financed under programme 5 in this financial year, as far as this item is concerned—I am informing the hon member of this—was therefore R4,773 million. I trust I have given the hon member a satisfactory answer on this aspect.

In so far as it affects the position of ministerial representatives, my department is involved, amongst other things, in making offices, etc, available for ministerial representatives, under new small works, the amount involved being R1 000, which hon members will also find under programme 5.

The ministerial representatives, amongst others, are now also involved—I think this is what is being referred to in the explanatory memorandum—in the determination of preferences in the case of new housing projects in specific areas. The ministerial representatives represent more than one discipline, for example that of welfare and that of housing, and in a specific region there are a considerable number of applications for housing projects from welfare organisations, municipalities and so on. The ministerial representatives, in consultation with the welfare organisations in the specific region, closer to grass-roots level, conduct the necessary negotiations and discussions, and ultimately they are involved in the determination of preferences when it comes to where money should be spent. In my opinion that is what this explanatory memorandum is referring to. In this connection they are very closely involved in dealing with housing projects involving welfare organisations, municipalities, etc.

From the very nature of the case the salaries of ministerial representatives do not fall under this Vote. It is true that my department is, in fact, involved in the provision of the necessary facilities and offices for ministerial representatives. I trust I have given the hon member an adequate answer.

Mr Chairman, I want to come back to the Old Raadsaal. The question to which I would like an answer is the following: Why was it decided that the headquarters of the Administration: House of Assembly should be in Pretoria when in fact there has to be a virtual duplication of all the facilities in Cape Town while Parliament is in session? There have to be offices and facilities here. Everything has to be here. What we have done, therefore, is to duplicate again and secure additional expenditure because of the nature of having a dual capital system. There is no logic in perpetuating this when a completely new administration was being established, which was the administration for the House of Assembly.

We now have one empire in Pretoria, and periodically that empire shifts down here to Cape Town at considerable expense to the taxpayers of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Yeoville knows that the administration is situated in Pretoria. As the head offices of other administrations and Government departments are basically situated in Pretoria, in this case the head office of this administration …

The Administration of the House of Delegates is established in Durban.

… is situated in Pretoria. It was transferred to the Administration: House of Assembly as an asset, and the Administration: House of Assembly makes the best possible use of this asset by using it not merely as a museum, but also for offices and so on in which the Ministers’ Council holds meetings and in which the chairman, the director-general of the administration, etc, are accommodated.

I should like to say that the Administration: House of Assembly is actually very proud of the fact that it can have the Old Raadsaal in Pretoria as the seat of its administration, and we are therefore also delighted to be able to state publicly that we are accommodated there and that that Old Raadsaal has been refurbished and looks as it did in bygone days. I should like to invite the hon member for Yeoville to come and see what the Old Raadsaal looks like. I think he, too, would be proud of it. He was a frequent visitor to the Old Raadsaal.

Mr Chairman, I just want to seek clarity on the subsidies for local areas—the amount for which there was originally no Vote, but for which we now have an amount of R4 million. I believe this is connected to the abolition of the divisional council, and presumably the local areas referred to are those which would originally have been financed by the divisional council. If that is so, where would that money originally have come from had it not been for this particular Vote? Would this have had an impact on the rates in local areas? I just want clarity on this point.

Mr Chairman, the situation is normally that rates are levied by the divisional councils in these areas where regional services councils have been established. These councils are of course not entitled to levy excessive rates. A shortfall has therefore to be made up for, and that is why this amount is being appropriated and has to be approved by the House.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 1—“Health Services”:

Mr Chairman, in the explanatory memorandum an amount of R712 000 is indicated, which relates to certain health service institutions in the Cape that were transferred to the own affairs administration. Could the hon the Minister perhaps just explain what health service institutions these are?

Furthermore, with reference to Programme 2, I should just like to know whether there are any other hospitals—apart from mental hospitals— which are administered and controlled by this own affairs department, and whether this department is undertaking to control and administer private hospitals.

With reference to Programme 4, I should like to know whether the R30 million budgeted for dental services, includes dental services at schools as well as at provincial hospitals, and how much has been budgeted for each.

Mr Chairman, I shall reply to the hon member for Pietersburg with pleasure. If I am correct, his first question was where the R712 000 comes from. It has to do with subsidies on institutions and old-age homes which are being transferred to the Administration: House of Assembly. These include the Booth Memorial Hospital here in Cape Town, on which the existing subsidy amounted to R229 100. Then, too, there is the Caroline Maternity Home in De Doorns, the amount involved being R33 700, the Wieg Maternity Home in Moorreesburg, with R12 400, the Harmony Hostel in Kimberley with R197 900, the New Haven Home in East London, with R170 700, the Regina Nursing Home at Villiersdorp with R68 400. This brings us to a total of R712 000. In addition there was an amount of R40 584, in the form of subsidies to old-age homes and welfare organisations which were transferred to us. Included among these were the Cape Jewish Old-Age Home, the Cape Peninsula Welfare Organisation in Thornton, and the SA Red Cross Society in Port Elizabeth. This represents an amount of R40 584.

The list of hospitals in South Africa over which the Administration: House of Assembly has the right of disposal, has already been finalised and approved. The provinces are administering these hospitals on an agency basis for the own affairs departments. There are certain aspects in that regard for which legal arrangements still have to be made, but de facto the system is already in operation in regard to the appointment of hospital boards, superintendents and so on to the hospitals concerned. The Department of Health Services is still responsible for the licensing of private hospitals, and is continuing with this activity.

The hon member then asked a question in regard to dental services. The amounts of money mentioned are in fact being spent in those dental hospitals and clinics of the Administration: House of Assembly. I think that more or less covers all the questions the hon member put.

Mr Chairman, in conclusion I just want to know from the hon the Minister whether we can now accept that hospitalisation, as is consequently the case in terms of schedule 1 of the Constitution, does not really fall under the administration of this department any more. Is that in fact the case?

Mr Chairman, as I have already explained, we have the right of disposal in regard to those hospitals. That is what I have tried to explain. However I suggest that we discuss this aspect in detail when my Vote comes up for discussion.

Mr Chairman, I would like to refer to programmes 3 and 4, to which no additional money has been allocated. Considering the rising costs in this country, was this achieved by good budgeting or by the freezing of posts and by economic measures to the detriment of patients? Can the hon the Minister maintain the standard of services with the amounts appropriated?

Secondly, in respect of mental health services for Whites, are there any hospitals which have been or are going to be privatised?

Thirdly, do all mental health services for Whites now fall under this hon Minister’s department, or are there institutions which have yet to be transferred to own affairs?

I would like to ask a similar question in respect of dental services. Is the involvement of the own affairs administration in these services complete, or is it to be extended?

Mr Chairman, because we do not have much time I will be brief. If the hon member for Parktown will bear with me, we will have time to discuss these matters more fully when the Health Services Vote comes up for debate later in the year.

The division between general and own affairs has been finalised with regard to dentistry and psychiatric and other hospitals. In respect of his first question, the economic measures contained in this additional appropriation have not led to any drop in the quality of our services.

This administration is at the moment not privatising any mental hospitals. We have been engaged in privatisation for the past ten years, but that has been in respect of our other departments. I think that answers the hon member’s question.

Mr Chairman, I am most grateful for the hon the Minister’s reply which I found more than adequate, but I would like more clarity on the last point. Does his department intend to privatise mental homes, or is there no need for that yet?

Mr Chairman, Dr Wim de Villiers is investigating privatisation in the entire field of health. Naturally he will examine that particular aspect and report his findings.

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon the Minister how much of the R67,322 million which was saved in the past financial year and is now being utilised partially to finance this additional appropriation in accordance with the statements of the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare represents a saving on Vote 1—“Health Services” during the previous financial year.

Mr Chairman, I must be honest about the fact that I do not know.

Mr Chairman, if the hon the Minister does not know, should someone else not tell us? If a large amount was in fact saved on this Vote last year, I feel we should know whether the services were adequately rendered and why we need the money this year. If R67 million was saved last year, it must have come from somewhere, and this is one of the Votes from which it came. Somebody in this House must know. If this hon Minister does not know, the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare must know.

Mr Chairman, does the hon member want me to reply?

Yes, somebody must tell me.

As the hon member knows, our budget is one of the lowest, so if any saving was derived from Health Services, it must have been minimal. Looking at this estimate, I really cannot see any substantial saving. I cannot give the hon member a figure, however, unless I look it up, because this aspect is dealt with by the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare.

Mr Chairman, let me put the question differently. Does the hon the Minister know whether his department ended the past financial year with a surplus or a deficit?

That is something which the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare …

So you do not know.

No, because I do not have separate budgeting.

Let me explain. I do not think the hon member for Yeoville understands.

I understand very well.

In the general department we have our own budgeting done because we have the director-general who is financially responsible. In the House of Assembly Administration the Minister of the Budget and Welfare is responsible. He does the budgeting. In other words, I have to establish whether any quality has been lost in our health services. The answer is of course in the negative.

I did not ask the hon the Minister that.

Mr Chairman, the hon member did. As a matter of fact, I would like to repeat that one reason for the overspent amount of R753 000 was a subsidy for the Jewish old age home here in Cape Town.

Mr Chairman, why did the hon the Minister mention that?

Order!

Because …

Mr Chairman, I think the hon the Minister is worse than Terre’Blanche! It is an impertinence what he has just done! It is a damn impertinence!

Order!

The hon the Minister has no right to attack the AWB when he indulges in this sort of thing.

Order!

The hon the Minister should be ashamed of himself!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Yeoville must withdraw those statements.

Order! The hon member for Yeoville must withdraw the words “damn impertinence”. I cannot allow that.

Mr Chairman, I am sorry, I am prepared to take any consequences that may follow but I am not prepared to tolerate what is obviously an anti-Semitic remark.

Order! I appeal to the hon member for Yeoville to consider withdrawing the words.

No, Mr Chairman, I will not withdraw them.

Then I have no option but to ask the hon member to withdraw from the Chamber for the remainder of the day’s sitting. [Interjections]

[Whereupon the hon member withdrew from the Chamber.]

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 2—“Agriculture and Water Supply”:

Mr Chairman, I want some clarity from the hon the Minister, because he was a little excited when he spoke a moment ago. When the budget was submitted last year, provision had been made for agricultural financing and subsidies amounting to R335 million. Later there was an additional amount of R400 million, which pushed up the total for agricultural financing to R735 million. We have now received the printed revised estimate which indicates that the amount that has been spent, or is to be spent before the end of the year, will be R725 million.

Under the heading “Agricultural financing”, R450 million has been budgeted for the item “consolidation of debt”: Initially only R50 million was budgeted for, but then the R400 million was added. The revised estimate still gives the amount of R450 million, with a little footnote to the effect that further savings are expected.

The hon the Minister said this afternoon that I should take a better look at my figures, because they spent R991 million this year. The Minister of the Budget and Welfare said, however, that R370 million of the R735 million which was appropriated initially, and which included the R450 million, had not been spent. Is this printed revised estimate a correct representation of what the hon the Minister really expects to spend this year, or is it purposely misleading?

Has the hon the Minister spent the R400 million or not? The Minister himself said R370 million of the budget had remained and would be utilised in future years. I look forward to the hon the Minister’s reply.

Mr Chairman, I think the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare made it very clear that the portion of the R400 million which was held in abeyance, was held in abeyance for a specific purpose when it came to subsequent spending. The fact of the matter is that it was made available in the budget. Consequently there has been a tremendous increase in the Budget in comparison with last year’s. [Interjections.] It was not spent. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, following up on the previous question I should like to ask the hon the Minister under what amounts this R400 million is reflected in the Budget, as we have it before us, and whether he can give us the assurance that the remainder of the R400 million that has been budgeted, will remain earmarked for agriculture.

Mr Chairman, it will remain with agriculture. We have already stated that the R13 million we used for the land conversion scheme came out of the R400 million. The R400 million was earmarked for a specific purpose, and before one can use a portion of the R400 million for other purposes, special resolutions in that regard have to be adopted by the Ministers’ Council, as we did in the case of the R13 million.

To reply to my hon colleague’s question, I want to say that a portion of the remaining amounts of the R400 million will already be available in the next financial year.

Mr Chairman, I note too that under Programme 6 there was an amount of R64 million carried over to the Agricultural Credit Account from the previous financial year. How did this come about? This money was not spent last year. What specific aspect of the Agricultural Credit Account did this come from? Did it come from the consolidation of debt provision in the previous year?

Following the question put by the hon member for Barberton, I should like to know whether that means that the full amount budgeted for, the R450 million for the consolidation of debt is not likely to be spent again, or whether it is likely to be spent.

Mr Chairman, the R64 million is a surplus on the amount transferred from the Revolving Fund the previous year. It is extremely difficult to determine precisely what the Rotating Fund reflux is. For example, if hon members look at the forecast of the capital reflux they will see that we initially budgeted for R53 million this year, but it is now going to be R100 million. The R64 million is last year’s surplus, which was carried over on 1 April. Consequently these are funds being made available out of the Rotating Fund, for which one cannot budget since one cannot foresee what they will be. Nevertheless one uses some of those funds for the purpose of financing additional demand.

Mr Chairman, if I understand the hon the Minister correctly that means that that amount could have been under the heading of repayment of loans. It could have come about because of that, and not necessarily because he has not paid out the assistance to the farmers that had been budgeted for?

Yes.

Mr Chairman, could I ask the hon the Minister another question?

I see there is a new heading under which R13 million is going to be spent, and the heading is “Conversion of marginal lands”. The amount involved is R13 million. I should like to ask the hon the Minister what that is about.

There is also quite an enormous increase in the budget for fodder. An additional R22 million is budgeted for. I would be interested to know where that is being spent, and in which regions of the country that money is going to be paid out. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, I think the hon the Minister is having trouble finding the headings in the estimates …

Mr Chairman, I should like to reply to that question. As regards the R13 million for the conversion of marginal land, I want to point out that it is primarily an operation in respect of certain agricultural industries producing on marginal land, while a change is being brought about in this agricultural industry.

Maize.

It includes the maize industry.

This R13 million comes out of the R400 million the hon member for Barberton discussed. This is the first part of the R400 million which is actually reflected in the budget. Together with this R13 million—I just want to add this—there is, as far as agricultural loans are concerned, a further R17 million which comes out of the R400 million. This brings the total coming out of the R400 million to R30 million, an amount which is reflected in the Estimates.

The other R370 million is not reflected in the Estimates and has been placed in reserve. That deals with the question in respect of the amount of R13 million.

The second aspect the hon member mentioned, namely the R22 million, is going to the stockgrazing areas in which droughts are prevailing. The indications last year were that these areas would become smaller because it had rained. However, it has stopped raining, and we have had to enlarge the area that is receiving assistance. That is why provision had to be made for a larger amount to maintain these schemes, and that estimated amount is primarily for that purpose. The scheme was also changed to encourage farmers to reduce their livestock herds. This forms part of that scheme.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister where that fodder comes from? Is it being imported, or where does it come from?

The money comes out of the Disaster Relief Fund. There are loans and, in particular, subsidies available for purchasing locally produced fodder. Although it goes under the name of Disaster Relief Fodder, it is an incentive amount paid to the farmers to sell fodder locally.

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister about Programme 9 “Molecular Biological Research”. I see there is a decrease of R130 000. I would like the hon the Deputy Minister to explain how that was achieved.

There was an internal change in the budgetary amounts as they appeared last year under the separate items. This decrease in molecular research was merely transferred to another Vote. It is therefore an internal exchange; it is not that this amount has been reduced or has disappeared completely—it was merely transferred to another Vote. If the hon member would give me a chance, I could look up under what Vote it now falls. However, it is merely an internal re-location.

Mr Chairman, in view of the fact that the R400 million assistance scheme for relief to farmers is not being utilised in the manner in which it was anticipated originally it would be, and in view of the fact that the response to the utilisation of those funds is not coming up to expectation, and while there are farmers who are being sequestrated, I would like to ask the hon the Minister whether the time has not come to review the conditions in terms of which that assistance is made available. The point I would like to get very clear is whether the conditions for the granting of assistance are not too stringent. Is it not time, in the light of the poor response to that assistance, that there was a completely new look at the manner in which those funds should be reallocated?

Mr Chairman, there are specific norms that are used to make these funds available, and this is done primarily according to the farmers’ ability to pay. In other words, if a person’s assets and liabilities are such that he obtains a loan with a specific interest rate, a lower or a higher interest rate, with a longer term for repayment, his ability to pay is enhanced—the lower the interest rate and the longer the terms, the greater his ability to repay the loan. We cannot utilise funds on the basis of the fact that people’s ability to pay is not such that they cannot repay the debt and the interest. An economic basis must therefore be an integral part of this scheme. From time to time we have reviewed the entire system—my hon colleague held talks on this matter for a long time—in order to extend it, in order to create further possibilities, and to facilitate the conditions under which people apply.

What happened was that producers who had financial problems, and who doubted whether their liabilities exceeded their assets, did not want to apply for that assistance any more. If such a producer applied for that assistance, for him there was no turning back. If his creditors told him they were not prepared to make an arrangement for settling the debts, it meant that excussion was applied to him in terms of section 28, which meant that he did not lose his legal personality. Rather than do that, some producers made further application for agricultural loans. Hon members will see in the Vote that agricultural loans increased by R47 million, as against the amount in the initial Estimates. Rather than use the R400 million, producers applied for further production loans, after the situation had developed, if they could no longer be assisted by the Co-operatives or commercial banks. Such a producer was too risky a case. In Agricultural Credit we dealt with the cases of these producers so that they could make further inputs by producing a subsequent harvest, which would quite probably improve their asset-liability position. If their harvests were successful, their position would improve, and that was why they did not make use of the R400 million.

Mr Chairman, I have another question for the hon the Deputy Minister. The explanatory memorandum states that the saving of approximately R10 million on programme 6 will be primarily utilised for the subsidising of drilling services in the designated areas. I do not know whether that falls under programme 7 “Establishment of State-aided Water Schemes”, but otherwise I cannot see at all where in this budget this R10 million will be spent and under which programme it falls. I would like to know what will in fact be done with that R10 million.

Mr Chairman, in reality these programmes are for granting assistance in the sinking of boreholes in the designated area. Initially R1,6 million was allocated for this purpose in the budget. As a result of representations by various bodies, including organised agriculture, and because of the emergency that arose owing of the declining water table, we utilised all our State drills there. That is why the R1,6 million was appropriated. On the basis of representations, we also used private drills, and the total expenditure will amount to approximately R10 million. That difference of almost R8 million therefore comes from these savings. The other part of the savings is being utilised in the other Votes.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 3—“Education and Culture”:

Mr Chairman, at the outset I should like to put one or two questions to the hon the Minister in regard to programme 1. It is stated here that there was a saving of R1,2 million in respect of programme 1. The reason given for this is that various posts at head office were only filled at a late stage in the financial year. I should like to know what the reason was for the late filling of these posts. Were there no qualified people available or were there other reasons why these posts were only filled at a late stage?

I should also like the hon the Minister to specify for us the various savings in personnel expenditure, subsistence and transport expenses, stock expenditure and equipment purchases. It is also stated here that the decrease under this programme was due to a delay in executing certain security services. We should like to know from the hon the Minister what the reason for this delay was and what these security services entailed.

In general we would also very much like to know from the hon the Minister, or even the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare, whether this saving—there has been a considerable saving on a number of programmes under the Vote of Education and Culture—will be carried over to the next budget, particularly in respect of those matters that have not yet been completed but which are in the process of completion. That is the first question that I want to ask.

Mr Chairman, I want to reply to the last question first and point out to the hon member for Brits that this saving in regard to various posts has already been utilized in respect of other posts in regard to which we had a shortage. There is consequently nothing left of the savings transferred from one point to another. If there are eventually surpluses at the end of the financial year, as has already been pointed out to the hon member for Yeoville by the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare, they could be carried over for use in the Administration: House of Assembly’s funds for the next financial year. Such funds do not necessarily have to be paid over to the central Treasury.

Under programme 1 the hon member for Brits asked why the posts were only filled at such a late stage. The vast majority of the posts referred to here were only created in the course of the financial year because of a reorientation of the post structure. Applications for specialized posts were awaited, and that is the reason why the posts were only filled at a late stage.

The hon member also asked for a more detailed specification of the reasons for the reduction in expenditure. As the hon member will notice from the documents, the saving on personnel expenditure was R600 000. This was as a result of the late filling of posts. About R50 000 was saved on administrative expenditure, and the delay in the implementation of the security services resulted in a saving of R500 000.

The hon member for Brits will probably understand that I am not prepared to discuss the type of security services, and where they have been put into operation, across the floor of the Committee. It is not my department, but outside contractors, who carry out these services, and it is for that reason that there is a delay in respect of the implementation of the security services.

The last answer I want to give is that we saved an amount of R50 000 on the purchase of equipment.

Mr Chairman, I should like to refer to some of the programmes. The first one I want to refer to is Programme 2, which is preprimary, primary and secondary education and teacher training, in which there is an increase of R80,960 million. The last sentence in the explanatory memorandum reads:

We are talking here about “essential equipment” and “important” educational services. In the light of remarks made from time to time in recent months by various Ministers, including this hon Minister, there is a clear indication that in the nature of the educational services under his control, there is going to be a shortage of finance and he is going to have to look at ways of cutting back and economising. In this regard I would like to ask him first of all whether he imagines that his department is going to be better off financially in the years to come than it was in this past year, which would enable this essential equipment and these important educational services to be provided. Should we not face up to the fact that the money for items in this category is not going to be available from the State and that in the future they will either have to be provided by another source or not at all? That is the first question I should like to ask.

The second question regards the decrease of R2,8 million under Programme 8 in respect of the cost related to examinations. This is an extraordinarily large decrease as it is something of the order of nearly 30% on the amount budgeted for. Originally R8,840 million was budgeted for and the revised estimate is R6,040 million.

I would like an explanation. This is not mentioned in the explanatory memorandum at all. It would seem to be an extremely large amount to misbudget. To overestimate to that extent would seem to me to be rather extraordinary, and I would like an explanation from the hon the Minister as to how that came about.

The third item I would like to query, is the decrease of R2,95 million in education technology, also under Programme 8. It is stated in the explanatory memorandum that there was a delay in the acquisition of computer and educational technology equipment and services as a result of unforeseen circumstances. I would like to ask the hon the Minister what those circumstances were and what was unforeseen about them.

Again, Mr Chairman, it has been pointed out that we have used up the kitty, so to speak, in the own affairs departments and therefore we cannot provide any extra for next year. We will get whatever comes from the main Budget and then there will be nothing else left. In view of the fact that this money is now distributed elsewhere, either under this Vote or in other own affairs departments, I wonder whether this delay is going to be made good or whether that money will be lost forever.

Mr Chairman, it appears to me that before I answer his questions I should, in any case, tell the hon member that he should assist me in trying to bargain with the hon the Minister of Finance for an additional amount of money for the installation of a computer to cope with all his questions so that I will be able to reply to them immediately they are asked. However, I shall try to do so now without the help of a computer!

In the first place the hon member asked a question in regard to the saving as far as essential services are concerned. I want to say immediately that in every period of financial discipline it is necessary, in education as well as in every other department, to have a good look at the cost-effective services one wishes to render. I believe everyone in this country agrees with that. It is a fact that there are also specific services in education which were rendered in the past—they vary from province to province—and which very definitely did not improve the standard and the quality of education as such. The hon member referred correctly to essential services. However, the interpretation of the concept of “essential services” can possibly vary from person to person. One could, for example, argue that one could make money available for the maintenance of football fields because they are an essential service. From a particular point of view they are an essential service; otherwise that would be the end of football fields, but on the other hand, it is also clear that that expenditure on the maintenance of football fields does not improve the standard and the quality of education as such. That is why I hold the view that everything possible must be done to ensure that one will have sufficient funds to maintain the quality and the standard of education.

It is true that one will certainly never ever have enough funds, and if the hon member were to ask me whether we would have more funds available in the future, I could of course not give him an absolutely final answer, except to say that I will do everything in my power to obtain sufficient funds, within the restricted capacity of the Treasury, so as to avoid any curtailment of or drop in the standard of the education for which I am responsible. That then concludes my reply to the hon member’s question in regard to programme 2.

The hon member also asked questions in regard to programme 8. I think his first question referred to the R6 million for the professional and special services. The reason for this is chiefly as a result of a delay in obtaining computer and educational technological equipment. We are in the process of considerable expansion in the department in regard to computerisation and technology as well. The hon member will, of course, also realise that in order to be able to do this, one has to bear in mind, not only the four individual education departments, but also the computer services and technology and their eventual full-scale overall use. I am talking about the Department of Education and Culture and the individual departments which still have to be linked up in the system. Unfortunately, the planning and provision of these services is time-consuming. This is because we do not wish to introduce these services and discover subsequently that we have not done adequate research in this connection. Nevertheless, we have had to make provision for them in the Estimates. Those amounts include an amount of R6 million, R3 million of which is intended, inter alia, for a master system which we will install in the Department of Education and Culture to serve as a master system for the various computer systems in the various provinces. This represents an amount of about R3 million.

Furthermore, an amount of R2,5 million is being appropriated for the rental and power supply of the various computers. This amount will, however, not be disbursed now because the computers have not yet been installed. Furthermore, there is an amount of R500 000 intended for the purchase of sophisticated apparatus for this system which has not yet been purchased either. So I agree with the hon member when he says that this amount of R6 million does appear to be a very large sum for which we have, as it were, overbudgeted. I have just explained the reason for this to the hon member. However, if in the long run we wind up with a surplus, that money will not be lost. As the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare has already indicated, such funds can be carried over to the budget for the following year.

As far as the hon member’s question in regard to examinations is concerned, I have unfortunately to inform him that I do not have the precise details available to reply to that question. However, I want to say that it is because of the fact that in all probability a saving was also effected in regard to the rendering of the service itself. I cannot give the precise amount now. It does, of course, sound like a large amount. Unfortunately, I do not have the details available now in regard to the total amount. I will reply in writing to the hon member in this regard. Unfortunately, at the present stage I do not have the details available. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the reply given by the hon the Minister to the first question I asked is not very satisfactory in one respect. He said that part of the saving effected in respect of programme 1—“Administration”—referred to posts which were only created very late in the financial year. The hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare said earlier that no prior provision had even been made for salary adjustments. I simply cannot understand how provision could be made for posts that were only to be created later in the year and that these savings could then be effected in that respect.

I also want to put a question to the hon the Minister in connection with programme 8. This deals with educational planning. Mr Chairman, I find it disturbing that there is a saving of nearly 50% in respect of this item. I cannot accept the fact that there was overbudgeting in the past in regard to this matter and that it has now been possible to effect a saving of 50% in that regard. I should like an explanation from the hon the Minister in this connection.

Mr Chairman, in the first place I want to refer to the question of the hon member for Brits in regard to programme 1. The hon member is dealing with two separate matters here. The salary improvement is distributed across a very wide spectrum—not only as far as White education is concerned but in regard to all facets of education, and, in fact, also the Public Service as such. Within the Department of Education and Culture, in the organization of the post and staff structure, specific posts were created before we made provision within the framework of the amount which would normally have been added to the budget of the department. This, therefore, is money for which provision has already been made in the budget of this department and which could now be used for the posts that were created at a late stage and not yet filled. This situation cannot, therefore, be compared with salary increases in general.

With regard to programme 8, I just want to say that the hon member must differentiate between that programme and programme 2. Programme 2 refers chiefly to administrative posts that were created at a late stage at head office. Programme 8, however, deals with supporting services, and there the emphasis falls on specific professional posts at head office which, from the nature of the case, are more specialized. Applicants are also, of course, expected to comply with specific qualifications and experience in order to be able to fill those specific professional posts.

From the nature of things these posts have to be advertised, and we may not even perhaps receive sufficient applications in regard to the first advertisement because these are really sought-after people. It was therefore not possible to fill all these professional posts during the financial year. These are also mainly posts carrying fairly high salaries, for example R50 000 or R60 000, and we have about 60 posts that have not been filled. That amount, which appears quite large, therefore exists—I concede this immediately to the hon member—as a result of the fact that we had the posts created and, secondly, because it is difficult to obtain the services of these highly qualified professional people.

We are certainly still going to try to obtain the services of these people in the future. It is in the interests of the department that we do, in fact, appoint such people. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I want to refer once again to programme 2. During the Second Reading debate the hon member for Barberton referred to the following provision in the explanatory memorandum, and I quote again:

Two questions arise from this. The first is that I think it is fair to ask what those basic educational needs originally were. In other words, what was the monetary value of that which is represented by the four provincial education departments plus the cultural aspect of the hon the Minister’s department?

The second question that arises also refers to the last sentence of this particular paragraph in the memorandum in which there is reference to the essential equipment and the rendering of a number of important educational services that were curtailed or deferred. The hon the Minister has just argued that if a football field is not properly maintained, that does not necessarily lower the standard of education as such, but in the past we have repeatedly mentioned concrete examples in this House of cases in which funds for the maintenance of necessary services and essential equipment were not available. I think it is fair to ask, in the first instance, what this essential equipment was that had to be done without and what these important education services were that we had to do without in the past year.

The fact of the matter is simply that we are already aware that money is just not available for pre-primary education. There is no money available for additional schools or additional posts. We are already aware of the fact that basic renovation and maintenance work cannot be carried out at schools and hostels because no funds are available. I think that is a fair question.

Mr Chairman, I want to refer the hon member back to his question on Programme 2 relating to the R80,96 million. He said then that there was originally a shortfall, as indicated by the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare. As far as the actual shortfall is concerned, as we planned it in respect of the services that we would like to have, I do not have the precise figure with me at the moment.

Business interrupted in terms of Standing Order No 21.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr Chairman, I move pursuant to Standing Order No 21:

The incidents that took place on Monday morning, 29 February, outside St George’s Cathedral in Wale Street have been widely reported in the Press, but should be briefly recounted in this House for the record.

A gathering of a few hundred people were assembled in the cathedral. It was a gathering that had been organised by clerics from leading churches in South Africa; among them were Archbishop Tutu, Archbishop Naidoo, Dr Boesak and Rev Chikane. There was a short service in the cathedral and a further course of action was then agreed upon. They were to march to Parliament in order to present a petition to the hon the State President and members of Parliament.

Those present were told to avoid being provocative, to proceed in orderly fashion and, if accosted by the police, they were to kneel or sit or to sing hymns. They were also told what the consequences of marching to Parliament were. Led by the Archbishops and others, the gathering left the cathedral and formed a procession along Wale Street towards Parliament in rows of four.

They were confronted and hemmed in by the police who were present. The leaders and many others were arrested and the remainder sat or kneeled and sang hymns. They were then ordered to disperse by a police major and, when they failed to do so, they were drenched by the water-cannon which the police had brought with them.

When the people remained kneeling, the police proceeded to arrest them, took them to the Caledon Street police station, and charged them under the Gatherings and Demonstrations Act whereafter they were released.

Members of the Press and television were roughly handled, some were arrested and their equipment was destroyed.

Last night on the programme Network the announcer informed us that the police had no other choice but to act as they did and to use the water-cannon. That, of course, is complete nonsense. I recall a similar incident in 1981 when protesters from the cathedral proceeded to the gates of Parliament to present a petition.

It was illegal at that time as well. I was accompanied to the cathedral by the hon member for Cape Town Gardens. We told the people there what the consequences of their actions would be but they proceeded nevertheless and they too were stopped by the police.

A very ugly scene appeared to be developing. I approached the then Minister of Police, the present Speaker, whom the hon member for Cape Town Gardens and I found in the parliamentary gardens, and explained to him what was happening. We told him that the leaders wished to present a petition to him and asked him whether he would not agree to receive that petition in order to prevent a very ugly scene from developing. The police were there with dogs and vans and there was clearly going to be a nasty confrontation.

To his credit, the then Minister of Police agreed to accept the petition, and the crowd dispersed peacefully after the hon member for Cape Town Gardens and myself had informed them that the petition had been delivered.

What was to stop the major on Monday morning, 29 February, from escorting the leading clerics— the leaders of the demonstration—to Parliament with a request that they see the hon the State President or somebody he deputed, simply to receive the petition?

All the sensational publicity that has resulted in adverse headlines for South Africa across the world could then have been avoided. On Monday night every television station in England and America had the scene of the clerics being sprayed by the water-cannon, of them being arrested, of people kneeling and being taken away by the police.

What do hon members think the result of this will be? Obviously it can only add fuel to the campaigns for sanctions and other punitive action against this country. It is already extremely difficult to speak against sanctions in England or in America, despite the opposition of Mrs Thatcher and Pres Reagan to sanctions and punitive measures.

I say they must be dancing in the streets of Lusaka as a result of this incident, and I am perfectly sure that the anti-sanctions campaigners in Washington are on a high. The sheer stupidity of the action, the exercise on Monday morning makes one almost speechless.

I want to know who instructed the major to wield the big stick, and why. I believe the hon the Minister owes it to this House to give us an explanation. Can it be that the reason for this ridiculous overkill on the part of the police on Monday, 29 February is due to the two pending by-elections? Is that possible? [Interjections.] This was just one incident… [Interjections.] It is ridiculous! [Interjections.]

You are ridiculous! [Interjections.]

This Government is ridiculous, as are its actions! [Interjections.]

This is only one incident in a series of actions taken by the Government recently designed, I believe, to demonstrate to the voters of Standerton and Schweizer-Reneke that the Government is not soft on law and order. That is the big drum that they beat the whole time.

They are not soft, of course, except when it comes to dealing with the violent, armed men of the AWB who, shouting slogans, sporting brown shirts with Nazi-like emblems, arrived in droves at the Union Buildings last Saturday to present their petition to the hon the State President or his deputy, and were allowed to do so unchallenged in any way by the police. No water-cannon for these model citizens! Oh no! No arrests and no charges. I believe the hon the Minister owes this country an explanation for this disgusting partisan behaviour. [Interjections.] If the Government has a brain in its head, which I seriously doubt, it will drop the charges against the clerics and others who took part in that demonstration forthwith, or should I be more realistic and say drop the charges on Thursday, after the byelection results are known! That, no doubt, will be more realistic. [Interjections.]

Since the clerics were forcibly prevented from presenting their petition to the hon the State President and to Parliament, I want to read parts of it to this House, so that hon members will know what it contained and future generations will be able to read Hansard and reflect on its contents. It is addressed to the hon the State President and members of Parliament—we are included—and I shall read only parts of it because some of it has appeared in the Press. It reads:

That is for the safety and security of this country! [Interjections.]

I do not believe rubbish! [Interjections.]

The petition goes on to state:

It goes on to say that the clerics and demonstrators are particularly horrified at the restrictions placed on people and organisations who have been at the forefront of the struggle to bring peace to the strife-torn areas of Pietermaritzburg and KTC in Cape town. They name Mr Archie Gumede, Mr Willie Hofmeyr and Mrs Albertina Sisulu as just a few of the many people who are now banned from working for peace.

It is known that those people were going to Pietermaritzburg to try to get the two warring factions together to try to see whether they could not make peace. They are now banned; they are cut off from any negotiations.

The petition goes on to say:

Here, Sir, is a very tough paragraph indeed:

The petition goes on to say—and I am missing out a paragraph because my time is limited—

That is the members of Parliament—

And it applies also to us, I may say—

That is ourselves—

[Interjections.] It may well be that Parliament could be forced to become irrelevant to this country. It is quite possible with the way these hon members carry on.

Finally, I want to place on record the strongest possible objection of hon members on these benches to the reckless, indiscriminate handling of the incidents on 29 February outside the cathedral when, instead of discreet handling of the situation, which would then have passed off with minimum attention from the media and minimum harm to South Africa in the outside world, the Government—this Government— acted as publicity agents for bringing discredit upon South Africa. There is no doubt whatsoever about that.

Years ago I said that this Government had a death wish. I See no reason to change that assessment. I may say that I can contemplate with equanimity the demise of this Government. It would not worry me in the slightest. Indeed, it would please everybody on this side. Alas, however, this Government’s intemperate and unacceptable behaviour affects all of us in South Africa, and will bring further disaster upon this country.

Unless Harry helps.

That I think is rather irrelevant at the moment. Harry was chucked out.

I hope the hon the Minister, who I believe is going to reply to this debate, is going to inform Parliament exactly what instructions were given to the police who were to handle the incident that was to take place on 29 February, because the police were informed ahead of time. The petition itself starts off by saying:

So it is obvious that the Government knew about it. The result was that police were deployed to deal with the situation. What instructions were given? Were they told to arrest kneeling clergymen? Were they told to use a water-cannon on these people? Has nobody on that side any sensitivity about the effects on the outside world of those films which are being shown?

Mr Chairman, we did not really expect the hon member for Houghton to sing a different tune to the one she did sing. She is known for that. This time the difference was that she dragged in the AWB refrain. In this respect she is unfortunately singing the same tune as the hon the Minister of National Education, and both of them are becoming equally tedious. [Interjections.] In this regard there is one matter she must clear up for me. Yesterday the clergy were engaged in an unlawful act. They disobeyed a legal command.

What an example!

On the other hand I want to ask her whether these people, about whom she was complaining so bitterly, did anything illegal on Saturday.

Oh, come on! That was a demonstration!

Did they do anything that was contrary to an Act of this Parliament? I want to ask the hon member for Houghton where she was in the days of the Torch Commando. The activities of the Torch Commando gave her some satisfaction.

I can assure you there were no Marxists in the Torch Commando!

I am asking her because it was also a militant anti-Government organisation.

There were many communists in that organisation.

There were, in fact, reds and pinks in the Torch Commando.

Those were the people who fought for South Africa.

I want to tell the hon member for Houghton that she is shedding tears about the clergymen who were arrested, but surely they were asking for it.

[Inaudible.]

They wanted to be arrested and they wanted to appear on overseas television.

It was more stupid than ever then to do it!

Oh, it was stupid of them to do it? Very well, then it is a matter between her and the Government, and they can fight it out among themselves. As far as we are concerned, she must not expect us to sympathise with her cause in this regard. The SA Police acted in the line of duty. I think she should, in fact, have given them credit for that. On the previous occasion she complained about the dogs and the violence, but this time they used a water canon, which is an accepted deterrent against demonstrators.

I would like to spurt at you with one of those!

Surely clergymen are used to water!

As the hon member for Barberton said, clergymen are used to water. [Interjections.] I do not know whether the hon member for Houghton was in the cathedral yesterday, because it seems to me the hon member for Greytown and the hon member for Randburg are ousting her from the ranks of those individuals. Is she and her party, and those hon members who already associate with those people, going to heed the call of the clergymen to withdraw from this Parliament? Are they associates of those people? She must tell us that. The hon member for Houghton, her party and the NDMs, or whatever they are, must tell us whether they are in favour of people who disobey the laws of this country and against whom steps then have to be taken by the police. Do they condone the behaviour of those people? That is what we want to know.

What about the AWB?

Unfortunately I also have to admonish the Government in this connection. As far as we on this side of the House are concerned, the Government is now plucking the fruits of its weak-kneed attitude during the past few years. [Interjections.] What we are now experiencing, and are still going to experience perhaps, is the ripple effect of the release of Mbeki. When Boesak or Tutu posed under the red flag a year or 18 months ago, the Government anxiously refrained from saying anything, and did not lift a finger or take any action against them. As a result we are seeing the ripple effect of the demands and the audacity of the left-wingers and the subversive elements becoming all the more challenging. Every time they will see how much further they can go. Every time they are going to test the Government. In this connection I think the hon member for Houghton put her finger right on the spot. Last week, when these half-hearted, ineffective measures were introduced, and also yesterday’s actions, it was with a view to the byelections in Standerton and Schweizer-Reneke.

Mr Chairman, I should like to make it clear at the outset that the action taken against the gathering and demonstration yesterday was in accordance with the provisions of the Gatherings and Demonstrations Act, 1973 (Act 52 of 1973). This Act prohibits certain gatherings and demonstrations within a defined area. It reads, inter alia:

The defined area is that area around the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa. The purpose of this Act is to reaffirm and protect the unassailability of our Parliament.

Apparently the PFP also finds fault with that and it is for this reason that a number of its members and ex-members are actively involved in extra-parliamentary organisations.

*What is basically involved here? The hon member for Houghton flung accusations around and superficially tried to look for scapegoats for the reprehensible conduct of her liberal friends. The times in which we are living require every South African to make a choice. We must choose between peace and violence. [Interjections.] Yes, we must tell each other that. We must choose between moderateness and radicalism. [Interjections.] We must choose between evolution and revolution. In the final analysis we must also choose between Christianity and the godless ideology of communism and Marxism. None of us can escape these choices.

After careful consideration of the information at our disposal, the Government decided, last Wednesday, to take limited action to curtail the activities and actions of certain organisations.

What are these organisations like? They are organisations openly described by the communist-controlled ANC as “fighting allies”. They are organisations which, according to a publication of the United States Information Agency, Problems of Communism, July-August 1987, appear as follows:

What does this have to do with …

They are organisations and people who, amongst others, openly declare: “Victory or Death!”

[Inaudible.]

They also say:

*The Government has taken action against organisations which have, during the past three years, purposefully contributed to the creation of a climate which has resulted in shocking unrest and violence, sickening necklace murders, coldblooded intimidation of innocent people and still many more equally fiendish activities, in an effort to destroy the existing, orderly social structures in South Africa. These organisations would, if they succeeded, not only make the country completely ungovernable, but would also cause unlimited bloodshed, human suffering and misery. [Interjections.] The Government is taking action against these organisations and people. We have made a choice in favour of freedom and against violence. We have made a choice in favour of moderateness and against radicalism. I am also saying this to the hon members of the CP. This Government has made a choice in favour of evolution and against revolution. [Interjections.] This Government has made a choice in favour of Christianity and against Marxism and communism. [Interjections.] The Government has exercised this choice in the interests of all the people in South Africa; not only in the interests of a small minority.

What about the AWB?

From many quarters the Government is being criticised for this action, amongst others by the PFP, and now by churchmen, too, who held a protest rally about that yesterday. I really cannot believe that these churchmen still do not know what the ANC really has in store for South Africa. The churchmen purposely ignored prior warnings and all fair and reasonable requests by the police not to go on endangering the maintenance of public order. Prior discussions were held with them and they were told they would be contravening certain laws, but they did not listen!

Why did you not do that in 1981?

The churchmen and approximately 150 hangers-on were intent on direct confrontation, knowing all the while that in terms of this Act they were guilty of an offence. They were not prepared to listen to reason.

Why did you not act in that manner against the AWB?

When the request was made to them, they flatly refused to make any moves to disperse at all and to comply with the police request. By their actions these churchmen besmirched South Africa’s name. It was not our action; it was the churchmen who started it. It was nothing more than a propagandist gimmick, particularly if one looks at the large number of foreign media people who were present. At no stage did these churchmen show or hand any petition to the police. According to this morning’s Cape Times they only signed it after this whole spectacle had ended, when they arrived at the Press conference.

I want to state categorically that I have studied video tapes of the events and that I am satisfied that in all respects the action taken by the police was indicative of restraint and professional correctness. Certain hon members have already had an opportunity to view these unedited tapes, and I should like to invite other hon members to view them tomorrow. We have nothing to hide. We were scandalously provoked, and now we again have to take the blame for what took place. We have to take the blame for the misbehaviour of others who mask themselves in a cloak of hypocrisy. I find this untenable, to say the least.

Now the hon member is trying to compare this to last Saturday’s actions by members of the AWB at the Union Buildings in Pretoria. In that case the police are again being accused of prejudice. Let us, however, examine the facts.

†Mr Chairman, I would like to make it clear that the function of the SA Police is to uphold the laws of the country and maintain order under all circumstances. We take action against anyone who contravenes those laws or engenders disorder. It does not matter who is involved; we take action regardless of the persons concerned.

What are the facts of the incident involving the AWB? Approximately 300 to 400 AWB members arrived at the Union Buildings in motor vehicles. They therefore did not take part in a procession or march, and they stood around in small groups. I have evidence of this.

Law-abiding citizens!

Mr Terre’Blanche was in possession of a petition which he presented to the officer in charge. After negotiations with, and at the request of, the police officer in charge they immediately dispersed. This is in stark contrast to what happened yesterday. I have explained it to that hon member. She saw for herself what happened in the Gardens yesterday.

Nevertheless, a dossier was opened yesterday morning and a charge in terms of the provisions of the Internal Security Act is at present being investigated against the AWB.

I would like to issue a serious warning to both the AWB and all other radical organisations. The security of the public and the maintenance of public order are of primary importance to both the SA Police and the Government. Reckless exploitation and the enflaming of emotions and feelings, accompanied by a terrifying show of armed force, cannot and will not be tolerated! It can and will have only one result, namely confrontation and violence—a situation which we must prevent at all costs. It is for this reason, therefore, that this matter is enjoying the Government’s most urgent attention.

*At the start I said that the times we are living in demand that we make choices. Yesterday was indeed a black day for us, not because of the action taken by the police, but because these prominent churchmen also made their choice. It is frightening, Sir. It is enough to drive one to tears about the future of our country, about Christianity here. The churchmen are protesting on behalf of organisations and people who have chosen violence rather than peace …

That is untrue. [Interjections.]

… organisations which have chosen radicalism rather than moderateness, organisations which have chosen revolution rather than evolution, organisations which have chosen communism rather than Christianity. The evidence is there. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon independent member there at the back—I do not know what constituency he represents—said it was a lie.

Order! The hon the Minister may continue.

I want to ask how those people reconcile that with their Christian consciences.

Order! I regret having to interrupt the hon the Minister, but I have already given him more time than this debate allows. This therefore concludes the debate. In terms of the Rules the time for the debate has expired.

Discussion having continued for half an hour.

Mr Chairman, I request your permission to convey important information to the House about damage caused to our schools by the recent floods. I might just mention that we are aware of the circumstances and that the Department of Education and Culture, in co-operation with the other departments, is doing everything in its power to rectify the situation as soon as possible.

At the Vaal-Oranje Primary School in Douglas one mobile classroom was washed away and damaged beyond repair. Seven other mobile units were displaced by the floods and can be used again once they have been replaced. The floors of mobile units were damaged and 10 workers who have been employed in terms of the employment programme, together with five members of the cleaning staff, are engaged in the clearing up operations. All the members of the teaching staff reported for duty, but some of them were allowed to go home to attend to their personal needs. Water and electricity supply was interrupted and toilet facilities are out of order.

At the Bucklands School in Douglas the girls’ toilet collapsed. Six of the 10 staff members were absent due to transport problems. Since the homes of 45 members of the parent community were flooded, school attendance has been very poor. No serious damage was caused to the school building at the Rietrivier School in Ritchie. There was no school attendance from 23 to 26 February, but the staff were on duty.

The Panorama Secondary School at Jacobsdal was closed from 22 to 26 February because staff and pupils could not reach the school due to untraversable roads. They are still experiencing transport problems. To date confirmation has been received that 65 homes of parents have been flooded. One Sub A girl drowned during the period in which the school was closed.

The Koffiefontein Primary School has been functioning normally, except on 23 February when attendance was low and two teachers were absent.

The Oppermansgronde Primary School functioned normally, but attendance was erratic. The principal sent the boarders home on Friday 25 February because of problems with the power supply and the preparation of food. At the Grange Primary School in Witput teachers and pupils were unable to reach the school and the school was closed from 23 to 26 February.

The Springfontein Primary School could not be reached and was consequently closed from 22 to 26 February. The Langverwacht Primary School in Springfontein was closed for three days but is functioning normally again.

No damage was caused to the Jagersfontein Primary School building. The school at Boschrand in the Edenburg district cannot be reached by telephone or otherwise. Unconfirmed information has been received that the school building was washed away. Since the Penguin Primary School at Belmont could not be reached, it was closed for three days. In the Winterton district two classrooms of the Klipdam-Holpan Primary School collapsed. All that remains is a corrugated iron structure that was not in use. Since 24 February the 99 pupils have been transported to the D L Jansen Primary School at Windsorton. No damage was caused to the Aalwyn Primary School building in Campbell.

In the Upington district many schools have been vacated since 24 February in anticipation of possible damage. The local authority, on the instructions of head office, started vacating the George Island Primary School on the 24th of this month. Budgetary and Auxiliary Services, on the instructions of the chief director, subsequently removed equipment that could be damaged from all the island schools. The regional chief inspector visited eight of the island schools on 24 February. A teacher was appointed to monitor the situation closely. Naturally, when the parents residing on the islands had to vacate their homes, they took all their children with them.

Transport contractors were instructed not to transport any pupils to schools On 26 February. The George Island Primary School which has 200 pupils and nine teachers will be closed for several months. This school suffered the most severe damage and all the items that were subject to damage such as doors, cupboards, pin boards and blackboards were removed by the local authority. It has now been agreed that this school will be accommodated in the old buildings of the Neilersdrift Primary School after the flood.

I also want to mention that the teacher absence ratios due to the flood were as follows: At the Oranjezicht Secondary School: 3 out of 60, 6 out of 60 and 7 out of 60; at the Neilersdrift Primary School: 16 out of 16; Vyebos Island Primary School, 6 out of 6; George Island Primary School, 9 out of 9; Khoms Island Primary School, 3 out of 3; Sandkop Island Primary School, 5 out of 5; Cillie Primary School, 8 out of 8; Lutzburg Primary School, 7 out of 7; Lanklaas Island Primary School, 2 out of 2; Langeiland Primary School, 5 out of 5; and Klipeiland Primary School, 3 out of 3.

Order! I have to announce that a vacancy has occurred in the representation in the House of Representatives of the electoral division of Eersterus owing to the death of Mr L J Dewrance on 27 February 1988.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the hon the Minister of Justice I move the motion printed in his name on the Order Paper as follows:

1. (1) to prevent money from being brought into the Republic to be used there to endanger the safety of the public or the maintenance of public order or to create a state of emergency or to delay or prevent the termination of a state of emergency;
2. (2) in affirmation of the principles that political aims and objectives should be pursued in the Republic—
   1. (a) without instigation of feelings of hostility or violence; and
   2. (b) without interference, financial or otherwise, from outside the Republic,

and, if so, the question whether the Promotion of Orderly Internal Politics Bill [B 50—88 (GA)], which is hereby referred to the committee, satisfies such a need, the joint committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers and to submit legislation in this regard.

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, before the debate commences, I want to say the following. In terms of Standing Order no 22(4) the UDP, in conjunction with the Labour Party, requested the privilege of debating the incident that occurred in Wale Street, Cape Town, on Monday, 29 February 1988 when several clergymen were arrested. Mr Speaker disallowed the request. We are therefore unable to debate the matter today.

It would appear that those who advocate peace and justice are harassed and arrested …

Order! I request the hon member’s co-operation. He must just read the statement. If the hon member wishes to debate the matter, he must give notice of a motion which can then be debated tomorrow.

Mr Chairman, then I give notice …

Order! The hon member must give written notice. My problem is that we cannot discuss the reasons why Mr Speaker has refused the request unless such a motion has been tabled. The hon member should have discussed this matter with the hon the Leader of the House or the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council before today’s sitting started. They should then have reached an agreement. The hon member must not discuss the merits now, because he has made his point. He must now give notice of his motion and an agreement can be reached so that it gets preference on the Order Paper tomorrow.

Mr Chairman, I respect your ruling, but I want to re-emphasise that whatever took place took place in conjunction with the Labour Party and not without their participation.

Mr Chairman, permit me to congratulate the hon the Minister on his Budget speech. I think the freeze on tariff increases in the SATS should be regarded as a positive move and as part of a general package to promote prosperity and progress in South Africa. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate Dr Moolman on his appointment as general manager and to wish him and his staff everything of the best for the coming year.

On behalf of the House, I want to thank the SATS for their excellent performance during September 1987 when the rain caused a great deal of damage to the railway network and pipelines in Natal. The damage amounted to almost R26 million. The SATS again took quick and effective action during the present flood disaster to get the wheels rolling in and to certain areas again. Once again I want to express our gratitude for the staffs unselfish service.

With regard to the SA Helderberg accident, I hope the hon the Minister will ensure that the relatives will be satisfied completely and that at the same time attempts will be made to resolve the problems among the flight staff. I believe our flight staff are among the best in the world, and good care must be taken of them.

Sir, the successful and economic operation of a service depends largely on how it is managed. As we know, capital determines the future of everything. I want to make a serious plea to the hon the Minister that for the sake of South Africa, he should make a point of abolishing this duplication and triplication of services. I am being frank with the hon the Minister in telling him he must abolish apartheid from the Statute Book and in respect of the SATS once and for all. This would lead to our saving millions of rands.

There is no doubt that over the years the third-class passengers have borne the losses of the first-class services to a large extent. In other words, the poor have had to subsidise the rich as well as pay for the comfort of the rich, and I am referring to the Whites. A child could have seen that.

The report of the De Villiers Commission recommends a formula for dividing up the SATS into five compartments for more effective and efficient management. Other members of the Labour Party and I agree that a more orderly department, instead of only a disciplined department, is essential. The true financial implications are not being addressed, however, viz the different coaches that are being used for different colour groups. We could save a lot here and this is precisely where economic reform should take place.

I also want to know whether the joint management with its five subsections and with a view to privatisation will not lead to there being less opportunity for people to complete their promotion circuit. The question is whether it will be possible to transfer those in a certain profession, who do not fall in the top 200 of the management cadre, from pipelines, for example, to road transport so that they can be considered for promotion. A further question is whether the respective departments will call for their own quotations and tenders, or will this be done in the form of group management? I am asking this question, because irregularities could take place here and an own empire could even be built.

I want to go into more detail on privatisation. This magic word caused bitter unhappiness and even violence in America and the United Kingdom. Many people and families lost their jobs, and businesses went bankrupt. I request that the greatest care be taken to prepare the staff of the SATS for this. I want to go further and issue a warning—not only to staff members of the SATS—but also to other Government departments which are being privatised, that those who have done the “luxury” work for years will have to pull up their socks and roll up their sleeves, because privatisation means hard work. There must be a profit motive, one must approach things in the correct way and production must be increased. One can add that people will not be able to take sick leave all that often. People must not misunderstand me, but if employees are not productive, whether they are White, Black or whatever colour, they will lose their jobs.

Another important matter is the fact that when certain sections are privatised, many of the staff members will lose some of their benefits. I am no prophet, but many people are going to lose their jobs as well. For this reason one must ensure that these people are protected.

Another aspect is the fact that there will always be losses on commuter service passengers and interurban services. This happens throughout the world. My request today is that commuter service passengers be subsidised to a great extent. We shall always have poor people among us who cannot afford their own transport. Our people have been forced by the Group Areas Act to live far away from their places of work. Over weekends they have to travel long distances to do their shopping and that is why the Government has a duty and a responsibility to take care of these people. Between 1982 and 1987 there was a reduction in the number of passengers from 3,5 million to only a quarter of a million. I attribute the reduction to poor services, vandalism etc, but I want to add that stations are not properly planned so as to deal with passenger traffic in an orderly way. That is one of the things in which the NP has erred. Many people still travel free, but a number of train services have been suspended and passengers are now making use of kombi taxis because they think it is safer.

Sir, the points I have just mentioned have bearing on a few important matters that also concern the portfolio and budget of the hon the Minister. The number of taxis, buses and heavy motor trucks has increased tremendously on our roads, and in all honesty, South African roads have not kept up with this. The department of the hon the Minister, in co-operation with other departments, must investigate this aspect.

Deregulation has caused certain things that people were not prepared for. In the first place, for example, only milk, wood and cattle fodder were transported on the roads. Today toxic substances and explosive chemicals are transported on the roads as well. Initially these substances were transported by rail. My point is that this is creating certain bottlenecks on the main routes. People in the local towns are not trained to deal with accidents of this kind. [Interjections.]

Order! I request hon members please to lower their voices. Secondly I want to ask hon members, when they want to speak to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, to go to him out of respect for him. The hon member for Wuppertal may proceed.

Sir, local authorities’ emergency services must be tightened up. We cannot get away from that. The carrying capacity of roads must be taken into account as well.

The CSIR believes that 750 000 people with forged licences are driving on our roads. I mention this, because over the years the tonnage on railage, for example, has decreased drastically. The reasons given for this by clients are theft and the loss of freight. In some cases the goods do not reach their destination in time. I believe the hon the Minister will be able to answer these questions competently.

It is on record that I have sympathy with the necessity for implementing the hon the State President’s economic package. I believe, however, that something should be worked out with a view to the future, especially for those in the lower income groups, because they form the backbone of transport affairs. Although I welcome the fact that no increase in tariffs and fares has been announced—I have just said something should be worked out for those in the lower income groups—I do want to make a suggestion. I suggest that the staff in the lower income groups be compensated by having part of their annual free pass or the full amount paid out in cash and added to their bonuses. This would be a great source of comfort for an unfortunate person. Those people will not have the money to go on holiday in any case.

As far as Black housing is concerned, the hon the Minister gave us the assurance that it is Government policy to supply families with housing. With all due respect, that has not yet been done. The upgrading of hostels is still being budgeted for. How does the hon the Minister explain that?

In the last place I want to ask whether the hon the Minister can give us the assurance that there will be no increases in tariffs or fares during this financial year, because if that were to happen, it would merely amount to a temporary combating of inflation.

I should now like to address a problematic aspect. I should like answers to certain questions. Did the pelagic fish industry address representations to the hon the Minister’s department concerning the lowering of requirements in respect of fishermen’s certificates of competence and the examinations ? The hon the Minister must understand that this industry does not want to invest in the training and future of the fishermen at all. According to my information, they are trying to say that the examinations that have to be taken to obtain certificates of competence are too difficult. In my opinion as well as that of the association, that is absolute nonsense. Apparently this industry also recommended that there should not be a second steersman. How do they expect future skippers to have any mobility? They also say that the deck-hands are labourers. That is absolutely untrue; they have to work with expensive machinery.

The HSRC said certain things in a report, but this information appears to have come from the people in the industry itself, who are so selfish that they think only of profit. According to the report, there were interviews with 360 fishermen who believed this as well. I believe it is quite untrue, however. We spoke to approximately 90% of these people, and I have never heard any such thing from them.

Sir, it is recommended that the Act, or rather, the regulations be amended in such a way that the skipper of a 20-foot boat will be empowered to steer a 200-foot boat as well. This would create enormous problems, however, especially as regards sea transport. I trust the hon the Minister will give us more clarity about this today.

The training of fishermen should take place during October and not August. I therefore want to ask the hon the Minister to instruct his department to move the training period. Fish are still caught during August, and therefore fishermen cannot attend the training courses.

I want to conclude by asking the private sector please not to make any price increases whatsoever. If that should happen, the Government’s economic package would collapse. I therefore support the Budget.

Mr Chairman, I was not going to take part in this debate initially. However, when one sits back and reviews the past year, one sees that there has been no improvement in the SATS. I think it is only fair, therefore, that hon members should re-emphasise their stand concerning the SATS. I want to tell the hon the Minister how I view the SATS. I would like to bring it to the notice of the hon the Minister that apartheid on trains is costing the SATS millions of rands a year. If he cannot see it by now, I do not think he will ever be able to see it.

Last year I repeatedly asked the hon the Minister to resign, because he was not addressing the real problem, namely apartheid on transport services, especially on the trains. The hon the Minister thought I was joking, but apartheid is no joke to us. It is definitely not a joke, because it is costing the country millions of rands a year to implement apartheid.

As far as the hon the Minister’s budget speech is concerned, I do not regard it as a good budget speech. The only thing that stands out in the budget speech is that there will be no increases in train fares. The hon the Minister is boasting about it, but why the big noise? Since the day the hon the State President delivered his opening address, however, we have known that there would be no increases in train fares. If the hon the Minister had to increase train fares, he would have been running his department in a very stupid way.

Order! Will the hon member please withdraw that word.

I withdraw it, Sir. He would have been running his department in a very inefficient way if he had increased the tariffs. When the hon the State President said that there would be no salary increases for State employees, no tariff increases did not come as a shock. It was not something that was new to us. Now the hon the Minister says that something good has been done! In my opinion the hon the Minister’s speech was nothing but an empty speech with no direction. [Interjections.]

Sir, let us look at the losses on the trains. I wish to quote from The Star Monday Journal, No 11, 1988 as follows:

I do not believe that. I find it very hard to believe. In one of our committees I asked the department which of the two was more expensive to run—a plane or a train travelling the same distance from Johannesburg to Cape Town. The answer was that of the two the plane was the more expensive to run. I went back to the department and asked for more information on this. I was told that the income derived from an Airbus from the Johannesburg to Cape Town flight amounted to R55 415 in fares. Let me compare that to trains. The first class White section of the trains can accommodate 84 passengers. The second class White section can accommodate 190 passengers. From the White section alone, therefore, an income of R50 290 is derived.

That is only as far as the White section is concerned. Now we come to the so-called international section—“international” is the new word that is being used. The income derived from the international or first class—this is 36 passengers in first class, 69 in second class, and 240 in third class—amounts to a total of R34 317, while the other Whites only income and international income per journey amounts to R84 607. The SATS are, therefore, making much more on their trains, but the hon the Minister still tells us that their trains run at a loss.

I can tell the hon the Minister why. The loss comes from the White section. The non-White section is always packed, and when a person wants to book in the international section—that is the new word in the place of “non-White”— one is always told that it is fully booked. If extra accommodation was needed for Whites, the SATS would make a plan to add another coach, even if they had intended to reduce the number of coaches; and that is where our losses come from.

Remove those signs.

An hon member says the signs should be removed. The signs should have been removed a long time ago.

†The hon the Minister does not want to see it this way, Sir, but one of these days our train services will come to a halt because of apartheid on the trains. Let us look at our first class train fares. A first class train ticket from Cape Town to Johannesburg costs R230 and an air ticket also costs R230. So what would a person do? First of all he would go for the best service, and that is the plane. The SATS cannot run a profitable train service if they charge the people fares which they cannot even afford. The train service is supposed to cater for the person with a lower income, but this is not the case, because train and air fares are exactly the same. However, air travel is more convenient and people will obviously go by plane.

I still say, as I said when Minister Schoeman was here, that the SATS will get more passengers if they reduce their tariffs. Every time they increase their tariffs they attract fewer passengers. The excuse that buses and taxis are taking away passengers is not true, because trains are still crowded. The taxis are only taking passengers away from the bus services.

I am sure that if one looks at the local trains, one will find the same problem there. Those trains are always packed. I do not see how we can be losing on those trains. Perhaps the fault lies with the department, because tickets are not collected properly at the gates. People just run past and continue going because there is no control.

Therefore, I say the hon the Minister must do away with apartheid on the trains. We cannot keep coming here every year and say without progress: “Mr Minister, get rid of those signs.”

*We cannot repeat that here every year. One day we must simply decide to stop travelling on those trains. We must leave them to the Whites. If the hon Minister wants the Whites to have their own compartments, he should make them pay for them.

†However, he should not charge us high fees so that we get third class treatment in the first class compartment. It cannot work like that. If they want us to pay first class fares, then we should share compartments and even coaches. These facilities are there for South Africans; they are not international. Since when are we international people? I did not know we were international; I thought we were South Africans. However, they have now come with a new word that we are international. [Interjections.]

We will say more in the other debate, but I want to ask the hon the Minister to start addressing the issue of apartheid on trains. He must stop evading the issue by coming here with long pre-written speeches. He must come here and address the problems as they arise. He must tell us today—if he does not want to, he can let the hon the Deputy Minister tell us—whether he is going to get rid of apartheid on our trains.

*Is he going to get rid of apartheid? He can take those signs and hang them in his office. If the hon the Minister is not prepared to do that, then I volunteer to take him by the hand and lead him to the station where I shall remove those signs for him. With the hon the Minister’s permission I shall remove them myself. If the hon the Minister is not prepared to remove them himself, he need only ask me, and I shall do it for him.

Mr Chairman, firstly I want to link up with the hon member for Wuppertal’s congratulations to Dr Moolman on his appointment as general manager of the SATS.

Then I want to dwell for a moment on two important events that took place in the SATS during the past financial year. It was with shock that we took note of the disaster that occurred on 28 November 1987 in which 159 people died at sea near Mauritius. For South Africa that was a day of mourning, and we should like to thank the hon the Minister and the SATS for what they did at the time. Secondly I want to mention the floods that occurred in Natal on 23 September 1987 and again thank the hon the Minister and the staff for taking such prompt action to normalise the situation there once more. In particular I want to express a personal word of thanks to the nonWhite staff of the SATS who worked for hours on end, in the rain and in wretched conditions, to get the railway lines and bridges operative once again.

Slaves of the Railways.

The flood damage, with the disruption of the railway network and the pipeline, amounted to approximately R26 million. That is a tremendous amount of money, but we must know that we have to be prepared for such natural disasters and therefore have a well-organised and motivated corps of workers.

Before discussing the hon the Minister’s budget speech, there is one point I want to touch upon, and that is the parity announced by the hon the Minister last year. Hon members know that there are two outstanding aspects when it comes to parity, ie Transmed and travelling facilities. I also want to mention a few other aspects about which I am not very happy. Last year and the year before last I said that if we were speaking of parity, we should move away from the designation of posts in the SATS. [Interjections.] If we still have designations for posts, when people are largely doing the same work, this cannot give us any feeling of satisfaction. I want to mention to the hon the Minister a few ranks in the SATS in which disparity still exists. In regard to the track itself there are still two ranks, ie that of “baanmeester”—that is a White person—and that of a “baanman”, who is a Coloured or a Black person. And as far as shunters are concerned, there is also a disparity. “Rangeerder” is a White person, and then one also has a “treinopsteller” who is a Coloured or Black person. If we look at that structure, we also see that there is a disparity in the salaries. I also want to refer to “kaartjiesopnemers” and “hekbedieners”. I myself was a “hekbediener”, a “gate-attendant”. In 1966 I attended the college at Delmore and I know that it is now being said that certain of the old gate-attendants, such as those who trained with me in 1966, are no longer retrainable. They cannot now lay claim to parity, because they cannot be placed on an equal footing with the young ticket-examiners. I am asking the hon the Minister to make provision for those people not to have to complete further courses. If someone manned the gates with me in 1966, I do not think he needs any further training to enable him to write out tickets. I know, because I did that work myself. I also know that those who still occupy those positions today are equipped to do the same work as a ticket-examiner and a gateattendant.

It is high time that stationmasters and stationforemen came from our ranks. A person is a “lamp-man” on a station, but he does all the work. Friction is caused by disparities. We do not want to see friction arising in the work-place; we would like to see people working in harmony. When one is dealing with this inequality, one finds one is dealing with people who differ in colour. The only criterion for discrimination against workers of the SATS is normally the fact that one is White and the other non-White. I am aware of people who have been working for the SATS for more than 30 years now and who could easily walk into any job. I know someone—I do not want to mention his name and he no longer works for the SATS—who worked at Athlone station for years. He did the work of a stationmaster but never obtained the recognition owing to a stationmaster. He was a chief clerk. He ran the station; he did everything. I think we should have started there. Then it would have been possible for us to set our people a good example.

In the course of my speech I shall touch upon certain staff matters. I should now like to discuss certain points from the hon the Minister’s second reading speech. I am, of course, very glad that no tariff increases were announced in the budget. As far as we are concerned, as the hon member for Klipspruit West said, it was a foregone conclusion that if the SATS had announced an increase, it would have been acting in conflict with the hon the State President’s economic policy. And that would not have been acceptable.

At the same time it was also important, because we knew that if there were no tariff increases, there would not be any salary increases either. I want to ask the hon the Minister to look, in particular, at the position of the low-paid workers in the employ of the SATS, as soon as the economy of the SATS evidences an upswing, and ensure that their salaries are brought on a par so that they can make a proper living. The overall majority of my people belong to the low-paid group, and they are the ones who are hardest hit. After the hon the Minister’s announcement that there would be no salary increases, the Federation of Trade Unions paid a visit to the hon the Minister’s office. We expected that. We expected Mr Henn to make certain statements. We also expected him to put certain demands to the hon the Minister. I do not expect Mr Henn and the Federation to stop persevering. They will continue to put forward claims, requests for increases and adjustments to conditions of service. I therefore want to tell the hon the Minister that it is important, when the SATS economy evidences an upswing, to look after the interests of those who form the backbone of the SATS.

Since we are talking about the low-paid workers, let me tell the hon the Minister that I told him last year, and his predecessor the year before, that we could not afford to employ trained people in non-productive services. Here I am referring specifically to the North Western Cape Division, in particular to Saldanha. There are trained artisans who are not being productively employed in their posts. I am certain—I want to proceed from this viewpoint—that if those people were Whites, they would have been suitably placed in posts in which they could do work befitting an incumbent of such a post. I therefore want to make this serious appeal to the hon the Minister. We cannot afford to have trained people unproductively employed, doing the work of semi-skilled workers. After all, those people obtained certain qualifications. They motivated themselves to improve their positions. My request is: If those people cannot be suitably placed at Saldanha, let them be transferred to other centres. I have spoken to them, and they are prepared to be transferred in order to do the work for which they were trained. I make this appeal to the hon the Minister, and I trust he will be able to accommodate me.

Sir, I am also concerned about the travelling public. Again I am referring to our people, the third-class passengers, who are affected by this curtailment of train services. I want to give the hon the Minister an example by mentioning a case that took place. On 23 December of last year, passengers from Cape Town to Johannesburg travelled via Noupoort and through the Orange Free State. On 24 December I was standing on Noupoort station and I encountered passengers there who had to travel to Aliwal North, Cookhouse and Colesberg, but who could not get a train. That was as a result of the curtailment of train services. In Cape Town those passengers had bought tickets to Aliwal North, Cookhouse and Colesberg. They had to sit at Noupoort waiting for a train! The next train that would arrive at Noupoort to take those people to their destination would have arrived on 26 December—and those people had planned to arrive at their destinations on Christmas day! They then had to hire taxis from Noupoort, at very great expense, whilst they had tickets, for which they had paid, to get to their destinations. We should like to request that those timetables be examined so that in some or other way trains do link up. At the moment, for example, when a train from De Aar via Noupoort to Port Elizabeth arrives in Port Elizabeth, the Algoa Express travelling from Port Elizabeth to Johannesburg has already departed. Then the passengers have to stay over at Noupoort for 24 hours to catch a train to Aliwal North. They then have to hire a taxi, even though they have a valid ticket from their point of departure to their destination. There, between those two places, they have to incur extra costs as a result of a train timetable on which train services do not slot in. I ask the hon the Minister please to give attention to this. This example proves my point. I can also submit names to the hon the Minister. I myself was at Noupoort; I saw what happened, and I spoke to the people.

I travel by train as regularly as possible and talk to the passengers on the trains. I am grateful for the fact that they uncoupled the “church coach”, as we call it, for overnight journeys, but we still have problems with security on our trains. I think of the days when we had the ordinary old third-class service. Every passenger in the compartment could travel safely. The compartment had doors that could lock and the five or six people—the average occupancy of the compartment—could travel safely. If the safety of our passengers were of great concern to us, we would make their journeys as convenient as possible for them.

My next point concerns privatisation. The next point which the hon the Minister mentioned in his budget speech was privatisation, and in this connection I merely want to make one request to the hon the Minister, and that is that he should not tell us that he does not want to link any time-scale to privatisation. The hon the Minister must please take a look at the private sector and keep those who are interested in privatisation abreast of matters so that they will be prepared to slot in when privatisation does take place. Is it not possible to determine a date three, four or even five years hence? The hon the Minister knows what the attitude of the study group is and he also knows the feelings of the other large transport companies which are interested in privatisation. I ask the hon the Minister to give attention to this aspect, because they are the people who will ultimately take over from them. We must not keep those people in the dark. We must be a little more open-hearted with them and tell them that they should prepare for the take-over about four or five years from now. In this way we would be assured of an easier change-over.

The hon the Minister is familiar with my standpoint on privatisation. I have previously stated that I see privatisation as a final goal and that I regard it as being very important. In this regard I support the hon the Minister, but I want to ask that we really do make a start. I did a bit of reading up on privatisation and came to the conclusion that there were also disadvantages involved. One of the major disadvantages involves the trade unions, because those people are not very happy about privatisation. The hon the Minister is aware of that, and for that reason I am not going to elaborate on that aspect any further. There is still going to be a great deal of discussion about privatisation—we are going to be talking about it for years. The last word on privatisation will definitely not be uttered today.

Before I conclude I want to make a serious request to the hon the Minister involving the hostel at Delmore. An amount of R13 million is going to be spent on upgrading the hostel, but that hostel is a sensitive issue. It is remotely situated in an area where the people do not want it. In 1966 I lived in that same hostel whilst being trained as a gate-attendant in Germiston, and if that building was derelict at the time, I cannot see how money can be spent on it today. A large number of people are not living there any more. Hostels have been built elsewhere in the country, and pressure in regard to Delmore is being exerted from all quarters. I therefore want to ask the hon the Minister not to have us spend all that money on Delmore, but rather to help us to accommodate the inhabitants of that hostel somewhere else. We could even help them by way of loans so that they can obtain their own homes in the established group areas.

Another problem encountered at Delmore is of a moral nature. There are only men living in that hostel, and I need not say what happens there on weekends and holidays. Hon members can imagine for themselves what happens when a group of men are let loose. [Interjections.] In the light of what I have now told him, I request the hon the Minister to reconsider the decision to upgrade Delmore.

I now want to ask the hon the Minister to take a look at our other hostels too. A year or two ago I requested that we take a look at the hostels in Philippi and in Vredenburg. I think those hostels should be made available to students at our universities, technikons and schools. In Vredenburg, for example, there are young teachers at the high schools who do not have accommodation. The losses incurred by the SATS would, to a certain extent, be alleviated if that accommodation were made available to the relevant institutions.

On behalf of my voters I now want to express a few words of appreciation to the hon the Minister. I am thinking, in particular, of the construction of 38 houses at Klawer in my constituency. The first batch of houses is already being occupied, and another series of houses is being built. I also want to tell the hon the Minister that my voters in Vredendal North are especially grateful for the fact that they can now purchase the departmental houses there. The Sasvrouvereniging of Vredendal also extends a sincere vote of thanks for the assistance granted by the hon the Minister and his department with the establishment of a playground for the youngsters.

In conclusion I want to lodge an appeal with the hon the Minister—I feel very strongly on this point—about the question of staff uniforms. For as long as I can remember, our people have worked in those khaki uniforms, and those things give me quite a turn, Sir. I know that a commission of inquiry has been established to investigate the question of uniforms, but my question is aimed at insuring that it will not be necessary to speak about uniforms in the next financial year. I am asking the hon the Minister, in particular, to look at the uniforms of our bedding-attendants on the trains.

Mr Chairman, once again I want to focus the hon the Minister’s attention on a very delicate matter involving our commuter services. Before coming to that, however, I also want to express my condolences in regard to the flood disaster and the crash of the SA Helderberg. I also want to convey my congratulations to Dr Anton Moolman.

During the past year we have read, time and again, of the inconvenience suffered by commuters. That is not all, however; there is also an increasing incidence of crime on our trains and a high accident rate. I should like to quote from Die Burger of 28 January 1988. The report bears the following headline:

I quote further:

The SATS provides a service for our people here in the Peninsula, but we expect the quality of service to be such that it is safe.

If one examines this report and sees how many people were involved in accidents, the figures paint an alarming picture. A survey was conducted at Groote Schuur Hospital. Let us have a look what happened to these people. During the same period in which 42 people suffered very serious leg, head and other injuries, 281 people died as a result of train-related accidents. The majority of the injured varied in age from 20 years to 29 years. Most of them are working people, but the figure also includes students and pupils. Approximately 68% of the injured fell through open train doors or from overcrowded trains. I shall come back to these overcrowded trains again.

In total, 20% of these people jumped from the trains to escape serious assaults on the trains, or were thrown from an overcrowded train. In 12 cases limbs had to be amputated. Three of the injured died in hospital and seven are permanently handicapped.

Mr Chairman, I come back to the question of the jam-packed trains. Here we see a photograph of people literally hanging onto the trains. This is not the first time we have brought the matter to the hon the Minister’s attention. We brought it to his attention as far back as 1985, 1986 and 1987, and we are doing so again this year.

I know that the hon the Minister is going to say in his reply that crime on trains is not his department’s responsibility. I have always said—and I stand by that—that the SATS is also responsible for the safety of its passengers. The hon the Minister cannot simply wash his hands of the whole affair and say that crime is not his problem. He cannot say it is a matter for the police. I refuse to accept that. I do not think it is fair to people who make use of the SATS.

†Mr Chairman, I also wish to quote from the Cape Times. The heading reads “Crime: Police, SATS to meet”, and I quote:

The trains that run on the Mitchell’s Plain line are commonly referred to as “dagga trains”. I quote further:

I am not making this up. I am quoting from a newspaper which states that a certain express train is known as the “dagga train”. I wish to apologise to the hon the Deputy Minister of Population Development, because I am referring to his constituency.

I am going to take that newspaper to task!

Sir, does the hon the Minister not find it a cause for concern that trains in his service are described as dagga trains? Surely something will have to be done about this.

The dagga train is probably a steam train!

Perhaps I am not expressing myself properly, but it is not nice for trains to be called dagga trains.

Takes the drag out of the fag.

I can hear the hon member for Border also participating in the debate on this alarming situation. Not one hon member of the Opposition’s name, however, appears on the speakers’ list to address the matter relating to our people.

I should like to continue by basing my argument on the inaugural address of the SATS, new boss, Dr Moolman, as reported in Die Burger of 17 November:

I would have preferred his saying “die mense” instead of “sy mense”. The people making use of these services are as much of an asset as the SATS’s workers. I therefore ask Dr Moolman to replace the word “sy” and speak about “die mense”. Al those who support the SATS are its greatest asset. I like the slogan that Pep Stores once used, ie that the people are its assets. I think the SATS will agree with me that the people are also its greatest asset.

If the people are of such great importance to the SATS, let me ask the hon the Minister why an in-depth investigation has not yet been launched into the problem of accidents on the railways. The latest figures indicate that each week there are 2,7 people who are injured. That can be ascribed to accidents and assaults. Here I must pause for a moment. Let me quote from Die Burger of 21 November: “Man pluk pistool en panga uit—mense se groot vrees vir treinmoleste”. Many of our people have already found themselves in a situation in which they have not known whether they would reach home safely that evening. I quote further:

The people could not get away. These things only happen in the sections for Blacks and Coloureds. I get the feeling—I must agree with the person who said this in the same newspaper—that the SATS thinks nothing of us. I am asking the hon the Minister please to ensure that this statement is completely reversed so that when we return next year, God willing, we can say that the SATS thinks a great deal of us.

We cannot have the same problem every single year. It would seem as if they pay no attention to us and no longer have any interest in our problem. Those trains must simply go on running and we must manage somehow. These are our people, after all, and this is our problem.

One of the things I also noticed—something which is a delicate issue—involves the relations between the races. Someone from the Free State wrote about the hostile attitude of the Coloureds towards the Whites. At a later stage I shall quote what he wrote, but I first want to make the statement that with all its infrastructure, its manpower and its expertise the SATS has never—I should like to be corrected if I am wrong— instituted an investigation into this matter.

†Another thing, you see, Sir, is that the SATS must be operated as a business undertaking. It is a good thing, and I accept it. However, whilst they accept the SATS as a business undertaking, why do they allow its customers to suffer like this? I feel very serious about this.

I beg the hon the Minister, even if he has to go to the hon the State President, not to let this situation prevail. It cannot remain the same year after year. I wish the hon the Minister could avail himself of the opportunity of our taking him on a drive on a train so that he can see for himself what the conditions are like. I am sure the hon the Minister would definitely not want to travel on that train again.

*To aggravate the situation, certain train services have been terminated. The SATS is trying to make a profit. Our people who support them, however, are the ones who suffer the most. I think it is poor planning for the SATS simply to be profit-orientated whilst the people suffer for it.

†If people have to suffer because the SATS is too profit-motivated then a change has to be brought about.

*It is embarrassing to read in the newspaper how the SATS is attacked, time and again, in connection with the same problems. We do, of course, have highly educated and highly developed people who must certainly be able to solve the problem. Only the hon the Minister will be able to tell us why this problem has not yet been tackled.

If the SATS is concerned about this state of affairs, what does it envisage doing about it? It must do something. If not, next year we shall simply be reminding the hon the Minister again of the poor train services our people have to be satisfied with. I should like to quote what a certain person said in Die Burger on 25 January 1988. He is someone from the Free State—I take it he is a White person—and he says that trains should be opened up.

A White person? [Interjections.]

It is a White person. He writes:

This case involves three women who climbed into a carriage and were evicted by an official. They only had one problem: “My only sin was the colour of my skin.”

Their money was good enough.

They pay the same fare, but the colour of their skin is wrong. If that is the state of affairs, we have to agree with people who say that the SATS is bent on treating us as hard-heartedly as possible.

Mr Chairman, to start with I want to thank the hon the Minister and his department for the action they took in the disaster-stricken areas. They acted responsibly, and I want to thank the workers, particularly the ordinary labourers. Those people worked long hours to ensure that the roads and railway lines were restored so that activities could return to normal.

I also want to thank the hon the Minister for the fact that no tariff increases have been announced this year. Hundreds of commuters travel to our suburbs from my constituency each day. I want to express my thanks and appreciation to the hon the Minister for not having announced an increase, because then I would have had to listen to the lamentations of my voters again. I hope and trust that the situation will remain unchanged throughout the year and that no tariff increases will be forthcoming.

A great deal of disruption was caused as a result of the suspension of certain train services. This was particularly the case on full trains. Train services were curtailed, but there was no reduction in the number of commuters; their numbers increased. When the trains come along, all the workers try, as quickly as possible, to get on the first, second or third train. Full trains cause accidents. One of my voters died in November because the doors could not be closed. The train was full to overflowing. Railway workers were working beside the railway line and had built a structure too close to the rails. This resulted in the person, hanging outside the door as a result of the full train, being fatally injured by the structure. He subsequently died. Those are matters that make a very strong impression on one.

My plea is therefore that the possible curtailment of train services between Cape Town and Wellington be reconsidered. More train services must be instituted. All the trains, from the first in the early hours of the morning, are jam-packed. When the train leaves Wellington, it stops at Mbekweni. It also has to stop at Daljosafat where a large number of commuters catch the train. At Huguenot station 95% of the commuters board the train. As soon as they do so, the train is full. This leads to frustration and accidents.

Therefore my plea to the department is this: Please ensure that more trains run on the Wellington to Cape Town line so that our commuters can catch those trains. If it were possible for three trains to turn around at Huguenot station, that would reduce the load, because then commuters from Paarl could catch a train at Huguenot station. When the other trains, which have come from Wellington, reach Huguenot, they would not be that full anymore, because then the other two or three trains, which had already passed through, would have loaded up most of the commuters. I reiterate: My plea is that more trains should be introduced on that route. Hon members know that there is an English proverb which says: “Do not kill the goose that lays the golden egg.” I should like this situation to be examined.

This brings me to the railway hostels. My first example is the one in the Philippi-Mitchell’s Plain area. Why can the workers living in the camps— that is what people call them—in certain of the small centres not be accommodated in that hostel? I am referring, for example, to the camp in Muldersvlei which at times is a seed-bed of mischief. The people live in corrugated iron huts. If the SATS would get rid of those camps and accommodate the workers in the Philippi-Mitchell’s Plain hostel, things would be a lot better for the SATS. Why, Sir, must so many rooms stand empty in that hostel when there are such camps which do not even begin to have the facilities which the hostel has?

I hope there will be a move in that direction and that the workers will be accommodated in that hostel so that it can be filled. One of my hon colleagues mentioned certain bodies which could be involved. We are sure there are bodies who would want to be involved, but they first want those hostels to be opened up so that they can be utilised. Since the railway police have been withdrawn, there are many facilities standing empty. My appeal to the hon the Minister is that he should ensure that the private sector is given the option of leasing those facilities which are not being utilised. Why should they lie there decaying when they can be profitably employed? This could generate revenue. What is more, the private sector is frequently on the look-out for facilities. The railways own them, but they lie there decaying.

Another matter which is very important to us involves the question of having women employed at some station gates. It is also our plea today that attention be given to this matter. The men can be made use of elsewhere where they can furnish a useful service. Wherever we look, we see White women doing the work, but I am sure there are competent Coloured girls who could do the same work. Why can they not be utilised there, whilst our Coloured men could prove useful elsewhere.

Mention is made of discrimination, but we want to ensure that that reproach does not rest on the SATS’ conscience. There are, after all, some of our people who can be employed by the SATS.

On Cape Town station, and on other stations too, we note that many of the policemen have been withdrawn. That work is now being done by other firms. If those firms can do the work on the stations, why can the SATS not get the private sector to perform certain duties on our trains? Since the police were withdrawn from the trains, there is nothing but chaos on some of those trains. I appeal to the hon the Minister to ensure that security guards from the private sector, whose services the SATS already employs, also perform certain duties on the trains. They should operate both on the stations and on the trains, because that is the seed-bed of these iniquities. We must not wait until murders are committed or a knifing takes place before we do something about this. We must combat these iniquities at this early juncture. I therefore ask the hon the Minister, in co-operation with his department, to ensure that this is in fact done. The firms for which the security guards work have, of course, negotiated a contract with the SATS, but people are complaining about some of the security guards. The way in which they address the people, for example, leaves much to be desired, and some of the officials are under the influence of alcohol whilst on duty. Surely we cannot expect someone who is under the influence of alcohol to help or be of service to someone else. The person who is sober always gets the short end of the stick, because liquor calls a different tune. For this reason we appeal to the hon the Minister to ensure that companies which have security officials in the employ of the SATS, employ the right people.

I am speaking in particular about the security situation on the stations from Cape Town to Tokai. We owe a vote of thanks to those who treat our community properly. There are other security guards, however, who use obscene language and who even kick children. I once had to intervene. We must ensure that such things do not happen.

I shall now conclude. Let me tell the hon the Minister and the department that as far as transport is concerned, 1988 will be a red-letter year for us. That which ebbed, will once more flow. I also want to congratulate Dr Moolman and thank him for his services. Those of us who deal with transport matters could approach our officials whenever there were any problems in our constituencies. They were always eager to help us. Therefore we cannot but thank them for what they have done for us. We trust that this year will be a significant year for all of us. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, in the first place I want to say something about privatisation. When we go back in history, we see that the Railways was used to uplift the poor Whites in South Africa. That part of the SATS is still being used to keep the poorer Whites in protected positions. I think we should be honest about this. Now that we have to uplift our people as well and need to use every possible channel in order to have them reach a level at which they can truly live like human beings, however, the SATS is being privatised. I have nothing against privatisation, Sir, but one does wonder about this.

I want to thank the hon the Minister on behalf of Mrs Sarah Medina and her children. We often get heated here in the House and berate hon Ministers and their departments, but one should thank the hon the Minister when now and then he does do something right. During this debate last year I made representations to the hon the Minister with reference to the case of Mr Medina, who was a victim of the striking train staff. While he was in the service of the SATS, he was assaulted and thrown out of a train, and he died as a result of his wounds. I want to thank the hon the Minister for the letter I received in October last year in which he said that Mrs Medina and her children, until they reach the age of 18, will receive a compensatory pension on a monthly basis. I thank the hon the Minister for that, as well as for the fact that the funeral expenses and all her other expenses in this connection were paid. I am also pleased to hear that she received a cheque to the value of R30 150. Sir, one cannot replace a husband or father with money, but it is a comfort to have the assurance that the family is well cared for.

I should like to draw the attention of the hon the Minister to the transport problems in my constituency. I am referring specifically to Nigel. I want to ask the hon the Minister to institute an investigation into these problems. Most of the residents of Nigel work on the Rand. They are dependent on public transport to get to their place of work. There are trains only in the mornings and evenings. I heard from one of the school principals that he has had to wait for transport from Springs to Nigel from 3.30 in the afternoon until 6.30 in the evening. Even the trains that run during peak hours leave a lot to be desired.

If perhaps a person is travelling from Johannesburg to Nigel, and there is a short delay at his place of work, he may get to Springs and find that the train to Nigel has left. Many people have had to walk from Springs to Nigel—a three-hour walk—to get to their homes after work. I want to ask the hon the Minister to investigate this matter.

If the hon the Minister argues that this train service is uneconomical, I want him to consider the establishment of a road transport service. Perhaps buses could be used in peak hours or between peak hours. What possibility is there of a direct connection between Nigel and the Rand? There is a good goods train railway network in that part of the Rand. Maybe that could be utilised.

I also want to ask the hon the Minister how far the planning for Rabie Ridge has got—if there is any planning at all. The residents of Rabie Ridge have started referring to it as Rubbish Ridge! At the moment only Putco buses operate there, from five o’clock to seven o’clock in the morning and from five o’clock to seven o’clock at night.

Where is that?

Rabie Ridge, Mid-Rand, Sir. There is no public transport between these times. There is no public transport over weekends. There are taxis, but they only go as far as Alexandria. People were moved out of Alexandria, because it was too dangerous to live there. Taxis now take people as far as Alexandria. They are still struggling, just as they struggled in the olden days.

There are too few taxis to meet the requirements of the commuters. My question to the hon the Minister is the following: Is something being envisaged for Rabie Ridge? If not, I want to ask the hon the Minister to attend to this problem immediately.

Other hon members have had a great deal to say about the problems of commuters, but I feel I have something to add. When one looks at the hon the Minister’s memorandum and budget, one sees that passenger transport on commuter services is the fourth largest source of revenue.

Attention must definitely be paid to commuters’ problems, therefore.

There are children who live in Laboria Park who have to take trains from Unibel Station to Pentech Station or elsewhere. My son, who also uses this service, has complained numerous times that the trains leave too quickly. He maintains that if one does not stand at the door of the train and jump in, one misses the train. No one makes sure that everyone has boarded or left the train—the train simply leaves. No one sees whether perhaps there are stout people either on the platform or in the train. There is no one to see whether there are people who are struggling with heavy parcels. The whistle simply blows and the train leaves! That is why there are so many train injuries. The hon member for Bishop Lavis referred to this. The hon the Minister need not travel through the whole country in search of examples. He need only go to Unibel Station. I can assure the hon the Minister that there will be problems if one of our children is hurt. That will make the argument of the hon member for Klipspruit West look like child’s play!

We will clamp down on them then!

I suppose we shall have to.

We should like to ask the hon the Minister to talk to his train staff, so that they will be more cautious and will treat the people as they deserve to be treated. One wonders whether this only happens at the non-White stations.

I want to talk about Park Station in Johannesburg. One of the advantages of Park Station is that one can drive up onto the platform by car. That is convenient, because one can drive almost to the door of the train with luggage and all. I want to know why the entrance has been closed. One can understand that the security situation during the strike last year necessitated the closure of the entrance, but are we permanently to be denied the convenience of parking on the platform? Surely there are ways of covering the security aspect without inconveniencing the ordinary commuters. One could examine all the vehicles that are allowed through, for example. One could also determine whether the people who are going to be travelling have a ticket and luggage. If a person was coming to fetch someone, he could be asked to show his identity document. People could even be requested to buy a ticket at the entrance, because this is a convenience and it should be used. I request that the hon the Minister attend to this matter.

Something else that has struck me, but which has not been mentioned by other hon members, is the hawkers on the stations and trains. One does not mind if they sell cooldrinks and snacks, but they are also selling liquor. They get there with bags full of liquor and try to press it upon one every two minutes. That happens at Park Station in particular. It is so bad now that some of them are travelling on the trains as well, and every now and again they walk past with tins of beer and liquor which they then try to sell.

I also want to draw the attention of the hon the Minister to Germiston Station which is in my constituency. I have always said I would never advise anyone to disembark at Germiston Station; I would rather travel right up to Johannesburg. The subways at Germiston Station are dark tunnels. They are poorly lit and wet and they smell bad. The smell there can be compared with that in a cave of bats. It stinks.

That is only on the nonWhite side.

I did not have to say it; someone else said it for me. I want to ask the hon the Minister to prohibit hawkers in these subways as well. They should not be permitted to sell things there, because it is disorderly down there in those dark holes. Idlers should be forbidden to enter the subways, which are already dens of iniquity. I do not think it would be asking too much to have a police officer appointed to patrol the subways to ensure that people behave themselves.

I want to conclude. As a result of the railway lines having washed away, all the aeroplanes are full, because many of the passengers who would have travelled first class are being accommodated on the aeroplanes. One wonders what has become of the hundreds of third-class passengers. Are they being accommodated as well? Are they being taken care of too? I sat next to a White passenger who had had a reservation on the Trans-Karoo. He said he was travelling by aeroplane and would be paid out for his ticket. One wonders whether our third-class passengers are receiving attention too.

I have another question—this has been asked by other hon members often—about the appointment of our people to the top management of the SATS.

Internationalise.

No, let us leave it at that. I want to ask whether the SATS has appointed any non-White railway commissioners, for example. I should like to quote from The Citizen of 8 February 1988:

I want the hon the Minister to tell me what they are doing to let our people know that they can also be trained to pilot aircraft. In the past we always knew this was a “White” job and that we were not allowed to apply. What are they doing to help our people so that they can also be appointed to those posts?

Mr Chairman, in the first place I want to convey my sincere thanks to all hon members who took part in the debate. It was partly an economic and partly a political debate. I appreciate the contribution made by each hon member, whether it was a political or economic contribution. I think we can justifiably say that this Budget that was introduced and which we discussed here today was a watershed budget. In fact, it caused wide reaction. I should like to thank hon members— and there were many of them—who congratulated us on the fact that there are no tariff increases this year. That has an important influence on South Africa, because transport costs influence every possible sector of our economy and of our society. Take fuel, for example. The fact that the fuel price does not have to be increased as a result of transport tariff increases affects every family in this country. It is also true, unfortunately, that no service or sector in the country is abused more when it comes to putting up prices than the SATS. In the past we found that a small increase in transport tariffs resulted in exceptionally high increases in the prices of commodities. Transport tariffs are used as a convenient vehicle, as it were, for levying unjustified price increases.

We all know that this decision not to increase tariffs this year cannot but have a beneficial effect on our economy. In particular, it will lead to a reduction in the cost pressure factors which either cause or make a substantial contribution to inflation. One of the hon members referred to this and said that if this attempt by the public sector to crack down on the national enemy of inflation is not supported by the private sector, it will not succeed. Consequently all eyes are on the private sector. I think the public sector has proved its bona fides.

We would prefer not to do this. It is not pleasant to tell one’s people that one is not going to give them an increase. I think the public sector has proved its bona fides in this connection, however. What is more, it has proved that it is serious in its attempt to crack down on the common enemy of inflation. Consequently we can be justified in looking forward to the private sector’s contributing its share as well, so that in fact it will not be an attempt only on the part of the public sector, but a national effort. Only then can we really attain success.

This is a debate containing more than one facet. I have briefly dealt with the economic consequences, and should now like to refer to other aspects of a more political nature that were raised here. I want to refer to the question of the signs in particular.

Please. [Interjections.]

This is an aspect that has a history. We all know that. It is also an aspect which makes emotions flare.

Do away with them.

I have sympathy with that view.

What are you going to do about them?

Hon members know that the Government referred the question of separate facilities to the President’s Council.

They said abolish them.

The President’s Council has made a thorough investigation of this matter and has published a report which has been tabled. The position of the SATS is mentioned specifically in that report.

What does the State President say?

The Government has to adopt a standpoint in this connection. The Government will adopt a standpoint in this connection. [Interjections.] Until such time as that happens, however, hon members cannot expect me to anticipate matters. I am asking hon members to be patient until a standpoint has been adopted, therefore. [Interjections.]

I should also like to refer to the words of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council at the beginning of the debate when he spoke about flood damage. Hon members mentioned that the damage we suffered in Natal amounted to approximately R26 million. The Free State and the Northern Cape have just suffered the same fate. We went to investigate matters, and according to preliminary estimates, the damage amounts to more or less R25 million. As hon members know, there have been further floods in the Karoo today. We have not been able to evaluate the damage properly. I want to give hon members the assurance that the SATS is doing its best to keep services going and to make things as easy for our clients as possible.

Which clients?

All our clients.

Irrespective of their colour?

All our clients. Where it is practically possible, we are providing road transport. We are also providing air transport. We are doing this for all our clients—including our third-class passengers.

I want to avail myself of this opportunity to convey my sincere thanks to those people, particularly our staff, who are working 24 hours per day to repair the damage as soon as possible so that our services can return to normal. I thanked them when I visited the site. I think I am speaking on behalf of everyone when I say we have great appreciation for what they are doing.

I can also inform hon members that the SATS is granting assistance in these stricken areas wherever this is in any way possible. They are housing people in empty houses they may have, for example, and are even moving train coaches to convenient places to house people in that way.

I should also like to express my sympathy with those who have lost dear ones in this flood and those who have suffered great losses. When one visits those areas, one is shocked by the extent of the damage that can be caused by water.

The hon member for Wuppertal expressed congratulations. I thank him sincerely for doing so. He referred to the duplication of services. I have referred to that briefly and said these were matters that were investigated by the President’s Council. Even that is progress in that we have had an in-depth investigation of a thorny issue.

The hon member also asked about the promotion of staff and tenders after we had broken up these services into five different businesses. I want to tell the hon member that promotion can take place in any of these sections. That is not a problem. People can be promoted from one section to another. Tenders would still be dealt with in general fashion.

The hon member also referred to privatisation. I think he put the highest priority first, and I agree with him. Our highest priority when we talk about privatisation is our workers. I have said on numerous occasions that if one wants to make a success of privatisation, one’s workers must be one’s highest priority. The fact is, Sir, that one cannot make a success of any enterprise if one does not have loyal workers. That is why workers’ wages, salaries, pensions, housing benefits and medical benefits will have to be investigated first, and these people will have to receive certainty on these matters. We must go further and say that no worker will lose his job as a result of privatisation. This can be done, and has been done. Privatisation must in fact be to the advantage of the worker. Privatisation has been successful in cases in which all the workers, irrespective of their race or colour, were made shareholders in a particular enterprise. [Interjections.]

The hon member said the SATS was moving into a more competitive market. Naturally this requires harder work, because there is stronger competition. I do not flinch for a moment, however, when I evaluate my own people and see that they can make the grade just as well as any other group of employees in the country.

The hon member also referred to commuter services. I agree with him that it is not possible in this or any other Western country to have commuter services which are not subsidised

To link this to privatisation, this simply means that this is a service that will have to be subsidised by the Treasury, irrespective of who renders the service.

The hon member also referred to the reduction in the number of passengers. He said this might be as a result of poor service or of people who were travelling free. I want the hon member to consider something else, however, viz that everyone in the country has become more prosperous, and naturally we thank the Lord for that. When we look at our roads we see how crowded they are, and we have to be very careful when driving. I do not begrudge anyone the right and privilege of travelling in his own vehicle, because he has worked hard to get that vehicle. That is one of the reasons for the reduction in the number of passengers. The number of cars on our roads has increased tremendously and, of course, this is a much more convenient way of travelling than travelling by train. A train is restricted to a railway line, but a vehicle is not. We also find that the interurban bus transport is much cheaper than train services …

It is also much quicker.

Naturally it is much quicker, but it is not a trend found only in South Africa. This trend is found throughout the world, and we have to adjust to it. There is no point in running empty trains in the hope that people will travel by train. They can afford vehicles, and that is why they use the roads.

The hon member and various other hon members referred to theft on the trains, and that is an aspect which causes us much more concern than it causes hon members. Not only do we suffer great losses, but this also causes numerous administrative problems, which require a lot of manpower etc.

The hon member also suggested that the value of the free pass be added to the bonus. I do not know how practical that is, but I listened to what the hon member said and shall definitely consider the matter. He also wanted the assurance that there would be no tariff increases, and in my budget speech I announced that there would be no such increases. I cannot see into the future and I do not want to anticipate anything, but present indications are that such increases will not be necessary. The hon member also referred to the qualifications of bosuns and fishermen. That aspect can be addressed under the Transport Vote. I shall reply to the hon member then.

The hon member for Klipspruit West said this was an unsatisfactory budget and probably based his view on the fact that there were no salary increases. Am I correct?

[Inaudible.]

The hon member is definitely in the minority, as he will see when he reads the newspapers.

I must tell hon members—I said this in my budget speech as well—that the SATS took a brave step, amidst increasing cost structures, not to burden the public with higher tariffs. This means that one will have to proceed extremely economically. There will have to be productivity if those results are to be attained.

Naturally we should have liked to have granted salary increases, but the fact is that there is no point in simply increasing salaries …

[Inaudible.]

No, I am not imputing this to the hon member.

Mr Chairman, I want to make a rectification. I did not say …

Order! Is that a question or a point of order?

It is a rectification, Sir. I want to rectify the matter. [Interjections.]

†I did not refer to the fact that there was no increase. What I said, on the day on which the hon the State President said that there would be no increase in the salaries of public servants, was that the writing was on the wall that the SATS workers would get no increase. However, according to the hon the Minister I said something else.

Sir, apart from what the hon the State President said, we have the budget speech. That speech says that there are no tariff increases.

But that was two weeks in advance!

You are a prophet!

Very well, anyone could have made that forecast. The hon member made a correct forecast, and I want to acknowledge that.

It is a fact, however, even if the hon member made a correct forecast, is that it is still a good and positive budget. [Interjections.]

The hon member drew a comparison between the price of an aeroplane trip and a journey by train. For the reason I mentioned a moment ago, it is simply a fact—the hon member is correct once again—that one does not receive more money in total if one increases one’s prices. I agree with the hon member wholeheartedly. One must look at the nature of one’s transport, however, and at present the nature of our transport is that passengers are turning to road and air transport. No matter how low one makes those tariffs, one will not be able to compete in those two spheres, because in both cases it is a matter of convenience and shorter travel time. [Interjections.]

The hon member, as well as other hon members, referred to crowded trains. I shall elaborate on this aspect when I reply to another hon member.

The hon member for Vredendal referred to the Helderberg disaster and to the floods in Natal. He also expressed his appreciation to the workers of the SATS. I thank him for doing so. In addition he raised the question of parity, which we debated comprehensively last year. Parity has yet to be achieved only in respect of Transmed and travel facilities.

Furthermore the hon member suggested that we do away with the respective official titles. I want to tell him that that is one of the matters that is being considered at present, and that it is not impossible for this to happen. What is more—the hon member knows this; in fact, one knows it whether one is a platelayer or not—people from every race group can fill those positions. There is nothing to stop any SATS employee from filling any of those positions. Naturally this also applies to stationmasters and foremen. [Interjections.]

If anyone thinks he is being prejudiced in respect of promotion, the course of negotiation and appeal is open to him, irrespective of his colour. There is parity in right of appeal now too.

The hon member requested that attention be given to the lower paid workers when there is an upswing in the economy. The hon member may be sure of that. The management of the SATS is painstaking in that respect. It is our chief objective to assure everyone in the service of the SATS of a decent existence.

Reference was also made to trained people who are not utilised correctly. Hon members know that when there is an oversupply of people—and I can assure the hon member that this applies to all races—White as well as non-White—we place those people in alternative positions if no position appropriate to their training is available. In many cases we offer to transfer such people, but often they refuse to be transferred. These are all problems that the SATS has to contend with. We do our best to accommodate these people, however, because this is to our advantage. It is to the advantage of the SATS to appoint people to positions that they have been trained for.

I now come to safety on the trains. We do constant research into methods to improve the position. The hon member asked whether I could not give a time scale for privatisation. I should like to do so, but I said in my budget speech that it was not possible to do so at this stage. I think the hon member is quite correct, however, in saying that as we identify units, we shall definitely have to announce a time scale in our preparation. This will be to the advantage of the enterprise itself. It is important to the interested parties. It is also important to employees and the market that we have to move in. We shall definitely pay attention to that aspect, therefore. I thank the hon member for saying he saw privatisation as an ultimate objective.

The hon member also referred to the Delmore Hostel. Renovations are under way there, but hon members know that it is our policy preferably to house families. We are trying to get away from hostels. Once the Delmore Hostel has been renovated, there will be accommodation for fewer people, but the accommodation will be better. Hostels are made available for private use wherever we have any spare capacity and where there is a demand. I thank the hon member for his words of appreciation for the 38 houses at Klawer and Vredendal, and for the children’s park.

Staff uniforms are linked to the different business units. This is still receiving consideration at this stage.

The hon member for Bishop Lavis broached a matter which is very important to all of us, viz accidents, death and crime on trains. The hon member requested that he and I undertake a train trip. In exchange I want to invite the hon member to go and look at the commuter services with me early one morning. We can do so anywhere.

In Soweto!

In the third class!

In the third class! It is unfortunate that we experience problems during peak hours in the mornings and afternoons, but the SATS’ trains are there. Just take a look at Mitchell’s Plain and the Cape Flats. Hon members will find that we pick up 2 000 and 3 000 people per minute. There is a train every two and a half minutes.

Nevertheless one finds that everyone wants to take the first train. No one wants to wait for two and a half minutes. It is absolutely impossible to fence off these masses of people as if they are sheep. It cannot be done. One can try to guide people, and we do so as far as possible, but the problem of overcrowding is experienced in every country that was commuter services and where the peak hour is short.

I also want to tell the hon member for Bishop Lavis, however, that there is a considerable degree of carelessness on the part of passengers. [Interjections.] When I went to look at the commuter services early one morning I saw that the train was not full, but that a man was sitting in the window with his feet hanging outside.

He was probably cooling his feet.

Either he was cooling his feet or he was showing off in front of his girlfriend. [Interjections.] There are people who go and sit on the coupling section between coaches even if there is room in the train. They want to sit outside.

Why does that happen … [Interjections.]

I say that is correct, but while the SATS has every sympathy and is making every attempt to make our transport safe, we must appeal to hon members and everyone else to propagate safer travel habits and to get people to be less careless.

The hon member referred to the dagga train to Mitchell’s Plain—that rhymes—but in all fairness, I do not think the hon member can blame the SATS for that. We may not refuse to want to pick up anyone. We would be the first not to pick up a person who is in a dagga-induced daze, but once again this is a reform task that has to be performed by our people. I also feel mortified if one of my trains is known as a dagga train. Like this House and that hon member, I feel mortified. All of us, however, and not only the SATS, are responsible for this educational task.

We are prepared to cooperate, as long as the signs go.

The things the hon member for Bishop Lavis read were alarming—the number of accidents and deaths. I asked my staff to check the percentages, because accidents and crime take place on the road, in streets and in houses as well. We must see these things in perspective. In saying that to the hon member, I want to give him the assurance that the SATS will continue its research to establish ways of combating crime and of eliminating these accidents as far as possible.

The hon member said: “The SATS must be operated as a business undertaking.” That is what the legislation prescribes, and the policy of privatisation is providing this with extra impetus. [Interjections.] This is going to make the SATS one of the top businesses in the country, so that there will be a great future for the service as such, and also for every employee of the SATS— whatever his colour may be.

Take the colour away! Just take the colour away, then everything will be fine.

The hon member said we were neglecting the people.

In that respect, however, the hon member should compare us with the market and tell us which enterprise we should emulate. We do thorough research on all staff matters and all client matters, but as the hon member said, we are a business enterprise. We have no choice, therefore, but to research the market and give our clients only the very best. I can assure the hon member that we are doing that constantly.

The hon member for Rawsonville also expressed appreciation of the fact that his voters will not have to pay more for their tickets. I am pleased that that is possible. The hon member made a very important remark, however, when he said that commuters all try to leave on the first possible train. That is one of our big problems. Whether there is room on the train or not, and whether there is another train two minutes later or not, they cram themselves into that specific train. The hon member also appealed for more trains between Cape Town and Wellington. I want to invite him to come and talk to the staff about that so that they can give him the necessary details. If the hon member has any suggestions in this connection, he is welcome to make these suggestions to them.

The hon member also asked whether empty rooms in hostels could not be rented. That is possible and is being done. He also asked whether people in camps could not be placed in the hostel in Mitchell’s Plain. We are looking into the matter and if it is practically possible and it is not too far, we can do that.

As regards security guards on stations and on trains, it is the task of the SAP to maintain law and order. The hon member knows that we had a comprehensive police force which was taken over by the SAP. We should like to ensure greater safety on the trains, but the hon member will realise that this entails extra expenses in an enterprise which is already suffering tremendous losses. All passenger services, commuter services and ordinary interurban train services are run at a tremendous loss.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister why the SATS cannot run a profitable enterprise? [Interjections.]

Sir, we are making a profitable enterprise out of the SATS. In the first place, however, one must restrict or cut out those services on which losses are suffered. As the recommendations of the De Villiers investigation are revealed, the hon member will see that we are on our way to making the SATS into a profitable business enterprise.

The hon member also referred to the poor conduct of employees. I assume he was referring to security employees as well as ordinary employees. He spoke about obscene language and about employees who were not sober. I want to invite the hon member to bring this kind of conduct to our attention so that we can take action.

It is important that clients make these things known to us, so that effective action can be taken.

The hon member wished us the best of luck and at the end of his speech he said a very fine thing. He thanked the staff for their accessibility. I am pleased that the hon member said that in this House, because that is our policy. Our policy is not to send people away from us, but to listen to them. I thank the hon member for his remark.

Listen to the matter of the signs as well.

I also want to praise the hon member for Alra Park. We were able to attend to the matter he discussed here and it was concluded successfully and to the satisfaction of his voters. It is good to know that we were able to do something to alleviate someone’s distress and pain.

The hon member referred to transport problems at Nigel and Rabie Ridge. He also mentioned other specific problems. I want to invite him to bring the specific problems to our attention. It is very difficult to take matters further in a debate of this kind, apart from indicating that we shall be very sympathetic in investigating all the problems.

The hon member referred to commuter services and said that people were given too little time to board the trains. The peak hour is terribly short.

There should be enough time, however, to ensure that people are not subjected to danger. The hon member can bring that to our attention too.

As far as the sale of liquor is concerned, I want to say that I am a supporter of the informal sector. I am also a supporter of the entry of thousands— if not millions—of people to the economy, especially poor people and backward people. It would be a sad day, however, if we permitted people to sell liquor and drugs. Once again I want to ask the hon member to inform us when these things come to his attention.

I have told the hon member with reference to the floods that third-class passengers are being taken care of.

As regards the question of top posts, the ultimate criterion is merit once disparities have been removed. If a person is not treated according to merit, there is a legal course open to him.

I want to thank hon members once again for their participation in the debate. I hope I have replied to most of the points raised.

Mr Chairman, I want to ask the hon the Minister something. I am pleased he spoke about merit. I should like to know where merit comes into the picture when a passenger is confronted by insulting signs on the trains, such as “Non-Whites only” or “Whites only”? Who must he appeal to? Last year I also asked an hon Minister whom a passenger should appeal to concerning the unjust treatment he is receiving at the Cape Town station, for example, where all the so-called “Whites only” coaches are right at the front of the train, and the other “international” coaches are right at the back. Who must such a passenger appeal to?

Sir, I told the hon member that the matter was investigated by the President’s Council upon the recommendation of the Government, that the report has been tabled and that it will be considered shortly.

Mr Chairman, I want to ask the hon the Minister for his personal opinion: Must the signs remain there—yes or no? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I am a member of the Government. We are jointly responsible for what we say and do. In other words, under no circumstances can I have a personal opinion while the Government has an opinion. I cannot anticipate the Government’s decision, therefore.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, it was with sadness that this House, and in particular the Labour Party, learnt of Bishop Alpheus Zulu’s death. We knew him as a man of vision, wisdom and humility. He was a great man who portrayed a willingness to understand younger people with their burning desire and demands for immediate change—even to the extent of at one time accepting violence as “God’s wrath against evil”. He was particularly inspirational for all of us who were involved in the South African Black Alliance. To have known him was to have walked in the presence of a true servant of God. We extend our sincere sympathies to his family, to Chief Buthelezi and to Inkatha. South Africa has lost a true son of Africa.

Mr Chairman, I want to associate myself with the sentiments expressed by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. I had the opportunity to get to know the deceased in the Black Alliance and also at the KwaZulu-Natal Indaba. We, too, wish to convey our sympathy to his family and the KwaZulu Government.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Order! After discussing this matter with the Chairman of this House, I wish to give the following ruling in connection with the matter raised by the hon member for Springfield on 18 February 1988.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council made two statements in this House on 18 February which the hon member for Springfield regards as a serious reflection on his integrity. Firstly, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council referred to a particular person who had the habit of planning the liquidation of building contractors, and secondly, he asked the hon member for Springfield about missing documents relating to special votes in the hon member’s constituency.

In both cases the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council did not accuse the hon member for Springfield of doing anything improper. I cannot, therefore, request the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to withdraw anything.

The hon member for Springfield used the following words after the questions put to him by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council:

This denial must be accepted by hon members and they consequently cannot refer to these matters again in future.

Members are aware that their behaviour in the Chamber and what they say in or before Parliament is of such importance that a number of the Standing Orders of the Houses deal with order and the rules of debate. Kilpin succinctly deals with what members may not say in Parliament, and I quote:

I also wish to refer hon members to the rulings given by the Chairman of the House of Delegates in February 1987 and again in February this year, in which he appealed to hon members to refrain from making personal attacks on one another. I am in full agreement with your Chairman and wish to point out that members who impute improper or unworthy motives, dishonesty and hypocrisy to their fellow members are guilty of grossly irregular conduct. Those members who are guilty of such conduct or such behaviour succeed only in lowering the tone of debate and in impairing the dignity of the House in the eyes of not only their constituents, but also in the eyes of all the inhabitants of our country. I therefore make an urgent appeal to all hon members not to refer to corrupt actions by other hon members unless they seriously wish to have such actions investigated. Should hon members ignore this appeal, your Chairman and I will not hesitate to take the strictest steps against them which are possible under the Rules of this House.

Order! We now come to notices of motion on the Order Paper. Before I call upon the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to speak, I should like to make a few general observations about the scope of debate on a motion calling for the appointment of a committee or commission such as is contemplated in notices of motion on today’s Order Paper. That includes Notices of Motion Nos 1, 2 and 3.

Debate must be confined to the question whether a committee should be appointed and should not embrace the merits of the matter to be investigated by the committee, as these are not before the House. I will not permit hon members taking part in this debate to accuse one another of malpractices, as this would anticipate the investigations of the committee they wish to have appointed.

In 1946 Speaker Van Coller laid down a sound principle when he stated that when a motion of this nature is debated, as little as possible should be said in connection with the matter which might prejudice the issue when the case comes before a committee. I appeal to hon members to bear this ruling in mind when they address the House.

This is just by way of a directive and it may not apply so much to Notice of Motion No 1, but it applies to all three in general.

Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Justice I move:

1. (1) to prevent money from being brought into the Republic to be used there to endanger the safety of the public or the maintenance of public order or to create a state of emergency or to delay or prevent the termination of a state of emergency;
2. (2) in affirmation of the principles that political aims and objectives should be pursued in the Republic—
   1. (a) without instigation of feelings of hostility or violence; and
   2. (b) without interference, financial or otherwise, from outside the Republic,

Mr Speaker, this side of the House finds this particular motion undesirable and hence cannot support it. We believe that this motion and what is envisaged in terms of it could very well have taken the normal course and have gone to Parliament’s standing committee. To have a select committee is indeed an attempt to circumvent that particular aspect. Furthermore, if one looks at what is contained in the motion, we again see a clampdown on the civil liberties of a community. For these reasons this side of the House cannot support the motion.

Mr Speaker, I wish to endorse the remark made by the hon member for Stanger, who indicated that this motion was not desirable. I would go so far as to say that it is not necessary for this motion to be adopted.

This motion deals with matters which are fundamental to the exercise of democracy in any country. Within our own country the parameters of democracy have been severely restricted and it is the declared aim of every member of the PRP and, I believe, of the members of Solidarity as well, to extend the parameters of democracy.

During the past few years there has been some tentative progress towards the exercise of democracy in this country. However, what is envisaged by this motion is for the select committee to inquire into the restriction of the exercise of democracy. Democracy is the exercise of the individual rights in any society by those individuals who together constitute the collectivity of that society, but in such a manner that they do not trammel upon the exercise of similar rights by other members of that society. That, Sir, is a fundamental characteristic of democracy.

Is it, then, necessary to have a select committee to inquire into and report upon the existence of circumstances making it necessary or desirable to restrict further even the limited democratic rights that we have in this country? In any civilised society, democratic rights naturally have to be upheld and controlled for the benefit of the collectivity by the government of that country. In any civilised country the government of that country represents the will of the majority of the elected representatives. No government in modern society can revert to the Athenian form of democracy and neither, for that matter, to the traditional forms of democracy that we used to have in South Africa. I am now referring to the indaba, which the Ngunis practised and the kgotla, which the Tswanas and the Sothos practised. It is not now practicable. Therefore, one has to have a system of government.

What system of government there is in a civilised country, is inevitably controlled in turn by Parliamentary institutions? We have in this country a Parliament which represents the minority of the total population of this country. Therefore, those who have no representation in Parliament have a democratic right to express their views and opinions in whatsoever manner they are permitted to do so in legal circumstances. Within our country, provided a person does not further the aims of an unlawful organisation and provided he does not indulge in violence or advocate violence, either directly or indirectly, that person should have a perfect right to express his opinion.

Of course, we know that due to the state of emergency, which the ruling party in this House—every hon member of the National Party’s people in this House—stands …

National Peoples Party!

Oh, the National Peoples Party. They are also the National Party’s people. [Interjections.] Every hon member stands mute on the issue of having confirmed the declaration by the leader of that party to the effect that he and his party support the declaration of the state of emergency.

They cannot pretend behind the back of their leader to disavow him, as some of them attempt to do. They cannot do that. They are seen to be supporting the state of emergency. Because of the state of emergency, democratic liberties have been drastically curtailed. There is nothing we in this House can do about that at this stage, except to articulate from time to time, whenever the opportunity arises, that it is desirable that the state of emergency should be lifted as soon as possible, tomorrow if possible.

What about today?

Yes, today, this very hour. If the hon member Mr Nowbath is prepared to stand up and say that he does not support his leader who supports the state of emergency, I will respect him, but he must not make asinine remarks from the other side.

I do not need your respect.

He must stand up and be counted and demonstrate whether he is a man or not.

You just talk and talk. Do something.

Mr Speaker, what we from this side of the House are endeavouring to do, is precisely that. We are doing something in a perfectly legitimate manner, in the only manner in which any member of Parliament can do something, by expressing his own opinions and those of his supporters, his constituents and his people. That is what we are doing. Obviously the hon member does not understand that. We do not go around throwing stones. We do not believe in it. We condemn that kind of thing.

Only a very short while ago certain clerical gentlemen who objected to the banning by the State of 17 organisations, many of which never advocated any… I correct myself, none of them ever advocated any kind of violent action. When these clergymen wished to express their protest in an entirely peaceful, Christian manner, they were dealt with in a very barbaric fashion. If the hon member Mr Nowbath supports that kind of thing…

Why were you not protesting? Why are you talking? You should have been there with them!

I am talking …

Order! The hon member for Reservoir Hills must come back to the motion before the House.

Mr Speaker, I am talking to people who I expect to be grown-up, not to little children.

Order! The hon member for Reservoir Hills must come back to the motion before the House.

As Mr Speaker pleases.

Sir, it is my submission that it is not necessary to appoint a select committee. It is not desirable to have a select committee in order to circumvent the ordinary workings of Parliament. In the ordinary course of events, as the hon member for Stanger pointed out, a Bill will be tabled and submitted to the relevant standing committee. The Promotion of Orderly Internal Politics Bill could be referred to one of three standing committees. One is the Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs, the other is the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning and the third is the Standing Committee on Justice. Every one of those standing committees consists of honourable, experienced men, and in one case, a very charming lady as well. They know their task. There is no need to jump over their heads and to have a select committee for this purpose. This Bill could be referred to any one of the three standing committees.

What endangers the safety of the public is not the introduction of money from abroad, but the very policy of apartheid which the ruling party in this House implicitly or directly support.

They supported it implicitly because they are part and parcel of the mechanism of apartheid or they support it directly from time to time when they laud this policy which endangers the safety of the public. This is what they ought to be articulating instead of coming here and moving this particular motion. Nobody in his right senses would ever say that public order should not be maintained.

The phrase is always “law and order.” One could now have the kind of order that existed in Hitlerite Germany. One could have the kind of order which exists today in Communist China or in Soviet Russia, but once the rule of law is abrogated then its twin, the order, is also directly abrogated. This motion would seek indirectly to subvert the rule of law. The rule of law is the accessibility of the court of law to the citizenry at large. That, again, has already been abrogated and it is supported by the NPP, the ruling party in this House.

Nobody would for one moment countenance the engendering or instigation of feelings of hostility. In point of fact, we have laws against the engendering of feelings of hostility by one group or race component against another. The Riotous Assemblies Act could be used very readily for that purpose.

Unfortunately there are individuals in certain groups who are instigating feelings of hostility. These are not only communists but the other polarity of the communist radicals who are Whites. They do it in the brazen manner of the “Stormtroepers” and the Hitler Youth Brigade. The Riotous Assemblies Act has not been employed against those people as it could be. The Internal Security Act has not been employed against those people as it ought to be. We do not need a select committee to investigate and to enquire into that kind of situation.

The motion also wants to consider and I quote:

If the liberals in England had not protested at the terrible things that the English troops did to the Boers in this country—they protested on the streets of London and in the House of Commons—and if Emily Hobhouse had not made such tremendous sacrifices, our country would have gone into degradation long ago. The valiant Boers who were maltreated would have continued to be maltreated. It was outside interference which exercised influence upon the British government of the time and which brought a certain amount of lessening of the anti-Boer hostility on the part of the British. Notwithstanding 1909, it made possible the reconciliation between Brit and Boer which General Hertzog initiated in this country. It made it possible that this country was not completely riven. It made possible the emergence of this country into what it is today. I can therefore stand here today and demand that democracy be extended.

I salute those outsiders of that time who by their actions also made it possible for me to be here today.

We cannot look at the destiny of a nation in isolation. History to a large extent determines what the present is and what we do in the present time will determine the future. The decision we take on this motion is going to determine the future of those who are described as the Indians in South Africa.

*There are no Indians in the RSA. They are Coloured South Africans.

†Their ancestors came from India.

Go back to school!

I will go on learning, do not laugh at me. [Interjections.] I am attempting to learn the language because I am a South African and I believe all South Africans must learn all the main languages of this country.

It says here, “Whether it is financial or otherwise”. I know of several countries where it is not permissible for any political organisation to receive funds from abroad for whatsoever purpose.

I know that many years ago when Jawaharlat Nehru was Prime Minister of India the Indian government enacted legislation making it illegal for any political organisation within India to receive money from abroad. Ironically that was directed against the American government of which John Foster Dulles was Secretary of State at that time, because the CIA at that time was infiltrating political organisations in India in order to subvert the system in that country. But that does not mean that financial aid for any purpose should not be permitted.

We had a similar situation in this country. The national chairman of the Black People’s Congress was Mr Tom Moerane who used to be the editor of the World. He now lives in Inanda. The Natal chairman was Hyacinth J Bhengu otherwise known as Bill Bhengu who are both good friends of mine. What they did was this: They received aid from American churches abroad and they started establishing social welfare organisations and adult education classes using American money. These were conservative Black people who had nothing to do with the ANC.

Their organisation was banned and the money— they had in excess of R80 000,00 in the bank at the time—was confiscated because their lawful organisation was made an unlawful organisation.

Once there is a measure which could result in draconian action being taken for political purposes there is a great danger of that being applied against perfect law-abiding organisations as well like the BPC.

The BPC was trying to bring about urban and rural upliftment, the kind of work which the Urban Foundation later began to do. No one would ever suggest that the Urban Foundation should ever be banned, but the BPC was banned simply because some security policemen somewhere saw the name “Congress” and immediately he saw the word presumably his hackles rose and as a direct consequence of that that perfectly good organisation which was doing excellent work, which Marxists would condemn…

Order! I think the hon member must come back to the motion.

I was just going to say that they would be condemned by certain groups, but unfortunately they were condemned by our own Government. If this comes about at the present time, other perfectly good organisations can similarly come under the red pencil. It is undesirable for South Africa even to contemplate putting itself into isolation. There are at present forces ranged against our country that want to put South Africa into isolation. This motion contemplates putting our country into isolation, and if we seek to cut ourselves off from all influences from abroad—most of those influences are good—we shall be aiding and abetting those who are the real enemies of our country. We shall be giving substance to what the communist party of South Africa in London is trying to organise against this country. We on this side of the House believe this cannot be countenanced, and this motion should therefore be denied and rejected by this House.

Mr Speaker, we are once again at the crossroads. We are confronted with a very grave situation. Over the past few years, many of us felt that problems in the RSA would be diminishing. However, thinking about what has happened recently, and moreover what is likely to happen, I am afraid that we are still far from peace and the prevalence of goodwill in this country.

We are also facing times that call for tremendous responsibility in our utterances and even greater responsibility in our actions. I do not want to say today all that I am inclined to say. I want to measure my words and statements. After all, every effect has a cause, and the cause of the problems in this country is too obvious for any intelligent person to overlook. I am just wondering whether I need dwell on this matter any more than merely to state the fact that the majority—I need not even say, almost three quarters of the citizens of this land—are not really involved in decision making. They are not represented in the important legislative structures of this country. Is it not then obvious that that large category of people would find other methods of demonstrating their feelings? We are really finding ourselves reacting to the actions of disenfranchised people. I am not completely unmindful of the fact that this Government is taking steps to normalise the situation. However, a moral obligation on the part of the South African Government to accommodate its citizens and all the different groups of people in this country is not only necessary but, at this point, urgent.

Policies based on race discrimination and policies of injustice and inequality are the primary causes of conflict and instability in this country. This is what we must concern ourselves with. This country will not be able to achieve the kind of prosperity and peace that all of us in this land cherish until all our people enjoy equal rights and equal opportunities, something that is denied to the majority of people in this land.

Therefore, as a signal of good faith, the Government must hasten to eradicate the remaining discriminatory laws on the Statute Book.

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

Unless this is done I cannot visualise support for the new Constitution. This is the point. Furthermore, actions such as have been taken recently are not conducive to the participation of the greater majority of the people in negotiating an acceptable constitution for this country. As this is of paramount importance, further proposals will certainly aggravate the situation.

For that reason I wish to concur with both of my hon colleagues who spoke earlier that we should not take the steps that we envisage. I think the standing committee is adequately competent. In this instance I would go so far as to say that bearing in mind the people who serve on that committee, the standing committee is competent and able to deal with this matter.

Therefore we must adopt a judicious method of resolving the position other than having a select committee.

Mr Speaker, I can fully understand the motivation of the opponents of the motion because I do not think that the hon members have examined the intention of the Notice of Motion.

Nevertheless I shall show what the intention is behind this Notice of Motion. It refers to a Bill— Bill No B 50-88. Certain proposals are made, as specified in paragraphs (1) and (2), and the motion then reads as follows:

[Interjections.] I do not see the point of the argument in this debate, since this committee will be charged with taking evidence and calling for papers, and certainly when that is …

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister whether a standing committee could not take evidence and call for papers?

It certainly can, and therefore this is an additional leverage for the evidence to be called for by this committee. This Bill will go to the standing committee for further discussions in which all hon members of Parliament will participate.

I see the intention behind this Notice of Motion.

You do not understand it.

I am sorry; if I do not understand it then I shall qualify it, with all due respect.

The arguments that have been advanced by the hon members of the Opposition may also be advanced when the committee meets. They will then have the opportunity to present what they have discussed today. I do wish to mention that we have all experienced intimidation in our relationships as well as the high costs of those who did in fact indulge in this kind of exercise against the House of Delegates’ elections. Surely this is a matter for concern? Does this not hurt us when we are doing something legitimate? I do not deny anyone the right to oppose the State or a ruling party and to do all they can possibly do. However, when we realise the financial implications of this type of exercise in intimidation, we must establish whether money is coming into the country and from which quarter. The hon member for Reservoir Hills made a very valid point when he mentioned the Inanda Seminary which receives finances from America. I am aware of that and it is performing an excellent job for the people of Inanda and others throughout the country. Theirs is a very costly exercise and programme of education for people who need that form of assistance.

The evidence which will be presented before this select committee will, as I see it, not be onesided. I see evidence being called by this committee which will embrace all kinds of evidence and inputs. This will show the committee exactly which institutions in South Africa receive benefits in the form of finance from outside. Simultaneously it will also look into the possibility of finances being received under one guise and being put to use for another purpose.

We have the Fund-raising Act for that.

Not necessarily. This select committee may look into whether or not the Fund-raising Act has sufficient control over these happenings. Likewise people in South Africa also assist overseas educational and religious institutions.

America?

Not necessarily America, as that is a rich country. They do not need our assistance. Take India for example. Money is being sent there. However, we have a responsibility to assist the improvement of the quality of life of people living where our forefathers came from. Now South Africa makes it a condition that any monies sent overseas for these purposes should not be redirected to South Africa in some other form. Specific purposes in this regard will have to be guaranteed. I have no quarrel with people who wish to state their rights in this country in a legitimate, democratic and proper way, as long as these attitudes and exercises are democratic.

I want to repeat that it will be the responsibility of this select committee to investigate whether the Promotion of Orderly Internal Politics Bill satisfies the requirements of the situation or whether there is a need for further evidence of whatever nature to be presented to the legislature.

Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the submissions made by the hon member for Stanger and my leader, the hon member for Reservoir Hills.

If I heard the hon the Minister of the Budget correctly, he made the point that all that was called for with regard to this select committee was to consider the Bill that has just been presented to this House, and that the committee would have power to take evidence if it saw fit to do so. Solely on account of that, he thought the motion should be supported. [Interjections.]

I want to make the point that the Bill to which he has just referred, namely the Promotion of Orderly Internal Politics Bill, has only just been presented to this House. Not a single hon member of this House has had a proper look at that Bill and I should like to ask why this is so?

Furthermore, the point has been made that in the normal course of events, in view of the fact that this Bill has been tabled by the hon the Minister of Justice and that we already have a Standing Committee on Justice in this Parliament, that Bill would have been presented to that standing committee. What would then have happened, is that at least the hon members of the committee concerned would have had the opportunity of studying that particular Bill well in advance before attending that particular committee. Therefore, the question still remains: Why this route? I was amazed that when the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council moved this motion, he did not motivate it. Had he done so, perhaps he could have taken us into his confidence. He could have told us why the Government had taken this route and not the normal route.

We on this side of the House oppose the notice of motion because we believe that this would deal a death blow to whatever is left of the extra-parliamentary opposition in this country. No one in this House can deny that the extra-parliamentary opposition has a role to play. No-one can deny that the extra-parliamentary groups outside this Parliament have a function to discharge. Furthermore, no one could deny that many of these organisations have discharged their functions rationally, properly, legally and responsibly. Why, then, should there now be a need to stamp out extra-parliamentary groupings. We have just had certain restrictions placed on extra-parliamentary groups and I was of the opinion that such restrictions curtailed democracy in this country. My hon benchmate referred to that. I was also of the opinion that not only did they curtail democracy in this country but that they also curtailed freedom of speech. I believe they curtailed the discussion of important subjects that needed to be taking place.

I believe that extra-parliamentary groups in this country need to operate fully in the market-place under the full glare of public scrutiny.

Order! The hon member must come back to the motion, please.

Mr Speaker, I was merely making the point that in my opinion the notice of motion would deal a death blow to extra-parliamentary groupings in this country.

Order! Unfortunately, the hon member is right outside the borders of the country. He must please come back inside.

Mr Speaker, to come back to the House, with your permission, if the purpose of the intended legislation to be placed before the select committee is to curb foreign funding, I believe that this Government already has enough legislation on the Statute Book to deal with such matters. Why do we need to legislate further in this regard? We have not heard a single word of motivation from the hon the Chairman of the. Ministers’ Council in that regard.

I read this notice of motion and what amazed me is that we have an extra-parliamentary organisation in this country which quite obviously has been left out. I refer to the AWB. If we were to accept the motion as it stands, the AWB could function quite openly without any hindrance. Why should this be so?

I think it was the hon member for Verulam who referred, during the course of his speech, to the intimidation during the elections. I must agree with that hon member that there was intimidation. Nobody can deny this. However, we must look at that intimidation against the background of the situation at the time. Hon members are aware that intimidation was rife as a result of various actions that were taken by the Government. I am convinced that that intimidation which took place during the course of the elections need not have taken place. One certainly cannot condone it. However, I believe the answer to that is not to cut off these groups’ source of finance. Surely that is ridiculous. We have enough legislation on the Statute Book to deal with that kind of intimidation. I am sure the hon the Minister of Law and Order can deal with that situation more than adequately. In fact, he has enough regulations under the state of emergency to deal with that situation.

We therefore say that we are of the opinion that this motion should be rejected. We believe that the intended legislation should be placed before the ordinary Standing Committee on Justice to take its normal course there.

Mr Speaker, I am naturally speaking in support of the appointment of this select committee. I would like to point out that I am not expressing an opinion on the Bill which is to be referred to this committee. However, I believe that whenever a measure has been prepared, presumably painstakingly by various departments working in conjunction with one another, such a measure should have a reasonable opportunity of being scrutinised thoroughly. I do not in any way want to convey the impression that the Standing Committee on Justice may not be the appropriate committee to handle this situation.

I believe that the measure which is to be referred to such a select committee is a measure which transgresses various functions. For example, it has implications of a constitutional nature, there are financial implications and, of course, security implications. I believe that by having this measure referred to a select committee, such a committee will be able to investigate the entire spectrum thoroughly and thereby come up with some or other proposal which will address the problems which the measure intends to address.

I want to make it very clear that one should have less legislation. One should try and make do with whatever legislation one has on the Statute Book at the moment. However, since this measure has already been drafted I believe that a select committee would be appropriate to delve into the whole matter and report accordingly to Parliament. I support the motion.

Mr Speaker, let us find out first of all what the hon members of the Opposition want. I believe that the actual leader of the combined Opposition with regard to this particular issue is none other than the hon member for Reservoir Hills. He gave all the reasons—and it is his right—for saying that this Bill is undesirable. If that is so, they should condemn the proposed Bill in its entirety. [Interjections.] They have put forward arguments that it should not go to a select committee but rather to the Standing Committee on Justice. Let us take the argument further. It then counteracts the argument …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Would it be permissible for any hon member to discuss this Bill before the House today?

Order! The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is not discussing the contents of the Bill as such. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may proceed.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills puts forward an argument, and substantiates it in his own way, that the Bill is undesirable.

I did not say that at all!

The hon member for Reservoir Hills tends to forget the utterances and the statements he made in this House. I heard him very clearly putting forward arguments against the desirability of the proposed legislation. If one is against the desirability of the proposed legislation one should say so in clear and unambiguous terms. One should not say that it must not go to a select committee but rather to the Standing Committee on Justice. This means that deep down in one’s heart one feels that this Bill is desirable. [Interjections.]

This Bill will not prohibit foreign funding. I say this in answer to statements that it will do so.

Let us look at the notice of motion. The hon member for Cavendish places tremendous emphasis on responsibility. The hon member for Reservoir Hills indicated that this side of the House supports apartheid. I want to say that nobody on this side of the House promotes apartheid or wants the preservation and continuation of apartheid in this country or anywhere in the universe.

The hon the State President, who was Prime Minister in 1983, extended an invitation to the members of the Coloured and Indian communities to join him in implementing the new constitutional dispensation and to become co-legislators. Regardless of the side of the House that one sits on one is part of the legislation process of this country. Some people outside have criticised these three Chambers as being Chambers of apartheid. Nobody is compelled to sit in this Chamber which is an Indian chamber. The hon member for Reservoir Hills could be accused quite correctly by extra Parliamentary forces that by sitting in an apartheid Chamber he is promoting apartheid. Let us therefore not split hairs or score points.

That is an asinine argument!

When a person glibly uses the words “asinine argument” …

Do you submit that asinine argument?

I do not want to comment on any nonsensical interjections.

Nobody can fault the principle that the internal politics of any country should be conducted in the best interests of that country.

This notice of motion does not deal with the desirability or otherwise of the proposed legislation. All that it proposes is that the Bill be referred to a joint select committee for investigation.

I do not want to deal in great detail with why it should go to a select committee, because it deals with something more than justice. If one looks at the Bill one sees it also deals with the fact that the Fund-raising Act, 1978, should be amended in different areas. So not only does one need members who are experts on justice and are used to the deliberations in the Standing Committee on Justice, one also needs members from, for example, the Standing Committee on Finance. The fact that this Bill deals with financial matters in addition to normal justice matters is one of the most important arguments one can put forward as to why it should go to a select committee.

Let us look at the notice of motion. The hon member for Cavendish emphasised very strongly that we must approach this measure with a tremendous measure of responsibility. Can anyone tell us if there is any responsible South African who wants money to be brought into this country so that it could be used to endanger the safety of the public? Can anyone in this House go against any measure which prevents money from being brought into this country to endanger the safety of the public?

If we are convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that money which is being brought into this country is being used to endanger public safety then every responsible member of South African society will support any measure to prevent such money from being brought into the country.

Then of course there is an alternative. If we want to be responsible South African citizens then we must prevent money which interferes with public order from coming into this country. The alternative is that it interferes with the state of emergency.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills condemned the state of emergency when it was declared. He condemned it in this House and he condemned it in the media. But what did the hon member for Reservoir Hills state during his delivery when we discussed the motion of no confidence in the Cabinet. I do not say that he stated those words because the hon the State President was seated here. I want to say clearly that the words the hon member for Reservoir Hills uttered in this House a fortnight ago are completely contrary to the stand he took against the state of emergency when it was declared. A fortnight ago, in the presence of the hon the State President, he stated words to the effect that the declaration of the state of emergency was justified at the time.

You are talking absolute nonsense. That is an untruth.

I am not talking nonsense.

Order! The hon member for Reservoir Hills may not call another hon member untruthful.

Mr Speaker, I withdraw the word “untruth”. I deny that what you say is true.

Mr Speaker, if I have the Hansard I shall quote at the appropriate time the words the hon member uttered to the effect that the declaration of the state of emergency was justified at the time. During the hon the State President’s Vote in this House in 1987 the hon member for Reservoir Hills—I do not say it was because the hon the State President was seated in this House—indicated that he blamed Gen Smuts for most of the ills in this country.

So one sees, on the one hand the hon member condemns the state of emergency and later on he states that at the time it was declared there may have been justifications for it.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Referring to your preliminary remarks that when a member denies something other members must accept that, I want to say that I have denied categorically that I ever said that the proclamation of the state of emergency was justified.

Is the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council entitled to persist in his unfactual statement, notwithstanding that denial?

Order! I shall decide upon that issue. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may proceed.

I did not say the hon member for Reservoir Hills uttered those words, as he explained. I said it could be clearly deduced from the statements made by the hon member for Reservoir Hills. [Interjections.] It can be clearly deduced that the hon member for Reservoir Hills stated that the state of emergency was justified at the time.

Of course, who implements the state of emergency? It has been stated outside that this country is a police state, that it is a state in which the Army controls the townships. If one opposes the state of emergency, who is used to implement it? The policemen or the member of the Armed Forces, which are used to implement the state of emergency, are paid with money voted by Parliament. Is there any record in 1987 that the hon member for Reservoir Hills or the hon the Acting Leader of the Official Opposition voted against money being allocated to the Army and the Police Force of South Africa? Both the opposition parties supported the allocation of money to the Defence Force and the security forces of this country.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has deviated completely from the ambit of the motion.

Order! I shall decide upon that issue. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may proceed.

I was trying to say that the opposition parties tried to oppose something, but they failed to realise that they supported measures in this House. If the opposition parties feel so strongly about the state of emergency, which is relevant to this notice of motion, why did the opposition parties, especially the hon the Acting Leader of the Official Opposition and the hon member for Reservoir Hills, not lodge their objections when we discussed the Police and Defence Votes last year? I do not understand the fact that it is recorded that they are joint supporters of those important Votes in Parliament.

No one can fault the principle that the internal politics of any particular country should be conducted in the best interests of that country. I do not think any country in this universe wants interference in the internal affairs of a country. It is not in the best interests of any group that opposing political factions should pursue their political objectives through the instigation of hostility between groups over violent actions.

It is very, very clear that the intention of this notice of motion is not to deny access to foreign funds for humanitarian purposes, provided that these funds are required for humanitarian purposes. If anybody is honest about the use of non-violent methods, one should be concerned about funds being brought into this country to promote violence or to promote a situation that delays the termination of the state of emergency. If we are interested in ensuring that the state of emergency is terminated, we have to ensure that nothing is done to aid forces to perform certain acts that will ensure the continuation of the state of emergency. We on this side of the House want to ensure that no one engages in any acts that would delay the termination of the state of emergency.

The other matter with regard to foreign funds is that anybody receiving foreign funds to promote violence or unrest will have to dance to the tune of the financiers, in accordance with the dictum that he who pays the piper calls the tune. Furthermore, the acceptance of funds from outside a country for the pursuance of political objectives inside that country lays the recipient open to being prescribed to by the donor.

Thus the donor or the donor country will decide how those funds are going to be used. The likelihood that those foreign donors will act in their own interests and not necessarily in the interests of the recipient country, is overwhelming. It is therefore an accepted principle that internal political parties and other actors on the internal political stage should not receive money from outside the country.

This does not mean, for example, that an institution that seeks to promote education that will improve the quality of life of the people, will be affected in any manner whatsoever. I want to say that this select committee can propose a completely different measure. It can amend it, etcetera. The Bill referred to in the motion has been drafted with the affirmation and the implementation of these principles in mind. The status of the Bill is therefore that of a document—this must be understood very clearly—that may serve as a point of departure without purporting to bind the Government. This Bill has been drafted in such a way that it does not purport to support either the Government or those participating in a committee.

In this select committee no one can say that the rights of a political party will be denied. Every political party will be represented. This committee therefore—I want this House to take serious note of this—will be at liberty to amend the Bill or to propose a totally new Bill.

Naturally, the Government may also submit to the committee new or adjusted proposals. Furthermore, very sensitive material is dealt with in the Bill, and the subject itself is one of great sensitivity, especially for politicians and political groups. It is therefore proper that all political parties represented in Parliament should have the opportunity—and seize the opportunity—to hear all the evidence on the subject and to take part in the deliberations on what the guiding principles should be; on whether legislation is needed—this committee will still have to decide whether legislation is needed—in affirmation of these principles; and on whether the Bill referred to in the motion satisfies these legislative needs.

The main player in the game should, in the interests of the game, try to find consensus on what the rules of the game should be. Nor is that the end of the matter. The issue we are dealing with today is whether the select committee should be appointed or not. We are not dealing with the details of the Bill. As I have indicated, every party will have the opportunity to redraft this Bill, put forward any alternative proposals— whatever the committee desires or deems fit— and of course it is not a final decision. It still has to come back to the legislature if that select committee so desires.

Let us therefore not split hairs. If we oppose violence, and if we want the termination of the state of emergency, then we should be interested in all agencies—financing agencies or otherwise—that are used to promote violence or to create situations either to extend the state of emergency or hasten determination of the state of emergency. I do not think anyone present here will be sacrificing the principles of his party by supporting the proper investigation of this matter by a select committee.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided.

As fewer than 15 members (viz Devan, P I; Dookie, B; Iyman, J V; Moodley, K; Moodliar, C N; Moolla, Y; Palan, T; Pillay, A K; Poovalingam, PT; Rajab, M and Razak, A S) appeared on one side,

Question declared affirmed.

Mr Speaker, owing to circumstances beyond my control I am regrettably compelled not to proceed with the motion appearing in my name on the Order Paper.

Mr Speaker, I move:

It is unfortunate that so much time in the House of Delegates is spent on accusations and counteraccusations of criminal actions. We have a deeply concerned community which is in urgent need of hope for South Africa. The community needs leadership that will pull people together to face the future with strength and fortitude. It does not wish to see the destruction of the respect and dignity which it built and enjoyed for many generations. Distrust has been shown and solutions cannot be offered by those who stand accused. If suspicions are to be allayed, then all allegations of maladministration and corruption must be investigated publicly and rapidly.

Any head of state would want to ensure that he has the confidence of the people, and especially those who occupy executive positions as Cabinet Ministers. I submit that anyone who holds that position does indeed hold a position of trust and that he can be equated with as a trustee of the taxpayers and the citizens of the country. I believe that if allegations are levelled against anyone in that position, such an executive should be willing to subject his actions and decisions to public scrutiny.

In this regard I wish to remind the House that the Government did not sweep away allegations of malpractices that occurred with regard to the Department of Information. In fact, the then State President, Mr B J Vorster, appointed a commission of inquiry. The exposure did not protect any head of state or the members of any ruling political party.

More recently the hon the State President himself appointed a commission of inquiry to investigate the various issues that were raised in relation to the Chris Ball affair.

It is inconceivable that in spite of all the allegations in this House the Ministers’ Council has refused to appoint a commission of inquiry to investigate these various allegations. I submit that various allegations have been levelled directly at the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and that his refusal to appoint a commission of inquiry does not help either the image of this House or, indeed, his own image.

Mr Speaker, I do not wish to go into detail, I respect the ruling you gave earlier and I do not want to go into the merits and demerits of all the details as such, but I think it would be prudent to raise certain issues very briefly. The issues I wish to address are relevant ones that have been raised in this House before, and they are of great concern to us and to the community.

I have here with me what is, I think, a circular letter to all hon members of Parliament, distributed under the signature of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. He says the following in his last paragraph:

The inference I draw from this is that he himself desires a commission of inquiry and that indeed, he is attempting to suggest that the lack of co-operation from the hon member for Reservoir Hills is preventing him from appointing that commission of inquiry. As I understand his statements, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council submit that if the hon member for Reservoir Hills were to make certain statements outside this House he would institute a commission of inquiry. Therefore, the principle of having a commission of inquiry is not in any way being denied. Why, then, this delay? Why not hold a commission of inquiry and clear the air?

I am not interested in whether or not the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council wishes to sue the hon member for Reservoir Hills. That is of no concern. The public is not interested in that either. The public wants to see clean administration. The public wants to ensure that those who are occupying a position of trust are, in fact, behaving correctly.

I also want to state that one could draw the inference that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is not opposed to the idea of a commission of inquiry, and I should like the hon the State President, as the executive head of this country, to take note of that.

Again, on Tuesday, 2 February 1988, a motion appeared on the Order Paper in the name of a member of the ruling party, the hon member for Lenasia Central. He moved, and I quote:

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Reference was made to that motion which was printed on the Order Paper. We have queried this motion with the hon the Chairman of the House, because these were not the actual words that were moved by the hon member for Lenasia Central. The matter is being queried and I request that the hon member does not refer to it.

Order! Was the correction printed or not?

No, Mr Speaker.

Order! Is the matter still under consideration?

Yes, Mr Speaker.

Order! Then the hon member must not proceed with that issue. It is still under consideration.

Mr Speaker, I accept your ruling. May I respectfully submit that this was said to us earlier and we are patiently waiting for any corrections, but to date we have not received any. This was a long time ago. We have heard nothing, hence my reference to this particular motion.

Order! I do not blame the hon member and I want to assist him, but under the circumstances I must have his assistance, because the matter has not been cleared up.

I respect your ruling, Mr Speaker. I will not delve any more into the motion proposed by the hon member from the ruling party. Suffice it to leave the matter with the comments I have made.

I would like to say that serious allegations have been levelled. If one looks at the statement which was circulated by the hon member for Reservoir Hills, it is clear that some very serious allegations are contained therein, in the form of a press release. I believe this press release was his response to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council saying that he must repeat his allegations outside the House.

What is of concern to me is that it is suggested in that press release that a Mr Jeevan Seebran, who was not a displaced person or trader, had garage sites allocated to him in Phoenix, implicating a Cabinet Minister in this situation.

Order! I have given a ruling earlier today that if hon members make any allegation in this regard and are not prepared to identify the hon member against whom the allegation is being made, it will not be allowed. It must therefore be made by way of substantive argument.

Mr Speaker, the hon Acting Leader of the Official Opposition indicated that a Cabinet Minister is implicated in the allocation of a garage site to Mr Jeevan Seebran in Phoenix. Could the hon the Acting Leader of the Official Opposition indicate the address of that site?

Mr Speaker, you have ruled that I should not continue any further. I am quoting from one of these documents which were circulated by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council himself. He has a copy of the document and he knows what is contained in the document. Mr Speaker, I will respect your ruling, because I am not here to create acrimony. I am here to appeal that the only way to remove the acrimony is to have a commission of enquiry, once and for all. That is what I am here to do. Further suggestions were made that a Mrs Adams, who was not an affected person, was favoured. I am not going to make any allegations. That is also something which the commission, once it is established, can investigate. It is also alleged that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, under the guise of being a displaced trader, obtained trading premises.

Order! I have a problem with the motion before the House as opposed to what the hon member has in mind to put to the House. The motion reads as follows, and I quote:

It does not refer to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, but to the House of Delegates.

If the hon the Acting Leader of the Official Opposition has in mind the Administration of the House of Delegates he must move an amendment to the wording of his motion. The hon the Acting Leader of the Official Opposition must assist me in telling me what he has in mind. On the basis of the wording of the motion as it is in front of me I have difficulty in allowing the hon member to make accusations against any particular hon Minister because the motion reads in general “the House of Delegates”. If the hon the Acting Leader of the Official Opposition has an amendment in mind he must tell me so, else he may proceed in terms of his motion before the House.

Mr Speaker, I will accept the motion as it stands in my name at present and I will leave it as it is. I believe my request is more that the hon the State President should appoint a commission of inquiry to clear the air in this House.

Order! If that is so, the hon the Acting Leader of the Official Opposition must abide by my ruling in the sense that he is referring to the Department of Community Development and the House of Delegates in the past 10 years.

No, Mr Speaker, it is the Administration: House of Delegates. [Interjections.]

Order! Will the hon member then move an amendment to his motion to include the words “the Administration of the House of Delegates”?

I move accordingly, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, I object to the amendment. I want a notice of that amendment because we are not ready to deal with it now. [Interjections.]

Order! Does the hon member object to those words being inserted in the motion?

Yes, Mr Speaker, I object to those words being inserted.

Order! I want to tell the hon the Acting Leader of the Official Opposition that because of the objection those words cannot be inserted in the motion. The hon member may continue.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, I accept it.

I now want to move onto another aspect which is of great concern to us. The House of Delegates acquired a property in Durban not so long ago. It is known as the Odeon Cinema. I would like the hon the State President to keep in mind what I am about to submit.

The market value of this property was in the region of R700 000. An agreement was reached between the sellers and a prospective purchaser on an amount of R900 000. Apparently this property was in the market for R900 000. Fortunately for the sellers, the House of Delegates acquired the property for R1,2 million. It is inconceivable to me why anyone would pay that kind of money when the property was in the market for R900 000. Why would anybody in the Government wish to pay an amount of R1,2 million? [Interjections.]

It may be argued that the property was purchased at replacement cost and not at market value. I have been involved in valuations and there is a fundamental difference between market value and replacement cost. If one was to buy a property at replacement cost then one would be really militating against the normal market value.

I now want to deal with another matter. An advertisement was put into the newspaper again and it again brings discredit to the House of Delegates.

The newspaper advertisement states under the heading “Min Rajbansi scores again”:

1. 1. To repeat the allegation he has made under parliamentary privilege outside Parliament as requested by Minister Rajbansi.
2. 2. Mr Poovalingam boasted that he had secret papers locked in his advocate’s safe. Where is the evidence? Are the keys lost? Or has the safe vanished?

It goes on to say, “Now is the time for facts”.

Now, what intrigues me is that this particular advertisement is supposed to have been inserted by the Committee for Clean Administration. The address given is 668 Sunset Drive, Chatsworth. Now this was investigated by a Mr K G Moodley from the Post newspaper and this is what he reports:

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: He is now referring to a Mr A Rajbansi instead of dealing with the House of Delegates.

Order! The hon member is not dealing with the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, he is dealing with an advertisement in a paper referring to a certain address. That is not a point of order. The hon member may proceed.

To continue, the advertisement was placed by an organisation calling itself the Committee for Clean Administration. But the Post investigation could not uncover the existence of the people involved in the Rajbansi supporting body. The mystery deepened when it was discovered that the address on the advert, 668 Sunset Drive, Chatsworth did not exist.

During the investigation it was found that Redbro Clothing occupied the postal address 664 while Sunset Tyres occupied 670 Sunset Drive. Spokesmen for both businesses concerned said they knew nothing about the advertisement. Mr Rajbansi said he did not know who placed the advertisement and refused to comment on its contents.

I find it rather strange that here one has all the details and information and a beautiful photograph, yet the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council says he does not know who placed this advertisement or why it was placed. I find this very strange. That needs to be investigated very carefully.

Order! Will the hon member explain to the Chair what that has to do with allegations of corruption relating to land deals?

Mr Speaker, I am calling for a commission of investigation into the administration itself. Now here this advertisement talks about clean administration in the House of Delegates so I respectfully submit that this type of advertisement undermines …

Order! The hon member is calling for a commission of enquiry into allegations of corruption relating to land deals. The hon member may continue.

Mr Speaker, if we go on talking about land deals let me say that there are various building contractors who it is alleged have been favoured and have been granted land by the House of Delegates. These people who have been granted land have been favoured and it is evident from the type of advertisement in the newspapers lately that they are in fact advertising the House of Delegates and these advertisement are rather unusual.

I have not yet come across this type of situation before where contractors are indeed placing advertisement in the newspapers costing thousands of rands. For example, in this article we read:

There is a lot of suspicion in this particular regard. Why would contractors who are out to make a profit go out spending thousands of rand advertising the House of Delegates?

He who pays the piper calls the tune.

I think that is true, he who pays the piper calls the tune. [Interjections.]

I think this needs to be investigated and a commission of inquiry would be able to establish whether these particular people have had land allocated to them on an equitable basis where the tenders, prices and services were right or whether there was anything unusual in this particular allocation.

I would like to continue by saying, with regard to the question of calling for a commission of inquiry that very senior members of the ruling party themselves have on numerous occasions called for a commission of inquiry. I want to quote from Hansard what the hon the Deputy Minister said, while he was still the hon member for Natal Midlands. This is what he had to say (House of Delegates, 20 May 1987, col 78):

Now, I did not make this statement. It was made by the now Deputy Minister in this House. He must have been very concerned and had some very serious problems with regard to the administration to even make this statement and this call. I believe that when a commission of enquiry is established, he will indeed furnish that commission with the evidence he discussed then. He then goes on to state, in column 82:

Those were his words.

Has he changed his mind?

I do not know.

We then have another hon member in this House, the hon member Mr Abram, who had this to say:

By way of interjection the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said: “You are not a saint.” The hon member Mr Abram continued:

—and so it goes on.

What is also of concern is that on 22 November 1985 the hon member for Laudium was quoted in the Financial Mail’.

These are very, very serious allegations that are on record here. The community is aware of these allegations. I think the hon the State President needs to clear this once and for all by having a commission of inquiry. I submit that even the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council himself has made some very serious allegations. On 14 September 1987, he said:

“On whose instruction?” somebody interjected, and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council then went on to state: “On the instruction of the hon the Minister of Housing”, referring to the ex-Minister of Housing, who is sitting on this side of the House.

I believe that the hon member for Red Hill stands indicted by that particular statement, and also in order to clear his name, a commission of enquiry would be of assistance. In fact, he has called for a commission and says he is prepared to subject himself to it in order to clear his name. The hon the State President will have to help the hon members of this House to clear their names, since many allegations have been bandied about. We need to clear the names of the hon members of this House.

I have before me various other allegations that have been made by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council alleged that while he—the hon member for Red Hill—was Minister of Housing, two business sites were allocated without proper competition to one individual, and that that individual was seen at the Lenasia by-election the entire day. A photograph of the hon member for Red Hill sitting with a particular person in a polling booth of the candidate for Solidarity is mentioned, and he says: “I do not believe—this is very significant—that the initiative came from any member of the administration.” By implication he is trying to indict the hon member for Redhill. This needs to be investigated. It is apparent to me from the various arguments that have been advanced to block a commission of enquiry, that those who are opposing a commission of enquiry wish to be judges and jury in their own cause. I would like to appeal to hon members and say to them that if they were to speak out against the appointment of a commission of enquiry this afternoon, then the opposition to the establishment of such a commission of enquiry is opposition to clean administration. I appeal to hon members to do the honourable thing by supporting this motion and having the matter cleared once and for all. If people are exonerated from the allegations levelled at them, then I am sure that harmony and a better relationship can be established among all members in this House.

Order! Before we proceed, I wish to draw hon members’ attention to the fact that hon members of this House and, of course, in all the other Houses, shall be addressed as “honourable members”. When we refer to the hon the State President he shall be referred to as “the honourable the State President” and when we refer to any member in any other official capacity, such as either a Minister or a Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, we shall also refer to him as, for example,“the honourable the Minister” in his official capacity.

Let us keep to that rule. I appreciate hon members’ assistance.

Mr Speaker, the motion introduced today by the hon member for Stanger is like a house situated on swampy piece of land with no foundation, with a bit of roof on it and no occupants whatsoever. That is how I would describe this motion that is before this House. [Interjections.] In the first place, the motion reads:

He talks about “considering the advisability”, but in his main address he calls for an enquiry; he calls for the appointment of a judicial commission of enquiry. Thus the motion itself is bad.

In the motion, he talks about the appointment of—

The organisation that is referred to is the Community Development Board …

Was.

… which was established in terms of the Act relating to the Department of Community Development. It carried out some very important functions in so far as the development of various communities is concerned. The hon member for Stanger is now levelling accusations against a department which carried out some very useful functions in so far as various communities are concerned. In his address the hon member for Stanger has not advanced a single allegation against any official or any member of the Department of Community Development.

I want Mr Speaker to take note of this. I think the hon member made reference to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. In fact, he wanted to amend the notice of motion as an objection was raised. I find this highly unacceptable. Mr Speaker must know that this House has been dealing with the question of corruption and bribery from the very day its members set foot in the House. In fact, each time it was a finger pointed in the direction of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. However, no such commission of enquiry was ever instituted.

The hon the acting Leader of the Official Opposition referred to the hon member for Reservoir Hills who not so long ago, in requesting for a commission of enquiry or a similar commission, referred to a number of letters that he had written to various Ministers in general affairs. Such affidavits were read out in support for the call for a commission of enquiry. Even yesterday he referred to a by-election that was held in Tongaat and an affidavit in connection with this was read. To my mind the hon member for Reservoir Hills’ affidavits—used by him in calling for a certain commission of enquiry—certainly bear relevance to the commission of enquiry and other matters raised by the hon member for Stanger. One of the issues raised in this affidavit was the name of a top civil servant. It was absolutely despicable that that name should have been brought into the open when discussing allegations of misconduct. For the record I should like to read out this affidavit to the hon members.

Order! I should like to interrupt the hon member to point out that that question has been discussed with me by the hon the Chairman of the House. I have advised the Chairman of my ruling in that respect. The names of civil servants will not be mentioned in that sense across the floor of any House, as those civil servants are not present to defend themselves. Hon members who endeavour to do so, will be stopped immediately by the Chair. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will abide by your ruling.

Mr Speaker, I have reason to believe that the hon member Mr Thaver intends, by reading out a certain alleged affidavit, to commit an act of defamation.

Order! That is for the Chair to decide and not for the hon member. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am going to make reference to a particular affidavit on the subject which was dealt with by this House yesterday. However, the affidavit itself was not dealt with. The hon member for Stanger referred to this affidavit in respect of a certain newspaper advert from which he quoted. A certain Mr N Chetty, who resides in La Mercy, would appear to have made an affidavit to the effect that he had cast a vote in respect of a candidate at the time…

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I made no reference to any affidavit which has been alluded to by the hon member Mr Thaver. [Interjections.]

Order! That is not a point of order, but rather a personal explanation. The hon member may proceed.

This is highly relevant to certain issues that were dealt with by this House concerning matters of corruption, and particularly corruption in respect of a by-election held in Tongaat.

Order! I am sorry to interrupt the hon member again but the motion before the House concerns allegations of corruption relating to land deals. I want to know from the hon member whether he is on the point of referring to corruption in respect of land deals, or purely an electoral issue.

Mr Speaker, I am not making reference to land deals in particular but this deals with the question of corruption in general. It concerns a question of corruption that has been dealt with in this House. When it came to the question of corruption, this matter was raised.

Order! I am sorry but unfortunately I cannot assist the hon member because the motion before the House is in respect of allegations of corruption relating to land deals and not corruption in general. Would the hon member therefore keep as close as possible to the motion before the House? I do not want to interrupt the hon member unnecessarily but he may not wander too far from the motion and deal with corruption in general. The hon member may proceed.

Yes, Sir. I wish to deal with some of the matters raised by the hon member for Stanger, particularly the issue of garage sites and land. I think that when he brought this motion before the House the hon member was absolutely confused. [Interjections.] When I say he was confused I mean that he did not know whether he was dealing with the Department of Community Development and Planning or the Administration: House of Delegates. However, he referred to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. In effect, Sir, the idea was to implicate the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in many issues, and the hon member thinks he will be able to persuade the hon the State President to appoint a commission of inquiry on the basis of such flimsy issues as the ones he has raised today.

I must also state that the question of land deals submitted by the hon member for Stanger is entirely circumstantial and that everything he has submitted is hearsay. I do not think there is any substance whatsoever in the submissions put forward by the hon member for Stanger. Furthermore, 90% of what is written in the Press relates to matters that have been raised in this House and to various submissions and items of hearsay evidence that have been offered in this House by the hon members for Stanger and Reservoir Hills. All those statements are made for the consumption of the Press. The Press duly prints them and then those hon members quote those statements once again in this House for the purposes of justifying a commission of inquiry. I wish to state that all that is submitted by the hon member for Stanger is nothing but sensational news. There is no substance to the motion, and I think we should dismiss it and call it a day.

In conclusion I now wish to move an amendment to the motion as printed on the Order Paper, as follows:

Mr Speaker, I want to be dispassionate, insofar as one can be in a matter such as this. The hon member Mr Thaver said that allegations of corruption in the Administration have been made from time to time, ever since the inception of this House, by various hon members. His words, which I wrote down as he was speaking, were, and I quote: “Each time the finger was pointed at the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.” That is true. As far as I am aware, no-one has made similar allegations against any other hon Minister of the Ministers’ Council. The allegations were directed each time against the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. There have been numerous allegations.

Because I wish to deal with the Administration: House of Delegates, I want to propose an amendment. I understand that the proposer himself cannot propose an amendment if there is any objection. However, I understand—and Mr Speaker will correct me if I am wrong—that it is competent for another member of the House to propose an amendment. I therefore move as a further amendment:

Order! Before the hon member proceeds, may I have a copy of the proposed amendment? Do I read this correctly, namely that the hon member now intends to include the Administration: House of Delegates, and in particular, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council?

Yes, Mr Speaker.

Order! I am afraid the hon member is now seeking to extend the scope of the motion. If I remember the rules correctly, an amendment cannot do that. Under the circumstances, I am not prepared to accept the hon member’s amendment.

Mr Speaker, I then move the following further amendment:

Order! The note I have here as the proposed amendment does not include the words “at the instance of the executive of the former South African Indian Council”. I therefore do not have the complete amendment, but those words also seek to extend the scope of the motion and cannot be included.

May I crave the indulgence of the Chair to delete those words and also the last phrase so that the only interpolation would be the Administration of the House of Delegates?

Order! What is the hon member’s amendment? The hon member cannot amend his amendment at will whilst on his feet and discussing it with the Chair. The hon member must hand me a specific amendment for consideration which I will accept or refuse.

Mr Speaker, I move the further amendment which I would like you to consider:

Order! That amendment is accepted.

I am indebted, Sir.

Mr Speaker, by inserting the word “Administration” the hon member for Reservoir Hills is going substantially beyond the scope of this debate. The Administration: House of Delegates and the House of Delegates itself…

Mr Speaker on a point of order …

Mr Speaker, the hon member does not know that according to the rules, when one hon member raises a point of order another hon member may not do so.

Order! That is for the Chair to decide.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills does not realise that there is a distinction between the Administration: House of Delegates and the House of Delegates. By merely inserting one word he substantially alters the scope of this debate. On those grounds we object to his amendment.

Order! I have accepted the amendment. The amendment does not fall within the scope of a previous objection that was levelled. In my opinion the amendment does not extend the scope of the motion as envisaged by the hon the Chief Whip of the Majority Party. Under these circumstances I cannot agree with the hon the Chief Whip. I have accepted the amendment inserting those few words. The hon member for Reservoir Hills may proceed.

The hon member Mr Thaver quibbled about the use of the expression that the hon the State President would be asked “to consider the advisability.” Obviously the hon member Mr Thaver does not understand that when one addresses the hon the State President one addresses him in two capacities, namely as the Head of State and as the Head of Government. Whenever one addresses the hon the State President one must therefore do so with due submission and due respect. No one, not even Parliament, should purport or even assume to give any instructions to the hon the State President. One asks him with due submission to consider the advisability of a matter. That would be the proper form for this particular motion.

It has been said that some of the allegations are based on hearsay. That is the case. Indeed, almost every allegation of corruption is based on hearsay and upon further investigation the allegation is proved or disproved.

It is simple common sense that where two persons engage in such irregular conduct they invariably do so in secrecy.

In the same way there is a legal dictum which states that if a man and a woman are locked together in a room for some considerable time it is not to be presumed that they are saying their paternosters. Circumstantial evidence must obviously be taken into account whenever any enquiry is made into such allegations.

It is my function to motivate the need for a judicial commission of inquiry. Obviously the hon the State President is not going to appoint a judicial commission simply because such a commission is asked for. More particularly, as the hon member Mr Thaver says, the allegations point to a particular person who occupies a position of eminence in the Government of the country. Therefore I propose to endeavour to give some of the reasons, but before doing so one has to understand—most people who know about these things will understand, but I wish to explain to the hon members of this House—what is meant by corruption. Corruption is not just a word. According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary it means:

We can talk of silver being corrupted. The definition reads further:

The word “corruption” also has the meaning of:

It is this which in fact has a direct effect upon the administration of any government, whether it is a local government or an own affairs government or even the government of a commercial company.

We know of instances—I believe I can talk about this because it is not happening in our country, it is happening in an adjoining country—where large sums of money apparently changed hands to influence a certain Prime Minister of that particular country to grant a casino licence. That was an act of corruption.

When Prince Bernhardt of the Netherlands received a very large sum from the Lockheed Corporation it was regarded by both the Dutch Parliament and the United States Senate as being an act of corruption because the integrity of that man was perverted by the giving of that sum of money.

If I am the leader of a political party and I am in a position to grant pieces of land owned by the State to a particular individual and that individual thereafter contributes a sum of money to my political party, I should be guilty of corruption. That would be a serious state of affairs.

If the leader of a political party who is in a position to influence the granting of land to a particular individual said to that man: “You must make a donation to my party”, that is an act of corruption.

Order! I am not prepared to allow that line of debate any longer in this House. It has been going on for long enough. An hon member must be specific or keep quiet. An hon member cannot persist in saying “If I should happen to be a leader of a party” and “if I should do this and that” or “if that man should do this and that it will be corruption.”

This motion is concerned with allegations of corruption relating to land deals and the motion must be motivated for this House to decide whether it is prepared to accept the motion or not. I am sorry but I am not prepared to allow the hon member for Reservoir Hills to continue debating along those lines.

I was merely trying to explain, for the benefit of hon members who do not seem to understand the meaning of the word.

Order! I can assure the hon member that the Chair very clearly understands the meaning of the words. The hon member may proceed.

I now proceed to deal with specific instances. I mentioned land that was allocated to a person called A M Ameer, the husband of Sara B Ameer, and M A Adam, husband of Saffura Adam, Mrs Adam also being known by the name of Irene Patricia Hoover. Mr Adam was a displaced person in terms of the Group Areas Act. He, in partnership with Amir, was granted a petrol service station site. So far, so good.

Mr and Mrs Adam are very close personal friends of the individual who is effectively in charge of the administration of the House of Delegates. That gentleman, whose name is Mr A Rajbansi, on 27 May 1983 personally, in his own handwriting, wrote out an application for a motor garage service station site on behalf of Mrs Irene Patricia Hoover, wife of his close personal friend, M A Adam, and for the petrol service station site, indicated either Phoenix or Chatsworth.

In that application, Mr Rajbansi correctly reflected that Mrs Hoover was married, but he did not disclose that she was the wife of Mr M A Adam. The only reference …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon member for Reservoir Hills did not disclose from which source he was going to quote. I am now assuming he is reading from his notes and if he is doing so he is addressing the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council by his name, which is contrary to the Standing Rules and Orders.

Order! The hon member will address hon members of this House as indicated previously.

I am indebted to you, Mr Speaker.

The only reference in that application, which the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council wrote out in his own handwriting, to Mr Adams was an indirect reference indicating that Mrs Hoover was in business together with her husband, in a business named Adams Security. Mrs Irene Patricia Hoover was reflected by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in that application as earning R3 000 per month, and her personal property and assets at that time amounted to R105 000.

I believe that in the first place it is improper for a person holding high public office—which he was holding at that time; he was the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the South African Indian Council—to act as a secretary or helper to an applicant in competition with other members of the public, because of the implications arising from that. In that application the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council wrote that Mrs Hoover had sold a property at No 9 Andruth Road, Cato Manor, to the Department of Community Development.

In fact, that statement was factually incorrect, and it behoved a high public official to ascertain facts of that nature—which were easily and readily ascertainable—by reference to public servants and by checking the record to find whether or not that allegation was true.

Mrs Irene Patricia Hoover never owned land at 9 Andruth Road, Cato Manor. She was never a displaced person. She never owned any service station site. During the current tenancy of the chairmanship of the Ministers’ Council by the present hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, a petrol service station site in Phoenix was awarded to Mrs Irene Patricia Hoover, a close personal friend of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council who was not legally or morally entitled to that site. I submit that that was not the kind of transaction which would instil confidence in the Administration of the House of Delegates or remove fears of corruptions occurring in the Administration of the House of Delegates.

However, there is something worse. After this, which I would submit was an irregularity, was publicised, a letter was written to the hon member for Springfield by the Administration: House of Delegates stating that the granting of that site to Mrs Irene Patricia Hoover was an error, and that it was going to be granted to a Mrs Lourdes, who had not even applied. Her full name is Mrs Mary Lourdes-Hoover. She is the mother of Mrs Irene Patricia Hoover.

The situation is getting—as the Americans say— worser and worser. That is not the only fact, or detailed situation, which causes a great deal of anxiety.

There is a gentleman named Mr Jeevan Seebran who was born on 1 November 1946. I would point out that the Group Areas Act was only passed in 1950. Moreover, in so far as Cato Manor is concerned, Cato Manor was originally proclaimed a White area on 6 June 1958 at a time when Mr Jeevan Seebran was only 12 years old. I have had this checked in the records of the Deeds Registry, and Mr Jeevan Seebran never ever owned any property in Cato Manor. He never ever owned any garage or service station site. His father, Mr Basanth Seebran, was a member of the Seebran family which owned two service station sites—only two—and, of course, a number of residential sites.

However, there were literally dozens of families in Cato Manor who owned many residential sites—dozens, hundreds of residential sites— who were never considered. However, the elder son of Basanth Seebran made application to the Department of Community Development in 1978 for a petrol service station site. He contended that because his father’s family had an interest in the motor garage business, he as the elder son of the father qualified for allocation.

In 1978, 20 years after Cato Manor had been declared a White area, this elder son, who was an adult at that time, applied for this service station site. He persisted with his enquiries, and each time he was told that the matter would receive consideration. Nothing happened, except that on 27 June 1983 the gentleman who is now the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in his own handwriting wrote out an application for and on behalf of a Mr Jeevan Seebran for business accommodation in Chatsworth or Phoenix. This Jeevan Seebran was subsequently offered two business sites in Chatsworth. Other people, who were adversely affected by the Group Areas Act, had really struggled to obtain only one. However, this young man who was never a displaced person managed to acquire two sites in Chatsworth. Yet, lo and behold, the present hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council then wrote out an application for an additional business site, namely for a petrol service station.

In his own handwriting?

In his own handwriting. He cannot deny that, has not denied that and would not dare to deny that. Remarkably, he wrote out an application for a certain Irene Patricia Hoover on 27 May 1983. Mr Jeevan Seebran’s application was written on 27 June 1983. In that application the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council made a misstatement of fact. It is contended in that application that Jeevan Seebran had sold family properties at three addresses to the Community Development Board. In point of fact, he never sold any property to this Community Development Board.

Neither the Government nor any agency of the Government ever acquired any property from him. Of course, other members of his family had been granted service station sites. Extraordinarily so, when there are other displaced persons who have claimed that they were bypassed. At the last round of distributions Mr Jeevan Seebran, who is not actually entitled to, receives this site while the present hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is in effective control of the House of Delegates. I am deliberately not using any harsh expressions, but that leaves a great deal to be inquired into.

In Lenasia land was allocated to a company allegedly called Comfort Homes Ltd. They apparently applied for residential sites in Lenasia on a letterhead obviously printed from a rubber kit, obviously bought in a shop. A do-it-yourself rubber printing kit. Even the most junior clerk would see through this.

No limited company would publish such an amateurish letterhead. What happened, was that that so-called company, which never was a company and which was never registered as such—a simple investigation at the office of the Registrar of Companies would have shown that it was never registered as a company at all, let alone limited company—was allocated sites in Lenasia. Moreover, that company was either directly or indirectly under the influence of a man called Mr Mia, the gentleman who, upon being allocated residential sites, paid for the congress of the NPP. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I regret to say that this particular motion before the House should not have been submitted in the first place. One must take into account that this is Parliament, where issues concerning the welfare of the people and of the country are discussed.

Unfortunately, since the time we came into this forum we have heard these particular motions and allegations reverberating through the corridors of this Parliament, so much so that valuable time has been wasted. What is more, it costs the taxpayer thousands and thousands of rand to keep this Parliament going.

Outside this House tragedy has struck through natural forces and many thousands of people have been devastated by floods and subjected to tremendous hardship and suffering. I want to appeal that whatever the outcome of this motion is, these issues, which have reverberated through these corridors, will be shelved once and for all and that the important issues confronting our people in this country will be addressed forthwith.

This motion by the hon member for Stanger…

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister to explain to this House how it is that he opposes the motion before the House today when it is was hon members of his own party, namely the hon members for Isipingo and Lenasia Central, who moved similar motions in this House during this year? How does he account for that?

I am discussing this motion within the ambit of what appears on the Order Paper.

Answer the question. [Interjections.]

It is strange that this motion, which relates particularly to land deals, should stipulate a period of 10 years. The hon member for Reservoir Hills spoke about the executive of the S A Indian Council but with reference to such irregularities in the administration I must also remind this House that the former Minister of Housing in the House of Delegates is now sitting on the other side of the House.

He is prepared to stand trial.

With regard to trials, the hon member Mr Thaver made it abundantly clear in his amendment that this House has no objection to calls upon the hon the State President regarding the advisability of appointing a judicial commission of enquiry. The word “advisability” in this motion does not specify anything in particular. It merely asks the hon the State President to consider the possibility.

The hon member also spoke about developers and their advertisements. In any event, developers are entrepreneurs in the building field. When they are awarded contracts, naturally they will project themselves, from a business point of view. I do not see how this is related to the House of Delegates. The hon the Deputy Minister, who made certain statements referred to by the hon the Acting Leader of the Official Opposition, is a member of the party on this side. He is now comfortable, so much so that the irregularities of the statement he made does not have much substance.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills gave us the various connotations of corruption. How long are we going to have this kind of corruption and bribery in this House? We have to reach a conclusion.

The hon the Acting Leader of the Official Opposition is unfortunately not here. He also hastened to make certain statements. He went to one of the local newspapers, from which I want to quote:

Political allegations of this nature are made to the outside world, misleading the people, and we in this House are faced with motions of this nature. However, these motions must be substantiated to the last letter. I therefore appeal that we understand ourselves to be custodians of our community in every respect. Being custodians, we must be able to evaluate our work and our contributions. If we take into account what these exercises are costing the taxpayer, unfortunately, we will not be able to justify it against the needs for which the people outside are crying out and what they expect from us. Therefore I appeal in all sincerity to all parties concerned.

At times we find that we have a motion before the House which points a finger at the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. There is such a thing as collective responsibility. We are all responsible for each other’s actions in this House. Therefore, I again appeal, in the light of all that has been said here, that if there is a need, the machinery must be set in motion, but we cannot afford the luxury of motions of this nature to exhaust all our time while far more important issues require attention.

Mr Speaker, I agree with the hon the Deputy Minister, the last speaker …

The hon the Minister.

Mr Speaker, I apologise: The hon the Minister. I agree with him on many aspects. We cannot waste valuable time arguing about corruption and other things mentioned in this motion. However, I do not think one can run away from the problem and shelve it once and for all, as the hon the Minister suggested that we must shelve it after today.

The important issue here is that an accusation has been made. This did not happen today or yesterday, or last year or the year before. The accusation started in the SA Indian Council of which I was never a member but I read in the papers about it. The accusation was carried over from there to the House of Delegates and it is still continuing.

I want to point out that all of us who stood for elections had made a promise to our constituents that we were going to Parliament for the first time and that we would do our best to make decisions to improve the community and the country at large. I find it very distressing that we are not in a position to attend to the needs of the community because we are wasting valuable time. I want to say with respect. Mr Speaker, that when I am told that I have five minutes to speak I cannot help thinking how many hours have been wasted in talking about bribery and corruption. Why does the majority party not bring this whole issue to an end? Instead, the fiasco drags on for chapter after chapter.

We do not ask for a commission of inquiry at the drop of a hat but this matter has been dragging on for years. The community wants to know if this is the only reason why we are in Parliament. How can we continue to defend ourselves? If there is nothing to be afraid of let us have the commission of inquiry so that we can bury the matter once and for all.

We all heard the allegation made by the hon member for Reservoir Hills today. I am not saying that it is true—it must be tested. Let us have the opportunity to put it to the test. I will not stand here and accuse anybody without substantiating my accusation.

Much is being said about the Department of Education. An hon member on the other side of the House told me only two days ago that there were 100 teachers at the Tongaat election. I asked him what he did about it. [Interjections.] No, I am speaking now. When I asked him what he did about it he answered me: “What can we do? That is politics.” I then said to him: “Don’t tell me about it.” That is what I said to him.

The hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture—if there is any agriculture left—said that the accusations reflect upon all of us. That is absolutely true. It reflects upon all of us in the House of Delegates. However, persons have been appointed to administer this and it is this administration that is now called to account. Responsible positions demand great responsibility from the persons who hold them. One is often approached by people asking for favours that are not within the parameters of one’s permitted action. One then has to be very careful not to be tempted to give in to their requests. I am not saying that it has happened but one has to be careful.

The hon Ministers on that side of the House do not have an easy life. They must be on their guard at all times. If one is being accused continuously one should stand up and defend oneself and clear one’s name. This will help us all to get on with the job and to fulfill the promises that we made to our people in the limited time at our disposal. Not all the darkness in the world can put the light of a single candle. Likewise a pebble can be covered with snow but when the sun comes out the snow melts and the pebble will be visible again. The same applies to truth. No matter how many things are said, if one has truth on one’s side it cannot be changed.

The Constitution does not provide that we can petition the hon the State President to have a commission of inquiry. The Constitution says the majority in the House must decide it. It is another thing to say something outside the House. That is a personal matter and we are not interested in it. What we want is that the name of the administration should be cleared. This is no accusation— I stand by anybody who tells the truth. It is the only way in which we can go forward. We cannot afford any more accusations and fights as we are wasting valuable time.

Mr Speaker, I wish to address myself to the spirit of the motion which is before the House. In doing so, permit me to comment on the amendment which was moved on the motion of the hon member for Stanger.

When I look at this amendment I am reminded of what Hamlet says when he saw Polonius, I think it was, kneeling and praying. This is what he said:

On the other hand I am also reminded of what Tennessee Williams said in Cat on a hot tin roofwhen he used the word “mendacity”. This is what this amendment is: Mendacity.

I said just now that I was going to address myself to the spirit of the motion.

Order! May I ask the hon member what he means by mendacity?

Mr Speaker, as quoted by Tennessee Williams, mendacity has a very wide meaning. Mendacity, as I think Tennessee Williams used it, is not quite untruthfulness but perhaps so.

Mr Speaker, is the hon member prepared to take a question?

No, Mr Speaker, I have a time restraint and cannot accommodate the hon member.

Mendacity means lies! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Mr Speaker, I should like to remind this hon House of the very words spoken by you this afternoon at the beginning of the proceedings. I thought you referred to the allegations and counter-allegations which have been made and are still being made both inside this Chamber and outside it. I think you said that these allegations impair the dignity not only of this House but also of the community which it purports to serve, and more than that, the entire South African community.

I must agree with you completely in that regard. Nobody can deny that the dignity of this House has been impaired by all these allegations and counterallegations that have been made. Nobody can deny that this has been done.

I am not concerned about who started it or who ended it, what I am concerned about is that the dignity of this House has been impaired and nobody can deny that. I believe that the only way all of this can be put to rest is for this entire matter to be ventilated and canvassed under the full glare of public scrutiny. The only way to do this, I believe, is for it to be scrutinised and to be looked at by a judicial commission of enquiry.

This is why I and several other hon members of this House would like to see an end to this. This applies not only to hon members on this side of the House, but also to hon members on the other side who I believe in their hearts of hearts would like to put an end to this kind of recrimination that goes on from day to day. I believe they would like to see this submitted to a judicial commission.

In terms of the Commissions Act all that is required for the hon the State President to appoint such a judicial commission of inquiry is public concern.

I challenge any hon member in this House to deny that this has caused public concern not only in the community we serve and in which we operate, but also in the wider South African community. Can anyone in this House deny that we have had editorial upon editorial on this particular issue? The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council committed himself to clean administration and so did the hon the State President. These are commendable words but I believe that this should be seen to be done. I believe it behoves the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to take the opportunity, to grasp this nettle, and to submit himself—not only himself, but to ensure that others also submit themselves …

Order! Is the hon member for Springfield prepared to take a question?

No, Mr Speaker.

Order! The hon member is not prepared to take a question.

A reasonable one.

I have just changed my mind. If the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council will give me a few more minutes of his time, I shall take his question.

I shall give you some of my time.

Will the hon member deny that he came privately to my office to discuss a matter relating to business premises outside his constituency? If I had done what the hon member indirectly suggested, it would have been irregular.

I most emphatically deny the suggestion that has been made by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. If he went back to his own records he would find that every time I addressed myself to him I did so by way of a written submission. Therefore, not only do I deny that allegation but I reject it with all the contempt I have in my being for him.

I have another question arising out of that.

I am not interested in listening to stupid questions from the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

Order! Hon members will not address one another when the Chair is trying to keep order and to assist hon members. The hon member is not prepared to take a question. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Speaker, I am indebted to you.

I was merely making the point, before I was rudely interrupted by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, that both he and the hon the State President are committed to clean administration. Clean administration implies that they could, and should, fall under the public scrutiny. All that I ask the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council—and, indeed, all other hon members who sit on that side of the House— is why are they afraid to submit themselves, and to submit every hon member of this House, to a full-scale judicial commission of inquiry. That is the question. Why are we all afraid of this? Do we have skeletons in the cupboard? If the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has an allegation against me, let it be brought out in the judicial commission of inquiry.

Hear, hear!

This should apply to all other hon members, too.

I would like to make one final remark before I resume my seat. I believe this matter is of such great public concern that the public itself could well petition the hon the State President in this regard.

Order! The hon member for Springfield referred to the amendment moved by one of the hon members on the Government benches as “mendacity”. “Mendacity” means lying. This was what the hon member Mr Nowbath referred to by way of interjection. In other words, the hon member for Springfield has by implication and/or directly accused the hon member who moved the amendment, of lying. Under the circumstances, whatever the hon member had in mind, he must withdraw that word.

Mr Speaker, you will recall that when I used the word “mendacity”, I was quoting Tennessee Williams.

Order! I remember that.

Nevertheless, I bow to your ruling, Mr Speaker, and if you so wish I shall withdraw the word.

Order! Thank you.

Mr Speaker, this afternoon I had to withdraw a motion under my name. That motion was not one that people might construe to be a window-dressing motion. It was proposed out of great concern at the use of a particular phrase in this House namely bribery and corruption over the last three years. This has begun to filter down to other Houses of Parliament and it impugns the dignity of Parliament.

I am ashamed to tell strangers that I am a Member of Parliament! I am ashamed to admit it because of this particular—the word I want to use is unparliamentary—problem. I am afraid to hold public meetings in my constituency. I cannot address the public because the first thing they want to know is what we have done about that corruption. They come up with what are, admittedly, unsubstantiated accusations, not only against hon Ministers but also against hon members of Parliament.

A member of my constituency asked me a fortnight ago when I was going to die. I asked why: The answer was: If you die there has to be by-elections here before the ruling party will build houses for us.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon member for Springfield pointed a finger at me and used vulgar language. I wish to bring that to your attention.

Order! Did the hon member for Springfield use a vulgar word? The hon member does not have to repeat it; I merely ask whether he used a vulgar word.

Yes, Sir.

Order! Then the hon member will withdraw that immediately.

I do, Mr Speaker.

Order! The hon member will also apologise to the particular member at whom it was directed.

I apologise to the hon member for Isipingo.

Mr Speaker, he used a vulgar word against me.

Order! Did the hon member for Springfield use a vulgar word against the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council?

No, Sir.

Order! The hon member for Camperdown may proceed.

Mr Speaker, this motion before us is of the greatest importance as a means of clearing the air. I do not accuse anyone, but this is a matter of what we hear day in and day out. Nearly every week there is some debate or other on bribery and corruption.

You mean hearsay evidence.

I urge his House to do something about it. We hear outside this House, and we read in the newspapers, that it is to prove the correctness or otherwise of these allegations, so that we can get this filthy dirty linen, which is getting filthier by the day, washed and cleaned and…

Dirtied again.

…thrown away. That is the reason why I support the motion as moved by the hon member for Stanger.

I should like to react to the amendment moved by the hon member Mr Thaver. With reference to the last sentence of the amendment, I quote:

That very phrase is a tacit admission of something wrong. I contend that that clause is a tacit admission of guilt. If it has nothing to hide, then the ruling party would agree to submit to a commission of inquiry.

A judicial commission of inquiry is not going to jail anybody. It will not suspend anyone from Parliament, but it will find facts. It will find facts and cleanse this House and the entire Parliament. Our colleagues in the other Houses will be able to say that they are proud of the House of Delegates being part of Parliament. I can tell hon members that some of my friends and colleagues in the House of Assembly hang their heads in shame when the House of Delegates is discussed. That is what prompted me to move the motion for a select committee. However, this amendment by the hon member Mr Thaver, has not been put seriously and it makes a mockery of this entire discussion. Having said that, I support the motion moved by the hon member for Stanger. I appeal to the good sense of the hon members of the ruling party—especially those who have moved similar motions in this House this year— to support this motion and vote for it.

Mr Speaker, I wish to remind this House that I made it very clear on 21 May 1987, when I spoke under tremendous constraint, that if anybody likewise denies the existence of such irregularities they should support my call and there should be no fear or doubt about it.

Order! May I just interrupt the hon member? I wish to inform hon members of the House that we have in the visitors’ gallery a member of the European Parliament, Mr J Jansen Van Raay, and Mrs Van Raay. You are most welcome in this House. The hon member may proceed.

Therefore I concur with hon members on both sides when they say that this issue should be resolved by the mere amendment to the resolution by the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture. As my colleague, the hon member for Southern Natal, stated very clearly, we cannot allow this issue to continue. In supporting this call for an inquiry I am on record of being accused on various matters by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, whereupon I myself indicated that I would subject myself to an inquiry in a letter addressed to the hon the State President. The procedure of Parliament is such that when allegations are made, the member concerned has no right or recourse to clear it in this House when the majority party by numerical numbers will not allow such a motion to be passed. In fact, in order to clear his name a member can move a Motion for the Appointment of a Select Committee to investigate the complaint. In this connection it must be clearly understood that where the ruling party engages in a campaign to smear the name of a member of the Opposition, in order to gain political mileage, there is no responsibility whatsoever that a motion of that nature, referred to above, will be approved, as the ruling party will use numerical strength to defeat such a motion. It therefore follows that a member against whom the unfounded allegations have been made, suffers serious pain and embarrassment from the publicity given to such imposition. It is important also to know that the hon the State President has already ruled that this motion is correct in that we can only ask him to consider appointing a commission.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has previously quite rightly quoted an example from England.

In England they had two inquiries in the field of education. Inquiries do not only entail the proving of guilt in respect of a certain issue; an inquiry also evaluates the problems that exist.

If it is our intention to ensure that many or all of the allegations against the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council are unfounded, then it is quite correct that this matter should be pursued—and that side of the House agrees to such a commission of inquiry. I myself was prepared to submit to one in this House.

There are many allegations which have already been quoted about the Odeon Cinema, about land issues, about a petrol service station, and about many other issues, and if these issues are not resolved they will continue to be debated in this House because there is some doubt regarding whether, in assisting certain people, a favour has been done.

I repeat that in my own case the allegations were submitted to the hon the State President, and I did not stop at doing nothing. I submitted all the allegations to the hon the State President—even those which the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council alleges I inadvertently did not state to this House. I even submitted those allegations to the hon the State President because I had nothing to fear. I therefore believe that this House has an obligation, even to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and myself, to hold an inquiry in order to clear up this issue and I therefore appeal to him to hold such an inquiry if we have nothing to fear.

I also want to state that allegations have been made here in this House to the effect that advertisements are being placed by certain companies in order to publicise what the House of Delegates is doing. By inference, one cannot deny that this is the first time in Parliamentary history—as far as I am able to ascertain—that a company has publicised the efforts made by the House of Delegates. I submit that those efforts could be highlighted in another fashion and not by contractors who submit tenders for work in the House of Delegates or in the other administrations.

Therefore one cannot deny the assertion, whether from inside this House or from outside it, that some favour had possibly been done in any particular instance. Therefore all these matters, as well, of course, as a number of issues that have been dealt with and which are on record in Hansard, need to be aired and we appreciate your ruling, Mr Speaker, that we cannot deal with the details of certain aspects which may lead to certain further investigations. I think that is reasonable, Mr Speaker, but I believe that a strong enough case has been made in this House to clear up all the issues that have been brought before this House by means of a judicial commission of inquiry. This can only take place if the hon members on that side of the House agree to it. If they do not then I think their silence will indicate that they are not prepared to clear the air and to allow this House to comply with an appeal that has been made here, and start dealing with the issues of national importance in this country. Therefore, I want to appeal to that side of the House to agree to such an inquiry so that all these issues may be cleared up once and for all.

Mr Speaker, it is unfortunate that hon members of this House appear to be adopting certain attitudes depending firstly upon which side of the House they are sitting on and secondly, possibly, upon what position they occupy.

I want to make it very, very clear—and I want to say this for the first time—that I have taken action in my capacity as Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in regard to certain matters which I felt were not right, when I was convinced that something was going wrong, whether they concerned staff appointments or land matters.

I intervened and asked the chairman of the Housing Development Board to be the custodian of the hon the State President’s declared policy of clean administration. What does the amendment state? Even if I want to go to the hon the State President to appoint a judicial commission of inquiry, without any motion passed by this House or any request whatsoever, I must give him sufficient ground and motivation for this.

I did not disturb any speaker. I did not make any interjections, except to ask questions. There was a reason why I did so. I felt that when I take the floor, I expect key speakers to be in the House, firstly, and secondly, to be given the opportunity to say what I want to say this afternoon, as I did during the no-confidence debate, when I spoke for two hours and fifteen minutes, and responded to every point uttered by the hon member for Reservoir Hills, in this House, when he appeared in court as a result of being subpoenaed in terms of section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act on 25 January 1988, and published in a press statement of 3 February 1988.

Let me first examine the motivation for this motion. I admire the hon member for Camperdown and pay my respects to him this afternoon for having withdrawn his motion. I know that on the day when he stood up and moved that motion, it was done against his will. The hon member for Camperdown expressed his pleasure after finding out the facts about the development programme instituted by this Administration and this Ministers’ Council. I want to repeat what I have stated in this House and in many forums, namely that in spite of the fact that statutory institutions administer certain aspects of our administration task, our Administration is responsible and answerable and, in the final analysis, hon Ministers are answerable. We believe in public accountability. I want this House to know that I asked the officials to ensure that the hon member for Springfield gets proper replies to all the queries he has raised in his letters, because we have nothing to hide. I do not believe that any such thing is confidential.

It is strange that it would appear that the hon member for Reservoir Hills has data, especially relating to housing, from a time when this was under the control of the former Department of Community Development and the Administration: House of Delegates when I was not the Minister of Housing. This side of the House will support the appointment of a judicial commission of inquiry or a select committee to investigate anything, provided we are satisfied about two things.

The first is the accuser. The person who makes the allegations should not take advantage of the law protecting hon members of Parliament. Let us not allow anybody to abuse that privilege. Secondly, there must be reasonable grounds.

In my capacity as the Minister of Housing I can say that we get requests to perform certain actions which would be corrupt if we were to do it. When one does not hand out these favours one is sometimes disliked.

I stated this afternoon by way of a question that the hon member for Springfield discussed a matter in my office but he denied it. Fortunately for me, anybody who wants to come into my office has to pass my secretary, so I have a witness as to who enters and who leaves my office. When I am saying that the hon member for Springfield discussed a matter relating to a business outside his constituency I am saying so in Parliament and it is the truth.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon Chairman of the Minister’s Council a question?

I will answer questions at the end of my speech.

Let us examine the motives for this allegation. Let us examine what is required in terms of South African legislation when a person makes an accusation. It is not the responsibility of the accused to present the evidence in a court of law.

Let us examine one allegation that was made in this House in 1985. It was never followed up by the person who made the allegation. When I spoke during the no-confidence debate I made a statement in the House that an hon member of this House informed me that the hon member for Reservoir Hills had indicated to him that he had made a mistake and that I must not push him too hard. That is on record. I am not going to quote the hon member who informed me about this.

We should make a distinction whether an hon member who attacks another hon member acts in his capacity as an attorney or whether he acts in his capacity as a member of Parliament. In law and even in journalism tremendous emphasis is placed on acts of omission. We had a great play in the court on 25 January 1988. We had a great play in the Sunday Tribune of early January 1985 when there was superficial ostentation on the part of the hon member for Reservoir Hills to say that he had the evidence and that he would produce it at a judicial commission of inquiry or in a court of law.

Let us look at the amendment proposed by this side of the House. The amendment does not go against the question of the appointment of a judicial commission of inquiry. The amendment only states that a requirement of the hon the State President should be satisfied, namely that the hon the State President should have reasonable grounds for the appointment of a judicial commission of inquiry. I want to say that this will continue even if we convince the hon the State President to appoint a judicial commission of inquiry. The reason why it will continue is because that side of the House is getting smaller and smaller in size.

Let us take the elections. Bribery and corruption were issues in their election campaigns. Bribery and corruption was in their adverts. Bribery and corruption was mentioned in their entire election campaign in Tongaat and in the Eastern Transvaal. But the public knows that these campaigns, these statements that are being made in the House and these notices of motion that are coming up are phrases that are being stocked for future election campaigns.

That is why this side of the House took the bull by the horns in the Tongaat electoral division and also in the Eastern Transvaal elections. We asked the public to pass judgement and it did so. The number of votes cast for the other side of the House were reduced and the number of votes cast for this side of the House increased by 520%.

Teachers were the key.

Comments are being made about teachers. I want to speak about teachers. What happened in 1984? I indicated to this House in the last week that we will never condone a wrong.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I just want to say that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council appears to be far away from the motion. [Interjections.]

Order! It is for the Speaker to decide upon that and I keep that in mind constantly. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may proceed.

Mr Speaker, I was trying to present to this House an argument that the real motive for making this topical is to be able to use these phrases in the election campaigns and I substantiated it. It was done in the Eastern Transvaal and it was done in Tongaat.

However, I want to come back to the hon member for Reservoir Hills. This hon member made an allegation in 1985 that the hon member for Stanger referred to allegations and counterallegations. I would describe the hon member for Reservoir Hills as having thrown a punch, and then he threw no more punches. After that allegation was made in this House every initiative was taken by the person who was accused and this person who was accused took the fight right into the other corner of the ring. Later on a letter was written to the hon the Minister of Law and Order.

In the submission made by the hon member for Reservoir Hills in court in Durban on 25 January 1988 there is no doubt about the fact that aspersions were cast on the SAP. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the hon the Minister of Law and Order engaged the services of senior policemen in the SAP to ensure that the matter was thoroughly investigated. Did the Police find the evidence?

I want to say to this House this afternoon if the hon member for Reservoir Hills had the evidence he would have hanged me in 1985. He would not have waited for 1988. He would definitely have hanged me because it is his desire to see that my career in politics is destroyed. However, the hon member for Reservoir Hills did not realise that this side of the House has status. The person who was accused did not rest. It was raised in this House in 1985. How does one test this under a Supreme Court judge? One gives the person the opportunity to create the situation in which a judicial commission of inquiry is appointed. Nobody can accuse this side of the House for obstructing the appointment of a judicial commission of inquiry. I went back in 1986. I raised it in this House in 1987.

On 25 February 1985 the hon member for Reservoir Hills stated as follows, and I quote:

Then, also on 25 February 1985, the hon member for Reservoir Hills indicated as follows, and I quote again:

There was another date on which the hon member for Reservoir Hills boasted that he would make these statements outside the precincts of this House.

With regard to the question of parliamentary protection, I want to refer to what happened in this House on 29 February 1988 when the hon member for Reservoir Hills was stopped by the chairman. He was concerned enough to say:

So, on 29 February 1988, there was concern on the part of the hon member for Reservoir Hills that somebody might abuse the privilege of this House. I want to say that I do not think anybody in the history of any accusations in South Africa has been taunted to bring the accused to book as was the case here.

Why are you afraid of a commission?

No one on this side of the House is afraid of a commission of inquiry. There is ample evidence here. On 29 February 1988 the hon member for Reservoir Hills was afraid that somebody would abuse the privilege of this House. No one can deny the fact when I state that anyone who makes a serious allegation in this House and cannot substantiate it in spite of challenges is abusing the privilege of this House.

Let us look at what happened on 10 February 1988 when the name of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was mentioned by the hon member for Lenasia East, in referring to the allocation of two houses in Lenasia. One does not need a judicial commission of inquiry to establish favoured treatment, if there was favoured treatment. It is a policy of the State to allocate land to business houses who want to house their workers. However, in my experience of Indian housing I have never seen ready-made homes allocated to a particular company. I have never seen this happen. If 20 companies were allocated homes in Lenasia, it is understandable, but what did the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition say to the hon member for Lenasia East? He said: “Make your allegations outside.”

He also subjected himself to a commission of inquiry.

I am glad the hon the Acting Leader of the Official Opposition has reminded me that his leader agreed to a commission of inquiry. What is the difference between this side and his leader? There is no difference. [Interjections.] I have stated in this House …

Order! Hon members must give the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council a proper opportunity to make his speech. He does not unnecessarily interrupt other hon members, and he is also the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, I would like to make a brief explanation. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition did not make any preconditions for the commission of inquiry. He said he was quite happy to have a commission of inquiry whether the words were uttered inside or outside the House.

Order! The hon member is not allowed a second opportunity to address the House. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may proceed.

If this had been a court case we should have closed our file long ago and said that the case was closed. I think this was the first time the hon member for Reservoir Hills struggled for words. He spoke about American English. I have not heard of an “English English” expression “getting worser and worser”. That is the difference between the English and the Americans.

However, I want to come back to certain points raised by the hon member for Reservoir Hills. He indicated in this House that he had repeated the allegations outside in court. I ask anyone—I even ask the members of the media—to examine the statements made in court, from the court records. The allegations made in this House were not repeated in court.

Hoover is a ghost that will come time and again.

The allegations made in this House were not repeated in court.

Come to Mrs Hoover.

The name Mr A Rajbansi was substituted for the word “politician”. I shall come to Mrs Hoover, as long as the hon member remains in this House and does not go and have tea while I deal with Mrs Hoover.

Then a Press statement was issued on 3 February 1988. In that Press statement it was stated that this Press statement is being released as the result of a request by Minister Rajbansi. I have a copy of that Press statement. There is a boast that I am making these allegations in writing to the media outside of this House.

This has got worse—worse than the statement made in court on 25 January 1988. Quite a lot of the statements made in court are missing, and this is very cleverly worded. In the Sunday Tribune in 1985, and in our House in 1985, it was never mentioned that the hon member for Reservoir Hills had relied on an informant. When the hon member for Reservoir Hills received the subpoena to appear in court in January 1988 he made a statement to the Natal Mercury to the effect that he was now going to tell all. We were all relieved that for once and for all there was going to be an end to this unhappy episode.

In court, however, the bluff was called. The truth was revealed.

Exactly—the truth was revealed.

The vanishing trick came to the fore.

The culprit was named.

No culprit was named—nobody was named, and no allegation made in this House was repeated.

Let us look at the statement made on 3 February 1988 and what was said in the court, namely: “My informant informed me.” Can one accept the fact that once an experienced attorney, a member of Parliament, was confronted—he had stated in the Daily Tribune that he would produce the evidence in a court of law—the informant vanished. Can this House believe that an experienced attorney relies on a written statement from an informant and returns that statement and does not …

Who terrified him?

This is the common thing; everytime the hon member for Reservoir Hills has to deal with somebody, there is a threat—some witness is threatened.

Why did he become frightened?

That is a fabrication. I want to say that an informant does not exist. Indeed, the hon member for Reservoir Hills indicated to the court that he does not even know where the informant resides.

What about Jeevan Seebran?

He gave a vague P O Box number.

I should inform the hon member for Reservoir Hills that I shall deal with Jeevan Seebran—I crave his indulgence. When I dealt with the motion of no-confidence in the Ministers’ Council, the hon member for Reservoir Hills left the Chamber for a lengthy period three times during my speech of two hours and 15 minutes, in which I answered every point.

[Inaudible.]

On 3 February the hon member for Reservoir Hills used the words “Mr Rajbansi cannot deny that”. He does not say “allegations”—this is very cleverly worded.

This document is not defamatory. Any foolish lawyer will tell you that you cannot sue the author of this document. The hon member for Reservoir Hills knows that he spoke under protection on 25 January 1988. Why do people not have the courage of their conviction to make statements outside of Parliamentary protection? Why is there the need for this protection? A great play was made in court about this statement which is referred to as an allegation. I was supposedly sold a piece of land by the Durban Corporation in Chatsworth, where I own a property. I repeat what I said in this House three weeks ago: The Durban municipality never sold a building plot to me. In 1972 I tendered in the open market for land which I required and did acquire in Silverglen. The hon member for Havenside can remember that. That is not irregular. However, the hon member for Reservoir Hills even referred to Mr C G Pillay in 1985 and I hope that what Mr B G Pillay stated in the Sunday Times, will be accepted as a fact. I hope that the Durban Corporation is approached to find out the lot number of the land I required. It was reported that I was involved in shady land deals.

Suddenly, when you do not do a favour for a person, it is wrong. The hon member for Reservoir Hills used his colleague, the hon member for Springfield, vociferously and strongly to lodge an objection against ministerial consent to an application made by the Durban city council to sell a hospital site to a group of doctors in the name of Chatsworth (Pty) Limited. One night in Pelikan Park the hon member for Reservoir Hills indicated the real reasons for their objections to me. Was it done in the interest of the community? The answer is no! The hon member for Reservoir Hills must realise …

Ten per cent.

Mr Speaker, I would like an explanation of the meaning of that expression: Ten per cent. That is an indirect accusation.

Order! What did the hon member for Reservoir Hills say?

Mr Speaker, my words were: Ten per cent.

Order! What is the meaning of that?

The meaning is that with the price of that property being R200 000, 10% of R200 000 is R20 000.

So what? [Interjections.] Order! My apologies to the hon member. I did not mean that in a degrading sense. I only meant to ask the hon member: What, then, is the meaning of the R20 000?

Mr Speaker, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is referring to a private conversation at a dinner party. If he wants me to reveal precisely the nature of that conversation, I am prepared to do so. However, he must then face the consequences.

Order! The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may proceed.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Reservoir Hills can air his opinions under Parliamentary protection. It is meaningless. His utterances under Parliamentary protection have become a joke and it is obvious why the Press is ignoring him. I would like to return to that affidavit. The hon member for Reservoir Hills has been associated with an affidavit submitted by a Mr Kistensamy to the Attorney-General. In addition to reporting this matter to the hon the Minister of Law and Order twice, I reported it to the Advocate General. I referred every allegation made in this House to him, as a judge of the Supreme Court.

I have in front of me a sworn statement. I really believe that God is great and that the truth will ultimately triumph. I have received many documents and a lot of statements about the hon member for Reservoir Hills.

I do not want to deal with those statements because people might say that I am dealing with vengeance about matters concerning the winding up of estates. That is his business. I am not going to deal with them. However, the hon member for Reservoir Hills has failed to inform this House and to inform the court that in his capacity as an attorney he threatened to take me to court if I did not buy a garage site in Phoenix and allocate it to a particular applicant by a certain date. What is the age of Mr Shaik? What was the age of Mr Shaik when the Group Areas Act was passed and when it affected Brickfield, Sydenham and Cato Manor?

You were afraid of the court.

I was not afraid of the court. The hon member for Reservoir Hills has failed in this important omission. He says that Jeevan Seebran was a particular age and that another person was a particular age, but what was the age of Mr Shaik, his client? He was a minor. [Interjections.] That is correct. It was the policy of the Department of Community Development to allocate resettlement sites in the name of heirs.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills speaks a great deal about the Group Areas Act. If he feels for the victims of the Group Areas Act, he should not deal with them as an attorney. He should deal with them as a member of Parliament, free of charge. [Interjections.] I want to say that there will come a day when all those people who are making statements will turn against the hon member for Reservoir Hills.

I have here an affidavit. I do not want to deal with that part of the affidavit dealing with special votes because that is not within the ambit of what we are discussing, but I want to deal with that part of the sworn statement which deals with complaints to the hon the State President.

Anudurajin Maistry has made a sworn statement. This is a sworn statement; it is an affidavit. The circumstances surrounding the false affidavit obtained by Mr Pat Poovalingam, the hon member for Reservoir Hills, are as follows.

You are a disgrace!

This is the truth.

Order! The hon member for Reservoir Hills will withdraw those words.

Mr Speaker, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council …

Order! The hon member for Reservoir Hills will withdraw those words.

I have to withdraw the words, Sir.

Order! The hon member will withdraw the words unconditionally.

I withdraw the word “disgrace”.

Mr Speaker, I am quoting from an affidavit. I do not wish to quote the affidavit in full because I would be ruled out of order.

You are quoting a man who admits to perjury. You associate yourself with a perjurer.

Kessa Thumbi mentioned to me that he had sent…

Order! The hon member for Reservoir Hills may not make such an allegation. The hon member for Reservoir Hills will withdraw his accusation against the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that he is associating himself with a perjurer throughout the affidavit to which he is referring.

Mr Speaker, if you examine the affidavit, you will satisfy yourself…

Order! I am talking to the hon member about the accusation he made. I am not prepared to examine anything until such time as the affidavit has been read out to me, when I will decide about its contents. The hon member is making an accusation against another hon member of this House which I find unparliamentary, and I ask the hon member to withdraw that allegation.

I withdraw that particular allegation, Sir.

Order! The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may proceed.

I quote as follows:

This was seconded by Mr Pat Poovalingam. I am continuing to quote:

I am not saying that I am accepting the contents of this affidavit, but a sworn statement was made. I indicated in respect of matters relating to special votes, which is not the subject under discussion, that this side of the House, and especially myself, will never condone a wrong.

I want to come back to points raised. Why did the hon the Acting Leader of the Official Opposition only refer to 10 years? When I was chairman of the Exco of the South African Indian Council, this body submitted a report to the Executive Committee of the South African Indian Council. When Cato Manor was a burning issue, the then Minister of Community Development, Mr S F Kotzé, informed us that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition went to him and informed him that there was no need for the Government to spend a single cent on Cato Manor. [Interjections.] I am saying this; it is not daring. Ask for a select committee and hon members will get it. The Minister furthermore informed us that hon the Leader of the Official Opposition indicated that there were enough people in the Indian community who could undertake the development of Cato Manor. Why is there silence? Here I am mentioning a specific case. Why has reference not been made to the land allocation in Richards Bay when I was not the Minister of Housing? [Interjections.] It is the policy … [Interjections.]

Why did the hon the Acting Leader of the Official Opposition only refer to me? One does not need a commission of inquiry on certain issues. The truth hurts. Collectively the Executive Committee of the South African Indian Council made a submission to a plenary session. I did not do it alone. A member of the Executive Committee of the South African Indian Council is seated on the other side of the House. When the whole country was crying out for the Government to develop Cato Manor, and we confronted the Minister about this, he informed us of what that hon member said. That former Minister of Community Development is available and could inform this House as to whether we are misleading people.

Let us not come to this House with any vengeance. I suggest to the other side of the House that if they want to defeat us, they should do so in the political arena, through the ballot box.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 30 and motion and amendments lapsed.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.

Order! I have to announce that I have called a joint sitting of the three Houses of Parliament for Monday, 7 March, at 14h15 for the delivering of Second Reading speeches on certain bills.

Mr Speaker, I should like to state that if anything I said yesterday was construed to be of an anti-Semitic nature, this was most certainly not intended. I wish to withdraw the words and apologise for any distress that might have been caused—unintentionally!—to the hon member for Yeoville and other hon members.

Mr Speaker, with your permission I should like to say that I understand that the hon the Minister of Health Services is upset at my having used the words that he was worse than Terre’Blanche. In the light of what he has now said and also in the light of his apology I should like to withdraw those words.

Order! The hon the Minister of Transport Affairs has asked me for an opportunity to make a statement to the House. I now afford him that opportunity.

Mr Speaker, I want to inform hon members briefly about the floods.

Tremendously heavy rains have been falling over large areas of the Free State and the Northern Cape since 21 February. The areas affected now include parts of Natal, the Cape Midlands, the Western Cape and South West Africa. It is still raining in many areas.

A total of 15 sections and six Railways regions have been affected—including South West Africa. In total thus far approximately 82 kilometres of railway line and 229 points have been flooded. Provisionally the flood damage has been estimated at approximately R31 million, but this figure will definitely rise, particularly when one takes into account that a vast quantity of water is at the moment moving towards the section between De Aar and Noupoort. As I have already announced the damage caused by the floods in Natal in September 1987 totalled R26 million.

As regards passenger trains, all passengers everywhere have already been removed from trains and taken care of, except passengers on the TransKaroo express from Johannesburg to Cape Town, which is trapped at Hutchinson with 248 people on board. This train has been cut off from the outside world since 03h30 on Tuesday, but help will reach the train today by road in order to transport people to De Aar, from where they can hopefully be transported further on a chartered flight.

Mr Chairman, before progress was reported yesterday, I was replying to questions the hon member for Potgietersrus had put to me. I should like to complete my reply to his questions.

The hon member’s first question referred to the explanatory memorandum and inter alia the following words that appeared in it:

The hon member reacted to this and asked what those initial basic education needs were. In determining the needs of education when one is concerned with the budget, one naturally proceeds on the assumption that, irrespective of the fact that one wants to qualify as far as possible, one would like to provide certain services within the framework.

As a result of the economic circumstances and the need to rationalise and economise—the hon the State President explained this clearly in his opening address—which we also took into account last year when we were working on the budget, we were therefore, when a request was made to reconsider the budget, prepared to consider areas in which we could possibly effect further savings. On the one hand such savings could be made by means of rationalisation and, on the other hand, they could be brought about by economising on certain items that could be seen as essential, but nevertheless are not imperative in the sense that their absence would be detrimental to the standard of education.

Furthermore, I want to point out that this allocation for education is made according to formula. When one budgets according to formula, one cannot qualify all the different detail-items, and it is therefore possible that one may find later, when reconsidering the items, that one can in fact economise. The point that I want to emphasise strongly is that in the savings which we did bring about so that the deficit was eventually brought down to R80 million, as is indicated in the explanatory memorandum, we were careful not to deduct money that would, in any way, result in a lowering of the standard of education.

The second question from the hon member for Potgietersrus dealt with the same aspect of the explanatory memorandum:

The hon member wanted to know what this curtailing or postponing of essential equipment and educational services entailed. With regard to essential equipment we are referring for example to educational aids that are used from day to day in the classroom, laboratory, etc, such as furniture, electric typewriters—a considerable amount is involved if a school changes to these from the ordinary typewriters—and other equipment.

What we mean by this is that there is certain equipment that must be replaced from time to time. If one has the finance available for this, one would like to replace it, but that does not mean that it cannot be used for another year if insufficient finance is available.

With regard to the “rendering of a number of important educational services” I want to tell the hon member that we have an in-service training programme at the schools. This is an extremely important component of education because we adhere to the policy that the teachers must receive continuous training to enable them to provide better service as the years go by. These courses were not done away with; they were adjusted in the sense that they were not carried out on as large a scale in that particular year as we would have liked. They will be adjusted again later when we have the funds at our disposal.

Exactly the same is happening with skilled training for example, which we also adjusted rather than replaced completely, and extracurricular activities which we did not expand. We are still maintaining them, and have merely adjusted them. To explain this, I am adding that extracurricular activities include activities such as music instruction, which is not a compulsory school subject, but one which we consider to be extremely important in the cultural development of the child and should like to offer as far as possible within the scope of the available funds.

My final reply to the hon member concerns preprimary education, to which he indirectly referred. He did not say exactly what he meant by that, but I assume that the hon member was referring to the fact that additional preprimary schools are not being built and that additional posts for preprimary schools are not being created either. We are aware of the problem. The fact is that preprimary education is not compulsory education. I hasten to add that preprimary education, as the De Lange report also indicated, is an extremely important component of the entire education system, and that invaluable work is being done there.

However, when one finds oneself in a position where one does not have sufficient funds to do everything that one would like to do, one naturally begins to save where it will have the least effect, in other words where it does not involve compulsory education. The preprimary schools will continue. At this stage there is no question of a preprimary school closing down. It is true that we do not have funds at our disposal to build new preprimary school buildings. However, the teachers who are presently teaching at the preprimary school and who receive their salaries from my department, will continue to receive those salaries and to do that work. Admittedly, as a result of limited funds, it is not easy to make additional posts available to preprimary schools, although we are aware that there are long waiting lists at some of these schools.

Next I want to reply to the hon member for Cape Town Gardens, who put a question with regard to examinations. I promised to reply to him in writing, but I am doing so now. The hon member said that the decrease of R2,8 million with regard to examinations seemed rather suspect. I understand that. The reason for that is threefold. Firstly, the examination section is an incredibly large section with thousands of question papers that must be processed and a very large staff. Posts which became vacant during the course of the year, remained vacant for shorter or longer periods; once again without the efficiency of the examination section being impaired. This amounts to a total of R300 000.

We then subjected the decentralisation of certain functions at the technikons, for example, the compiling of question papers and the marking of examination question papers, to a close scrutiny. Decentralisation brought about a saving of R32,15 million with regard to equipment, but also with regard to the associated administrative functions and processes.

Certain sophisticated equipment and hardware that we had planned to purchase if the funds were available was not purchased in that specific year. That brought about a further decrease of R350 000. The total was therefore R32,8 million.

Mr Chairman, my question concerns the increase of R80 million under programme 2 under this Vote. Is the sum allocated for the revised post level norm ratios, the so-called increase in the “mandjie”, which will be retrospective to 1 November 1987, included in this R80 million or whether it will be included in next year’s budget?

Secondly, the hon the Minister has indicated that pre-primary is not a compulsory phase but the hon the Minister will also be aware that Standards nine and ten are not compulsory phases either yet I have no doubt that he makes funds available for them. Is the pre-primary phase for all three years in respect of pupils who are admitted to certain schools, funded in terms of the formula or do in fact departments have to utilise moneys from other sources for this purpose? Is the department’s shortfall in order to fund pre-primary being met from this additional appropriation?

Mr Chairman, with regard to the hon member’s question about the “mandjie” and the provision of finance for this in the revision of post level norm ratios, we have already indicated in a reply in this House that they will come into effect on 1 November. The money for this has been provided, but whether it is being provided in this budget or in the next budget, is not of much importance to me at the moment. However, I shall advise the hon member in this regard in writing.

The important point is that we did not simply say that that new post level norm would be implemented without the money being available from 1 November. I am giving the assurance that the money will indeed be available then, because it appears that that is what is bothering the hon member. I do not want to argue with the hon member with regard to his reference to preprimary education. With all due respect to the hon member, I want to say that he cannot associate preprimary education, which is not compulsory, with Standards nine and ten.

They are not compulsory either.

Of course, but surely it does not become the hon member to underestimate our intelligence. Not one of us in this committee or in this entire country would argue that one should educate children at school until Standard eight and then agree that Standards nine and ten need not be funded because they are ostensibly not compulsory.

[Inaudible.]

No, the hon member is now firing a wild shot in the dark.

The hon member also wanted to know whether there would be sufficient funds with regard to preprimary education or whether the education department would not perhaps have to obtain money from other sources. In my reply to the question by the hon member for Potgietersrus, I said that we were going ahead with the preprimary system as it was at the moment. We do not have any additional money for buildings, but we are going ahead with the teachers who are funded by us. Although it is an extremely important component, that is the area in which one will to save if one does not have the funds. I hope and trust that we shall always have sufficient funds, at least to be able to do what we are doing at the moment. If in the future we do not have sufficient funds for this, I believe that the education departments will see to it, in one way or another, most likely with the co-operation of the private sector and the individual control boards of schools, that sufficient funds are obtained. I hope and trust that we shall always have sufficient funds in our budget at least to maintain the situation in the preprimary schools as it is at present, and if further funds become available, even to expand this type of tuition because it is a very important part of education.

Mr Chairman, I refer again to the explanatory memorandum on programme 2.2 where the comment is made that the shortfall was eventually limited to R80,960 million after savings had been initiated. Can the hon the Minister give us an indication of what the shortfall was before savings were initiated?

Mr Chairman, it seems to me the hon member did not follow the debate very well. That is exactly the same question the hon member for Potgietersrus asked, which I replied to as the very first question.

Mr Chairman, I see that the amount for university and technikon training under Programme 3 is exactly the same as the amount budgeted for initially. I should like to inquire about this from the hon the Minister. We are concerned about the curtailment of subsidies to the universities. We understand that in some cases this amounts to 25%. We would like more details from the hon the Minister, and would also like to know whether his department has considered what the effect of decreased subsidies from the Government could mean to universities, firstly with regard to the maintenance of staff and secondly with regard to research projects at those universities.

Mr Chairman, I suggest that the question the hon member has put to me, is not really in order, because there has been no decrease or increase in the amounts. In the Additional Budget we confine ourselves to decreases and increases in the amounts. Therefore I think the question is out of order. Nevertheless I am prepared to inform the hon member that the matter of salaries of teaching staff at universities and technikons falls under my colleague, the hon the Minister of National Education. However, I should like to tell the hon member that, of course, the shortage of sufficient funds to pay the subsidy in full, also weighs heavily on me and on the Government. We are fully aware of the sacrifices that the universities and the technikons will have to make. We are doing everything in our power to try to ensure that there are sufficient funds, within the framework of what is attainable with the available funds, and in the light of the priorities of this country.

To the question as to whether I am aware of the dissatisfaction among lecturers and so on I can say yes, of course I am; we are in close contact with lecturers and teachers. Therefore we are quite aware of it. All the same I want to tell the hon member that we are receiving the sincerest co-operation from those people in this regard. We are sorry that the salaries at present are not what they would like them to be, but that lies in the hands of my colleague.

Mr Chairman, again I want to refer to the hon the Minister’s reply to the first question that I put yesterday. Yesterday, the hon the Minister indicated that he did not have the figures that pertained to my question available. My question dealt more or less with the monetary value of those original needs. The hon member for Pinetown has now followed up my question with an identically worded question, but I now want to ask the hon the Minister something else. After his explanation this afternoon, I want to know which categories of educational needs were involved in the question of which needs could no longer be met. Does he have the figures available now, and could he not give them to us? If, after yesterday, they are not available yet, I want to ask if the hon the Minister would be prepared to make them available to us in the course of time.

Mr Chairman, it seems to me the hon member was not paying attention, or else I did not express myself very well. [Interjections. ] In my time I was involved with many children— some of them intelligent; others not so intelligent. My results were not all that bad, therefore I shall try again. Perhaps I may be able to help a few hon members. [Interjections.]

I tried to indicate that the budget is drawn up per formula, and per formula one does not have every individual detail. When we had to start saving we tried to rationalise as well, and we took certain details into account to determine to what extent we could make up the shortage of certain funds. For that reason the initial amount was not quantified, because it was determined by means of the formula with regard to education in the CS sector as a whole. Of course, that does not include the universities as such because with regard to finance, they fall under the Department of National Education.

Mr Chairman, arising from the hon the Minister’s reply, I want to ask him if I understood him correctly when he said that the original needs of the provincial education departments were not quantifiable. I think that is the logical conclusion I must draw from the hon the Minister’s reply. It does not sound correct to me. I should like clarification in that regard.

I shall gladly reply to the hon member. Naturally, the various education departments will as far as possible submit detailed estimates. In these estimates they will also budget for specific amounts. That is with regard to the provinces only. However, the department is much larger than that, as it is also concerned with other components that include not only the CS sector, but also technical education, education out of school context and cultural facets. In addition to these we are bearing in mind certain amounts for salaries.

Mr Chairman, I think it is only fair that I ask the hon the Minister to make available the figures pertaining to the initial needs that the provincial education departments expressed—that is those which can no longer be met. I concede that the initial need of the department was greater than that of the provincial education departments, but my question dealt with basic education needs which could not be met. I do not believe that it is unreasonable to understand that to mean that this affects the four provincial education departments. Is this not the opportunity to debate the matter with the hon the Minister? There may be further opportunities in this regard, but I think it is fair that the hon the Minister should give an indication, at least, that he is prepared to make the monetary value of the initial needs as stated by the four provincial education departments, available. The hon the Minister must state whether he is prepared to do so, and if not, whether he will do so in due course.

The hon member can debate the matter with me during the discussion of my Vote. I am not going to discuss this any further. [Interjections.]

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 5—“Budgetary and Auxiliary Services”:

Mr Chairman, yesterday we had a discussion under the previous Vote in regard to the question whether a particular Minister in charge of a Vote knew whether the last financial year ended with a surplus or with a deficit.

In his department.

Yes, in his department. The hon the Minister concerned said he did not know. He neither knew what the amount of the deficit or surplus was nor did he even know whether there was a deficit or a surplus.

The hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare will remember that he himself, when he presented this Bill, referred to the fact that there had been a surplus. That surplus had, in fact, been used—what he regarded as “eie fondse”—in order to finance the additional expenditure with which we are now concerned. Seeing that the hon the Minister is now in charge of the budget, I would like to know from him whether he feels that it is a healthy situation that a Minister in charge of a department does not know, not only the extent of the surplus or the deficit, but also does not know whether or not there is one. This is more than nine months after a financial year has ended—nine months is a gestation period in the human species at least! How does one run a department if one does not know whether there is a surplus or a deficit? I have not been able to ask each of the individual Ministers whether they know these facts about their departments. I do not know, for instance, whether the hon the Minister of Education and Culture, who just sat down, knows if his department ran at a deficit or a surplus last year. Does he know? He does not know.

Order! We have disposed of Vote No 3.

He does not know!

He says he knows.

If he says he knows, he should tell us. However, that hon Minister is not the only one.

What I want to know from the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare is whether he regards it as a satisfactory practice that Ministers do not know these facts about their departments. Will he also please tell us which of the departments were in deficit and which were in surplus at the end of the year, so that we know where we stand?

I would imagine that the hon members of the CP would like to know what has happened to their farmers’ money. I would like to know what has happened to the old people’s money.

They are not your old people!

Yes, they are my old people. The hon member also has old people. I am also worried about his old people, because his old people are my old people and everybody’s old people.

Then why do you say the farmers belong to the CP?

They are worried about the farmers and I have tried to …

They are exploiting the farmers.

That hon member is so “deurmekaar”! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Yeoville need not react to every interjection.

Mr Chairman, I try very hard to ignore him but can you not move him a little further away so that I can ignore him more easily? I am sure there must be some place in a corner somewhere where he cannot be seen or heard. [Interjections.]

Order!

Coming back to the deficits and the surpluses, would that hon Minister tell us whether he regards that as a sound policy? Does he feel that one can actually run a department adequately if one does not know whether there is a surplus or a deficit? Would he then tell us which of these departments was in surplus or in deficit?

I think we are entitled to know where this money came from and who had to pay the bill for it—this money that is now being used in order to finance these additional estimates under the control of this hon Minister.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 68.

Vote agreed to.

Schedule, Clauses and Title agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Chairman, before I go any further I should like to express the sincere sympathy of the CP with the relatives of the victims of yesterday’s air disaster on the East Rand. At the same time we should like to express our thanks to all the relevant bodies—emergency services and others—which dealt with the whole situation very quickly and effectively. We trust that an inquiry will be concluded shortly so that the causes of the disaster can be made known.

To begin with I want to move an amendment in respect of the Second Reading of the Bill:

1. (1) the Minister does not plan ahead effectively and exercise control—
   1. (a) to prevent operating expenditure of the South African Transport Services from increasing unnecessarily; and
   2. (b) to ensure that revenue increases as it should; and
2. (2) the report of the committee of enquiry into the foreign exchange transactions of the South African Transport Services has not yet been laid upon the Table.”.

A number of interesting things that have had a marked effect on transport have happened since the previous Transport Affairs Appropriation was introduced. During the second half of last year we had the Natal floods and the Helderberg air disaster. During the past month and up to now we have again experienced terrible floods, in the Free State and the Northern Cape in particular, and earlier this afternoon the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs told us about the present magnitude of the floods and about the threat of further damage that is going to be caused.

Apart from the loss of human lives, which obviously can never be measured in terms of money, structures and equipment belonging to the SATS have been damaged as well, and we can expect this damage to be reflected in future Transport Services budgets.

Although these are natural disasters which cannot be controlled, there are other matters that can be controlled by a responsible government and which the government of the day has to account for.

The most important fact in the present budget is probably that a deficit of R96 million is being budgeted for in respect of the running costs of the SATS. This deficit exists despite the announcement made by the hon the State President and the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs that Government employees and therefore also Transport Services employees were not going to get a general salary increase this year.

We on this side of the House have stated on various occasions that one must guard against making excessive demands on public servants by expecting them to forego essential salary increases. Once one has lost the enthusiasm of one’s work force as a result of unacceptable pressure on their earnings and a failure to improve this position, one loses productivity which is essential, particularly these days. We are very critical, therefore, in attempting to see whether the Government was not able to avoid this deficit and the attendant disadvantages for its workers by means of better planning and control.

I want to say immediately that it is clear that the Government has already lost the confidence of the broad work force of the SATS. The SATS’ Federation of Trade Unions, which is representative of all the acknowledged trade unions in the SATS, has already had a dispute with the hon the Minister concerning the salary issue. This is apparent from Press reports about the motivation of these workers that promises had been made to them by the Government over a period of time, promises that were broken. I want to refer briefly to only two such reports. In the first place I quote from Die Vaderland of 18 February 1988:

We read the following in Die Vaderland of 23 February 1988:

[Interjections.] That is what the newspaper says. The report continues:

The “fat cats” are laughing at the workers!

The report continues:

These reports illustrate the state of mind among the SATS employees at the moment.

The South African Airways Pilots’ Association is also dissatisfied about their salaries. We read about threats that pilots would resign from the SAA, and hire out their services to the SAA on a contractual basis.

In this case certain steps were announced by the hon the Minister on 15 February in an attempt to settle the issue. We read in his Press release of 15 February that an agreement had been concluded with the Pilots’ Association that in the first place, an independent inquiry would be instituted by experts from the private sector into the possible recognition of specialist groups in the SATS and the possible acknowledgement of the Airways Pilots’ Association as the pilots’ official mouthpiece; secondly, that a market-related occupational specific investigation would be instituted by experts from the private sector into the remuneration package of pilots; and thirdly that negotiations between management and the Pilots’ Association would be instituted with reference to pilots’ service conditions, and that the investigation should be concluded before the end of May.

That is all very well. It is clear that steps are being announced, but ultimately it is all a matter of better salaries. Resources will have to be found to pay those better salaries, better salaries which will have to be paid by the SATS. If the SATS as a whole does not perform sufficiently better financially than in the past year, we shall have to budget for a deficit next year, with all the resulting negative effects.

It is important to note the way in which the Government intends to try to accommodate this reality. In the first place there is the pegging of transport tariffs. The hon the Minister announced on 24 February 1988 that there would be no general increase in tariffs and fares, but on 28 February, four days later, Sake-Rapport reported that the hon the Minister had said the following in reply to questions about the budget, and I quote him:

The important section follows:

All of a sudden an increase in tariffs and fares is no longer excluded, but is seen as a direct counterbalance to the salary demands of the trade unions. The one is being linked inextricably to the other. Obviously the Government has no initiative to accommodate the salary demands without instituting an increase in tariffs and fares as well.

Privatisation is the other method the Government has clearly identified, through the hon the State President and this hon Minister, as a possible escape route from the Government’s financial dilemma. In his Budget speech the hon the Minister said that once the SA Transport Services had been restructured, the respective enterprises would be investigated to determine which of them could be privatized and in what form. At the same time, he said, it appeared to be time to privatise all bus transport services of the Road Transport Service. He added that he had already given instructions for these services to be developed as a separate business unit with a view to their privatisation.

The annual revenue from these services—I found this in his Budget speech as well—amounts to approximately R100 million. According to the hon the Minister the SA Airways is also regarded as a strong candidate for privatisation. Once again this is a financially sound enterprise within the SA Transport Services. The most important criterion for privatisation appears to be whether an enterprise is profitable at a given time—or whether this enterprise is performing well financially.

There are many other considerations as well!

Now link up this point of departure with the hon the Minister’s other point of departure, Sir, viz that it is impossible to run commuter passenger services on a profitable basis. In this connection I am referring to a television interview with him in Network on Sunday, 7 February.

Do you agree with that?

The hon member wants to know whether I agree with that, Sir. We are coming to that. We shall indicate to him that far more can be done than simply to accept this. [Interjections.] It is already clear that the Government is on extremely dangerous ground in talking about the privatisation of specific sections of the SA Transport Services in the context of the Government’s framework of reference at this early stage. How can one privatise those sections of a comprehensive enterprise such as the SATS which render the greatest return when one knows—within one’s framework—that one has to apply cross-subsidization on inter alia commuter passenger services in order to afford those services?

You have a lot to learn!

These two things cannot be reconciled logically.

I cannot leave the subject of privatisation without asking the hon the Minister for a further explanation of one particular aspect. In an earlier debate on the Transport Services Amendment Bill, the hon member for Primrose indicated that the reason the contract in respect of the Port Shepstone-Harding branch line had not been offered per public tender was in fact that the company involved was the only one to have approached the SATS to conclude a contract. The following enlightening report appeared in Business Day of Tuesday, 23 February, under the small heading “Secret talks over R500 million plant”. The larger heading reads “Alusaf will be first Government privatisation”. Hon members will realise the relevance of this shortly. The report reads as follows:

This is followed by a reference to the hon the State President’s mention of Foskor as a possible candidate for privatisation. Lower down in the same report we read:

We also read:

These facts strengthen the suspicion that the Government’s privatisation programme is not taking place in the broad interests of the country, but primarily in the interests of specific private bodies.

I should therefore like to ask the hon the Minister to give us an explanation, as far as he is capable of doing so, on why this method is being followed of holding private negotiations with private organizations concerning the privatisation of State assets and then, as in the case of the Port Shepstone-Harding line, of granting them contracts after such private discussions.

The hon member asked what we thought about the situation and what we considered to be solutions. Before I come to that I must briefly identify the problems and their causes as far as the finances of the SATS in general are concerned.

It is general knowledge to anyone who has a reasonable knowledge of the SATS that the commuter service is the service the SATS themselves admit gives them the biggest headache. We say the main cause of this problem is a lack of control. We want to tell the hon the Minister and the Government in general that they are not taking the necessary steps or instituting the necessary measures to ensure that everyone who makes use of the passenger services, particularly on suburban lines such as those around Johannesburg, pays for those journeys.

I put a question about this in the standing committee. I am sorry to have to refer to it, but unfortunately it is necessary. I asked whether the person in question was aware of an SA Railway Police investigation that was made in February 1982 concerning this deficit on certain suburban stations between Soweto and Johannesburg. I was filled with amazement and astonishment when initially the person in question denied that there had been such a police investigation. The only conclusion I could draw was that he was not even aware of such an investigation.

When I asked for more details about further investigations of this nature and the subsequent results, I was given the simple answer—I must say that my question was formulated quite differently and the answer was given to me in reply to a new question—that the position is monitored by the inspectorate on a constant basis.

That is not good enough. I want to tell the hon the Minister frankly that we are aware that no proper measures exist. In fact, there is a total lack of measures at most of these stations where enormous amounts of money are lost.

Let us see what this 1982 investigation revealed. The hon the Minister must tell me if I am wrong, but my information is that within six days, an increased amount of R38 565,54 was collected because policemen supervised ticket sales at the eight stations involved in this experiment, viz Mzimhlope, Phomolong, Phefeni, Dube, Ikwezi, Inhalazane, Merafe and Naledi, on the railway line between Soweto and Johannesburg. When one multiplies that amount by 52—we are supposing that a week consists of six days—one gets the enormous amount of R2 005 408. That was in 1982, and calculated according to the fares of that time.

What would the additional police force cost?

These were policemen who went there with specific instructions to monitor the conditions at the stations. It was an exceptional occasion. We have the results of this investigation, and they indicate that there is a deficiency. If I read the summary of that investigation, hon members will realise that this does not even reflect the whole picture. One could justify the appointment of additional people to control matters simply by virtue of the increased amount they were able to collect that week.

That is not the whole picture. Thousands of these passengers turned around at the gates in any case because there were further problems as well. It was not merely a question of supervision. I want to read the summary:

It goes further. In some cases where there is good control now, there are too few access points and too few members of staff. The result is that thousands of these passengers turn around and make use of taxi transport. What is the SATS doing about this? This has been known since 1982.

Just to conclude this point, I want to point out that there is no indication in any of the reports of what the SATS is going to do to salvage the situation. At the end of last year, when I was a member of a SATS tour, this very problem was mentioned inter alia in a discussion at one of the points we visited, but it is not mentioned in any of the reports. We want to know why not.

My second point concerns intercity passenger services. We say the problem is that these services are too slow and too expensive, especially in comparison with the SA Airways. When one looks at the tariffs—the particulars were given to us—it is very clear why. At the moment a first class train ticket between Cape Town and Johannesburg costs what an economy class air ticket costs. The train services cannot compete, therefore.

There is also the competition from buses, and especially Kombi taxis. This has constantly been mentioned, also on the standing committee, as one of the causes. The question is what we are doing about this. Must we simply accept it as a fact and increase tariffs, or are we going to do something about this situation? [Interjections.]

In the last place I want to refer to the exchange losses. Provision has been made in the present budget for R575 million in this respect. We have not yet received the investigative committee’s report, and we want to know why not.

Mr Chairman, I want to begin by endorsing the sentiments expressed by the hon the Minister who referred to the many misfortunes and tragedies which had afflicted the SATS during the past 12 months. There have been flood disasters, aviation disasters and yet more flood disasters, with all that they entail. We on this side of the House wish to associate ourselves with what the hon the Minister said.

I want to mention the hon member for Roodepoort briefly and at the same time refer to the CP’s previous main speaker on transport affairs. I should like to offer the hon member for Roodepoort my congratulations on his appointment in that capacity. I hope his predecessor did not lose that post because of his grand ideas about bullet trains up there in the Northern Transvaal, but I do not blame the hon leader of the CP for removing him, for even the hon leader could not associate himself with what the hon member for Soutpansberg had said. I give the hon member for Roodepoort my best wishes and I hope he will not present us with such wild, impracticable ideas.

I listened to the standpoints and theories put forward by the hon member for Roodepoort. In reply to an interjection he said he would tell us later how the problems ought to be solved, but the more I listen to the CP discussing economic matters, the more I get the impression that they are like a chameleon on a “Smartie” box that does not know which colour to assume. The CP do not know where to turn. [Interjections.] They are slow in respect of this matter too, because when we press them, they always say we shall hear their standpoint later. I want to leave the hon member for Roodepoort and his standpoints at that, but I shall refer in my speech to some of the matters he raised.

I wish to begin with the staff. The hon member had a great deal to say here about the meetings which had been held. Let us assume that a total of few thousand people in South Africa assembled to hold those meetings and demand the resignation of the hon the State President and the hon the Minister and all the other things the hon member quoted to this House. The SATS has approximately 20 000 staff members. It is therefore a small percentage of the SATS’s people who hold this kind of view—I would almost call it a CP-AWB attitude—and carry on like that. Ninety-nine percent of the rest of the staff go about these things in the correct way.

There are quite a few things for which I would like to thank the SATS staff, but I am going to mention only a few. The first is their contribution to the SATS’s productivity.

What do they get in return?

On the standing committee we analysed the SATS’s labour costs in relation to their total costs over the past few years. The productivity of the staff has risen to such a level that labour costs seen against total costs have fallen to the extent that today they comprise only slightly more than one third of total costs. The trend is a steeply downward one which can be achieved only if the people all put their shoulders to the wheel, as in fact they do. We thank them for that.

We thank those people, workers of the SATS, who risked life and limb last year and this year to repair damage, help people and protect SATS property in the storms which washed away large areas and left still others in dire straits. We thank them all.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central will have a chance to talk when I have finished.

Can you tell me where the money will come from?

The most important point to be made regarding the SATS’s staff is the gratitude we want to express for the understanding they showed when we asked them to make sacrifices this year, together with us, for their own sakes and for the sake of South Africa. I will return to the staff later.

The Budget speech, which was delivered about a week ago by the hon the Minister, was a watershed in the history of transport. I am not simply talking about all the water which is rushing through our trains and washing away our railway lines and bridges; I am using the term in its broader sense. We have come to the end of an era—the history of transport before 1988—and are beginning a new one this year. We must look at the approach to transport announced by the hon the Minister in conjunction with the new National Transport Policy Study.

If one analyses the available information—the documents which have been laid upon the Table—one sees that the SATS is preparing for the 21st century and the demands of that century. We must not see the matter in isolation from the transport policy study in its entirety. The study dealt with transport in the whole of South Africa and was included in the White Paper on National Transport Policy which was tabled in 1986. They go hand in hand and must be seen as such.

We must not, however, take the route advocated by the Official Opposition. We must set out on the journey by taking one another’s hands and trying to find signposts along the way. We will all have to follow these signposts and see how we can solve the problems. The Government cannot walk this path alone; neither can the private sector. They will have to do so together, in the interests of transport in South Africa. The interests involved are not merely those of the SATS or of the private sector, but those of all of us. The signposts cannot all be erected today. The first was planted in the form of the Budget speech.

There will henceforward have to be signposts at regular intervals to indicate in which direction the SATS must develop in order to achieve its goal in South Africa. That we are on a new road is certain.

I wish to invite all the transport people out there to come and join hands with us as we set out on this journey. Let us jostle one another on the way, but let us reach our final destination. We shall have to establish what that destination is ourselves, and by that I do not mean just us or just them, but all of us together. I hope that the new legislation, when it comes, will enable everyone to co-operate so that what we envisage may be achieved.

I want to refer briefly to a very interesting new book, The Spirit of Enterprise. I want to quote something from it, and apply that to the new course we are all following in respect of transport. George Gilder writes something at the beginning of this book which I believe to be of particular relevance to people in the business of transport and to the transport sector in South Africa. He writes:

I hope all of us, when we have ultimately reached our goal, will have grown a garden in terms of transport which will be able to provide what we are striving for.

Having said that about the Budget, I want to call for self-discipline on the part of the private sector with regard to price increases. We cannot ask the public servants, the SATS officials and other Government workers to make their contribution without appealing to those outside the Public Service to do their share in respect of price increases. That is why I want to address this request for self-discipline to the private sector and consequently ask them not to disappoint us in our hopes of their positive response.

The hon member for Roodepoort moved an amendment in which he asked, first of all, for the prevention of an unnecessary increase in the SATS’s operating expenditure. We all received a little booklet like this as one of our documents. This booklet is known as the Memorandum by the Minister of Transport Affairs, and it was tabled by the hon the Minister. The very last page, page 23, is the most important. There is a graph on this page which indicates very clearly the tendencies of price increases since 1978-79 in respect of certain products. The most interesting is that the red line, which represents the SATS, has remained lower than all the others. What nonsense the hon member for Roodepoort was talking when he spoke about cost increases which were out of control and could not be kept in check! The hon member was on the standing committee and was with us when we discussed this matter. The matter was discussed with him and that fact was emphasised, but apparently he does not concern himself with what he hears there. The most troublesome aspect of this graph is the fact that the SATS is a major consumer of some of the other commodities specified. If we look at the index for fuel, we can see that it is very high. The same applies to steel and electricity. The consumer price index, determined in general terms, is also indicated. Which price increases were the lowest? The SATS’s tariffs, which include all transport services.

I hope the hon member will realise how weak the motion is which he proposed here as an amendment to the hon the Minister’s Budget. Unfortunately I cannot describe it otherwise than as an exceptionally poor and ill-considered motion. [Interjections.]

I want to move on. Having said that there must be discipline on the part of the private sector, I also want to ask them—this is also on the basis of the table on page 23 of the memorandum—to give urgent attention to their organisations. I wonder if we should not ask the hon the Minister to make this table more widely available so that everyone can see it. I hope a newspaper will publish it at some stage.

I want to deal with the SATS’s new approach. As I said, this Budget speech will stand as a very important beacon on the path of the history of the SATS, because this speech marked a change in direction. The most important aspect, however, is the new management philosophy. Unfortunately, time does not allow me to deal with this at length, but I want to take this opportunity to wish Dr Moolman and his team well in the years ahead. They are taking command at a very difficult time in the industry they are going to serve. I wish them well, and I want to tell them that if there is any way in which we can help them, they should approach all of us in this House and the hon members in the other Houses for assistance, because the demands that are going to be made on them will be very heavy.

The new legislation which we will discuss later this year dealing with the SATS’s staff situation also recognises this new tendency. Since I am now referring to the staff again, I want to address a request to the hon the Minister. Certain recognitions are to be granted in this new legislation— I do not want to discuss it now—in terms of the new principle. I want to ask the hon the Minister if he can tell us during this debate whether a specialised group such as the pilots of the SAA— the hon member for Roodepoort referred to them—would be granted recognition. Half of the problem which now exists will be solved if this could be done. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether it will not be possible to debate this matter further when we discuss the SATS legislation later this session. This specialised group is so important that I think it ought to be possible to address them individually and they ought to be able to discuss their problems from a certain individual position of power. No one can do this better than they themselves.

I am confident that the new hon Minister and the new management look at new problems with new insight. I want to mention one example. I asked the previous Minister in 1984 if it was not possible to discard the tariff book. The new hon the Minister indicated in his Budget speech that it was indeed possible; that is to say, what was not possible in 1984 is in fact possible in 1988. I want to thank the hon the Minister for that, because I think our attitude towards competition will greatly improve if we can reach a point at which we use the tariff book only to attract freight in order to improve our competitive position. This practice is well-known, after all. The tariff book is at everyone’s disposal, and when tariffs are quoted, the amount is always a comma something percent below under the SATS transport tariff so that they can get their hands on the freight. I think we must apply the proposal in the hon the Minister’s Budget speech as quickly as possible.

I would also like to request that we examine page 3 of the White Paper on National Transport Policy in particular. All the prerequisites of the new transport situation into which we are moving are spelled out there. I looked at it again today. These prerequisites worry me. If we have to comply with all of them simultaneously we shall not make much progress. I think we must establish which prerequisites we have to apply immediately and which can be applied later. By applying them all simultaneously we shall merely delay the achievement of the goals the hon the Minister set in his Budget speech. I do not think it would be a good idea to delay the new direction we have taken any further. There is too much at stake. There are too many positive aspects of this new course which have to be brought to fruition.

I would like to refer briefly to the SAA. The hon the Minister will forgive me if I express just a modicum of criticism about a really tiny matter. I have flown twice in the past 48 hours, and I was hours late on both occasions. I have great sympathy for the SAA’s problems. However, I also have great sympathy for the passengers. I know there are problems. I concede that there are problems. I hope the new schedule which is to be introduced later this month will dispose of the problem of the availability of seats. Secondly, I hope that there will be enough time to be able to increase the service all round. I think we will then be able to be on time and not always an hour-and-a-half late. [Interjections.]

An hon member here near me says we should adapt the timetable to the actual departure times. If this seems to be the solution, we could try that too. However, I do not think that is the answer! Let us rather stick to the timetable and try to correct everything else.

I repeat, I understand that there are problems and I sympathise. I concede that there is an explosion in the demand for seats. Nevertheless, I still want to ask the hon the Minister to look into this matter. On that flight yesterday evening I had rather a hard time with people making derogatory remarks about the SAA. Presumably the hon the Minister does not want me to hit people, as the AWB or those other fellows did there at Standerton.

You cannot do it!

Nor do I want to do it. I would rather be told I am scared than do something like that.

I sincerely hope that the new timetable will solve this problem as far as the SAA is concerned. I have every confidence that we can do it.

Now I would like to touch on privatisation. I do not want to discuss this with the hon member for Roodepoort again, because every time he has a different standpoint. I shall simply ignore it.

The privatisation of services is within the hon the Minister’s field of experience in respect of his previous portfolio. It should be seen in the context of the White Paper on privatisation and deregulation as a whole; that document is at our disposal. I would like to repeat, however, that I agree with what the hon the Minister said about the bus service and the SAA. I also want to thank the hon the Minister for saying, with reference to the SAA, that he was investigating the possibility of creating competition for the SAA before privatising that organisation. Of course we cannot simply transform a State monopoly into a private monopoly. I am prepared to put up with the criticism for poor service, together with Dr Moolman and together with the hon the Minister, while it is a State monopoly. I will certainly not do so, however, on behalf of a private monopoly. That is what people will say. [Interjections.] I am therefore very grateful for the fact that the hon the Minister said that competition would be created for the SAA.

While we are dealing with competition for the SAA, I want to ask the hon the Minister if it is possible for him to go into more detail about this in his reply and tell us whether the privatisation of the SAA as a whole is being contemplated or whether there will be a distinction between domestic and foreign flights. There are advantages and disadvantages in respect of both prospects. I would be glad if the hon the Minister could clear up this matter for us in his reply.

I do not want to mention the advantages of privatisation again. We have often discussed this issue in this House. There are also disadvantages attached to it. One of these disadvantages has become very clearly apparent in my area. It is the position of the staff. As the hon the Minister put it, privatisation can only take place with the greatest caution. I want to associate myself with that standpoint of the hon the Minister. Furthermore, in the whole process of privatisation, we shall also have to ensure that there is peace of mind. In discussing privatisation, I should like to return to the original, basic principle we have always postulated. Let us begin by deregulating and then privatise. I am glad the hon the Minister said that he would introduce competition for the SAA. So we must, I think, first have competition and deregulation, as is now the case with the bus service. We can privatise after that. Let us not put the cart before the horse.

I think we are on the right track here. I want to congratulate the hon the Minister and his staff on the manner and style of their approach to the entire process of privatisation. However, I want to repeat the request that we take the staff with us in the whole process, particularly those staff members who are involved. We shall have to ensure that these people have peace of mind. If necessary—I am not saying that this need be compulsory—we shall even have to go so far as to give these people shares. We will have to give them a stake in their organisation so that they can be participants. Whether the hon the Minister makes them pay or whether he does something like converting their financial interests in order to compensate for the shares, are details which can be sorted out later. My appeal is simply that in the process of privatisation we strongly emphasise, starting now, the aspect of the staffs peace of mind.

I want to touch briefly on the question of capital investment. I am concerned about the SATS’s capital investment, but I know we cannot do anything else. I want to refer again to the hon member for Roodepoort, who spoke about these operating expenditures. There are people in the SATS who, just like officials in the other Government departments, are going to receive notch increases. An amount is being budgeted to make provision for certain occupationally orientated increases, which will be exceptions. A large percentage of people in the SATS are in fact going to receive increases, but in spite of that the SATS has not increased its tariffs. It is preposterous to say, like certain newspapers and individuals, that there are going to be no increases. I want to point out that a large percentage of the workforce will actually receive increases. We have not raised our tariffs, and money is therefore not available on a large scale to increase our capital investment.

However, I am concerned about the capital investment. If we use 1982-83 as an index, and allocate to it a real, constant money value of 100, we shall discover that, between 1982-83 and this Budget which we now have to agree to, the real, constant investment of 100 has dropped to 20. That is too low, and the SATS is going to experience problems somewhere along the line. I know it is correct policy, when embarking on a new course with new circumstances and challenges, not to invest capital, but I fear we shall be caught out in the long term. I understand why we have to do it, but I merely want to issue a warning and say that we must be careful.

I now want to steal a march on the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central by referring to one of the points he is going to raise.

[Inaudible.]

You are the prophet, after all. Why don’t you say it?

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central is going to talk about concealed profits again. I want to tell him that there is no such thing as concealed profits, because the hon the Minister and the General Manager have announced precisely how much money is being written off and what additional amounts are being written off on account of inflation. The hon member ought to read Finansies en Tegniek of 29 May 1987 and see what the experts in the accounting profession say about people who, in a time of high inflation such as South Africa is currently experiencing, do not take steps to protect their capital. That hon member is a businessman. I do not know whether he has gone bankrupt as a businessman on account of this policy of his or whether it is just his idle political patter. That is something he will have to tell me. After my speech he will have his chance to reply to me on that point.

I believe we shall have to go ahead with the protection of our capital. The impression is being created that large amounts of money are currently being salted away in secret funds, but that is not so. Depreciation is applied in two ways, namely in the historical way and in order to make provision for inflation. Both those methods are recorded in an open book.

The last point I want to touch on is the question of exchange losses. It is a fact that we in the Standing Committee on the Accounts of the South African Transport Services requested that this matter should be reported on as soon as possible, but there are in any case other very large undertakings which have fared just as badly as we did as far as foreign debt is concerned. I do not want to name them; after all, we know who they are. To pick on the SATS alone is unfair. That the SATS judged incorrectly, as we all did at that point, is true, but I merely want to ask everyone who suspects in this a scandal or something of that kind to wait until these people have reported back and the committee of experts has given us the facts, and then we will be able to debate the report of the Standing Committee on the Accounts of the South African Transport Services.

Sir, it is a pleasure for me to support the Second Reading of the Transport Services Appropriation Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Primrose has asked me a direct question and I would like to reply to it immediately. He has asked me about the additional depreciation and what I as a businessman think of it. I want to tell that hon member that if I as a businessman had put into an additional depreciation reserve such large funds that I ended up (a) making a loss and (b) having to charge so much for the services I provide to the public that I became uncompetitive, I would have been fired from my job immediately. I would no longer have had a job.

The problem with the SATS is of course that they do not have competition. There is no domestic competition for the SAA. There is no domestic competition for the SA Railways, although they are increasingly getting competition from road transportation, but they do not have that discipline of having to be competitive in a competitive market. Until such time as there is deregulation they will not have that.

I want to say that I, of course, always enjoy listening to the hon member for Primrose, because he is not frightened to spell out criticism, which is most unusual for a member of the NP. Today, he has criticised the SAA to an extent. He obviously did it gently—he wants to keep his job as MP, but at least he does criticise and I think members of the NP can learn a lot from that hon member rather than just going along in general and saying what a wonderful job the hon the Minister is doing and what a wonderful job everybody else is doing. [Interjections.]

At the outset I wish to welcome Dr Moolman to his first Budget debate as the General Manager of the SATS. His task is going to be most difficult, for two reasons, and these two reasons are deregulation and privatisation. He will have to guide the SATS through a period of time when they are going to be increasingly in competition with the private sector. Productivity will therefore have to be improved. His predecessor did an excellent job in this respect, and Dr Moolman takes over almost 100 000 fewer staff members than Dr Grové inherited.

Privatisation means the reduction in size of the SATS. Services and even complete divisions should be sold off during Dr Moolman’s term of office. His success as General Manager will, therefore, to a degree, be measured by the extent to which he reduces the size of the SATS and their degree of influence on the South African transport scene.

I hope by the time he retires that, firstly, the road transport section will be 100% in the hands of the private sector; secondly, that the SAA will also be entirely privatised and will have competition on domestic routes; and, thirdly, that the oil pipeline will have become at least a public utility company along the lines of similar companies in the USA.

Then I want to say to the hon the Minister that his staff are having to pay the penalty for the bloated public sector. I believe that this is most unfair. I believe he should be fighting for his staff with the hon the State President. As I have said, the SATS staff has been reduced. The result since 1982 has been a 30% reduction in staff. Secondly, Sir, the Railways’ net ton kilometres per staff member improved from a factor of 380 to no less than 580 estimated for this year. This is an excellent achievement. Yet the staffs salaries are frozen as far as a general increase is concerned because the Public Service has in no way even embarked on the same path of reduction. They are in fact moving in the opposite direction to the extent that taxation cannot keep up and they have to be penalised. The SATS staff, however, should not be penalised along with them.

Finally, Sir, on the staff pay issue, I want to warn the hon the Minister that I will call for his head on a block if he allows senior staff to increase their perks and benefits when, as happened last time, there was no increase. On that occasion Dr Grové allowed R1,45 million to be loaned to senior staff and to the Commissioners at a paltry interest rate of 4% to make up for the fact—on his own admission—that they had not had any increase. I hope we will not see that happen again.

So, Sir, to the staff of the SATS I would offer my thanks and that of my party, and also our appreciation, for their services over the past year. I have always been treated with courtesy, as have members of my family who use the services of the SATS, and I believe that the improvement in the treatment of their customers has been as noteworthy as their increase in productivity. I congratulate them on that.

Now, Sir, about the past year of the SATS, I believe that in stating that they had an estimated loss of R126 million the hon the Minister is pulling the wool over the eyes of the South African public. I believe this is easy to demonstrate. Firstly, Sir, the loss hides the fact that R138 million profit was made as a result of the insurance payment on the ill-fated SA Helderberg. This insurance payment was R169 million, and the book value of the aircraft was only R31 million. This profit was transferred to a reserve account and is not taken into account in the profits as the private sector would have to do.

Secondly, Sir, the sum of R702 million has been deducted from the profits of the SATS in addition to the normal depreciation of R543 million. The total in the Additional Depreciation Account now stands at no less than R4 008 million. The effect on the cost of fares of this massive sum of money is enormous. It is my view that this method of accounting should not be allowed. Eskom also had a strange method of accounting in order to build up their capital employed, and a commission recommended changes to that system. I ask the hon the Minister to appoint a small panel of financial experts to investigate this particular practice and this particular account.

The hon the Minister does not have a business background. I believe he has been led astray. In his own interests I would suggest that a group of people be appointed to report to him. I would suggest three people from the private sector. They should be Dr Fred du Plessis, Mr Derrick Keyes of Gencor, and thirdly the current President of the SA Institute of Chartered Accountants. These are three people whose political views I do not even know although I could probably guess. I believe, however, these people could give the hon the Minister honest advice on the best route to follow. I honestly believe he should do that. I should like his response to this suggestion.

The third item in respect of which the losses of the SATS were misleading was that of forex losses. Forex losses amounting to no less than R575 million were written of during the year. Interestingly enough, I see that the SATS estimate that between 1987 and 2000 they will have to write off no less than R1982 million in forex losses. Sir, we cannot afford this in South Africa. The three items I have mentioned alone amount to a massive bill, in the current financial year, of R1 415 million, which the user of the SATS has to pay out of his fares during 1987-88.

The commuter, the intercity transporter and the transporter of food have all had to pay this extra R1 415 million because of strange methods of accounting and bad management in the past.

I come now to the Budget for the year ahead, where we find precisely the same problem. A loss of R96 million is budgeted for, but this is after forex losses of R577 million have been taken into account and an inflationary depreciation account has been increased by no less than R865 million. It is interesting to note that that depreciation figure is R163 million more than this year’s, despite the fact that ordinary depreciation has dropped by millions. This sum increases the amount in that extra depreciation fund to no less than R4 873 million—nearly R5 billion—and that money comes from the South African public, the people who use the SATS—in other words, everybody. This fund alone now represents nearly half of the annual turnover of the SATS.

For these two items alone, then, the poor South African public is going to have to foot the enormous bill of R1 442 million in the year ahead. I do not believe the economy can afford this. I therefore implore the hon the Minister very seriously to get the best possible advice in regard to the continuation of this fund. Together with forex losses, it puts fares up by almost 15%.

Before leaving the subject of high costs, I want to turn briefly to the pension funds of the SATS. The hon the Minister set an actuarial investigation of these funds in train last year. Would he inform this House during his reply to this debate precisely how far this investigation has progressed and when he expects to be able to report on the matter? I would have thought that actuaries could have completed their investigations by now.

The complaint I have about these funds is that they are overly generous. I want to know from the hon the Minister whether, for example, he has brought the SATS pension funds into line with the Public Service in regard to the buy-back arrangements. Last year the Public Service made an alteration while the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs did not. I want to know whether he has done so yet. If he has not, I want to know what his intentions are. Quite frankly, the country cannot afford this cosy scheme, and its effect is going to escalate alarmingly in the years to come. I do not believe that anyone should be allowed at any price to buy back service which they have not rendered.

We are already expending very large sums on pensions, both past and future. In the current year, the SATS employees themselves will pay R194 million, but the SATS will pay R289 million in respect of members and R292 million in respect of their social responsibility to past pensioners. Out of current revenue in the current year R581 million has therefore had to be found.

I want to warn the hon the Minister that this pension affair is going to bedevil his ability to accomplish the desired degree of privatisation. The private sector is simply not going to be able to afford this type of pension liability, and the sooner the SATS pensions are brought more into line with private sector pensions, the better.

The really big subjects for this debate are privatisation and deregulation. Deregulation is the hon the Minister’s responsibility more as the Minister in charge of the Department of Transport. I want to quote to him from an article by Professor Murray Weidenbaum, a top economist in the USA, in a magazine called Economic Impact. The article is introduced as follows:

Professor Weidenbaum writes the following:

I recommend the article to the hon the Minister because deregulation will have a profound effect on the SATS. We will, however, debate this further under the Transport Vote of the main Budget.

Privatisation, on the other hand, is very relevant. The SATS could lead the way in this field. They could already have been leading the way but they are not. In some ways the SATS is retrogressing, as witnessed in the expansion of their travel office at the direct expense of the private sector. Witness the opening of their new office in Mossel Bay where the hon the Minister had the following to say, and I quote from a letter from him to me on 3 December 1987:

What rubbish! In a previous letter dated 25 August 1987 he also says:

That is fair enough, Sir, but they are in direct competition with the private sector. The private sector can actually offer that service; the hon the Minister is making a big mistake in expanding the SATS’s service.

Over a year ago the hon the Minister announced that some bus services of the SATS were to be privatised. Yet nothing has happened from then to now. A question he has recently answered informed me of that fact.

I would have thought that the sale of the bus service from Cape Town to Port Elizabeth, and the buses used on that route, would be a relatively simple matter. Oh, no! We now combine all these services into one so-called business. This business is budgeted to turn over R289 million and lose R19 million in 1988-9. Suddenly it is not so easy to sell. The sheer size of the operation severely limits the possible market. Sold in sections by tender, public tender or by public subscription, it could be handled more effectively and faster. One of the secrets to the privatisation of the SATS is to break the units up into as small portions as possible and then to dispose of them, rather than making one gigantic organisation and trying to sell that as a whole.

I am not satisfied …

[Inaudible.]

The staff problems? I have already discussed that to an extent but I will be coming to it. So, Sir, I am not satisfied that the senior management and staff of the SATS will move adequately in the drive for privatisation. The hon the Minister will have to set deadlines for certain actions to be taken and see to it that the deadlines are adhered to.

One of the tragedies that one sees every day in politics is the vested interest syndrome. Whether it is the staff of the SATS or the bus companies in the private sector who have the privilege of having a route, or the road transport operator who has the privilege of having a permit to transport goods from point A to point B, all of them want to hold on to it. It is human nature.

It is this hon Minister’s job to ensure that, despite that, the privatisation goes ahead. I believe one instance of an answer in the standing committee dealing with the SATS’s Budget was illuminating. The question was whether the SATS should continue to provide catering to this Parliament. They maintain that they lose money on this catering service. I was told that if they could make money out of it, they should continue.

If that answer had come from a private sector organisation, I would not have any problems, but coming from a government business, basically responsible for transport, I find it reprehensible. In other words, they want to use the taxpayers’ funds, invested in the SATS, in order to compete with those very taxpayers who are in the catering business.

The taxpayer’s business has its profits halved by tax. The SATS has no tax liability. Hardly fair competition!

Another example of a bad way of thought is the recent application of the SATS for a clearing and forwarding licence which I understand has now been withdrawn. I am glad it has been withdrawn, but it demonstrates an attitude of mind which the hon the Minister is going to have to watch very carefully indeed.

Another development the hon the Minister has announced is that the SATS will in future be divided into five different business units. I really do not think the hon the Minister knows the meaning of what he has said. Questions in the standing committee have elicited the following facts: Firstly, there will still be one board, the Railway Commission. Secondly, there will still be a general manager to whom the business heads will have to report. Thirdly, there will be an overall marketing manager. Fourthly, there will be an overall financial manager. Fifthly, there will be an overall manpower or personnel officer who will be responsible for the top 200 people in the SATS. Thus, what we end up with, is five divisions in one business, under one overall management and control. Top management will be moved from one division to another with, no doubt, members of the Broederbond being given preference.

In this regard I wish to quote from an article written more than nine years ago, on 7 January 1979, in the Sunday Times, which, with some hindsight, was pretty accurate. It was headed: “If you want to get ahead on the Railways, join the Bond”. This forecast was made in 1979 when they said:

I thought that was quite interesting that nine years ago they were able to forecast the position so accurately.

That is not funny …

If that hon member wishes to speak, he should give himself the time to do so as a Whip.

This type of situation makes one think. With all due respect I wish to say that I do not believe that the hon the Minister is capable of properly overseeing the move to privatisation. I do not believe that any one person could do it. The SATS top personnel and management are not on their own the right people to advise on the matter, because they have a vested interest. I believe the hon the Minister should appoint an advisory board on this matter to assist him. Naturally, when we talk about privatisation, there should be private sector people on that board. I say this in an attempt to be constructive and helpful. Were I the Minister, I would take this action. I hope he will, because I understand that we both want the maximum degree of privatisation, consistent with the best interests of the South African public in general.

Finally, I wish to turn to the operations of the SAA, because I am concerned at various occurrences. As far as I can understand, we have dissatisfied pilots, dissatisfied air traffic controllers, and dissatisfied technical staff. We have innumerable delays today on the SAA, which the hon member for Primrose referred to. We have incredibly high fares. Let me spell out some of the problems.

Firstly, I understand that 101 SAA pilots reach pensionable age by August of this year. These pilots earn only 25% of what their counterparts earn in the USA. In February 1986 the Australian Government outlawed IATA, which is among other things a price-fixing cartel. The result was that the price of an air ticket from Sydney to London dropped by 26% overnight. Since then the airlines have operated more profitably. Just think of the increase in tourism to South Africa that could result if we dropped our fares by 25%.

When I asked the standing committee why international fares had just been increased, I was told that IATA was to blame. I do not now have the time to quote the relevant article in The Star of March 1987, but it stated, quite clearly that IATA simply reflects the wishes of the members, particularly the members on the route concerned. If that is what IATA does, let us get out of it.

Certainly the South Africa-UK route is highly profitable to British Airways. This route, according to BA, adds R180 million a year to the British Exchequer.

Another inexplicable aberration is the fact that airfares between South Africa and the UK are cheaper if bought in sterling in the UK than if bought in rand in South Africa. That is as big a rip-off perpetrated on the South African public as the cost of an airfare from Cape Town to London as compared with that from Johannesburg to London. The crunch question ultimately is: Who is responsible for the constantly increasing airfares? I believe the answer is the South African Government, because they have to approve all increases—which they do with monotonous regularity.

Finally, I wish to move as a further amendment, and I have not had time to motivate all the legs of this amendment, as follows:

1. (1) racial discrimination has been removed from the passenger services of the South African Transport Services;
2. (2) privatization has been implemented to a meaningful extent by the South African Transport Services; and
3. (3) the fares of the South African Transport Services are reduced as a result of the phasing-out of the additional depreciation currently included in the expenditure.”.

Mr Chairman, the hon member who just sat down runs true to form. Let us be quite frank about that. He said something about criticism. I want to make the point very clear. Nobody objects to responsible criticism, but criticism purely to get publicity and create a false impression, is a different story altogether. The hon member raised the subject of the insurance money of the Helderberg in the standing committee. An argument developed between himself and a senior deputy manager. The manager pointed out to him that it was purely a business transaction. That hon member had no argument. One must also accept that, as the sole member representing the PFP, we cannot take him seriously. In the standing committee, discussing the financial aspects of the SATS, the hon member had time to read the newspaper. So I say we cannot take him seriously.

I want to ask the hon member whether he was a member of the provincial council.

Yes.

Could I then ask the hon member whether he bought pension back?

I did.

He did. Thank you. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I give the House a personal explanation?

No, not at this stage. [Interjections.] Order! I suggest that hon members refrain from being too personal as regards the personal affairs of other hon members. The hon member for South Coast may continue.

It was for service I had rendered, not for service I had not rendered.

The hon member also referred to the fact that the present General Manager was more or less the successor to the throne seven years ago. I want to remind that hon member how many years ago Mr Ogilvy-Thompson was named the successor to Mr Harry Oppenheimer. I want to ask him what the difference is.

He has not taken over. [Interjections.]

When one considers the traumatic year we have just been through, and I cite the labour unrest, the Stock Exchange slump, the floods, the Helderberg disaster plus the added pressure from the disinvestment lobby, in my opinion the SATS can hold their head high in respect of their accounts for the year under discussion. Notwithstanding the serious difficulties they have experienced, they have been able to keep the estimated deficit within acceptable bounds. While I accept the deficit is higher than estimated—some R80 million—it is still a good result taking all the factors into consideration.

Few can argue this point—that is, if one looks at the position from a realistic point of view and not—I repeat—and not from a purely political point of view with a view to making political capital out of a year in which we have never ever had so many natural and unnatural disasters.

There are, with respect, few business undertakings that can boast a productivity drive such as the SATS. The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central mentioned that as did the hon member for Primrose. Since 1982 the SATS have reduced their personnel complement by 84 000. That is a reduction of 30%.

When one looks at the estimates for the ensuing year then it appears that the management is even more confident than most large business enterprises in that they are budgeting for a deficit of R96 million. That is R36 million less than the final figure for this year; and that with a promise that tariffs will not be raised this year.

When one looks at the restructuring of the organisational framework, in line with the recommendations of the De Villiers Report, it is obvious that the SATS have now accepted the challenge that is on the way with the advent of privatisation. In my opinion management have, because of changing circumstances and times, become very profit and competition oriented to cope with what lies ahead in the future with the ramifications of privatisation.

Last September Natal experienced the worst floods in living memory. Torrential rain fell on and off for almost two weeks, resulting in devastating floods causing loss of life and extensive and expensive damage. The SATS’s costs for flood damage will be in the region of R26 million.

There were washaways and it took thousands of cubic metres of filling material to repair the damage. Lines were left suspended in mid-air. Having seen it, it is difficult for one to describe the devastation caused by the force of water in flood.

As an aside, in my constituency one of the most dramatic accidents occurred. There was a washaway between Umzumbe and Hibberdene and as the train went on to that particular line a sinkhole opened and the locomotive and two trucks fell into the hole. How no lives were lost and nobody sustained serious injuries, only the Lord knows. That was just in my constituency.

However, when one looks at the overall picture, to repair the flood damage, to provide alternative transport for commuters and a host of other facets that had to be taken care of in such a crisis situation was indeed a challenge to the SATS. With respect, they came through with flying colours. Their successful handling of the whole situation in trying conditions, often with great hardship and personal sacrifice, left nothing to be desired and I feel the people of Natal were indeed fortunate to have such an efficient organisation keeping goods and people moving in the interim period. All but one service has been completely restored. I would like to take this opportunity of thanking them for a truly remarkable performance in the face of adversity.

When one looks at privatisation and all that goes with it, one realizes that it has to be proceeded with a great deal of circumspection. However, certain disciplines are going to be easier to privatise than others. In my constituency privatisation has had a direct benefit for certain sectors of private enterprise. Firstly, there is the introduction of the 300 kilometre relaxation to road carriers; secondly, additional permits have been granted to private carriers for passengers; and thirdly, there is the agreement reached on the operating of the narrow-gauge line to Harding from Port Shepstone. Notwithstanding what the CP has said about the lastmentioned operation, I firmly believe it was the right decision to take. That decision was to enter into a lease agreement between the SATS on the one hand and the Alfred County Railway Company on the other. Without trying to rehash the argument of last week or the principles involved, the lack of knowledge of the local situation shown by the CP was abominable to say the least.

My constituency has a very difficult economy. It is based on two pillars, the one being the sugar industry and the other the tourist industry. Both of these industries have certain difficulties and problems. It is common cause that the last mentioned industry is going through a relatively quiet time on the coast because of various reasons, one of them being the recent floods. Private enterprise came along and saw an opportunity in the then defunct narrow-gauge line and approached the SATS with a proposal. Hon members must bear in mind that this line was closed down because it was losing on average R6 million per annum. It was no longer a viable entity because of the loss of traffic to road haulage. That is a national phenomenon throughout the world. The debate to close the line raged over four years. That is a long period. So homework was done on both sides, the pros and the cons. A private company was prepared to risk its capital to do three things. Firstly, to preserve a historical narrow-gauge railway line, using steam for its locomotion, bearing in mind that steam locomotive enthusiasts throughout the world are desperately trying to preserve a bygone era.

On that point alone the CP should have supported the measure, because they are from the same era. [Interjections.] However, steam as a means of locomotion is fast losing out because of costs, modern technology and industrial advancement.

Secondly, it provides an added attraction for holidaymakers by giving them the privilege of journeying on a very old train drawn by a steam engine. In this regard the Banana Express from last December to date has carried nearly 20 000 passengers.

Thirdly, the most important point is to endeavour to get back to rail some of the goods traffic lost to road transport. The people concerned feel confident that this can be done and I hope they succeed in doing so. Not to be forgotten is the fact that the SATS will derive a benefit, because if private enterprise succeeds in obtaining its objectives on this narrow-gauge railway line, whatever traffic is carried will automatically be transported by the SATS as well. Therefore there is a benefit.

All in all the agreement is in favour of the SATS which have nothing to lose and may well stand to gain an increase in traffic. Who knows; it may well be that private enterprise could teach the SATS a thing or two about running a narrowgauge railway line. It is just a possibility. I do not know.

It is an unfortunate fact of life that if the SATS make an error of judgment or take a wrong decision the whole world descends on them like a ton of bricks. When they have an outstanding success, however, it is taken for granted or little or nothing is said about it.

I should like to refer to one of their many success stories and that is the mini-container. Since the inception of this service in 1985 the number of mini-containers in operation has increased to 17 000, whilst the tonnage conveyed has increased from an average of 2 000 per month to 12 000 per month and the monthly revenue increase has been from approximately R326 000 to R1,6 million.

This mini-container concept, coupled with the fast-freight service, has been an absolute boon to the smaller business. In fact, the smaller business is now enjoying all the advantages of containerisation, namely the saving of costs and the added benefit of faster transit times. I think the SATS has every right to refer to this mode as a distribution success story.

With that I support the measure before us.

Mr Chairman, I should like to discuss another aspect of the SATS and therefore shall not react to the hon member for South Coast. The hon the Minister and his Government have the ability, through their handling of the SATS, to rally support on an incredible scale for this side of the House. Discrimination against the White work force is the order of the day. Indeed, the White employees in the Transport Services are rebelling, as the hon member for Roodepoort quoted from a newspaper article, and they are moving motions of no confidence in the hon the Minister and the Government.

The hon member for Primrose said today that only a small percentage of the work force were involved, and that they were of lesser importance. The results of the two by-elections that are being held today, will reflect inter alia the growing distrust that the White worker has for the Government.

The former member for De Aar, Mr R F Van Heerden, once had two letters here when the SATS were dealing with excessive personnel—it was during the time of the former Minister of Transport Affairs—which was quite clearly a discriminatory measure in that the White workers were told to accept a reduction in rank and remuneration or resign. That was the choice they were given while of other race groups were offered modified working conditions, but with the retention of rank and salary.

In my hand I have evidence of the latest example of flagrant prejudice against the White employee of the SATS. Looking at this, I want to allege that the Government has indeed become an enemy of the White Transport Services employee. The heading to this letter reads “Termination of services for the dispensing of medicine prescriptions for Transmed beneficiaries”, and it was sent to pharmacists in the Transvaal rural areas, where there are no Transmed pharmacies, on 18 February 1988.

In the first paragraph of the letter the following was stated:

In the second paragraph the following was stated:

In the third paragraph the following was stated:

Does the hon the Minister realise what an impossible burden this letter places on the SATS officials, especially those in the lower income bracket, and especially those in the rural towns in die Transvaal? He knows that the average prescription for vital items can cost anything between R150 and R200, and even R300 per month. The nearest Transmed pharmacy for a SATS worker in a Western Transvaal town is, for example, in Kimberley. This means, therefore, that if he cannot afford to obtain his medicine at a local pharmacy which would apply in almost 100% of the cases, the prescription would have to be sent to Kimberley by train, in which case an additional 25% would be added to the account, because it can only be dispensed at Transmed pharmacies. The Transmed pharmacist would then send this prescription back to the patient by train, and it would possibly have to be delivered to Avbob, because that should be the current address of a victim of this new arrangement! [Interjections.]

The injustice and flagrant discrimination in reverse against the White employee of the SATS is illustrated in the following paragraph from the letter. In paragraph 4 the following was stated:

Disgraceful!

In the subparagraph—par 4.1—the following is stated:

The second subparagraph—par 4.2—continues:

White haters!

Therefore, the usual contractual arrangement with these pharmacists simply continues to apply in the case of Coloured, Indian and Black employees, while the White employee is placed in an extremely irksome situation. I now want to ask the hon the Minister what the reason is for this. The local pharmacies granted a rebate of 15% in any case, but the good relationship that existed between patient and pharmacist has now been summarily severed. In these rural areas a good relationship existed. If a patient became ill during the night, the pharmacist would generally send someone to fetch that prescription from the doctor, or from the patient himself, and then deliver the dispensed prescription to the patient. These are the relationships that existed there, relationships that have now been summarily severed. In many cases, the additional payment of 25% would have been placed on the patient’s account as a result of this good relationship. That now falls away completely. It all comes to an end at the end of this month. I am asking the hon the Minister whether the inconvenience and the possible serious lowering of the quality of life, or even death, is worth the few rands difference between a Transmed prescription and a prescription over the counter less 15%. If the hon the Minister says that it is worth it, then I am saying to him today that there is something seriously amiss in the medicine distribution industry in South Africa.

I want to argue that this envisaged arrangement should be reconsidered. I want to warn the hon the Minister that if he proceeds with it, he is merely going to hasten the process that was described by the author of an article in Frontline in June 1987. I am quoting from that article:

I am of the opinion that the author of that article was correct. We shall hear about the further effects of that tendency tomorrow. [Interjections.] The validity of these remarks—those that I have just read—will be emphasised by the results of the two by-elections that are being held today. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I was somewhat surprised by the hon member for Pietersburg’s failure to refer to those matters carried by his party’s newspaper recently and which they themselves mentioned in a previous debate, ie that national assets were being sold. Nevertheless I was not surprised that he once again raised the issue here of Whites who were supposedly being discriminated against. They put certain questions on the standing committee. I have those questions and the replies to them at hand here today so of course I hoped the hon member would raise them now. I believe, however, that he also analysed them as I did and then noticed in what way the Whites had at times been given preferential treatment by the SATS.

The question of the cost cover as regards first and third class commuter passenger services over the past five years was raised there. Figures then supplied to us referred to first and third class services as a percentage. For the 1986-87 financial year specifically it would appear that Black people benefited when one examines the figure as a percentage. Should one ask what the loss runs to per journey undertaken, however— therefore the number of journeys undertaken and the subsidy per single journey—one arrives at the following remarkable figures. It then appears that a third class passenger was subsidised to an amount of 63 cents in 1986-87 whereas the subsidy for a first class passenger was R3,52. The picture looks quite different then, Sir, but then the CP is altogether silent. Then one hears nothing at all from them and they stay a long way away from these matters. Then the question at issue is no longer discrimination against Black people because then it is the CP that benefits.

I wish to continue by congratulating the hon the Minister and his team, as well as the general manager and his officials, on this budget and the results of the past year, and obviously on the application of the new system of management as well. When gauged against the disasters and adversity of the past 12 months, as the hon member for South Coast said, one can really take off one’s hat to those officials and thank them for having overcome those misfortunes and for helping to keep this extremely important service in operation.

I read somewhere that about 7 000 workers have been involved in restoration of services over the past year. To my mind they deserve the most grateful thanks of all of us here in Parliament and also the thanks of the whole of South Africa for everything they have done.

The restructuring of the SATS has already come in for a considerable amount of attention this afternoon but I nevertheless believe it holds great potential for productivity. I believe that something like this entails enormous potential benefits for every productive official. Under the old dispensation excellent officials disappeared in the crowd. I think that in this new dispensation, in which smaller units will be created, the official who achieves and shows initiative will very soon distinguish himself. I am of the opinion he will also progress faster within the unit under which he falls, as well as within the group. I think we shall find the opposite of what the CP alleges happening. Because each unit will function like a separate business undertaking its subdivisions have to be judged as business undertakings, and this will make every division business-orientated. The worker who impedes the team’s productivity will therefore come to the attention of his division more rapidly and his working ability will have to improve. I believe the spotlight will be turned on him by his co-workers because their achievement will be related to team achievement.

As worker achievement improves, the profits of that undertaking will improve, whether it is a pipeline or road transport, and there will ultimately be increased income and this means increased remuneration. The worker should then be better off.

At present it takes certain officials years to progress to the highest posts in the SATS, and under this new dispensation it will be easier with more competition and smaller units. For instance there will no longer be only one civil engineer for transport; there will be one for railways, one for airways, one for harbours and one for the pipeline. I am mentioning that specific post but it could have a different name. Among other factors I therefore see greater opportunities in prospect for the staff under this new dispensation.

There is a second aspect I should like to concentrate upon and highlight under this Budget and I have frequently discussed it in this House. I think it bears repeating now that the SATS has a new dispensation. The NP is a party of reform. While I represent my constituency, I shall question outdated practices in our society whenever I believe they should be questioned because I believe reform demands this.

To my mind the migrant labour system is one of those outdated systems in the Public Service which should also be on the way out in the SATS. I was informed by Dr Loubser years ago that a certain hostel in the Boksburg-Germiston vicinity would be relocated. I now see that provision is being made in this Budget for its upgrading at a cost of R13 million and a reduction in its number of occupants from 3 528 to 1 500. I am very grateful for this.

I received the following reply to my question on the standing committee, however:

The third reason was:

The investigation regarding this specific hostel was conducted long before the SATS considered privatising, and a decision was reached that it should be upgraded. Now that the SATS has been restructured and we are viewing reform in South Africa and labour practices through fresh eyes, I want to ask whether the hon the Minister would not have this case re-examined before this money is spent.

If the reply I receive from officials is valid in Germiston and Boksburg, why does it not apply to Cape Town and Bellville too? Why is there no hostel in the vicinity of the SATS so that people may be near their work? Why is there no hostel near the harbour so that people may be near their work? [Interjections.] Why can the Germiston workers not live in Daveyton, Wattville, Katlehong or Tembisa if they have to live in a hostel?

I also received a letter from the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning recently in which he said that there had been a decrease of 3 000 hostel occupants at Vosloorus. Consequently there are beds available in the vicinity in a Black township and that prompts my request for serious reconsideration before this money is spent.

If R13 million is spent on beds for 1 500 workers, it amounts to about R8 660 per worker to place him in a hostel and to regulate his life over the following 50 years. We should take another look at this in the face of reform. The SATS and the State should adopt a different course in this regard.

The second argument raised by officials does not hold water either if I say there are other hostels available in Black townships in the vicinity.

I wish to request the hon the Minister most respectfully to accompany the hon member for Primrose and me on a visit to this area because this hostel is also an obstacle to the growth of the Reigerpark residential area for Coloureds. No person wishes to have his house built near a hostel and one will not easily be able to provide accommodation within a radius of approximately half a kilometre, hence my request that we take a look before money is spent there.

There is a further matter I wish to bring to the hon the Minister’s attention. A year ago a domestic company which had been supplying the SATS with signalling equipment for years had to close its doors because there was no longer enormous expansion in the SATS. That industrialist had to retrench some of his workers; I am told he discharged about 400 people. Ultimately he retained only a handful of experts and had to find jobs for them in his other industries.

It appears that the SATS will prosper again now, but these people have left the industry and it has therefore disappeared from the South African scene. If we should wish to purchase signalling equipment again we may have to import it and South Africa will be faced with the a problem all over again. Is it possible to examine this aspect of privatisation? We should perhaps at this stage use those people to do maintenance services.

A week ago a television programme was screened in which an appeal was made for the provision of a larger integrated telecommunications network for South Africa. Participants in the programme argued that it sometimes took a very expensive search party three days to search for a yacht once it went missing. They wanted to indicate that it would be a better way of establishing the position of that yacht or aircraft if we had an extensive communications system. If such a craft ran into trouble, it could indicate its location immediately because it was in telecommunication contact with the mainland.

The other additional aspect is provided by the numerous bodies in South Africa which are concentrating on establishing their own telecommunications networks. I am referring to the pipeline, the SATS, the Department of Defence and the Post Office; each is involved with its own systems. Could we investigate the possibility of rationalisation? The transport people say they could establish the location of their vehicles at any time of the day if they could link up with private hauliers. We are also moving nearer to a general satellite system which will be sold world-wide by the Americans in the early nineties, according to the television programme. I think we should try to link up with this. This is one of the aspects identified in this budget and that is why we should examine it seriously.

The last matter I wish to discuss is research done by the SATS department. I am concerned that when we privatise the private sector will not provide sufficient money for the research the SATS is now conducting itself. We have been informed that the new coal train with 200 wagons will perhaps undertake its first journey this year. This train, unique in the world, is capable of pulling 200 wagons round bends and over hills. This is no mean feat.

Over the past year or two the Railways have developed the telemeter braking system which puts the driver into contact with his rearmost wagon through radio control to establish whether there is sufficient pressure on his brakes.

These systems which have been developed here should be preserved and expanded for the sake of the transport services we have created for Africa. We have the largest network in Africa and we must ensure that we remain in the lead. I take pleasure in supporting this Budget.

Mr Chairman, I hope the hon member for Boksburg will excuse me for not replying to points he raised in the debate. He raised a number of points. The only thing I can say about his comments on hostels is that the sooner we remove the last vestiges of hostel accommodation in the SATS and other services, the better for South Africa.

I also would like to place on record for the benefit of the hon the Chief Whip of the governing party, who is not here now, that the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central did buy pension, but it was for service he had rendered. There is a great difference.

That is quite correct.

I want to raise the whole question of the Richards Bay line. Firstly, I wish to cover the subject of the railway line to Richards Bay and then the situation of the harbour itself. I am sure hon members are aware that the capacity of the Richards Bay line was increased to take additional coal exports which have never materialised at all. Neither are they likely to materialise in the foreseeable future. The cost of the doubling up of capacity was enormous and the result has been that we are now faced with a situation where somebody has to pay for this doubling up. Regrettably it seems that the major users of the line, the coal exporters, are having to bear the brunt, with the result that the whole coal industry is threatened, and therefore in jeopardy. Less than a year ago the railage rate from the Transvaal coalfields, depending of course on the station of origin, was in the region of R12 per ton. In September 1987 proposals were put forward— at that stage they were proposals—which would have meant that this tariff would be raised by roughly 88%—and this varied very slightly, depending on the station of origin. Because of representations that were made immediately by the coal companies, continuing negotiations have taken place. I know that the hon the Minister, together with the hon the Minister of Finance and another member of the Cabinet constitute the committee which discussed this and I believe that a compromise solution has been arrived at. However, I must also add that this compromise is regarded as far from satisfactory by the coalmining companies which are still threatened.

Coal exporters have had a lot to contend with. Firstly, political sanctions have meant that countries like Denmark, France, the United States, Holland, Norway, Sweden, Korea and other Far Eastern countries have forbidden the importation of coal from South Africa. Japan, a big user of our coal, has pegged the level of importation because apparently it has become embarrassed at the fact that it has become South Africa’s top trading partner.

Apart from sanctions, the competition has become much more fierce. The Chinese have come into the picture, and they have been marketing coal at a price which indicates that the earning of foreign currency is more important to them than covering costs of production. The same thing applies to the Columbians, the South Americans. Countries such as Australia and Canada have delighted in sanctions because they can take advantage of the market gap that has been created.

A further problem confronting the coal exporters has been our high rate of inflation compared with that of many of our trading partners. Costs of production have escalated enormously, and the selling price has not; in fact, just the opposite has happened. There has been a definite softening of the cost price of coal in US dollar terms.

Some of South Africa’s coal exporting mines have been losing money. I was alarmed to read in Business Day of Thursday, 25 February, the interim report of the Trans-Natal Coal Corporation Limited. The chairman of this company comments that the dramatic plunge in the earnings of his company can be attributable to the factors that I have already mentioned, among others, but he also says:

He adds:

It seems to be a ridiculous situation that it costs more to rail coal from the mines to the ocean carriers than it does to get it out of the ground. I think it is important to stress that it is not only the Trans-Natal Coal Company that finds itself in this situation. The whole industry is under threat. Mines such as the Ermelo mine, for example, have had to curtail production enormously.

Most of the adverse factors affecting exports are things that we can do nothing about unless, of course, we improve South Africa’s international image by getting rid of this Government. That might be a very good idea. [Interjections.] Short of that, the only cost factor that we can do anything about is the cost of railage.

I think we should take a look at why we made a decision to double up capacity on the Richards Bay line, because it is this decision which caused the SATS to invest heavily with borrowed money, increasing capacity which is now not needed. The line capacity is nearly twice that of the coal we can actually export, but exporters have to carry the penal burden—and it is a penal burden—of the costs of new capacity that they are not using. Figures show that in 1986 40,3 million tons were exported through Richards Bay while the 1987 figure was 37,8 million tons. The projected estimate for this year, 1988, seems to indicate that the tonnage might well be below the 1987 figure. Yet we have a line with a capacity of probably 70 million tons. I think the official figure is 64 million tons, but it could probably take more.

I know that it is very easy to be wise after the event but I am told that before a decision to increase capacity beyond 44 million tons was taken the existing exporters opposed the increase because they felt that it would not be beneficial to the industry. The decision was finally made by Parliament in September 1981 as a result, firstly, of recommendations by the SATS themselves which had investigated it during 1979 and 1980; and secondly, because of somewhat euphoric demands from provisional export allocation holders.

These were people who were not actually exporting; they were people in companies who were hopeful of becoming exporters in the future rather than actual exporters who were very much more familiar with the real situation. I have had feedback from these exporters to the effect that they were not adequately consulted at the time, but nevertheless the SATS went full steam ahead largely because of projections from the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs. The feeling persists that the SATS plan in a vacuum and talk only to Pretoria rather than consulting with their customers.

There is no doubt at all that the coal exporting industry is under considerable threat. The possible closing of mines is on the horizon and large retrenchments of personnel have already taken place. I do not believe that this hon Minister—or the Cabinet, because it is totally their responsibility—has adequately addressed the problem. I think there is a very real danger of the complete ruin of the industry unless urgent action is taken. Coal is South Africa’s largest export after gold, and damage to this industry is damage not only to the people involved but to all of South Africa. The socio-economic consequences and large-scale unemployment could of course lead to further political pressure. I am sure the hon the Minister appreciates that.

It is not only that. The collapse of the industry could have a major effect on the SATS itself because the coal export business provides a very large chunk of the SATS revenue. I believe the figure for the 1987-88 year is likely to be nearly R800 million. One must not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. The loss of even a portion of that revenue could be disastrous, and I believe that there is a possibility that this could happen unless something is done to ensure that a more reasonable tariff is applied. The compromise that has been agreed to—it is not public knowledge, I know—does help the situation …

You are making it up.

I am not, not at all. I believe it is marginal and the situation could get worse rather than better, because the other factors which I have detailed are affecting the industry badly.

I come back to a viewpoint that has often been expressed from these benches. I believe that the inflation accounting methods used by the SATS when it comes to amortisation are unfair and inflationary in themselves and have an adverse effect on the economy as a whole.

The present rail user is paying for future costs rather than for the present service he is getting. With regard to the Richards Bay line, in particular, there is a double burden because the user is paying not only, for the cost of future replacement and future maintenance in an inflationary situation, but also, because of a grave miscalculation and error of judgement, for unused capacity. I believe that this hon Minister must heed a very solemn warning to look at accounting procedures with regard to rates of depreciation because the consequences of not doing so could be disastrous.

This is obviously not a total answer. The interest burden on the loans financing the whole Richards Bay operation is enormous. It is completely unfair to expect existing users to pay for something they did not ask for and which they are not using, but this is what the SATS is demanding. The actual operating costs on the line are very good indeed and a credit to the SATS management in that they are very reasonable and very low. However, the interest on capital involved is crippling. It has been suggested that a proportion of the loans should be converted into permanent capital requiring no servicing, and I would like the hon the Minister to react to this suggestion.

Treasury will just have to react more favourably to representations made in this matter because of the far-reaching consequences if they do not. I want to try to drive home to this hon Minister that what has been done by way of compromise is not adequate, and he must look at long-term solutions which will enable the industry to operate on a firm and sound footing.

I want now to deal with another matter and this concerns Richards Bay harbour and how it has dealt with chrome exports. I am sure the hon the Minister is aware of the totally unsatisfactory situation that obtained towards the end of last year and during January of this year, and to a lesser extent, February. The position has now improved tremendously due to very praiseworthy emergency action taken by management, but there was a time when ships wanting to load chrome ore were left waiting for up to 21 days before berths and loading facilities became available.

There is a great deal more traffic going through the port as a result, I am told, of a marketing campaign to encourage customers to use Richards Bay. However, it appears to me that the SATS did not adequately research the aftereffects resulting from this substantial increase in traffic and were to a certain extent caught with their pants down. The situation has been made worse because various improved facilities have not been made available on time—I refer in particular to the area between berth 703 and 703 extension where a new loading appliance should already be in operation. If this facility had come on stream in time, many of the problems experienced would have fallen away. I would like to ask the hon the Minister why this delay occurred, who is responsible and whether the SATS will be able to recover as a result.

There also appears to be a major problem with regard to the new berths 704, 705 and 706 where a major construction or design problem exists. I believe it is slowly sliding into the sea. They are unlikely to be usable for some months when they should have been in operation last year. What is happening in this regard and who is responsible? What are the cost implications to the administration? These two major problems have had very serious effects and again the problems of those who have to market our mineral exports are made worse. Customers demand deliveries on time, and port delays, apart from being very expensive in terms of ship waiting time, have an adverse effect on our suppliers’ reputation for reliability. One of the things the chrome exporters have done is built up a reputation for reliability.

Mineral exports are our lifeblood. I am sure everybody in this House understands that. Anything which upsets the supply position is very serious indeed. I was shocked to hear for example that the Baltic International Maritime Conference, BIMCO—one of the big international conferences—had issued a precautionary warning in their international bulletin to all shipowners intending to use Richards Bay, advising them of these delays. Now that is not the sort of reputation the SATS harbour operation would want to get.

Producers have found themselves in the situation where they have been unable to meet delivery dates to customers. This sort of thing plays havoc with marketing and sales operations as far as customers abroad are concerned.

South Africa just cannot afford this sort of thing. Although I understand the situation is now much better, largely because of the introduction of a new booking system, chrome ore exports are going through a seasonal slack period at the moment as producers wait for the second quarter prices. However, there is no doubt at all that exports should step up again in April. There is again going to be tremendous pressure then and I hope that the actions taken to avoid excessive delays will work adequately to cope with increased traffic.

Finally I want to say to the hon the Minister that in talking to people in the industry to get an update on the present situation as I have been doing in the past couple of days, I have been discouraged to hear how many of their customers have reacted most unfavourably to recent actions taken by this Government. I refer to the bannings and restrictions that have taken place. One man told me this morning that he had heard from one of his customers in the United States about the action taken against the clerics before he heard the news locally.

They are not clerics— they are politicians.

It makes the task of selling South African products more and more difficult all the time.

I must agree with the hon member for Houghton that it seems sometimes as if this Government has a death wish for South Africa.

Mr Chairman, it is with disappointment that I am standing up in this House this afternoon. Following on the hon member for Bryanston I should like to know from the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central whether he did not convey the agreement we reached in the standing committee on this sensitive issue. [Interjections.] It is a very sensitive issue and I wonder if this is once again not the manifestation of a feeling of unconcern about patriotism and the best interests of this country. [Interjections.]

*I should also like to admonish the gentlemen of the Transvaal Coal Owners’ Association. It was brought to our attention on the standing committee by our chairman and the General Manager that talks were currently being held on these sensitive issues between these gentlemen—I do not wish to mention their names in this House— the management and the hon the Minister. This matter is most sensitive to this country, which is in the grip of sanctions. They were to regard the matter as confidential and we were requested not to raise it in this House. Consequently I was deeply shocked to read on the front page of the Business Times on Sunday that the gentlemen of the Transvaal Coal Owners’ Association— TCOA—had broached this matter. I wonder whether this was fair of them. Do they want the management of SATS and the hon the Minister in turn to reveal their hands as well? We are not serving the best interests of South Africa in this way.

I want to thank the hon member for Roodepoort as the main speaker of the Official Opposition for keeping to this arrangement, because this serves the best interests of our country. I do not think this type of debate is necessary in the present situation in which our country finds itself, where the entire world wants to cut off our sources of supply and simultaneously unleash the forces of hell upon us.

I should like to come back to a more important and a pleasanter matter. The hon member for Primrose and other hon members have already done this, but I should like to pay tribute to SATS employees. We want to tell them as a group that we in this House have noticed what they have achieved in the past few years—the professionalism, from the lowest grade to general management, and how the status of the SATS employee has risen in the community during the past few years. This was not simply handed to those people on a platter, Mr Chairman; they worked for it.

Approximately 3 200 SATS employees live in my constituency. I am aware of the dedication with which they set about their task. Twenty years ago a stigma attached to SATS employees, the stigma of “if one cannot find work anywhere else in this country, one can always apply to the Railways”. They have rid themselves of that stigma.

When we discuss this I think we should take a look at what these people have achieved. If one looks at labour costs, expressed as a percentage of the component of input costs in the SATS budget, one will see that it was 38% in the 1982-83 financial year. This was reduced to 35,8% in the 1987-88 financial year. As regards rail services, the net tons per kilometre handled by each member of staff was just below 400 tons in the 1982-83 financial year. In the 1987-88 financial year this had risen to approximately 520 tons. At present this is expected to increase to 640 tons per member of staff for the 1988-89 financial year.

Let us look at the number of staff members again. If we express these numbers for June 1982 as 100 index points, the staff component was approximately 76% to 78% during June 1987. With a reduced staff component the SATS employee is still providing the same product and I think he is even more sophisticated than he was three years ago.

I now want to come to the hon the Minister’s announcement that there are to be no general salary increases for SATS employees this year. I do not wish to criticise the hon the Minister for this. I am in complete agreement with him if I look at the greater objectives in the long term. I did not establish exactly what percentage increases employees were granted and precisely how many times this took place, but with every increase over the past 10 years the SATS employee, like all other employees in the Government sector, told one after receiving his first salary cheque that it did not help him at all because the increase moved him into a higher tax bracket and Checkers and the OK had also raised their prices in anticipation. I wish to thank the hon the Minister and the hon the State President for appealing to the loyalty of our people, their loyalty to this country, in order to try to limit inputs in this way.

I can also appreciate the frustrations of SATS workers as manifested in meetings held by the Federation of Trade Unions in some of the large centres. Here I associate myself with the hon member for Primrose. The percentage of these people, as part of the entire component, is trifling.

I was shocked when I read the Sunday Times on Sunday. If the SATS had increased tariffs and staff salaries, the Sunday Times would have been brimful of criticism. We all know the expressions they usually employ—perceptionalisations like “gravy train” and so on. Imagine my surprise when I could not find a single word about this in that newspaper. I really scrutinised it a few times. There was not even a mention anywhere that something was at least being done now to curb rising costs or the inflation spiral. Nothing, Sir. Not a word.

SATS workers and employees of the other Government bodies have their suspicions that the private sector granted their personnel salary increases as early as January in anticipation of this budget. They obviously did not call them increases, but adjustments. I am not a socialist at all but I nevertheless appeal to the private sector to show their loyalty to this country in this regard as well.

The great frustration experienced by SATS employees is not to be found in the fact that there will be no general increase in their salaries this year. It lies in their fear, their suspicion, that the private sector is not going to play the game. On behalf of SATS employees in particular I should like to give the private sector a friendly warning today, especially when it comes to price increases. People in my constituency have told me they will watch the private sector. They have instructed their wives to keep an eye on prices. We have seen a great many things happening in East London. I shall not be in the least surprised if those people are castigated when they resort to unfair price rises to lower the standard of living of SATS people.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of the Bill under discussion.

Mr Chairman, I regret the fact that a motion of no confidence in the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs is impossible to move at this stage because I believe that his and his party’s handling of the Transport Affairs portfolio deserves at least that. I would therefore like to recommend that at least this House votes that the salary of the hon the Minister be cut by 50% for the coming financial year. [Interjections.]

Before I come to the reasons for my criticism in respect of the hon the Minister I should like to react to the hon member for Primrose and his snide remark regarding the possibility of a bullettrain service. To a question I put in this House last year in relation to whether or not an investigation had been carried out into the possible institution of an express train service between our major labour-pool areas and our major industrialised areas, I was given a flat no reply. I therefore ask the hon member for Primrose, in view of this, how he can make snide remarks about a bullet train. He does not know whether it is going to work or not because he does not even go to the trouble of establishing whether there is a need for or the possibility of this type of operation. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I venture to state that Black commuters prefer to use a quick, safe SAR system from their place of residence to where they work to subjecting themselves to the rather hazardous practice of minibus taxi operators. An express train service could even have the additional benefit of encouraging more Black workers to live at home and commute by train to work each day. It would also certainly ensure that the swamping of our urban areas would be reduced. The reduction in the need for housing and other services would also be considerable, to say nothing of the benefits that would be enjoyed.

Sir, I want to refer now to the question of privatisation or, as I call it, the sell-out of assets paid for by White taxpayers’ money. [Interjections.]

I know that this is greeted with much derision by that side of the House. Those hon members tell me I may not put a colour to tax money, and yet they establish what racial group pays which amount of tax and then allocate the revenue on a racial basis. How can they put a colour to the tax money that they allocate if I may not put a colour to the money of tax received? [Interjections.]

I want to go further. I am very glad the hon member for Yeoville is here because he is the person who, when I raised this whole question of White tax money and White taxpayers’ assets, stood up in this House and made the accusation that I was the biggest racist this Parliament had ever seen. [Interjections.] I am glad to hear that his colleagues echo his comments. [Interjections.]

Trying to get Press headline treatment, the hon member for Yeoville also asked me whether I was a member of the AWB. I ask him in turn whether he belongs to an elitist organisation called the Jewish Board of Deputies. If so, what are the aims of this organisation? [Interjections.] Is this organisation open to all people? [Interjections.] Furthermore. I want to ask whether that hon member was party to the pressure applied to a leading industrialist, Mr Tony Bloom, to resign as a member of that organisation because he had married a German woman.

I also want to ask him whether he had anything to do with preventing the hon member for Bezuidenhout from addressing the Knesset in Israel. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May I ask what those aspects have to do with a debate on transport affairs? [Interjections.]

Order! I have listened to the hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis. He may continue, but he must keep to the subject under discussion. [Interjections.]

Sir, I intend to do so. That hon member talks about freedom of speech, while he himself is not prepared to allow other people that same freedom. [Interjections.]

†I appeal to the hon member for Yeoville to stop this type of headline-seeking behaviour. [Interjections.] I challenge him to repeat outside the protection of this House his statement regarding my being the biggest racist. [Interjections.] Then we will allow the courts to decide whether the accusation is just or not. [Interjections.]

You have a big jaw.

Allow me to continue by referring to privatisation. Privatisation in South Africa is not and can never be effected in the same context as is the case in Britain, the successes of which are constantly thrown at us across the floor of this House. [Interjections.] In Britain, the government is privatising companies and institutions which were nationalised by the communist Labour Government. In South Africa, this Government wants to privatise what belongs to the White taxpayer. [Interjections.] There is a vast difference between the two approaches.

In addition, we have been assured by the hon the Minister of Finance that this will be done via the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, which is such a monopoly that four large corporations control 84% of the shares of all companies listed there. Bearing this in mind, there is no way that the hon the Minister can comply with the request of the hon member for Primrose that privatised elements be kept out of the hands of the private sector monopoly.

If we accept this fact, it will be interesting to see whether the hon member for Primrose will have the courage to support our opposition to the privatisation of, for example, the SAA. Will he buck his own establishment? With my knowledge of that hon member, I very much doubt that he will do so. [Interjections.]

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00

Evening Sitting

Mr Chairman, it is a great pity this evening that the CP is not running this country at the moment because, if one is to be guided by the majority we are heading for in Schweizer-Reneke and Standerton, it is quite obvious that our forecasting and planning is better than the forecasting and planning of the NP. [Interjections]

Order! The hon member must return to the Bill under discussion.

Before the supper break I was talking about the privatisation of the SAA. I cannot understand why a profitable organisation like the SAA needs to be privatised, particularly when one considers … [Interjections]

Order! No, we cannot start off like this. If we start off like this at eight, how will we end by ten-thirty? Hon members must please contain themselves.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. May I ask for injury time?

†When one compares the results of the SAA—in the past year they have achieved a profit of almost 7%—with major American airlines, which are making a profit of less than 3%, one cannot understand the motivation for taking a profitable enterprise, which keeps taxation or tariffs down, away from the SATS and giving it to the moneybags. They have enough, as it is, and our officials are quite capable of creating and continuing a profitable operation.

When one considers what the hon the Minister is doing to the officials of the SATS in forcing them into agreements for the chartering of aircraft through which we in South Africa suffer because of a shortage of services, the House will agree with me that it shows a serious lack of planning on the part of the hon the Minister. I refer in this regard to the answer I received to a question on 13 October 1987, regarding the number of delays in internal flights occurred during the months of July, August and September over a three year period.

When the charter operation came into being, we really started experiencing problems with the SAA. It is a shame to have to admit that it is actually embarrassing to me when overseas visitors criticize what used to be a very proud and efficient organisation, noted for its punctuality.

What is the situation now? Between 1986 and 1987 the number of delays which occurred in July rose from 341 to 590; that represents a 173% increase. In August the percentage increase was 198% and in September it was 290%. In addition the length of delays increased. They were not problems experienced with scheduling; the majority of delays resulted from technical problems and weather conditions, according to the reply which I received. It had nothing to do with the scheduling of aircraft and arose from the fact that bad planning by the hon Minister caused an inefficiency in the SAA which is not acceptable to the personnel of the SAA. It is disgraceful that they have to put up with that. [Interjections]

Mr Chairman, I wish to associate myself with the announcement made by our hon Minister on the washaways in the Karoo—especially in my constituency of De Aar and particularly in Noupoort, Britstown and that vicinity—and take the opportunity on behalf of SATS personnel, who to my knowledge are located at the two main junctions of De Aar and Noupoort and will have to handle this situation, of assuring the House that the lines will be repaired as soon as is humanly possible. The reason is that SATS staff located at these two points are proud of their work. They will take this opportunity of making their contributions under these circumstances as well, so that the system can be put at the service of the country again as soon as possible.

I also thank the department for its trouble and the work it did in assisting passengers trapped on trains as well as being of assistance to the postal service in the delivery of mail and parcels. This service ground to a halt in the centre of the country and the department also did its best to ensure that these services could be resumed as soon as possible.

I really cannot say that I follow the previous speaker with pleasure tonight. [Interjections.] What my hon colleague next to me is saying here is true. I jotted down that the hon member’s speech resembled a chicken’s tracks. I had hardly written one point when he had made another three points. [Interjections.] No, my slowness is not the issue; the issue is that they do not know what is happening. [Interjections.] It is a fact that in this debate, from the first speaker on the Opposition side who spoke about the SATS, they have groped and fumbled for points of criticism to level at this budget. They are not succeeding. The rhetoric used on privatisation was totally contradicted by the hon the deputy leader of the Official Opposition, the hon member for Lichtenburg, who said it was time to privatise. He took the large mining companies to task, but what he probably meant was socialisation instead of privatisation.

The point is that when these matters are discussed, I unfortunately have to say—I am not the cleverest person in the world nor do I pretend to be—that hon members of the Official Opposition participating in this debate on these matters do not know what is at issue. [Interjections.]

In the few minutes at my disposal I should prefer to turn to pleasanter matters. Items of expenditure for Railways are indicated on page 11 of the SATS memorandum. We find inter alia the item of motive power operating costs, which amounted to R815 million in 1984-85. The amount was R945,7 million in 1985-86 and R956,7 million in 1986-87. Motive power operating costs are influenced chiefly by three factors— labour, energy and maintenance costs. If we had rather confined ourselves in this debate to matters which could lead to optimal SATS achievements, we should have derived far more benefit from it than from listening to the type of comment from the Opposition side to which we have just been subjected. [Interjections.]

Labour costs are the highest cost elements in the SATS. I know previous speakers have said this, but I repeat with pride that labour costs as a percentage of total SATS operating costs declined between 1982 and 1987. The decline was from 38% to 35,2%. I wish to make this point very clear tonight. I know the SATS staff is proud of this. A very large component of the voters in my constituency are SATS personnel.

I take the trouble of going to those people and talking to them where they are, are working. I wear my overalls because like them I am also used to getting my hands covered in grease. I can talk to them and I can assure hon members tonight that those people take pride in working for the SATS; they are proud of SATS achievements. That is why we see motive power costs as a significant element of progress—hon members will see that the figure for 1986-87 represents a much smaller increase than that for the previous year. Assisted by the competitiveness, the effectiveness and the operating team that is the SATS personnel we shall continue to make a great success of this organisation.

The next component of these operating costs is power. Hon members are not to hold it against me if I speak about steam on this first Wednesday evening of the 1988 session. I see steam locomotives wherever I go. There is a romance associated with steam engines. I do not know about the “electric” children of today but children of long ago loved steam locomotives. Where could one find a finer sight on a cold winter’s morning than one of these huge old steam locomotives belching clouds of steam. Surely this is something we treasured in the past, which is unfortunately dying out today. What about the driver who went over his locomotive in a siding with his oil can and grease gun and saw to it that it was bright and shiny and all the grease boxes were full. Then he would get in, his stoker behind him on the tender, bring the big nozzle down, fill up with water and, when he had finished, blow his whistle and off he went. Those were pleasant days; we think of them with affection.

They were pleasant days when the old NP was still the old NP. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Losberg must not make such nonsensical interjections again. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, if that hon member’s pleasure has been curtailed now, I cannot help that.

In those days we spoke of “7 up” and “10 down”. It is a pity they are being phased out but we understand this. Eighty per cent of the steam locomotives used in South Africa were imported from Britain. I also remember the class 23 and class 25 Henschel locomotives imported from Germany. The class 25 locomotive is the world’s largest nonarticulated locomotive. Now members of the Official Opposition must not ask me what an articulated locomotive is because surely they are articulated themselves; the AWB forms the head and the CP the body. That is articulation. [Interjections.]

There were countless records in the days of the steam locomotive. In 1948 we were almost entirely steam-driven—there were 2 500 steam locomotives in the country at the time. We had to import special equipment and especially the locomotives because we have a narrower-gauge line in South Africa than that of Europe. There was a good reason for this. The line passes over mountains here and there are difficult sections. A locomotive and train on a narrower-gauge line can negotiate tight bends and climb steep hills more easily than is the case on a wider gauge. This is what prompted the design of the system, which I found to be very interesting information. Such trains could negotiate much sharper bends. I travel by train a great deal; and when I travel over the Hex River mountains I can see how many sharp bends the train negotiates.

I find it pleasant to talk about this; it provides a little diversion and puts a different complexion on the debate.

The first electrified service was introduced in 1925 on the Glencoe-Mooi River section. In 1928 the suburban service in the Peninsula was electrified. The electrified service on the Witwatersrand began in 1937 and the same year saw the electrification of the Durban-Volksrust main line. Electricity began to gain ground when that section of main line was electrified.

Diesel came much later. Experimental diesel trains were first used in 1939 and the importance of diesel was confirmed in 1958.

In the early seventies a committee was appointed to phase steam out as a tractive force. In the early eighties the end of the steam era dawned because it was then decided that we would have to convert to different traction because of the cost factor.

The principal town in my constituency, De Aar, was famous for its steam depot. All kinds of locomotives were repaired there. It had a large steam locomotive yard but at present there are fewer such locomotives because this work now has to be done at Kimberley and Bloemfontein. We are in the process of up-grading the diesel subdepot at De Aar into an intermediate repair depot for diesel locomotives. Existing facilities for diesel mechanical engineering are being used and supplemented by the additional capacity of the electrical workshop.

I should like to draw hon members’ attention to motive power costs. If one considers this carefully, one will understand why we are gradually phasing out steam in this country. I should like to mention running and maintenance costs to hon members. Running costs in respect of steam are R2,78 per unit-kilometre and maintenance costs R8,38 per unit-kilometre. Diesel running costs are R2,78 per unit-kilometre and maintenance costs are R1,8 per unit-kilometre. Running costs for electric locomotives are R0,79 per unit-kilometre and maintenance costs are R0,78 per unitkilometre. Maintenance costs of a class 34 GE diesel locomotive are R78 916 per annum, those of a class 25 NC steam locomotive R133 294 per annum. Maintenance costs of a class 6 EI electric locomotive are R73 902 per annum and those of a class 6E electric locomotives R47 384 per annum. Consequently it is understandable why in this era as far as the SATS are concerned we are converting sections of line to electricity.

There is a single remaining section of line in my constituency which depends on steam. This is the section between De Aar and Kimberley.

Hear, hear!

In spite of the costs I have mentioned I am aware that it is much cheaper to operate steam trains on that specific section than the average cost for the country of operating steam trains. I feel I must ask the hon the Minister to allow us to retain that section for steam locomotives as long as possible. Steam locomotives create additional job opportunities; they bring back a little romance to the SATS with a little romance and attract foreign visitors and steam enthusiasts. There is a little station at Belmont and another at Witput. There is a tiny hotel at the Kraankuil station where people come to photograph passing trains emitting clouds of white steam in the winter. I think the hon the Minister will understand this. We should like to retain and develop this source of tourism we have in the Upper Karoo. It is a privilege for me to support this budget.

Mr Chairman, I take great pleasure in following the hon member for De Aar. I think his speech tonight brought back something of the Sporie van Rensburg tradition. Like all other hon members I obviously wish to associate myself with what he said in connection with the people who had suffered losses and damage in his constituency. Although I am not following directly upon an Opposition speaker, I should like to make some reference to the hon member for South Coast who was guilty of a grave error of reasoning here this afternoon when he tried to get at the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central on the provincial pension scheme.

That is normal.

Yes, that is normal. The point is merely that in that case it does not mean buying back a pension because those people all served as representatives on the council in question.

The principle of buying back does not apply in this House.

Your chaps are making many mistakes.

No, that is not a mistake. We can discuss these matters like adults.

The charge is constantly being made against this side of the House and the Government that reform, renewal and change have ground to a halt, that we have no plans and do not know what to do. All those people also agree that political, social and economic affairs are intermingled and interdependent. The allegation that we are doing nothing is of course completely absurd, especially if we view this SATS appropriation in the right light. As the hon the Minister said with complete justification in his Second Reading speech, we are dealing here with the setting up of beacons along the path of change.

There is in fact no better example of the economic change already brought about than the SATS. There is a change of approach and a change in the entire fabric of this undertaking. These adjustments have been going on for some years as a result of the White Paper and also the inquiries carried out by Dr De Villiers. This process has merely received new momentum now because of the hon the State President’s opening address.

This evening I wish to refer briefly to the change that has occurred in the area in which the SATS has to conduct its affairs. This changed dramatically, especially the climate of competition in which the various transport media components had to operate. A shift took place concerning the free competition they had to contend with and there were many other dramatic changes.

This change in the state of the market resulted in historic structures of management being unable to comply with all the requirements of the times, and the emphasis therefore had to change. It was decided, as any other large conglomerate in the private sector does, to make various business undertakings like the railways, airways, pipeline and others autonomous, under an overall group management. This should contribute to better management and service and above all to intensified profitability as a result of improved productivity. Business principles of profit and returns on capital are being applied far more meticulously now. In accordance with the hon the Minister’s statements the SATS is directed at those areas where we already have a competitive edge.

This process has already been taking place for several years. Other speakers referred to the fact that there had been a 30% reduction in staff over the past six years, and, of course this is an enormous achievement for this side of the House too. The officials are deserving of the praise they receive.

I think the hon the Minister acted quite correctly, in view of further imminent deregulation and privatisation, in assuring employees that their position would not be adversely affected, that they would in fact not lose anything and would emerge as winners.

I wish to agree with the hon member for Primrose who said that we should ensure that there was no uncertainty at all in this regard. The hon the Minister indicated in a Press report carried by Beeld that present employees would have preference. Aspects such as pension schemes, salaries, medical funds and other services would all be taken into account because privatisation would only succeed if employees were enthusiastic about it. I am in complete agreement with him because certain other secondary business units such as workshops were also identified in this whole programme.

As the hon the Minister knows, excellent work is being done for the SATS and the country in its spanking new workshops at Cuyler Manor in my constituency, and tonight I should like to pay tribute to those workers and artisans. I think it essential not to prejudice the present employee’s position in this process. That is the Government’s premise. On the other hand, any prospective employee of SATS is being informed now of this new market into which we are moving, of the shift in emphasis and the competition which not only the SATS will have to face but also its staff.

Any business undertaking moves through stages of development which are caused by changes taking place in its sphere of operations. We all know that in bygone days the outspan was the focal point of business activities in the town. When the horse and buggy disappeared, those outspans in many cases became the central business districts of those towns because they were valuable immovable property that was no longer being used and which could then be utilised for that purpose. The SATS is extremely fortunate in that it owns very valuable real estate. It is often situated in most strategic positions and on the basis of investigations conducted by the SATS itself is unutilised or underutilised. A few years ago we piloted legislation in that regard through Parliament and this now enables the SATS to put these valuable assets to proper use.

Property development and planning is an interesting, specialised and extremely profitable operation which obviously involves many other disciplines as well. These activities actually fall outside the primary purpose and function of the SATS and consequently I wish to propose to the hon the Minister that very high priority be given to property development. The hon the Minister must also be more than aware of many examples of comparable situations in other countries. I should like to refer you to a British Rail publication entitled Facts and Figures 1986/87.

†On page 1 of this publication reference is made to the newly established British Rail Property Board, and its terms of reference are summarised as follows:

This pamphlet goes on to indicate what exactly British Rail got out of their property development. As far as sales are concerned, it states:

As far as development is concerned, it goes on to say:

It is significant that the net letting income alone is in excess of £54 million and the total gross cash contribution to the British Railways Board was £130 million.

*We are referring to a very large business undertaking here. I am sure the same applies to us. I have been informed that the estimated value of unutilised SATS land amounts to R177 million. I think this estimate is of course far too low. Nevertheless this is totally irrelevant for purposes of this discussion. We have valuable property which has to be used correctly; which has to be put to proper use.

All of us here are aware of the development already being envisaged in Cape Town and on the Witwatersrand and those officials involved in this venture at present are accomplishing an enormous task. I understand further that a subdivision for business undertakings has been established at the SATS head office specifically to deal with this business development and other aspects. You see, Mr Chairman, a particular style of management is required here because we are operating in a volatile, risky and very specialised sphere of the economy. We can obviously do such business if we cultivate a particular style of management. That style of management will be able to assist inter alia in speedier decision-making and direct contact. I think this will be essential.

Consequently I should like to suggest to the hon the Minister that a permanent regional organisation be established, not only to identify properties for sale—as is the case at present where there are regional committees which see to this matter on an ad hoc basis—but also in the form of regional offices which can liaise directly with head office or with the business undertakings in question.

As I have said, speedy decision-making is one of the cornerstones of successful property development. If this new structure is created and if the hon the Minister agrees with me, I think we have a very great source of future income for the SATS here, especially from unutilised land. I also believe there is a variety of ways in which this income may be realised in addition to direct sales on the property market. I think this is an aspect which will in future make an extremely important contribution to the vitality of the transport industry in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I take great pleasure in speaking after the hon member for Uitenhage. In the first place I want to thank him most sincerely and express my appreciation for his reaction to the accusation in connection with pensions for members of provincial councils. I feel it is just a pity that we do not see such examples in this House more often. This applies to all parties in this House. I feel that if we can co-operate with one another in this way, we can be assured of a better future in this country.

Hear, hear!

Mr Chairman, I also think that the hon member for Uitenhage’s speech had a great deal to it. I could understand what he was trying to tell us. I think it is important that the land in South Africa which belongs to the SATS—a tremendous amount of land in many of our towns and cities—should be used for development. If that land can be sold and can therefore be turned into cash, I believe that this can make a tremendous contribution towards the economic development of our country.

Mr Chairman, it is also a pleasure for me to refer to the speech of the hon member for De Aar. He and the hon member for Uitenhage are both members of Parliament who represent so-called railway towns in this House. Although I do not represent a railway constituency here I nevertheless grew up in a railway town—Beaufort West, the neighbouring town of the hon member for De Aar. Consequently I know the people of the SATS very well. I can remember the engine driver with his oil can, the wheel tapper, etc.

What is more, in our railway town the men of the SATS always had the prettiest girls. [Interjections.] That was why the railway suburb of Beaufort West was so fantastic and important to us as young people. [Interjections.]

Did your brother work for the railways?

Mr Chairman, I am glad the hon member for Parow asked me that question. Yes, my eldest brother—that is why I can say far more about the SATS—was one of the first qualified mechanical engineers who worked for the SATS from the time he gained his BSc until the day he retired. He started as a mechanic. He started working here in the Salt River workshops.

Was he the fellow with the pretty girls? [Interjections.]

Yes, and he had many girlfriends too. [Interjections.] I would like the hon member to listen attentively now because it is important to talk about this. It is also interesting to mention that the first heart valve in South Africa was manufactured in the SATS workshop in Salt River. It was manufactured by my eldest brother and his fellow workers. Just over 20 years ago we manufactured that first heart valve in South Africa at a cost of R75. At the moment we import heart valves for between R3 000 and R4 000 each. That is the difference which has arisen in the interim. This shows how unfortunate it is that we did not continue with the production of those valves at that stage. Today organisation like the SATS could easily have had a share in the manufacture of these important medical aids. We have the experts in the SATS who can do this kind of thing.

†It is less pleasant to react to the speech of the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis. He tried to attack my colleague, the hon the Minister for Yeoville. [Interjections.] I sure you will understand, Sir, that that slip of the tongue merely indicated that the hon member for Yeoville should be a Minister!

The hon member Mr Derby-Lewis said that the Jewish Board of Deputies had been responsible for the resignation of Mr Tony Bloom from that board. I would like to put on record that that has been proved untrue.

Is that so?

Yes, that is so. I do not think the hon member knows the difference between what is true and what is untrue.

It appeared in the Press and nobody denied it.

The hon member also said that the Jewish Board of Deputies prevented the hon member for Hillbrow from speaking at the Knesset.

I did not say that. [Interjections.]

I meant the hon member for Bezuidenhout.

I did not say anything like that at all. Read my Hansard and you will see what I said.

He also referred to the Jewish Board of Deputies as an elite group. I think that what he said in his speech confirmed the statement of the hon member for Yeoville that he is a racist, because he referred to this board as an elite group.

It is an exclusive group. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Parktown is digressing too much from the subject. I am allowing him to do so within limits because I listened to the speech of the hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis and it would be unfair not to permit him to reply to it. The hon member must be brief on this point.

I will be very brief, Sir. My final point regarding this matter is that I have been associated with many people on the Jewish Board of Deputies and many other organisations, and I have always found them to be true South Africans. [Interjections.] I would like the hon member to listen to me. They are honourable people working for the benefit of South Africa in every way, and I reject his insinuations tonight. I will stop there.

Whoever said they were not? [Interjections.]

I would like to refer briefly to privatisation. The hon member Mr Derby-Lewis spoke at length about the privatisation of the SAA. I would like to ask him or any hon member belonging to his party a question. Are they against all privatisation in South Africa, or just that of the SAA?

We are opposed to privatisation in the South African sense.

He refers to privatisation in the South African sense. Let us analyse that. Is the CP in favour of South African railway workers having their own medical scheme and private doctors?

That is not my field. You could answer that.

He says it is not his field. The hon the Minister’s department was one of the first organisations in South Africa to privatise something. They privatised the medical care of the transport services employees, and we all accepted that and applauded it. I would like to ask those hon members, and in particular the hon member for Pietersburg, whether the CP stands for a national health service or for a private health service. [Interjections.]

You are talking about service as opposed to an asset.

That is the problem. One must have a consistent policy on a matter. I would say that the privatisation of the health services of the SATS in the form of Transmed has proved to be an unbelievable improvement in the health care of our transport workers.

Now I want to address the hon the Minister and his department about pharmacies and Transmed. Transmed is a medical scheme that enables the railway workers to go to the doctor of their choice. I believe that includes private doctors. The same organisation has 58 pharmacies. Why do they have these pharmacies? I asked this question in the committee. They say they have them because they can supply medicine at cheaper prices if they own these pharmacies. Then why do they not continue with railway doctors? Surely they can do that as well? Railway doctors are cheaper than the equivalent free enterprise service. Yet the principle is only applied to pharmacies and not to medical services.

The hon the Minister must tell me whether this is being consistent.

A lot has been said here about the non-increase in tariffs this year. We all applauded and were very happy about it. Let us look at the reason. We have also spoken about the increase in the number of passengers on the SAA. What is the reason for this? It is interesting to note that this all happened—this non-increase in tariffs and the increase in air passengers that we cannot cope with—in the first year that the hon Minister banned smoking on the SAA. Is that not interesting? I would therefore like to tell the hon the Minister that he knows he did the right thing.

I know that members of the Cabinet gave him a hard time. [Interjections] We hear all these stories! We know that the hon the Leader of the House is one of them! The hon Leader of the House has aspirations of becoming the next State President. If he becomes the State President, I will personally appoint a photographer to take a picture of the State President smoking wherever he goes. We will put it in the newspapers so that it will discourage …

You are getting personal now!

No, it is not personal. I think it is important that people in the Cabinet should set an example to South Africa. The hon the Minister of Transport Affairs has taken this step and we all applaud him for it because he has done a tremendous thing for health in South Africa.

I want to quote from a letter by Dr J B Higgins, executive director of the South African Association for the Promotion of Health, Kempton Park: “Three cheers for Mr Eli Louw”.

There were tremendous attacks, but it is working. I am sure that when hon members now travel in a South African aircraft, they find it is a completely different place. It smells different, one can breathe and it is wonderful.

The hon the Minister must just go a little bit further. He must now see to it that the advertisements are removed from his airports and his railway stations. That hon Minister took the first step and struck the first blow in the Cabinet to control the dangerous habit of smoking. The hon Minister must see how they are advertising cigarettes and smoking. A couple of years ago I asked the previous Minister why they did this. He said they got money for it.

Every year 13 000 people die from diseases related to smoking. Every year 3 500 people die from lung cancer. The incidence of lung cancer is increasing. Serious steps must be taken against this in South Africa. That hon Minister had the courage, and I know that the Farmers’ Association have gone to see him, as did the pilots, who consider the prohibition on smoking dangerous. The same thing happened in Australia.

That hon Minister took a step which everyone should emulate, and we appreciate it. The people who use those aircraft all praise this step. Now all he need do is remove those deadly advertisements from the premises and give South Africans an opportunity to rid themselves of this habit.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Parktown made a fervent plea for cigarette advertisements to be banned from the airports. I suspect that later on he will want them to be banned from every other public place in South Africa. The hon member certainly advanced a very sound argument when he contended that smoking was the cause of many lung diseases and that thousands of people die of such diseases every year. I do not want to argue with the hon member about that because he is right. I myself do not smoke. Like the hon member, I use to smoke, but I reached the stage at which I realised that I would be doing the right thing if I gave up that habit.

I want to tell the hon member that the experiment the SAA conducted with the banning of smoking was undoubtedly a success. There can be no doubt about that. I am of the opinion that the travelling public welcomed it, despite the fact that certain airmen thought it was perhaps too drastic and that it could be dangerous, as the hon member pointed out. All that was correct.

I want to point out to the hon member, however, that when it comes to advertisements one does not have to do only with the smoking of cigarettes. Surely one also has to do with other habit-forming things which can be just as dangerous. Is the hon member proposing, then, that one should not ban only the advertisements of cigarettes but also advertisements like “Down a Lion” as well as other alcohol-related advertisements? [Interjections.] Those habit-forming practices can be just as dangerous as smoking. The hon member is a medical man who has done a lot of research and who has played a wonderful part in this regard, and I am sure that he will not disagree with me that there are a lot of people, including young people, who have lost a lot of their physical strength because of their abuse of alcohol. Is the hon member proposing that we put a stop to all such advertisements?

Yes!

I find that strange. The hon member has just made a plea for a ban on smoking, but not with regard to other habits. I expect that the hon member will do that as well at some or other stage.

I shall discuss that with you over a few drinks! [Interjections.]

I just want to tell the hon member for Parktown that he certainly made a good contribution, and that he did so in a relaxed manner. Unfortunately, I was not present at the discussion this afternoon, but I had hoped that the hon member would also tell us, as many other commentators did, that this Budget of the hon the Minister is an outstanding one considering the current circumstances in South Africa. I would have expected that hon member—he must surely be just as concerned about the inflation factor in South Africa—to say that this is a step in the right direction in the combating of inflation in South Africa. However, he rode his hobby horse again, viz what is happening with regard to inflation, and that is not the thing in which most South Africans are interested.

I want to congratulate the hon the Minister and the SATS on the Budget that has been introduced. For the first time the announcement that tariffs will not be increased is being generally welcomed. This is not the first time that tariffs have not been increased; I can recall that it happened in the past. It is, however, a move which has been welcomed in recent times by commerce, industry and agriculture. The entire private sector welcomed this Budget because they realise it is an attempt to combat inflation.

In the past the SATS was often the prey or the patient of the tremendous increase in inflation in the country. The SATS often had to adjust its tariffs because of full-scale inflation. We have built up a considerable deficit over the years. Unless something drastic is done to remedy the situation the deficit will amount to between R600 million and R700 million by the end of next year. As a result of the high rate of inflation which has been brought about by a tremendous increase in the price of petrol, an increase in labour costs and an increase in the cost of other services used by the SATS—this includes services rendered by the private sector—we have often had to adjust our tariffs. We had to compensate for that inflation. We run a grave risk in this regard and there is often not much appreciation for that. A loss of R96 million is expected during the new financial year. The SATS runs the risk of increasing liabilities. It is taking an enormous risk in order to set an example for the public of South Africa and for the businessman, the industrialist, namely that one cannot combat inflation in South Africa unless one is prepared to make sacrifices. Our first great sacrifice is the fact that we are increasing our own debt liability, and that is surely something in respect of which we shall have to shoulder a greater financial burden.

My next point is that once we have made this sacrifice we still have to make a sacrifice in respect of our employees. We all know that they too suffered the consequences of inflation during the past few years. Now the hon the Minister and his executive come along and say they are very sorry but no matter how good a case the employees may have, they cannot be granted salary and wage increases, except for that small percentage of employees who may receive notch adjustments. Once again the SATS is taking a tremendous risk, but at the same time it is setting a very strong example for the rest of South Africa.

The SATS is probably the largest business enterprise in South Africa and it has an enormous capital reserve. It will cost trillions of rands to replace everything that the SATS has built up, if that should become necessary. The SATS has set that example for the rest of South Africa. My plea, then, is that we should not be alone in this, and the hon the Minister agrees with me completely in this regard. We need to have the private sector follow our example.

There have been too many public companies in the past year which have increased their profits by more than 300% over the previous year. This is reflected in their annual reports. Some companies have shown an increase in profit of 25%, and others as much as 30%, 50% and 60%. What are they prepared to plough back in this fight against inflation in South Africa? We should like to appeal to those people …

They give 50% of their profit to the Government.

Yes, that is so, but does the hon member not think that some of those profit margins are extraordinary? He does not think so. Does he think that a company which shows an increase—within one year—in its profit margin of 300% over the previous year, is sound?

[Inaudible.]

I am telling that hon member that I myself am active in the private sector, but when the SATS is expected to make such sacrifices, I say the others should follow its example.

Then it comes off a very low base.

That is the primary and the most important example set by this Budget, and it should be followed.

The next point I want to make is that we have adopted a strong standpoint in this budget with regard to privatisation. That is in keeping with the hon the State President’s announcement. We know that privatisation was not an unqualified success in many areas of the world in which it was introduced. Many of those countries made grave mistakes and we do not want to make those same mistakes. We shall take privatisation step by step in South Africa. Undoubtedly, the State will have to reduce its share in business enterprises, whereas the private sector will have to increase its share. We have now reached the stage at which that can take place. Some hon members in the Official Opposition are very concerned. They say we are selling off the assets. As far as they are concerned privatisation can mean only one thing, viz that the assets will be handed over to big business, the huge enterprises with vast financial resources. I want to tell those hon members that if there is one thing which we can do in South Africa it is to create a stronger propertied class.

As is presently the case?

That propertied class should not be confined to the Whites, but should be extended to include the largest number of South Africans, irrespective of race or colour.

If those hon members were to read one of the more recent editions of Finansies en Tegniek they would be able to read how Mrs Margaret Thatcher achieved that. That is one of the reasons why her Conservative Party in England will not be defeated by the Labour Party. She created a larger propertied class in her country by making State corporations, in which the State had the greatest share, available to the public. I am not saying that it has been an unqualified success, but because …

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Deputy Minister?

No, I want to complete my argument. The hon member may put a question later on. What happened there is a very good example of how a turnabout was achieved in a socialist country by granting the public more control and diminishing State control. Al! that has happened is that more members of the public now have a specific share in the State.

The fact is that the State cannot create all the work. The SATS should not create work. As a matter of fact, it had to decrease its work force over the past six years from approximately 280 000 to just under 194 000. It had to rationalise precisely because of the natural competition that began to develop between the various modes of transport in South Africa. The SATS did not become incapable. As a matter of fact, I think it is extremely capable. The efficiency and the productivity of the SATS has increased tremendously. It is handling more traffic more efficiently. It is applying better marketing methods, and it is saving more effectively because of a reduced work force. It is wishful thinking to think that the SATS can employ people on a large scale in the current circumstances. The private sector can do it, however.

During the past year or so there was a 300% increase in the applications for taxi licences. That has not happened because people wanted to compete with us. Rather, because of the process of urbanisation in South Africa, it has become essential for people to use taxis to transport them to the nearest centres. That is also a form of job creation and the private sector is rendering that service.

I want to give the SATS credit for something. A few years ago we in the standing committee put a question to the then General Manager of the SATS, Dr Bart Grové. We asked him what percentage of the SATS’s budget he thought was being spent on the private sector. He subsequently sent me a written reply to that question. Unfortunately I do not have it with me, but he said that more than half of the budget went to the private sector. The SATS, therefore, is actually helping the private sector to create work, even though its own employment opportunities have decreased. In my opinion the SATS has now reached the stage at which it can easily make the private sector its partner in greater employment creation and greater economic activity in South Africa.

There is another subject to which I should like to refer. I want to refer briefly to the position of the SATS’s employees.

†The hon Minister consulted with the federation of our trade unions some time ago, and he told them that he could not see how we could increase salaries and wages at this stage, and in this Budget we are not providing for any increases.

I would like to say that the reasons for this are obvious. There is no point in awarding a salary increase at this stage because it would have meant increases in tariffs as well. That would have had a snowball effect in the economy of South Africa. We would therefore not have been participating in the fight against inflation. In fact, we would have participated in helping inflation along.

Secondly, the Government cannot go back on the promise it made at the last election, a promise for which it got a mandate. I am referring to the promise to fight inflation.

Did you ask for a mandate for that?

After all, if we do not keep that promise we will be pricing ourselves out of the …

Was a mandate necessary for that?

Of course we got a mandate. If the hon member looks at the election manifesto he will see that the NP got a mandate to fight inflation, …

That is self-evident!

… because we regarded inflation as a terrific scourge. If we did not do this, we would be pricing ourselves out of the international market. Despite the fact that we have tremendous sympathy with our work force, regardless of whether they are wage or salary earners, there are some of them who are now demanding that the hon the Minister and even the hon the State President should resign. I want to repeat that the hon the State President and the hon the Minister have a certain mandate to fulfil.

I want to say that those members who are suggesting that if they do not get their way they will strike, should think again. Not only is that illegal, but what will they achieve? They will be cutting their noses to spite their faces. I wish to reiterate that we have a tremendous accumulated deficit and all I would like to ask these men is whether they would like us to increase that further, because by this time next year we will be nearing the R659 million mark.

The chances of getting a fair redress of this tremendous accumulated deficit are—I think— not very great at this stage.

We are not unsympathetic to the demands of people who have a fixed pay packet. The majority of these people are in the same position as every salary or wage earner in South Africa, even MPs.

Furthermore I would like to say that we are not in a very liquid position, despite the fact that we have tremendous assets. The SATS is not in such a liquid position that we can accede to demands for salary and wage increases at this stage. The transport market is also becoming more complex and more competitive, and we are part and parcel of that process.

It is Government policy that it should be so. It is in the interests of all workers in South Africa for us to succeed in bringing inflation down to manageable figures. There is no point in granting a 10% or a 13% salary increase only to find subsequently that inflation remains at between 13% and 15%.

What salary increases are being given by the private sector?

Sir, I have told the hon member and the House that there is a demand today that the private sector should follow the example set by institutions such as the SATS. [Interjections.] That is why we are doing it. We do it because we want to set that example.

If our example is not followed we are not going to achieve that success. The hon member should realise that. If the hon member would only play a positive role in South Africa he would agree with our appeal that the private and public sectors do exactly the same thing in this regard. [Interjections.]

I believe it is the fervent wish of the average South African that inflation should come down significantly. If that does not happen none of us will have any savings left, and then there will be no point trying to save for posterity. Secondly, we will all become social pensioners one day, and then our demands as far as the resources of the State are concerned will be far more and, I believe, the State will not be able to afford that.

Therefore, Sir, I believe the SATS, with this Budget, is performing a real deed of patriotism, is making a true contribution to what is in the true interests of South Africa at this stage.

*That is why I have such great appreciation for this budget, Sir. After all, this budget is a manifestation of courage and conviction; and when one does something courageously and with a sense of conviction, one cannot fail to achieve success. Despite the criticism from outside, the hon the Minister can rest assured that he is on the right path. Of course, he has to listen to the criticism as well. In any case, he is not insensitive to it. The hon the Minister is aware of the feelings of those outside. What I still want to say about him, is that he does indeed listen to the criticism levelled by those on the outside. By being steadfast and reasonable, however, he will ultimately achieve a large measure of success with this budget of his.

We on this side of the House, including myself as his Deputy Minister, pledge to him the strongest support one can possibly give a Minister in these circumstances. The SATS also stands to benefit from this ultimately, once the economic cycle in South Africa improves, as it must, and the expected upturn comes—and indeed, all the signs for its coming are there. Once we have reduced the rate of inflation, we will know that the sacrifices we are making now, in 1988, were not in vain and that a better future awaits us.

Mr Chairman, allow me to make just one remark before I refer to the hon the Deputy Minister. The polling booths in Schweizer-Reneke and Standerton had hardly closed when the first two NP’s pitched into one another. I am referring to the hon member for South Coast and the hon member for Uitenhage. [Interjections.] It is, of course, merely a sign of the times, an indication of what is going to happen in times to come. The tension is going to become unbearable for this NP Government; and, as a former hon member of this House said, they will not even split, but simply spatter like jelly. [Interjections.]

The hon the Deputy Minister will forgive me for not referring to what he said this evening, but I want to go back to last week—not too far back into the hon the Deputy Minister’s history—to his reply on the South African Transport Services Amendment Bill on 23 February, when the amendment of section 9 of the principal Act was at issue. I think that is very relevant to this debate. The explanatory memorandum stated that:

Then the hon the Deputy Minister came along and, in an attempt to evade the effective criticism of the hon members for Soutpansberg and Roodepoort as to why that Harding line was not given out to tender, argued in his reply that the existing Act empowers the State President, the Minister and the executive of the SATS to sell the SATS tomorrow if they wanted to. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister can go and look at his Hansard.

Of course, he had completely the wrong end of the stick, because the spirit and the letter of that Act that the SATS should be run as a business and not that it should be destroyed. It is quite simple. If I remember correctly, the sale of obsolete material on that line between Touws River and Ladismith falls within the ambit of the Act, but for the purposes of the hon the Deputy Minister’s argument it was totally irrelevant.

In any case, I must tell the hon the Deputy Minister—he is shaking his head now—that if he thinks he is right, he is the only one who thinks so. The Government’s law advisors did not think so, and I know of no one else in this House who will concede that the hon the Deputy Minister’s argument is correct. [Interjections.] If he is right the people who drew up the memorandum were wrong. I would have to conclude, then, that either the hon the Deputy Minister had not read the memorandum, or did not understood what was written there. Either that, or he did not agree with what he had read and so argued against it. [Interjections.]

The question now is whether the hon the Minister, the Government and the management of the SATS share the views of the hon the Deputy Minister. That is a very important question, and we look forward to the hon the Minister’s reply, because privatisation has become such an obsession. [Interjections.] It is a good thing this has now been placed on record. The hon the Minister of Transport Affairs sat and laughed when I said that just now. [Interjections.] If privatisation has become such an obsession with the Government that it is impeding the sound judgement of the hon the Deputy Minister to such an extent—it is beginning to look as if that is the case with the hon the Minister as well—that they think that they had the authority in terms of the 1981 Act, before last week’s amendment, summarily to sell the SATS without coming back to this House and the other Houses of Parliament, then I think the country should know about it and the hon the Minister should inform us accordingly. [Interjections.]

I should like to know whether the hon the Minister associates himself with the hon the Deputy Minister’s misconception and whether the hon the Deputy Minister’s misconception should now be placed in the same category as that of the hon member for South Coast earlier today. [Interjections.] The hon member for Jeppe has neither the knowledge nor the understanding to make a comment like the one he just made, and I pardon him immediately.

I should like to extend a word of congratulations to the Board of the SATS for their annual report, specifically their personnel statistics in Chapter VI on page 27 of the report. [Interjections.] That is very interesting. It is “a summary of the ethnic grouping of Black personnel employed by (the SATS) with an indication of their country of origin or (the country) with which they are traditionally linked”. We shall in due course ask more questions about the demographic distribution of these groups of Black workers. I note that no distinction is drawn in the summary between the Tswanas of Bophuthatswana and the Tswanas who live in the NP’s racially mixed South Africa. [Interjections ] It is a fine testimonial for the peoples’ policy of the CP. It is a fine testimonial for separate development, and I want to congratulate the Board of the SATS on that.

I also want to address an urgent request to the hon the Minister this evening. I want to ask him to do whatever he can to ensure that SATS’s services in the rural areas in general, but specifically in the border areas of North Western Transvaal, are not curtailed. I should like to motivate my appeal so that the hon the Minister can understand why I am directing it at him.

For security reasons the Government urgently had to institute a programme of action in that area about four years ago to try to curb the depopulation and also to try to stabilise the area. That gave rise to the Promotion of the Density of Population in Designated Areas Act, 1979, as amended in 1984 by Act 80 of 1984. The choice was simple: Keep the farmers on their farms— that is by far the cheapest, most effective and most desirable solution—or, on the other hand, let the Defence Force take over and control the area, at an enormous loss to the State.

The Government decided on the former. The wishes of the inhabitants of that area were taken into account and representatives from the area were summoned to help with the planning of the total strategy with regard to the improvement of the quality and standard of living. Three subsidiary task groups were assigned to deal with Farming, Social Infrastructure and Physical Infrastructure. More than R200 million has apparently been spent on this programme of action over the past four years.

It was very clear, however, that because of the low density of the population and the remoteness of the area few services could be operated economically there. Because of the poor potential of the area and because huge, economical farming units will consequently be needed, it is unlikely that the population density of the area will increase. This area is characterised by its vast expanse and its remoteness from cities, towns, growth points and metropolitan areas where services, advice, training and supplies are available.

It is obvious that transport and communication play an extremely important if not the most important part. Farming today is a highly advanced business technologically, and since one dare not regard this area as a depressed area, it goes without saying that transport will play an important part there. As I have already mentioned, it is difficult to render a service economically in this area, and that includes transport services.

If the SATS were to withdraw, or if it were to be privatised, this could have a devastating effect on this area. One could then expect the following to happen. NTC’s five commercial branches in the area are entirely dependent upon the SATS for the acquisition of supplies and spares which must be provided on a continuous and regular basis. No private haulier can take over this function, and the branches will consequently have to close. There has already been talk that two of NTC’s branches will have to be closed, and if one were to take away the co-operative the farmer would leave.

There would also be an urgent need for the three school hostels that obtain their supplies mainly from towns like Potgietersrus, Ellisras and Louis Trichardt to obtain these commodities as well as fresh meat, vegetables, etc in some other way, and also on a continuous basis.

Moreover, all the shops and post offices depend upon the SATS for the regular provision of supplies and for postal deliveries. If the SATS were to curtail its services, supplies which the farmers require urgently, such as spares, stock remedies, frozen vaccines, etc, would no longer be available.

The SATS also delivers petrol to a depot at Marnitz, from where the oil companies distribute it. If the SATS were to withdraw because of the lack of profitability, one could expect petrol prices to escalate. The petrol prices there would then certainly be among the highest in the country, because the petrol would have to be transported from the nearest station which is 200 kilometres away.

Even though few products were produced in this area during the past few years because of the drought, especially the Koedoesrand area, this area is still known as the larder of Potgietersrus. Most of the meat, cotton and tobacco are produced here, and groundnuts also feature high on the list. If agriculture were to be normalised, and the Government and the SATS—I include the SATS in this—keep the infrastructure intact, we can expect to break even in respect of transport costs during the good years.

I want to refer to another aspect, Sir, viz the SATS’s calculations in respect of its operating costs. Koedoesrand is a White island surrounded by Black areas.

The SATS moves through approximately 100 kilometres of Black area before it reaches Koedoesrand. Yet it does not take that into account when it tells Koedoesrand how unprofitable the service is that it has to operate there.

I want to refer briefly to provincial roads. The fact of the matter is that the provinces are at their wits’ end with regard to road construction costs and the maintenance programme. Notwithstanding that the SATS is withdrawn from the area, causing the roads to be burdened still further.

Sir, my time is up. I would like to have taken the matter a great deal further, but I really hope that my fervent appeal has fallen on sympathetic ears.

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with hon members on both sides of the House who paid tribute today to the staff of the SATS. I should also like to express my thanks and appreciation to them, particularly in these very difficult times of disasters and adversity that have afflicted our country.

I should also like to say that with the Government I accept full responsibility in Newton Park for the decision taken to freeze salaries this year. I believe, and I should like to associate myself with the hon the Deputy Minister, that this is a sincere attempt by the Government to control inflation in our country. If we consider the aged in particular, we find that people who retired a few years ago and had built up a nest-egg for themselves, are in difficulties today because inflation has affected their rand so much that today they are even battling to pay property rates and water and electricity accounts. It is of paramount importance to make an effort to control inflation and to make our rand stronger. This will be to the benefit of the entire Republic of South Africa. In that respect the members of the SATS will also play their part.

One accepts that this is an emotional matter, because when you tamper with a farmer’s income you are looking for trouble. We nevertheless believe that the vast majority of the staff of the SATS will tackle this task with the Government. I should like to wish the Government everything of the best. I hope that all will go well and that we will be successful.

On 1 December last year the new road transport system came into operation. In terms of this system contractors may transport goods within a radius of 300 kilometres without a permit. The conditions which apply are in the first place that the vehicles must be registered at the local road transport board. The conditions which are laid down with regard to infrastructure and so on must also be met. Now some of the contractors are unhappy about the matter. They say they must spend large sums of money to get their vehicles on the roads. However, I want to express the hope that the SATS will stand firm in this regard and will see to it that only vehicles which comply with certain basic standards are allowed on our roads. Heavy vehicles in particular are responsible for a great deal of damage to our roads, and for that reason this measure will ensure that only acceptable vehicles are allowed on our roads.

The exempted areas are Cape Town, George, Port Elizabeth, East London, Durban, Pretoria and Johannesburg. What struck me—I should like to ask the hon the Minister the reason for this—is that Kimberley and Upington are not included in this 300 km radius. As regards Port Elizabeth, the radius stretches west only as far as George. Port Elizabeth is closely involved in the entire Mosgas project and this means that the contractors from Port Elizabeth who must transport goods to Mossel Bay can only get as far as George. This means that they must re-register there and comply with all the requirements.

This evening I want to appeal seriously to the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs to make an exception with regard to the radius to the west of Port Elizabeth on the road to Cape Town, so that we can also serve Mossel Bay from Port Elizabeth.

As regards road transport permits, I also want to ask the hon the Minister to consider it a matter of principle and also allocate two-way road transport permits to people who at present only have one way road transport permits.

I can give the example, and the hon the Deputy Minister knows about this, of a contractor in Upington who transported the slaughter-stock of the farmers of the North West to market for more than a decade. Initially he started with four trucks and four trailers but owing to the lengthy drought and the resultant reduction in the livestock numbers he eventually had to sell two of his vehicles. Now this friend of ours has applied for permits to transport certain other materials. However, this is being opposed by the other contractors. This has resulted in expensive lawyers having to be appointed to try to resolve this matter, and some cases are even thrown out of court because of minor technicalities. For that reason I want to appeal seriously to the hon the Minister as a matter of principle to give those persons who have road transport permits in one direction only, permits to transport goods in the other direction as well. We cannot afford this kind of thing, particularly not in our country. A truck plus trailer leaves for Johannesburg for example, but must return empty because certain goods may not be transported by it. I think this is a matter which must be rectified.

I am really worried about our road network. If large sums of money are not made available in future to enlarge, improve and maintain our road network, we will be facing a large scale economic decline. Since 1970 funds for road …

Order! Is the hon member still dealing with the Bill under discussion?

Yes, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, I merely want to know from the hon member whether the SATS is objecting to this kind of transport.

In this specific case it is not the SATS, but some of the private contractors who are objecting. Recently the SATS has been far more helpful in this regard. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I have a problem now, however. Have you ruled that I am out of order?

Order! The hon member may proceed, but he must confine himself to the Bill under discussion.

The SATS is closely linked to the entire road network in South Africa. I want to quote a few statistics to indicate that in future the Department of Transport Affairs will also have to give great attention and priority to the road network. Since 1970 the funds for roads have decreased in real terms by 3% per annum. There has been an increase of 500% in the number of vehicle owners during the past 30 years. Ever increasing demands are being made. In this specific case in the Cape large sums of money have been spent on roads, but in many cases some of this money has been utilised by other departments. As a result we have started lagging behind. I want to ask the hon the Minister to give a high priority to this too.

In conclusion I want to say that the CP always tries to seize every opportunity to make political capital out of something.

What is going to happen in Schweizer-Reneke?

I do not care what is going to happen in Schweizer-Reneke, because only one party can lose there, and that is the CP.

I want to tell hon members that the NP is a party which consists of people who think and who are serious about this country. That is why, in future, as was the case in the past, the NP will allow us to disagree as colleagues, for the simple reason that we do not stare fixedly at the future of this country, but are trying honestly and sincerely in a country with many difficulties to find solutions and help to assure the future.

Only you believe that, Sakkie!

In that respect that political party is totally irrelevant. They remind me of what Langenhoven once said. He said: “’n Skeermeslemmetjie in die hand van ’n bobbejaan is soos geleerdheid in die kop van ’n dwaas.” When one listens to them, one cannot but come to the conclusion that they are behaving absurdly. South Africa will be the loser as a result of petty politics. [Interjections.] They will have to win in Newton Park first before they can say that they have a share in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, it gives me pleasure to speak after the hon member for Newton Park. I do not want to comment on most of what he said because I have no fault to find with it, although I do want to elaborate a little on what he said about the CP. I do not have any quarrel with the PFP either as regards their standpoint on privatisation. Privatisation is also the topic of my speech this evening.

I do have a dispute with the CP in this connection. In the first place I want to react to the speech of the hon member for Potgietersrus, but I specifically want to react to the speech of the hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis. Of course I also want to talk about his propaganda tabloid, or gossip-mongering tabloid, the so-called Patriot. [Interjections.] Let us see how these people occupy their time. I am quoting a headline from their tabloid: “Volksbates uitverkoop!” This banal style is typical of the CP’s approach to privatisation, and the privatisation of the SATS in particular. [Interjections.] This party is again degenerating into emotional politicking. For the umpteenth time nothing came of the intellectual abilities which our duties in this House demand of us.

“Al meer mag vir die groot geldbase”, another headline in their tabloid protested. It could just as well have been Terre’Blanche speaking. Perhaps it was. The latter report quoted Robin McGregor very respectfully and in great detail to indicate to what extent big business controlled shares on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. They come to the conclusion that there is no really free competitive economy in South Africa. However, what they neglect to mention is a further aspect of McGregor’s argument. In the same book he puts forward the following as a further obstacle to the economy, and I am quoting:

I am quoting here from the same book, Privatisation in South Africa, from which the Patriot quoted in order to attack big business. [Interjections.] I now want to reply to the hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis in respect of so-called big business.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member must listen now. We on this side of the House are not in favour of monopolies in the private sector. It is this Government which extended the legislation on monopolies in order to keep such trends in check.

How many times has it been implemented?

Order!

However, we are calling for a sound balance—perhaps this is asking too much—when we conduct politics in this country too. [Interjections.]

Order! I cannot allow a subsidiary debate in this House. The hon member may proceed.

In this respect the CP again failed, as I have just indicated. In the same Patriot the hon the Minister of Finance was censured for accusing the CP of specious politics in this regard. The hon the Minister has a point, but the Patriot went further and said—

This was another example of specious politics. The hon members on that side of the House know that the NP is committed to the principle of separate residential areas in spite of… [Interjections.]

What about the 12 integrated areas?

I did not complete my sentence …in spite of its recognition of the fact that there may be persons who may prefer open areas.

Like the President’s Council report.

We will have to wait and see in practice how many population groups will in due course come out strongly in favour of throwing open their areas. Let us wait and see.

I am continuing to quote from the Patriot:

This is nonsense. The hon members on that side of the House know from the time when they were still with us that since 1948 it has been the objective of some of these conglomerates to undermine the NP policy and, last but not least, to bring the Government to a fall. They have been working on this for 40 years now. Now that the CP is no longer being cherished in the bosom of the NP, their courage has suddenly failed them.

Order! The hon member must really focus more specifically on the Bill. The hon member may proceed, but he must at least relate his arguments to the Bill under discussion.

I am dealing with privatisation and with the CP’s allegations that this is going to benefit big conglomerates with the so-called political consequences which this will have, and I am in the process of refuting this. Allow me therefore to quote from the White Paper in respect of our policy regarding these so-called conglomerates. The CP should have taken cognisance of this White Paper before they commented on this topic. [Interjections.] I am quoting from page 9 of the White Paper:

I hope the hon member has a reply to this. The CP’s Patriot goes further regarding privatisation, however, and hon members must listen carefully.

We are glad you read the Patriot.

In the work we do one sometimes needs a little light relief. I am quoting:

Here there is a slight suggestion that they do have brain cells.

The chromosomes are gone.

The editorial comment on the topic shows that this was actually just a “flash in the pan”, because they rage on as follows:

When one compares the two standpoints one finds there is no connection between them. There is a total lack of logic. It is mere sensationalism. With whom are they trying to ingratiate themselves by means of such statements and—I want to go so far as to say—such racism? They must constantly peer over their right shoulders at the AWB supporters of a National-Socialist White Boerestaat.

Eat them like a mealie, Johan!

Philosophically and ideologically they are far too dependent on Eugéne’s intellectual guidance. Politically they are too dependent on the influence of his wild men on the voting pattern of right-wingers. They must constantly try to cosset the AWB’s nationalisation policy. They therefore feel themselves obliged constantly to try to outbid the AWB’s selfish approach with regard to Afrikaner and White interests at the expense of others.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member?

I probably have too little time left.

Order! I cannot quite hear what is being said, but I get the impression that the hon member is not prepared to reply to a question.

Unfortunately my time is limited, Mr Chairman.

Sound, impartial judgment therefore falls by the wayside, but let us rather look at the facts. Initially enormous amounts were in fact required for the establishment of Iscor, Escom. Sasol, etc. At that stage of our economic development the private sector could not handle this. The State therefore accepted its responsibility in this regard, but thorough care was constantly taken of the economic and social needs of the displaced White Afrikaner in particular.

Hon members must listen now because the NP has an impeccable record in this regard. Just look at the past 40 years! Just look at the SATS. Just look at the emancipated, self-respecting White employees of the SATS. Just look at their highly disciplined, qualified and capable management.

These people do not need the opportunistic paternalism of the CP or the AWB.

What do you say is going to happen in Schweizer-Reneke?

The hon the Minister has already made it clear that in the privatisation process top priority will be given to the employees because experience has taught us that organisations can only flourish if their employees are satisfied.

The ostensible concern of the CP-AWB alliance because the helpless employees of the SATS are allegedly being delivered up to the private sector is an insult to the abilities of dedicated employees. It suggests that White workers do not have the ability to hold their own in such a climate by means of their own trade unions and so on, and this while Blacks have for years been negotiating to improve their working conditions via trade unions and so on.

Arrie Paulus is with the Whites!

However, the same AWB says, and I am quoting its leader: “Ons sal onsself regeer met ons eie Blanke meerderwaardige gene.”

What kind of contradictory talk is this!

For the sake of sounder perspectives this will, however, suffice for the moment as regards the CP and their cronies, the AWB.

The privatisation of transport services is not a novelty in developed and developing countries. I want to quote from The Economist of 21 December 1985. The transport services are privatised in countries like Britain, the Netherlands, West Germany, Japan, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Turkey, Italy, Brazil and the USA. What is the philosophy behind this privatisation? Take Britain as an example. John Moore, their financial secretary, puts it as follows, and I am quoting him from page 83 of The Economist of 21 December 1985:

The Economist then adds—

Hamish Donaldson, managing director of Hill Samuel Merchant Bank, summarises the result as follows, and I am quoting him briefly from The Citizen:

The CP would do well to take cognisance of this.

Let us look at a further result of the privatisation in Britain, where the inflation rate used to be 27%, and now stands at 4%. I am quoting from the Sunday Star of 26 July 1987:

Privatisation therefore offers involvement in the free market system.

I feel it is extremely appropriate that the SATS, which made such a cardinal contribution to the socio-economic development of inter alia the Afrikaner, is at this stage in the economic development of the country affording the Afrikaner inter alia a new vision and an opportunity to become more involved in our private sector. Great opportunities and achievements are awaiting the employees of the SATS.

Sir, a final example from Britain, quoted from Reader’s Digest of January 1988. The hon members of the Official Opposition would do well to look at this. It is an easily obtainable magazine, and also easy to read. I am quoting:

Then, Sir, privatisation came along, and I am continuing to quote:

Sir, what is the consequence of this?

Privatisation generates wealth.

My final illustration is that of the privatisation of the airlines in the USA, as described by Piet van der Hoven, former chairman of the Airline Association of South Africa. I am quoting him briefly:

Privatisation therefore also creates employment.

To summarise I want to quote from The Economist of December 1985:

In conclusion I therefore want to quote again from the authoritative McGregor, from the book Privatisation in South Africa—a book the CP is also fond of quoting from:

Sir, I want to conclude with the earnest wish that, seeing that today’s two by-elections are now a thing of the past, the CP will return to reasonableness and look more objectively at the entire matter of privatisation. [Interjections.]

I wish the hon the Minister and the SATS every success in the process of privatisation.

Mr Chairman, I hope in the course of my speech to get back to the hon member for Umhlatuzana and the arguments he and other hon members advanced in regard to privatisation. I first want to turn to the hon member for Primrose. I do not know whether he is here at the moment; it does not actually matter either.

This hon member is the chairman of the standing committee, and in addition he is also an expert on transport. I do not know whether he is an adviser in an official, unofficial or any other capacity, of this hon Minister and his department. In any case in his capacity as chairman of the standing committee, he has a very big say in the department. I find it very significant that this hon member is very nervous about the SATS and the state it is in at the moment.

That nervousness of the hon member was very prominent for example when he discussed a single sentence I had uttered in last year’s debate on the SATS budget—regarding the “bullet train”.

On that occasion I concluded by saying in reply to an interjection from that side of the House that we would not go back to the steam era. We would go forward and we would do so by means of “bullet trains”. This upset the hon member for Primrose, but why? The hon member Mr Derby-Lewis has already asked whether the hon the Minister has ever investigated the matter of “bullet trains”, and I think the reply was in the negative.

This makes me wonder about the approach of this hon Minister and his department to development in the field of transport services. Whether, on the one hand, they are quite satisfied with what they are doing in their own South African milieu, or whether, on the other hand, they are not even looking at what is going on and is available outside, is the one problem I have with them, or the one shortcoming I can ascribe to them.

Another complaint concerns the advice given to them by the hon member for Primrose that the “bullet train” is not something they should consider. I think the hon the Minister and his department have a specific mentality at the moment. They want to move away from the expansion of the SATS because they want to get rid of it. The Government’s approach, when they are faced by a problem, is to privatise it and get rid of it. They no longer have the attitude of tackling a problem and solving it. They prefer to sell that problem to the private sector. [Interjections ]

The hon the Minister said one of the most important or most acceptable candidates for privatisation was the SAA. I think this is one of the sectors of the SATS which has had a continuous history of profits. Does it not have a continuous history of profits? [Interjections.] Very well, but I think it showed a profit this year.

Yes.

The hon the Minister did not tell us in his budget speech whether he had made a profit.

You must study the statements.

Yes, but the hon the Minister could have mentioned it, because we are actually debating his speech. The hon the Minister said that something like R1 300 million had been invested in the SAA, whereas the income for the financial year was R1 600 million. I do not know whether his profit was R100 million or more, but that does not matter, because it is a component of the SATS which made a profit. But then the pilots came along with salary demands. Now suddenly the privatisation of the SAA is very prominent.

Oh!

An hon member is saying “oh” This is a fact! The prospect that they should privatise and become private contractors was held out to the pilots. Where is the method, and where is the plan. Where is the general idea of how privatisation is going to take place? In his opening address the hon the State President said that Ministers were going to inform us fully on privatisation in these debates. What comprehensive information have we been given so far? An Act enabling the hon the Minister to sell the entire rail network, without our being informed on a plan or method and to whom he is going to sell, has already been passed by Parliament.

The hon the Deputy Minister referred to Mrs Thatcher, and because Mrs Thatcher privatised successfully he, the hon member for Umhlatuzana and the entire Government also want to privatise, but there is absolutely no resemblance between the transport set-up in South Africa and that in the United Kingdom.

England has a history of private railways. England is not actually privatising; it is reprivatising after the Labour Party had nationalised after the Second World War. Is that not correct?

[Inaudible.]

The hon the Deputy Minister does not even know that. What I am now going to say is subject to correction. I nevertheless think that some of the original companies who operated the original railways always had an interest in the British Railways. [Interjections.] I am not certain; that is what I suspect. In any case, Britain has a history of privatisation and private railways, and they are in the process of reprivatising.

In the second place Britain is a densely populated country; one could say it is a fully developed country. The country is highly industrialized and transport intensive. Distances are relatively short. The longest journey one can undertake in Britain is from London to Edinburgh on the so-called Flying Scotsman, and I think that trip takes between six and seven hours, and then one has taken the longest single rail journey in the whole of Britain!

In addition there is a controversy in Mrs Thatcher’s privatisation, since the Labour Party nationalised and she has reprivatised. This is actually round in the privatisation versus nationalisation battle which is being fought between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party in England. I think the hon the Deputy Minister may be right; she may make it impossible for the Labour Party to nationalise again.

What is the history in South Africa? In South Africa one is dealing with a SA Railways and Harbours which is virtually as old as the Union of South Africa. Now the hon the Minister comes along and he drags socialism into the discussion on privatisation here in South Africa. Is the hon the Minister now suggesting that since Genl Louis Botha’s time up to the time of the hon the State President socialism has prevailed because we have had a national transport network? That is absolutely ridiculous. It is nonsense to put forward such arguments in South Africa, where one escapes from one’s problems by means of privatisation, and one then wants to link it to socialism.

In South Africa we have a 78 year history of a national rail network developed by the State with the taxpayer’s and consumer’s money in the interests of the whole of South Africa.

This national rail transport network must be protected in a country like South Africa where one must also reach and serve sparsely populated areas of a vast country. In the second place the State must help this network, and protect it so that it can survive. One must therefore keep the network going for the sake of the service which it has to render.

Order! Hon members must lower their voices.

In the third place one must allow cross subsidization and therefore manage the transport network as a unit. [Interjections.]

Now there is something I want to ask the hon the Minister in connection with his rail network. We shall discuss the other matters at a later date. Which parts of the rail network does he envisage selling, and which parts is he going to retain? That is the cardinal aspect of this debate. If he is going to sell the profitable parts—and that is what he is going to do—the question arises what services he is going to render in those parts he does not have buyers for. Those are the parts the private entrepreneurs or whoever he wants to sell to have no interest in. Is he going to allow minibuses, large buses and private transporters to descend on that limited market in terms of deregulation? What is he going to do when a monopoly has been established and the last passenger train has ground to a halt?

Mr Chairman, at the outset I should like to express the appreciation of this side of the House to the hon the Minister and his department, who are very seriously and courageously getting the country’s transport going again.

This evening is of the greatest importance in my constituency. Both the Blue Train and the TransKaroo Express are stranded in my constituency. I spoke to Mannetjies Roux a short while ago. He was one of our better centres in the old days, and he is now one of my voters. He told me that he was now wining and dining on the Blue Train.

It just so happens that I am speaking after the hon member for Soutpansberg. I understand that he has also sat on this side of the House, and now he is on that side. [Interjections.] I do not want to be a show-off and attack people who have been in this House a long time, but if I were to speak such nonsense after 10 or 15 years here, I would resign right now. [Interjections.] The hon member talked about Margaret Thatcher, Louis Botha etc, but I, as a person who arrived here yesterday, cannot react to what he said because there was no content to his speech, in the way that there was little content in the speeches on that side of the House. I wonder how they are going to feel tomorrow morning when Schweizer-Reneke is no longer theirs.

Standerton too!

I should like to give content to my speech and this evening I should like to talk about deregulation in the road network. Everyone probably knows about the existing trend to deregulate the transport market, as well as the growing free market system. There will therefore only be regulation in respect of road safety. Informed persons believe this will be the case and that safety will not be overlooked.

It is to be hoped that South Africa will not go the same way as America, where safety standards declined. According to Mr Havison of the company National Truck Carriers in the USA, there has been increases of 13%, 14% and 18% per annum, respectively, in truck accidents during the past three years. Hopefully we will take Mr Havison’s advice and have a proper, implementable safety review programme worked out before general economic deregulation takes place here.

Order! The hon member is tending to move away from the Bill under consideration. He will have to move closer to it.

Sir, road transportation is within the ambit of the SATS.

This brings me to the next problem in this deregulating market, namely the freight carried by our national road networks. The vehicles are overloaded tremendously. It is noticeable how much the road system has deteriorated as the truck sales have increased. It is also important to note that the deterioration is not pro rata with the increase in traffic, but is increasing percentagewise.

Order! The hon member is now going beyond the limits of the Bill under discussion.

Sir, I am comparing it with rail transport; I shall return to rail transport in a moment.

Order! The hon member may proceed, but he must get to it very soon. [Interjections.]

One finds that overloading has catastrophic consequences on the road structure over a period of time. Sir, I am getting back to the trains in a moment. [Interjections.] An investigation has indicated that one truck with an axle load of five units causes the same damage as eight similar trucks with an axle load of only three units. To put it another way, if a road structure with a life of 20 years has to carry heavy vehicles which are all 50% overloaded, that road will have to be rebuilt within four years. Of course this will have to be done with scarce resources which could have been used elsewhere, and therefore the overloading of trucks is at present a burden on the State and the taxpayer, and very frequently on agriculture.

I therefore want to deal with the solution envisaged within the context of the National Transport Commission’s study, as described in the submission by Messrs Prins and Mainwaring to the annual transport convention in August 1986. I also want to make further recommendations in connection with the solution to the problem. This basically involves the following. Legislation in connection with overloading must be simplified as much as possible. There must be an adequate infrastructure, based on a scientifically designed programme, to make the solution possible in terms of this legislation.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: It really does strike me that the hon member is not talking about the SATS Budget but in fact about the Transport Vote, which is to be debated later.

Order! The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central is correct. I have twice pointed that out to the hon member for Beaufort West and he assured me that he was going to come back to the SATS. I am still waiting for the hon member to come back to that subject. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, may I please put a question? In the first place I should like to know from the hon member what the effect of this overloading is on rail transport; and secondly I want to know whether it is dangerous for these vehicles when they get to level crossings. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Beaufort West may proceed. [Interjections.]

Sir, all toll road owners …

Order! No, I cannot allow the hon member to continue in that vein. He must either confine himself to the Bill or resume his seat.

Sir, I am talking about the heavy transport which is ruining our roads, and then I will get back to trains. [Interjections.] If we can channel the transport back to the railways, where it actually belongs, this will also mean that certain towns—including towns in my constituency, such as Touws River and Beaufort West—will become vigorous again.

At present those towns are languishing because of the scaling down of the activities of the SATS. Am I faring better now, Sir? [Interjections.]

History shows that the SATS made a major contribution to the development of the country because low-income transport was financed by high-income transport. However, private road transporters entered the market and took the cream of the market without paying for the total cost of their infrastructure. They overloaded their large trucks to such an extent that they caused tremendous damage to the road structure. Against this background the SATS is still being subjected to constant negative criticism and it is being neglected. All the SATS is asking is to be allowed to compete on an equal footing with the private hauliers and for the private hauliers also to pay the full cost of their infrastructure plus the consequences of their shortsighted behaviour— in this case the overloading of their trucks. I must say this in view of the adverse effect it is having on our roads.

The question therefore is why further scarce resources are being invested in road transport while spare capacity still exists in the rail network which has assets of approximately R15 billion. By allowing the road and rail moduses to compete on an equal footing and with proper control of the activities of hauliers the most important proposal of the White Paper of the NTPS will therefore be met, ie the optimum utilisation of this country’s transport resources. It gives me pleasure to support the Transport Services Appropriation Bill.

Mr Chairman, in their official publication the Official Opposition said:

However, anyone listening in this Chamber this evening to the hon member for Soutpansberg and earlier on to the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis would be unable to believe the CP publication, because it was a head-on attack against the concept of privatisation. It was not an attack on the way in which this Government was tackling privatisation, but against the concept of privatisation. [Interjections.] Those hon members must now tell us whether they are in favour of a controlled economy or a free economy.

What have we had in South Africa for 70 years now?

Do they agree with us when we say that we are in favour of what appears in the Preamble to the Constitution Act, namely that this country desires a free economy or do they want a controlled economy?

What nonsense!

The hon member for Soutpansberg is trying vainly to make it appear ridiculous when we talk about socialism, because a controlled economy is a socialistic economy.

That is the biggest nonsense I have ever heard!

The CP cannot get away from this allegation. The hon member for Soutpansberg said that Britain could tackle privatisation successfully because they were actually reprivatising. [Interjections.] Oh, come on! That hon member is a person who is constantly telling us how wonderful the days of the old republics were, because his henchmen in the AWB glorify everything that happened in the old republics.

Now I want to ask him whether the railways in the Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek were not also a company? Are we not also—in his terminology— reprivatising? He must not try to use what happens overseas to reproach us when it suits him, but when it does not suit him, everything from overseas is evil. [Interjections.]

It is unbelievable that this evening we must debate the advantages of privatisation here in a Western Parliament. It is an integral part of Western ethics that Western civilization is in favour of free enterprise. It is only Marxism and socialism which is in favour in principle of State controlled corporations and State enterprises. However, when it suits them, this Official Opposition of ours—when they can get a few votes in Schweizer-Reneke or Standerton—are totally opposed to privatisation. [Interjections.] Then they pretend they are very much in favour of the State enterprise and the State company. They cannot have their cake and eat it. They must tell the voters of South Africa whether they want us to take this matter further as regards our State enterprises. Must we go ahead with this, or must we turn back? However, I shall come back to this later.

I should like to take a close look at a few remarks by the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis. The hon member asked us here why the SAA was going to be privatised. He made the astounding claim that a State controlled airline kept taxes or tariffs low. He should tell us which of the two it keeps low, because taxes cannot be kept low by a State controlled airline, as it is not a taxpayer. It is not possible for a State controlled airline or a State controlled enterprise to keep taxes low. However, as regards tariffs, if it keeps tariffs low, it is doing what the White Paper on Privatisation and Deregulation deals with very thoroughly and I am quoting:

This report goes on to say the following—those hon members have probably read it although one gets the impression that they have never heard of this report:

Now the hon member must tell us how a State controlled airline or any other enterprise of any nature, can keep taxes or tariffs low. It cannot do both.

There is a matter I want to raise a little later—I do not think we will have the opportunity to go into details this evening. The hon member said: “We want to give it to the moneybags”. I now predict that we are going to attribute this labelling of business undertakings in this country as “the moneybags” to that party, and they are not going to get away from it. They must tell us what their standpoint is regarding business undertakings in South Africa. Are they or are they not proud of business undertakings in South Africa? Do they feel that a business undertaking in South Africa is only good if it is small? Is it only good if its profits are small? Is it only good if its contribution to the Exchequer is small? Once it becomes big, it becomes an octopus which wants to swallow the country. They refer in all their documents to Anglo-American.

However, we must remember that Anglo-American is not the only large conglomerate in this country. Sanlam, Old Mutual, Rembrandt and many others are also called conglomerates in the documents which they themselves publish. They must therefore tell the voters whether they are opposed to the growth of those businesses. [Interjections.] They cannot when it suits them, come along and say that these organisations are “moneybags”. I can continue to quote from these pamphlets of their on how they give every kind of description imaginable of big business undertakings in this country.

However, when overseas countries apply sanctions against us and take their money away, when capital leaves South Africa after Sharpeville or any other similar problem in our country, those same big business undertakings are good enough to buy South African shares in order to take control of South African undertakings.

Was this the case after Sharpeville?

Of course it was the case after Sharpeville. Sanlam and Old Mutual bought thousands of shares which were being held overseas and repatriated them to South Africa. [Interjections.] That hon member is not even acquainted with the history of 20 years ago, yet alone 70 years ago. Good heavens! If he is still a babe in arms he must not come here and talk about things he knows nothing about. [Interjections.]

That party is always the first to pride itself on the fact that we can manage without the outside world. If overseas countries want to apply sanctions, we are strong enough. We are strong enough to manage our own affairs. Then they take pride in the South African businesses. Then they are proud of them. Then they are proud of those South Africans who are prepared to take over the IBM’s. Then they are not “moneybags”. No, then they are great South Africans. [Interjections.]

Those hon members must tell us what their attitude is towards the businessmen of South Africa because a businessman, still remains a South African businessman whether he is a millionaire or makes an annual profit of R20 000 or R30 000 from his business. He is still part of the South African business community. Those hon members cannot separate the sheep from the goats and say that some businessmen are good— those businessmen who are loyal CP and AWB supporters—but that other businessmen, who according to their tabloid are a risk, are not good enough for the South African business community. [Interjections.]

In the minute or two I have left this evening, I should also like to return for a moment to the hon member for Potgietersrus. That hon member devoted his entire speech to making an appeal for the continuation of certain railway services which had already been proved to be uneconomic. He told us that there were services which were essential in parts of his constituency and so on. However, I wonder whether the hon member paid any attention to the wording of the amendment to this budget, which his own party submitted. The hon member said the hon the Minister was not doing adequate advance planning and was not exercising proper control and that he was not preventing the operating expenditure of the SATS from increasing unnecessarily. How can the hon member appeal for uneconomic services on the one hand while alleging on the other that the Government was not doing justice to control over the South African Railways, that it was not giving enough attention to preventing the operating expenditure of the SATS from increasing? No, Sir, those hon members must please see to it that they do not contradict themselves.

Mr Chairman, I move the motion as printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

Before I speak on my motion, Mr Chairman, I should like to draw two other matters to the hon the Minister’s attention. In the first instance I wish to express my deepest sympathy to the relatives of David Isaacs, the Labour Party chairman at Marchand, who was fatally wounded in a shooting incident. I understand that the person responsible for his death, has not been apprehended as yet and we look forward to his apprehension in due course.

We also look forward to the release of the children who recovered the piece of furniture that was floating in the swollen river. We should like to see them released as soon as possible. I now turn to my motion.

Sir, it is common cause that on this particular date in question various church leaders were arrested. I quote from the Daily Dispatch of East London of 1 March 1988:

I quote further from the same newspaper:

Mr Chairman, this Government is not consistent. When Crossroads was aflame some time ago, dozens of women and children gathered at the gates in Parliament Street. Arrangements were made for this gathering, which was clearly in contravention with the provisions of Act 52 of 1973, to elect certain representatives.

These representatives, together with hon members of this House, hastily convened a meeting with the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. The hon the Minister, at short notice, agreed to meet these representatives from Crossroads. After these representatives were heard, they dispersed peacefully. That they had contravened Act 52 of 1973 was without question; yet no one was arrested and no one was charged.

We also recall that when certain “Witdoeke” assembled in Parliament Street, they were “escorted” to the British Embassy where they handed over a petition wherein they called upon Mrs Thatcher not to support sanctions. Their actions, too, were clearly in contravention of Act 52 of 1973.

We have numerous other examples of the inconsistency of this Government in allowing certain events to occur when that appeared to favour the present regime. That brings me to the nub of my question. The White, racist AWB were allowed to form a motorcade and were allowed to drive with impunity to the Union Buildings without being stopped and without being turned back. These people were fully armed with firearms, knives and batons. These were the same people who had previously been convicted after certain arms caches were discovered, and these were the same people who had already been released on parole. Yet when the various clergymen decided to petition the hon the State President and the hon members of this Parliament, this inconsistent Government shielded behind Act 52 of 1973. It shielded behind this Act to use a water cannon on unarmed clergymen. The hon the Minister will recall that among these clergymen was Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the Chancellor of the University of the Western Cape, our intellectual institution. He will recall that Dr Allan Boesak, who represents 70 million Christians worldwide, was also among these clergymen. Archbishop Naidoo, of the Roman Catholic Church, was present as well. So too were other clergymen who were too numerous to mention. Now I want to state categorically, Sir, that all the water cannons in the world, all the policemen in the world, all the Acts of Parliament, all the bannings, all the restrictions and all the curbs of this Government will not succeed in suppressing what those clergymen represent.

They had gathered in protest at what this NP-Government had done. This Government had seen fit effectively to silence without trial the UDF and its leaders, and it had placed severe restrictions on Cosatu and numerous other organisations. If these people who had been restricted—people like Albertina Sisulu—had committed any crime, why were they not charged? If Archie Gumede has transgressed any laws of this country, why has he not been charged? Is this the thanks he gets for having appeared before a committee of the President’s Council to give evidence? Is being gagged the thanks he gets? I believe that Dr R A M Saloojee has now been banned for the third time since 1985. We do not agree with the UDF. The hon the Minister must remember that the UDF was born when we decided to enter this tricameral Parliament. We—the people in East London from where I come—confronted the UDF with the issues on behalf of the people. Not to participate in this tricameral system is their democratic right. We are as much opposed to their beliefs as some other institutions are. It is their democratic right, however, to be allowed to be heard in this country. Why, then, have their officials—inter

alia, Mohamed Valli Moosa, Amos Masondo, Eric Malobi, Trevor Manuel and many others— been kept behind bars? Why has Azapo been curbed? If they have transgressed any of the laws of this country then surely they should be brought before the courts of law so that the courts can decide their guilt or innocence. Why this arbitrary banishment?

*I quote from Die Burger of 2 March 1988 words that can be ascribed to the hon the Minister:

Does the hon member not agree with me?

No, Sir, those words were ascribed to the hon the Minister and in saying this he was vilifying those clergymen. There are organisations in this country that walk around with murder in their hearts. There are organisations in this country that are prepared to blow up buildings, to hurt people and to take lives. We do not agree with those methods and this is exactly why we are here in Parliament today. However, simply to blame everything on these clergymen and to say that they are in favour of violence is not true. I have often attended church services held by Bishop Tutu and he only preaches love. Love is always his main theme, but what do we get from the AWB? Those people talk of violence publicly, yet this Government has the audacity to tell us that one must choose between the AWB and the ANC. Of course we cannot choose the AWB. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, those clergy believe, as we do, in a non-racial South Africa, a South Africa in which all forms of apartheid—statutory, political, social and economic—have disappeared. Those clergymen believe, as we do, in democracy, which means a government of the people, by the people and for the people. That is what I understand by the word democracy and not what the present Government understands by democracy. These clergy believe, again as we do, that state compulsion has to be replaced by freedom of individual choice. They believe, as we believe, that society should be open and that people should have the choice of where they want to live, where they want to work and where they want to educate their children. They believe, as we do, that a democracy will come when full and equal citizenship is granted to all, regardless of race, colour, religion or sex. Many of those who were silenced by banning orders today, and many of those organizations which have been effectively silenced likewise, believe in these values. Not all of them believe in the violent option for this country. They have opted not to work within the parliamentary option—which is their democratic right. Those clergy demonstrated because they chose justice above injustice. However, when one looks at this country today one cannot say that we have justice here because if we had justice, we would not have had 17 million South African citizens excluded from the parliamentary system because of the colour of their skin. Those clergy out there believe in justice so that those 17 million who are excluded because of the colour of their skin, can also take their rightful place in Parliament. This is not only the White man’s preserve. This Parliament should be for all the people in South Africa. Those clergy choose liberation above oppression. This country, without a shadow of doubt, has never seen such severe oppression as has happened since the state of emergency was declared. Thousands and thousands of young people have been jailed and incarcerated simply because they believe in a better South Africa in which discrimination is not the answer. They believe that each individual in this country should be liberated—and by liberation I simply mean that they should be treated as citizens of this country with the same rights and obligations as any other citizen.

These clergy believe in Christian love above sectarian fear. All of them preach the doctrine of love, but this country is based on sectarian fear— and, I may add, sectarian greed! We who are from the oppressed group view things differently from the way the oppressor does. We want to be free in this country and we have chosen the path of peace to achieve that freedom; and we would not want to deny the rest of the people in South Africa that freedom once we have achieved it.

The Government’s policy of apartheid is the sole cause of the conflict in this country. By maintaining White domination in this country, they will never succeed.

We know that there are those who have opted for violence and revolution. We also know from the history of those organizations that they once believed in negotiation. What became of their negotiation, however? That is the important point. In the early 1960s the ANC and PAC were banned, but today those organizations are still a factor in the political equation of this country, despite the fact that they were banned more than 20 years ago. I think the Government has gone on record as having said that those organizations do command the majority support in some of the townships. I wholeheartedly agree with that statement. If a body has been banned for more than 20 years, one would expect to see the demise of that body; but, instead, we see that those bodies are in the forefront of all political action in this country. Therefore, of what worth was the banning orders in the 1960s? Of what worth will the Government’s banning orders in 1988 be? Those very same organizations will not bow down and die; they will grow.

Speak to the Minister!

I am talking to the hon the Minister.

Sir, one can never ban or suppress the desire of people to be free. The governing NP has chosen the path of suppression, but it will not succeed. I listened to the debate in the House of Assembly yesterday. I listened to the hon member for Houghton’s eloquent description of what effect Monday’s event will have in the outside world. We know what effect that will have in the outside world. Hon members of this House and of the other Houses who have gone overseas to plead the case of South Africa might as well return, because all the words they utter overseas will be in vain because of Monday’s activities.

Since 1985 South Africa has not featured on overseas television during prime viewing time, but what happened on Monday? This incident was splashed on television throughout the world during prime viewing time. Sir, you will recall that in overseas countries peaceful demonstrations are allowed and tolerated. Now, to see clergy being suppressed with a water cannon and thereafter hauled to Caledon Square, only to be released later, irks the Western world. By using the water cannon the police sought to humiliate those clergy, but they only succeeded in uniting all oppressed people in South Africa.

The question now is how long the paradise will last in South Africa, when the majority of South Africans are dissatisfied and oppressed. We came into this tricameral system not because we accepted the Government’s constitution, but because we believe in peaceful negotiation and because we are reasonable South Africans who love our country dearly. We visualise a new South Africa where one parliament will one day govern over all in South Africa. However, the Government interprets our participation as an acceptance of the status quo. Nothing can be further from the truth.

We long for the day when we will have a bill of rights that is enshrined in the constitution of this country. We believe in free and compulsory education for all. There must be a common educational system under a common authority. We believe in democracy, mutual co-operation and justice. We believe that the police force should command the respect of all South African citizens. We do not believe that the police force should be used as an instrument of oppression. We believe in a defence force—not in an aggression force. We believe in a South Africa where all people will be free.

These are the convictions which the clergy represented on that day. That is why they gathered as a group. They did that because the Government has now succeeded in effectively silencing the people in the townships and the people who are opposed to the tricameral system and apartheid. However, by silencing them the Government has only aggravated the situation, because they are treating the effect and not the cause. That is important.

We in this House were not party to the decision to ban these organizations. I want to state this quite clearly. We were not consulted. We had to read in the newspapers about the banning of these organizations.

Now, having banned these organizations, where and how does the Government expect their supporters to express what they feel? How does the Government expect them to express their beliefs in a future country? Is the Government not adding fuel to the violence?

Must everybody in this country who disagrees with the present Government be meek and mild and lie down? One can never take the desire for freedom out of a person. The water that was used to douse the clergy will be used to nurture the feeling of resentment, the feeling of anger and the feeling of hatred.

The hon the Minister’s actions on Monday have done this country more harm than good. For the information of the urban terrorist, Eugene Terre’Blanche, this country does not consist only of a White group. This country consists of all the people who live here. If the AWB insist on openly advocating violence, why are they allowed to continue? I want the hon the Minister to answer me. I know why they are allowed to continue. They are allowed to continue because they can influence events in South Africa through their votes. They can influence South Africa by replacing this present Nationalist Government, because they have a vote in the House of Assembly. That is why they are handled with kid gloves. However, Archbishop Tutu, who happens to be Black, has no vote in this country. Through his own God-given talents he has achieved the position he holds today, but he does not have a vote. He cannot change events through the ballot box. I want to know why. Is that not injustice? Archbishop Tutu, who is respected throughout the world, has no effective say about what happens in his country, but any White hobo can vote. [Interjections.] I did not hear what the hon member for Riversdal said.

The Government does not allow those who are oppressed the right to express their views. By denying the oppressed people the right to express their views, the Government is only adding fuel to the fire. See what is happening in the townships. Those people who sought to support some of the structures and measures of this Government have begun to feel that because some organisations have been banned, it has become a case of us versus them. Whoever supports any structure of the Government, is seen to be an enemy in the townships. That is why we have this untold violence in the townships. That is why we have these necklace murders. Those poor unfortunate people who, like us, also believe in the road of peace and negotiation, have no chance in the townships, because those who are against the Government are banned.

What would happen if we decided to ban the Nationalist Government? I guarantee hon members that by tonight they would all have taken up arms. If we had to ban the Nationalist Government today, they would all have taken up arms by tonight.

The hon the Minister has effectively gagged the media so that the people of South Africa should only see, hear and read what the Government wants them to see, hear and read. Because our media have been gagged, we are allowed to see what is happening in the Gaza Strip in Israel. We are allowed to see things that are happening in other parts of the world. Prime time television in South Africa is taken up by a debate between two proponents of apartheid—the one more “verkramp” than the other! Is that news? It may be news because of the present by-election. The “kragdadigheid” of the Government may also be a result of the by-election. I understand things are not going well for the NP, that is why they had to demonstrate their “kragdadigheid”—to appease the voters in the north!

This system which the present Government so vigorously defends today, will and shall be destroyed, because the majority of the people in this country believe in democracy. We who come from the oppressed group have no fear.

Efforts have been made in this House to indoctrinate—subtly, I would say—various hon members who are sitting here to believe that their future lies in being Brown Nationalists. Our future does not lie in being Brown Nationalists. Our future lies in being South Africans first! [Interjections.] I have not said that hon members have accepted the indoctrination. That is a different matter.

More and more people in the townships are turning to these bodies. More and more people in the townships are turning to the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church and the Methodist Church, in particular. Why? [Interjections.] Because of the effective banning and gagging of these bodies, they see in the church the instrument towards their liberation. That is what these clergy represent. That fact cannot be denied. This also includes the Congregational Church.

Statistics have shown that there are more young people attending church services these days than there were five years ago.

No, you never set foot in a church; you do not know what you are talking about.

We know where that hon member stands … [Interjections.]

†There was no need to use water cannons on these leaders. They are respected leaders in South Africa. Whether we want to admit it or not, and whether we agree with their politics or not, the fact remains that they are respected leaders. Water cannons were used on these leaders to humiliate them, because there was no other need to use them. These people could have been arrested without the use of water cannons. However, the water which was used on these leaders will not douse their aspirations to freedom; it will only nurture a greater desire in more of us to be free in this country.

I want to conclude by addressing the Transvaal Indian Congress. We are grateful that they recognize us as members of Parliament who can also be approached. We share their concern over the banning of various political leaders and the curbing of the activities of all those organisations that have been affected, especially the restrictions imposed on Cosatu. We also abhor the action of the NP-government in this regard, but likewise we detest the prescriptive attitude of the Transvaal Indian Congress.

It is our democratic right to choose the path we wish to follow. This democratic right is not motivated, as suggested, solely by personal motives and a desire to collaborate with the proponents of apartheid. We too have a deep desire for a non-racial democratic society. We too have a deep desire to see that all people in this country are free one day. However, we believe this can be achieved through methods which do not embrace violence. That is the difference. So, we are not impressed by their subtle threat that we are to expect the wrath of those who disagree with us. [Interjections.] The very use of the word “Indian” in the title of the Transvaal Indian Congress also signifies a body which perpetuates apartheid, because if they find apartheid so abhorrent, why do they retain the tag “Indian” in their title?

So, to them we say we chose to come to this Chamber and this tricameral Parliament to confront Ministers, like the hon the Minister sitting there, directly and to state our case in no uncertain terms. Face to face we hope to resolve the problems of this country; not through murder, necklacing or bombings, but through dialogue.

I have already told the hon the Minister once that there are times when we agree with him. We are on the side of law and order, but there are times when we will tackle him hard; times when we will take him high and times when we will take him low. This is one of the occasions where we are taking him hard, because we believe what he did has damaged the image of this country more than it has protected the country.

Mr Chairman, it was really an experience to listen to the hon member for Border. It is clear to me that he really knows the hearts of the people of South Africa. Therefore I should also like to talk about the unfortunate incident that took place in Wale Street on Monday.

I want to restrict myself to the cause of the events. We can spend all day talking about what happened there, but if we do not address the causes thereof, we shall never find a solution to our problems.

I want to agree with the hon member for Border that these clergymen are really acknowledged leaders. They are leaders who each have a visible following. No one can deny that. Involuntarily I think of someone like Archbishop Desmond Tutu whose enthronement ceremony I attended. Sir, thousands of people congregated in the Goodwood stadium. It does not matter what my hon colleagues are going to say, but these are acknowledged leaders and the fact that he differs from me politically gives me no reason to be antagonistic towards him. [Interjections.] I think it was the great French philosopher Voltaire who said that any person has the democratic right to differ from me, but it is also my right to defend his right to differ from me. I am going to do so now.

Our big problem in South Africa, whether we want to admit this or not, is apartheid, or whatever euphemistic label we want to give it. Our big problem is racial discrimination. This march to Parliament was an attempt to give expression to a feeling of solidarity to object together against discrimination in South Africa. For this reason the political debate in South Africa has been focused solely on the issue of racial discrimination for many years now. The sociopolitical and economic system that took on shape within the context of the apartheid ideology does contain serious and even blatant forms of racial discrimination. Racial discrimination can be defined as a practice in which some people are benefited by virtue of their colour or race and others are prejudiced on that same basis. Therefore in my opinion racial discrimination is always a matter of the ratio between advantage and disadvantage.

I regard apartheid as more than merely a form of racial discrimination. It is a system of political and socio-economic domination in particular; in fact, racially discriminating legislation functions as statutory mechanisms that hide the Whites’ control over the political decision-making process. It is obvious to us that racially discriminating legislation has served the interests of political domination for years. That is why I share the ambivalence of a great Afrikaner like N P Van Wyk Louw when he writes in his award-winning collection Tristia, and I quote:

While we are conducting this debate, the bow of political violence in South Africa is being drawn ever tighter. The intensity of the bow tension which distorts perspectives to the left and the right is directly related to the escalation and fear of violence. Political violence is one of the hardest ingredients of a hard new reality which is confronting and compromising our beautiful country. It it naive and alien to reality, therefore, to say that one must look at the phenomenon of political violence in our country in a collected, calculated and especially a balanced manner. After all, the struggle has begun. What is being asked of all of us—also in this House—is to make a decisive choice for the future.

We shall have to choose between violence and peaceful negotiation. The LP of South Africa is unconditionally committed to peaceful negotiation and therefore we reject all forms of violence. South Africa is a beautiful country with rare human and natural resources. South Africa can become one of the leading countries in the Western World if we are prepared to bury the hatchet. Fighting groups must resolve their differences and start seeking a solution for our country’s problems.

The majority of South Africans feel wronged, however, because they are excluded from the decision-making processes. In a democracy the citizens’ control of power is embodied mainly in two basic human rights, viz the franchise and freedom of speech. Freedom of speech includes the freedom of the Press and the other media, as well as the right to criticise. Actually these two basic rights are based on the citizen’s fundamental right to take part in the political process. It is self-evident, therefore, that there will be frustration among a large section of the South African population, and of necessity they will take refuge in organisations that will express their feelings. The regulations that were promulgated recently are history. It is for this reason that those who have suffered under these regulations regard the present political order as being violent and of necessity support the South African Council of Churches which described the Defence Force and the Police as follows at its annual national conference: "… a killing machine for the defence of a false ideology.”

By implication this statement constitutes a denial of the legitimacy of the current political order and the view that the State exercises violence against its inhabitants. I am the first to acknowledge, however, that the campaign of civil disobedience, as proclaimed by the South African Council of Churches, is forcing the Police and the Defence Force to suppress violence with violence to an increasing extent.

But, Mr Speaker, political violence as structural violence is the abuse of political channels and institutions by political rulers for their own gain. Political violence as anti-structural violence on the other hand is aimed at the own-interest-orientated destruction and consequent overthrowing of the existing political channels and institutions. I want to state here with the courage of my convictions that we reject both forms of violence. We believe that all South Africans must share in the decision-making process of the country. We believe that one must not destroy South Africa first and then rebuild it, but should rather build on the foundation which already exists.

However, I also want to mention that political violence in our country is not spurred on primarily by outside forces. It is said at random that it is caused by evil forces from outside. No, Sir, violence thrives on our public’s lack of interest in our political order. The anti-structural escalation of violence, which gave rise to the current emergency situation, is the wry fruit of a system of political and social inequality that has been enforced on people for many years, and within which the majority of the population have been denied all effective powers of negotiation on the basis of their colour.

Sir, I want to say this, and I am going to say it: At best South Africa is a semi-democratic state with a race-aristocratic substructure which has had to be kept upright with the aid of structural violence until now.

Apart from its spiritual functions, the church also has to play a social and therefore a political part. A church’s involvement with political matters in South Africa will be determined to a great extent by the number of Black members it has. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon member for Border who said that some of our “mainline” churches were Black churches. The church plays an important role in our community life; and in the absence of organisations with which people like to associate themselves, the church has begun to play the part of political safety valve.

For this reason funerals have become political platforms at which to indicate solidarity with the continued striving for freedom. The march to the Parliamentary building was also undertaken in this spirit, viz to show solidarity, but especially to convey the grievances of the majority of South Africans to the Government. I am a practising Christian and I know that the church is seeking peaceful solutions. I know that a minister gets onto the pulpit to preach the love of God. I therefore make bold to quote from The Finger of God by Dr Allan Boesak. I quote:

Dr Boesak continues:

We know that the march to this Parliamentary building constituted a contravention in terms of Act 52 of 1973. The Government would have emerged from the struggle as the absolute victor, however, if delivery had been taken of the so-called petition. I remember very well that last year the hon the Minister of Law and Order acted as host to the very same Dr Boesak and Archbishop Desmond Tutu when the hon the State President was not available.

The same procedure could have been followed and therefore I ask, why continue to harm the image of South Africa?

There are many Whites who believe that the so-called liberation theology can be used in South Africa to justify the disregard of and the rebellion against the South African Government. But White South Africa very easily forgets that the Voortrekkers identified themselves with the Israel of the Old Testament. Their journey was an exodus from British domination to the promised land, where they would not mix with the heathens. This coupling of the gospels and the Christian faith to the Afrikaner identity has led to a flourishing Afrikaner nationalism and an antiBritish feeling in the 20th century, and to sympathy with German national socialism. It has degenerated into a theology which I should like to call a national theology. This is where the idea of a national language, a national saviour and a national church had their origin.

What do we see today, however? The AWB is the embodiment of that national theology which the NP believed in for years. This national theology is just as questionable as the liberation theology. Both these theories make caricatures of the Bible’s teaching of redemption and both experience the grace of God and Christ’s cross in a wilful manner which seems to glorify humanity.

It is a wonderful gift of God and a privilege to be a person in authority. In the last instance the South African Government is not responsible to the individual, but to God. The greatest command one is taught is that one must love one’s neighbour as oneself. Those in the Government who have authority must justify their consciences to God. The solution to all our problems resides in a sincere recognition of one another’s humanity. It resides in reconciliation and acceptance. Sir, allow me then to conclude with the words of N P Van Wyk Louw in his collection Tristia. I quote:

Sir, let us in South Africa decide not to fight one another any more, so that we can get the poison out of our systems and accept one another as one.

Mr Speaker, I rise to support this motion without any qualification, unlike a similar motion that was debated in this Chamber when the hon member for Border tried to score a point by changing a word. [Interjections.] I am not here to play games and I am certainly not here to score points. My role in this Parliament is to bring South Africa to a situation of absolute normality.

*I am tired of being used, and I am certainly tired of paying the price of apartheid. I simply cannot justify what happened the other day in Wale Street.

†In 1985 a similar action took place in the precincts of Parliament, or near Parliament, when somebody else was Minister of Law and Order. People were also arrested and the question was then asked why these people were arrested when they demonstrated. The Government had the most sophisticated water cannons, it was said. Why were these water cannons not used? I see we have now made an improvement: We not only used the cannons but we also arrested the people.

This is the absolute height of stupidity. It is absolutely ridiculous to go on in this fashion. Nobody will be able to convince me that the action of the clergy on Monday was an action of violence. If people come to one in a peaceful fashion, it is absolutely criminal to react in a violent fashion.

Even though I do not accept the system I risked coming to Parliament in order to use the system, so as to bring about that in which I believe. On Monday—in a similar way, I believe—those clergy used the system to come and voice their dissatisfaction with the actions that took place during the course of last week. I believe it is the right of every South African citizen to object to the actions of the Government if they disagree with them.

What was the reaction, however, when people exercised their democratic right to petition the Head of State, the hon the State President? They were told that they had no right to demonstrate or to object to the actions of the Government, whether they did so in a violent or in a peaceful way. Sir, to me this is absolutely unforgiveable and simply unacceptable.

If we want to find the best road ahead, we will have to start opening our eyes. We can no longer walk along with our eyes closed. I want to repeat that the police action in Wale Street was unforgiveable; and, what is more, it was confusing. People came to the Head of State to deliver a message of protest and, because of their colour, they were discriminated against and treated with violence. Because of their colour they were shot at with a water cannon and thereafter detained.

However, a similar action that definitely had the semblance of violence took place in Pretoria on Saturday. What did we as a Government do? We condoned that action. Do you know why, Sir? We did so because of a by-election that is taking place today. I am not prepared to be sacrificed— I do not believe any other hon member of this House is either—in the interests of the House of Assembly. If an election is to be fought and if elections only mean power in the House of Assembly, Sir, I ask that they must stop using me.

I do not want to speak for too long on this motion, which I support, but I believe that this House is entitled to make a decision here today. Irrespective of what happens and even if we are disallowed the privilege of making a decision, the message must go out clearly to the people outside that we object vehemently to the actions of the police on Monday.

*Everyone naturally has aspirations, and that is one’s right.

†It is the right of Black people to aspire to come to Parliament; and, Sir, whether you like this or not, we will not prevent them from becoming part of the decision-making machinery of this country—whether that happens today, in 10 years’ time or in 100 years’ time. We will not be able to continue governing this country without Black participation.

Now you are talking, Miley!

Sir, that hon member must rather just keep quiet.

It is the right of every person who believes in democracy to object and to make use of his right to disagree with the actions of the Government. That is in my opinion what Archbishop Tutu and others were guilty of.

They exercised their right to disagree with the Nationalist Government, but it has become a crime to do that.

Mr Speaker, I was a victim of similar actions, and so were other hon members here, simply because we disagreed with the Government. We were taken away from those who were dear to us without any reason. However, we are sitting here today, and that proves just how ineffective the actions of the Nationalist Government have been.

*I came here to take the NP’s hand. I came here to lead them to a road on which all citizens of South Africa can walk together.

†No amount of water is going to douse the aspirations of Black people in this country. I want to say without any fear of contradiction that whether the police use water bullets, rubber bullets or real bullets, they will not be able to suppress the aspirations of the Black people of this country.

Mr Speaker, in opening I wish to reply to a question put by the hon member for Border in connection with the situation at Kakamas. The debate which took place here the other day came to the attention of the Commissioner of Police. The SAP member involved was suspended from service a day after the debate so the inquiry may now proceed.

The hon member for Border ranged far afield in his motion but I have no fault to find with it. At the outset I wish to react to what the hon member said and comment briefly on it.

The hon member asked how long we thought we could continue living in this paradise. We in the Government know that there is no paradise in South Africa; I am saying this in all honesty. We know there is no paradise here but, if we permit occurrences such as took place over the past three years, all hell will break loose in South Africa. We cannot permit conditions which were the order of the day in South Africa over the past three years. The Government stemmed this state of affairs by taking strong action. If we were to permit matters to pursue their course unhindered, the events which took place in Mozambique would be our fate in South Africa. Then present conditions in Angola—misery, bloodletting, unemployment and no prospects of a better life— would be our fate in South Africa. The hon member is not to think we are living in a fool’s paradise. If that is the hon member’s view of matters, he is the one living in a fool’s paradise.

The hon member added that the police should command respect. This is true but respect comes from two sides. On the one hand a person’s actions should be fair and just but on the other there should also be obedience to authority. Here we have a group of people attached to churches whom we expect to set an example to all other good people in our country. What type of respect did they command on this occasion?

Mr Speaker, I listened attentively to hon members and took note of their comments and standpoints. I am in agreement with much of what hon members said; there is much I should like to applaud. Time does not permit me to expand on this in detail, however; I merely want to say that we should keep cool heads about the sensitive matters we have discussed today. We should not think in terms of blood because, if we do so, blood will flow in our country—as certain people and organisations would like to see happen. I therefore appeal to hon members to keep cool about these sensitive matters.

We should feel free to be frank with one another; we should tell one another certain things honestly.

I share the views of hon members who say we should debate these matters with one another; we should not settle them over the barrel of a gun. Hon members did so this afternoon. They were openhearted and honest about them and I intend being the same. We should talk to one another about basic points of departure here, about matters which are really at issue—and hon members raised them.

I should like to offer a different perspective here too. It is not pleasant to take unpopular steps, as in this case. It is very pleasant to take popular action and make popular announcements which elicit applause. We all enjoy this. The Police and the Government, as well as hon members, have a responsibility toward our country and the people who live here. The Government is not intent upon damaging South Africa’s case and besmirching our name; this gives us no pleasure. We derive no pleasure from world abuse and having sanctions and boycotts instituted against us. Nothing could be further from the truth; we do not enjoy this. Do hon members think the Government enjoys struggling to ensure that sufficient funds enter the country so that we may obtain what we should like to have? If we can avoid this, we shall try to do so with every means at our disposal.

Hon members should not doubt the Government’s sincere intentions to do its best for South Africa and its people; we want only the best for our country and its people. If the Government sits down and is convinced that it would be in the best interests of South Africa and its people to take unpopular steps and decisions which bring all these troubles down upon us, I want to assure hon members that we are not seeking popularity at such a time, because the interests of our country and its people are of a higher order. Then we are prepared to take that decision, even if it is unpopular; we are prepared to stand up and be counted in this regard. We are prepared to take our punishment for it because we honestly believe that our action is in the greatest interests of South Africa and its people. Although it might not appear to hon members to be so, although what is held up to them may be distorted and placed in a poor light so that the Government seems unfair and unjust to its people, we are prepared to go to our people and be judged by them.

Last Wednesday, after careful consideration of information at our disposal, the Government decided to take action against 18 organisations on a limited scale—I should like to emphasise this. Are hon members aware of how many such organisations there are in the country? There are almost 1 000 of them involving themselves in some form or other of revolutionary activity. The Government then stated its intention to take steps against these 18 organisations.

But not against the AWB.

I shall return to the question of the AWB. We should not turn to the AWB every time… [Interjections.] Permit me to give the hon member a clear explanation. He is using his blood instead of his brains again; the hon member should be calmer about this. Action against any organisation has to be tested against certain legal requirements; we have to pass that test. Do hon members know where we have to pass that test? Not in halls where political meetings are held but in the courts. That is where we contest these matters and that is where we have to pass the test.

Every action by the Minister of Law and Order, the Police and the Commissioner of Police must be able to stand the test in the courts of our country. That is why any action has to succeed there or we lose the case. [Interjections.]

The Government decided to take action against certain organisations which have certain intentions regarding South Africa which are not shared by the majority of hon members in this House.

It was decided to curb the activities and actions of certain organisations and persons. I want us to pause for a few moments and examine these organisations. The ANC describes them as their “fighting allies”. That is the testimonial these organisations receive from the ANC which is controlled by the South African Communist Party. These organisations are described as follows by a publication of the United States Information Service called Problems of Communism of July—August 1987:

We are not the ones saying this but the information service of the USA calls the UDF the key legal front organisation of the ANC and the SACP in South Africa. It continues:

That is the second important tool of this communist-controlled organisation in South Africa.

The UDF, Cosatu and the other 16 organisations remain legal in South Africa. What have we done to Cosatu now? We have told Cosatu it is a trade union and should concern itself with trade union activities. That is all we have done. After all, what does Cosatu have to do with other activities?

Let us take a look at Cosatu. The same document says about Cosatu:

Which of us stands by such an organisation? Who wishes to rise and plead on behalf of such an organisation? What hon members want to do this? This is an organisation which states openly it is anticapitalistic and we are all advocates of the free-market system; we should like to establish the free-market system in South Africa. We all say we are anticommunistic but how can we stand up and plead for this organisations in such a case?

What does Cosatu say?

We should forget what Cosatu says, see what the evidence says and then reach a decision.

The AWB advocates nationalisation.

We shall discuss the AWB later. When I present hon members with independent evidence, however, they should give the situation some thought at least.

The question at issue is the detention and hosing of people.

I shall get to the point put by the hon member for Toekomsrus. Let me tell the hon member at once that these clerics who demonstrated on Monday were demonstrating for the lifting of the restriction placed on the activities of these organisations. What would the effect be? [Interjections.] The effect would be that these organisations would be permitted to continue unhindered with all these actions in South Africa. Surely it can mean nothing else. The document says Cosatu is “openly Marxist” and “pro-ANC”. This is the organisation these clergymen are pleading for. They are also pleading for organisations which say inter alia “Victory or death”. This has only one meaning, which is that if there is no victory there is death and violence. That is what is being propagated. They go even further and say: “We are revolutionaries and our business is to make revolution.” What hon member in this House agrees with this? I do not know a single hon member in this House who supports that slogan. Surely all hon members reject it. In the light of this, how can they plead that those organisations should be permitted to proceed with their devilish work in South Africa. They also say: “Advance to the supreme aim which is the establishment of a socialist South Africa laying the foundations of a classless communist society.”

What hon member desires this for South Africa? Not one. Not a single hon member wants to establish a communist community in South Africa. How on earth can we therefore appeal that these organisations be released so that they may continue their devilish work and achieve their aim? Surely that does not make sense.

The Government took action against organisations which purposefully contributed to the creation of a climate which caused shocking unrest and violence in the country among all our communities in the past three years; which carried out abhorrent necklace murders. Hon members rejected that here; they said they could not agree with it. I appreciate this. These people intimidated innocent South Africans in cold blood. I now want to ask hon members what the source of these actions was. Did they simply appear out of thin air or were they organised? Did organisations and people organise them? Now the South African Government is taking steps against these organisations and saying their activities have led to these actions. The Government says it will curb and restrict them. If we were to permit these organisations and they were to succeed in their objectives, this would not only make South Africa ungovernable but would lead to endless misery among ordinary people. These organisations are abused by the ANC as their tools to deceive people.

The hon member Mr Douw spoke about civil disobedience which led to violence. The hon member is right, but let us look at what the South African Council of Churches has to say. I quote:

In addition the SACC made the following appeal:

One of the aspects we find in the revolutionary onslaught is that alternative structures are established to take over the structure where we are sitting. They want to take over Parliament.

Bring them into the structure.

This appeal is subtle support of alternative structures aimed at destroying their legal counterparts. I am in possession of proof that certain spiritual leaders do not hesitate to use flagrant lies to besmirch and present the State locally and overseas as inhuman. Some of these clerics have declared unequivocally in interviews with foreign correspondents that illegal methods will be used in future to fight the State. A certain spiritual leader had the following to say about the role of the church:

Hon members agreed with me a short while ago. We do not agree that we are headed for socialism and ultimately for communism in South Africa. We do not want this. A church leader made that appeal in the words I have just quoted.

Let us pause for a moment and consider Monday’s events.

And those of Saturday.

I shall get to Saturday too.

I should like to make a few comments against this background. The action against the clergymen took place in terms of an Act. Hon members quoted it here today. For the record I should like to read what is stated in the Act. Are hon members aware this is an Act of this Parliament to which Black people want to come and this is the respect we accord an Act passed by this Parliament. Section 2 of the Gatherings and Demonstrations Act reads as follows and I shall quote only a portion:

This comes into force if certain requirements are not met.

They are prohibited. This is an Act of Parliament which was promulgated to ensure the inviolability of Parliament. We should respect this Parliament and we expect spiritual leaders—the hon member mentioned a while ago that they led millions of people—to have respect for this institution too. We should tell those people this as well.

The Government has expressed its standpoint clearly. It is based on moderation. We are opposed to violence and radicalism and I should like to repeat this loudly and clearly here. We reject radicalism; we choose the way of evolution as opposed to revolution and I should like to reaffirm this to hon members.

Sir, I should like to inform hon members of what happened there. Some hon members have already come to see the video tapes and other hon members are welcome to do so too. The group consisted of the clergymen and their sympathisers, but let us say immediately that that group of clerics did not consist of Black people only. Colour had nothing to do with it. There were people of all colours there who took this decision. In other words, steps were not taken—it would be wrong to assert this—against Black people only. [Interjections.] It is untrue that action was taken against Black people only. Steps were taken against all people who broke that law.

Yes, but because there were Black people present.

Mr Speaker, these clergymen and their sympathisers gathered in the cathedral supposedly to draw up a petition to present to the State President. At this meeting, however, they ranged themselves unanimously on the side of certain organisations which I have already mentioned. It was clear from the start that this was an exercise to see how much publicity they could extract from the entire situation. Those people were instructed in the hall to sink to their knees in prayer and to resist in this manner as soon as they were confronted by the Police. They were not to disperse. No, there was an agreement to move and to kneel if they were confronted by the Police. That is exactly what happened. Hon members are welcome to view the videos. Consequently they were prepared for confrontation and left the church building with that aim.

But they arrived there without guns.

What better image could they have sent into the world of so-called harmless clerics being removed by the Police. This was done merely to besmirch the image of South Africa.

The police officer who stopped these people warned them that their action was illegal. He addressed them politely telling them repeatedly that they were contravening a law of the land. He told them what they were doing was wrong, because they were breaking one of the laws of the country. Before time catches up with me, I want to state immediately that when that group of AWB people were told at the Union Buildings last Saturday they were breaking a law, they scattered; then they ran away. [Interjections.] That is the point; that is the difference, Sir. That bunch took flight. [Interjections.] I am telling hon members that is what happened. Here at the cathedral, however, the people decided to take the way of confrontation.

Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon the Minister?

No, Mr Speaker, I cannot reply to questions now. If I have time at the end, I shall give the hon member an opportunity.

At one stage only the leaders were taken away and told politely that they were breaking a law and were to accompany the police officers. Hon members can come and take a look at how decently they were removed. They were even told where they were being taken. After this had been done, the rest of the people were requested to disperse. They were told that the Police did not wish to act against them.

I repeat we do not want trouble. But what did these people do? They said: “We shall sit here. We shall not go away.” That is the worst form of civil disobedience one can find. [Interjections.] As I have said, Sir, the leaders were removed without violence and they were told where they were being taken. The Police then told the rest of the people that they would use the water cannon if they did not disperse, but the people then marched across the street. Hon members are welcome to watch the video; I have seen it myself.

They then walked across the street. They disrupted traffic to such an extent that the Police had to stop all vehicles. We then repeated: “Listen here, disperse or else we shall turn the water cannon on you.” We then hosed them with the water cannon, but first aimed at their feet.

They chose not to listen, however. These people were seeking confrontation because they wish to damage the image of South Africa overseas. The Police were obliged to cut off the flow of traffic. After repeated polite requests to disperse in peace and their failing to do so, steps had to be taken against them. I want to tell hon members— and I said this yesterday afternoon too—that at no stage was a petition displayed or handed to these police officers. I saw in the Cape Times yesterday that the petition was signed only after the people had been released from Caledon Square and assembled in the hall. They signed the petition only at that stage. They could have told the Police: “All right, you do not want us to march, but take this paper to the State President or the Minister for us now.”

That was not mentioned, however; it did not come up at any point.

Let us pause for a minute to consider AWB action. I want to say from the outset that the Police do not ignore AWB action at all. We reject their action. Nevertheless I want to tell the hon member that before we can take any steps whatsoever against the AWB, they have to contravene a law of the land or the emergency regulations. The hon member cannot expect me or the Police or the Government to take steps against people who are not contravening a law of the land or the emergency regulations. That is the test we have to apply.

Someone is afraid of the AWB.

Mr Speaker, that hon member is not to challenge me and say I am afraid of the AWB. The hon member will see what we have in store for the AWB! The Government rejects what AWB members say; the Government rejects their radicalism. The AWB claims in the words of Mr Eugene Terre’Blanche that there are only two options in South Africa—either the AWB or the ANC. We stand between this lot and fight them both. That is the point! [Interjections.] Where does the hon member stand? On whose side is he fighting? Is he on the side of the Government fighting these two organisations or is the hon member fighting the Government as well? That is the problem facing us.

The AWB’s description of itself is that it is no Sunday school picnic. I want to say only this: There is no room for the extremists and the radicals of the ANC or the AWB in South Africa. This Government will carry the fight to both sides. We are not afraid to fight them on both sides. I want to ask hon members to stand by us; they must not attack us. Hon members should talk to us; they should discuss matters with us. Hon members should see in what ways they can help us; they should not make our task even more difficult. The AWB was extremely careful last Saturday. I think its members had taken very good legal advice. They were extremely careful not to put a foot wrong or to contravene laws. This was in contrast with what the clergy did on Monday. I pointed this out to hon members; I read the Act to hon members and explained what these people had done wrong. I told hon members what the difference was between their action and that of the AWB. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members have repeatedly requested the hon the Minister to discuss the AWB matter in the House as well. The hon the Minister is really taking the trouble to reply fully to the question and I feel hon members should give him the opportunity of making his explanation as he chooses and for as long as he chooses.

Mr Speaker, I want AWB…

Mr Speaker, is the hon the Minister prepared to reply to a question?

No, not now, Sir. As I said yesterday afternoon, the Government condemns such radical action by any organisation in South Africa and this includes the AWB! We shall not permit the safety of the public and the maintenance of public order to be jeopardised—it does not matter by whom! We shall take steps against such people. [Interjections.] The hon member had better exercise a little patience because he will see what we plan to do in this regard.

The real tragedy which occurred on Monday— and it is a pity that all these events occurred—was that clergymen elected to range themselves with organisations which hold no brief for Christianity in South Africa and which want to promote communism in our country. Hon members themselves acknowledged that our spiritual leaders represented millions of people, yet they rose and appealed on behalf of these organisations! The Government has taken sides against them. We shall fight these organisations as long as we bear the responsibility.

Are churches communistic now too?

Mr Speaker, I have never said churches are communistic. I said clergymen pleaded for these organisations to be permitted to continue their devilish work in South Africa. I repeat this because that is what they did in reality. Fortunately there are other Christians too who have a different standpoint on this. I received a telex which reads as follows:

I wish to conclude by saying I agree with the hon member Mr Douw who says we have a wonderful country. I want to tell him we certainly have a wonderful country and if we stand together—he requested that we do this too—and take hands and fight radicalism in left-wing and right-wing ranks, we can win. We can therefore build a wonderful future for everybody here.

Mr Speaker, the hon the Minister said that any action would be tested in terms of the law. May I ask him whether that means that anyone, regardless of race or colour, wearing or carrying a firearm on his person or in his vehicle, can walk into or drive up to the Union Buildings in order to present a petition?

Mr Speaker, the Arms and Ammunition Act lays down clearly how a firearm may be carried and that provision applies to all people in South Africa. If a person is in legal possession of a firearm, there are regulations on carrying it. One may then carry a firearm; my hon colleague the Deputy Minister of Population Development may carry one too. Consequently I say again that the AWB acted very circumspectly and broke no laws. Regarding the aspect of carrying firearms, they therefore did not contravene any law.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister further whether a video recording was made on Saturday of the AWB’s meeting at the Skilpadsaal and of their subsequent march and demonstration?

As far as I know, yes, Mr Speaker.

*I want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister, however, that the AWB meeting took place indoors. There is no prohibition on this. They then travelled by car to the Union Buildings and stopped there. On Saturdays there are usually hundreds of members of the public standing around on the lowest level of the Union Buildings or strolling about the gardens. The AWB supporters mingled with those people and walked about there—until Mr Terre’Blanche arrived and handed a petition to policemen. We told him he was playing the fool and they then disappeared again.

Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon the Minister?

No, Mr Speaker, I am really not answering any questions now.

I merely wanted to know whether those chaps had a permit…

Order! No hon member may shout at the hon the Minister from his seat if the hon the Minister is not prepared to reply to a question. I now call upon the hon member for Border.

Mr Speaker, I thank the hon member Mr Douw for having taken part in this debate; his contribution is appreciated. I also want to thank the hon member for Toekomsrus for his contribution. It is appreciated.

The hon the Minister started off by replying to an incident that took place in Kakamas. That was not the incident to which I was referring. Here we have to do with a new incident in which David Isaacs, the chairman of the LP’s branch at Marchand, was shot dead. I can give the hon the Minister the name of the person who was allegedly responsible for the killing—he is one Frans Brand—and who has still not been apprehended.

I will provide the hon the Minister with particulars afterwards.

The hon the Minister, being bound by duty, eloquently defended the position of the SAP, but there is one cardinal aspect of his reply which I want to highlight. He said that these clergy went there to damage the image of South Africa. Surely that means that the hon the Minister, through the police, allowed them to do so. That is the point I want to emphasise. The hon the Minister associated the clergy with all these organizations which are anti-capitalistic and Marxist.

I want to pose a simple question. What would the hon the Minister do if the system that prevails disallows him to gain meaningful access to Parliament? What would the hon the Minister do if the prevailing system barred him from acquiring property? What would he do if the prevailing system confined him to the ghettos of Khayelitsha?

Order! I think the hon member is straying too far. He must please come back to the motion.

All these protections which the system allows, has resulted in this motion being presented to this House today. The hon the Minister has avoided the crux of the matter, namely that we have a large body of South Africans who are oppressed. Firing water cannons at them and arresting them will not cure the oppression. What should be cured in this country is not the method of oppression that was used on Monday. What should be done in this country is that oppression must be got rid of. The answer is quite simple: We must get rid of the apartheid system of government, get rid of the apartheid which permeates our entire lives and let each individual in this country be what he ought to be. When the hon the Minister is what he ought to be, and when I am what I ought to be, both of us will be free.

Question agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.

Order! The hon member for Camperdown has requested Mr Speaker to allow him an opportunity to give a personal explanation. Mr Speaker has granted this request and I shall now allow the hon member for Camperdown to address the House. He must be heard in silence, and no interjections will be allowed.

Mr Chairman, during the debate yesterday the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council made the following statement:

I want to deny categorically that I gave notice of the motion in question against my will. In fact, it should have been clear to anyone present in the House yesterday that I was unhappy about being unable to proceed with the motion.

Order! The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is now afforded an opportunity to reply. He will be heard in silence without any interjections.

Mr Chairman, when the hon member for Lenasia Central gave his notice of motion this afternoon the hon member for Springfield made a comment.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order…

Order! What is the hon member’s point of order?

Mr Chairman, is the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council allowed to reply to what was said this afternoon, or merely to reply to the hon member for Camperdown?

Order! The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council should refer only to the hon member for Camperdown.

Mr Chairman, I am referring to him, but what was stated, was of relevance to the statements made by the hon member for Camperdown. The hon member for Springfield indicated, rather long-windedly: Come to me—I will draft it.

I stand by the statement I made in this House yesterday, because the hon member for Camperdown cannot deny the fact that he has showered praises on the efforts of this Ministers’ Council and the Administration. This was not done privately, to me or to my hon colleagues in the Ministers’ Council. Those excellent sentiments were expressed publicly. These sentiments cannot be denied.

Mr Chairman, again on a point of order: If I understood the Chair’s ruling, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has to confine himself to the remarks made by the hon member for Camperdown in his explanation this afternoon.

Mr Chairman, I am satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the hon member for Camperdown has not stood up this afternoon and spoken as a result of his own initiative. I accept that he belongs to a political party and his statement this afternoon is a result of the tremendous further humiliation his party leadership suffered in this House yesterday. I understand his predicament.

Order! I kindly ask the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to keep to the statement made by the hon member for Camperdown and to reply only to that and not to party affiliations.

Yes, Mr Chairman, but the hon member for Camperdown read a prepared statement. I am convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that he has not made that statement as a result of his own free will.

Order! There will be no further discussion on this matter.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council’s reply casts further aspersions. He is now inferring that I am being used as a tool by somebody else.

I have a bug in your office.

We have a mole in yours.

Order! I should now like to draw hon members’ attention to this guideline: It is only what an hon member says in explanation of a speech made in a House that must be accepted. It is not the position that a member’s word may not be called into question in a House. For example, a member may say that he does not accept a statement in a speech as being either correct or a true version of the facts.

Mr Chairman, I rise to take part in this debate this afternoon with a very heavy heart in view of the mid-air accident that took place yesterday, killing all 17 passengers. On behalf of all the hon members of this House I want to extend our deepest sympathy to the near and dear of those who lost their lives. This is a real tragedy and I pray that it is not the result of a sabotage-related incident.

The Budget speech of the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs represents a story of positive change within the SATS. There are changes in the terrains of business strategy, organisational framework, privatisation and labour relations. Someone once said that we all want to change the world as long as the change does not start with us. In this regard, I should like to congratulate the hon the Minister and the management of the SATS on not having shrunk from performing this essential change.

To my mind the Transport Services Appropriation Bill demonstrates the Government’s determination to curb the present rate of inflation. It is a feather in the hon the Minister’s cap that he did not introduce a general increase in tariffs and fares. I hope that the private sector will approach this matter with the same degree of responsibility.

I am, however, sorry for the dedicated SATS employees, who will not receive a general salary increase this year but as a businessman I know that sacrifices are sometimes necessary and that they usually bring rewards. [Interjections.]

Having said that, I want to make a few comments on the Budget speech. The Budget was based on a growth rate of 3%. This was due to various factors, amongst which the local and international scene placed a damper on the upswing. Of particular significance are the continued sanctions and disinvestment actions, labour unrest and a slump in the Stock Exchange world-wide, while the economies of South Africa’s major trading partners have begun to level off.

The Natal floods did not only affect the farming community. The Railways also suffered damage to their rail network and pipelines amounting to approximately R26 million.

In addition the SATS lost nearly R1 000 million on main-line passenger trains, suburban trains and the Blue Train last year, and they now run only 100 trains every week country-wide.

Main-line trains are responsible for a loss of approximately R314 million; suburban trains, a loss of R600 million; and the Blue train, a loss of approximately R3,5 million. Rail passenger transport in South Africa has virtually come to a standstill.

Two years ago they used to run 1 100 trains every week, but now they have had to rationalise drastically. I believe main-line transport as a product has come to the end of its life-cycle. There has been a drastic drop in passengers since 1983 and many of the trains are now carrying fresh air, so to speak. Mini-taxis and buses have taken a great deal of the traffic away and other factors like population density and distances between regions have also contributed. Also, South Africans prefer to travel by car.

The hon the State President announced that the Government decided in principle to submit to Parliament the necessary legislation amendments which will transform, inter alia, the SATS as a whole, whereafter it will be divided between suitable business enterprises or undertakings, with the effect of making profit and paying taxes. This announcement is in line with the recommendations of Dr Wim de Villiers regarding the strategic planning and management practices and systems of the SATS.

In conclusion, I want to thank the officials of the SATS for their frank and informative replies to our questions given during the meeting of the standing committee. I also want to thank the chairman of the standing committee and the secretary for their assistance.

Finally, I want to congratulate the airport manager and staff at the Louis Botha Airport for having won the trophy for the Airport of the Year, which was presented on 27 January by our hon Minister.

Mr Chairman, I want to take the opportunity of welcoming the hon the Deputy Minister with his entourage here this afternoon. It is not my intention to give them a rough ride, but it is only on occasions such as these that we get the opportunity to air our views and bring to the notice many deficiencies with which employees of the SATS are faced.

There is a clear indication that the SATS is moving in the right direction. Let us not lose sight of the fact that the report submitted by Dr De Villiers must be respected. I think it is a report which we must evaluate in the light in which it is presented to us. I think the SATS must take into consideration the various proposals made in the interest of the country as a whole.

We warmly welcome the new dispensation and the grand idea of dividing the SATS into five different business sections from 1 April. I think this is a move in the right direction. By so doing, I believe the competition between the various sections will be greater, resulting in more productivity. I believe that the new phase, when put into operation, will show results and financial gain, more especially from the sections which in the past had to be subsidised from other departments. This will give an opportunity to those in charge of respective sections to pull up their socks if they lacked in the past. I do not associate myself with the hon member for Umzinto who praised the department and the hon the Minister for not announcing an increase in tariffs.

I think there is nothing to crow about. The fare tariff rate has been increased to an exorbitant level that is out of all proportion. This may be the cause for the declining passenger numbers in train services in particular. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon member for Umzinto, who mentioned that the Assistant General Manager, Mr Barry Lessing, said recently that the mainline rail system is carrying mostly fresh air nowadays.

I do not think the problem is that fewer people are moving about. On the contrary, I think the number has increased and will continue to do so. Why then the present state of affairs? I think the answer is obvious. Other modes of transport are utilised because they are cheaper and faster and I think there is less red tape involved. This is the other reason why people commute by kombi taxis etc. Deregulation played an important role when kombi taxis were introduced to meet the needs of commuting passengers.

However, I regret to have to say that these kombi taxi services have grown out of all proportion at an alarming rate. I think something dramatic will have to be done at this stage.

There are many unscrupulous taxi drivers. I blame the drivers rather than the operators who own the taxis, because the drivers are negligent and reckless. Their arrogance is also intolerable.

Several of these kombi taxis are operated without a licence. I want to quote from a newspaper editorial of December 1987. The caption is “Chariots of fire” and it reads as follows:

I think this is an alarming and shocking state of affairs. Innocent people have lost their lives. The worst is that some of these unlicensed and unregistered kombi taxis are not even covered by insurance.

There have been frightening disclosures in the newspapers in recent times that the SAA is cutting costs in the maintenance of aircraft. This could have a much wider meaning insofar as the public sector is concerned. This together with the claim that the pilots of the SAA are among the lowest paid in the world and are also greatly overworked, creates a doubt in the minds of air passengers with regard to the reliability of the SAA. This could have a far-reaching effect and I think the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs should make a clear statement in this regard for the benefit of air passengers. I believe the private sector should be given the chance to buy at least some of the aircraft of the SAA’s fleet.

Having gone through the report of the income and expenditure of the department I see that there is a slight increase in air traffic and an increase in profits. However, these are not dramatic increases. I think we have to follow the pattern of British Airways and even Hong Kong for that matter where Cathay Pacific is a competing airline. It will encourage the public sector to pull up its socks because there will be competition. The greater the competition, the better for the economy of the country as a whole.

I want to return to the question of discrimination. I have highlighted this matter in the past. We were told that a five-phase programme was to be implemented. I do not know if this was something that was brought to our notice just for the sake of bringing it to our notice or whether it has in fact been implemented. I am of the opinion that these phases are very static and that they have not been put into operation as they should have been. There is a great amount of discrimination in the departments of the SATS. I have a few letters which I should like to despatch to the hon the Minister sometime after the debate.

Without quoting the names of the people involved, let me just for the information of the hon the Minister and the House bring the following to their notice. There is a particular place in Durban, the Container Repair Service in Bayhead, where both White and Indian people are employed as welders. They are doing the same type of work and there is no difference whatsoever. But when in 1984 there was talk of parity by the management they very quickly had to differentiate the grades of these workers. Yet they were doing the same type of work and they are still doing it.

I want to quote the difference in salary between the different types of people doing the same type of work. An Indian would get R10 500 per annum against his White counterparts of R14 500.

The difference is that they are categorized into different categories. The Indians are classified as trade assistants whilst the Whites, who are doing exactly the same work, are classified as trade hands.

I think something is wrong somewhere. This has to be looked at. I have letters here. In fact, there is so much more in this two page letter that if I were to read the whole thing I should just be taking up much more of the time and my hon colleagues would not get the opportunity to present their case.

I should like to draw the attention of the hon the Deputy Minister to the fact that two Indians started work in November 1986 as welders in the same department. Two Whites also started at the same time. The Whites received an increase in July 1987 and up to this date the Indians are still waiting for an increase.

Coming back to the question of employment opportunities, there was a lot of hot air here from the then Minister of Transport the hon Mr Hendrik Schoeman about the fact that Indians would be considered as trainee pilots. I do not know what has become of that and I hope the hon the Minister will be able to address us on that issue.

There has been some measure of relief in so far as Indians being trained as assistant train drivers and local drivers are concerned. Then too I have read in the paper recently that there was some racial hatred for which the hon the Minister and his department were not responsible and I shall leave the matter at that.

The other sore point that I should like to highlight here is the question of job reservation, which is very evident at the airports. We travel quite widely from Durban to Johannesburg. At Jan Smuts Airport, being international with so much staff in the various departments, it is all very well to see Whites only, but what happens to the Indians? One does not find a single Indian, Coloured or Black staff member. There are absolutely none. It is all very well to say that there are people working, but what are their numbers, where are they and what type of work are they doing? This is certainly not in the interests of the country.

I think it being a state and enterprise the process of reform as envisaged by the Government, the Ministry and the hon the Minister himself must start at this level and not in the private sector. The State controlled businesses should be the eye-opener as far as the employment of people is concerned.

The other issue concerns job opportunities. I have here a letter written in very simple language which was sent to me as a member of the standing committee and I should like to read one or two lines from it:

This is what the letter requests. I quote further:

Just ordinary clerks. The letter also states:

He feels that these jobs should be shared by all other sections as well.

Job reservation!

It is.

Or job preservation.

I would also like to bring to the notice of the hon the Minister that in 1986 the second phase of the proposed plan was to be put into effect, and there was parity in salaries. I do not know how far they have gone in that regard, but I am sure the Indians are doing a wonderful job. If one goes by an article that appeared in the Fiat Lux recently, it is also very interesting that mention is made here of one Indian student who achieved 99% for all four papers when he wrote examinations to be trained as a train driver assistant or train driver. This is quite encouraging.

The Fiat Lux is useful. [Interjections.]

This article is from Transport, not from the House of Delegates administration. That is the difference, you see.

I want to quote one particular article:

Now what does this reference to “certain grades” mean? They employ people of all races but restrict them to certain grades only! It is a shame. These opportunities must be open.

I come to the question of medical aid. I think this matter should be expedited. In 1986-87 in terms of the five-phase programme, those non-Whites would be either transferred, or they would be qualified to be members of the Transmed medical aid scheme. Having gone through this booklet, the 1986-87 annual report, I noted with a certain amount of feeling that R224,2 million was spent on the Whites, whereas the Indians benefited by only R20 million, simply because they are not on the same medical aid. They are on another medical aid which deprives them of the benefits they would have enjoyed had they been transferred to Transmed. This was programmed for 1986-87 but I do not know how far it has gone at this stage.

The other issue I would like to raise here—if the hon the Minister cannot answer me today, I would appreciate it if he would answer me in writing, and make notes—is the question of the R75 million that is required to cover losses of revenue from transport levies. When he talks about levies mention is made of Indian operators, public passenger transport, bus commuters, and contributions to the account for Black, Coloured and Indian transport services. I would like to have more clarity on what he means by Indian transport services. Is he in fact referring to transport services being subsidised in Indian areas by Indian operators? If that is so I would like to know which areas have been declared subsidised, who the operators are, and what amount has been paid to them by way of subsidies.

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon member if he could give an indication as to which item he is referring to.

I am referring to the parliamentary explanatory memorandum on the additional estimate of R80 million that was submitted to us. Mention was made of R75 million for overland transport.

But that is Transport Affairs. That should have been dealt with the other day.

Transport and the SATS are two different things.

But if the hon member would like me to, I can …

I would appreciate it if the hon the Deputy Minister could pass this on to his officials.

I do not want to take up much more time. My colleague is waiting to present his case. We are limited to 25 minutes in this debate.

In conclusion, I wish to say that the process of reform must be expedited. If we have people like the hon the Deputy Minister, who has taken this matter up very seriously with his Government, then I think the beginning will be with the SATS. The pace should be much faster than in the past.

Mr Chairman, in his Budget speech the hon the Minister said that SAA was in line for privatisation. However, the hon the Minister said that no timetable could be set for handing SAA over to private enterprise, nor for the privatisation of Translux or the Transcity bus service, now operated by the road transport section of SATS.

The good news is that the hon the Minister has said that there will be no tariff increases as far as the fares are concerned.

The hon the Minister also said that as part of a new development, it was necessary to restructure SATS in terms of primary and secondary business enterprises, a process which may facilitate efforts leading to privatisation.

Thus it was proposed that SATS be divided into six primary business enterprises, namely the goods trains, railways, goods and long-distance passengers; airways; harbours; road transport; pipelines; and daily commuters.

I should like to ask the hon the Minister about the establishment of the transport advisory committee. It will consist of about 60 members. Will Black, Coloured and Indian members also serve on that committee?

I would like to raise the matter of the conduct of breakdown operators and panel-beaters, particularly those operating on the Reef. For example, if a car has been towed from the scene of an accident to a panel-beater with which the towing company has an arrangement, then when the insurers wish to remove the vehicle and have it repaired by another panel-beater, they are told that they have to pay R500. This includes the towing cost and a couple of days of storage. However, in the instance I am referring to, the cost had been far less. I should like to know from the hon the Minister how one can resolve this problem. This is really a rip-off by the breakdown operators and the panel-beaters.

The State must provide a free service.

In conclusion, I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating Dr Moolman on his appointment as general manager, and I wish him well.

Mr Chairman, we have a new general manager of the Transport Services, whom we may expect will introduce some innovative ideas. I refer to Dr A T Moolman. He heads the management of SATS, and he controls the destiny of the transport services of this country. His plan to run transport services on business lines is most welcome. Sound management on business lines would certainly reveal profits and losses, weaknesses and gains. In this regard he has divided the management into five divisions, namely the Deputy General Manager (Railways), the Airways, technical services, Financial Services and Manpower.

Down-the-line delegation of powers and accountability will enable the Transport Services to keep a careful watch and control on management. Most important of all is the encouragement of production and the spirit of competitiveness and improved efficiency.

On the question of production I would like to emphasize that all South Africans should work productively and profitably. In this respect there is no room for the shirker or lazy man earning a very good salary and doing very little or nothing. Unproductive personnel, particularly in the higher echelons, should be pruned. Sound business management is necessary to prune unproductive managers and supervisors for the sake of effective production and for the purpose of curtailing costs. Therefore employment of personnel should be on merit, and on merit alone. Perhaps I might add that the same goes for production. Merit and productivity should be the criteria for employment and promotion opportunities.

When I talk of merit, I refer to selection from all race groups. Jobs on the highest level of the pyramid should not be reserved for Whites only. Every man, irrespective of his colour or creed, should be afforded the opportunity to rise to the highest level on the ladder. No man should be denied that opportunity. After all, if a shunter could become Minister of Transport Affairs, as has happened in this country, why should not a non-White be accorded the same privilege and status? We need job satisfaction and contentment in the workplace for every citizen of this country to share in its wealth and prosperity. Contentment will lead to satisfaction, which will lead to greater productivity and contribute to the stable economic growth so necessary for the well-being of every individual in this land. This is also very necessary for the pursuit of orderly, peaceful change towards a just, equal-opportunity society and perhaps ultimately to a peace-loving and stable country.

In the Budget Speech by the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs he mentioned unrests. In 1987 we had a nasty experience with strikes that were aimed to cripple the essential services and bring about a heavy demand on transport services, holding these services to ransom. However, if a fair and just system of employment and wage determination had been adopted and if there had been justice and fair play in this respect, there would have been very little room for discontent and friction. There also would have been very little room for those agitators and manipulators to bring about strike actions. I believe that we learn by experience, which is a very good teacher. We should learn from our experiences and remedy the weaknesses in our system. We must be mindful of the fact that we are living in changing times and changing circumstances. I refer to sanctions, disinvestment, the instability of stock exchanges, strikes and a fluctuating rand which affects the balance of trade. All of this will effect our transport system and the management thereof. In order to bring about internal stability and peace and contentment we must ensure justice and fair play in the determination of wage and job opportunities.

Next I would like to discuss free enterprise. I would like to exhort the hon the Minister not to abandon responsibility under guise of free enterprise. Please do not erode the confidence of the well-meaning majority of the members of all population groups. Privatisation of transport, particularly public transport, has its merits and demerits. I am not here to condemn privatisation. Privatisation has its good effects and it may also have its bad effects.

There are certain commuter passenger services that cannot be privatised because they are essential services, even more so now than ever before because people have been displaced in terms of the Group Areas Act and the policy of separate development. These people have been located great distances away from the industrial areas and other places of work. They have to pay enormous amounts in fares and travel long distances. Their wages become eroded, and this will certainly lead to a certain amount of discontentment. Therefore, subsidisation is vital. This is where the Government’s subsidisation programme comes in. I believe that transport has been subsidised to the tune of R1 200 million, both by the State and the internal transport affairs departments.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he is aware that this tremendous transport subsidy is necessitated by the pernicious system of apartheid, as a result of which workers are forced to live long distances away from their places of work?

I mentioned that. I want to make it very clear that I am not against privatisation per se but I want to issue a warning that should no heed be paid to the matters I have mentioned, there could be disruptions of a magnitude too ghastly to contemplate.

As a South African, I believe that we should look to the welfare and well-being of every individual in this country. I do not believe that opportunities should be accorded to one section of the population so that others resent those opportunities. Let justice prevail in regard to employment opportunities and productivity in the SATS.

Mr Chairman, I would like to respond briefly to the previous speakers. I should like to respond firstly to the chairman of the House of Delegates component of the standing committee. I do not see what he finds so wonderful about the SATS that warrants his praise. [Interjections.]

They convey you from Durban to Cape Town.

All right, that is a point in question. Take the Louis Botha Airport, for example. He praised the officials there. However, those officials deemed it fit to make hon members of Parliament walk from one end of the building to the other to park their cars. [Interjections.] Would those hon members please keep quiet? Have they now finished with their monkey tricks? The point here pertains to parking facilities for MPs at that airport. There are 31 hon members of this House, 17 hon members of the House of Assembly and 6 hon members of the House of Representatives, as well as a number of public servants, and there are only 18 parking bays at the airport.

Did you have time to count them? [Interjections.]

Of course, they are numbered. That hon member does not drive a car and so he does not know. He thumbs a lift. He is a hitchhiker. Hitch-hikers do not have those problems. [Interjections.] Those parking bays are numbered from one to eighteen, and so it is obvious. [Interjections.]

To come back to the hon member for Havenside, I was rather disappointed at his rather parochial attitude toward the debate. He harped on the same old theme: Indian, Indian, Indian. To the best of my knowledge, no one from India is employed by the SATS. We are all South Africans although we may be of Indian origin.

With his parochial attitude he has forgotten the greatest section of South Africans. What about the Blacks and the Coloureds who are employed by the SATS? Who has asked what is happening to them? Who has been evaluating their position? [Interjections.] I am rather critical today of the SATS’s actions which affect the economy of this country. I call them to account for that.

The high tariff the SATS charges for coal transportation has a semblance of exploitation. It is exorbitant and is gradually destroying the coal mining industry, which is detrimental to the South African economy. Because of the iniquitous rail charges, many coal mines are on the verge of closing down. I see the hon the Minister is busy; he is not interested in me. [Interjections.]

I would like to remind the hon member for Havenside that I believe that I am not speaking here as he did. He just spoke about Indians, Indians, Indians. [Interjections.] I challenge him in any forum to prove me wrong. He must not come with his nonsense. One must look at what is happening in the country and not just look at jobs for oneself. [Interjections.] The hon member is talking absolute nonsense. I challenge any member of any one of the three Houses to prove that what I am going to say now is nonsense, in any forum.

Because of the iniquitous rail charges, many coal mines are on the verge of closing down, and as a result many thousands of jobs will be lost. This is happening at the moment.

In 1985-86 the colliers employed 100 000 Blacks, but in 1987 they had to retrench 3 000, as a direct result of the tariffs. The crux of my argument lies in the fact that, fundamentally, the coal industry is a socially progressive, privately-owned industry. Such modern export mines provide good accommodation for their workers at a nominal price. They also provide daily nutrition, free health care, life insurance schemes, schools, kindergartens, leisure time and sports facilities, training programmes, adult education opportunities and bursaries and grants for their 100 000 employees. This is what every industry should be doing, including the SATS, because they now regard themselves as a profit-motivated organisation. This is what the colliers are doing. I am not talking about the gold mines now; only the colliers are doing such great work. This is the social equality for all races for which we in this country are striving.

What is more, the coal industry’s wage policy is non-discriminatory, unlike—to take a phrase from the hon member for Havenside—the wage discrimination there is in the SATS. The coal mining industry is non-discriminatory, with equal pay for equal work and equal values.

Moreover, 81% of that labour force of the coal mines are S A Blacks.

It is patently wrong for any Government or quasi-Government department to aggravate the downfall of an industry’s existence whose progress is already threatened by sanctions, boycotts and high inflation as in our country. I would like the hon the Deputy Minister of Transport Affairs to take note of this very important point. Our industries are hit by sanctions and boycotts overseas as well as a high inflation rate, yet they are the second largest earners of foreign exchange after the gold mines.

Furthermore the coal export industry’s problems are magnified by the Australians reducing the free-on-board price of their coal which effectively reduces South Africa’s competitive edge. The industry certainly has its problems.

The only reason the hon the Minister can possibly give us for the high jump in coal tariffs is the eagerness of the SATS to recoup the cost of doubling the Richards Bay-Transvaal line in the past two years within as short a time as possible. This is the only possible reason that the hon the Minister can give me. If this is the case, the SATS is killing the goose that lays the golden egg, because if the rates remain at their present levels certain mines will be forced to close. Consequently the SATS will be directly hit with the resultant sharp fall of export railage charges. This is not a threat but a warning, Sir. If the coal mines should close down there would be less coal export and less revenue for the country.

According to the figures and information at my disposal the Australians are in a position to deliver coal to the power station at Athlone in Cape Town at a far cheaper rate than our coal mines at Witbank can do because the railage on a ton of coal from Witbank to Cape Town is R35,23 per ton while the shipping charge from Sydney to Cape Town is R26,14 per ton.

Delivered FOB?

Yes, delivered free on board here in Cape Town. They can do it.

These are the matters that require the urgent attention of the hon the Minister. We do not want to put extra strain on our economy which is already suffering. Various aspects of our economy are being affected by boycotts and sanctions.

There is another matter to which I would like to draw the hon the Deputy Minister’s attention. I do not see any person who is not White in a managerial position or in a similarly high position such as that of chief engineer. I would like the hon the Deputy Minister to consider this matter as well.

Mr Chairman, the Transport Services Appropriation Bill is the second important Bill to come before this House. The first one was the hon the Minister of Finance’s budget. The Budget Speech of the hon the Minister of Transport was most interesting in many aspects.

The hon the Minister dealt extensively with many important issues. In his economic review for the year 1987-88 he dealt with the continued sanctions and disinvestment campaigns.

In this regard I want to bring to the attention of this House the matter that was raised by the hon member for Camperdown. I think the hon member raised a very important issue insofar as coal exports are concerned. However, I think he overexaggerated. The point is that the coal industry suffers because of disinvestment and sanctions. The coal industry is having problems as far as exportation is concerned.

If the hon member for Camperdown had been able to take advantage of some of the visits that have been arranged by the SATS and he had been able to see for himself exactly what some of the services were that the SATS provided for the coal-miners, I do not think he could have said what he said just now.[Interjections.]

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

Sir, I am not prepared to take any questions.

I think it is not a question of being a mouthpiece, I think relevant facts are relevant insofar as this House is concerned. [Interjections.] I do not think one can hide behind facts.

As far as flood damage to the railway network and pipelines is concerned, it amounts to R26 million. This is a result of the floods on 19 September 1987. Train movement came to a standstill for two days and over 6 000 employees were engaged in the mopping-up operation due to the floods. What I am presenting to the House is an observation from the Budget speech that was delivered by the hon the Minister in the House. I think members should also know what the hon the Minister had to say because this is a very important Budget Speech insofar the entire community of South Africa is concerned.

These are some of the matters which are an act of God and are unexpected. Now money has to be found by the SATS to make good the damage. I am referring to the R26 million worth of damages that was caused to railway property and other railway assets. Heavy damage has been caused in the Free State in the most recent floods, the cost of which has not yet been assessed.

With regard to passenger services it has been observed that intercity passenger journeys were 36% less and that passenger trains were reduced by 40%. This should bring about some savings. The total tonnage of revenue-earning traffic reflected an increase of 4,7%.

Tragedy struck our airways when the SAA Boeing 747 plunged into the sea on route from Taiwan to Mauritius on 28 November 1987. A total of 159 people lost their lives. This was 140 passengers and 19 crew members. The hon the Minister played a very important role in communicating with the families of the deceased from various countries of origin who travelled on that flight. We should also appreciate the role of the Department of Foreign Affairs and the SADF who assisted in the case of the ill-fated flight. This must be acknowledged.

I am pleased to have noted that an insurance claim has been met and that an amount of R169 million was paid to the SATS. Another interesting point is that at the time the SATS acquired that Boeing 747 they paid an amount of R40 million. So therefore a large amount was obtained through this insurance claim.

It has also been observed in the hon the Ministers’ Budget Speech that he has curtailed increases in respect of domestic flights. There has been some consistency in the handling of cargo by the harbours.

The De Villiers Inquiry can be seen in three different categories. The De Villiers Report was mentioned by the hon the Minister in his Budget Speech. Some important aspects of the report are the business strategy, the organisational framework, and the control structures. It is pleasing to note that the General Manager of the SATS has set out a forward planning programme which gives effect to the important recommendations of the De Villiers Inquiry.

It is also very interesting to note that the General Manager of the SATS has appointed five of his deputy managers as directors of this forward planning programme. Working under those deputy general managers are various people with expertise in various fields, to carry out this very important recommendation which is now being implemented by the SATS General Manager.

I think this very young manager—Dr Moolman— who has been appointed to this top position should be complimented. I think he should be respected for his expertise and the new planning he is now presenting to the entire SATS, and the structures he is now creating.

The other important aspect of the hon the Ministers’ Budget speech is the question of the Wiehahn report. Although the Wiehahn report will be dealt with adequately in a Bill that is to be brought before the House, I think it is important to mention some of the aspects of the report that the hon the Minister mentioned. I would like to read that particular section. Whether the member has heard him of not, I have a particular duty. As a member of the standing committee I want to read that part into the record:

Therefore, the hon the Ministers’ Budget Speech was a very important speech and it highlighted various matters concerning not only the way finances were going to be dealt with, but various issues concerning the structures of the SATS.

One must therefore consider that the hon the Ministers’ speech has been a very important one. Moreover, he has taken into account the hon the State President’s opening address on 5 February this year. There are one or two important issues I should like to deal with.

First of all I would like to place on record our thanks to the SATS for providing us with a parliamentary catering service. It is a subsidised service, and I should like the hon the Minister to explain exactly what are the losses by SATS insofar as catering is concerned. We must appreciate the type of catering that is provided, and— the hon the Minister should say this to his Manager, Mr Dreyer, who manages the catering service in this particular House—that we should thank him for his able service, his civility, his courtesy and everything that goes with that. I would like the hon the Deputy Minister to convey our appreciation to this gentleman, namely Mr Dreyer.

I would like to hon the Minister to answer some of the following questions. Which component of expenditure is included in the working expenditure budget in respect of lighthouses, and what are the main reasons for the increase of R2,2 million as against the revised estimates for the year 1987-88?

The other question is this: Is it the intention to repair the Eshowe branch line? That is also a matter of considerable interest. I should like the hon the Minister to tell us: What expenditure is included in the Budget in respect of Airways under the sub-heading: Passenger Services, and what are the reasons for the increases between the revised estimates for 1987-88 and the estimates for 1988-89?

There are one or two issues I should like to deal with concerning the question of pilots. This matter is being raised here and I also wish to advise the hon the Deputy Minister that the pilots have a very powerful association within their employment group. If he has heard what the pilots have to say, which has been widely reported in some of the newspapers, he will note that they maintain that they are not adequately treated and their conditions of service are unsatisfactory. Even more important is that the salaries paid to them are very limited. I think that the hon the Minister should look into this question of their salaries and conditions of service we shall be losing some very good and experienced men if we do not upgrade the conditions of service and the salaries that are paid to them.

Another matter I wish to deal with is that within the SATS structures in Durban and elsewhere, and in particular the Railways and Harbours, a large number of Indians are employed. These people have served the SATS for anything up to twenty or thirty years. They must be regarded as very faithful employees. They are underpaid and, Mr Chairman, through you the hon the Deputy Minister must be informed that these people are underpaid; they have rent to pay and they have to meet heavy travelling expenses. At one time the Railways employees had their own housing that was provided by the SATS. They were given a food ration. Unfortunately the SATS have done away with this. They are paid a very meagre wage. I think the hon the Minister must look into this question and call upon his administrative section to look into the question of the salaries they are paid and their conditions of service, and to see whether their conditions of service and salaries can be improved.

I want to deal with another important issue which is very painful. A recent issue of the Sunday Tribune in the headlines stated: “Racism is driving out the Indians.” I would like to read this into the record and the hon the Minister is welcome to borrow this if he wishes to. I quote:

I do not want to go any further into this matter as I believe that I have read the important part into the record. I do believe that some of these important positions have been made available within the structures of the SATS. However, I do not think that we can tolerate this type of racism. I would be glad if the hon the Minister could look into this and eradicate any form of racism or discrimination. The conditions of some of these apprentices and learner drivers could be improved.

Lastly I would like to take this opportunity to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that this Budget Speech was a very important and healthy one insofar as the South African community is concerned. We appreciate this.

Mr Chairman, I base my argument for privatisation on what has been said in this House about tariff increases. Concerning the problems that may be confronting us I am forced to quote extracts from an address by John Kane Berman, the executive director of the SA Institute of Race Relations. This appeared in the Business Day, 2 February 1988. Firstly, it must be made abundantly clear that we all agree that the Government has taken a very good stand as far as privatisation is concerned. However, with the First World and Third World situation our country has a tremendous amount of imbalances. By the way, this morning at an Assocom function, this particular aspect was also discussed. I hope the hon the Minister will take some of these views into account, which are surely of some concern— not that we do not want privatisation. Be that as it may, I quote:

I think what we need to say here is that we have a problem in this country and, as was said this morning, that we cannot compare the issues of privatisation in England to the South African situation. In South Africa we have tremendous imbalances between the earning capacity and the per capita earnings of each particular race group. In regard to the issue of privatisation the Government has to ensure that it is not handing over its assets to the private sector in order to create a profit-based industry in the end.

Let us look back. Why did the Government of this country carry on services like the Railways— the Airways is one of those services that could possibly go first—bus transport subsidies, and so on? It is because the earning capacity of the Black community—and that applies to the Indians and Coloureds as well—was far lower. This is a historical fact; it is not something we are raising that needs to be said. I think it is important in this debate for the hon the Minister to take cognisance of those services that can be taken away from the Government provided there is some built-in safeguard so that the imbalances are taken care of. Otherwise no private concern will render services for nothing in this country. Transport is indeed a very important issue because of the Group Areas Act and the fact, as I have mentioned, that people have had to settle far away from their places of work and the industrial sites.

Possibly we shall be able to deal in the other debate with the whole transport system in this country, including bus transport and other modes of transportation.

Mr Chairman, it is with deep regret that we in this House take note of the passing away of Bishop Alpheus Zulu, who was one of the greatest sons of South Africa, Speaker of the KwaZulu Legislative Assembly and a driving force behind the Inkatha movement in KwaZulu. We in this House—and I take it I speak for all hon members—wish to convey to the people of KwaZulu and to Bishop Zulu’s family our condolences on this very sad occasion.

*Mr Chairman, I should like to talk about the SAA and the problems surrounding this airline. We realise that at this stage we have problems— certain hon members have referred to this—with our pilots. I should like to tell the hon the Minister that as far as we know there is also discrimination with regard to the employment of pilots across the colour line.

We know of South African citizens—people of colour—who are trained pilots and who are working in neighbouring states. I request that when such people apply for employment at this airline they should also be considered purely on merit for possible appointment.

Apparently the problem with the pilots is that they feel that they are not being remunerated in accordance with the burden and the responsibility that they have to bear. I hope that a fair dispensation will be established so that this very important component which keeps the SAA going, will be remunerated in such a way as to promote productivity and, of course, guarantee the safety of the passengers.

†Then, Sir, we also have a problem, particularly at Jan Smuts airport, when it comes to the control tower personnel.

We are led to believe, and as regular travellers we get the feeling, that many flights leave rather late and not at their scheduled times. In the last couple of weeks there was not a single flight which I took which left at its scheduled time. Strangely, they arrived at their scheduled times. However, I have witnessed that this does create a degree of stress on the part of certain passengers. I would like to ask the hon the Minister to take the House into his confidence and to tell us whether we really have a problem with air traffic controllers. If there is a problem, we would like to know what his department is doing to resolve this.

I want to welcome the scene we witness on many flights these days, namely that the South African society seems to be reasonably represented in the flight personnel, particularly the cabin crew. I had occasion to see a Black girl the other day, and I must say that if there are going to be equal employment opportunities in the SAA, this kind of sign is most welcome.

*Mr Chairman, we have yet another problem in that a flight from Cape Town to Johannesburg departs at five minutes past seven on Thursdays and that often many of us make use of that flight just before the Easter recess. We hear that this flight is being withdrawn and that there will now be flights only at six o’clock and nine o’clock in the evening. If these flights do not carry enough passengers and if this has contributed to the fact that the flight at five minutes past seven is being withdrawn, we want to suggest that the department investigate the possibility of retaining the flight and perhaps doing away with the six o’clock flight. That will meet the requirements of many more people, including businessmen.

I should now like to venture upon what may be sensitive ground. I do not serve on this standing committee and therefore I have no knowledge of what may have happened there or whether there has been any consideration whatsoever of this issue. During this time of the year, in the weeks that lie ahead, quite a number of Muslim pilgrims will be departing for Saudi Arabia. I immediately want to say that because of the political situation in country and the policy of the Government, there are no official relations between our country and Saudi Arabia. During the next few weeks and months, approximately 2 500 to 4 000 pilgrims will be leaving for Saudi Arabia.

I want to tell the hon the Minister that the SAA is losing a considerable amount of revenue and that these South African pilgrims suffer a great deal of discomfort. They can travel with an overseas airline only from Jan Smuts Airport. This airline often travels to Lusaka or Harare, or sometimes to Nairobi Airport. Our people are exposed to a great deal of discomfort there, often because they are South African citizens. In many African countries the colour of one’s skin is of no importance. They merely look at one’s passport. Very often the officials are not interested in the passport and throw them back at people.

We have relations with certain Muslim countries. We have a commercial commissioner in the Comoro Island, for example. I want to ask if the airline, in collaboration with the Department of Foreign Affairs would investigate the possibility of scheduling flights to the Comoro Islands, especially at this time of the year. Perhaps our friends in the Comoro Islands could then arrange with the Saudi Arabian airline to transport our people from there. Our people will then be able to travel in reasonable comfort.

I went to Saudi Arabia recently and there were also quite a number of South Africans on the flight. We experienced a number of problems at Nairobi Airport. Many people had to wait at that airport for up to four days. They were not allowed to leave the airport buildings, nor could they go from one part of the building to another. They had to wait in a little lobby for four days. There were a number of women and children in the group and I can assure this House that it was a most unpleasant experience.

I want to ask the hon the Minister please to look into this matter. It would also mean a great deal to our friends in the Comoros, which is a poor country. South African Muslims and other South African citizens would then stop off at the Comoros for a few days, and this would also contribute to the revenue of that country by way of foreign exchange.

One of my hon colleagues has just sent me a note, saying: “The food is not satisfactory on the aircraft. Similar food is served on all flights.” We therefore ask for a fair variety as far as meals are concerned. Naturally we do not expect five-star treatment, but if one considers what the man in the street has to pay for an air-ticket nowadays, I think perhaps one is entitled to five-star treatment. We are asking for a fair variety of foods on the flights. Provision must be made for the dietary preferences of people of different religions and cultural backgrounds. Of course they do make provision for this at the booking office when one states one’s dietary requirements to the officials there, but we are asking for a fair variety on the flights.

With these few words I should also like to congratulate the SATS. We are allocating this money to them, but at the same time we are asking them to do everything in their power to make the transport of passengers throughout the country as comfortable as possible.

Mr Chairman, I just want to spend a few minutes to place on record the appreciation of the Indian community for the excellent manner in which the hon the Minister and the Head of the SATS responded to a plea that I made on behalf of the Indian employees of the Durban metropolitan region of the SATS.

Rationalisation and the cutting of costs are taking place both in the public and the private sectors. As a result of rationalisation there was tremendous concern among the Indian employees in the SATS. Some of them contacted my hon colleagues in the Ministers’ Council.

They contacted hon members of the House of Delegates belonging to both political parties and I am very pleased to mention publicly here that the head of the SATS sent a very senior official to Durban. I have received a lengthy report, not only from the administration, but also from the Indian employees that the arrangements that were made subsequently have met with the satisfaction of all parties.

I want to make an appeal. I most definitely agree with certain sentiments expressed by the hon member for Havenside. The former Minister of Transport Affairs said in this House that he accepted the fact that discrimination has not been totally removed. But we must also accept the fact that the administration has gone a long way towards the removal of discrimination. We also accept the fact that there is still discrimination in the civil service.

Of course the SATS, like the Post Office, is a little different from the ordinary State departments.

I want to say that when the Indians first landed in South Africa they worked for three institutions. One was the SAP or the Natal Police at the time—the Union of South Africa did not exist yet. They worked for the Railways and they worked for the Durban Corporation. We had two monuments in Durban. One was the Railway barracks and the other was the Magazine barracks. I want my colleague the hon the Deputy Minister to know that the Railway barracks produced the finest footballers in this country. They also produced the finest musicians and drum majorettes in this country.

This is the first time you have spoken the truth.

Do hon members know why these people came from the Magazine and the Railway barracks? I want to relate some experiences and I want to say something, “old habits die hard”. I want to say at the level of senior administration attitudes may be different. At the level of the hon the Minister the attitude is consistent with the attitude of reform in this country.

There is one department that really gave us a very hard time when we ran the SAIC and that was the SATS. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition once in his capacity as the chairman of the SAIC once wrote a letter to them. The reply from the department was, “We do not need you to intervene in our department”. At that time Indians were just in charge of carrying lights and were employed as handy boys etc.

I know in one department in the Durban Municipality a White is a cashier but if an Indian gets that job he is called a ticket issuer. They do the same job but are given different names and different salaries. Let us accept that discrimination has not been removed totally.

I want to make an appeal on behalf of the older Indians in the SATS that they be given the opportunity with regard to upward mobility. Although I am satisfied that the SATS has responded very positively to the letter I addressed to my colleague the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs, I feel that these Indian employees need some protection. They are not looking to their own Indian associations, they are looking to the House of Delegates to protect their interest and their welfare. Let me say that when they want to prune staff they must not look at the Indians as numbers but should rather look at the Indian population in the Durban metropolitan region. Look at the service which my community gave at the time when other communities were reluctant to take the kind of jobs which Indians manned in the SATS.

I therefore feel that the dialogue and the relationship we have established with the SATS should be a base which we should use to improve the lot of the Indian community in this area. I rose merely to express publicly my appreciation for the excellent response we have had from the SATS and the hon the Minister.

Mr Chairman, I should like to start by saying that I appreciate the remarks made by the last speaker, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, and the appeal he lodged that we should at all times ensure that our Indian work force is well looked after in the SATS.

I think there are approximately 1 550 Indians employed by the SATS out of a work force of some 194 000. There is no doubt in my mind that the Indians, especially in Natal, play a very important role and we are certainly not going to do anything to affect that situation adversely. In fact, our policy is that people are promoted on the basis of merit. When we accepted that we would have a programme of instituting parity over a period, the words expressed at that time were not idle words. They do mean something.

They meant something at the time and they will mean something in time to come. The SATS will not deviate from that programme. There are various members who raised this particular issue once again today. I think the hon member for Havenside raised the issue of whether we were going to continue with this, and whether we were moving too slowly. I think that was effectively what he said.

At the time we made the promise that it would depend entirely on the money we had available and we are certainly not going to deviate from that promise. I want to give hon members an assurance on the discrimination that has been discussed. We all know discrimination still exists, not only in the Public Service, in the SATS, but in the private sector as well. However, we are moving away from that. People are being appointed on merit. It does not matter whether they are air hostesses or whether they are going to be pilots, people do have the opportunity.

Don’t let the people of Standerton hear you now.

No, I am not afraid of that. They have heard this often.

I can give hon members the figures if they would like to have them, but we have already appointed 14 Indian pupil train drivers, and 16 Indian train driver assistants. These are the figures I have at my disposal.

The same principle applies to all the other groups in South Africa. This was something uncommon 10 or 15 years ago so we are moving in the right direction. However, I think at the same time that hon members should have a little patience. The more opportunities that come forward, the more opportunities the Indians will have.

Unfortunately, however, over the past few years since 1982, the Transport Services have had to reduce their work force to a considerable degree. It has been reduced from approximately 278 000 to about 194 000—a reduction of more than 30%. This affects all groups in South Africa, not only Indians, but Coloureds, Blacks or White people. It is a pity that we have had to do it, but circumstances necessitated this change and this policy of economising and rationalisation. At the same time, however, I think we are fortunate in having been able—despite the fact that we have had to reduce our complement of employees—to transport what was given to us. Indeed, we have succeeded in doing so in a very efficient manner.

I want to express my appreciation today to those hon members who have said in the course of this debate that they have appreciated this Budget and that they wanted to thank the hon the Minister. The hon the Minister is doing his job in the House of Assembly at present and I shall be conducting the debate here for the second reading, as well as the committee stage and the third reading. Perhaps next year we shall make a change and the hon the Minister will be here.

You are welcome here.

Thank you very much indeed for the kind words of welcome.

You may privately make a request.

You always lower the level of any debate.

We do appreciate those hon members who have expressed their appreciation for the Budget, and those who have said that they think that the Budget, as it has been produced, is a sign of the times.

We were fortunate in not increasing tariffs; we were also, I think, setting an example by not increasing salaries and wages. We realise what the SATS employees have gone through over the last few years; that they have been adversely affected by the rise in inflation and the cost of living. However, there is no point in giving a person an increase of 10% or whatever the case may be when one has an increase in the rate of inflation of 15% or more. That is not going to help us. At some time or other we had to tackle the issue of inflation.

At this stage the State—the SATS—is setting the example to the rest of the country. The only point of importance left is to see whether the private sector in South Africa will follow the same line. Only then will we really succeed in fighting inflation. I say this because there is no doubt in my mind that we cannot continue as we are doing at present. We are pricing ourselves out of existence and we shall not be able to compete with our competitors as far as overseas trade is concerned. What is more, our pensioners, those who save and those who have a little money invested somewhere will have no future. If this continues, all of us will eventually become social pensioners in South Africa unless we fight the scourge of inflation.

This is the way we think we can tackle it. At the same time, however, there are hon members, such as the hon member for Red Hill, who have expressed doubts about privatisation.

I do not necessarily say that the hon member is wrong when he expresses his doubts about complete privatisation. The hon member advised us not to go too far and to follow the example of other countries. I think that is sound advice, because we can learn from the mistakes made by other countries. There are numerous examples, but I do not want to spend the time of the House. However, I have had a look at privatisation in some countries and such a study indeed constitutes excellent reading material. I sincerely hope and I am of the opinion that we are not going to make the same mistakes. I think that we are a little wiser.

One thing South Africa must realise, is that things cannot belong to a state. Its people are more important than a state itself and these people must become home-owners and owners of shares. They must have the money and not the state. The private sector should provide work and job opportunities. That is the only way we can do it if we want to provide enough jobs for our teeming and increasing millions. The State cannot do it and the SATS certainly cannot.

We have been forced to reduce our complement because people were not making enough use of our facilities. Therefore the private sector is the area where we should really grow and not in the field of State enterprise. In fact, the number of State enterprises should be reduced. At the same time it is our firm belief that if we had a monopoly in a certain sphere, we cannot now replace that with another monopoly. Likewise, if we think that certain services are inefficient, we cannot now replace them with other inefficient ones. We do know that in America and even in Great Britain certain mistakes have been made. As far as we are concerned, the ministry and the management will have a very careful look at all these issues.

Some of the hon members raised the issue of the Kombi taxis. Although this is not quite pertinent to the debate, we are dealing with competition here. The number of applications for permits has trebled over the past few years. We say that transport should also be managed by the small man, the Black man. At the same time we do realise that if one wants to have quality transport, there should be some control over the individual who operates that vehicle and also over the vehicle itself.

Safety measures.

Yes, of course. Safety measures. This is where the Americans made a mistake with privatisation.

A terrific number of people came onto the roads but the safety factor decreased to a large extent because they could not maintain adequate control over the trucks—their tyres, brakes and so on—with the result that accidents increased.

Like our kombis.

Yes. I agree that many mistakes are being made at the moment but I want to say that once we have fully implemented this policy of deregulation, I think we shall be able to control this aspect far better because we have certain illegal operators at the moment, and they are the people who are making matters very, very difficult for us. We agree, therefore that there are difficulties ahead but at the same time we regard the kombi taxis as a feeder system.

Certain hon members raised the point that as a result of group areas people have to live far away from their places of work.

Like District Six!

Mr Chairman, the hon member Mr Abram and I know one another very well. We travelled together in America for a fortnight and we saw many things wrong there, too.

Wrong with the transport services?

No. I want to say that even if we had no group areas in South Africa and we were all living in the centre of Cape Town—Blacks, Whites, Coloureds and Indians —we would have to travel quite a long way from the centre of Cape Town in order to go and work somewhere near the Strand, Mitchells Plain, Epping or Stellenbosch. After all, one cannot have industries in residential areas. I think that would be extremely poor planning. I think we should get away from that issue. I agree that as a result of the group areas people are living far away from their places of work but the more we develop, the more our population grows, we will in any event be living quite a long distance away from them.

Therefore I say that one has to make provision for this, and public transport is the best way of getting people to work and back to their homes. How can we do this? We can only do this by means of buses, trains or taxis. With regard to a commuter service, I think we must attempt to strike a reasonable balance between these three modes of transport. I am not talking about air travel at the moment.

Sea, land, air.

I beg your pardon?

There is a firm called Sea, Land, Air. [Interjections.]

This, I believe is the only way in which we can do it and give people a reasonable choice as to what mode of transport they wish to use.

I think South Africa would have to make provision in its planning, regardless of whether or not it had group areas, for where people will live and where they will work. Let us make no mistake about it, we in South Africa like to live in big, open spaces. Our properties are large. We do not want to go up. We do not really want to live in the air.

As long as you are White! [Interjections.]

No. People in South Africa—and I think that applies to all of us—like their own little plot and their own homes. They do not like living in digs in high density areas.

Look at Bonteheuwel.

Yes, of course, one can quote examples, but I still say that this will apply as long as we have enough space available, and the time will come when we shall not have so much space available in South Africa and we shall have to provide adequate transport to get people to work.

*As far as the hon member Mr Abram is concerned, I must say that he speaks Afrikaans effortlessly and also very well. [Interjections.]

The hon member Mr Abram spoke about employment. I say, however, that the hon member speaks Afrikaans very well.

He is a farmer. He is from the Free State.

So he is one of the Free State farmers? The hon member asked that the employment of pilots should take place on the basis of merit and that they should get a fair deal as far as salaries are concerned.

I think he should not say that. Somebody just might run to get that five o’clock flight.

Yes. Am I taking too much time?

No.

I can assure the hon member that people are being employed on the basis of merit. As far as the fair deal is concerned at the moment an independent study is being made of salaries and other conditions of service that were instituted. The hon the Minister has promised that representatives of the private sector will also serve in that committee. These circumstances are therefore being dealt with.

†Interestingly enough, private air services are complaining. They say we are pinching their pilots. This is quite an interesting situation. There was a time when we did not have enough work for all the pilots who were available in South Africa. As far as these gentlemen are concerned, however, I think a shortage is developing at the moment. At the same time we are aware of the situation, and we will certainly do everything in our power to ensure that there are enough of them. That also applies to people of colour. If they want to come forward and be trained as pilots, and if they have the required qualifications, there certainly is no reason why that would not be possible.

The hon member for Havenside spoke about discrimination and the difference in salaries of trade assistants and trade hands. We will have a closer look at that particular situation and we will let the hon member know what we decide.

The hon member for Havenside also referred to medical aid for Indians. As already mentioned— and I think he already has it in his documents about parity—the first step will cost approximately R55 million. On account of the financial position, it is not possible to introduce parity in respect of medical aid benefits at this point. I wish to emphasise this point: It is not possible at this stage, but we are committed, as I have already indicated, and the hon member can look forward to seeing this implemented as times improve. The necessary attention will certainly be given to it.

The hon member for Havenside also made the point that more job opportunities, especially at Louis Botha Airport, should be made available for Indians. Suitably qualified applicants with at least a matriculation certificate can now apply for clerical jobs in Natal. Again I want to stress that appointment will be on merit only. There is nothing legal that prevents Indians from coming forward.

The hon member Mr Thaver asked a question about lighthouses.

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether he can tell us what sort of provision has been made for the replacement of personnel who retire or leave the service for other reasons. Are they being replaced by Whites, or are they replaced by non-Whites as well? This was my argument. Dozens and hundreds of applications must have been received, but has any provision been made to take them? That is the point. [Interjections.]

I think one should be reasonable. We realise that we have a tremendous clientele among the Indian population in Natal. It is essential that one should pay attention to the fact that the persons who deal with our Indian clientele should be members of the Indian community as far as possible, provided that they have the merit. They understand one another and they share the same culture. It is not a question of apartheid but a question of having persons to look after the people whom they know well and with whom they associate. It is quite obvious that the Indians will not be discriminated against because they play an important role in the province of Natal. They certainly cannot be ignored.

I want to come back to the hon member Mr Thaver. He compared the estimates of lighthouses for the financial year 1987-88 and those of 1988-89. The main reason for the increase of R2,2 million is the increase in current replacement value assets, the repair and replacement of beacons and buoys as well as higher prices of material. The hon member asked whether it is our intention to repair the Gingindlovu-Eshowe branch line. Is that correct? [Interjections.] Apparently the hon member is not here, but he will read my comments in Hansard. It has been decided to repair the railway line and it is anticipated that it will be operational in four months’ time.

The hon member also asked a question concerning the losses of the catering service and he expressed his thanks to the SATS for making this service available. I want to tell him that the total cost of the Parliamentary catering service is R1,2 million and the cost recovered from Parliament is R0,7 million. The loss is therefore something like R0,5 million while the total loss of the catering department is R12 million. The loss of the Parliamentary catering service as a percentage of the total catering loss is 4,2%. I hope hon members understand that when I say the total loss of the catering department is R12 million. This is not only in Parliament but all over the country. In so far as Parliament is concerned, the loss is only R0,5 million. [Interjections.]

I now come to the hon member for Camperdown. He asked that the SATS should, as in the case of the coal industry, train its staff and grant bursaries. I can assure the hon member that all employees of the SATS receive the same functional training and university or college bursaries for training people are also granted on merit alone.

The hon member also referred to the coal tariffs. I can give the hon member certain information on the coal industry. I can do this privately if he wants to come and have a talk with me. The coal industry itself has asked us not to make public our agreement on tariffs. Certain hon members made the very important point here that the coal industry has been largely affected by sanctions and disinvestment over the past few years.

Competition is terrific. It is especially the people who want to take their place on the open market of world trade who are actually leading the sanctions campaign against them. Therefore the coal industry itself is not too keen that we should say too much about their situation because one would not like the enemies of the coal industry— and we are not their enemies—outside South Africa to know that.

I must also add that the tonnage of coal transported for export by the SATS shows an increase over the last two years.

Forty five million tons of coal!

It is close to that but not as high as that at the moment. But we are looking at their situation at the moment and they have all the sympathy that an industry can have from the SATS management. We certainly do not, as the hon member tried to suggest, want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. That is not the intention.

The hon member for Merebank Mr Pillay asked also for promotion on merit only. Again I wish to repeat and assure the hon member that we are promoting only on merit and merit alone. I think these are some of the specific questions which members have put to me.

Have I still got some time Mr Chairman?

Order! Yes, the hon the Deputy Minister may continue.

I have dealt with the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and wish to thank him again for participating in this debate. He normally makes a very useful contribution and I wish to thank him for that.

The hon member Mr Abram asked that we should have a look at the Comoros. Now again, Sir, this is a very sensitive issue but he made the point about Muslims and one will certainly bear this in mind. I think it is also an open secret that we have quite a good relationship with the Comoro Islands. And if one can be of assistance I can make a promise to the hon member that we will look at the issue.

We look forward to hearing from you.

He raised the point about planes leaving late but for some or other reason arriving on time.

Maybe there is a good tail wind.

Yes, there is always a good tail wind. Perhaps I should give the hon member some statistics with regard to so-called late planes leaving late. The information given to me is that of the delays we had last year, only 84,6% of all internal flights left within ten minutes of the scheduled departure time.

The problem is this year, not last year.

Yes, it was in December last year that 63,1% of all internal flights left within that particular time schedule of about 10 minutes.

We agree that there are various reasons why we have had these delays. Perhaps members should look at the fact that we have had a terrific increase in the number of passengers and we had to make provision for a large increase especially from 1 December to 10 January this year.

People do not realise that we have had to provide 68 additional flights. In other words, the daily use of aeroplanes has increased quite dramatically.

*We then had a very high utilisation of the aeroplanes and turn-around times were reduced considerably. The delay of such an aeroplane, which is used to and from the destination, immediately has a detrimental effect on the departure times of all the other flights. Of those delays, 54% can be attributed to consequential delays. I hope the hon member follows that once an aeroplane has been delayed—it travels all over the country—the other aeroplanes will be delayed as well.

†We also had quite a considerable number of standby passengers, especially during the holiday period, with the result that delays obviously occurred. We also had very bad weather at specific times in places such as Port Elizabeth— that was in December—East London and George. For a period of three days our flights from these airports were completely disrupted.

Change the weather.

I am not blaming the weather but these are …

I said change the weather.

These are the issues that affect aeroplanes. However, as far as delays are concerned we have given instructions to our various heads of division to give personal attention to this issue. From 13 March we are instituting flights early in the mornings. Although this increase in the number of flights will help us obviate delays we also realise that it will make fairly heavy demands on our air traffic controllers, but that is just by the way. I shall have to deal with that in the other department, or the hon the Minister will have to do so.

I would like to say that all the steps we have taken to improve matters have elicited a positive reaction. This meant that in January this year 80,3% of all flights could leave within 10 minutes of their scheduled departure time. There has been an improvement and we hope this situation will continue.

Quite an interesting point is that although the number of passengers has increased dramatically, we are going to make provision for that. We have had quite an important survey done by an economist in South Africa. There is no doubt that in a year or two we will have an increase of approximately 3,5%-4% in our air traffic. We are making provision for this increase and this is why we are going to have the Airbus 320 in a few years’ time. Some of the planes we rented out when we were having difficulties and running below capacity, we are going to get back.

Now I think we are going to have sufficient aeroplanes to deal with the increase in traffic.

How many have we leased out?

Just a handful; but I am not going to tell you to whom. The hon member can talk to me confidentially in this regard, because I do not think it is in the interests of South Africa nor in the interests of our associates that we should make these things public.

I must say that I appreciate the fact that hon members understand the sensitivity of this kind of thing, and that they are not going to press me into giving the replies.

One of the hon members also made a point regarding air safety. I should like to give the hon member the following statistics. Our airways have been in existence since 1934. That makes 54 years this year. Until August last year we transported 66 683 930 passengers on the South African Airways, and 328 passengers have died as a result of accidents.

Since 1934?

Since 1934.

That is a good record.

That means that 0,005% of our travelling public on South African Airways have lost their lives in accidents. I think this record is unsurpassed.

Our Creator is very kind to us.

Yes, that is true, but at the same time one should also pay tribute to our personnel—to our pilots. I want to tell hon members that unless those pilots are well-trained, and unless they appreciate the grave responsibility resting on them …

And have guidance from the Supreme Power.

Yes, I agree with the hon member, but I remember the hon the State President once telling a story about a farmer who was being visited by the local dominee. The child was playing on the stoep, and eventually the dominee said: “You must be careful; that child is going to fall off the stoep.” The farmer replied that he need not worry, since the Good Lord would look after the child. The dominee replied: “Don’t make a nursemaid out of God.”

However, one should realise that our safety record has been excellent, and we are certainly not going to do anything that will jeopardise that record.

I have replied to the hon member for Red Hill, and to all the points raised by the hon member Mr Thaver. I think he also made a point about train drivers being driven out because of racism. We shall certainly look into that particular situation because I do not think that that is the sort of thing that should happen in South Africa where people are all doing the same job and bearing the same responsibilities.

I think I have replied to the hon member for Camperdown. The hon member for Meerbank also welcomed Dr Moolman. Dr Moolman cannot reply for himself, so I should like to thank the hon member.

He made the point that one should increase production and efficiency constantly. I wish to say to the hon member that the top echelon of the SATS—approximately 200 of them—are all under contract.

Therefore the efficiency and the productivity of the SATS, as far as they are concerned, are very important. They can be relieved of their responsibility at any time. Those employees below the 200 that I have mentioned, are well-protected by their service conditions. The hon member made the point that the top echelons should not be reserved for Whites only. Again, there is nothing stopping anybody from coming forward to occupy any of those positions. The hon member also made the point that we should not lose the confidence of the people and we do know that this is not the case. The fact of the matter is that people prefer other modes of transport to the train service. This is not because the train service is inefficient, but because they prefer to travel quickly by car or by luxury bus.

The hon member for Central Rand made a point about the Transport Advisory Council. We certainly made provision that this would not be a Whites-only council at the time when that Bill was passed.

The hon member for Umzinto expressed his sympathy in connection with the accident that happened yesterday. I want to thank him for that. The hon member was also correct in expressing his appreciation of the fact that there were no tariff increases. He made a few excellent comments on the Budget itself and I do believe that I also replied to him when I said that people do prefer not to travel by train. That is why we have had to rationalise these services to such an extent.

The hon member for Havenside expressed his appreciation of the fact that we have moved in the right direction, following the De Villiers Report. In conclusion, I hope that I have replied to all the hon members. If not, I am sure that my officials will have made sufficient documentation so that we may reply at a later stage. I would like to thank hon members for their excellent participation as well as for their positive contributions from both sides of the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bill not committed.

Third Reading

Mr Chairman, I move, subject to Standing Order No 52:

Mr Chairman, I want to comment very briefly on the Budget speech of the hon the Minister. On page 3 he states the following:

This is by virtue of the Government’s ideological plan of implementing the Group Areas Act. People of colour had to settle in the rural areas whilst industries were provided in the urban areas and one has to commute from the rural areas to the urban areas. This results in transport services being provided for these commuters. Thus the report states that there is an estimated loss for the 1988-89 financial year of up to R1 200 million, of which R632 million is to be compensated for by the State and the balance of R568 million is to be offset by cross-subsidization. This is not what one would like to see but the blame lies squarely at the door of the Government for the implementation of its most ideological plan of group areas.

Therefore, I ask the department not to cut off its nose to spite its face. I say this in view of some correspondence I have received relating to a certain area in which transport services were required. I want to read from a letter written by the regional manager of the Natal region, as follows:

My point may be a little parochial, but I think it is essential that I bring it to the attention of the hon the Minister because things like this can only jeopardise our position in so far as the transport services in certain rural areas are concerned. This relates to a particular service, namely the 6.30 am service from Chatsworth to Durban. Prior to January 1988 there were 12 coaches commuting from Crossmoor to Durban. After a survey had been carried out by the officials, it was found necessary to curtail four coaches and only 8 coaches now commute from Crossmoor to Durban.

I have made an inspection in this area, at the Bayview Station. We found that by the time the train arrives at that station it is full to capacity and people have to be crammed inside like sardines in order to reach Durban. This is so unnecessary.

Whilst I realise that they have to curtail certain losses, they should not curtail the services by cutting down on the number of coaches. I appeal to the hon the Minister that whilst they are tightening their belts in order to economise, they should not cut off the nose to spite the face.

Mr Chairman, during the Second Reading debate in this House the hon the Deputy Minister touched on some very salient points. One of these was that if we want to economise, if we want to rationalise and if we want to save money through losses in respect of foreign exchange, our biggest exit is through the acquisition of fuel.

A few years ago the Government gave a mass transportation system an extremely high priority. I do not think people really understood the intention of the transport authorities—I think there was a White Paper in this regard—in a movement towards mass transportation. I want to say that the time is now ripe for the question of encouraging the South African commuter to move away from the single car to a mass transport system, to be re-examined.

We must do this for the benefit of the country and the passengers themselves.

If one take stands at a stop-street or robot in Durban or any city, one can see how many cars go past with single passengers or two passengers. One good thing is that we from Pelikan Park are setting an example: We have a mass transport system. Most hon members are taking the buses and not driving individual cars. They are virtually suggesting that we rule by example. I want to suggest very strongly that we convey to our people, irrespective from what socio-economic levels they come, that we cannot carry on like this. One cannot plan the major cities any more. One cannot improve the road system; one cannot improve other transport systems. People will have to realise this. I understand it was considered at one time that one might require a permit to drive one’s own car to the city by establishing necessity.

A very important point was also made in respect of deregulation and privatisation. One factor we must always bear in mind is safety. Here I want to make an appeal in respect of a matter raised by the hon member for Bayview. Many of us watch American cowboy pictures. In the early days, when we were small, most of the cowboys fought against the coming of railways. In practically every picture one saw, cowboys fought against the railways. Fifteen years ago the people of Chatsworth took up a fight against the manner in which the railway line was constructed and the manner in which the transport services was trying to coerce the authorities to get rid of a mode of transport, namely bus transport. I am glad that the commuter figures of the SATS for the Chatsworth train service has increased. There is more demand. However, I think a factor that will encourage an increase in the number of commuters using the train service, in this day and age, is safety in the trains. There are many people who would like to use the trains, but they are worried about being molested and overcrowding. I know the railway authorities has done much to improve the safety factor in the trains, but I think in this area a little more attention is needed.

A very pleasing factor in this debate—and the country has taken note of this—is that when the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs presented his Budget, the greatest measure for fighting inflation was that he did not announce any tariff increases. Normally, with announcement of the Post Office and the SATS budgets, newspapers and other critics write their articles in advance, criticising possible tariff increases. This speaks volumes, not only for the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs and the hon the Deputy Minister, but also for the hon the State President.

The transport services debate is a very big debate in the Indian Parliament. There is tradition: If last night there was a plane accident in India, this morning the Deputy Minister of Transport Affairs must resign. That is the tradition. If there is any accident, the first thing that happens is that the Minister hands over his resignation, even if he is not responsible. Once there was a big debate about the shortage of passengers and the shortage of a particular material. The chief Minister made the suggestion that if they were looking for passengers and railway sleepers, they should look across the floor of the House. I am talking about India; I am not talking about here.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister of Transport Affairs gave us the figures on the loss of lives in South Africa. There is no doubt that we have reason to be proud of the safety of our air traffic. I think we should give some recognition to the efficient personnel on whom we rely for our safety. Those pilots experience a certain amount of frustration and if it is true that they are among the lowest-paid pilots in the world I think it is very disturbing. I am afraid that there will be a brain-drain and that they will be lost to this country. What will the position be if they should decide to go and seek greener pastures? I want to suggest that serious consideration should be given to the training of people of colour. People of colour have certainly proven in the past that they are responsible and I cannot see why they should be deprived of this facility.

I also want to draw the hon the Deputy Minister’s attention to the fact that there will be a vacancy in the personnel at the Louis Botha Airport in the near future. An attendant working there will retire in April. There is red tape involved— perhaps not at the top level but definitely at the lower levels. I can assure the House that this was overlooked when we discussed the question of employment earlier. Unlike the House of Delegates, if there is any vacancy in any department persons are promoted to higher levels and I do not think that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council can deny it.[Interjections.] It is sometimes a situation of jobs for pals and those that are working there quickly bring in somebody if there is the need for a replacement. What about merit and selection? I would like to see this particular vacancy filled by a person of colour and I humbly appeal to the hon the Minister to look into the matter.

Mr Chairman, I wish to thank hon members for their very short contributions and I am definitely going to do the same. The hon member for Bayview raised the issue of the 6.30 am train from Crossmoor to Durban being restored to 12 coaches from the current 8 coaches. We will request a member of the regional management staff in Durban to contact the hon member and to try and find the best solution to this particular problem. I hope it will satisfy the hon member if we can get a staff member from Durban to contact him and have a word with him about the issue.

The hon member also referred to cross-subsidisation and he reiterated the point that crosssubsidisation was necessary because of the ideological policies of the Government. I do not believe that the ideological policies or philosophies of the Government have anything to do with cross-subsidisation. I think there are many countries in the world with rail services similar to ours and they will all be able to tell the hon member that, regardless of the philosophies that their governments follow, they all have problems with commuters and that they suffer losses.

We suffer losses in South Africa because of the socio-economic services that we have to offer. I may again point out—as I have so often done— that if we were adequately compensated for the services that we are rendering then the SATS would not have any problems.

The hon the Minister indicated in his speech that he was going to have a word with the hon the Minister of Finance on this because commuter services constitute a vast service in South Africa.

We are transporting something like well over a million people every day. This amounts to about 6 000 million people per day annually. This is closer to two million people whom we are transporting backwards and forwards from their homes to the work place.

We realise that these are the lower-paid members of our society and we have to assist them. We do the same with our bus services. We have to subsidise in order to get people to work. Crosssubsidisation—and I have mentioned this before—is the normal practice. However, it is not necessarily a good practice and there could come a time when we can do completely without crosssubsidisation. It will have to be phased out in time to come, as long as we can have a solution along the lines that somebody is going to be responsible for providing enough money for the socio-economic services. This has very little to do with ideology because all over the world people have the same sort of trouble as we have when it comes to train services.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council mentioned safety on trains. He was worried about the molestation of the travelling public. I share those sentiments. It is a very worrying situation to the SATS as well. We also realise that it is one of those very, very difficult issues because we can never have enough police on the trains to protect people adequately, so it is not an easy matter to solve.

How can one solve it? It can only be solved by the people themselves. People themselves should take a very strong stand. One cannot have the police all over the show. I am certain that where I live if we should have an unruly element molesting people all the time they would certainly see to it that they act strongly—not that they will take the law into their own hands—against those people who are molesting others. So if the people who travel by train adopt a strong attitude and are prepared to protect one another then criminals will certainly not have a free hand.

Although we have not got the police with us anymore—I am speaking about the SA Railways Police—there is the closest co-operation between the SATS and the police. We will certainly make the necessary appeals to them again to see whether we cannot have a better police presence on platforms and in trains.

The hon the Minister also made the point that we cannot plan our cities adequately unless we have more public transport to bring people to our cities.

As far as urban transport is concerned, our National Transport Commission is certainly paying all the attention it can to this particular issue. Perhaps, if one could let one’s mind wander a little, the time will come when we will have to prevent people from coming into the larger cities the way they do today, travelling alone in a car, whereas there are ample facilities, with our trains and buses, to bring them to the city. In this way one could reduce fuel consumption and at the same time have fewer motorcars in the cities.

This is an issue that requires further investigation. As far as the other hat, which one has to wear from time to time, is concerned, I shall certainly pay the necessary attention to this issue because it is not only a matter for the SATS.

I wish to thank hon members.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.