Mr Speaker, since the adjournment yesterday evening we have learnt the results of the by-elections in Schweizer-Reneke and Standerton. Please permit me to say a few words about that. We want to congratulate the Official Opposition on the way in which it retained its two seats. We also want to congratulate the new hon member for Schweizer-Reneke, who has just been sworn in here, on his victory. He comes along here, as it is, as the next member in a larger family tradition, and we wish him everything of the best in his parliamentary career. (Interjections.]

After these two by-elections the NP finds itself in anything but sackcloth and ashes. Although it was a disappointment to us, the overall number of votes we received remained constant or increased slightly. The number of votes for the CP, of course, increased more substantially. [Interjections.] The CP’s number of votes in the two constituencies increased by a total of approximately 2 700. Approximately 700 of these were HNP votes which reverted to another right-wing party. I therefore think that hon members of the Official Opposition will agree with me that their net increase in votes was approximately 2 000 in these two constituencies.

Two thousand new votes, of course, also mean 2 000 new responsibilities requiring the CP to spell out more clearly, to the voters of South Africa, its policy and the consequences of that policy. In the sense of being 2 000 votes nearer to becoming the alternative government of this country, they have a greater responsibility for spelling out the consequences of their policy in every respect.

Two of the burning issues facing our country, issues one can associate with this appropriation Bill now under discussion, involve the need to provide job opportunities, not only for the growing White, Coloured and Indian population, but also for the growing Black population, in conjunction with the training necessary in order to make use of such job opportunities.

It is specifically in the area of these two problems that the SATS is trying to find an answer by way of its privatisation proposals. A wonderful example of what can be achieved with deregulation and privatisation is to be found on our roads today in the form of tens of thousands of private buses which have taken over from the SATS on numerous routes. This has enabled the SATS to curtail uneconomic commuter services, and knowledgeable estimates have it that today there are more than about 100 000 of these private Black entrepreneurs actively transporting people.

This means that in the place of a body which does not pay tax, there are now 100 000 or more new businessmen, 100 000 or more new taxpayers, 100 000 or more new entrepreneurs paying fuel levies, toll fees and general sales tax on vehicles and spares parts.

The Official Opposition can rant and rave to its heart’s content about houses and services being provided for Black people, but there is one responsibility it cannot get away from, even if it came to power, and that is the necessity for building up a strong economy in this country so as to be in a position to tackle the tremendous responsibilities facing any government in South Africa, a strong economy so that one could afford the mass removal of Black people, which their policy would entail in order to guarantee White majority settlement in parts of the country.

What is more, such a strong economy will have to provide job opportunities to obviate Black unrest and, in turn, safeguard the Whites in this country. I do not have the time to elaborate on what is being experienced throughout the world, but I think hon members of the Official Opposition would agree, in spite of the fact that for election purposes they are somewhat dubious about the concept of privatisation, that throughout the world it has been proven that the capitalist system is better able to generate job opportunities and strengthen an economy than socialism, or any Marxist system which has been tried anywhere in the world.

The fact remains that not only as far as the provision of jobs is concerned, but also from the point of view of occupational satisfaction, workers do better in privatised economies than in controlled ones. We are particularly glad that in his budget speech, and also subsequently, the hon the Minister has given evidence of the fact that in the process of privatisation he would give particular attention to the position of SATS workers. Yesterday, in the staff magazine of the SATS, Esprit de Corps, there was a statement by the hon the Minister in which he said, amongst other things:

That is a bluff!

I quote further—

The hon member says it is a bluff. On what grounds does he now wish to allege that because the process, which the hon the Minister is proposing here, has worked in Britain, it will not work here, or that this Government will not be able to do this? This is merely a further example of how that party, and members of that party, are trying to use misrepresentations in order to convey their message to the voters. [Interjections.]

One would expect a responsible opposition, in speaking about privatisation, to have asked this Government to ensure that there were certain built-in guarantees, amongst others for the workers, in the steps the Government was taking in this privatisation process. This Official Opposition, however, is not trying to negotiate any benefits for the workers; it is merely trying to sow suspicion. In its little publication it states that 10% of the workers in Britain were dismissed when privatisation was introduced. They thereby wish to create the impression that this will necessarily be the case here too.

In this way they are trying to sow discord amongst the workers of the SATS. We must accept that that is the role an Official Opposition in this country of ours is trying to play. They are not trying to set the minds of the workers at rest; they are not trying to say they will negotiate better conditions for the workers. On the contrary, they are trying to sow suspicion and discord against the Government of the day. In this way they are trying to undermine the morale of the SATS workers and the SATS as such.

When we say that the new votes that the CP has obtained have brought that party new responsibilities, it means that in projecting their policy they will have to keep more strictly to the truth than they have in the past. I do not have time to elaborate on more than a single example.

Like the story about the blood-stain!

The Patriot, that party’s mouthpiece, states that the individual taxpayer’s share in this country has consistently increased over the past 10 years. Of course it has, and we know it. The hon the Minister of Finance has stated, in this House, that the present position is such that individuals cannot be more heavily taxed. This is not, however, where the Official Opposition’s mouthpiece distorts the picture. The misrepresentation comes about when it blames a spendthrift Government for being the cause of the present state of affairs.

Last year a White Paper on Privatisation and Deregulation in the RSA was published. Hon members could then read, in detail, about the motivation underlying privatisation. I merely want to quote a single passage from that White Paper:

In other words two thirds—

In other words, a period of 14 years. So two thirds of our total investment in this country is public sector investment and only one third is private sector investment, and that is over the past 15 years. That means, as hon Ministers of the NP frequently tell us, that over the years the tax base has become increasingly smaller and that the rates at which individuals are taxed have unavoidably had to increase. It has absolutely nothing to do with a spendthrift Government, but rather with the growth of the public sector’s involvement in the economy; and that is one of the foremost reasons why privatisation is specifically addressing this problem. Hon members of the Official Opposition, however, do not convey those facts to their voters.

It is with great pleasure that we support this Appropriation.

Mr Speaker, this debate is in the main a financial debate but, as was to be expected, politics did not lag behind, and that is as it should be.

Although I want to congratulate the Official Opposition on their success, I want to add that we on this side of the House are, of course, disappointed with the result of the by-election. However, this must also be seen in perspective. It does not make one iota of difference to the strength and the ability of this side of the House. Here we all still are! [Interjections.]

Only Red Riding Hood would believe that!

The real disappointment lies in the fact that the Official Opposition succeeded in influencing the voters by political trickery. [Interjections.] Political trickery does not offer any solutions. It only offers a way of escaping from the realities of this country, and that is a tragedy for South Africa.

The NP will continue to deal with the realities and will keep on informing the voters about these realities, and I can tell the hon members of the Official Opposition that people’s common sense will eventually catch up with that party.

Carry on like that; we want you to carry on like that.

Order!

Mr Speaker, I expected the hon members of the Official Opposition and other hon members in the opposition ranks to make an in-depth analysis of this Budget. I was disappointed in the quality of the contributions dealing with the problem which has to be addressed in this debate.

An extraordinary effort was made in this Budget, for example, to deal with the economic archenemy of South Africa, namely inflation. It was so very significant that not a single speaker in the opposition ranks—and that applies to the PFP as well—expressed appreciation for this. Not a single speaker called the private sector to order or encouraged it to support us in this enterprise. I was struck by the lack of action in opposition ranks.

Instead we heard a great deal about privatisation from the Official Opposition. One after the other they classified it as the selling-out of assets.

I cannot but say that it is a pity that this party is looking at this important aspect in the economic development of South Africa through a tunnel of political narrow-mindedness. Hon members should read what appears in our Constitution, namely that free enterprise is the foundation stone of our economy. If they do not believe that, they must tell us so.

It is common knowledge that the smaller a government or public sector involvement in the economy of a country is, the greater the growth of that economy is and the more employment opportunities are created. The CP says that in principle it is in favour of privatisation. I heard the hon member for Barberton say so the other day too. I do not know what that means, however, because since making that statement they have attacked and denigrated it in every speech. What does it mean if one says that in principle one is in favour or privatisation? I shall tell hon members what it means. It means that services which the private sector can supply, as well or better than the public sector, should be left to the private sector. That is what privatisation means in principle.

The trouble with those hon members is that they are being told what to say by the AWB, which wants to nationalise everything. [Interjections.] Privatisation does not fit in with the policies of their political masters.

I want to thank the hon member for Umlazi most sincerely for his contribution in this debate. He referred in a very responsible and balanced way to the position occupied by big business undertakings in the economy of our country. For the sake of a little political gain those hon members are carrying on as if big businesses in our country are everyone’s enemies. There is room in this country for both big businessmen and small businessmen. One must have both in a balanced economy.

The hon member referred specifically to the entry of the small hauliers. In spite of the competition this results in for the SATS, I welcome it, because it results in thousands of newcomers to the economy in this country. This will mean more jobs and further growth. I thank the hon member for Umlazi for his contribution.

I now come to the hon member for Roodepoort. He moved an amendment in which he stated:

We handed the hon member certain documents, and if he had looked at just one of them he would have seen this graph. It indicates the most important basic contributions to the consumer price index or CPI. Here he would have seen that with 100 points as a basis, for the 1978-79 financial year the contribution of the SATS was less than 210 points, compared with an inflation rate of more than 330 points.

There is also the electricity contribution of more than 270, the steel contribution of more than 390 and the fuel contribution of more than 480. In other words, there is proof in black and white that the SATS, which is being accused by that hon member of not controlling its operating expenditure, was the very best achiever in that field. This also involves revenue, because both these factors work together to make this achievement possible. The hon member did not study this, or he did not understand it. The only contribution made in that regard was an appeal, by the hon member for Potgietersrus for us to continue to operate the services which are showing a loss. This would possibly save the revenue situation.

That was not an appeal for services in general.

The hon member for Roodepoort—I want to congratulate him on his nomination as the chief spokesman—also referred to the matter of losses in revenue. He knows that a committee of experts has been appointed to investigate that matter. I want to tell him that when the monetary unit of a country declines drastically in comparison with the monetary unit of another country with which it enters into many transactions, there is no way in which the former country can avoid suffering heavy losses. Whether it be the SATS, the central bank, the ordinary banks or the taxpayers—someone will have to pay for those losses. This is an argument we can pursue at a later stage when we receive that report.

The hon member also referred to the Harding-Port Shepstone railway line which has been privatised. He wanted to suggest that we made this a clandestine transaction in order to benefit someone. I want to tell him that in terms of the tender regulations the SATS is entitled to undertake certain transactions without a tender. In this case there were, in fact, two people who were interested, but one lost interest and the other one was the only person with whom we could do business. For the information of the hon member I want to say that if there is only one tenderer when one calls for tenders, one is a very stupid businessman, because then he can do what he likes with one. That is why we negotiated a proper contract with this man after the railway line had, in actual fact, been closed for a long time. I think we did very good business in this case.

The hon member also intimated, in point of fact, that we could now earn a far higher income; we were wasting our income because we allowed too many people to travel free of charge. In this connection he referred to the congestion of commuters at peak periods when we lost so much money. The figure in respect of those who evade paying fares totals approximately 0,2% of the total income of the SATS. It therefore does not have a significant effect on the economic achievements of the SATS as such.

This is a problem and we cannot deny it. That is why on-going efforts are being made to control the evasion of fares by appointing more officials, erecting better fencing and better control at access points to stations. That investigation to which the hon member referred was merely one of many undertaken from time to time at our insistence to keep us up to date with regard to this problem.

The hon member for Primrose—the chief spokesman on transport matters on this side of the House—then referred to this Budget as a watershed. That is correct; we are preparing for the nineties. We are slowly changing our position to that of a profit-making undertaking. We are also developing our services in a competitive market. We are not afraid of competition in this market, we say that we are prepared to compete with competitors of any calibre.

The hon member asked me about a Bill on conditions of service of groups. He referred specifically to pilots and asked whether they would also be accommodated. The hon member will know that it is possible, in terms of legislation, to accommodate groups of employees too. I can also tell the hon member that at present there is an investigation by outside experts to see how we can accommodate specialist groups as groups among the employees of the SATS. The hon member also referred to the White Paper dealing with the deregulation of transport affairs and asked whether it would be possible, and not too great a burden, to implement all those prerequisites immediately. I agree with the hon member. However, I want to tell him that the SATS is already a step ahead as regards the throwing open of the free transport areas, each with a diameter of 600 kilometres, in all the large centres. In these areas we already have free competition with other entrepreneurs and, in actual fact, are a step ahead of those requirements.

The hon member for Primrose also referred to privatisation. He asked if there was a possibility of our dividing the SAA into different units before it was privatised. He asked if I would comment on this. We are looking into and investigating all these matters, but we are also taking into account that there must be limited competition in the market before we can even think of privatisation. In this overall process we will have to take careful note in order not to lower the quality of the services.

I thank the hon member for specially referring to the staff. I want to repeat that our staff are the highest priority in this process of privatisation. We must look after our workers’ salaries and their remuneration package which includes their pensions, housing benefits and medical benefits. If possible, they must be better off than before. For that reason it will also be necessary to give them a limited share in such an undertaking.

The hon member referred to the delays in certain domestic flights of the SAA. I agree with the hon member that this occurs frequently at the moment.

It is chaotic!

No, it is not chaotic, but it is too high. That hon member does not know what he is talking about. His thinking is chaotic. [Interjections.]

Statistics indicate that 84,6% of SAA’s domestic flights left on schedule in 1987. In December 1987 that percentage dropped to 68,1%. That is too low. In January 1988 the figure again improved to 80,3%.

There are certain reasons why this sort of thing takes place. Firstly, as hon members will remember, there was bad weather along the coast which delayed the overall range of services. There were a large number of stand-by passengers and there were technical problems which any vehicle or aircraft experiences from time to time. However, the most important cause was the fact that we lost an aircraft at a time when our market had significantly improved.

The SAA’s record of delays can be compared with that of other airlines. A leading country like the USA has many airlines. Out of 14 airlines in the USA, only two had a better record than the SAA. The record of the one airline showed that 86% of its flights left on schedule, while 85,2% of the other airline’s flights left on schedule. Hon members can rest assured that the SAA is doing everything in its power to continue improving the situation. The March timetable, which has already been published, makes provision for longer turnaround times which will make a contribution, and the addition of an extra aircraft in the course of this month will, of course, improve the situation further.

However, I want to make a friendly appeal to passengers to report for flights on time and also to remain in the departure hall after their luggage has been weighed in and not delay flights.

The hon member also referred to capital investment which had declined drastically in real terms and asked whether we had not reached the danger point in this regard. During the seventies and eighties the Richards Bay and Saldanha Bay projects were tackled and we changed over to containerisation. All this called for abnormal capital investment. These services have now been carried but, investments have been made and consequently we no longer need that high degree of investment. The amount we have budgeted for in this financial year still totals R927 million. This is low in real terms, but is nevertheless a considerable amount. We are bearing the point the hon member raised in mind. I thank the hon member for Primrose most sincerely for the fine contribution he made.

†The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central congratulated us on our productivity and also our courteous service, and I thank the hon member for doing so.

The hon member asked me to bring in private sector expertise in this process of privatisation. It stands to reason that no Minister can handle this by himself, and it is therefore absolutely essential that the process of privatisation also be privatised to a very large extent. It will therefore be necessary to bring private sector expertise into the whole process.

The hon member referred to the Helderberg disaster and expressed the opinion …

Have you brought in the private sector?

Yes.

Who?

Mr Chairman, we did not start this process of privatisation today; we have been busy with it for a whole year or more than a year, but I will bring in people who are knowledgeable on that particular issue when I address it.

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

Mr Chairman, I would rather not reply to questions. I have a lot to reply to. If I have time left at the end, I will give the hon member the opportunity to ask a question.

The hon member referred to the Helderberg disaster and expressed the opinion that the net amount received from insurance should be set off against the deficit. That aircraft will be replaced. We have already decided to replace it, and it is only logical that the net amount of R138 million should be earmarked to finance its replacement. It was therefore decided to appropriate this amount to the Revenue Reserve account.

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central also objected to the SATS policy of providing for additional depreciation, as he has done so very often in the past. Additional depreciation is raised to ensure that the purchasing power of an organisation’s own capital is maintained. This is of special importance, especially when one is dealing with high inflation rates; otherwise one just becomes poorer and poorer, and the hon member will concede that. The SATS is not unique in applying this principle. It is in fact a principle strongly supported by the Board of Chartered Accountants and is applied by nearly all big organisations.

It is taken out of profits; they are not allowed to do it.

But, Mr Chairman, once we are in a profit situation we will be in exactly the same position as those companies. As is clearly indicated in an article in Finansies en Tegniek of 29 May 1987 by a prominent chartered accountant who is also a member of the Board of Chartered Accountants organisations which do not provide for additional depreciation are in actual fact overstating their profits and are paying dividends that were not really earned.

There is therefore no necessity whatsoever to investigate this situation. We all know what the reason for it is. The hon member knows and I know what the reason is for it and that one cannot do without it in a responsible manner as long as one has a high inflation rate.

The hon member also wanted to know when the actuarial evaluation of the SATS Pension Fund would be completed. I am glad to be able to inform the hon member it will be completed towards the end of this year.

This year?

That is correct, yes. Unfortunately one cannot buy services of that nature off the shelf.

Is it being done by a private sector organisation?

Yes, it is being done by a private sector organisation.

The hon member also asked whether the formula for the buying back of pensionable service, in the case of the SATS, had been brought in, and whether it had been brought into line with the revised formula pertaining to the State pension funds. In the case of the State pension funds the buying-back age was increased from 16 years to 18 years. The SATS still has a fairly large number of grades in which people can join the service at the age of 16 years. An increase in present age limit from 16 years to 18 years is therefore not contemplated at the moment but as far as the cost of buying back is concerned it is even now more expensive than in the case of the State pension funds. I can, however, inform the hon member that the situation will be re-evaluated upon receipt of the report to which I referred just now.

The hon member also referred to the privatisation of bus-passenger services of the SATS. As explained in my introductory speech it was decided to extend the announced privatisation of Trans Lux and Trans City to include the total bus-passenger service, and there are very good reasons for this decision. When a service is being privatised it must have a separate organisational structure with a proven sound financial history or a potential for profit. This is necessary in order to interest the private sector. It also facilitates the accommodation of staff. The accommodation of staff is a very important factor.

A history of profit is going to take you a few years!

Mr Chairman, I did not limit it to the history of profit. I said it was either that or a profit potential.

The hon member asked that SA Airways sever its links with IATA. IATA is a forum for negotiation for all its members, and as a result thereof and of our membership of that organisation any one of the 50 000 lata travel agencies around the world is able by way of one transaction to book a passenger on any of the flights of the participating carriers and issue one ticket or a set of tickets for an entire journey. I am sure the hon member will agree, when bearing these facts in mind, that it is to our benefit that we remain a member of that organisation. It is also to our benefit to be associated with our co-members of that organisation.

As far as airfares are concerned I want to tell the hon member that we are very competitive worldwide.

The hon member for South Coast made a speech of good quality. He addressed the problems caused by the Natal flood disaster. He also paid tribute to the people who had dealt with it. The hon member also revealed considerable understanding of the mini-container concept. I thank him for his contribution.

*The hon member for Pietersburg referred to the blatant discrimination against the White worker as regards medical services. He then quoted selectively from a letter. What are the facts? The facts are that these medical services, which he says discriminate against the Whites, are in fact one of the services in regard to which there is as yet no parity and in regard to which the other groups are still lagging far behind. Merely for the sake of a little political scapetai the hon member says the Whites are being blatantly discriminated against. He alleges this while the other groups are still lagging far behind.

Do you agree that it prejudices the White worker?

No, this was settled fully with the White trade unions, and they can now have their prescriptions made up by any pharmacy or doctor. Of course this is in their favour.

And pay in full and then claim the amount back later.

It costs them a little more at the private pharmacy or doctor, but this has been cleared up fully.

Quite a bit more.

One must pay for one’s conveniences.

Where must they get the money from to pay for it?

The point the hon member made was that there was blatant discrimination against them, whereas in actual fact the discrimination is against people of colour because the people of colour are not yet fully incorporated into that scheme. As yet there is no parity in this regard.

The hon member for Boksburg referred to the Delmore Hostel, which is now being rebuilt. He asked whether there could not be a move in this regard. He has already been informed that the hostel is being rebuilt to provide for far fewer people—approximately half the number. Although a start has already been made with this process, I shall take another look at the viability of the two alternatives and ascertain whether there is a possible solution in that regard.

The hon member also referred to the capital investment made, and pointed out that as a result of the withdrawal of the support of the SATS, certain business undertakings lost out. Of course we share in his dismay, but it is very difficult for us to appoint those people in a maintenance capacity because we ourselves have some of those people whom we will then have to get rid of. I share his concern in that connection.

†The hon member for Bryanston referred to the excessive increases in rail tariffs in respect of the conveyance of coal to Richards Bay. These are contract tariffs and they have scarcely been changed in almost ten years. The hon member made much of the fact that there has been a big increase now. On a cross recovery basis of comparison, the rates increased on average by approximately 12,5% during the period 1976 to 1988. Higher replacement costs played no role at all.

The hon member also stated that the underutilization of the coal line is because of overinvestment by the SATS to which the coal exporters were opposed. The fact is that these exporters are all members of the Richards Bay Coal Terminal, and all previous negotiations regarding the upgrading of the railway line were conducted with them. It is apparent, therefore, that the upgrading of the line was undertaken in consultation with these clients of ours.

The hon member also referred to delays at Richards Bay harbour. The bunching of vessels all requiring loading at one particular appliance and arriving at the same time, peaks in the export of certain other commodities and heavy rains during that particular period were factors which contributed to this situation.

We did, however, take certain steps. We introduced 24-hour shifts, for example, and we also intend installing a second shiploader within the next few months. The situation will then be much better.

Is that the one that should have been in operation already?

It is always easy to be wise after the event! [Interjections.]

The hon member also wanted to know who was responsible for rectifying the major construction problems experienced in the building of piers 704, 705 and 706 at Richards Bay, and what the cost will be. I can inform him that negotiations are presently being conducted with the contractor regarding proposals to remedy the defects, and the estimated cost of repair will then be known.

*The hon member for East London North apologised for being unable to be here today. He raised an important point by saying that there was to be no general salary increase. I’m saying this, however, one must consider objectives, namely the eventual ultimate in the position of all workers in South Africa when it comes to the money they have in their pockets.

He also asked the public to watch prices and not buy blindly. It is undeniably true that if we did not enjoy the support of the buying public if they did not make their contribution, and if we did not enjoy the support of business people, employers and trade unions, the public sector alone would not be able to make a success of this campaign.

The hon member for De Aar referred to the contribution the SATS had made to dealing with the emergency situation in the Karoo. He also waxed very sentimental about our steam locomotives; for a moment I thought Oom Sporie was back. He asked us to keep the De Aar-Kimberley steam train in service for as long as possible. Of course there are certain limitations, but I can tell the hon member that we will keep that service going for as long as possible and as long as it fits in with our economic pattern.

The hon member for Uitenhage referred to the various business modules. He emphasised the important truth that these modules should each do business where it has a competitive advantage. He recommended good business practices, and this is what we are aiming for.

The hon member also asked for permanent committees to be appointed on a regional basis to look after property development. I want to inform him that I foresee that the property development potential of the SATS will be utilised to far better advantage in future. This is also in line with what the hon member advocated, and I thank him for his contribution.

The hon member for Parktown requested for members of Transmed to be in a position to make free use of private pharmacists, as in the case of doctors. This will be the position from 1 April. I have just explained this to the hon member for Pietersburg. We negotiated with the trade unions so as to be able to do this.

The hon member also referred to the ban on smoking. I must tell the hon member that I did not experience as much pressure as he thought. I had very good co-operation. I did experience resistance, but I had very good co-operation.

The hon the Deputy Minister replied to him fully on the question of whether tobacco and smoking advertisements could be banned. I want to add that there is a big difference between smoking on the one hand and advertisements on the other.

The hon member must remember that this ban was introduced because we were dealing with a confined space on aircraft. I do not think one can deny a person the freedom of choice regarding what he wants to do with his health. A person has that freedom of choice when it comes to what he wants to do with his health. I was not appointed high priest of people’s health. A person must look after his own health, but he must not jeopardise another man’s freedom of choice regarding his health. That is what happened here.

What about dagga; can he smoke that too? It is, after all, a matter of involving his health.

No, there are laws, after all, but there is no law against smoking.

There should be!

For certain reasons there are laws against dagga.

I want to thank the hon the Deputy Minister most sincerely for his participation in this debate. I want to thank him for his support throughout the year, and for his loyalty. It is exceptional for us to introduce a budget without tariff increases. Of course, as such this is going to make a big contribution to trade, industry and agriculture; that is why they welcome it. Along with the hon the Deputy Minister, I am proud that the SATS could make a contribution towards combatting inflation in this country. Along with him I am again appealing to the private sector to support us.

The hon member for Soutpansberg—I see he is not here—asked us to look into his “bullet trains”. We are world experts in the field of train or rail transport and we know all we want to know about this. What he has in mind would cost astronomical amounts.

The hon member also asked which sectors of the rail network were going to be sold and which were not. It is quite clear to me that the hon member has never looked at the White Paper on Privatisation and Deregulation, which lays down the guidelines for privatisation. The hon member need only look at it. I am sure that not a single one of the hon members sitting here in front of me has looked at it. When I listen to them talking, one thing is clear to me and one thing only, and that is that they do not know what they are talking about.

For the sake of completeness I also want to say that the hon member must read what I said in my budget speech. I said that after the restructuring of the SATS, the respective undertakings would be subjected to the criteria prescribed in the White Paper in order to ascertain whether privatisation was feasible—there may be units which it is not feasible to privatise—and, if so, in what form.

The hon member for Newton Park referred to the effect inflation had on the savings of retired persons. This is a very serious problem and I thank the hon member for referring to it. This is one of the reasons why we have to join in the battle against inflation and why we have to win. The hon member also referred to other aspects which, for the sake of convenience, we can discuss further during the Transport Vote. I thank the hon member for his contribution.

The hon member for Umhlatuzana really came to grips with the CP regarding privatisation. He made a very interesting and sound contribution. His explanation on privatisation was enlightening to us all. He also clearly pointed out the errors regarding privatisation prevalent among the CP. He referred, inter alia, to the fact that privatisation created employment. I want to thank the hon member for his very sound contribution.

The hon member for Beaufort West referred to the fact that our roads were being overburdened and that some of that road traffic should be rail traffic. This is one of the important reasons why we cannot continue with unprofitable services. If we could cut out unprofitable services, we could reduce tariffs. This would bring the road transport back to the railways, and both problems would be addressed simultaneously. I thank the hon member for his contribution.

The hon member Mr Derby-Lewis received a comprehensive reply from the hon member for Umhlatuzana. The hon member proposed that my salary be reduced, and I listened with interest to what his motivation for this would be. After all, an amendment was introduced by the main spokesman on that side, and I thought the hon member would discuss that further. The main spokesman on the topic made a big fuss, but the mountain brought forth a mouse. He did not come up with anything. I then thought that this hon member, who was after all specially appointed, would come up with something. What he then did, however, was to attack the hon member for Yeoville because he had called him a racist. Must my salary now be reduced because the hon member for Yeoville called him a racist? [Interjections.]

Do you agree with me?

Yes, of course I agree.

The hon member also said something about privatisation. However, I am convinced that the hon member has never read the guidelines on privatisation. He did not read my speech properly either. For political reasons he simply took a stab in the dark. [Interjections.] The hon member is a man with experience. After all, he comes from the Provincial Council, and I hear he was there for a number of years. We expect quite a bit more from him than he gave us in this debate.

The hon member for Potgietersrus again raised the issue of the Harding railway line. I was not present at that debate, but what the entire matter amounted to was the fact that in terms of existing legislation the’ SATS had the right to alienate property. This is not the first time it is asking for that right. This is merely being endorsed in the Bill because we already have all the rights being requested. [Interjections.] This is a ratification of rights we already have. This happens frequently.

What we are requesting authorisation for in the Bill is the right to authorise people to run that service. In existing legislation that right is reserved for the SATS alone.

I do not want to debate this matter any further. This legislation has already been dealt with by all three Houses. The hon member is merely demonstrating that he is a prototype of his party, namely that he is always arguing about things that belong to the past. He goes and digs up legislation which has already been dealt with and argues about it.

The hon member also asked that the SATS should not curtail services. Of course, where at all possible we do not want to curtail services, particularly for strategic reasons. The hon member’s representation actually concerned unprofitable services, services which were profitable in the past but have now become unprofitable. If he is really serious about the appeal he addressed to me today, I want to ask him whether he is prepared to allow me to change the situation again; in other words, I will compel the farmers in his constituency to make use of the SATS again and not to arrange their own transport.

If you improved the services, they would be encouraged to use them.

The hon member is asking for all this, but he is not addressing the root cause. Why did those services become unprofitable? I know the situation in the rural areas. This happened for one single reason only, the reason being that at the insistence of the agricultural sector we allowed them to arrange their own transport. Their own transport is more convenient but it costs them more. This is the primary reason why we cannot supply services at a profit. [Interjections.]

The Budget I have submitted is of necessity anti-inflationary. Usually when tariffs are increased, the direct effect on the consumer price index is approximately 1%. There are no tariff increases in this Budget and nobody therefore has an excuse to put up his prices. In the past people made more use than was necessary of tariff increases in the SATS to put up their prices. The SATS is setting an example here which the private sector would do well to emulate. I hope the private sector will come forward and be prepared to support us openly in this situation. The competitive position of the SATS is also being strengthened as a result of these tariffs remaining constant. This may bring more transport back to the SATS, to the railways. It is also true that the competitive position of our clients will be improved as a result of the tariffs remaining constant. Our exporters, in particular, can capitalise on this and benefit from it. Increased imports therefore also become a possibility owing to this measure. Because of the lower inflation rate and the stimulation of exports it is therefore clear that the growth potential of the economy is being improved. For that reason this Budget must also be seen as a significant contribution towards economic prospects for the year ahead.

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

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—98: Alant, T G; Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, P J; Bartlett, G S; Bekker, H J; Blanche, J P I; Botha, C J van R; Botha, J C G; Botma, M C; Brazelle, J A; Breytenbach, W N; Camerer, S M; Chait, E J; Christophers, D; Clase, P J; Coetsee, H J; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; De Klerk, F W; De Villiers, D J; Dilley, L H M; Du Plessis, P T C; Durr, K D S; Edwards, B V; Farrell, P J; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Golden, S G A; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Hattingh, C P; Heyns, J H; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; Jooste, J A; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kotzé, G J; Kritzinger, W T; Kruger, T A P; Lemmer, J J; Le Roux, D E T; Louw, E v d M; Louw, M H; Marais, G; Marais, P G; Maré, P L; Maree, J W; Matthee, J C; Matthee, P A; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, A T; Meyer, R P; Niemann, J J; Nothnagel, A E; Odendaal, W A; Olivier, P J S; Oosthuizen, G C; Pretorius, J F; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Retief, J L; Scheepers, J H L; Schlebusch, A L; Schutte, D P A; Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Steenkamp, P J; Steyn, D W; Steyn, P T; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Van Breda, A; Van der Merwe, A S; Van der Walt, A T; Van Deventer, F J; Van de Vyver, J H; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Heerden, F J; Van Niekerk, W A; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Zyl, J G; Venter, A A; Viljoen, G v N; Vilonel, J J; Welgemoed, P J; Wessels, L.

Tellers: Jordaan, A L; Ligthelm, C J; Meyer, W D; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Smit, H A; Thompson, A G.

NOES—28: Barnard, M S; Burrows, R M; Dalling, D J; Derby-Lewis, C J; Eglin, C W; Ellis, M J; Gerber, A; Hardingham, R W; Hartzenberg, F; Jacobs, S C; Lorimer, R J; Malcomess, D J N; Nolte, D G H; Olivier, N J J; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Prinsloo, J J S; Schwarz, H H; Soal, P G; Suzman, H; Swart, R A F; Uys, C; Van Eck, J; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Wyk, W J D; Walsh, J J.

Tellers: Coetzee, H J; Snyman, W J.

Question affirmed and amendments dropped.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, it is with a warm feeling in our hearts that we on this side of the House move this motion today, and we have every confidence that hon members of all the opposition parties will enter into the spirit of the discussion of this motion, as printed in my name on the Order Paper, which I now move:

As hon members in this House speak, on occasion, about agriculture and about how their voters are affected, there are a large number of us in this House who can speak with great compassion about officials, because we have large numbers of public servants in our constituencies.

As far as the officials and the Government’s budgetary cut-backs are concerned, we are faced with a situation that has a greater and more serious impact on certain centres in the country than on others. In Pretoria alone there is the enormous figure of approximately 120 000 officials of the central Government, provincial administration, local authority, national states, the SATS, public corporations and the Post Office.

So when the State announces major cut-backs and the freezing of salaries, as the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare did on the occasion of the additional appropriation, this inevitably affects the economy of a city like Pretoria much more than that of other parts of the country, and in a certain sense it is a big set-back for very large portions of the business sector in a city like Pretoria.

In no way do we hereby wish to pass judgment on the measures the State has adopted in regard to the temporary freezing of salaries, but we merely wish to state that many people are affected and that a city like Pretoria is fundamentally affected by it. For us it is therefore, on this occasion, a heartfelt need to specially tell those officials, that gigantic body of officials in Pretoria, that we have great understanding and sympathy as far as salaries are concerned. The truth of the matter is that when salaries are frozen, as is now the case, there are many people who have a hard time of it, and it is no use telling a man or a woman who is having a hard time of it that one sympathises with him or her and then thinking the matter is over and done with. The simple fact is that no one can eat or drink sympathy, can clothe his children in sympathy, can use sympathy to pay the mortgage or other household expenses. That is why we, who bear testimony to this in our constituencies and who know what a hard time people are having, are telling our people out there, on this occasion, that this is a tremendous sacrifice which the officials in South Africa is being asked to make. There are many people with very low incomes who have been struggling for years. I am speaking of the officials because most of the people are still at lower income levels. They have been having a hard time of it for many years, and we have great understanding for the fact that in these circumstances it must have been with a great sinking feeling that those people heard the news which is vital to South Africa but which affects those people themselves very drastically.

As I have said, no one can eat or drink sympathy, but it is also true that in the past few years the inflation rate has so sapped and drained the value of our money that we simply cannot carry on like this. The State expenditure on officialdom is great. If I may tax your patience, Sir, let me just quote a few figures today.

In the 1987-88 financial year expenditure on wages drew an amount of R9,715 billion from the Exchequer. On bonuses an amount of R594 million was spent; on housing subsidies an amount of R449 million; on contributions to medical schemes an amount of R215 million; on contributions to pension schemes and pension funds, an amount of R1,8 billion; on contributions to motor vehicle schemes, an amount of R21 million; on contributions to holiday and retirement annuities, an amount of R109 million; and on other forms of direct and indirect expenditure, R447 million. So we are speaking of an amount of R13 billion drawn from the Exchequer in the present financial year, money spent on all these items relating to the salaries, other benefits, etc, of officials and others who are remunerated by the Exchequer. That is a tremendous chunk out of the country’s budget. Since we now have an inflation rate that we simply have to break the back of, we are all in a certain sense picking the fruits of too large a public sector which we have all, I could perhaps say, blithely and lavishly shared in over the years. Many years ago I had the privilege of sitting in this House as a young official listening to hon members of this House asking for more services and more rights and privileges for their communities, and all the pleas lodged here over the years for our people— as parliamentarians we understand that—have contributed to our having a relatively large machine of state in South Africa.

The machinery of state is extensive, particularly in a developing country such as South Africa, where the entrepreneurial spirit, the initiative, etc, of most of the people should rather be employed in the private sector to help get the country’s economy going.

In taking note of the Public Service, on this occasion we should also like to extend a sincere word of thanks to the Commission for Administration which, over the years, has done a tremendous amount to improve the lot of officialdom and which has also made a tremendous contribution to the streamlining of the Public Service with a view to keeping this gigantic machine on course under very difficult circumstances. We thank them very sincerely for what they have done for the benefit of the officials. On behalf of this side of the House we should like to congratulate Mr Ian Robson, the new Secretary of the Commission for Administration, on his appointment. We wish him well, on the road ahead, in the tremendous task that waits to be done.

Let us now briefly take note of the staff in the employ of the State. On 30 September 1986 there were 650 000 employees in the central Government departments and the provincial administrations. There were 163 000 people in the employ of the national states. There were 127 000 people employed by para-statal bodies and 39 000 people employed in universities and technikons. By any standards, in a country with the unique problems of South Africa, this is a tremendous group of competent people working in the public sector.

When we note the composition of the so-called Exchequer’s staff corps, we find that on 30 September 1986—this is something to which hon members of the opposition parties, in particular, should pay attention—there were 208 000 labourers employed in this sector. What this boils down to is that 24,1% of this group of people fall into the category of labourers. There were also 227 000 educators—ie 26,3%—a total of 77 000 in the nursing category—ie 8,9%—and also 123 800 workers in the service sector—14,3%— with 189 000 in other categories—a total of 21,9%. The number employed by universities and technikons stood at 39 000—ie 4,5%. We are therefore speaking of a grand total of 865 000 people.

When we take note of the overall occupational composition in the central Government departments and the provincial administrations, it is also necessary to analyse the position of the workers there. Here we are speaking of 143 000 people. This means that 22% of the people in central Government departments and the provincial administrations fall into the category of labourers. A total of 166 000 or 25%, of them fall into the category of educators, 60 000, or 9,4%, into the nursing category and 118 646 or 18,2% into the service sector category. We can examine all these categories individually. Let us simply take the educators as an example for the purposes of argument. It is extremely difficult to cut back on the salary package of educators, or even on the numbers employed. In the nursing category we are dealing with a tremendously large group of people who furnish services advocated by all hon members in this House. And when we speak of the 118 000 people in the service sector, there is not a single hon member in this House who does not repeatedly ask for more and better services. Everyone asks for more policemen. We have a large prison population that we must deal with. So when we really take a critical or analytic look at the large Public Service in South Africa, it is easy for all of us—even easy for the Government too—to say we want to decrease the size of this machine of state of ours. In the light of the unique development problems and the unique composition of the population of our country, however, this is a very complex matter.

Thus far during the session I have, for example, repeatedly heard one hon member after another speaking about the high crime rate in this country. I have heard them advocating a better policing service. I have listened to one hon member after another advocating better health services, and I have heard hon members asking for more assistance for our aged. Those are the realities of South Africa, Sir. We would be very foolish, however, if we did not tell ourselves that a large number of these people who are linked to the public sector are people who find themselves in a much lower income group. This means that a very large percentage of them receive salaries of less than R10 000 per year, and they receive those meagre salaries in the very difficult circumstances in which we live today.

In the world in which we are living there is no way in which one can tell those people that everything is fine as far as they are concerned, but if one looks at what it costs the State to give all its officials an increase of 1%, one finds that hundreds of millions of rand are involved. One then realises that we have come to the point at which the Government has simply had to do two things. As it did several years ago, it has had to stop the increase in the establishment, and as we have now done, the Government has simply had to say that we must call a halt to salary increases.

It is no use giving people salary increases when the value of the rand keeps decreasing and decreasing and decreasing. It is a vicious circle which we have to break in the interests of our officialdom.

The hon members of the CP always speak, so volubly and lavishly, of the White taxpayer. I did a brief analysis of these figures relating to the Public Service, but I do not want to elaborate on that today, because when one speaks about the White taxpayer in South Africa, without including the millions of rand paid out by the Exchequer to people who are employed through State channels or are in the employ of the State, one does not understand how the governmental organisation in South Africa works. I merely want to make the point that when we speak about the White taxpayer, we must incorporate in our calculations the fact that a tremendously large portion of this R13 billion, voted by the State in its budget and to be paid to officials and others from the Exchequer, is money which is paid to White officials, money from which they in turn inevitably pay tax.

Our goal in South Africa is actually not that of having a larger Public Service or public sector, but of having a smaller Public Service or public sector, so that in this developing country we can have increasingly more people who can help to produce and increasingly fewer people who consume. The truth of the matter is that the State has to pay for services such as those rendered by the police, the health services and so on; that is part of government. It is nevertheless true that there are great possibilities—this is something the Government is engaged upon at the moment—in the field of privatisation in the Public Service too. We are grateful for that.

From personal experience one can say that many people view the Government’s privatisation campaign with a very heavy heart, whilst I, on the other hand, believe that as the State privatises, many of our loyal officials will truly begin to realise that in the private sector there are, in point of fact, very great opportunities for them to furnish a contribution too.

In expressing our thanks to Government officials, in this motion, for the role they play in the development of Southern Africa, we realise that in this country we are struggling with unique administrative problems and also with facets of development which many other countries in the world do not even have any knowledge of. If we look at the national states, at the tremendous development problems they have and the large masses of people we need there today to keep that development going, we realise that government in South Africa is not as simple a matter as people say.

And we must specifically bear in mind, too, that according to the latest statistics we have 1,85 million unemployed in South Africa. With this figure in mind, we must look at the number of people in South Africa who are economically active and at the extent to which they are active.

We know in our heart of hearts that a large number of the people who are economically active are not really in full-time employment. Some of them work here for a short while and then work elsewhere for a short while.

If one adds the number of people in this category to the 1,85 million, one is speaking of a gigantic problem.

And if, moreover, one bears in mind that 45% of the Black population of South Africa is under the age of 15 years, and one then views the overall economic problem, there is no doubt that we have to do everything in our power to decrease the State’s involvement in the economy and do everything we possibly can to use every possible person in this country who has any initiative and a bit of entrepreneurial talent to get this economy moving so as to generate job opportunities.

Hon members of the CP always speak so glibly about partition. When one examines the unemployment rate of the national states—hon members of the CP can do a bit of arithmetic for themselves—one comes to the profound realisation of the cost involved in establishing and maintaining an independent state or even a national state, because in the national states the unemployment rate is 28,3%. If they bore these facts in mind, hon members of the CP would gain a different perspective of the concept of partition which they are forever hawking around.

To get this development going inside and outside the national states, we undoubtedly need major sacrifices. We will simply have to privatise the activities of our public sector in the future.

There are many aspects receiving attention. If one looks at bodies such as the Government Printer—I worked there during many school holidays—and the Government Garage, one can confidently tell the people working there that there is a place for such organisations outside the public sector and that they can therefore be privatised. All we need do is simply co-operate. I believe there are jobs for everyone if we can really get the economy going so that we have increasingly more people who can help us produce and increasingly fewer who are simply consumers.

There is another point I should like to broach, since we are discussing our officials on this occasion, a point relating to State housing. Today, for the umpteenth time, I should like to lodge a plea with the hon the Minister that he, in collaboration with other relevant Ministers, re-examine the question of functional housing for officials in our larger centres. The fact is that in a constituency such as mine, and in a city such as Pretoria, there are several Government departments which have purchased and rented houses on a large scale. Those houses and flats are then rented out to officials.

Ultimately many of those people reach the end of their careers, having lived throughout their lives in a State-owned or State-rented house, and they then have to buy a house of their own. I therefore want to advocate today that we reconsider all housing of that kind in the larger centres and examine methods of helping those officials in some or other way—they are members of the Police Force, the Prisons Service and the Defence Force, amongst others—to purchase their own homes, even the houses and flats the State is renting at present, so that at the end of their careers they have a home of their own and do not have to struggle in a market in which we have major problems as a result of inflation.

In my humble opinion I am convinced that in this respect we are doing many of the officials a disservice by helping them in the short term, but leaving them disadvantaged in the longer term. It would therefore be much better if we paid a person a decent salary and helped him to purchase his own home so that in his twilight years he could help himself and so that he did not, when he retired one day, have to approach the State in circumstances that make it necessary for him to ask the State for further housing assistance.

I should now like to conclude. I should like to thank the hon the Minister and the Commission for Administration for what they are doing in regard to this privatisation campaign and also for the fact that they are looking after those people. I am always telling the people there in our part of the world that there is no way in which one can carry out privatisation and then simply tell people that it is not going to affect their job situation. That is completely untrue. Their job situation is going to be affected.

For many people there is a feeling of uncertainty, and therefore I want to lodge a plea, in regard to the question of privatisation, on behalf of many of the officials: When we decide upon privatising certain aspects of the Public Service, we should take all the officials of those departments or bodies along with us from the very outset. They must know, every step of the way, that the Government and the Commission for Administration are engaged in a specific privatisation campaign so that they are not caught unawares at any stage and so that increasing uncertainty is not created in their minds.

Now one very last plea relating to one other aspect. I think it is very important in a country such as South Africa, and everyone is talking about it. In practice I know that senior officials from outside the Public Service are appointed to the Public Service. Today I want to lodge a plea with the hon the Minister: We must move towards a system in which public servants can leave the Public Service and return at a later stage, without losing too much in the process, so that there can be more of an interaction between those who do not actually reach the top in the Public Service and the private sector, and vice versa.

Those of us who have had the privilege of working in the Public Service at some time in our lives know that that experience, that exposure to the mechanism of government, is vital to one’s whole being. The obverse is also true. If people in the private sector could, on more occasions, be exposed to the inner workings of the mechanism of state, they would also have a much greater understanding of the situation.

I therefore want to lodge a plea that senior officials, for example—as in other countries of the world—be allowed to move out of the Public Service and work in the private sector for five years and then return to the Public Service without having lost any years of service and other benefits. This cross-pollination between the State and its officials and the private sector, and vice versa, is extremely important.

In this country of ours, where we are faced with these major problems and, in many respects, with a revolutionary climate, where there is massive unemployment and where we are struggling with tremendous poverty, every member in this House should thank all the officials who have, with great sacrifice, made their contribution and have, with great compassion, helped to confront the country’s problems. I know that every member in this House, in his personal capacity, can attest to the fine co-operation we have received from our officials, including the officials on the parliamentary staff.

When I came here for the first time, in the years in which Dr Verwoerd had his office in the Marks Building, all the parliamentary staff were accommodated in that building. All the departmental officials were there. This was in the early sixties. If one looks today at the tremendous number of officials merely engaged in parliamentary activities here in Cape Town, one realises to what a tremendous extent the State’s activities have also mushroomed in this sphere.

It is fitting for us, as parliamentarians, to thank the officials of the parliamentary teams in every Government department here in Cape Town for their sacrifices and for the tremendous efforts they make. If one looks at the vast source of information that we have in our Hansard reports, for example the questions, and one thinks merely of the tremendous amount of time devoted to that aspect; if one thinks of the legislation that comes before us, one knows that this is not a party-political matter, but a completely objective question of appreciation and thanks from us on this side of the House.

I am convinced that we can deal with this motion without trying to score any points off each other. We wish the officials and the Commission for Administration everything of the best. In conclusion our plea is that in these times of privatisation and economic tension we shall always reach a point of certainty as quickly as possible so that people are not left in doubt, for months or years on end, about what is going to happen, in the future, to the organisation or the place in which they are employed.

Mr Chairman, it is indeed a privilege for me to reply to this motion. However, before I do so, I should like to be granted a few moments to say that it is always nice, but particularly so today, to be a member of the CP.

We want to congratulate the hon members for Schweizer-Reneke and Standerton sincerely on their election. In discussing the motion of the hon member for Innesdal, we should also like to thank the public servants in Schweizer-Reneke and Standerton. They made this increase in the majorities possible. Standerton’s majority was three votes short of a 300% increase, and an increase of 415% was attained in Schweizer-Reneke. [Interjections.]

Secondly, I want to tell the hon member for Innesdal that in these two by-elections we found that he himself was the major recruiting agent for the CP. After he came into conflict with public servants, we found that he was, in fact, our greatest recruiting agent. [Interjections.] On Wednesday, 2 March 1988, the hon member for Innesdal fell into the pit that he had dug for us.

The CP, of course, is supporting this motion for reasons totally different to those given by the hon member for Innesdal. We are doing so for other reasons that I should like to present to this House.

Time and again, during the past few months, it was the hon member for Innesdal who dragged the public servants, and especially the teaching profession, into the political arena by alleging that public servants and teachers who were CP supporters were engaged in political activities. Now I want to know; how can he thank them if it was he who criticised them? How can he express gratitude towards them if it was he who made derogatory remarks about their activities? How can he thank them if it was he who condemned them? How can he thank them if his own actions resulted in people being subjected to disciplinary investigation and in criminal steps being taken against them?

No, there is another reason for this motion of thanks to public servants. It is the hon member for Innesdal’s guilty conscience that made him move this motion in the House today. We want to make it very clear that we do not have a guilty conscience about public servants.

Neither have we—not at all!

We are grateful for various other reasons, because how can one be grateful if one wants to freeze the salaries of public servants while the cost of living is continually increasing? How can one thank the public servants if one keeps them in the dark about their pension funds? At the moment, the deficit in the Government pension fund amounts to R10 billion, but the hon member for Innesdal made no mention of this.

I listened to his motivation, but his motivation did not support his motion. The motion is one of gratitude towards public servants, but at the same time the hon member is asking for sacrifices from the public servants because no salary increases can be given to them during the present financial year. How can one thank the public servants while keeping them in an agony of doubt about the money that should be available when they retire? What plan do those on that side of the House, those who want to thank the public servants, have for making up the deficit in the Government pension fund?

The hon member also referred to privatisation. I wish we could inform the House of how many public servants spoke to us during the recent by-elections about the consequences privatisation would have for them. I want to quote to the House what was stated in the annual report of the Commission for Administration in 1986 about privatisation. I quote:

Why does the Government not tell the public servants what is going to happen to them when certain sectors of the Public Service are privatised? Are they going to be dismissed? Is that what is implied in the motion of gratitude? Are they going to lose their pensions? Are they going to find themselves under new management? All these questions must be answered before a word of thanks can be expressed to public servants. The Government must first consider the beam in its own eye.

The CP has a different way of saying thank you. We do not merely pay lip-service; ours is heartfelt gratitude. The CP thanks each public servant who is continuing to do his work despite the general salary freeze that was announced recently by the hon the State President. In particular, the CP wants to thank the public servant in the lower income bracket who has to do his work under difficult circumstances for a low salary.

If the hon member intends the word of thanks to public servants to be taken seriously, that gratitude will have to be demonstrated by his coming to the aid of these public servants in the lower income bracket and giving them a salary increase, even if it is below the inflation rate. Looking at the comparable figures in the private sector, I want to quote what appeared in today’s Cape Times:

How can the public servant, on the one hand, be seriously told: “We shall negotiate with the private sector. We shall ensure that there is no question of salary increases in the private sector, so that the public servant will not fall behind.” The hon member for Innesdal comes along, on the other hand, with a motion of thanks to public servants.

I also want to refer to another relevant figure. Mr Don Jennings, managing director of the personnel agency, Churchills, foresees a general salary increase of between 12% and 17% for the private sector in the coming year. Now the hon member for Innesdal comes along with a motion of thanks today, but at the same time he is asking the public servants to make sacrifices even though they have already had to make considerable sacrifices in the past. What is actually being said is that public servants will not be able to look forward to salary increases in the future either, because there will be no money available. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that public servants will have to carry the burden of inflation. They will have to ensure that the economy gets off the ground again, whereas that is the duty of those on that side of the House. Why cannot this gratitude be expressed by ensuring that the public servants receive what is due to them?

This course of events will have two principal consequences. There will inevitably be a sc* called “brain drain” from the public service back to the private sector. Secondly, if proper salary increases are not considered for public servants, the result will be a deterioration of standards. Public servants cannot be expected to be grateful for the annual incremental adjustments. The claim that is often made about public servants receiving an automatic annual incremental adjustment of 5% on average, is simply not true. This was reflected in the hon the State President’s opening address in Parliament this year. Not all public servants receive incremental adjustments. The net increase in the average remuneration for all public servants as a result of incremental adjustments combined with promotions was only 1,6% during 1985-86.

What is more important is that the hon member for Innesdal includes, in his motion, a word of thanks “for the future planning in which the public servants in South Africa will participate.” The CP also wants to say thank you for their future planning, but for reasons other than those mentioned by the hon member for Innesdal in his motivation. If by this future planning he means the reform policy of the NP, it is indeed ironic. It is ironic because it is the redistribution of wealth and income that has contributed to the impoverishment of public servants bringing them to the position in which they find themselves today. It is ironic that the planning for the future is spoken about in terms of a reform policy, because the reform resulted in higher taxation, and that was what has impoverished public servants.

No, those of us on this side of the House are saying that the Government should get its priorities straight. We also want to thank public servants. We want to thank them for their participation in the planning for the future of a South Africa that the CP wants to create, is going to create and, judging by the two by-elections, is definitely going to create. It is future planning of a different kind to the destructive power-sharing recipe of the NP. It is future planning for partition. It is future planning for a government for every people. It is future planning for a community life of its own for every people. It is planning for a White future. Yes, also for a future for the White people.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Losberg again made use of the old method of firing blanks. He referred to various aspects and then made a passing remark about what he had referred to. For example, he referred to the Government pension fund and dismissed it with the simple remark that there would not be money to pay public servants. Surely that is a ridiculous insinuation! He referred to sacrifices that public servants are making. We appreciate those sacrifices, and I shall refer to them later in my speech. However, I want to give that hon member the assurance that public servants will make those sacrifices, if there are sacrifices to be made, with heart-felt patriotism.

The hon member said that public servants were ostensibly being impoverished. If it is true that public servants have been impoverished, let me tell him that it is a sad day if we in this Parliament have to argue the point, because it is simply not true. It is true that South Africa is going through a difficult patch, economically speaking. It is true that South Africa is having a hard time, but everyone in South Africa is contributing to the price that has to be paid, not only the officials. To reach the other side everyone, including the public servants, are prepared to pay this price.

I should like to associate myself with the motion before this House today. In the first place, I want to express my gratitude and appreciation to public servants. Seen in a wider context, the Public Service can give the impression of being a clumsy, cumbersome machine that does not always get going. This is a wrong and unfair assumption; on the contrary, every facet of every department and the contribution of every public servant, no matter how modest, enables the State administration to run smoothly and to function properly. In the past the Public Service has been tagged with the label, whether rightly or wrongly, of being dominated by a so-called red tape mentality; a bureaucratic, shuffling executive mechanism applying its own rules at its own pace and in its own way. Today that is no longer the case. In recent years the Public Service has succeeded in building up management expertise in nearly all its departments, something which has led to increased productivity. A more streamlined discharge of obligations is also taking place. This is especially conspicuous in public servants who work with the public. A friendly smile behind the counter, or behind a desk when a member of the public is being served or attended to, is not merely polite and a sign of good manners, but contributes to greater understanding and better relations.

The methodical, friendly behaviour of those behind the counter is a reflection of how matters stand in that department and in the Public Service as a whole. However, that also applies to the person in front of the counter. The public cannot demand politeness of public servants if they themselves are impolite, unfair and often simply rude. Because the situation has improved, I am supporting the first part of this motion, namely that the House expresses its gratitude and appreciation towards public servants for the positive role they are playing in the country’s administration.

In the second place, public servants are being thanked for their share in the future planning of South Africa. An indolent, listless, unproductive and negative officialdom can have a very inhibiting effect on the future planning of South Africa. Public servants are not only working for today, but also for tomorrow. They are a part of the future of South Africa. For that reason there is a great deal of appreciation on this side of the House for the positive attitude that is being shown, and for the long-range, far-sighted and practical approach we find in the Public Service at present.

I therefore reject all this politicking with the so-called disloyalty of public servants. An important code of the public servant is that he will always be loyal to South Africa. The responsible public servant will never harm South Africa and the Government of the day by his actions. For this reason it is irrelevant to allege that certain numbers of public servants are members of one party or another. That is irrelevant. What is relevant is their loyalty towards the functions they perform, as embodied in the decisions that are made. I therefore believe that most public servants are willing to make a purposeful contribution—no matter how small—towards defining South Africa’s future. If constraining action were to be taken, it would not only harm this country on the road ahead, but would also contribute towards inhibiting South Africa’s development. Because this is not the case, those of us on this side of the House can gladly concur with this part of the motion, namely that of thanking the public servants for their part in the future planning of South Africa. For that reason, it is a pity that the tangible gesture of a general salary increase cannot be made this year. It would have been excellent recognition for the work that has been done so far.

Over the years, public servants have shown that they are a loyal and dedicated work force. From time to time, however, due to the financial pressure on the country, it has been impossible for the Government to meet the expectations of organised officialdom with regard to better remuneration packages. In 1983 and 1985, for example, no general salary adjustments were granted.

Now, once again in the interests of the country, further sacrifices are being asked of public servants in that there is not going to be a salary adjustment this year either. Of course, public servants are very disappointed and the recognised staff associations are going to devise plans and submit representations to address the problem. However, the following is clear: In the midst of the disappointment that public servants experience from time to time, and are experiencing now, their behaviour remains beyond reproach and they continue to maintain a very high standard of orderliness and of respectability that is indicative of public servants.

I want to state categorically that I, and all of us on this side of the House, are proud of our public servants and thank them for their sincere loyalty and dedication. I want to repeat something I have already mentioned: The public servant is prepared to make sacrifices. The public servant is prepared to make his contribution this year, but he is not prepared to do so alone. Just as he is prepared to be loyal, so he also expects loyalty on the part of the private sector, in particular. Therefore it is a pity that the private sector, or a part of it, is apparently not planning to cooperate in full to realise this goal. For South Africa’s sake, I want to appeal to them to be wholeheartedly loyal, as public servants are prepared to be, and not to withdraw their co-operation in a programmed effort at resistance.

I want to conclude by referring briefly to an important aspect that must be dealt with, namely the adjustments that are still being made in specific professions. The aim is to place certain groups in a better bargaining position on the available market. In this regard I want to appeal to the Commission for Administration and the hon the Minister to identify certain groups in good time and to attend to their needs before they are enticed into other sectors. It is not always easy to win back such people once one has lost them. We must try to retain them in the interests of our country. For this reason, an early singling out of certain groups, once they have been identified, will improve the situation.

I conclude by joining the hon member for Innesdal in thanking our public servants, especially those who do parliamentary service. They form a large group of public servants who make great sacrifices for six months of the year or more to live in Cape Town and work at Parliament. Despite disruptions in their households, and the housing and family problems that they experience, they remain positive, and those of us on this side of the House want to thank them very sincerely.

Mr Chairman, I am pleased that we have this opportunity to debate a private member’s motion concerned with the Public Service. My only complaint is that the motion that is actually put forward by the hon member for Innesdal is such a “mother love and apple pie” one that it really does not have the teeth or the bite that I think the public servant is looking to.

The hon member for Innesdal made a very interesting introductory speech in which he pointed out various factors, including the level of remuneration. Over 50% of public servants earn under R10 000 per year. He then pointed out, however, that the cost to the State is some R13 billion.

I believe that we actually need to go further than just express our appreciation and thank them for the work they have are doing. I believe the public servants are looking to parliamentarians to convey a clear message to South Africa that the Public Service is important and necessary and that it should be appreciated.

Having said that, Sir, I believe it is necessary to move the following amendment to the motion of the hon member for Innesdal:

1. (1) the backlog in remuneration levels in certain sections of the State sector in comparison with the Public Service as a whole;
2. (2) the shortage of personnel in certain Departments and the oversupply in others; and
3. (3) the inequitable distribution of persons of all population groups through the various levels of the Public Service,

expresses its grave concern at these matters and calls upon the Government to take immediate and concrete steps to resolve these problems.”.

In motivating this, Mr Chairman, I believe it is important that we take an overall view of the Public Service. We must get away, I believe, from the idea that we condemn the Public Service for being too big, or that we condemn the Public Service for being overpaid. I do not believe that that kind of overall statement actually gets us anywhere. I think we have to look at the details of the Public Service. I think we have to examine the levels of staffing and the levels of pay.

Before I do that, however, I should like to comment on a point made by the hon member for Losberg, as well as by the hon member for Gezina, viz the issue of the pay freeze. This party has accepted the proposal by the hon the State President as carried out, that there will be no general salary increase for public servants this year. As has been expressed in previous speeches, in particular those of the hon member for Yeoville, this acceptance is conditional on certain aspects of public servants’ pay problems being examined. One must take as very valid at least one point made by the hon member for Losberg. However, notch increases will continue. We are all happy that they will continue. Notch increases make up just over 1% of the package of pay in the Public Service so that is no big deal, Sir, if I may be permitted the use of that expression. It is no big deal that these people are going to get their notch increases. The pay freeze will have an effect on public servants.

I am going to touch a little later on the question of rates of pay, because the problem that I have when I examine a pay freeze is that it is actually easier for someone in the Public Service who is earning R120 000 a year to endure a pay freeze than it is for a man who is earning R180 a month in the Public Service. It is a great deal easier, Sir. It is that problem which, I believe, this Government has to address. I believe the hon the Minister should consider the possibility, when he looks at an increase in salaries for the Public Service in next year’s Budget, of a cash amount rather than a flat percentage increase from top to bottom in the Public Service, because we have 21 pay levels in the Public Service from top to bottom. It has been pointed out that at the labourer level—the lowest level—it would require R75 million to grant them an increase of one notch. An increase of one notch, however, spread right through the Public Service, would, as the hon member for Innesdal quite rightly pointed out, cost hundreds of millions of rand.

I believe that the hon the Minister and the Commission for Administration must look at those 21 pay levels, and also at the whole situation with a view to reducing them to fewer levels and certainly to making more funds available for the more lowly paid workers.

In terms of the size of the Public Service many remarks have been made, particularly to the effect that it is too big. The hon member for Innesdal has already quoted from this good booklet I have here on the Exchequer personnel. I certainly do not intend to repeat what he said. As a result, however, of a number of questions I asked last year in relation to all departments concerning the total number of posts they had— how many people were in the top eight posts and then, too, the composition of those top eight posts relating in particular to racial composition as well as to male and female composition—certain information was forthcoming which I believe we must examine really critically when we talk about the Public Service. I merely want to pick on three departments. I want to make it quite clear that these are random choices.

The first is the Department of Justice. It has a total of 8 100 staff members of whom 1 800 are in the top eight posts. This is quite understandable considering the number of magistrates, regional magistrates and persons in administrative posts, but it is clear that a very high proportion of that department’s personnel are in the higher-paid ranks.

The professionals.

As my professional hon colleague has said, they are the professionals. Of those 1 800, only 24 are not White. Hon members will see that one of the legs of our amendment refers to the inequitable distribution of population groups in the public sector. I do not want to attack the hon the Minister. He and I had a discussion on this matter last year, and I know that he told another House earlier this year that the Public Service was open to all; I accept his bona fides completely in that respect. All that I am concerned about is that at the rate at which people who are not White are being admitted to senior posts in the Department of Justice, it is going to take centuries before there is an equitable distribution in those ranks. I am not saying that merit should not be the criterion. It must be, but some means has to be devised in order to effect an equitable distribution.

Secondly, I want to refer to the Department of Water Affairs, which employs 13 000 people. At this time of floods I do not think anybody would gainsay the importance of this department, but I would like to refer to a point regarding privatisation that is carried in the Commission for Administration’s annual report for 1986, in which the aim of privatisation is defined as follows:

Allow me also to quote from the last paragraph of the section dealing with privatisation, headed “Investigations completed”:

It is interesting to note that, according to last year’s figures at any rate, the Department of Water Affairs had the largest number of highly-paid staff members of any State department. Obviously this includes people like civil engineers, but I believe that if ever there was a department that should be examined with a view to establishing what work could be done privately—privatised, in fact—it is the Department of Water Affairs. This would not apply to the entire department but certainly to sections of it.

In respect of the growth of State departments, we can take note of the fact—I trust the CP will take an interest in this—that between 1975 and 1985 the public sector grew by 140 000 people, of whom 43% were White, 27% Coloured, 20% African and 8% Indian. Looking at that kind of growth, which averages out at 1,8% annually— we are specifically interested in what areas are growing—the public sector in South Africa cannot be said to be burgeoning. There are, however, certain areas of growth, of which education is one, and it is very important that those areas in particular continue to grow.

We need to focus on the particular problem of vacancies. I know the hon the Minister has many and varied problems, but the vacancy situation is one which must be giving him grey hairs. I received yesterday his answer to a question of mine, and I thank him for this. In it are set out the figures as at 30 September 1987. Of the 274 000 posts in the Public Service, 25 000, or 10%, were vacant. I would like the hon the Minister to tell us in response to that figure whether the intention is, as we have heard, that at least half of those vacant posts will not be filled but are to be abolished at a stroke of the pen. Is it, on the other hand, the intention of the State to continue to fill them?

If we turn to a document on high level manpower by the National Manpower Commission—I must recommend this fascinating document to the hon member for Innesdal—we see the number of vacancies in the public sector. In 1985, for example, there were 6 000 vacancies for nurses in the public sector, but only 270 in the private sector. There were 1 100 vacancies for doctors in the public sector but only 43 in the private sector. I do not believe that this document makes it quite clear that these figures can be directly linked to remuneration. This has a lot to do with the total Public Service conditions package.

We are looking at particular areas such as medical, welfare and social workers, education and police. Those vacancy areas have to be filled. If necessary, the pay levels of those departments need to be reviewed. On the other hand there are posts that can be and are privatised, as we have illustrated.

I want to address the first leg of our amendment—the backlog on remuneration. The hon member for Innesdal will be surprised, but I do not intend to talk about the teachers’ backlog. My colleague, the hon member for Durban North, will do that. For the sake of the hon member for Umhlatuzana I would like to talk about the backlog of university staff’s salaries of which he is only too well aware. It is worth quoting from a document from the Committee of University Principals:

This is a backlog position which is untenable even in comparison with other members of the public sector and not compared to the private sector.

Then there is the question of police pay. Police pay is low, and this has been one of the problems that has been discussed in this House for a number of years. This is a situation that needs resolving, particularly, if I may add, in the case of special constables. We may criticize them, we may criticize their use, but the fact remains that they are employed by the State and need to be paid good salaries. If they are not paid well, one will have the repercussions such as we had last year.

We believe the Public Service should serve all South Africans. It should be small, well paid and it should represent by and large the totality of the South African population. That is what we in Parliament should be saying.

Mr Chairman, firstly I want to compliment the hon member for Innesdal on the tenor of his speech today. I got the impression that the hon the Leader of the House called him in this morning and told him: Listen, calm down and don’t make your usual song and dance because it is costing us a lot of votes.

The hon member said that public servants could not live on sympathy, and again I want to agree with him. No public servant can live on sympathy. Public servants are becoming poorer and poorer every year.

The hon member for Gezina pointed out that there was no general increase in 1983, nor in 1985. Now there is to be no general increase in 1988 either. Over and above that they had to forfeit a third of their bonus, which was a condition of service, in 1983. Now it is being said that public servants are prepared to accept that. The public servant has no other choice; he has to accept it.

From the day the State President made his famous speech to curb inflation, there has been much talk about how there are, in fact, public servants who are going to receive a notch increase. I find nothing wrong with that. If one investigates the matter, however, one finds that the increase which some public servants are going to receive is between R50 and R120. Tax still has to be deducted, and the sum is enormous. That side of the House may shout all they want to, but it is the White workers who pay most of the tax today. After paying tax, those poor public servants who received an increase of R50 do not have R20 to put into their pockets and take home. The poor public servant who occupies a high position perhaps receives an increase of R120. If one deducts the tax from that, he has virtually nothing to boast of either.

It is no use saying that there is sympathy for public servants and that they have to accept the situation. One cannot eat sympathy. We have heard what the private sector is going to do. I have said before, and I want to repeat it today, that unless something is done to control prices it is no use telling the poor public servants and the workers of this country that they are not going to receive an increase, or will receive the smallest increase possible. From 1976 until today it has been proved that the shopkeeper wants to pocket as much money as possible, and is not interested in the fact that the White man is becoming increasingly impoverished.

I want to return to the statement that public servants accept this state of affairs. I personally feel that the time has come for public servants to have the right to bargain; they must have bargaining power. They must not merely be called in by someone in charge of a public servants’ organisation and be told that they must accept that they are not going to get anything. Those days must be a thing of the past. [Interjections.] The time has come for the public servant also to have the right to belong to a trade union. He must have the right to bargain.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member?

No, Mr Chairman. I think that hon member should go and put questions to the farmers in Frankfort. They will give him a run for his money.

With public servants able to bargain on their own behalf, when agreement cannot be reached, they must have the right to take the next step. I am not calling upon public servants to strike, if that side of the House is perhaps worried about that. The workers of the municipalities, Eskom, the Post Office and the SATS are not allowed to strike, because they are rendering an essential service.

Some of these people fall under section 65 of the Labour Relations Act. When the Government is not prepared to give them an increase, they can follow the procedure set out in the Labour Relations Act. In that case they can call in an arbitrator. If, in the present circumstances in which we are living, an arbitrator had to decide whether there should be a general increase this year, and whether or not he agreed with the Government that there should not be a salary increase, he would, after having taken everything into consideration, come to the conclusion that the White workers in the Public Service and in the SATS, as well as the nurses, were all entitled to an increase.

The hon member for Innesdal should therefore not come along today and expect public servants to sacrifice everything and then thank him for it. After everything he said, together with his call on them to live on sympathy, I was surprised that he did not also appeal to public servants not to vote for the CP. I want to make it clear that the days when public servants, the railway workers, policemen and all those workers still accepted what the Government expected of them are something of the past. These people are rising up in revolt, and the only way in which they can express their dissatisfaction is by voting for the CP at the polls. [Interjections.]

Today I want to predict that the CP will take over this Government at the next election. Then we shall look after the interests of the workers in South Africa and I am referring to the White workers in South Africa. We shall ensure that they receive their fair share, that they receive the necessary protection so that they do not become impoverished and have to be weighed down by the economic pressure exerted by the Government and no one else.

Mr Chairman, in a certain sense it must surely be wonderful to be the Official Opposition in this House. [Interjections.] It is a dubious privilege which I shall not have. I shall tell hon members why I say that.

The hon members for Losberg and Carletonville—I shall return in a moment to a few other matters which the hon member for Carletonville mentioned—stand up and loudly proclaim that if they were in power, they would dramatically increase public servants’ salaries. That is what it amounts to. They say they would drastically reduce taxes. They say more money would be paid out to the farmers. Any St 2 child who gets reasonable marks in arithmetic will know that this calculation simply cannot work out, because one must first have that money before one can spend it. It is impossible to reduce taxes, increase salaries and do all these other things. It is therefore wonderful to be members of the Official Opposition and make promises. The trouble is, however, that we are the Government and that what we say we must say with a sense of responsibility because tomorrow we have to implement it.

The hon member for Carletonville also advocated a trade union for public servants. I want to ask him now whether he knows that there are also Black and non-White employees in the Public Service. [Interjections.] He is not even reacting to what I am saying. He is not interested in the debate.

You are right; I am not interested in what you are saying.

The hon member is not interested in the debate. I asked him whether he was aware of the fact that the Public Service was not only staffed by Whites. Will this trade union he wants to establish only be for the White component of the Public Service, or will it be for the Public Service as a whole?

Mr Chairman, may I reply to the hon member?

Order! The hon member has already had a turn to speak. The hon member for Sunnyside may proceed.

It is easy to say that they only look after the interests of the Whites. If that hon member does want to establish a trade union for public servants, however, he immediately has the problem that the Public Service does not consist of White workers only. The hon member now says he is not advocating that public servants should strike, but the tone of his argument comes very close to the traditional inflammatory politics practised by that party and its ally.

It is a wonderful privilege for me to support this motion expressing thanks to the public servants of South Africa and I do so with the utmost confidence. I think we can quite justly be very proud and grateful for what public servants are doing for us in the interests of South Africa.

Where is your constituency?

Where is that hon member’s constituency?

Not in Pretoria!

Order! No, I am not going to permit a dialogue across the floor of the House.

Mr Chairman, the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis asked me where my constituency was. My constituency is Sunnyside in Pretoria. The previous member for Sunnyside was Mr Jan van Zyl. Where is he now?

He is on his way back! [Interjections.]

That hon member, who does not even have a constituency, must not ask me where my constituency is. I can speak with authority on this matter, because many public servants live in Pretoria. I therefore have the right to thank the officials.

They are looking for a new spokesman on finance.

Order!

In considering the Public Service, crude generalisations are often made. I am very grateful that the hon member for Pinetown said we should move away from generalisations as far as the Public Service was concerned. The hon member also touched on another important matter. He used a number of departments as examples and asked that those departments be considered so that greater effectiveness and efficiency could be brought about in the Public Service. That is exactly what the Commission for Administration has been doing for quite some time. What the hon member said is true. It is impossible, and it would be irresponsible, to reduce the Public Service by merely drawing a line through a number of posts without studying each of these functions and posts intensively so as to determine the most effective way for the Public Service to function. It is senseless to merely say that the Public Service in general should be pruned. It makes no sense to make a generalisation and to say that the Public Service is too large. It has to be determined whether it is true, and if it is true, ways have to be found to reduce the Public Service effectively. That is why I want to quote from an interview with the Chairman of the Commission for Administration published in their own periodical. He said:

As it happens, the Commission for Administration celebrated its 75th anniversary last year. I want to congratulate them sincerely on that, and also on what they have accomplished during those years. The Commission for Administration is thoroughly aware of the situation and is intent upon making the Public Service a more effective and efficient organisation.

In the time available to me I could mention a few aspects they are working on. The first programme I want to mention is the function evaluation programme, which they have been engaged in for quite some time. The aim for this programme is to determine, in accordance with fixed criteria, whether specific functions performed by the State could not possibly be discontinued or scaled down, be implemented with reduced intensity or be carried out by another institution, be made self-sufficient basis or privatised. Consequently there is a comprehensive programme on which the Commission for Administration has been working on for quite some time. They are considering ways of improving the efficiency of the Public Service in an effective and structured manner.

This programme is still under way and at this stage there are, as yet, no concrete results which can be mentioned here, but in the annual report of the Commission for Administration quite an interesting example is mentioned of what may happen. A task group investigated the operations of the Directorate: Standards of Agricultural Produce in the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. Here it is said that it is possible, if this project were to be accepted and implemented, for the number of employees in this directorate to be reduced from 750 to 70. An active attempt is therefore being made to eventually bring about improved productivity and a more effective Public Service.

I want to refer to a second matter which also increases productivity and effectiveness, and that is a training programme. In March 1986 the Commission for Administration realised a long-cherished ideal, namely to be able to house the Officer Training Institute in its own building so that it could give a more functional training.

This institute is responsible for management and horizontal training and offers relevant courses. The management training consists, inter alia, of a course for senior managers at director and managing director level, a course for middle management on assistant director level, a seminar programme with interesting topics such as decisionmaking, legal aspects, computers as management aids, public speaking, speed-reading, conference procedures, motivation and negotiation skills. That is a part of the programme being offered by this institute.

It is therefore not true that the Public Service merely exists, is complacent and is too large or too small. A scientific investigation being carried out by extremely competent people will eventually lead to the Public Service, should it be necessary, being reduced in size, without loss of efficiency. As previous hon members also said, the public expects the Public Service to render an efficient and effective service providing for all their needs. It is impossible to cherish these expectations on the one hand and, on the other, not provide the manpower and training.

For me, coming as I do from Pretoria, with a constituency in which many public servants live, it has been a privilege to have participated in the discussion of this motion. It is with great confidence that I thank the public servants for what they have done in the interests of South Africa. We are proud of them. I have many friends in Government departments, and there are also those with whom one happens to come into contact. They are all top-notch people who dedicated to the interests of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, history is being made today in the two by-elections won by the CP. We on this side of the House are seeing the fruits of six years of really hard work with the breakthrough we have made in these two constituencies.

I, too, am going to make history this afternoon. This day will go down as the first and second time, and probably the last time, that I will ever thank the hon member for Innesdal for anything. I would like to thank him, however, for his assistance in the recent past and in particular the assistance we received from him during the byelection campaign in Standerton and Schweizer-Reneke. We are sure that he will continue to play this role for as long as we allow him to, and we thank him for this.

I also want to thank him for bringing this particular motion to the House. We on this side have no hesitation in supporting the motion.

What we certainly do oppose, however, are the obviously shallow motives behind his motion. What the hon member said in his opening remarks immediately identifies his real concern as being more directed at his constituency in particular and Pretoria in general, and the consequences to his political future of the recent decision to freeze salaries of State officials.

The hon members on that side of the House continually wax eloquent over the role played and the services rendered by officials of the State, and over how appreciative they are.

They also keep on telling us that we must face the realities of the situation, and it is because of this that I would like to address the realities of how those hon members treat the very officials of the State who play such an important role in the safety and security of our country. I refer here, specifically, to the officials of the SA Police as well as officials in the nursing profession, but what I say could equally be applied to all officials in the service of the State.

Why is it always the officials of the State who have to bear the brunt of any sacrifice? Why is it always they who have to pull in their belts, and pull them in even closer to their spines? Whenever there is a shortage with regard to the Budget they are the ones who have to make the sacrifice. The NP Government does not normally hesitate to increase tariffs or costs. They do not cut unnecessary costs, Sir, and I refer here particularly to a pot which is apparently coming to the boil in South Africa, and that is the pot of rampant corruption which costs this country more than most people can imagine. I hope that this is going to be exposed very quickly and speedily.

Is this in the administration?

I take the hon member’s point on the fact that the tax which is predominantly paid by White taxpayers is also used to pay the predominantly White officialdom of the State, but what the hon member should tell us is how many of those White officials are employed in jobs which are to the benefit of all the races; in other words, what portion of their time is spent on own affairs and what time is spent on general affairs?

The hon member should perhaps have brought another motion before this House, a motion which, if supported, would lead to a drastic restriction of the Black population explosion which, if allowed to continue, will end up destroying us all, and we cannot ignore this fact.

There is no secret about the shoddy treatment meted out to the officials of the SA Police in particular. Hands tied, prevented from fulfilling their calling, in addition to being subjected to the frustration experienced by these loyal State officials, they are not adequately remunerated for what they do. They are expected—and many do—to work wonders in the line of duty. A specific reference here to an answer to a recent question regarding the number of charges laid in respect of contraventions of the Group Areas Act, reveals that more than 1 200 charges were investigated in one year, and only two members of the SA Police are responsible for the full investigation of those charges up to the stage of prosecution.

How can these men be expected to do their job competently, Sir?

A close contact with the nursing profession, as I have had during my many years of service as a member of a general hospital board and subsequently, will quickly expose another serious neglect of the very important and overstressed nursing profession. There will be a better opportunity of discussing these matters in detail during the coming Budget Debate, and I do not intend to elaborate on what I have just said.

Let me say, however, that it is not from today that the NP Government has been taking advantage of these dedicated people. I have personally been pleading for better treatment of State officials in terms of salaries and employment benefits since I entered the Transvaal Provincial Council in 1977. I want to remind the fat cat Nats opposite that flowery statements do not pay the heavy statements of account which arrive at the end of the month and, in thanking the officials from this side of the House for their dedication and industry, I appeal to the hon members of the NP to stop their exploitation of the very people they well know will do the work out of dedication and a desire to serve our people and our country.

Mr Chairman, the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis reminds me very strongly of the two chaps who went lion-hunting, the one being a shade braver than the other. When they arrived in the area where the lions were expected to be, the brave chap said: “Look, I’ll walk along the sand-gulley. You walk along the verge.” After a short while the chap on the verge heard his friend in the gully crying distressfully for help. He ran closer and looked down into the gulley. There in the gully stood his friend, knee-deep in water. He asked him: “Hey, what’s wrong? Can I help?” His friend, looking anxiously at him, said: “Yes, please. I saw those lions, and they made me ever so cross. Please bring me a clean pair of underpants.” [Interjections.]

Here one gets nothing but threats from the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis, at a time when we on this side of the House do, in effect, want to thank the officials in the Public Service of South Africa this afternoon very sincerely for the example they are setting, particularly in view of the difficult circumstances and the difficult times in which we find ourselves. They are setting this example, not only to help South Africa on the economic front, but also to help South Africa in its process of development through the minefields that lie ahead of us.

In speaking about the Public Service, we are so inclined, at times, to think of it merely in terms of people sitting there carrying out the orders and implementing the decisions of this Parliament and of the Cabinet, etc. It is nevertheless undeniably so that in speaking of public servants, we are also speaking of people who, in many respects, act in an initiating and advisory capacity. I want to thank them for that. It is, after all, the first principle of good government that there should be a proper interaction between the political head and the officials who assist him in carrying out his tasks. And I therefore cannot believe that there are people in this highest council Chamber in the land who are so naïve as to have to come here this afternoon, hand-licking and tail-wagging, for the sake of a few votes they want some time in the future, and in the process trying to drive a wedge between the politically responsible people and the officials of South Africa.

There is a second aspect for which I want to thank public servants very sincerely this afternoon. I am referring to the service they perform for South Africa in providing expertise for the private sector and the community at large. One so frequently hears mention being made of the private sector enticing knowledgeable people away from the public sector. If any proof is needed of the high standards maintained by the Public Service, it is specifically to be found in the private sector’s need for the trained experts furnished by the Public Service in order to bring the private sector that expertise for the sake of a better and greater South Africa.

Thirdly, every state’s stability and order is built upon the loyal dedication and service of its public servants.

The truth of the matter is that by the very nature of things South Africa is a country experiencing very great difficulties, and under those conditions the population has to be served. There is a multiplicity of population groups, each with its own needs and expectations, and those people must all be served in such a way that we do not, by way of our Public Service, activate the conflict potential waiting to burst forth in this country. This afternoon I want to express my gratitude, particularly for the contribution made by public servants towards the improvement and normalisation of relations between the various population groups in South Africa.

Fourthly, where there is a misconception or distorted picture of the Public Service as such, in my opinion it is essential for the relevant department and Ministry to see whether something cannot be done to eliminate the misconceptions that the private and public sectors have of one another’s activities.

When all is said and done, we all have one ideal and one objective, and that is to order and safeguard our country for succeeding generations. We cannot afford to have South Africa lapse into a situation in which the private sector is pulling one way and the public sector the other because of a clash of interests between the two. It is therefore essential for the State to do something to strengthen the image of public officials in the eyes of the public, the image of those who furnish such essential services in South Africa.

I listened here this afternoon to the speakers on the opposition side and, as I said initially, I find it disturbing and incomprehensible that there are people in this house this afternoon trying to use this motion to score political debating points. There are provisions in terms of which officials can, in fact, participate in political activities up to certain levels. It is not the intention of this side of the House to restrict those activities, as long as they do not abuse their positions to dig a grave for the Government of the day. Nor do we expect officials to make extraordinary efforts to promote the Government’s position.

This afternoon I want to appeal to the opposition to stop these transparent efforts at corralling officials into certain political thought-patterns.

Who is doing that?

The hon member for Losberg asks who is doing that. As far as that is concerned, he himself kicked off this afternoon. His whole argument concerned the fact that public servants were being asked to make a contribution to the economic stabilisation of South Africa. [Interjections.] I want to come back to that. I think that many of the advisers of the hon the Minister and of this Government— they are well-qualified in economic and financial matters—are amongst the officials of the State, and I do not think they would have made these recommendations and given this advice if they thought that this one-off sacrifice would be tantamount to digging a grave for officialdom as a whole.

I should like to pay tribute to these men and women, many of them blessed with outstanding talents, intelligence, skills and abilities, whilst others are less endowed with those qualities, also nestling under the protective wing of the Public Service of South Africa, jointly performing a task aimed at making this country a better and more orderly place for all its people to live.

Mr Chairman, I found the speech of the hon member for Durbanville filled with the emotion which the hon member for Pinetown described as “mother love”.

I want to say, too, that I found the hon member’s argument that we and the CP are using this debate for political gain a very weak one indeed.

Leave politics out of Parliament!

Quite an extraordinary thought, to leave politics out of Parliament, as the hon member for Pinetown says.

I want to speak in support of the amendment moved by the hon member for Pinetown. I want to remind the hon the Minister that in the debate on the Commission for Administration in this House last year, he made mention of two programmes that he and his officials were considering very carefully. One was increased productivity within the Public Service and the other was what he called a function evaluation programme of officials within the service.

I am very conscious that the hon member for Sunnyside has made reference to these programmes already; I listened to his speech with great interest. I agree with him on many points but obviously there are others that I differ on.

The PFP has respect for both these programmes, as we said in this House last year, and we say so again today. We are concerned about, among other things, the size and effectiveness of the Public Service and, consequently, any plan which may bring about a greater productivity and efficiency within the Public Service, will be greatly appreciated.

Last year in this House the hon the Minister referred to the function evaluation programme as:

The implication of this programme was, as the hon the Minister himself said, that if a job no longer warranted the personnel involved, there would be a reduction in staff and so a saving of both personnel and funds. We accept that the implementation of a programme of this nature will obviously be a long and slow process, taking into account the considerable size of the Public Service at present. It is obvious that a great restructuring, must, however, take place within the Public Service.

The annual report of the Commission for 1986 refers to the Agricultural Produce Quality Control Directorate and points out that a cutback from 750 to 70 people could be effected in this directorate. One immediately has to ask how many other departments could be reduced in a similar way.

At the same time the Government has undertaken to reduce staff by means of what they call “natural attrition”; in other words, as a result of resignations, retirements and, where necessary, relocation of personnel. It has been stressed that retrenchment of staff is not considered at this stage. This is a fair policy but involves, as I say, a long, slow process which may have to be reconsidered from time to time in an attempt to streamline this service at a quicker rate.

What concerns the PFP is that it is extremely difficult to assess how well this function evaluation programme is working and where the cuts and curtailments are being made, or are likely to be made, in the Public Service. In certain more high-profile jobs such as teaching, one can monitor the situation more easily. At the same time there are essential services which need to be considered very carefully before cuts and reductions can take place.

I am aware that the Government has, for example, identified the Police Force, the SADF and the South African Prisons Service and certain posts within the Department of Justice directly concerned with law enforcement, as areas in which reductions cannot take place. At this stage, however, the Public Service still remains heavily structured and the PFP will watch with interest to see how the Government deals with its function evaluation programme over the next few years. We also note that it was the Government’s intention to implement this programme in the entire central Public Service early in 1987 and hence we should have some indications of the effectiveness of this programme fairly soon. We look forward to seeing these indications revealed to us.

We also acknowledge that the Government is attempting to find a solution to the problem which it created in the first place but to assume or pretend that the bureaucracy in this country is functioning smoothly at present would exaggerate the situation. Much pruning and restructuring must take place.

As a side issue we note too that the Government is going to impose stricter controls over the creation of new posts in the public sector, placing this power in the hands of the Commission for Administration instead of leaving it with the various departments and provincial administrations. This too may well prove to be a positive step in preventing a continuing increase in the Public Service. Only time will tell whether the Government is successful here. At the same time I want to warn that a policy of centralisation creates its own problems and these will have to be monitored very carefully indeed. I mention these points because we are glad that the Government has acknowledged the fact that much has to be done to improve the efficiency and the productivity of the Public Service, and that one of the solutions to this is to create a smaller, more efficient administration.

However, there is another matter which the Government will have to address itself to as well, other than the size and efficiency of the Public Service. We are deeply concerned about the low morale and heavy undercurrent of bad feeling that we sense in the Public Service at present. Obviously much of this is related to the salary freeze imposed upon all public servants, and here I want to say that in general terms we support the Government’s move to beat inflation. However, there are many genuine grievances held by different sectors of the Public Service and it is amazing that the Government has proved unwilling to enter into real negotiations with these sectors most affected by the salary issue.

There is no doubt that a serious salary backlog exists in the Public Service—more so in some jobs than in others. There is no doubt that the Government owes it to these people to make up the backlogs where they exist. It is generally recognised that a backlog of 20% has been allowed to develop between the private sector and the Public Service.

I want to refer in particular to the teaching profession—the hon member for Pinetown indicated that I would do so. It is generally accepted that the teaching profession provides an essential service to this country. I and many likeminded people believe that it has received a raw deal over the years from the Government. It is in fact an ailing profession which desperately needs greater recognition from the Government in order to give it the status it deserves in the eyes of the community and to ensure that it continues to attract people of merit into its ranks. The Government has constantly let the teaching profession down—I say so as a former member of that profession—forcing it to grovel for improved conditions of service and a better salary dispensation to the extent that it has gained the image of being a profession of whiners.

It is important that the Government should know that there is great unhappiness and dissatisfaction in education circles. As the Teachers’ Federal Council pointed out, resignations have reached their highest levels since 1981. I refer in particular to the men in the profession. The number of men in the profession is decreasing rapidly as the figures from the White education department show. According to my sources it is a cause of great concern that 37,9% of male teachers in the Transvaal Education Department resigned during the course of the past two years. In Natal the figure stands at 10% and already there have been a significant number of resignations of competent male staff members this year. The fact is that breadwinners simply can no longer make ends meet on a teacher’s salary.

The Teachers’ Federal Council has indicated very clearly that teachers’ salaries lag some 30% behind the private sector and 11% behind the rest of the Public Service. They are asking that that 11% be made up now and yet this too has been refused.

I want to refer briefly to the negotiations undertaken by the Teachers’ Federal Council. The backlog of 11% has been identified by a professional firm of consultants known as PE Remuneration Services. They were employed by the Teachers’ Federal Council when it became clear to the latter that any investigation into the possibility of a backlog in teachers’ salaries by the Government would take time when in actual fact information in this regard was required urgently before the backlog increased any further. Unfortunately, there is a history of backlog in teachers’ salaries. The most recent backlog started in 1984 and has steadily increased to the 11% that it lags behind the rest of the Public Service today.

One cannot necessarily blame the teachers for their somewhat militant attitude at present, for they have acted with very real restraint for a number of years now. The statement issued by Mr Dudley Schroeder, president of the Teachers’ Federal Council, after his meeting with the hon the State President on 23 February 1988, cannot be ignored. He said:

Prior to that the Teachers’ Federal Council had issued another statement which read:

One cannot continue to appeal to a group’s dedication to a task and public spiritedness forever without remunerating those people for the service they render.

One must wonder why the Government has adopted this attitude towards the teaching profession. I can recall that as recently as 1981 or 1982 there was a great deal of talk of the profession being given a new status—the “uitlig” principle as it was known whereby the teaching profession would be “lifted out”, so to speak, of the Public Service and be regarded as a separate entity. In 1981 the Government claimed to acknowledge the importance of the teaching profession. Yet no more has ever been heard of that particular policy and I say to this House today that the teachers have in fact become the poor relatives of the Public Service, despite the fact that they are one of the most highly qualified groups within the Public Service and, I believe, one of the most dedicated.

The position also applies to the nursing profession. Their problems need to be addressed as well. Theirs is also a unique position. I believe the comment by the president of the South African Nursing Association, Miss Muller, sums up the situation pretty well. I read from The Argus of 8 February this year:

For example, one hears the most horrific stories of nurses having to cope in wards that are at times 150% to 240% full—in other words, wards that would normally accommodate 40 people are in fact accommodating as many as 100. Yet the nursing staff for these particular wards are not increased. This is not necessarily just a salary matter, but also one of conditions of service. I say to the House that no one can work efficiently under poor conditions for ever. I say again that a dedicated group are being taken advantage of by the Government. No wonder there is a large vacancy in the nursing profession.

The whole question of negotiation and the Government’s attitude to negotiation has to be addressed. It is not satisfactory for the Government to say that, because it has met with a group of people it has now negotiated with them. Real negotiation goes way beyond that. It is not only the teaching profession that is talking about the fact that it needs to develop a new negotiation process with the Government—because the process as it stands at present just does not work— but the entire Public Service is deeply concerned that the Government is unwilling or unable to allow the process of real negotiation to work. The Government has to address itself to that very particular problem. It has led to enormous dissatisfaction in the profession and in the Public Service and will continue to do so in the years to come.

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with what the hon member for Durban North said about education. We agree with most of what the hon member said concerning the crisis in education—in our estimation especially in White education. This side of the House is extremely concerned about the financial crisis developing in education and the inability of the governing party to deal with that need in White education. I shall come back to that in a moment.

Earlier in this debate the hon member for Losberg indicated that the hon member for Innesdal did not motivate his motion as it appears before us on the Order Paper, but was in fact more intent on trying to find some justification for the Government’s decision not to effect salary adjustments for public servants and teachers. The hon member did, however, say thank you as well, not because the NP was really all that concerned about the fate of public servants and the teaching profession, but in the hope that in so doing it could in some measure improve its own poor image and that of the Government in the eyes of public servants and educationists. This afternoon, however, I want to tell the Government that nothing they may say in future is going to change the general attitude of public servants, teachers and voters towards them in the slightest. These people are assessing the Government, not on the basis of what is said from political platforms and at times in this House, but on their deeds. The first two opportunities they had to do so this year were in Schweizer-Reneke and in Standerton. Hon members know what the outcome was there. Their third opportunity will be in Randfontein, and there they will get exactly the same result.

This year the Government reacted nervously after the debacle on Durban’s beaches and made an announcement about the beaches, promising that in this regard they would make arrangements to ensure that it did not happen again. The voters in Schweizer-Reneke and Standerton assessed them on the strength of their deeds.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: What do beaches have to do with this motion?

Order! I am giving the hon member the opportunity to get to the point, and I am still listening. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I merely want to make the point that as far as public servants and teachers are concerned, in future the Government will not be judged in accordance with what they say, but in accordance with what they do.

It is ironic that it was in fact, the hon member for Innesdal who moved a motion of gratitude to public servants this afternoon. He expressed his thanks to those people, when only yesterday or the day before he was the one who most gravely and irresponsibly offended the teaching profession. [Interjections.] The hon member must not protest. His own hon Minister of Education and Culture publicly repudiated him. [Interjections.] He is the one who wants to deprive Government employees of their basic civil rights and the right to have their own standpoint. He wants to demand that they serve the NP’s policy of integration.

Are you in favour of the irregularities which are, in fact, taking place there?

He is the one who believes that teachers must educate children—as servants of the NP, not as servants of the State—in preparation for a multiracial society. Once again I say it is ironic that someone who pays homage to these standpoints and has done so publicly, to the acute embarrassment of the party on the opposite side, should come along and say thank you for what the public servants have done in the service of the country. It reminds me of those words of wisdom:

This afternoon I want to ask the Government to prove its gratitude to the public servants, educators and everyone in Government employ, not with empty words, but with deeds. The NP is asking for sacrifices from people in these times. There is a difference between expecting people to make sacrifices for the sake of their country and their people when a crisis has arisen which the Government is not party to and a situation in which one is asking people to make sacrifices for the sake of the impoverished policy of a specific political party.

It is one thing to make sacrifices for your country and your people, but another to make sacrifices for the stupidities of a political party.

Last year the Commission for Administration issued a pamphlet entitled Exchequer Personnel. On page 24 of this official document they themselves say, in regard to these salaries of public servants:

Furthermore it states:

I want to associate myself with what the hon member for Durban North said. I also want to refer briefly to the position of educators, who are also remunerated from the Exchequer. An independent firm of consultants found that they had a backlog of at least 11% in comparison with the rest of the Government sector, and that in turn the Government sector in general had a backlog of 20% compared to the private sector.

If the Government wants to prove the sincerity of the gratitude it is expressing to those in Government service, it will have to do something about the backlogs in regard to salaries, something which the Government itself acknowledged in a recently published document, and it must not expect these people, who are already enduring hardships, to suffer an even greater injustice and endure even greater hardships. Secondly, if the Government is sincere in the gratitude it is expressing to public servants, the teaching profession and those who are in Government service, it will have to grant those people the basic civil rights to which they are entitled.

Like the hon member for Innesdal, I also find it unacceptable for teachers in a classroom situation to be engaging in party politics. However, it is equally unacceptable to me that teachers—at least in the Transvaal—may apparently not even participate as independent candidates in municipal elections. It is as unacceptable to me that a teacher, according to a report in The Daily News of 5 November 1987, may no longer express a political opinion in public, be chairman of a political meeting or state his standpoint in the media or in a speech. That is in flagrant contrast to what the hon member for Durbanville said about it earlier this afternoon. If it is true—the Government must tell us whether it is true—they are going too far in this regard and are depriving the people of the basic rights to which they are entitled.

This side of the House has already, through previous speakers, expressed its gratitude to public servants, and I want to do so as well. In particular, I want to thank those Government officials with whom we, as politicians, deal with nearly every day for their services. They support us by rendering assistance to our voters and we get the very best service from them. This afternoon we express our thanks and appreciation for the fact that they make no distinction between Government members on the one hand and members of the opposition parties on the other.

I want to conclude by also expressing our gratitude to teachers who have rendered service to our country and our people over many years. In particular they have played a part in making of us a people with a Christian National philosophy. We pay tribute to those educators who, in 1948, helped to bring the NP to power, and we also pay tribute to those teachers who once again are going to help get rid of the NP, not because they preach party politics in the classroom, but because they nurture in our children a philosophy and an attitude which makes it impossible for them to vote for a political party that has become alienated from the people.

Mr Chairman, I wish to express my sincere thanks to all hon members who participated in this debate. They have, however, placed me in a very difficult position. I want to make my own speech here today in which I pay warm tribute to officials—the officials of South Africa. But these hon members have now placed me in a position in which I have just enough time—if that much—to reply to all the representations made.

At the outset permit me at least to say the following. As the relevant Minister, I want to thank the officials of South Africa from the bottom of my heart for what they have done and are still doing for this country. We have to realise that the country is experiencing unrest and disturbances at the moment; that there are many groups of people in the country with strong political and other personal views. Amid all of this, it is the official’s duty, while he does his work, to be calm, well-balanced and impartial. I want to thank the officials of South Africa for achieving this.

I have of course had a good deal of experience, Mr Chairman. I became an official in 1936. That was also an era of great turbulence in our country; perhaps even greater than today. We should not ever so often think the world is coming to an end today. I joined the Public Service at that time at a salary of £11 13s 4d per month. When I obtained an LL B degree a few years later through extramural study, I received £20 per month. We survived those days as well, and we were happy. Nevertheless, I do not wish to insinuate in any way that the official of today should be satisfied with what the State pays him; no insinuation is intended in that regard.

From the pleasant experience I have had again over the past few months in this position, I want to add that we have to start right at the top. I wish to express my personal and heartfelt thanks today to the two members of the Commission for Administration—Dr Johan de Beer and Dr Rassie du Plessis. They are two men who amid many demands and requirements, even beyond the obligations imposed on them, are prepared to offer advice and suggest plans. Their contribution is immeasurable.

At the same time it is also a great privilege for me to welcome Mr Robson to this House for the first time. He is our new Secretary who, of course, holds the rank of Director-General. He is a quiet man, a well-balanced man and a credit to his position. When I was a Minister on a previous occasion, he was already a senior official in this department. He irritated me a little at the time— the English and Afrikaans he spoke was beyond me. I did not always understand it.

Instead of making my speech, I had better continue by reacting to individual hon members’ speeches.

I thank the hon member for Innesdal most sincerely for actually initiating this motion. What was said about him today in a political sense does not matter. He was also an official—just as I was. Like me, he too is most sympathetic to those in the lower income brackets. I do not lack sympathy and compassion in that regard either. I want to make it clear that I am particularly concerned about the groups that earn less than R10 000 per annum, among whom there are Whites too, as well as the groups earning less than R15 000 per annum.

As the hon the State President said in an interview, I really do not know how they manage. They have to be people who are forced to live very modestly in order to make ends meet. It would give me great pleasure if a way could be found to lighten their burden as quickly as possible. We have to remember, however—I shall come back to this again—that all these things will remain mere promises, and even if accomplished would remain mere flights of the imagination if we cannot do something about that arch villain, inflation.

As regards the hon members’ reference to functional housing and rentals for official quarters, I have only the following observation to make. Interaction and movement of officials between the public and private sectors are basically sound in principle. Nevertheless, one of the greatest stumbling blocks is the transferability and retention of pensions. This is receiving attention at present, bearing in mind the report of the Meiring Committee. If we could succeed in this, I am sure the private sector would also benefit greatly by acquiring some of the expertise from the public sector. The obverse is, of course, equally true.

Rentals for official quarters are low, and occupants actually bear a light burden in this case. Even if an official occupies official quarters, he may nevertheless qualify for a housing loan with a State guarantee—the so-called 100% scheme. Normally an occupant of official quarters is not paid a housing subsidy, but the Cabinet recently decided that, when circumstances justified it, subsidisation could be paid to officials obliged to occupy official quarters. You see therefore, Mr Chairman, that we are also doing our utmost to assist officials as far as certain aspects of housing are concerned.

I come now to the hon member for Losberg. I have been observing this hon member’s performance in the House for quite some time now. As someone with 20 years’ experience of Parliament, I merely want to say that this hon member has excellent potential, singular talents for this place. Nevertheless there are a few things he should remember. I am referring, for instance, to a method he adopted earlier last year. He should just remember that there are other hon members in this House who also understand Latin. In addition I want to tell the hon member that he would make a greater impression by speaking in positive rather than negative terms. What did the hon member do here now? He spoke of the low level of remuneration of officials. He expressed great sympathy for them—just as I do. He then adopted a totally negative approach, however, and dragged in the private sector with the exclamation: “Look at the salary increases they are giving and you are doing nothing!” Does the hon member for Losberg think we are doing the country a service by drawing comparisons of this nature? Was it not his duty in the first place, as a high-minded citizen of this country, to admonish the private sector? That is to say, of course, if those allegations on the part of the Official Opposition that the private sector is going to effect such massive salary improvements this year are true.

The hon the State President went out of his way, the day before these motions were introduced here, to call people from all political parties and professions to a confidential meeting. He and the hon the Minister of Finance took those people into their confidence and frankly described the situation in the country. Although the Government would do its best to improve public servants’ conditions, it could not neglect its duty— no matter how unpopular this might be—of insisting that we had to start somewhere in curbing inflation.

If the public sector continued in that way, as was said, it would be watched and monitored.

And then?

Unfortunately I do not have the gift of second sight or prophecy. Let my statement suffice that they will be watched and monitored.

I should like to remind hon members of something that has already been said here. To speak of no increases is not correct. There are notch adjustments, increases on promotion and adjustments for specific groups for which we have budgeted R215 000 million this year and which will be judiciously apportioned. In spite of these difficult times, the Commission for Administration will continue its payment of bonuses to deserving cases.

The question of dealing with officials by means of function analysis and privatisation was raised here, and other hon members will pardon me for not repeating this. We do not intend charging into a process here without knowing what we are about. Hon members must pardon me because it does not seem as though I shall be making much of my speech, but I must spell out this position. The following guidelines have been issued to departments and administrations, and hon members who desire more detailed information are welcome to contact the office of the commission. I shall single out only a few basic aspects of the approved guidelines:

We do not speak of replacement; we call it “natural reduction”.

Then finally:

Are they negotiable?

Of course.

With whom?

They are negotiable with the Government. I would not say in every case, but there will at least be negotiation on the basis of principle, and such a basis will be determined in accordance with which the Commission for Administration will examine individual cases. Unfortunately I cannot continue with my reply to the hon member for Losberg’s speech because I shall not be able to finish with all the rest.

I thank the hon member for Gezina for all his remarks on the political neutrality of officials.

†I now wish to reply to the hon member for Pinetown. As far as the position of individual groups is concerned, we have comprehensive machinery in place to ensure that the problems with individual groups will be brought to the attention of the commission and the Cabinet. Priorities for spending the available funds are carefully determined.

The figure for vacancies reflects the position as at 30 September 1987. Since then we have abolished some 6 000 vacant posts to the value of about R38 million. We cannot undertake to cut 50% of all existing vacancies because we have to consider the circumstances of individual departments and divisions.

We cannot reduce the pay levels in a arbitrary manner. Pay levels are related to the grading structure of the career service and must properly fit the various levels of work and management. The policy in pay matters is to pay rates which are reasonably market-related. We do not lead the market but follow it. We cannot simply decide to give certain groups of staff more money. We need a point of reference. This is provided by movements in the labour market. Obviously, in the final instance, the availability of funds will at all times be the determining factor.

As far as the question of the equality of numbers among the various race groups is concerned, the Commission for Administration and I, quite naturally, would like to see a better distribution. However, that can only happen on merit and not merely in an attempt to bring about more parity as far as the numbers are concerned.

This hon member is forgetting one very important matter. Hon members must remember that as far as own affairs Ministers’ Councils are concerned, except for certain top categories, the own affairs component can appoint public servants itself. They themselves can look at a far better state of parity.

*Unfortunately I have been warned that I have only five minutes left to speak and, because this is an important matter, other hon members will have to pardon me if I allow myself a comment arising from what the hon member for Carletonville said about negotiating rights. Members of the Public Service are excluded from bargaining rights and the machinery for settlement of disputes afforded by the Labour Relations Act.

This has been the case over the years, and the reason should be sought in the special nature of an appointment to the Public Service, as well as in the fact that the employer in this case is also the Government of the country.

I cannot hold a long discussion on the subject today. A few years ago the Wiehahn Commission recommended that the Public Service should be made subject to the provisions of the Labour Relations Act. The Government then had a fresh opportunity to reflect on the principle of exclusion. After thorough consideration it was decided that the Wiehahn recommendation was not acceptable but that the Commission for Administration should give attention to the development of an own system of consultation on conditions of service with staff associations which requested this. A comprehensive and penetrating study of the matter was embarked upon. A model for the future has already been developed and made available to recognised staff associations for scrutiny. They have made comprehensive comments which have had to be carefully analysed and weighed up.

With a target date of 30 June, the present intention is to prepare a structure and general procedure for consultation—in co-operation with staff associations—which would then be submitted to the Government for consideration. Personally I hope we shall succeed in creating a better bargaining mechanism.

†I would like to refer to the hon member for Durban North. I want to say to him that as far as his references to teachers and nurses are concerned he should kindly refer these matters to the relevant Ministers when the time comes. They are the experts on those two professions.

*Unfortunately I have only sufficient time to refer to the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis. The hon member was honest enough to say that he advocated a system of decreasing the birth rate by force. This must be the same way they wish to remove Black people from so-called White areas by force. It would be fatal.

I wish to express my thanks to staff associations and officials for the sensible way in which they have accepted the embargo on salary increases. We know they are not happy, and neither are we, but they must realise that we are doing this for a much greater cause. My grateful thanks to all.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 30 and motion and amendment lapsed.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, this Bill provides for the establishment of a Board for Municipal Accountants, for the registration of municipal accountants and the control of their profession; and for certain related matters. We on this side of the House say that in principle it is a good thing for such a council to be established to exercise control, especially over the qualifications of those who play an extremely important role in matters relating to local government.

On the standing committee we considered the Bill as it originally appeared before us. The first aspect that struck us was the fact that the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning would, in accordance with the original text of this Bill, have played a very important role. He would, in terms of the legislation, have been burdened with unnecessary administrative duties which could have been carried out just as well, if not better, by the board appointed in terms of this Bill.

That is why hon members will see in the amended Bill now before the House that the administrative powers of the Minister have been removed, inter alia, from clauses 15(4) and 24. These functions are now included in the powers of the board itself, enabling it, inter alia, to co-opt additional members from other countries onto the board.

A second aspect which drew our attention and which was included as a result of our discussions was the fact that the report of the council not only had to be submitted to the Minister but to Parliament as well. That is why clause 12 has been amended and subsection (2) inserted to make provision for this.

Thirdly, clause 18 in the original Bill included, inter alia, subsections (3) and (4) which provided for the costs of a disciplinary investigation into the conduct by a municipal accountant being recoverable by the board from the person being subjected to this investigation. The CP, as well as the hon member for Randburg, felt that it was unnecessary and that it placed too heavy a burden on the person being investigated. With this kind of procedure it is, in fact, unusual. The rest of the standing committee also agreed; consequently it was deleted.

A fourth aspect was that in the original clause 20, provision was made for an appeal to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning against a decision of the board. The feeling was also relatively unanimous, in this regard as well, that instead of an appeal to a political figure, an appeal should preferably be made only to the Supreme Court. That is why hon members will now see that the new text only provides for an appeal to the Supreme Court.

In the original Bill there was a clause 23 which provided for anything which had to be done in terms of the provisions of this Bill, but which had not been done in time, to be considered as having been condoned. The feeling was also reasonably unanimous in this regard, namely that it would be unnecessary and that provision should not be made for what is already in existence in a tangible form. Consequently it was removed from the text.

As I have said, on the whole we are in favour of the principle of such a board being established. It is important that control be exercised over the activities and especially the qualifications of these people. There is, however, as far as we on this side of the House are concerned, one unfortunate fact in the Bill, and that is that this board will, by all indications, once again be a mixed board which has to decide on this very important aspect of local government. As much as we might want to support the Bill, we cannot for that reason support it, and shall vote against it.

Mr Chairman, up to the last sentence that the hon member for Roodepoort uttered, I could say that it was a pleasure to have his contribution in the standing committee and that he knew what he was talking about. It is such a pity that people who have such good backgrounds should stop their thinking the moment they come to any racial issue.

It is a great pleasure, a particular pleasure, to support this Bill, because I believe this is the first piece of legislation to be dealt with by the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Planning before this House. We on this side of the House are very proud to be associated with this legislation, because I think of all the legislation we had before us last year on that standing committee this was one of the best prepared pieces of legislation we had, and it was done thoroughly.

We would also like to thank Mr Dekker and his department for the work that they did on this particular Bill. When a Bill is issued, a revised copy follows and then an amended copy is issued, it means that a tremendous amount of work has been done. A lot of work was done on that Bill. I would also like to thank Mr Dekker and his department for bringing before us Mr Piet Matthee of Johannesburg and Mr Sarel Benade of Kempton Park, who were two of the most able people to address that standing committee in 1987. Between the two gentlemen they had 50 years of experience and they were really au fait with the piece of legislation that they brought with them. They had thought the legislation through to its logical conclusion. As hon members will probably see, there is a lot of work in front of them.

As the hon member for Roodepoort mentioned, all legislation like this up to now has given the Minister and his department the task of choosing the people to serve on the board and also those who will hear appeals from the board. A small break with tradition this time is that that will not be done. Both the other Houses passed this Bill immediately in the form in which it came from the standing committee. I believe it was passed within three minutes in the one House.

The Bill actually had its inspiration in the report of the Browne Commission which concluded that it was not merely new sources of income that local authorities needed, but management of the resources at their disposal. Many costly and inefficient decisions were being made without any reference to professionals versed in municipal accounting. The need for a professional body responsible for the financial affairs of local authorities and which could be held responsible for its conduct, became apparent. The Bill is actually one of a series of similar Bills that have given various bodies of qualified workers at local level the uniformity, discipline and status that they need to cope with the growing importance of local government now that the provincial councils have been abolished. The associations that govern the town clerks and firemen are recent examples of the same tendency. With the participation of Indian, Coloured and Black local affairs a new dispensation must be found and this legislation is evidence of that new dispensation.

The City Treasurer of Johannesburg, for instance, handles expenditure that is greater than the expenditure of the entire Free State and greater than Natal’s expenditure. As a matter of fact, they handle R3 million per day. I think we must identify able people to handle that kind of organisation. This board will identify and discipline such people. Durban, Cape Town and Pretoria handle budgets that are bigger than those of some African states. The Bill seeks to ensure that the accountants who sign for the execution of these budgets are adequate for the task.

The medium-sized municipalities in our country do not need people with these brilliant qualifications. However, they do need qualified people. The smaller municipalities at least need somebody who is qualified.

With this board that we are about to set up, we will get the qualifications we need and there will be dispensation for the very small new municipalities where the people are not qualified. Those people will be allowed to continue with their job until they are qualified. Although this board is being formed anew, it comes from the Institute of Accountants that has been doing the same job for years. The institute has conducted the examinations, has divided up these people into their various categories and has actually done the job. The difference this Bill will make is that those jobs will be formalised. Municipalities will have to have people who are properly qualified working for them. They will have the force of law to impose the decisions on the municipalities. In future, if an accountant who does not belong to this board signs a financial document and he is not qualified, he could go to goal or have to pay a fine of R2 000.

In many respects this Bill should have been passed years ago. It will bring discipline to our local authorities. It is a very good Bill and there is a lot of work behind it. We on this side of the House support it.

Mr Chairman, I am rising to say that we on this side of the House support the Bill. I really do not consider it necessary to discuss this Bill in detail. The hon members for Roodepoort and Germiston have already done so; and I think we would only be wasting the House’s time in repeating what they said about the particulars of the Bill. We are very satisfied with the Bill. The improvements the hon member referred to are indeed important.

I join the hon member for Germiston in thanking, not only the officials, but also the chairman of the standing committee who, to a large extent, enabled us to reach consensus on this specific point. It confirmed for me once again the value of the standing committees. One can discuss things there and make a real attempt to reach consensus.

Like the hon member for Germiston, I was slightly surprised after having listened to the hon member for Roodepoort. In all honesty, he said exactly what I would have said, but afterwards he said that they opposed the Bill simply because of the fact that there would be a mixed body. I cannot understand that at all. We have the sober fact that under whatever constitutional dispensation, and wherever this may occur, there are going to be local government bodies for Blacks, Coloureds and Indians. In all honesty I cannot understand why we must oppose the Bill simply because they are going to serve with other members on the same committee. Surely it is in the interests of South Africa and of the CP itself that the people who are going to serve on those bodies should have the necessary professional capabilities and receive the necessary tuition and discipline to perform the task of municipal accountants properly. Apart from the ideological standpoints—I am not speaking about them—for the sake of the effectiveness of our country’s administration I cannot understand why we should reject this measure simply because that body, which is going to be created, will also include non-Whites. [Interjections.]

I am very grateful for the major improvements which have been made to the Bill. I am referring, inter alia, to the question of the right of appeal to an ordinary court. That is a fundamental premise of this side of the House, and I am very grateful that that fundamental change has been made. We do not entirely agree with the tendency towards the professionalisation of all kinds of people and professions, but we shall discuss that on a later occasion. We fully support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, this Bill is important to the profession in question, and also to local government in South Africa. Representatives of the profession are present here today as visitors to demonstrate their interest in the passing of this Bill. The object of this legislation is to grant professional status to the profession of municipal accountants. In view of the enormous amounts of money which are handled cumulatively by local authorities, it is in the interests of South Africa that the highest degree of professionalism shall apply in that profession. Consequently this legislation is in the interests of sound administration.

I should like to draw hon members’ attention to the fact that this legislation is actually an example of how the existing parliamentary system, with the standing committees, can function to the benefit of all because, as other hon members indicated here, this legislation was substantially improved when it was piloted through the standing committee. General consensus was reached among all parties of all Houses, with the exception of a single party, the CP.

I should like to thank the members of the committee for this, as well as the chairman and the officials who assisted them. I think we are dealing with an example of good legislation here.

I should briefly like to state the case to hon members of the CP as follows. The point at issue in this Bill is not the favouring of the interests of any specific group, because it remains in the discretion of every local authority itself to establish what type of person it wishes to appoint. The only object of this Board of Municipal Accountants is to ensure that that person will carry out his task in a professional way, whatever his colour. That is why it is an absolutely professional body and colour plays no part whatsoever. Consequently I wish to appeal to the CP to waive their objection. I understand that they believe a matter of principle is involved, but the principle is not actually at issue here in the sense that the colour of people would in no way be able to affect the interests of any group. Professionalism is the decisive factor.

Meanwhile I also wish to thank CP members of the standing committee for the contribution they made in improving the legislation in other respects.

†I also thank the hon member for Germiston for his support and the kind words he addressed to me and the officials. I cannot claim any credit for the quality of the legislation. That is totally to the credit of the officials and the standing committee, but I thank them nevertheless. He emphasised the importance of municipal accountants. I would like to underline that, without elaborating on the subject.

*My thanks also go to the hon member Prof Olivier and the PFP for their support and contributions to this legislation. I wish to re-emphasise that we are dealing with good legislation here. I am very pleased to be associated with it, and I therefore want to move that we agree to the Second Reading.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting)-

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, I rise to speak in support of this Diamonds Amendment Bill, No 26 of 1988.

Clause 1 of this Bill deals virtually exclusively with the renaming of the portfolio of Mineral and Energy Affairs to Economic Affairs and Technology. In addition clause 2 of this Bill amends section 5 of the Act in consequence of the dissolution of the Diamond Producers’ Association. This amendment authorises the Minister to appoint two persons who are either producers or represent the producers on the South African Diamond Board.

Since the amendments are so insignificant, I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member for Rust Ter Vaal for his support for this measure. As he has said, it is a very simple measure; but I think it does have a certain degree of importance in that this amendment widens the scope as regards those people who may serve as members of the South African Diamond Board. I just want to say that although the Diamond Producers’ Association has disbanded, the diamond producers will still co-operate with one another. It is important, however, to note that this association is no longer a statutorily recognised association.

Having said that, I should like to thank the hon member once again for his support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, the objects of the Mineral Technology Amendment Bill are very clear and it is not a contentious measure. The intention of the Bill is to allow the council greater autonomy, within a framework approved by the Minister, in respect of the appointment, remuneration and conditions of service of the Mineral Technology Council and to ensure that the total salary and bonus are divided on the basis of a maximum average. This council consists of highly skilled people and so it is quite right that this is being done; we have to retain such people.

The Bill also allows for the amendment of the constitution to reduce from seven to six the number of members who shall serve on the council and to appoint the president of the council as the accounting officer thereof. It also gives the Mineral and Technology Council a free hand within the predetermined limits.

Mr Chairman, we support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon member sincerely for his support of this legislation. While the hon member was speaking, I wondered whether the House realises what important work this institution is doing to contribute to the prosperity and creation of prosperity for South Africa and its people. I think it is one of the enterprises on the technological level that will ensure that South Africa remains the world leader in mineral extraction.

I want to express the wish today—I think it is important—that the whole Standing Committee on Manpower and Mineral and Energy Affairs, or at least the administration if the committee cannot go, should go and visit this research installation to see what important work they are doing.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, as hon members know, the economy of every country in the world is that country’s powerhouse, and if that powerhouse collapses, so does the economy of the country. That is why it is intended to place this amending Bill on the Statute Book, because it is aimed at protecting the merchandise and capital goods of South African exporters against risks such as non-payment which is caused by political and commercial losses.

Similar insurance facilities are available to exporters in all the important trading countries in the world. The Government’s re-insurance scheme which was established in terms of this Act can now be regarded as one of our first export promotion schemes. Exporters make liberal use of these facilities.

The Credit Guarantee Insurance Corporation of Africa Limited, a private insurance company, was registered as a company in 1956 for the purpose of providing South African exporters with insurance cover against commercial and political risks which might cause losses due to non-payment from abroad in respect of goods supplied or services rendered.

Since no private business undertaking could be found that was able or willing to re-insure the corporation’s insurance cover in respect of foreign political causes of loss, the Government established a mechanism by means of the Export Credit and Foreign Investments Re-insurance Act, Act No 78 of 1957, in terms of which the State could act as official re-insurer against political risks insured by the corporation as well as for that portion of the commercial risks which cannot be underwritten by the corporation’s private reinsurers.

Certain adjustments to the scheme have been made over the years to provide for new developments and circumstances in international trade. It has become necessary to make an adjustment once again, because certain exporters or potential exporters who do not have sufficient capital, or are not able to provide the security required to satisfy banks or financial institutions in order to raise sufficient funds to execute export orders, are in the position of being unable to accept such orders. This is resulting in lost export opportunities.

The problem could be overcome by means of an insurance guarantee to the supplier of funds with recourse on the exporter. Such guarantee by the Credit Guarantee Insurance Corporation— CGIC—would mean that exporters would be able to borrow more funds at market-related rates than their capability of providing acceptable security would normally allow. Funds obtained in this manner would serve their need for pre- and post-shipment financial purposes.

As the hon the Minister said in his Second Reading speech, “It must be emphasised that this amendment is intended as an additional instrument to assist South Africa’s small and mediumsized exporters …” Therefore, Sir, we support this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon member for Heideveld for the competent way in which he set out the cardinal points with regard to this amending Bill. I want to emphasise once again that the Government is involved in many initiatives to assist the small industrialist or businessman. This also applies to the small exporter who does not have enough capital to obtain large loans for pre- and post-shipment services in connection with export contracts.

The Government has taken this important step of asking Parliament to amend the Act in question so that the Government—or the State—can provide re-insurance to insurers who insure the risks of financial institutions in respect of non-payment etc when small borrowers borrow capital with a view to export.

It is very important to realise that if the Government provides this re-insurance, the small exporter will probably be able to borrow the money from a financial institution at the prime rate. This would lower his interest rate.

Another important point is that the condition for the provision of re-insurance will be that the insurance contract issued by the Credit Guarantee Insurance Corporation, for example, will insure only 90% of the financial risk of the financial institution. In other words, the commercial institution still has to bear a certain risk. What this amounts to is that the bank or other financial institution which is advancing the money will have to examine the small exporter’s proposals very well. Subsequently the CGIC will examine the project once again. After this a committee consisting of senior officials from the Departments of Trade and Industry, Foreign Affairs and Finance will meet to consider the matter on behalf of the Government and in terms of guidelines approved by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology before re-insurance guarantees are issued.

Mr Chairman, once again I thank the hon member for his support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Business suspended at 14h30 and resumed at 15h44.

Mr Chairman, firstly please permit me to complain once more about the conspicuous deficiency in this tricameral system. Once more we have had to sit waiting for a Minister to arrive. It is time for us now, once and for all, to do away with these separate debates. In the past there have been many complaints about this. What it amounts to is that when the meal reaches us, all the meat has been chewed off the bone. And, what is more, we still have to sit waiting for the meal to be served. I think it is good advice to the Government, in the light of the rapid growth on the part of the CP, to plod along more rapidly so that we can have joint debates. We must debate an issue once and have done with it. I am saying that, Sir, because once the CP takes over completely, that R32 million building on the other side will be a white elephant and nothing more.

Be that as it may, today I once more want to bring the question of overcrowded trains to the hon the Minister’s attention. This is something that has been raised repeatedly in this House. I cannot see how the SATS has any hope of making a profit, or at least of balancing its books, if it is faced with the kind of problem we see time and again. People travelling from Mitchell’s Plain have to hang like finches from a nest in order to reach their destinations. That is not only dangerous to life and limb, but those commuters do not pay one cent for their journeys. I do not know whether the hon the Minister realises that. [Interjections.]

We note that the number of passengers has decreased. In the report this is ascribed to the fact that these days fewer people travel first class. Sir, has it occurred to you yet that more people travel third class because it is cheaper? Inflation is hitting everyone, and everyone simply wants to get to work in whatever way possible. Has the time not come to have only first-class coaches on our trains? It does not matter whether people are allowed to smoke or not. Let those who want to travel in that fashion, do so. There are more passengers on aircraft, in any event, since one is no longer permitted to smoke on board. So let people smoke on the trains; the smoke goes out through the open windows!

No, no smoking! [Interjections.]

Anyone who does not want to sit where I am smoking, must walk, Sir. [Interjections.] The point I am trying to make is that it is senseless to have one whole coach running empty because there is one person who does not want to sit in the same coach as someone who is smoking. [Interjections.]

You people smoke dagga on your trains! [Interjections.]

Order!

The fact of the matter is that the question of overcrowded trains is a serious problem which has repeatedly been broached in this House. As far as the Mitchell’s Plain trains are concerned, and those on the line to the Strand, this simply cannot go on any longer. Those trains are so full that there is not even room for a message to get in. [Interjections.]

There is another aspect I should like the hon the Minister to reply to. I am referring to the coal mines in the Eastern Transvaal alongside the railway line to Richards Bay. We have quite a few problems there. The hon the Minister can tell me if I am wrong, but according to my information, tariffs earn the SATS R900 million annually. In the past year the tariffs have increased from R12,90 per ton to R23 per ton. [Interjections.] The result has been that the transport tariffs are now higher than the mining costs for coal there. As a result the coal mines can no longer operate productively. The operating costs are becoming completely unmanageable. Hon members must bear in mind that this will give rise to a whole chain reaction, because if the coal mines can no longer produce, this means that 97 000 people will be without jobs.

If there are 97 000 people without jobs, there will be no coal for the SATS to transport. This would result in the SATS losing R900 million in revenue, which in turn would mean that the hon the Minister would have to lay off more railway workers. In the light of all the facts I have mentioned here, it is incomprehensible to me that there are still people who fear a possible tariff increase next month.

The hon the Minister must bear in mind that it will be increasingly difficult for coal mines to compete on the open market abroad if transport costs are increased. In the long run it would be cheaper not to mine any coal, and that could have very detrimental consequences for the country.

Another aspect that also concerns me is the so-called use of people of colour as air hostesses. Unfortunately I have never seen any air hostesses other than White ones on the aircraft.

Internationals!

The hon the Minister may perhaps say that he has never received any such applications, but let me then immediately ask him whether it is his department’s policy to appoint people of colour. If not, why not? If it is, why is this fact not widely advertised? We do not only want a chosen few. I simply cannot accept the fact that at this stage it is only the hon member for Belhar’s daughter who has become an air hostess.

He has a pretty daughter!

There are definitely others too! I am not being derogatory about the hon member for Belhar. I am mentioning this to indicate the percentage. The hon the Minister must please reply to me on this as well.

I find it amazing—the hon the Minister must not get me wrong—that the Government apparently still has this great fear. The hon the Minister must not get me wrong, but as I see things, one must first start a fire and smash up everything before one gets anything. That is a dangerous perception which the SATS, in particular, is projecting to the world at large. My people complain to me, because they read Press reports and hear news flashes on the radio about how cheap it is—and I am saying cheap—to travel by train from Khayelitsha to Cape Town. Between Eerste River and Bellville, however, one pays considerably more—for a third-class ticket too.

Has this inborn fear now become a new trend? I am merely asking. If I am wrong, the hon the Minister will have to prove me wrong.

The hon member is very seldom wrong!

The by-election has come and gone. The small by-election that still has to take place is in the very heartland of the CP. I wish the hon the Minister would display the same courage as that displayed by the hon the State President when he announced, in advance, that there were going to be no salary increases, regardless of whether they lost the election or not. Even if the NP were to lose in Randburg, could all the trains not simply be opened up now? The hon the Minister must not go on waiting until after the by-election. He knows even now, does he not, that the NP is going to lose that election. Clear the decks now, once and for all, and open up the trains. Hon members are here to hold the fort. Let the CP understand that. Once the trains have been opened up, hon members in this House will see to it that there is never any segregation again. We shall set up the President’s Council in such a way that if the CP were to transmit legislation from here for consideration, we would block it there too. The hon the Minister need not be worried about that. After all, he has taught us that if this House rejects a piece of legislation, it is referred to the President’s Council. We shall arrange everything, but then the hon the Minister must first obtain our co-operation. Simply open up the trains from tomorrow morning.

Hear, hear!

The hon the Minister takes a bit too long to get to the point. We have been waiting since who knows when for the trains to be opened up. So I am now giving him until tomorrow to notify all the trains that from now on they are open to all groups.

Mr Chairman, I want to put a few questions to the hon the Minister. Firstly, I want to enquire about the parking at the Johannesburg station. The department has closed down that parking for security reasons, but no alternative parking has been provided. Many people are now being greatly inconvenienced. I believe that if the hon the Minister were to go into the matter, security gates could perhaps be erected. They could also charge a parking fee.

What disturbs me a great deal is that staff have been appointed to help people with their luggage, particularly the aged, but they stand around doing nothing or they only help the Whites. Attention must please be given to this situation. Poor old people, expectant mothers and young students, too, are forever having to struggle with their luggage. What is more, many of these items are stolen, because the passengers have to leave half their luggage on the platform whilst they get the rest of it stored on the train.

As far as the SATS’s catering department is concerned, and also the bedding on the trains, I want to know why losses are still being incurred, even though there is a decrease in the number of passengers and some of the catering stalls have been privatised. I also want to know whether all SATS employees use the same training centres and write the same examinations.

The Gingindluvo branch line is apparently going to be reinstated. Why is it taking so long to open it up? I understand that it will only come into operation in four months’ time. I should like reasons for that.

For what work is provision being made under item 1C, Construction of Harbours, on page 15 of the SATS’s Estimates of Expenditure?

I now want to confine myself to my constituency. There is a small town called Eendekuil. On the other side of the line are the sports grounds. We have been asking, for the past three or four years now, for a pedestrian crossing to be built, but we simply cannot make any headway with the Department of Transport Affairs. It is very dangerous there over weekends and also during the week when people are playing sport. We ask the hon the Minister please to go into this matter.

At Graafwater there was a railway camp. The local authority applied to have the land and facilities there made available to it. It wanted to buy this from the department. To this day it has not received a reply. I wonder whether the hon the Minister can reply to me on that.

Mr Chairman, first of all I have no alternative but to come back to the reply which the hon the Minister gave us in regard to the times between trains. He said these trains were two and a half minutes apart and that we should try to educate the commuters to take a later train or to arrange their hours likewise. However, I wish to ask the hon the Minister whether he has taken the brave step of getting the industrialists together to discuss the feasibility of staggering their starting times. When I consider the situation at Bonteheuwel station, which carries 30 000 people during the short peak period, I think there is definitely a need to stagger the starting and stopping times of the factories. All or most of the factories in this particular area start at 7.30 or at 8 o’clock.

The result is that one has such a short peak period and that that peak period becomes terribly loaded. If that peak period is stretched and the starting times are staggered, I am perfectly sure an improvement can be brought about. It is important, however, for the hon the Minister to get the private sector involved as well. I want to know from the hon the Minister whether he has ever had meetings with the private sector during all this time that we have had this loaded situation and whether he has ever asked them to stagger their starting and stopping times, because this will also have an effect on the N1 and N2, the connecting freeways. On those roads one also finds a peak period which is very short but during which one will find that it takes one three quarters of an hour to travel from Bonteheuwel to Cape Town. I think the time has come for the hon the Minister to get the private sector far more involved by way of staggering their starting and finishing times.

In respect of the other point concerning trains the hon the Minister has also not given me a satisfactory answer. Perhaps I did not get my point across. There was a time when we had trains that turned around at certain places. They have been taken off and I want to ask the hon the Minister whether we could not go back to a situation in which certain trains could turn back at Bonteheuwel and other stations in such a manner that they will take off some of the load experienced during the peak periods.

My next point concerns the passengers on the Atlantis line.

*The ex-Minister, “Oom Hendrik”, said that the matter was being investigated, but so far we have not yet heard whether any progress has been made. I would like the hon the Minister to tell me whether coaches will be used on the Atlantis line or whether that will no longer be done.

†I feel I also have to draw the attention of the hon the Minister to Blue Downs. That area is going to be a developed area very soon. I should be very glad if the hon the Minister could give us some information, because, from all the material that he has supplied us with, I have not been able to gather what planning has been done as far as Blue Downs is concerned. Within the next 18 months a start is going to be made on an area called the Delf which will be occupied for the most part by the lower income groups—people who do not all have cars. It is important for us to know, therefore, what has been planned so far and how the plans for Blue Downs are progressing.

Furthermore, I notice that all along our railway lines the fences are broken down and rusty. One sees them from the train when one passes by and they are a sight for sore eyes. They definitely need attention.

Mr Chairman, I should like to discuss a few things here with the hon the Minister. My first request to the hon the Minister is please to have a look at the train service between Bitterfontein and Cape Town. Previously this train carried passengers on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, but with the curtailment of the service this train only runs on Mondays. My problem is that a tremendous number of people from Namaqualand who make use of the train on a government order are now being greatly inconvenienced. Previously they could use their own transport up to Bitterfontein and then use the government order to get to hospitals, particularly in the Cape Peninsula and vicinity. At the moment these people can only make use of the train on Mondays. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether those government orders which patients can make use of to obtain a valid ticket for the train would also apply for buses journeying between Cape Town and Namaqualand.

I also want to ask the hon the Minister to investigate the service between Klawer and Cape Town. In the past there was a more regular service. At present, however, the trains run only three days of the week. I trust that the furnishing of the service will be investigated.

Earlier in the week I referred to the housing at Klawer. I again want to express my thanks to the hon the Minister, but I still have a problem. There is a large railway camp at Klawer where the majority of the SATS employees have lived over the years and still do live. The conditions in that camp are not very good. I should like to know from the hon the Minister whether plans cannot be made to have those people moved to the new area too. A degree of relocation is taking place at Klawer, and it would be a good thing if these people could all live in one place. The services in the old camp are of a very poor quality. The sewerage and water reticulation services are not up to scratch. I should like to know whether the remaining people in the camp will be moved and will obtain better housing.

I have a problem with the staff on our trains. I referred to this earlier in the week, saying that I would return to the subject when we got to the Transport Services Appropriation debate and were talking about staff on our trains. I want to request that our non-White staff also be allowed to work in the dining-rooms of our intercity trains. I know that we have some of the best waiters amongst our people. For the SATS it would be a major step towards integration if some of the non-White staff were used in the dining-cars on our trains. At present these people are only used to serve food in the second-class and third-class coaches and to clean up in the culinary coach.

I would also be glad if the situation on the Blue Train could be investigated. There we have only bedding attendants. I would like to see nonWhite staff—particularly those in the catering service—being utilised to better advantage.

A further request to the hon the Minister and his staff is that the brochures displayed on the Blue Train be investigated. A tremendous number of overseas tourists travel on the Blue Train between Johannesburg and Cape Town. I should like to see brochures made available to the travelling public in languages other than English and Afrikaans. The Blue Train is one of the SATS’s proud assets, and we must maintain its standards. I very strongly want to recommend that German be used in the brochures. Not many Coloured or non-White people make use of the Blue Train because they more frequently make use of the Trans-Karoo or the Orange Express.

I want to ask the hon the Minister to have us continue with the model being made use of at Vredenburg, in Louwville. I am proud of what is happening in Vredenburg. Most of the employees of the SATS have their own housing. A further project is now in the developmental stage at Vredenburg.

If we can find the money, we should continue with those projects, because then we would get good, loyal employees who could, after work, return to homes with warm water, electricity and an atmosphere of comfort in which they can rest their weary bones, homes which are not overcrowded.

And they pay for it.

Yes, they pay for it, but the SATS does a lot to help our people there. That model should specifically be extended. We want to praise the SATS for what is happening in the North-West at Vredenburg.

I also said that the last word on privatisation had not yet been spoken, and that will be the case for many years to come. I merely want to quote from the hon the Ministers’ budget speech, specifically the portion in which he dealt with the National Transport Policy Study. There the hon the Minister mentioned certain points, and I want to agree with him. I also want to point out that what the hon the Minister said there is also contained in the White Paper on transport policy. The hon the Minister stated:

I find that acceptable. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon Minister. He went on to say:

I also agree with that, because it is not, after all, only the SATS which makes use of the roads. We have large transport companies and they do not contribute their rightful share to the road infrastructure. I quote further:

The hon the Minister knows that uneconomic services are being subsidised by revenue earned from economic services from which a profit is made. I therefore agree with the hon the Minister that this cross-subsidisation should be stopped so that we can operate on the basis of a profitmotive. The hon the Minister went on to say:

Order! I regret to inform the hon member that his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I merely rise to afford the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Sir, I thank the hon member for Bishop Lavis. Let me then quote further:

I have just listened to hon the Minister in the House of Assembly, and I heard that point made once more, something with which I agree wholeheartedly.

I now merely want to quote a few passages that go hand in hand with the points the hon the Minister made in his budget speech.

I quote from the White Paper on National Transport Policy, dated August 1986, from page 8: “Transport Policy Goals”. Sir, these recommendations in the White Paper were made by the NTPS study group, and I quote:

1. 1. To provide a safe and reliable transport service to the country.
2. 2. To maximise user choice and need satisfaction.
3. 3. To further effective and equitable competition. Regulatory constraints which prevent free competition and which give certain groups unfair privileges over others should not be allowed.

We have monopolies, because if we look at Jowells in Namaqualand, we see that there are certain services on which Jowells has a monopoly. Other people have to travel with empty lorries from Cape Town to Springbok because they are not permitted to transport any items, because they have not been exempted. That is what we are asking and that is also what the policy study recommends. I should really like us to have a look at this. I am talking about a cartage contractor who has to travel from Cape Town to Springbok with an empty 35-ton lorry. We must examine that aspect, and I am glad the hon the Minister agrees. I quote further:

1. 4. To provide transport services in an economically efficient manner, ie by using the least amount of resources.
2. 5. To further private initiative.

That is why I referred to that cartage contractor who travels with a 35-ton lorry from Springbok to Paarden Eiland to offload there, but who then has to return in an empty lorry from Cape Town to Springbok, even when there are those who need goods delivered to Vredendal or Springbok or some other place. I quote further from the same document:

1. 6. To reduce administrative costs and unnecessary government intervention.
2. 7. To simplify regulations to enable them to be effectively enforced.
3. 8. To promote open financial accountability for the payment of subsidies.
4. 9. To assist in the co-ordination of transport in Southern Africa.
5. 10. To have independent judicial oversight over transport-related administrative decisions.
6. 11. To encourage participation in the economic system by all population groups.
7. 12. To devolve decision-making to the lowest possible level of government.
8. 13. To provide employment opportunities for all.
9. 14. To encourage small business development.
10. 15. To assist regional development.
11. 16. To minimise external side-effects, ie a negative impact on the environment.

The most important of these points is that the Government approves the recommendations, in particular recommendation 2.2.1, “Government’s View”, and I quote further:

As I have said, a great deal is still going to be said about this aspect, and that is why I want to keep the discussion going. I want us to speak about it from time to time, but I also want us to keep the basic principles in mind from now on.

I want to tell the hon the Minister that we support him. We are really impressed by the budget he has introduced. We trust that when there is an upswing in the economy once more, the hon the Minister will look after the interests of the less affluent members of all race groups in the SATS.

Mr Chairman, if the hon the Minister and I had to discuss the budget in a dark room, I can guarantee you that I would come out as the winner. After the hon the Minister’s reply to the Second Reading debate, I once again felt that I was left in the dark. We still remain where we have been. There is still discrimination on the trains, and the hon the Minister cannot take a stand.

Last year the hon the Minister said in this House that all coaches were going to be opened to all races. Now he has done an about-turn again. He now says that we have to wait for the President’s Council to decide. Now, who has to make the decision? The President’s Council or the hon the Minister himself? The hon the Minister must decide, Sir. We cannot continue like this forever. We cannot continue having separate things forever.

Where are the signs?

Sir, in my opinion the hon the Minister has developed the art of not listening, and I am afraid that he has now perfected it. [Interjections.] He simply does not want to listen, Sir. He must not look for any excuses for apartheid on the trains. That has to go. We cannot continue our transport services—I refer specifically to the trains—in this way. We travel together on aeroplanes, and my colour does not rub off on a White person who sits next to me. We travel together by bus …

Order! The hon member for Robertson must return to his seat. [Interjections.] The hon member for Klipspruit West may proceed.

When we travel together by bus, my colour does not rub off on a White person next to me. So why should it be different on the trains? Trains are the only mode of transport on which there is still discrimination. We cannot continue with that. As the hon member for Macassar said just now, it seems as if the only language which the SATS will now understand is that of a fight. It seems that we will have to burn or break things or do something in order to make them understand that we do not want that. We cannot tolerate that any longer. If the hon the Minister is not prepared to take a stand, I will ask him again this year to resign as a Minister because then he is not fit to be a Minister.

The CP are going to remove him! [Interjections.]

When we look at matters relating to the SA Airways …

The signs have to go, and the Minister has to go!

… we see that 101 pilots are going to go on early retirement. Since May 1986, Sir, 43 pilots have resigned. We cannot fool ourselves and make excuses like we do at the airport. We have a problem. There is a shortage of staff. There is always some funny story. Last time I travelled by plane, for example, there was a flat tyre which they were changing. However, there was nothing going on down there.

We know there is a shortage of staff, Sir. The hon the Minister must also not use the excuse, in view of the recent aeroplane crash, that he does not have enough planes. We will not accept that excuse. There are problems with the staff because of the financial situation. There is a demand for better salaries and the hon the Minister is not prepared to grant that.

How many Black pilots are there?

There are no Black pilots; that we know. They cannot say that no Black has applied. Every time a Black applies, he is apparently either too short or too light…

Or he is too dark!

There is always something wrong. They never want to employ those applicants.

Now they have the problem that the White pilots, on whom they have depended all these years, are starting to pull tricks on the SAA. The hon the Minister is at a loss; he cannot do anything about it. [Interjections.]

*I want to return to the question of the signs, because those signs are worrying me. I cannot sleep at night because of those signs.

†I said to the hon the Minister that we should go and remove the signs. He did not come back to me. He did not say a thing. Now he is standing back. He now wants to palm the whole thing off on the President’s Council. One cannot palm it off on the President’s Council. The hon the Minister must take a stand. He must be equal to the task. I am prepared to tell him how I feel about the matter and he must now be prepared to tell me how he feels about the matter. He cannot turn around and tell hon members that he has to wait for somebody else to make that decision.

Why is the hon the Minister smiling?

This is no joke! We may be speaking in a softer tone than last year, but we cannot come here year after year and ask the hon the Minister to remove the signs. He is not making any headway. We cannot continue in this manner. He now has the opportunity to do it. Hon members are prepared to assist him. I guarantee the hon the Minister that with hon members’ assistance, all the signs will be gone within an hour. He just has to say the word and hon members will go and remove them. The hon the Minister can put them in his office. He can keep them as souvenirs for ever. We do not mind if the hon the Minister wants to keep them there, but they should be removed from public transport vehicles. The hon the Minister can forget about keeping them there.

The previous Minister of Transport Affairs, Mr Schoeman, once said that we have to work together, because we are interdependent on one another. We could not expect to make any progress, he said if we did not join hands and work together. We cannot join hands with the hon the Minister if he wants to have separation on trains! We cannot have separate coaches for separate people. We cannot just put the "internationals” in the back of the trains. I almost said something naughty about the backs of the trains. We cannot have the “internationals” at the back of the trains and the Whites at the front. We are paying the same first-class fares, and so I cannot see any reason why we should travel separately.

If the hon the Minister had to put all the Whites in one compartment and non-Whites in the next compartment, it would at least be a step forward. But no, the separation must remain! He wants the separation to remain. Yet if one were to look at the new breed of Whites—especially in the ranks of the CP—one would see that many hon members here look more White than they do. [Interjections.] If the colour of my skin is at issue, the hon the Minister cannot discriminate against me. He cannot discriminate against me!

The hon member is whiter than Arrie Paulus! [Interjections.]

Yes, he is one of the hon members in the CP. I am sure I am a little lighter than he is. However, the hon the Minister is prepared to accept him, but he is not prepared to accept me.

†He will ride with him in one coach, but he is not prepared to ride with me in one coach. The hon the Minister must remove the signs, and he has to do so immediately. We still find these signs at our stations. One still sees the “Whites Only” signs on the benches at our stations. Here and there they have already been changed to first and second class.

What about the “internationals”?

No, the “internationals” must get in somewhere else. I know the hon the Minister will tell us that he is not going to privatise the trains. We know it will not be profitable. It will not work. However, there are many other sections of the SATS that can be privatised; and it can be done without these sections being sold by the SATS as one monopoly to another White monopoly. It need not be done that way.

The hon the Minister is already doing it at the airports in respect of the cleaners. There one has cleaners from outside contractors. There it was just a case of the SATS monopoly being transferred to another monopoly. It cannot work like that. The hon the Minister can forget about that. Then he can rather keep the monopoly in the SATS. There are other sections in the SATS where the hon the Minister can do it, for example the cleaning up of the stations. That really needs a lot of cleaning up. There is a lot that the hon the Minister has to do.

I saw that the moment the hon the Minister got back, he got Whites to do the cleaning on Johannesburg station. There are a lot of White people who are working there, but they take four days to clean the place, whereas an “international” can clean it within half an hour! Look at their salaries, though. Because the man is White, he earns more. Obviously he has to earn more. Even if the Black man does a better job …

International!

Sorry, not Black, “international”! Even if the “international” does a better job, he does not earn the same salary. That is why we have problems. I can foresee that there is going to be a strike this year, and that is going to come from the White section. The international section is not going to give the hon the Minister any problems this year. It is the White section that is going to give him problems, because they will demand an increase in salaries. They are definitely going to give the hon the Minister problems.

Now they have the problem that the “international” people did not receive enough training, so when the Whites go on strike it will be difficult to replace them. However, if they had trained the people in advance and kept them ready, they would not have had this problem. It is going to happen; there are no two ways about that. The same applies to our airways. It is going to happen, and one cannot run away from it.

The SATS can also privatise their bus services, but not as a whole. Certain routes should be privatised, because if one privatised it completely, we would go from one monopoly to another. It must be done route by route, so that the small businessman can come in and buy a route and run that route.

Order! The hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to give the hon member the opportunity to complete his speech.

Order! Very well, but the hon member must bear in mind the restrictions of the Committee Stage and confine himself to matters and problems in his constituency.

Mr Chairman, everything I have said concerns my constituency and my people. Those signs, for example! In the evening my voters come home and say to me: “Sir, I was again given a place with the ‘internationals’.” The poor people in my constituency cannot sleep. Tomorrow morning they have to get up so that the SATS can discriminate against them once again! This concerns my voters.

†Whether I talk about it in general or mention something small, it concerns the daily life of the people in my constituency. We cannot run away from it. If the hon the Minister does not privatise the bus services route by route, he can forget about privatising successfully. Then we can write it off altogether and forget about privatisation. The small man has to be involved; not only the “money man”. The man with money can buy a business anywhere, but the small man cannot.

*I want to conclude with these words: Either the signs go, or the Minister goes!

Mr Chairman, at some stations in my constituency Coloured workers are not eager to help our Coloured people who are struggling with their luggage.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he said that the Coloured workers did not want to help the Coloured people?

Sir, I have only ten minutes in which to speak about activities in my constituency. [Interjections.] I merely want to know whether they are not authorised by the local stationmasters to help our Coloured people who make use of the trains—particularly those who are undertaking long journeys and have a great deal of luggage—or whether they only have to help the Whites with their luggage?

That frequently happens. When one asks the workers for assistance, they tell one to find out from the stationmaster what is going on. I now want to ask the hon the Minister whether it is a departmental rule or instruction that workers on the stations should only assist Whites.

On the airports those people are fined if they give passengers any assistance with their luggage. We would very much like to know whether that is so, because I have personally looked into this. There are five or six workers standing round, but when one arrives there with one’s luggage, they tell one that they would be fined. I would very much like the hon the Minister to go into that matter. [Interjections.] On the airports they are fined, up to as much as R50.

I would also very much like to know why some trains hurtle past Paarl station. Paarl station is a junction point for lines from Franschhoek, Wemmershoek en Pniel. Those people now have to catch a bus from their various towns and travel to Huguenot station whilst Paarl station is right there on the doorstep. My request is that the train should stop at Paarl station and pick the passengers up there. The ticket-office knows when there are passengers perhaps travelling to De Doorns, Ladysmith or Johannesburg. So why can the train not stop at Paarl station, as in the past? I am not talking about the suburban trains now, but about the long-distance trains which do not stop at Paarl station.

I also want to say something about the SATS’ Rawsonville bus transport. Some of my voters are situated on the route from Worcester to Cape Town. The bus does not need to go out of its way to pick them up. I cannot understand why the bus, which passes that area in any event, cannot pick them up there. My constituency consists largely of farms. People come to the main road and see the bus driving past. They have to walk all the back to Rawsonville to board a bus there. I want to make representations for those buses please to pick those passengers up at some point along the N1 so that the people do not have to walk all the way, in the opposite direction, to Rawsonville. [Interjections.]

It is with gratitude and appreciation that we take note of the fact that the SATS has got round to renting out the houses which are standing empty, something I have frequently spoken about, asking that they should be rented out so that they can be properly maintained. In certain towns, however, the provision is that the houses may be rented out, but that if there are other people needing accommodation, they can be moved into those houses and the tenants can do nothing about it. [Interjections.] That is, of course, going to create problems. I am asking the hon the Minister to find out whether the houses which are sublet in this way should not rather be sold so that people can own them. It would be appreciated if the people renting those houses from the SATS at present could become the owners of those houses.

I should also like to know to whom the Boeing 727’s, which were previously owned by us, were sold and what the selling price was.

Mr Chairman, linking up with the previous speakers, I want to take this opportunity of congratulating Dr Moolman on his appointment.

As hon members know, the Free State and the Northern Cape were hit by a flood disaster. I therefore want to congratulate the SATS on the repairs done to the rail links to Bloemfontein. This gave our people in the Free State an opportunity to realise that Bloemfontein is one of the most important SATS arteries. When all the links with Bloemfontein were cut, there were bottlenecks all over the country.

I also want to lodge a plea for the upgrading of, and improvements to, Bloemfontein station. As I have said previously, that is a very centrally situated station in South Africa. All traffic passes through that station. In the future planning of extensions to the station, I want to ask the hon the Minister to have the business premises which are to be built there made available on an opentender basis so that people can also have an opportunity of tendering. If we only allow the big giants—OK, Checkers, etc—to open their chain stores, our people with smaller amounts of capital will not have an opportunity to establish themselves there.

I also want to ask the hon the Minister to have improvements made to our rest-rooms. The problem we have here is that the rest-rooms are constructed of asbestos. In summer it is so hot that one cannot remain inside the rest-rooms. The hon the Minister knows that the Free State winters are chilly. Then no one can endure staying in the rest-rooms.

I also want to thank the SATS for the flyover that is now being constructed. Many people have lost their lives there. Two or three years ago, for example, a doctor lost his life there. He was on duty and was en route to Pelonomi Hospital. He was someone who furnished a service to my community. Last year inspectors of the Jakaranda Bus Service lost their lives on that same level crossing. I mention this in the hope that in future we shall try not to wait until lives are lost before flyovers are built.

I also hope that provision is being made for pedestrians. There is an industrial area on the other side of the railway line. Many pedestrians make use of the road.

I should also like to know from the hon the Minister what progress has been made with the electrification of the railway line between Springfontein and East London. That is also another Southern Free State artery. As far as we are concerned, it is of cardinal importance that this be put into operation as speedily as possible.

Mr Chairman, at Swellendam in my constituency there is a level crossing across the road to the Coloured residential area known as Railton. The road I am referring to is the entrance and exit road for thousands of my people. It is also a road which is used daily by hundreds of pedestrians and motor vehicles. As a result of the heavy traffic, accidents frequently occur there.

Representations have been made on several occasions for a foot-bridge and motor vehicle bridge because at peak hours shunting operations frequently take place across the road. I have frequently traversed that level crossing and have frequently encountered the problems there, particularly when goods trains are being shunted. The fact that one has to wait there for 15 minutes or longer, until the shunting operations have been completed, causes frustration and great dissatisfaction. The provision of a bridge at the existing level crossing is, in my opinion, a very urgent and essential matter, particularly since it is said that the local authority has been negotiating with the SATS for the elimination of that level crossing since as far back as 1974.

It is understood that certain planning has already been done. Although a project has been approved, this project is still being delayed. I now want to ask the hon the Minister: If the construction of a flyover at the existing level crossing is not planned as part of the SATS’ elimination of level crossings programme, what steps does the SATS envisage, in terms of its new policy, to eliminate these problems at the level crossing in question?

Mr Chairman, my sincere thanks for the privilege of participating in this debate. I want to start right away by telling the hon the Minister that I want to talk to him for a moment about matters exclusively affecting my constituency. Unfortunately I do not serve on the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, but there are matters which have to be addressed.

Let me begin with De Doorns station. The Coloured people of De Doorns who make use of the trains cannot ever—or at least most of the time— disembark at a platform. I think that is unfair, and it is not right either.

I also want to talk about the housing supplied to the railway workers of De Doorns. The hon member for Rawsonville spoke about the type of housing made available to people. I happened to read a part of the contract in connection with the houses rented out to Coloured people—these are houses which previously belonged to Whites. Let me point out to the hon the Minister that those people were under a misconception. They were under the impression that they had purchased those houses. When I read the contract, I saw that it contained a clause which stipulated that if, tomorrow, the SATS employed workers which it wanted to house with a family already occupying a house, the family occupying the house would have no say. They would simply have to agree. I do want these matters looked into. Those people have struggled. They were told by the municipality that they could purchase those houses. The year before last I tried to conduct negotiations with the SATS for the sale of that land to the municipality so that we could do further planning on the town and expand it. At the time, however, the SATS refused. Their answer was not a very good one. Now they are accommodating some of their workers in those houses—they are houses in which Whites previously lived. They are lovely houses and the people are very satisfied. Unfortunately the officials who rented those houses to the people told them they could live there until such time as they could purchase the houses. They were assured that the houses were theirs and that the SATS would not sell them to anyone else. The contract does not, however, stipulate that the people can purchase the houses. [Interjections.] That contract refers exclusively to the renting of the houses and to how the SATS, on conditions laid down by the SATS itself, can accommodate people in those houses. I want the hon the Minister to look very clearly at that matter. I can tell him that the municipality is still prepared to take over those houses at a very reasonable price—we must remember that they are not new houses … [Interjections.] I also want the matter of the use of trains to be examined. As I have said, they are not new houses, and that is why I want the people who occupy those houses, and who are exclusively railway workers, to keep those houses.

There is something else that concerns me, and that is that if one travels from the cities to the rural areas, the majority of the station cafes belong to Whites. Up to a few years ago Coloureds were not allowed to rent station cafés, but I do not know whether, by this time, the situation has changed. I nevertheless want the hon the Minister to go into the matter and to ascertain whether the position is still unchanged. There are very few Coloured people who have station cafés.

Only the Greeks do.

Yes, many of them are not even South Africans. The other matter that concerns me is the fact that many train services have been curtailed. The Railways has its reasons for doing so, but if those trains could be replaced by buses, it would help a great deal, particularly in the rural areas. People have to get up in the middle of the night and walk long distances to reach the stations. Then they sit there waiting for a bus, but frequently the bus is already full.

There is the further question of the conduct of railway workers, and of passengers, on the buses. I once travelled by railway bus and I said never again. The bus driver has no control over the passengers. Some of the men sit there drinking and then simply fall down on top of one and one cannot say anything.

I also want to ask the Railways please to ensure that the passengers on the trains have protection. When the railway police were still doing duty on the trains, they at least helped to maintain law and order, but that does not seem to be the case any longer. There are few places where one sees a policeman on the station, apart from Cape Town station. If there are passengers on the trains who have complaints, I do not know what the train drivers or ticket-examiners must do about it. For that reason I feel that something should definitely be done about this matter.

I also want to tell the hon the Minister that we in the rural areas are rather concerned about those toll-road tunnels they have built. Our people get the short end of the stick. Let me take myself as an example—I do not want to speak about myself—but I travel through that tunnel two or three times a day, and each time I have to pay. I am not thinking of myself, but rather of others from the rural areas who have to travel through that tunnel two or three times a day. I do not think it is fair. In my opinion it is nothing short of cheap exploitation. If those tunnels and the Railways could be privatised, it would be considerably cheaper for those people to use the tunnel. The charges are a bit too excessive.

How much do they charge?

I think it is R2 per axle, but I am not certain of my facts. I think it is unfair to individuals, in comparison with the large company vehicles, who make use of the tunnels. Sir, with those few words I want to conclude and extend my sincere thanks for the opportunity I have had to participate in the debate.

Mr Chairman, I shall not take long. I was fortunate, on two occasions, to have non-White girls as air hostesses on the flight from Johannesburg to Cape Town. Once it was a Coloured girl and the other time it was a Black girl, but she was still somewhat inept. I think we should train those people properly …

You still criticise, when we are having such a struggle.

I am telling the truth. That hon member was not there, was he? I think it is to the detriment of Black people if they are not properly trained before being allowed to serve on aircraft, because if they furnish poor service, a finger is pointed and it is said they cannot treat the passengers properly.

Sir, I have another problem. This relates to flight bookings. On two occasions I had booked a seat in the business-class section, but when I arrived at the airport I was told that too many bookings had been done for the business-class section. I do not mind travelling economy class, but surely there are computers. The people must do their work properly; they must not make incorrect bookings. One does not want to arrive there only to be told that one has to sit somewhere else because other people are being given preferential treatment. I still have my boarding pass, and I can show the hon the Minister what it was all about. [Interjections.]

Mention is being made of privatisation. There are many railway workers living in my constituency. I am not like the White MPs who do not see their people, or only see them on occasion, for example when a new school is being opened, or something of that kind. Our doors are open to our people; we see them on a daily basis.

Hear, hear!

Some of the railway workers in our constituencies have problems. They approach us on a regular basis with housing problems. There are large tracts of unutilised land which the SATS uses as buffer strips. There the grass grows so tall that many crimes are committed there. Stolen cars are parked there or set alight and allowed to burn out. I am now talking about a place in Bosmont—Tafelberg Avenue—situated between the Bosmont and Newclare stations. In three cases women on their way to work in the early morning, at about five o’clock, were assaulted by a Black man who lay in wait for them in the bushes. I telephoned the hon the Minister’s department to ask to have the area there cleared because people had complained that it was becoming a very rough area. I think I spoke to a Mr Wipling. After a long while they came to clear the area.

I am asking the SATS to do away with its apartheid ideology and put the land which they cannot or do not want to use at our disposal so that it can be used for the erection of houses for our people—particularly for the railway workers. The people must be able to buy the houses.

Since the days of the previous Minister of Transport Affairs I have been struggling to obtain land belonging to the SATS in Newclare. Time and again letters are written to me in which it is stated that the land is going to be given to this or that organisation. At the moment we have a problem. There are two organisations, Santa and Sanca. The SATS is prepared to sell the major portion of that piece of land to Sanca for the erection of a rehabilitation centre there. In Coronationville, however, there are people with the same objective. They are people who want to erect the centre on land adjacent to Claremont. They are people who broke away from the original organisation. I think that would suit the SATS down to the ground, however, because then they could introduce another buffer strip there …

In the Coloured area.

… in the form of a rehabilitation centre. No, not in the Coloured area—in the White area.

That would not help us one iota, because then we would have two institutions for the same people. I want the SATS preferably to forget about that other organisation. They should link up with those who have been engaged in this kind of thing for years now.

Mr Chairman, a considerable number of questions have been asked. I shall attempt to reply to as many as I am able to, although not necessarily in the sequence in which they were put.

The hon member for Wuppertal asked whether training and examinations were the same for all race groups. Training is fully integrated at training colleges and examinations for posts of parity are also exactly the same.

The hon member also referred to Head No 1C which deals with the construction of harbours.

†The revised provision of R2,1 million is exclusively for the finalisation of the present stage of the Richards Bay harbour project.

*These are still some of the final stages of the Richards Bay project which are covered under this particular head.

The hon member also spoke about parking at the Johannesburg station. Parking on platforms has been discontinued because it is very dangerous. It is easy to plant bombs in cars so it is most dangerous to park there as hon members themselves will realise. Adequate parking is available at street level.

The hon member referred to the bridge between Gingindlovu and Eshowe too. I think I understood him correctly. Is that the bridge to which the hon member was referring? Is that the bridge which has not been completed since the flood?

Yes, the railway bridge.

Yes, that is right. That bridge has not yet been completed, but we plan to have done so within the next few months. Are there any further questions? I think I have replied to more or less all the hon member’s questions.

The hon member for Vredendal …

“Piet Spoorweë”!

The hon member for Vredendal raised an interesting point on the question of State orders. He asked what the position was. I should say the hon member has put a very practical question. He asked whether State orders issued for journeys by train could not also be made available for bus services. The bus service operating in the hon member’s region is a private one. These particular orders are available only in terms of the existing arrangement on concessions between the State and the Railways. From what the hon member read aloud, those concessions will be abolished in time. I foresee that it will not be long before this happens. I do not believe the concession to travel by using railway orders will be abolished; it is merely the concessions which will be discontinued on both sides. I think we shall then be able to overcome the hon member’s problem. The State will issue the order in the mode which will prove the fairest to it and will therefore be able to conduct business with anybody. I have received the same request from my constituents in that area and I understand it. I think it would be a good arrangement if we could accomplish it in this way. The hon member is welcome to discuss this with me again.

The hon member also referred to brochures on the Blue Train and requested that we should not make use of only the two official languages in them. We are paying attention to this matter. Satour are the people who advise us on this. They have the best knowledge and after all we must be aware that people of other linguistic groups will also make use of these. The hon member made special reference to German. If we were to consider a third language, German would be the most obvious one to use.

The hon member requested that the railway camp at Klawer be shifted. I want to inform him that 42 erven have been purchased at Klawer and that negotiations are in progress with the occupants of the camp to build houses. Further investigation will be conducted into conditions at the camp. The hon member referred to this and I can convey this good news to him.

We have a fine how-do-you-do here once people from Namaqualand start eyeing one another, but we know how to take hands and we can do this on a larger scale too. I do not mind. [Interjections.]

†The hon member for Bishop Lavis asked about the planning of the Blue Downs project. The position of this commuter service by rail is presently being considered by an interdepartmental committee on commuter transport and they have not reached finality yet. However, once finality is reached, provision will be made for finances, as the hon member will know. This will necessarily be a guarantee line for which the central Government must provide funds.

*I should advise the hon member—the hon the Minister of the Budget in the House of Representatives has discussed this with me already—to pursue the discussion with me. We shall continue it as soon as that committee has reached finality.

The hon member asked whether a decision had already been reached on the question of opening the line to Atlantis to passengers. This Atlantis line is also—as the hon member knows—a guarantee line financed by the central Government. At present it still shows an operating loss and the State is not prepared to open it to passenger trains at this stage because this would obviously aggravate losses. If the hon member thinks there is justification for this at this stage, I should advise him to take the matter up further with the central Government. In this case the SATS merely acts as a Government agent.

The hon member alluded to turnaround times too—if I understood the hon member correctly; he is to tell me if I misunderstood him—and asked that they should be cut to enable people to be conveyed faster. He also referred to the question of shorter peak periods. I do not know whether it is possible to have a shorter turnaround time—there are various technical problems—but I shall request management to look into its feasibility. As regards the extension of peak periods, I am in full agreement with the hon member that this is one way of handling traffic congestions over peak periods. To my knowledge this was discussed with the private sector on various occasions, but there has not been any noteworthy success to date. Perhaps the time has come for us to start paying attention to that aspect again—as the hon member suggested. I shall request management to do the preparatory work for this pro tern. If the hon member feels inclined to be involved, we can include him too.

The hon member for Klipspruit West …

And the signboards!

… discussed signboards.

I want to tell the hon member the by-elections we held in the Transvaal against the CP are not a reason. That report was referred to the President’s Council by the Government with instructions to investigate various grievances and make recommendations. As the hon member knows, the President’s Council made a very positive recommendation which was tabled. The Government will decide on this soon.

The hon member alluded to resignations from pilots as well. There are 101 pilots who may resign in August. Why has this situation arisen now? Two years ago there was no shortage of pilots; in fact, there was an oversupply.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: If an hon member of this House puts his case in English, is the hon the Minister not supposed to reply in English? The hon member does not understand when the hon the Minister discusses pilots and such matters. [Interjections ]

Sir, I am certainly as bilingual as the hon member. We understand each other well in either language.

†The hon member referred to the possibility of a large number of our pilots resigning. The position is that we had an oversupply of pilots two years ago. Now, however, there is a shortage. At the time of the oversupply we made it possible for them to retire at the early age of 45. However, that provision will be repealed in August this year. The pilots have the option but it is not a fact that they will opt for retirement. It is merely a choice they have and they may offer their services again even if they have exercised that option to retire.

*I also wish to reply to the hon member on the matter of the appointment of those of colour as pilots. The fact is that all race groups may apply to be trained as pilots but I have to add that we cannot accept candidates we have to train from scratch. To be trained as the pilot of a Boeing, a person already has to be a pilot. He already has to have certain experience before we can train him because we do not have the usual training facilities available. We have only the more sophisticated training facilities for Boeing aircraft at our disposal.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether there is not a condition that before a pilot can be trained for the SAA he first has to join the Air Force? Is that not a precondition?

No, there is no precondition to that effect. We often receive applications from pilots of the South African Air Force for jobs in the SAA. Many of our pilots are ex-pilots of the SAAF but there is no such precondition. [Interjections.]

*The hon member for Rawsonville spoke about the old Boeing aircraft that had been sold. It is a fact that nine of these old Boeings were sold for R17,3 million. Unfortunately it is not feasible to furnish names of purchasers to the hon member. [Interjections.]

The hon member referred to workers at airports who are fined for helping passengers. I want to ask the hon member to raise this matter again in the Transport debate when my Vote is discussed. The hon member further requested that the bus stop on the N1 route to take on passengers. He must know it is impossible to stop just anywhere on the N1 route. If he has any specific points in mind, however, he may reopen the matter with me.

The hon member referred to the leasing of houses as well and requested that we should preferably consider ownership of such houses. Wherever practicable, we support the principle. It is also in line with our policy of considering home ownership when vacant houses have to be disposed of. If the hon member would provide me with more specific details, I shall investigate the matter.

The hon member for Suurbraak alluded to a level crossing in his constituency near Swellendam and requested the erection of an overhead bridge. Unfortunately only limited funds are available for the elimination of level crossings. This particular case has not yet been brought to my attention. If the hon member has already brought it to the attention of management, I shall investigate this personally. The hon member is also welcome to visit me for a personal discussion of the matter.

The hon member for Opkoms referred to the electrification of the railway line from Springfontein to East London and wanted to know how we were progressing with the project. I am able to announce that that project should be completed by the end of this year. The hon member is quite right; it will be an asset to that area.

The hon member congratulated the SATS staff on the work they did after the flood disaster and I wish to thank him for this. I want to mention to the hon member—and I am grateful to be able to do so—that the SATS was able to provide 1 000 people with accommodation in various regions during this time of crisis, even in compartments on trains.

The hon member had a further request for the improvement and upgrading of the Bloemfontein station and for the improvement of waiting rooms. I shall request management to pay special attention to this and establish whether something can be done about it.

The hon member for Robertson alluded to police on trains but in fact he was addressing the safety of passengers. This is a source of anxiety to us— as it is to him. As the hon member knows, we used to have Railway Police but they have been transferred to the SA Police specifically for better and more effective use. The SA Police is furnishing this service now. A short while ago we came to a further arrangement with them when we offered that uniformed personnel, that is the Police, could travel free of charge on certain of our trains wherever they wished to go provided they were in uniform. We find this arrangement is reasonably popular and assists to a great degree.

Long-distance too?

I do not think we do it over long distances too. Unfortunately it is impossible to have policemen everywhere at all times in consequence of the cost factor attached. Nevertheless I agree with the hon member that we should lend great priority to the security of our passengers.

The hon member also mentioned the question of cafes on stations and there is nothing to prevent any person, of any colour, from becoming the owner or lessee of such a café.

As regards the conduct of bus drivers and passengers, I think the hon member should bring specific cases to our notice. If any of our bus drivers break the rules or are discourteous to our passengers, we shall definitely take steps against them.

The hon member alluded to the costs of the pay tunnel and he is right in that it costs a considerable amount to travel by toll road. It is always cheaper, however, than the alternative route and the person who cannot afford it or thinks it is cheaper to use the alternative route is free to do so because the law provides that there has to be an alternative route. Before a toll gate can be built, there has to be an alternative route. Nevertheless the arrangement regarding toll roads is that the fee may not be more than 75% of what the saving would be.

The hon member for Macassar insinuated that fares from Khayelitsha were lower than the normal tariffs but there is no difference in tariffs whatsoever. Khayelitsha has the same tariff structure as the other areas. The hon member also asked why we had no men of colour in the service of the SAA as flight stewards. He asked whether this was a result of discrimination but no, we do not discriminate. We have not employed any flight personnel for more than two years because of the decline in passenger numbers. Flight personnel are appointed on merit only and definitely from all population groups. Applications come predominantly from women but if men with the right qualifications apply they will be considered.

I can tell the hon member that at the moment the SATS employs flight personnel from all population groups. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister to reply to the question of the contract signed by workers in SATS service at De Doorns in terms of which they consented, although they rented houses from the Railways— this applies particularly to houses in which Whites used to live—to the Railways being able to place other staff in those houses at any time? The hon the Minister has not replied to me on this.

Secondly, I put a question about the platform at De Doorns station where our people do not alight but have to jump off—because the platform is too short. I should like the hon the Minister to react to this.

Sir, I have not seen that particular contract but it sounds a little strange to me that a person should conclude a contract with somebody but then be able to place other people in the house at any time. It sounds rather unusual. I should appreciate the hon member’s furnishing me with more details on this. I shall then go into it and supply him with a detailed answer.

As regards the platform at De Doorns, I want to know whether this happens only occasionally or whether the state of affairs is permanent.

No, it is a considerable distance.

Yes. I shall have this aspect investigated too. The hon member may contact me again about it or I shall get in touch with him.

Mr Chairman, I should like to draw the hon the Minister’s attention to something. I personally read one of those contracts. The chairman of the management committee, who is a railway worker and also serves on their staff association, led me to believe that people could now purchase the houses. I then visited the house of someone at De Doorns who was under the impression that he had bought the property. I remember being pleased to see that it was such a beautiful house. When I read the contract, however, I had to point out to him that he was renting the house and had not bought it. I saw this with my own eyes, Sir; nobody merely told me this.

Sir, then it is clear that the man had leased the house. If the hon member wants me to examine his rights, however, I can do so—especially if it is a SATS employee, as the hon member said.

The hon member for Newclare referred to a Black air hostess who he alleged was incompetent—if I understood him correctly. I am very sorry to hear this but I can tell hon members the training is exactly the same for all. If the hon member would be more specific about this, I could examine the case more thoroughly. He also mentioned that mistakes had been made regarding his bookings. If he provides me with details, I shall ensure that the matter is investigated.

The hon member also referred to unutilised land along a railway line which according to him was heavily overgrown and where crime could take place. He may also furnish us with those details and we shall look into the matter. The law prescribes that certain land along a railway line has to be kept as a railway reserve; trains are not permitted to run too close to houses either. If the hon member will give me specific information on this, I shall see to it.

Sir, I thank all hon members who participated in the debate.

Mr Chairman, is the hon the Minister prepared to reply to a last question?

Yes.

Sir, the Helderberg flying disaster was a telling blow to the SATS and all the passengers on that flight died. I assume they were all covered by insurance. I should like the hon the Minister to tell me what influence this insurance will have on the appropriation for Transport; a percentage will suffice in reply. I should also like to know whether the Helderberg is to be replaced; if so, how much does such an aircraft cost? What influence will this have on this year’s Transport appropriation?

I thank the hon member for Riversdal for that question. The amount representing insurance will have no influence on the Transport appropriation because we are insured against such eventualities. The hon member will recall that I said in my budget speech that an amount of R138 million had been transferred. That was what remained of the entire amount paid to us for that aircraft—which was more than the book value.

I can also tell the hon member that we recently decided to replace this aircraft but have not yet decided what type we shall purchase. I can therefore not say yet what it will cost but the type of aircraft which plunged into the sea—and I am speaking under correction—costs approximately R200 million.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister did not say what he proposed regarding overcrowded trains.

When I was discussing peak periods a while back, I actually intended replying to part of the question. Overcrowding on trains does not occur everywhere; there are certain places where trains are overcrowded and then only at certain times. For a large part of the day, however, those trains are stationary, but then one has a short peak period in which all workers have to be conveyed. Consequently it is important that we start negotiating with the private sector to see whether that time cannot be spread and extended. The hon member will appreciate that a station platform can serve only a certain number of trains during a certain time. I told the hon member on a previous occasion that there were passengers who hung from the outside of trains whether they were full or not. We can try doing something about overcrowded trains but it cannot happen overnight; we need time for this.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Klipspruit West asked a question about employing pilots, locomotive drivers etc in the hon the Minister’s department. My question is this: When will the department change its policy? Sometimes our people leave the country when they are recruited. I know some of them who are pilots in Zambia and other African countries.

In the sugar industry the millers have employed non-White drivers to drive their locomotives. Can the SATS not try to change its policy so that nobody will be denied access to jobs because of these closed-shop employment policies?

Mr Chairman, my reply to that question is that the policy has already been changed. There is no problem. Anybody can become a locomotive driver or a pilot—provided, of course that he applies. We advertise a particular job and then we choose from the applicants.

Mr Chairman, is it the policy of the Government to encourage the employment of these people? As far as I am concerned—I am sure many of our people feel the same—there is a lot of discrimination in regard to those jobs which are part of the Public Service, and we would like our men to get those jobs also. If educational qualifications are required, they have those qualifications. It is not very hard to get those qualifications. During my working life—I am now 73 years of age—I drove one of those locomotives. This was in the fifties, and I had no difficulty in getting a licence to drive it. The same railway regulations were applied in my case, and I passed my test.

That is fair enough, Mr Chairman. All I can say is that these applicants are considered on merit.

But we do not have merit. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, every time the hon the Minister comes here he has a lot to say about merit. Everything is done on merit. I do not know what the norms and standards for this merit are. Can the hon the Minister please explain this to us, because I have problems with it.

I want to take the Railway Police as an example. Many members of the Railway Police who are not White and have worked there for years, have better qualifications than their White counterparts, but the Whites have been appointed as their supervisors. Let us look at the present situation. I want to know who interviews these people. Is the interviewing panel a non-racial body? That is all I want to know.

All I can tell the hon member— personally I do not know who the officials are who interview applicants—is that the fact remains that they must not do it in a discriminatory way. If the hon member is suggesting that it is done in a discriminatory way, it is up to him to take the matter further. He must at least let me know about complaints of this nature. I have made this offer once before. If he is aware of discrimination against somebody, he can bring it to my attention.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister is not answering my question. What he is telling me is that he has no control over his department. That is what he is telling us indirectly. He does not know what is happening. I am asking a simple question and he must tell us if he does not know. I am asking if it is a non-racial panel, and he does not know, because he tells me he has to find out and I must write to him to find out. That is not the procedure. I expect Ministers of the NP-government who have portfolios at least to know what is happening in their departments.

Mr Chairman, the panel is non-racial. There is no racial qualification for appointment on that panel. [Interjections.]

Schedules, Clauses and Title agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported.

Third Reading

Mr Chairman, I move, subject to Standing Order No 52:

Mr Chairman, I should like to have a last word. I do not think it will be necessary for us to have to take part in any of these debates again. We are merely playing games now; we are not getting anywhere. As far as I am concerned, Sir, I am no longer prepared to take part in this debate until things change. From next year onwards the hon the Minister will come and speak to himself here.

I want to leave two matters with the hon the Minister. I wrote to him a couple of months ago with regard to the Trans-Karoo. I am still waiting for a reply. I ask, Sir, whether that is the attitude of his department—to delay replying to people so that they can have an advantage over these people?

The second matter relates to the SATS’s discrimination when it comes to standby bookings. In that respect, Sir, the discrimination is blatant. Even when one is the first standby and one follows the procedure of queueing and handing in one’s ticket, one finds that one is placed last on the list; for in the end one is told that there is no place. All the Whites who come afterwards are given the privilege first. That is blatant discrimination, Sir; they make no attempt even to hide it. It is discrimination through and through, and we cannot tolerate it. The hon the Minister must tell us here today whether he is going to continue with it, because I am not prepared to take part in his debates until the SATS changes its attitude toward our people and until he sees to it that discrimination on the trains is eliminated. As far as I am concerned, until that is done the hon the Minister can “discuss” the budget by himself.

Mr Chairman, we have come once again to the end of the debate on the Transport Services Appropriation Bill, and the hon the Minister has replied positively to the majority of the questions. On some of the questions, however, he has done an egg-dance. I hope that on the next occasion his policy will have changed and that he will find it easier to perform the steps.

I want to ask the hon the Minister what the norms are, or what his views are, on SATS membership for new trade unions. It seems that the present, recognised trade unions are scared out of their wits about others threatening their position. The reason, of course, is that some of them do not know how to satisfy their members.

What causes me tremendous concern is the fact that someone who is charged with an offence and appears before the courts, which can find him not guilty, can still be found guilty by the SATS.

Something really must be done about this, because in such cases these associations—I am referring, in particular, to the Coloured Staff Association—can do absolutely nothing more for their people.

I also want to ask the hon the Minister to ensure that an investigation is carried out into the Coloured Staff Association’s financial affairs. It is alleged that the president of the association is also the secretary. He is apparently already on pension, but refuses to relinquish the post because he has the protection of the department.

It is also alleged that certain burial societies can arrange for the funerals of SATS employees who have died because there are possible kickbacks involved. If staff members of this society grumble or in any way assert themselves, they are intimidated and also warned that they will lose their jobs.

I also want to ask the hon the Minister to speak to certain staff members in the SATS, for example ticket-sellers, because they are rude to clients. I am not referring solely to White staff members, but to all groups.

I sincerely want to thank all hon members who participated in the debate. I am convinced that with their participation they have made a fundamental contribution to the debate, and they did so in a positive manner. I therefore trust that the hon the Minister will consider the matters we have raised and our suggestions.

Mr Chairman, we have now come to the end of this debate and I have taken note of what hon members said during the Third Reading stage.

The hon member for Klipspruit West spoke about correspondence which had been sent to me but had not yet been finalised. I shall investigate the matter personally. The hon member also mentioned the question of discrimination against standby passengers. I shall also have that aspect investigated.

The hon member for Wuppertal referred to the membership of new trade unions. The hon member is aware of the proposed new legislation which still has to be piloted through the House, legislation which deals with the membership of new trade unions. In terms of the new legislation the proposed labour board will take decisions in this regard. I do not, however, want to anticipate that legislation, because it still has to be debated in the House.

The hon member asked for an investigation, by the SATS, into the finances of trade unions. He will understand, however, that it is not actually the SATS’s task to investigate the finances of trade unions, because we have no say over those trade unions.

But the department controls certain trade unions.

No, the department does not control any trade unions.

As far as irregularities in burial services are concerned, once again let me say that if it is members of the SATS who established that organisation, we cannot take any action against them. Those members themselves must take action if there are any irregularities.

The hon member may bring to my attention, at any time, any uncivil conduct towards clients by staff members. The hon member is probably sufficiently well acquainted with me to know that I will not tolerate any unnecessary rudeness to clients.

In conclusion let me say that I am convinced that the effect of the Transport Services Appropriation Bill—the effect the legislation will have on the country if it is passed is what one should discuss at third reading—on inflation and the cost of commodities will be of fundamental significance. If that is indeed the case, we shall all benefit in the long term. In this connection I ask for the co-operation of all hon members and also of the private sector in general.

I thank all hon members who participated in the debate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.