Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

When the original budget was being prepared for the present financial year, economic indicators showed that there would be a downturn in the business cycle in the South African economy during 1982-’83. The budget was accordingly based on a relatively low economic growth rate of 2%, as against rates of approximately 7% for 1980-’81 and 4% for 1981-’82. Furthermore, an upswing was predicted in the economies of South Africa’s trading partners, which would have stimulated South Africa’s exports. This upswing did not materialize, however, and partly as a result of that, the downturn in the domestic economy gained momentum. Indeed, the latest indications are that the economic growth rate during 1981-’82 will be minus 1%. Inevitably, these factors have had an effect on the demand for transport and the revenue of the S.A. Transport Services. Although the decline in traffic and the intensive economizing campaign also brought about savings in expenditure, these were considerably less than the decline in revenue, because of the relatively large percentage of fixed costs. These tendencies are expected to continue for the rest of the financial year, which ends on 31 March 1983.

This state of affairs forced me to announce a tariff increase with efiect from 1 January 1983 which would increase revenue by approximately 10% a year. On the basis of the anticipated traffic during the last three months of the financial year, the tariff increases are expected to produce an additional revenue of approximately R142 million. In spite of this tariff increase, the total income for 1982-’83 is still expected to be R587 million—i.e. 9%—lower than the original appropriation.

As has already been said, a saving in expenditure is also anticipated for the financial year. This saving is mainly due to a reduction in staff numbers, a considerable decline in overtime and Sunday time payments and lower fuel consumption. The S.A. Airways, in particular, has been using the more economical Boeing 737s with great success. These savings have been undermined by an increase in the cost of financing the operating deficit, with the result that a net saving of only approximately R75 million is expected.

In spite of this saving, an amount of R400 000 has to be voted under head No. 19—Miscellaneous expenditure (Railways)— in respect of items for which approval was not granted in the original budget. This appropriation is in respect of losses on staff cafeterias as well as ex gratia payments to a refreshment club at Koedoespoort and to the National Cultural History and Open Air Museum for the restoration of an antique steam tractor.

In order to reduce further the pressure on revenue, it is proposed that the appropriation of R150,5 million for the Revenue Reserve Account, which was approved last year, be cancelled.

On the basis of this, the financial year is expected to close with an operating deficit of approximately R373 million, as against the original estimated deficit of R10,5 million.

† I shall now deal with the Additional Capital Budget. From the documents tabled, hon. members will note that an additional amount of R75 million requires to be voted for the financing of the capital programme.

Under Head No. 2—New Works on Open Lines—an additional appropriation of approximately R36 million is required. Of this amount, approximately R6 million will be used to defray belated debits in respect of works authorized in previous years. Globular sums are provided under the various heads in the annual Capital Budget to meet these debits. In terms of a resolution of the Select Committee on the Accounts of the S.A. Transport Services, provision thus made is, however, only available to meet belated debits not exceeding R30 000 in respect of any one work. Where this limit is exceeded specific provision is required to be made in the additional capital budget. The balance of R30 million required under this head is in respect of the purchase of the Trust Bank building in Durban to accommodate staff.

The additional amounts, totalling approximately R7 million, to be voted under head No. 4—Road Transport Service; head No. 5—Harbours; head No. 6—Airways and head No. 7—Pipelines—are entirely attributable to belated debits. The overspending under head No. 8—Working Capital— amounts to approximately R116 million. This is due to higher escalation, earlier deliveries by suppliers of stocks and the devaluation of the rand against other currencies. Of this amount, R84 million will be financed from savings under other heads, with the result that only R32 million is to be appropriated.

Summarized the position is that as far as working expenditure is concerned an amount of R400 000 must be voted for new items whilst an additional amount of R75 million or 3% is required in respect of the capital programme.

Mr. Speaker, the currents underlying the speech of the hon. the Minister are certainly ominous as far as the finances of the S.A. Transport Services are concerned and do not bode well at all for what we may expect when the hon. the Minister presents his main budget. The estimates for additional working expenditure reflects an additional amount of R400 000 against a total revised estimate of R6 300 million. The additional capital budget reflects an additional amount required now of R75 million against a total revised estimate of R2 300 million. So we are being asked to vote a total of about R75,5 million for working and capital expenditure at this stage. Of course, Sir, the figures alone do not reflect an accurate picture of the financial viability and profitability, or non-profitability, of the S.A. Transport Services at this stage, and perhaps this is just as well for the hon. the Minister. He has just a couple of weeks before he has to face his moment of truth and confront the country when he has to introduce his main budget. So he has only another 10 days or two weeks to enjoy before he has to present his main budget to the country. Sir, in the past when we considered additional expenditure, additional appropriations, we had difficulty in considering the various items to get an accurate overall view of the financial situation of the S.A. Transport Services. We had no idea in previous years of the revenue figures, at least not before the Minister introduced his main budget. In the past there always was the possibility that there might just be a pleasant surprise when the country came to know the revenue figures and place the expenditure against those figures. But on this occasion it is common cause, common knowledge, that the finances of the S.A. Transport Services are in dire straits, that revenue figures will be drastically down and that we can expect a deficit estimated to be in excess of R700 million. Consequently there are few prospects of a pleasant surprise for the public despite the recent tariff increases. Revenue seems to be woefully short. All in all we can expect a grim budget in two weeks’ time.

The amount we are being asked to vote today, i.e. R75,5 million, may be small in comparison with previous years—i.e. R240 million last year, R183 million in 1981 and R320 million in 1980—but the very fact that this year it happens to be small in itself mirrors the general state of the finances of the S.A. Transport Services fairly accurately. It certainly does not reflect the finances of a great undertaking which is throbbing with economic consequence and viability and it certainly does not reflect a transport undertaking which is struggling to find how to spend its profits. No, Sir, on the contrary. They are far too sombre for anything like that. In this case they are far too realistic because they reflect in many ways an Administration which is belatedly trying desperately to cut its losses and to come to terms with financial excesses and extravagances. In many ways, Sir, it may be a case of closing the stabledoor after the horse has already bolted, because I am afraid that the taxpayers of South Africa, the general public and the user of our transport services, are going to be asked to pay heavily before some sort of financial viability is restored to the S.A. Tranpsort Services.

Certainly, there is indication of austerity measures which have been enforced, and it is interesting to note some of the savings that have been effected in the working expenditure. This has been forced upon the Administration and the hon. the Minister has indicated in his speech that this was necessary. We do, however, find that, for example, there is a saving on estimates of R27 million in respect of the maintenance of permanent way and works. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to give us an assurance that this has been very carefully investigated before the saving was enforced, and that this sort of saving is in fact a prudent one.

Then there has been a saving of R56 million on motive operating expenses. Presumably this means fewer trains. It is part of the economy campaign but I should like the hon. the Minister to indicate how this saving of R56 million was in fact effected. Then there is a further saving of R22 million on working and maintenance in respect of the S.A. Airways. Again I hope that due consideration has been given, particularly when questions of maintenance are considered, in respect of precisely in what fields these savings should be effected.

All in all, however, we have a total saving of R330 million against which there are excesses of R105 million, making a net saving of R225 million. Of course nowhere is that going to be sufficient to meet the deficit envisaged by the hon. the Minister. If we take that saving and if we also take the increased revenue expected as a result of the new tariff rates we are still going to be far short of meeting the expected deficit.

Certainly austerity measures have been applied, and I believe that these are indeed evidence of the grim shocks that must have hit this hon. Minister, his planners and all those responsible for last year’s budget.

If one looks just briefly at the additional capital budget to which the hon. Minister has also referred, we notice that an additional amount of some R75 million is asked for at this stage. Most of the items in respect of the R75 million can probably be most effectively dealt with when we reach the Committee Stage. There are, however, two items to which I should like to draw the attention of the House, and to which I should like some response from the hon. the Minister. One is the “New works on open lines” item, which represents nearly half the amount asked for at the present time. An amount of R36 million is asked in respect of this item. Of this amount no less than R30 million is in respect of a new building bought for the S.A. Transport Service staff from Trust Bank in Durban—R30 million—which forms part of the additional estimates. I should like to know why it is necessary that an enormous amount such as this should be asked for, presumably as a matter of urgency, in additional estimates. Where was the planning? What was the planning in respect of staff in Durban before the Administration found it had to purchase a building for the sum of R30 million? I believe the hon. the Minister owes this House some indication of why, in a situation in which the S.A. Transport Services are facing very severe financial difficulties, they suddenly have to embark on a project of this magnitude in the city of Durban.

The other item in the additional capital budget, to which I want to refer, relates to the “working capital” item. The hon. the Minister has referred briefly in his introductory speech to this item. Here the original estimate was R44 million. The new item amounted to no less than R115 million, making it a total of R160 million, of which we are asked to vote today in favour of R31 million for stores and stock. Again, although the hon. the Minister has indicated in his Second Reading speech that this is owing to higher escalation, earlier deliveries by suppliers of stocks and the devaluation of the rand against other currencies, the tremendous differences between what was originally asked for and what is now being asked for would seem to indicate some fairly careless planning on the part of the Administration. I should like the hon. the Minister to give us some indication other than merely the general comments we have had from him so far in connection with higher escalation and earlier deliveries. I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree that there is a massive difference between the amount actually budgeted for and the amount which is now required.

I have no doubt that, having made these comments, the amount for which the hon. the Minister is asking will have to be voted. However, I must say that we are in no way encouraged by the general trend reflected in the SATS finances and we are afraid that our fears in this regard are going to be confirmed when the main budget is presented. We shall probe some of the individual items further during the Committee Stage of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Berea put certain questions to the hon. the Minister in connection with the increase in working capital and in the capital account. I am certain that the hon. the Minister will give the hon. member a due reply to those questions. However as is customary the hon. member also told us more or less what he thought he should expect from the main budget of the SATS in a few weeks’ time. At the same time, however, he made the grave political mistake of telling this House in advance what his attack was going to be on that occasion. Of course he has every right to be injudicious in this regard. The hon. member told us that the finances in this additional appropriation did not fully acquaint us with the true financial position of the SATS. One could perhaps understand the hon. member’s doubts in this connection but he also tried to create the impression that there had been poor planning, that the Administration had collapsed and, as he put it: “It is no good closing the stable door after the horse has bolted”. All the mistakes that have been made are being cast in our teeth at this stage.

There are one or two questions I should like to put to that hon. member. The world is experiencing an economic recession. Recommendations have been made—by colleagues of the hon. member as well—that the economic position in this country should be cooled down. At one stage we had balance of payments problems and we also had tremendous problems with inflation. That is why the economy of this country must be cooled down. Does the hon. member for Berea now want to tell me that when one is involved in a process of this nature, a process that is under way in the rest of the world as well as here, both domestically and abroad, he can for a single moment think that this could not have had an effect on the financial position of the SATS? After all, these matters were foreseen. As a matter of fact, I have here in my possession a statement made by the former General Manager of SATS as long ago as July of last year, in which he spelt out clearly that the SATS did not have the surpluses it had expected, that revenue had dropped and expenditure increased. He also said that the SATS would do everything in its power to rectify the position. However, all the hon. member for Berea referred to were these so-called “austerity measures”. Is it “austerity measures” to say that one is not going to appoint more people than one needs? In certain instances one has to “freeze” the staff position of the SATS. One reduces Sunday time and overtime, and certain capital expenditure that can be tackled at a later date, is simply deferred. However, according to that hon. member these are “austerity measures”. If the loss, suffered by the SATS had continued, as was already obvious in July of last year, and the hon. the Minister and the management of the SATS had done nothing about this so that instead of a possible deficit of just more than R300 million that the hon. the Minister has just announced he will have at the end of March of this year there had been a deficit of several million rands more, I want to ask the hon. member for Berea what his attitude would then have been. He would then have said that we had been reckless, that we were allowing the entire industry to collapse and that we were implementing the correct economy measures. When it became quite clear to the SATS that we were faced with an economic recession both at home and abroad, the hon. the Minister and his management—and I congratulate them on this—took the necessary steps to apply economy measures. Certain capital works which it was possible to postpone were postponed. Certain train services were run more economically, for example, by reducing the number of non-essential trains running during non-rush hour periods, without there being a decrease in train services during rush hours.

I think these were the correct steps to be taken when a large undertaking like the SATS is faced with a deficit. One cannot see the SATS in isolation; one must see it against the background of what is happening in South Africa and one must see it against the background of what is happening abroad. Our exports have dropped, as have our imports. The last-mentioned drop improved our trade balance, and we are grateful for this, but it also had an abnormal effect on the revenue of the SATS.

When one takes everything into consideration one must note that this House has been approached with a proposal that an additional amount of R75,4 million be voted out of a Working Account in excess of R6 000 million and a Capital Account of R2 300 million. The amount requested is a drop in the ocean. In my opinion this attests to good planning and to timely action to ensure that the SATS will play its role as it should.

Large-scale economies have been effected. Marketing methods have been used to bring the vital importance of our transport services to the attention of the public so that our service can gain its rightful share of the traffic. All these things have been done and I really do not know what the hon. member for Berea is fighting about.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to welcome the new General Manager here and congratulate him on his appointment.

When an Additional Appropriation is tabled one must, of course, decide on a Bill that has already had its effect. We are therefore compelled to support the Bill this afternoon, because over-expenditure has already taken place. Hon. members are therefore faced by an accomplished fact, since we are being called upon to vote a further amount because expenditure has increased. In the Bill an amount of R75 million is required for the capital programme and a amount of R400 000 for revenue services. In total therefore, R75 400 000 is being requested, which is considerably less than was requested last year. In the capital programme under head No. 5 there is an amount concerning which I should just like to put a question to the hon. the Minister. He may reply at a more opportune moment. The question concerns the dredger for which an estimated total cost of R18 million is indicated and for which an additional amount of R1 775 700 is being requested. My question is whether the ship is being built in South Africa or whether it is being purchased from another country.

I welcome the improvements effected at Midlandia and Middel, as well as the improvements to the mess and ablution facilities for permanent way staff at Bethulie. This also includes the improved facilities for goods staff at Burgersdorp. For the facilities at Bethulie and Burgersdorp additional sums of R70 000 and R35 000, respectively, are being requested.

The hon. the Minister is in charge of the largest single business undertaking in South Africa. The S.A. Transport Services can therefore exert a tremendous effect on inflation, in either direction. At the same time it is a large business undertaking which is also particularly sensitive to world conditions, as well as conditions in sectors within our country’s borders. At this stage it is not, of course possible to gain a total picture of the S.A. Transport Services’ financial position. Only next month, when the hon. the Minister tables his main budget, will it really be possible to gain an impression of the revenue figures for this organization. Only then will one be able to see the financial position of the S.A. Transport Services in its correct perspective.

The pattern of rising expenditure in South Africa must of necessity also have an effect on this large undertaking, the S.A. Transport Services. In other words, this service cannot escape higher labour costs. I therefore want to call on the hon. the Minister to make specific provision in his budget for the reliable worker who does his duty every day for the S.A. Transport Services and his country.

Hear, hear!

When it comes to better conditions of service, I want to call on the hon. the Minister to think of that White employee who must work under depressing and difficult conditions. I think the time has come to institute a thorough investigation into the working conditions of employees, even those at the most remote railway stations, because it is in fact there that these people sometimes have to do without many privileges, and it is also there that we encounter some of the most reliable White railway workers. Therefore, when a decision is made on conditions of service, I want to call on the hon. the Minister to reward the deserving worker for his diligence and to penalize the work-shy worker for his lack of diligence.

I just want to call on the hon. the Minister, if possible, to take another look at the matter of the repair workshops of the S.A. Transport Services. I feel that if more effective use were made of these repair workshops of the S.A. Transport Services this could lead to major economies in the budget. When I look around these repair workshops I sometimes gain the impression that they do not always work to full capacity. I do not know what the problem is. I do not know whether too much work is farmed out to private repair-shops or whether there is some other problem, but the S.A. Transport Services has competent staff and well-equipped repair workshops, and if more use were made of them I believe that this could lead to major economies.

Under the circumstances, and taking everything into account, I think that the hon. the Minister’s Additional Appropriation can be considered a reasonable one.

Mr. Speaker, I too should like to offer the congratulations from these benches to Dr. Grové on having now taken over as General Manager. I have known him for some time because he has been the Fianancial Director of the SATS for quite some time and I have often seen him at Select Committee meetings. In the past we had an engineer at the helm of the SATS and now we have a financial man there. I should just like to say that perhaps this is a time in our history when we need a financial man at the helm because of the position we find ourselves in today as far as the economy is concerned. Anyway, we wish him well. I can assure him of our co-operation, and we know we shall obtain his.

I believe that the Railway accounts can be very confusing to people. The hon. member for De Kuilen said that all that is being asked for is an increase of R75 million which is in fact a drop in the bucket.

It is also the last straw.

Then it has also been said that in regard to the Working Expenditure the hon. the Minister is only asking for an additional R400 000. What the hon. Minister is in fact asking us to do is to condone expenditure of R400 000 for which Parliament has not in the past given approval. If one looks at it, one finds that it is as a result of a loss of R320 000 on operating staff cafeterias and two ex gratia payments. However, if one studies the actual revised Estimates of Expenditure, one finds that in fact the hon. the Minister has achieved a saving of something like R225 million, because in fact his expenditure will no longer be R6 525 000 000 but R6 300 000 000. Therefore one could say that the S.A. Transport Services’ operations this year present quite a pretty picture because in fact a saving of R225 million has been achieved in actual Working Expenditure. This is a reduction of 3,45%. To the uninformed this may appear to be very healthy. However, if one studies the accounts, one finds that this has been achieved by almost completely eliminating the contribution to the Revenue Reserve Account, which the hon. the Minister mentioned, of R150 500 000, which was actually budgeted for in the original estimates. It was to come out of the Appropriation of Net Revenue. Therefore, in reality the savings the hon. the Minister has achieved in his actual expenditure is reduced to a figure of R74,5 million which is only 1,14% of his original budget of R6,5 billion.

I want to ask the hon. member for De Kuilen and other hon. members on the Government benches whether they consider this to be a commendable effort on the part of the Minister. I ask this because one must firstly consider the fact that the hon. the Minister has repeatedly stated in debates in the House this week that South Africa is experiencing a recession, a recession which, because of reduced traffic, should reduce operating costs accordingly. We know that this recession is forcing people in the private sector to tighten their belts and to reduce their costs. Has the hon. the Minister reduced his costs sufficiently under these circumstances? Has he reduced his costs sufficiently in the light of the need to cut costs wherever possible in the productive side of our economy in order to fight inflation? Therefore I say that despite the fall-off in traffic and despite the need to keep costs to the minimum in order to avoid tariff increases, the hon. the Minister has failed to do any better than to reduce expenditure by a measly 1,1%.

The hon. member for De Kuilen may say that the original budget took account of the reduced traffic for the current year. However, if one studies the revised total working expenditure one finds that it is still 13,64% up on the previous year, which is running almost at the inflation rate. This therefore means that there has been no real reduction of costs in the light of the recessionary period that we are in. We know transport generates many costs and operating costs such as fuel, maintenance, repairs, tyres etc. I do not think the hon. the Minister has done sufficiently.

When one looks at the additional capital budget one finds that the hon. the Minister is asking for an increase of only R75 million, which represents an increase of 3,37% of the overall budget. Some hon. members, including the hon. member for De Kuilen, have said that this was a mere drop in the bucket when one considers the total budget. However, if head Nos. 10, 11 and 12—the S.A. Transport Service Houseownership Fund, the Elimination of Level Crossings Fund and the repayment on loans—are excluded one finds that the gross capital investment for the year had actually increased by R139,5 million, which is 7,64% of the budget. The hon. the Minister says that he is only asking for an additional R75 million to be voted for, but in order to reduce the overall capital spending for the current year on the operating side of his account, he has chopped the Houseownership Fund expenditure from a budgeted R80 million, which Parliament approved last year, to a mere R10,7 million. This represents a reduction of 86,6% in the Houseownership Fund.

The hon. the Minister has already mentioned that in his working capital he has had an increase, he claims, of R31,7 million. However, in reality, if one studies this, he is going to spend R115 988 000 million and not the R44 012 000 which was originally budgeted for. This is an increase on working capital expenditure for the year of 263,5%. The hon. the Minister may say that it was due to higher escalation costs, earlier deliveries of supplies or stocks, the devaluation of the rand, and so on, but an increase of 263,5% in that particular vote, I believe, is a bit unreasonable. I will be asking questions on that during the Committee Stage.

Another interesting point relates to the increased capital for road and cartage services. When one considers this in conjunction with the Road Transportation Amendment Bill which is on the Order Paper—we now see that the hon. the Minister has planned to expand his own road transport empire to the expense of the private sector—this now becomes all too clear.

This business of capital expenditure has to be looked at. Despite the fact that traffic is down, despite the fact that there is a recession, if one studies the working expenditure one finds that as far as the Railways are concerned the depreciation is up by 1,45% and interest on funds by 33,9%. This is in the additional estimates. Financing costs for the railways are up by 9,8%, for harbours by 19,7%, for airways by 4,2% and for pipelines by 18,42%. If one studies the gross cost to the Railways for financing interest and so on, one finds that for the Railways alone the depreciation, interest and financing costs amount to R1,25 billion, which is 26,8% of total expenditure. Including airways, pipelines, etc., it totals 25,58% of expenditure. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that this increase in capital expenditure is building up overheads which I believe the traffic side of the SATS is unable to bear at the present time.

As I have said, this is really a Committee Stage Bill. However, I should like to conclude by telling the hon. the Minister that I am most disappointed with his performance over the past year. To my mind there is no evidence whatsoever that the hon. the Minister has made a real attempt to apply a tight rein to the S.A. Transport Services expenditure at a time when recessionary forces make it necessary for him to do so, a time when the economy of South Africa desperately needs a slowdown in the rate of increase of transport tariffs in order that we might destroy the economic evil of inflation once and for all.

Mr. Speaker, the South African financial climate at the moment is any Opposition’s heaven. Nobody could foresee last year when we were discussing the budget that there would be a drop in the growth rate to a minus growth rate. Nobody could foresee that our business partners overseas would go through a depression worse than the depression of 1933. Who could foresee that the railway line to Richards Bay would not be working at full capacity? After all, this line is used for supplying coal for the production of energy. People overseas are cutting down on their use of electricity. An official of the Department of Foreign Affairs showed me figures which indicate that a person in Bonn has to pay the equivalent of R450 per month for electricity. That is the situation overseas.

The hon. member for Berea must realize that we are living in times of financial difficulties. Countries such as Taiwan or Japan are receiving 40% less orders for steel from their trading partners, while the railway line from Sishen to Saldanha is working at 40% below capacity because we cannot get orders overseas. Nobody could foresee the recession. The hon. member asked me, for example, why we did not foresee last year that we were going to buy the Trust Bank building in Durban for R30 million. Why did he not tell us?

What did their agent say?

Does the hon. member think that Trust Bank would wait for us until we had the money or until we received permission from Parliament?

Maybe your people leave it until last.

No. One does not do business this way. One buys a building at a bargain price. If we had to build that building today, our architects and engineers tell us that it would cost us R100 million. We have already bought the building. Is there anything wrong with that? So I can reply to all the questions the hon. member puts to me. The hon. member asked a reasonable question with regard to savings on S.A. Airways. Savings are possible. The Boeing 737s that S.A. Airways are operating now use less fuel. We came to an agreement with our pilots to save fuel by doing slower take-offs, which are safe take-offs. I told the hon. member the other day that three trips of a Boeing 747 from Johannesburg to Frankfurt or London is costing us R1 million. To save on that is possible. But hon. members may rest assured that we have not compromised on safety, but have increased efficiency. In regard to the stores and stock situation, we carry millions of rand of stock on hand. The moment people saw what was going to happen in the economy deliveries were executed as fast as possible while we had to pay for overseas orders at the current rate of exchange between the dollar and the rand. As hon. members know it is more profitable to export today and nonprofitable to import.

*Sir, I am glad the hon. member for De Kuilen is no longer a UP member. He summed up the situation very well. The S.A. Transport Services is an undertaking with a working account of more than 6 000 million and a capital budget of R2 300 million, a total of more than R8 300 million. In contrast to this we have come here today and asked for an additional amount of approximately R75,5 million.

I thank the hon. member for De Aar, the hon. member for De Kuilen and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, for having welcomed our new General Manager. I think it was high time that we had an economist in this position.

The hon. member for De Aar asked questions in connection with the dredger. I can inform the hon. member that the dredger was built in Holland and has already been delivered.

Sir, the workers of the S.A. Transport Services are our strong point today. There are 253 000 of them. We take cognizance of the hon. member’s suggestions in connection with the repair service workshops which are not working at full capacity.

† The hon. member for Amanzimtoti wanted to know whether we had reduced our costs sufficiently. He must remember one thing. Take General Electric. They erected a factory at Driehoek near Germiston. 80% of the capacity of that factory is to build electric locomotives. We come with a capital budget of R2 300 million. Say we decide to cut this down by R800 million. We may then find that we have a factory with hundreds of people unemployed. We cannot reduce costs so severely that we hit the South African economy. The cut-down in expenditure only started in July last year. We must wait 12 to 18 months to see the full effects of any cut-down.

*Hon. members need only have a look at Table Bay harbour when they drive past. On some days there are only two to three ships in the harbour, whereas there was an average of 12 ships per day last year. A worldwide depression is prevailing, and to meet up with the consequences of such a situation suddenly, is not easy. I shall be able to explain these things better to hon. members when I introduce my main Budget. Of course it will be nice for the Opposition because we are now experiencing financial difficulties in our country. I just want to tell them that most of these things could not have been foreseen by any of us. None of us could have foreseen that such a world situation would arise. But with the measures which we are now adopting I foresee that within two years—some people say that growth is going to occur again at the end of the year, but I have other ideas—there will be growth and we shall show a profit again.

Committee Stage

Schedules 1 and 2:

Mr. Chairman, there are one or two items in respect of which I should like to have some further information from the hon. the Minister. The first of these refers to item 3 under head No. 2. This item gives the preliminary cost in respect of a new line between Umgeni-Ntuzuma-Inanda. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us what the amount of R53 000 shown here as preliminary costs involves at the present time. Inanda is a very highly populated area and more is going to be heard from Inanda in the years to come. It is estimated that at the present moment it has a population of something like 200 000 people while the experts predict that within 20 years it will increase to something like 650 000 people. There are various problems there of which the hon. the Minister’s colleague should be aware of. A departmental survey has been undertaken as regards the future of the Inanda area. One of the main problems is going to be the question of transport facilities, rail transport facilities in particular. There is therefore some urgency in this regard, and I should therefore like the hon. the Minister to indicate what the amount of R53 000 entails. Is there any time schedule for the building of this line and, if so, can the hon. the Minister indicate to us what it is? As I say, this is a question of extreme importance for the City of Durban and certainly for the people who are living and will be living in Inanda.

Another item I should like to have further information about is item 20 relating to additional facilities at a nursery at Saldanha Bay. We are being asked to vote something like R44 200 for this. The original estimate was R61 100. Now we are being asked to vote another R44 200. Can the hon. the Minister indicate what this is in respect of and how the money is to be spent?

Coming back to the question of the purchasing of the Trust Bank building in Durban, the Minister has indicated that this was a bargain at R33 million. What I would like to know is what other projects the Administration had before this bargain appeared on the property market. Presumably the Administration does not operate simply on the basis that when a property bargain presents itself it buys a building. The Administration must have had some plans in regard to the accommodation of its staff in Durban before this opportunity presented itself. What other alternatives did the Administration look at? What were its intentions before the Trust Bank building became available in regard to the housing of its staff in Durban?

Mr. Chairman, I shall begin by replying to the hon. member’s last question. Our staff in Durban were accommodated in hired offices scattered throughout the city, which made it very difficult to operate effectively. As I have said, they were accommodated in hired offices. Now we have them all concentrated—as far as possible, I must add—in a modern building which is our own property. Of course, we did not foresee a year ago that we would have the opportunity of buying that building at such a bargain price. If the hon. member insists I can find out what the current resale price of that building will be. I am sure that we can resell it at a profit. I do believe, however, that it would be stupid to do such a thing.

The hon. member for Berea also asked me a question in connection with the Umgeni-Inanda railway line. The hon. member is of course perfectly correct when he says that it is a quite substantial development that is taking place in that area. That is the reason why we decided to double the line. The expenditure is in respect of inspection and survey costs with a view to the proposed double railway line between Umgeni and Inanda. The only reason why this item is included in the Estimates is because it is a belated debit which exceeds R30 000. As I said in my Second Reading speech, all belated debits exceeding R30 000 are before Parliament. That is the reason why it is included in the Estimates.

Furthermore, the hon. member for Berea put a question to me which, in view of the current situation, I find somewhat difficult to reply to. The additional amount of approximately R44 000 provided for is in respect of a glass hothouse in which to keep decorative plants. One might easily ask why we should want a hothouse while we are experiencing such difficult times economically, and while the S.A. Transport Services is not making any money. Whether we like it or not, we find ourselves in a situation in which we have to decorate our stations and buildings. After all, we do work with the public and it is therefore essential that we should beautify our premises. During the coming financial year, I believe, we will cut down on expenses of this nature.

You have not yet elaborated on the Inanda planning.

I think the hon. member asked a question in connection with the time schedule. I cannot reply to that offhand. To some of these questions, however, we will furnish the hon. member with written replies. My staff are present here, they will inform me what time schedule we have to adhere to. As I have already said, the amount asked for now is only in respect of inspection and survey costs. I believe it is very important that the doubling of this railway line should not be delayed, particularly in view of the rapid growth of the population in that area. Be it as it may, I shall let the hon. member have the definite time schedule in writing.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer to the Brown Book, the Additional Capital Budget. I have a problem with Item No. 47, on page 9, the heading of which is “Computerized Reservation System for Mainline Passenger Trains”. I might perhaps remind the hon. the Minister that we visited this reservations office in Durban together in November last year. If the hon. the Minister remembers the occasion he will also recall the vast, empty passages and corridors. It was the peak hour and there were no people. There, in the middle of nowhere, was this beautiful reservations office, a huge place which any of our airports would love to have. However, does the hon. the Minister realize the inconvenience caused to people using that reservations office? Not only is it now miles away from town where they were formerly able to use it conveniently, where it was well within reach of public transport. Now people have to travel all the way out to Umgeni Road.

However, if one wants to buy a ticket at that reservations office—and I tried to do so myself—it becomes a traumatic experience. Personally I waited just on 1 hour, standing in a queue. They have this beautiful place, a building with beautiful plants and with all sorts of people who are able to supply information. When you try to buy a ticket, however, you have to stand in a queue stretching from one of two sales points, and it took me literally just under 1 hour to obtain a ticket there. There were 22 people ahead of me in the queue, every one of them waiting. I wanted to buy one simple ticket as it happened for somebody else. I definitely do not see the sense of spending this vast amount of money—R1,6 million—if one is not going to make the thing work effectively and efficiently. One can obtain information but then one is sent somewhere else and one has to come back again in order to buy one’s ticket once one’s reservation as been made. That is where the hold-up is. There are only two men who are working their hearts out trying to cope with queues of people they are unable to handle. I think that the entire planning and the atmosphere of that Durban station is a disaster. The hon. the Minister will remember that during the peak hours one saw a few Blacks and hardly a single White person. Admittedly, a great deal of work still has to be done but I believe that this is an indication of the failure of the SATS to attract the public to use the services of the SATS. One is not going to attract the public unless one makes it easier for them to travel and unless one makes travel convenient and pleasant. I think that Durban station is one example of the least pleasant atmosphere in which one can find oneself, finish one’s business, collect one’s luggage in fairly primitive conditions, and then find that there is this beautiful reservations office which is not functioning. I wanted to draw that matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I have given some attention to this matter because I was there with the hon. member for Durban Point.

It was not in operation when you were there.

Yes, it had not yet been completed. We noticed a number of shortcomings. However, this amount involves an improvement of existing booking systems to provide the travelling public with a service equal to the Saafari reservation system. That is the reason for this additional amount. However, we shall definitely give attention to this matter. We spent an amount of R30 million on a building at Durban Point so I think it is necessary that we ensure that the booking facilities there are also improved so as to make train travel more attractive to the public. We want their business.

The Saafari booking system would be an improvement. One cannot obtain a ticket once one has made one’s booking.

We shall give attention to this matter and I shall come back to the hon. member at a later stage.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a request to the hon. the Minister in respect of the south western areas of Johannesburg. The proposed new sections of the railway line there were staked out a long time ago. Surveys are made, but then one hears nothing more about it. On page 3 of the Additional Capital Budget of the S.A.T.S. reference is made in item No. 4 to preliminary survey and staking costs in respect of a new railway line Nancefield-Ennerdale-Eldorado Park. We are concerned about the fact that commuters from Nance-field, Ennerdale and Eldorado Park find it difficult to reach Johannesburg, and any improvements which can be effected in this respect will be welcomed. However, I want to ask the hon. the Minister what became of the Klipspruit-Nelspruit line. One hears about it, and then it is postponed again. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether that section will now form part of this proposed new section. I would be glad if the hon. the Minister could tell us something in this connection.

I also wish to put a question in connection with item No. 15 on page 4: “Langlaagte-New Canada: Deviate line at 4,050 km”. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what change this deviation will bring about. Will it be conducive to an improvement in the flow of traffic over this section?

I am also pleased about item No. 51 on page 10: “Langlaagte: New machinery for workshops”. We are exceptionally pleased to observe that in these difficult times the Langlaagte area is nevertheless being looked after because we know that this is the one centre which keeps the country going. For that reason I want to thank the hon. the Minister very much indeed and also request that special care be taken of the problems which I explained to the hon. the Minister in private and which has to do with the sale of tickets. I am not asking the hon. the Minister to reply to me on that question today across the floor of this House, but I just wish to express the hope that serious attention will be given to that problem as well.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to the question put by the hon. member for Langlaagte. As far as the Nancefield-Ennerdale-Eldorado Park railway line is concerned, this is an amount which was voted for the suburban railway line from Nancefield to adjoining areas. The railway line has to be rebuilt and enlarged at some places. He also put a question about the Langlaagte-New Canada railway line.

This is requested to allow for the construction of a subway whereby the new Western bypass road will cross the new line. Conseqeuntly it is for a subway. I do not know whether we are not perhaps spending too much in the hon. member’s constituency.

It is still not enough.

He also wanted to know about the amount for Langlaagte.

This is required to replace worn-out machinery and to provide modem equipment.

It sounds like Hendrik Schoeman.

We cannot keep the business going by economizing to such an extent that we do not replace old lathes and welding equipment. We must keep our vehicles in operating condition, otherwise we will go the same way Zimbabwe went. Everything will go to utter wrack and ruin. We still have to do maintenance work, and that is why we are purchasing new machinery.

Mr. Chairman, in the Additional Estimates for Working Expenditure I notice that on page 1 we have an excess in terms of “Depreciation” of R7,9 million. Depreciation is something which should be able to be estimated very accurately indeed because it is the depreciation of one’s assets that are on hand. I wonder why it was therefore necessary to charge an additional almost R8 million in terms of additional depreciation. My question really is this: Has there been any alteration in the basis on which depreciation is calculated in terms of this particular item of expenditure on the railways? We certainly should like to see SATS, which, as the hon. the member for De Aar said, is the foremost business in the country, put on a more equal basis with other businesses. We are aware of the fact that depreciation is an item where State corporations seem to be able to plough back more money in terms of their investments than the ordinary businesses.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti has referred to the increases in the working expenditure. This is extremely worrying. What is perhaps even more worrying is the financing cost. The hon. the Minister referred to this in his Second Reading speech, but one has to look at the fact that the financing cost which is shown on page 2 has increased by no less than R60 million. Further down under “Net Revenue Account” there is an increase of R15 million. If one looks at “Financing Costs” for pipelines, one notices that there is an increase of R2,5 million. These are enormous sums of money, and I think that the detail which the hon. the Minister has given us is really insufficient. He did say it was due to the difference in the foreign exchange value of the rand; can we therefore assume that now that the rand by comparison with the rand this time last year, has increased dramatically—we were at about 83 American cents for one rand; we are now up at 88, 89 American cents for one rand—the reverse will apply and that we shall now be starting to get a saving on financing cost? Certainly, almost R80 million in additional expenditure is really fairly excessive. My business experience tells me that when one has an expense item headed “Miscellaneous Expenditure”, this becomes an awful rag-bag of all sorts of different items, a place where expenses can be hidden because they are not spelt out in full detail. On page 3 of the estimates of the additional working expenditure one sees that for Airways there is a listing of R8,89 million in additional miscellaneous expenditure, in comparison with an amount of R16,360 million which was the original estimate. In other words, these miscellaneous expenses are no less than 54% higher. The S.A. Airways which, as we all know, budgeted for a loss of R80 million— though we do not know as yet what the final figure will actually be—certainly needs to control expenditure very tightly in this area, but it does not appear as if these expenses have been particularly well controlled.

This brings me to the additional capital budget. Last year, during this debate, I spoke about level crossings and certain roads in the Port Elizabeth area. I must thank the hon. the Minister’s department for the prompt action that was taken in this regard. These level crossings were not eliminated, but the hon. the Minister’s department did put up lights at the crossings so that they were no longer merely stop-streets for the passing traffic. Traffic is allowed to go through until the lights start to flash with the approach of a train. I believe that this is totally automatic. I must say that I believe that this is a tremendous advantage, and I must say that I also believe that it has done a great deal to save fuel because of the fact that traffic no longer has to stop. I am therefore glad to see, in the capital budget, that we have actually spent R3,3 million more than was budgeted on the elimination of level crossings. I believe this to have been expenditure. It is an advantage to the economy and does save fuel, but more important than that, we all know of the nasty statistics for accidents at level crossings. Additional money spent in this regard I therefore certainly cannot complain about. I do, however, hope that even though we have lights at level crossings in the Port Elizabeth area, the elimination of the level crossings altogether will be given some sort of priority.

There is one additional point to which I would like some attention given. I am referring to the 10th Avenue, Walmer, area where there is a level crossing at which not even lights have been put up. If lights could be put up there, we would greatly appreciate it. I must point out to the hon. the Minister that this particular road leads to a drive-in cinema and a very popular country club. So it is used a lot as a road, and attention given to this matter would certainly be of advantage.

I have some questions about items on page 2 and 3 of the estimates. I see that ground has been purchased in Port Elizabeth. There has been the acquisition of land that was apparently previously included in item 32. We have had to vote an additional R53 000. This item, No. 1 on page 2, refers to the Cape Midlands system. Up to 31 March 1982 we had apparently spent R185 700, and we are now going to spend an additional R53 000. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can just tell us something more about that. I also want to refer to the improvements in the east and west yards in Midlandia, for which an amount of R54 000 is requested. This falls under item 6 on page 3.

I did have some questions about the Richards Bay dredger, but the hon. member for De Aar has already mentioned that. There is, however, one thing that does concern me, particularly in view of the debates we have had over the past few days on road transport services, in particular. One sees on page 12, under head No. 4, that suddenly there has been an additional amount of R1,927 requested for additions to and replacement of vehicles. It would appear therefore that the fleet of road transport vehicles of the S.A. Transport Services is being expanded. I should like to know whether this is in fact so, whether the fleet is being expanded, whether these are units not replacing units which are out of service or which have been withdrawn from service. Are we actually increasing the number of road transport vehicles run by the S.A. Transport Services?

This also applies to the additions to trailers and semi-trailers involving an amount of R682 000. In view of the debates we have had over the last few days, I think it presents a somewhat worrying picture that something like an additional R2,6 million is to be spent because, as I have said previously, we fear that the hon. the Minister may be expanding his road transport services at the expense of the private operators and may be doing so through regulations and not competition. So we would like to know considerably more about those two items.

Mr. Chairman, first of all I just want to refer to the question of depreciation. The increase should be ascribed to more assets having been withdrawn from service before the end of their economic life. This was partially counteracted by the effect of the decrease from 7% to 6,2% in depreciation rates which applies to aircraft with effect from 1 July 1982. This is the main reason for the depreciation of R2 million.

† Then the hon. member asked a question about the Net Revenue Account in regard to financing costs and miscellaneous expenditure involving an amount of R8,8 million. That concerns additional spare parts for the S.A. Airways. Also, spare parts which were no longer required because of the introduction of new fuel-saving engines, were written off. For that reason we have to regard those spare parts as obsolete.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether those parts were therefore scrapped?

Well, we are trying to sell them to other airways still using the old engines. We do not regard it as scrap. We try to sell those parts at reduced prices to other airways which are still using the old engines. We have gone over to the newer engines in order to save fuel. It is still good business because, while we lose on the engines, we gain on the fuel.

As regards level crossings, I can tell the hon. member that we intend increasing, if possible, the amount set aside for this next year. This is necessary. I think the hon. member can also rest assured that we shall reply to him as regards the lights in 10th Avenue, Walmer. We shall pay attention to that. Then the hon. member asked a question about item No. 1 …

About depreciation.

No, I have replied to the question about depreciation. I can only say that the higher rate of interest is one of the reasons. Then there is the question of financing for the current deficit. I have replied on that. There is also the financing of the excess on capital expenditure. One must just compare the interest rate we paid last year this time with what we are paying at the moment and what we paid for fuel for the Airways last year with what we are paying at the moment. Those are all additional reasons.

I think the hon. member also mentioned item No. 6. To cope with traffic offered and to avoid train delays, the additional amount is for more earthworks and points. That is for the Midlandia railway line.

Then the hon. member referred to item No. 57 on page 12. That is to provide for the replacement of obsolete vehicles. We are not buying extra vehicles, but the price of lorries increased considerably and we have to replace some of the obsolete lorries. That is the reason for that addisional amount.

Is that the price of Atlantis diesel engines?

Not at all.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to see that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is also lending his voice to my plea over many years to the hon. the Minister to watch his capital expenditure. I have mentioned in the Second Reading the extent to which financing charges, interest and depreciation have risen. Even when the working expenditure is dropping we find that these financing costs are rising. The hon. the Minister has spoken on that.

In the Brown Book of last year 975 items are mentioned, plus another 65 concerning unforeseen works, making a total of 1 040 items. That represents the R2 300 000 which the hon. the Minister is going to spend in the current financial year. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has had his planning people go through all these items, plus all the others that have already been approved over the years, to determine whether these are really worth while and necessary and whether the losses which the S.A. Transport Services are making in certain instances do not perhaps require that they should be scrapped.

On page 5 of the Brown Book, in items 17 and 20, one sees that in Bellville the resiting of a nursery costs R407 600 and at Saldanha additional facilities at a nursery amount to R61 100. How many nurseries are the SATS running at the present time? What is the capital invested? What are the working costs of those nurseries? Will it not be cheaper to buy the plants from private nurseries? An investment of R407 600 in a nursery at Bellville seems to be a very heavy investment.

Item 36 of the Brown Book relates to alterations to the kitchen of and to provide air conditioning in the Blue Room in Johannesburg at a total cost of R373 300. An additional amount of R57 300 is asked for alterations to a kitchen and to provide air conditioning. What is the total investment in that restaurant? It causes me concern because if one looks at the operating budget, the Estimates for Working Expenditure, one finds that of the R400 000 which the hon. the Minister is asking us to approve today a sum of R320 000 relates to operating losses of staff cafeterias. I think I am correct in saying that the restaurant in the main concourse of the Johannesburg railway station, which is very close to the Blue Room, has now been closed down and that the premises are going to be occupied by the Railway Police. I may be wrong. If that restaurant was running at a loss, is this one running at a profit? I want to know that. I have a question on the Order Paper about that. This is the sort of investigation which I would like to see the hon. the Minister conducting.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central has mentioned, as I did in the Second Reading, the fact that the Road Transport Services want an additional R682 800 for the replacement of trailers and semi-trailers and R1,9 million in additional funds for additions to and replacement of vehicles. This information appears on page 12 of the Brown Book. If one turns back to page 10, item 52, one sees that the Cartage Department wants another R647 200. If one looks at the total investment in these three items one finds it totals about R18 million. That is for vehicles in the current year. Is the hon. the Minister sure that those vehicles are running as economically and efficiently as those of a private contractor would? It is this sort of approach to the budget which I should like to get the hon. the Minister’s reply to. Has he looked at every item in the Brown Book? Has he looked at all his operations? Does he have a planning committee looking into this to make sure that he can reduce his overheads and reduce his costs so that he will be able to meet legitimate inflationary costs without having to put up tariffs? It is the putting up of tariffs—as the hon. the Prime Minister himself said in respect of the Escom—for electricity, transport, rail charges, etc., which is at this time fueling inflation. It is not a demand-pull inflation today; people do not just have that kind of money to cause a demand-pull inflation. It is cost-push inflation that we have at the moment, also as far as the largest transport operator in South Africa, the S.A. Transport Services, is concerned.

Mr. Chairman, tomorrow morning we are holding a meeting with the management of the S.A. Transport Services and all these points will be discussed.

† I want to thank the hon. member for Amanzimtoti for strengthening my arm. That is the reason why we should have a good Opposition. Now I can say: But look how people feel about these things. It is very nice to say that the most beautiful station in the world is Cape Town Station; but it must also show a profit. I fully agree with the hon. member that to spend money on nurseries to this extent is quite right, but then one must show a profit.

*There is a room in the Cape Town harbour which is known as the Louwrens Muller Room. I scream when I find myself in that place. I do not want to go near it. It has nothing to do with the name. If one does not make profits, one cannot go and sit up in the air there and look out over the harbour and eat delicious lobster. One must be practical and say: I shall keep my feet on the ground. I shall eat porridge and first make a profit. This is how I feel, and I agree with the hon. member completely. Some of these things are what we inherited, however. I have already spoken about that blue room and said that we overspent in that case. However, my arm has been strengthened here today. We have now reached the point where we must first show profits before we can spend money on things like that. But I am not a complete materialist either. For example one cannot allow the gardens to become completely neglected. I must admit that this is not the time to spend so much money on luxuries. At present the committee is investigating the entire matter. There is a committee and we are holding more talks tomorrow. In the R2 000 million there are items on which we shall definitely be able to cut down. I want to thank the hon. member for his contribution.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot agree entirely with what the hon. member for Amanzimtoti had to say about the nursery. I understand this and I am also sympathetic to the standpoint of the hon. the Minister that there will, in fact, be savings. The person responsible for tending the garden at the Cape Town station deserves the highest praise, despite the cost involved. I think it is one of the finest gardens in the city.

This afternoon I should like to make only one comment about the capital budget, more specifically, about the funds provided in order to improve the amenities of the Railway worker, despite inflation. We may incur high expenses as far as the S.A. Transport Services is concerned, but my standpoint remains that the service being rendered to the community is the showcase of the S.A. Transport Services. This afternoon I wish to address a special word of thanks to the hon. the Minister and to those who assist him for the fact that they are continuing to improve the amenities of the Railway worker, thereby improving his living conditions as well. If one considers the Additional Appropriation and the money which is being appropriated, I do not wish to take up the time of hon. members unnecessarily. However, I could point out various items to hon. members. For example, I refer items Nos. 22, 23, 32, 33, 35, 36 and 37. In all these items we are given some idea of the effort being made to improve the conditions of service of the workers of the S.A. Transport Services. I only have the highest praise for this. This should continue. These are the things which contribute to the officials of the S.A. Transport Services working productively. I regard this as extremely important, particularly in view of our present circumstances.

As we are all aware, there was a time, a time we experienced for many years, when, to a large extent, people looked down on the Railway worker, as those people were always referred to.

When was that? I have never heard of such a time!

There was, in fact, such a time. There was a time when even at school a child would be humiliated and insulted when he said that his father was in the employ of the Railways. However, I believe that the upliftment of the officials in the employ of the S.A. Transport Services over the years, and the millions of rands which have been spent on improving their working conditions, have contributed to placing the employee of the S.A. Transport Services in a position comparable with the best in the world. Those people have been assimilated into a society. The S.A. Transport Services official makes his contribution and plays his role in every sphere of society. [Interjections.] I have only the highest praise and appreciation …

Are you opposed to that?

No, I have nothing against that; on the contrary, I associate myself with what the hon. member for De Aar had to say.

You should rather climb back into your coffin. You look better there.

Mr. Chairman, I do not feel like listening to the droning of the hon. member for Langlaagte. He reminds me of a gramophone record which has stuck. [Interjections.] This afternoon the hon. member for De Aar made a remark with regard to the improved benefits of the employee of the S. A. Transport Services.

Do you therefore deny that there are poor people among the employees of the S.A. Transport Services?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has had his turn to speak. [Interjections.] However, I just wish to point out that the conditions of service of the employee of the S.A. Transport Services are among the best in the world today. [Interjections.]

Do you therefore deny that there are people working for the S.A. Transport Services who are struggling? [Interjections.]

Order!

I have no alternative but to agree with the hon. member for De Aar. In spite of inflation, in spite of other difficult circumstances, steady progress is being made as regards improving the conditions of service of the employee of the S.A. Transport Services. We have ample evidence of this. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to say loudly and clearly to hon. members of the CP, who are now becoming tremendously excited, that the NP Government has been improving the conditions of the employees of the S.A. Transport Services and has been engaged in their upliftment since 1948. In this regard we need take cognizance of only one aspect, viz. the pension fund of the S.A. Transport Services. The pension fund of the employees of the S.A. Transport Services is one of the best in the world.

They paid for it themselves!

I do not deny that for a moment. [Interjections.] In conclusion, I should just like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to take another look at the pension benefits which some of our older people receive, people who have to make ends meet under difficult circumstances. Many of them work in this very building. Let us make it possible for them to enjoy an acceptable existence. I should like to plead for this in this House this afternoon since I regard it as being important. This is a group of people who are slowly but surely becoming fewer. People who retire on pension at present have no problems, as far as I can ascertain. However, let us try to do something for that older guard for pensioners.

I wish to make it clear that I believe that the time has come for us in the Republic of South Africa to erect a monument to the employee of the S.A. Transport Services and his wife, people who have for many years been rendering a service to the Republic of South Africa and who are continuing to do so.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the hon. member for Witbank for the items he mentioned relating to the improvement of the conditions of service of the worker. We cannot administer the concern effectively if we do not have loyal workers. The hon. member for Langlaagte issued a pamphlet in Langlaagte. I am telling you, Sir, if a goat were to eat that thing, he would die on the spot! [Interjections.] Do you know what he wrote? Every time I open my mouth, there is an increase in tariffs. For what reasons? It was to be able to give these quarter of a million people a 15% increase in salary.

Every time the hon. the Minister opens his mouth, overtime is reduced.

We are going to discuss that matter in the main budget. The hon. member also said that I had paid so many people off.

Yes, it is a disgrace.

That is a strange, impulsive kind of little newspaper, Sir. Not one single person on the Railways has been paid off. Those who were, in fact, paid off were pensioners who were employed on a temporary basis when work was plentiful. The people we paid off were people who were in our employ temporarily, but we did not pay off a single permanent employee of the Railways. I believe that the truth always triumphs. That is why I wish to say to the hon. member for Langlaagte that the hon. member for Witbank is fighting for his workers. There are a number of Railway workers at Witbank. Go and talk to them. They tell one: We want Alwyn Fouché here but please keep Barnard away from us. We want a decent man.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the hon. the Minister with regard to Item No. 34 on page 7 which deals with the purchase of equipment for the “40-off scheme”. Could the hon. the Minister tell us what this amount is required for? Could there possibly be capital expenditure in respect of this scheme, since it seems to us that it is an extremely sound scheme? I should be pleased if the hon. the Minister could furnish us with a little more information with regard to this scheme.

With regard to Item No. 36 on the same page in respect of the alterations to the kitchen and the provision of air-conditioning in the Blue Room Restaurant, I wish to say to the hon. the Minister that this restaurant could easily be run at a profit. It is an old established restaurant. Even in the thirties people knew that it was an excellent restaurant. I do not see why it cannot retain that tradition, as well as being run at a profit. It has that tradition, it is very well situated and I am sure that it could be run successfully.

I also require a little information with regard to Item No. 68 on page 14 with regard to the replacement of the jetty at Pelican Point. About 13 months ago we accompanied the hon. the Minister on a day’s visit to Walvis Bay. I simply wish to know whether this jetty is now going to be replaced as a result of the presence of the hon. the Minister at that stage, as well as the difficulty some of our colleagues experienced in climbing onto the boat from the jetty. Has this perhaps contributed to the additional expense?

Mr. Chairman, we have to spend money in respect of the “40-off scheme” in order to improve it. I think we have conveyed more or less 80 000 people in terms of this scheme, i.e. people older than 60 years who obtain a discount of 40%. It is an extremely popular scheme and 18 000 of our national servicemen have also participated in a similar scheme.

The Blue Room on the Johannesburg station is not run at a profit. In my opinion, the expenditure in this regard has been too high. However, we have made these improvements since we had to spend certain amounts on that kitchen. I am also pleased that the hon. member said that it could possibly be run at a profit in future. I should like hon. members to make use of that Blue Room Restaurant on the station if they are in Johannesburg.

The jetty at Pelican Point is unsafe and antiquated. The hon. member himself experienced this when we were there. We hope to be able to arrange another tour for members of Parliament in the future and we hope we shall receive the support of the Opposition in this regard, since there are certain matters we wish to bring to their attention. We hope to arrange a tour after this session so that hon. members may see some of these interesting things for themselves. It is for this reason that we received this dividend this afternoon in that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North acted in a positive way. I therefore think we should take them around the country more often if they support us like this.

Mr. Chairman, I have been led to believe that the Blue Room restaurant has been fitted with an “Ye Olde English Pub” type counter that came out of the old Durban Station. I see that the hon. the Minister is nodding and therefore indicating that what I am saying is correct. I have a bone to pick with him. Durban Station is in the minds of many people part of the Natal heritage and the hon. the Minister is aware that the Durban city council has now decided to restore it.

As a relic of the Empire?

Well, this old pub was of such value that the SATS felt it should be removed and taken up to Johannesburg. We Natallers resent these Transvaalers coming and doing this to us. It is almost as bad as the Americans going to Europe and stripping it of all its antiques. I want to ask the hon. the Minister why he did such a terrible thing and why he did not decide to put that nice bar counter into the new Durban Station and have a little bit of Old Natal entrenched in the new station. Had he done that, maybe the new station would have been far more popular than it is now.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti must, as a practical man, realize that if one wants to achieve success in farming one has to have cross-pollination. One must have cross-pollination between Durban and Johannesburg. We put up a beautiful sign in Johannesburg: Come and enjoy a drink in a bar originally erected in Durban. It is a special type of bar, and the only way we can sell is by using the Durban counter. It will be too expensive to retransfer it to Durban.

What is worth taking from Johannesburg to Durban? [Interjections.]

These are all things we inherited. Hon. members know the old Durban Station. We have built a new one and the city council has taken over the old station, fortunately. What can we do with an old counter like that? We thought it worth while to put it in a place where it can be utilized.

Well done!

Schedules agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill has been the subject of extensive debate at Second Reading and also a very long debate during the Committee Stage. It is therefore not my intention to waste the time of the House by repeating old arguments. I certainly want to do, however, is to emphasize again that we believe that the effect of this Bill will be to place additional restrictions on private users. We believe that it is contrary to the spirit of free enterprise in South Africa. I have indicated, in the discussion of earlier stages, that the Road Transportation Act itself is certainly not the most popular of Acts in the eyes of the general public, or road users in particular, and I sincerely believe that the amendments the hon. the Minister is now to give effect to, in terms of this Bill, will not make the legislation any more popular. I think it is going to be resented. I think it will be seen as legislation in which further restrictions are placed on private operators.

For that reason we maintain our opposition to the measure.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my gratitude to the hon. member for Berea for the fact that he is no longer engaged in battle with us in respect of this Bill. However, in discussing the Third Reading I just wish to say in closing that this ought not to be such an unpopular piece of legislation as he wishes to suggest. After the lengthy debate we conducted yesterday, there is not a great deal more that is new to say about this legislation. However, what has become apparent in this debate, is that a number of irregularities are taking place. What has also become apparent is that it is essential to try to eliminate these irregularities once and for all. That is why I wish to repeat what the hon. the Minister had to say at the commencement of his Second Reading speech, viz. that this legislation has as its objective the organization of the field of industry relating to road transportation in an orderly way, and the establishment of a better relationship between supply and demand.

At present there are approximately 13 000 businesses in the Republic of South Africa which offer road transportation subject to public permits. Approximately two-thirds of these 13 000 businesses have two vehicles or less as working units. Therefore the entrepreneurs in this industry come and go fairly rapidly. The exercising of control therefore presents problems. I think this legislation will contribute towards better control in this respect. The importance of these 13 000 businesses that ply this trade lies in the fact that approximately 20% drop out annually when the economy deteriorates. However, when there is an upturn, i.e. an upward business cycle, that figure is much lower, i.e. between 5% and 7%. I therefore expect that a considerable number of the “pirates” or “fly-by-nights” will have dropped out by the end of the year when we reach the upturn for the next cycle. However, this does not mean that we should not try to eliminate these irregularities taking place within the law. There have been indications that some of the offences will carry heavy fines as penalties, and I think this will contribute to a further “sorting out” process when we reach the next upturn in the economy.

In conclusion, I wish to ask the hon. the Minister and the Department of Transport Affairs to ensure that the powers embodied in this legislation be implemented in such a way as to build up a structure in the road transportation industry which will afford those people who are in possession of permits the necessary protection for which provision is made in this legislation. I know that there is a shortage of staff, and I am also aware that there are other problems for the inspectors as far as the comprehensive implementation of the Act is concerned, but I do ask the hon. the Minister to try, with the aid of the necessary staff, to implement that section of this legislation which now makes it possible to regulate this branch of the road transportation industry in a reasonable manner.

Mr. Speaker, being the Third Reading debate, this subject is relatively well worn. A number of important points have been raised. It is clear that road transportation is much freer than it was in 1977. It has become much freer, and when one opens anything up, thereby affording more opportunities, it is understandable that one is also going to receive more complaints, since a businessman is always going to press for more concessions tomorrow.

Something I am not in favour of is the frequent reference made to “fly-by-nights”. The fly-by-night is, in fact, the fly-wheel which ensures that business continues. Although perhaps he does not always possess the necessary knowledge or money, he is the person who display the initiative to go into the business. Even if only five of every 100 of these people are successful, it means that there are five more businessmen who can offer other people employment. That is why I believe that one should show these people, too, a little mercy. The person who puts the little capital he has into a business which may not be successful, is after all someone who means something to this country.

There is another matter I wish to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister today. I put a question to him, about this but, of course, so many questions were put to him, that it has not been easy for him to reply to all of them. I should like to know how someone who runs a bus service is compensated when a train service replaces that bus service at a later stage. It is by way of an annual or a single disbursement, or does it amount to a disbursement based on the capital he put into it.

Then I am also pleased that the Minister is including countries outside the South African border in respect of road transportation. At one stage we had the unfortunate situation that when out carriers crossed the Rhodesian border to Malawi and elsewhere, they fell under a completely different Act, which led to their downfall. However, at that time a Rhodesian could go wherever he wished in South Africa. As a result, our people had an enormous problem. I thank the hon. the Minister and his department for their thoughtfulness shown here in respect of the carrier as well. It speaks volumes that the department and the Minister are seeing to it that the carrier is protected in those areas where he should, in fact, be protected. I think this is an extremely fine piece of legislation. Although perhaps it does not strike everyone in the same way, we can safely say that it will render this country a great service.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the hon. the Minister is very much aware of our views on this Bill. I think we made it very clear in the Second Reading debate as well as in the Committee Stage that we are opposed to certain aspects of it to the extent that we have opposed the Bill as a whole. I do not intend to take what I have already said in this regard any further because I would just be repeating myself.

The hon. member for Langlaagte said that road transport today is freer than it was in 1977. I think we can agree with him on that. He also said, if I heard him correctly, that the “fly by night” is the “fly-wheel” of industry and that he does serve a useful purpose. This is absolutely correct. It is often the person who comes in when particular opportunities present themselves who manages to survive the ups and downs and eventually becomes very productive and a large contributor to the economy as a whole. Certainly, many of these people fall by the wayside. This is basic to life. It is according to the cycle of life. It is also basic to a free economy. I am sure that the hon. the Minister agrees with me on this. In fact, I know that he is a private-enterprise man. I know that he believes in the free economy, as far as we can free it under our present circumstances. So I have to criticism against him in that regard. As I have said, these measures will, however, tend to restrict the private hauliers and I think that this is not a good thing. During the Second Reading the hon. the Minister admitted, I believe, exactly what his problem is. I was speaking at the time and I said (Hansard, 14 Feb. 1983)—

I want to say to the hon. the Minister: Well, what about them? He smiles. I want to continue with what I was saying. One cannot look after people by running up costs because of operating an inefficient business. This is one of the reasons why our country is suffering from inflation. The productive side of our economy is not efficient and economical enough.

I am just as much concerned about the 250 000 employees of the SATS as the hon. the Minister is. I do not believe that any of my collegues, or myself for that matter, would suggest for one moment that they should be fired willy-nilly and laid off. That is not what we are suggesting at all. However, it is not just having a job that is important. I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree with me when I say that a person also has to be proud of the firm for which he works. I think that is basic. To work for a firm that one cannot be proud of is a bad thing. I do believe that the rising tariffs of the SATS are causing problems for the economy as a whole and I am sure many SATS employees are concerned about this. The hon the Minister during the debate on the previous Bill before the House said that he had set up a committee to investigate the matter and I am very pleased to hear this. I sincerely hope that this committee will review the entire role which the SATS will play in future in the economy of South Africa.

We have another Bill on the Order Paper in connection with the finances of the SATS. In that Bill—I trust I may be permitted to refer to just one clause of that Bill—it is stated that any socio-economic services will be paid for out of the Central Revenue Fund. I think this is going to relieve the hon. the Minister of some of the problems when it comes to his 250 000 workers. I appeal to him to press on with this committee’s investigation of the role as well as the efficiency of the SATS. I think to have to bring legislation such as this to the House which is now going to impose inefficiencies and burdens upon the private sector is not a good thing. Let us face it: The private sector is the power house; they are the ones with the fire in the belly who are prepared to work 16 to 20 hours per day to keep their businesses going because they are working for themselves. They are the businesses that generate the wealth and efficiency in our economy and I believe we have to at all times remember this and make sure that we do not pass legislation of this type which will in any way inhibit or restrict them.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Berea and myself have agreed to differ. The hon. member need not argue the point any further. He has his own viewpoint, which I respect, and I differ with him.

*The hon. member Dr. Welgemoed spoke about pirates and those kind of people. He made a study of the matter and I want to thank him for his contribution. In the past he serves on various committees, and is also serving at present, which helps to enable us to take the right decisions.

The hon. member for Langlaagte raised a very important point when he said that road transportation has since 1977 become far more fluid. That refutes the arguments of the hon. member for Berea. The hon. member put a question in connection with the method of compensation. We want to compensate on a non-recurring basis. When we introduce a train service where a bus service is operating, we reach an agreement with the bus operator and inform him in good time. Any new train service must be approved by Parliament. We notify the bus service operator and inform him that when the railway line has been completed, his buses will be obsolete, and that he must not replace them or spend a great deal of capital. Then we arrive at the stage where we take over the passengers. We then reach an agreement on a non-recurring price in order to compensate him, after consultation with the Minister of Finance, so that he suffers no financial losses. However, he cannot include in the calculation any future profits which he would have made. We shall compensate him in such a way that it is not a constant burden to us either. He must be satisfied with the fact that we compensate him on a non-recurring basis in order to have the entire situation disposed of.

† The hon. member for Amanzimtoti agreed with the hon. member for Langlaagte who said that road transport has become more fluid. That proves that we want private enterprise to participate. There are more trucks running today in South Africa, but S. A. Transport Services have less business.

Now you are putting the brakes on them.

Of course we must, because at one stage we had 55% and now S.A. Transport Services only have 42%. This is a necessary part of South Africa’s economy. S.A. Transport Services are losing R690 million on passenger transport annually. One must look at this matter as a whole. One cannot look at the S.A. Transport Services separately, but as a socio-economic service. One cannot say that private enterprise should take over all the profitable sectors of South Africa’s transport services and leave only the non-profitable services to S.A. Transport Services.

In the long run the country will benefit from it.

And the whole country benefits from what I am saying and not from what was said by the hon. member for Bryanston. We shall never build a station in his constituency as long as he lives. I promise him that.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to recap briefly that the last time we debated this clause I moved three amendments. I do not think that any purpose will be served by going over all the motivations again. I simply want to say that I have moved the three amendments which stand in my name on the Order Paper.

Amendments negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Mr. Chairman, we shall not oppose the amendment of the hon. the Minister because the longer he can delay the bringing into force of this law, the happier we will be.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I want to bring it to your attention that an amendment on one of the clauses which appears on the Order Paper which will be moved by another hon. member is in conflict with the principle of the Bill as read a Second Time. Such an amendment can therefore not be accepted.

Order! The hon. member cannot continue his argument on that amendment under this clause. I shall consider my ruling if and when the hon. member for Swellendam should move the amendment at a later stage.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I motivated the amendment during the Second Reading debate. I feel that in a case where there are boards which have anything to do with the export of products from South Africa, this commendable organization the South African Foreign Trade Organization (Safto) should have representation. It is recognized by the Department of Industries, Commerce and Tourism, and should be recognized by the hon. the Minister. It is true that the Minister has the right to nominate a member of his own accord, but I should think that he would be likely to nominate somebody from his own department so as to look after the affairs of the Department of Transport. It is very unlikely that the board which has the right to nominate one member will also nominate a member from Safto. I should really like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to accept this amendment because the board could gain valuable information as well as support from Safto.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot accept the amendment. As I have said before, the vast majority of people exporting under this legislation are engaged in citrus and deciduous fruit farming. As the hon. member has said, I can appoint a member.

*Clause 4(1)(d) already makes provision for one person appointed by the Minister, and I can accommodate the representative which the hon. member has in mind.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10:

Mr. Chairman, under this clause we deal with the functions of the board. It is all very well for the board to have these functions and particularly the functions which enable it to call for and receive information from shipowners as to whether they have space and when the ships will arrive. It can also contract for this. I believe, however, that the attention of the Committee must be drawn to the fact that as often as not the Department of Transport does not help in the export of perishable products. I want to give a particular instance to the hon. the Minister. Was the hon. the Minister aware—he probably was not, but he will have to find this out—that a request was made to the harbour authorities in East London by a certain fruit canning company in that town for the loading of a container of frozen pineapple concentrate—it was 18 tons of frozen concentrate—on a vessel which was bound for Norway on Sunday, 9 December 1982. This vessel could only get to East London on a Sunday. The Transport Services were not prepared to operate any conveyance whatsoever for this particular vessel, to bring goods either from the port or to the port. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether an offer was made, by this particular canning company, to pay extra remuneration to the S.A. Transport Services for Sunday work. I would also like the hon. the Minister to let me know whether the canner was informed that the harbour was not prepared to off-load the reefer container, convey it to the canner for loading and return it to the harbour within two hours. It must be clearly understood that reefer containers differ completely from ordinary containers. They are a special type of container, and either they are hooked in to the refrigeration plant in the vessel itself, or else they are units that are complete in themselves. Such containers are not found in ports like East London. In this particular case the reefer container had to be brought from Durban to East London, off-loaded from the ship, taken to the packers’ factory, loaded there—because the contents were frozen to a temperature of 18°—repacked, taken back to the ship so that the ship could set off again. What I should like to know is whether the canner was informed that the container dock would operate on the Sunday to allow him to pack the container but that no delivery could be effected.

When did this happen?

On 19 December 1982. I know about the case in detail. Is the hon. the Minister aware of the fact that reefer containers are not usually available at every port, particularly small ports such as East London? In this particular case the reefer container was brought from Durban to East London so that it could be packed and taken back to the ship. How does the Department of Transport Affairs hope to increase its revenue and assist with the exporting of perishable products if it does not allow the transporting of reefer containers on a Sunday? Does all shipping business in South Africa have to stop because it happens to be a Sunday? I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he will investigate this matter, because if this is the sort of thing that happens, we are going to have problems in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I thought he was co-operating. What he spoke about happened exactly two months ago, but he waits until Parliament is in session to bring it to my attention. Why did he not telephone me that Sunday morning and tell me about the problem?

Because you also stop work on a Sunday.

No, we do operate on Sundays in East London, in fact in all the harbours. We pay overtime for people working on Sundays, but I should like to find out what vessel would come into a harbour to pick up 18 tons of pineapple juice on a Sunday. I shall have to investigate the whole matter. Then I can come back to the hon. member with a reply.

*However, it does not seem to me as if there is any co-operation here. Surely, after two months have passed, one cannot raise a problem such as this in Parliament and object to it. I see that hon. member every now and then in everyday life but he actually waits until we deal with this piece of legislation to bring the matter to my attention. A friend does not do this kind of thing.

Mr. Chairman, I am quite amazed at the problem the hon. the Minister seems to be having. Where else does he expect me to raise the problems that confront perishable product exporters except in this House?

Why?

This is one of the problems that his department causes, because in that particular case the co-operative canner himself had to use his own transport, go to the harbour, pick up the reefer container, go back to his factory, pack it and take it back again.

Which co-operative canner was it?

I do not know. The hon. the Minister must find out for himself.

Was it Langeberg?

I am not interested in who it was. [Interjections.] I shall give the hon. the Minister the name in private.

The only co-operative canner in East London is Langeberg.

I have outlined the whole case to the hon. the Minister, and all I ask is that in future, if perishable products have to be conveyed, there should be co-operation between the Department of Transport Affairs and the Perishable Products Control Board and the exporter.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 19:

Mr. Chairman, I know the hon. the Minister is in charge of a very large department and that it is sometimes difficult to obtain the desirable co-ordination. Yesterday, when we discussed the fines and penalties, I pointed out that there was no uniformity. In respect of clause 19 we again have a case of legislation which is not uniform at all. In this connection I should like to refer to the explanatory memorandum, W.P. 3—’83, on the South African Transport Services Finances and Accounts Bill. Reference was made there to Act 48 of 1977, and on page 8 specifically to section 19. Section 19 of Act 48 of 1977 deals with “Recoveries in respect of losses and damage”. It begins as follows—

etc. Clause 19 of the Bill before us begins in the same way. I quote—

This is followed by paragraphs (a) to (e). Now I should like to refer to the explanatory memorandum. It is stated there with reference to section 19 of Act 48 of 1977—

We find this in respect of one piece of legislation which the hon. the Minister is introducing here, but in another piece of legislation he inserts precisely the same clause.

As I said, this is once again an example of a case where two differences of legislation which are introduced on the same day by the same Minister are not consistent. Consequently I should like to give the hon. the Minister a chance to ponder this for a moment. I wish to propose that the clause in its entirety be omitted in order, as the explanatory memorandum states, “to allow the principles of the common law to apply”. I think it is an absolute disgrace that such a clause could in fact be inserted in a Bill.

Mr. Chairman, the provision contained in this clause was proposed by the Auditor-General. It is not a new provision because it is almost word for word the same as section 34 of the Exchequer end Audit Act of 1975. It is aimed at granting the board a right of recovery in all cases where a person in the employ of the board negligently or wilfully contributes through an act or omission to the board suffering financial losses. If there are differences or discrepancies with other Railway legislation, we shall see, as I told the hon. member during the Second Reading debate, whether we can achieve uniformity. However, each has its own set of circumstances, and I cannot amend the clause as it stands here.

Mr. Chairman, I want the hon. the Minister to explain this to me again. These are two pieces of legislation, introduced by his department, and there is a discrepancy. Consequently I cannot understand how he can say that they will look into the matter again. There is a discrepancy between two new pieces of legislation which he introduced here.

There are two different sets of circumstances. When it comes to penal provisions, it depends on the circumstances. The one Bill differs from the other. However, if any rectifications have to be made, we can do so in due course. For the moment, however, we can only leave the position as it is.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 24:

Mr. Chairman, yesterday, during the Committee Stage of the previous piece of legislation, I discussed the question of penal provisions which were not uniform. The hon. the Minister then said that they would look into the matter. We are now dealing with the second piece of legislation in which the same discrepancy appears. In my amendment as it appears on the Order Paper I request that the period of three years be reduced to one year. If my previous amendment had been accepted, viz. that the penalty for a contravention of the road ordinance should be one year, it would have been in line with this amendment. In view of the fact that that provision was left unchanged at two years, I should like to change my amendment to two years instead of one year, as it is worded at present. I also ask that the amount should be R10 000 so that it will be in line with the provisions of the Road Transportation Amendment Bill. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to accept these two changes to my amendment.

Is the hon. member moving the amendment as printed in his name?

Mr. Chairman, I am not moving the amendment as printed in my name on the Order Paper. I am moving that my amendment be changed to be in line with the provisions of the Road Transportation Amendment Bill and I am asking the hon. the Minister to accept my amendment with these changes. If not, I shall move it as it appears in my name on the Order Paper.

If the hon. member wishes to introduce an altered amendment, he must do so in writing.

Cannot I receive a reply from the hon. the Minister first?

Unfortunately I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment. The hon. member must remember that one is dealing here with problems of different kinds. If an export product arrives overseas in an unsatisfactory condition, it can do a great deal of harm to our reputation and to the export of that specific product for that year. One cannot compare these two things. That is why one has to have penalty clauses which differentiate the one from the other. However much I should like to accommodate the hon. member, I cannot accept his amendment.

The hon. the Minister should really not put forward arguments which are absolutely illogical. Here he is proposing a penalty clause of R5 000, while the penalty is R10 000 for a contravention of a road transportation ordinance. Why does the hon. the Minister then say that because it could cause South Africa so much more harm an offender should be fined only R5 000 or be sentenced to imprisonment for three years?

These things differ from one another.

They do differ, but not in the way the hon. the Minister tried to explain them.

You cannot understand.

Let the hon. member try to explain how R5 000 is more than R10 000.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported.

Third Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, we have come to the end of the debate on a very good Bill and I hope that the hon. the Minister is going to nominate a person from Safto as he has virtually undertaken to do. I also hope that the problems regarding Jan Smuts Airport will be investigated and that the Perishable Products Export Control Board will in future ensure that it will exercise proper control and have the proper people at Jan Smuts Airport or at any other airport from which exporting may be carried out. I hope that they will be there to organize matters. In addition to that, I also hope that they will be able to control the whole question of space on aircraft so that everybody will have a chance of getting the space that they require in order to export what they want from the country.

I wish to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to one particular point that rather worries me. A large quantity of fish is caught off the coast of South Africa. There is, for instance, a large quantity of tuna, hake and other varieties which is brought into South Africa and put into cold storage here. It is then reloaded onto other vessels and taken away, and I wonder whether this should not really come under the control of the Perishable Products Export Control Board as well. It does seem rather strange to me that this is completely ignored by the Perishable Products Export Control Board. It is fish that is caught by foreign vessels, off-loaded in South Africa, reloaded onto other foreign vessels and sent away. I am not certain whether this should be controlled, but I do think that something should be done so that at least we know what is happening in our own waters as far as pelagic catches are concerned.

Besides that, I can only say that I hope that the regulations will also be published in the Government Gazette at the same time as this Act is enacted after signature by the State President so that there will be no confusion as to what the actual regulations are.

Mr. Speaker, immediately after the hon. member for Bezuidenhout had brought to my attention the name of the firm which reserved space on our aircraft for com on the cob, I sent off a telex and I think that I shall receive a reply by tomorrow. I shall inform the hon. member accordingly. Regarding the fish which is offloaded at our ports, those people must apply if they want to come under control. I doubt whether they will, but we shall give attention to the request of the hon. member. I am glad that he said that this is going to be a very good Act. That is the reason why I brought it to Parliament. I thank him for his support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, when I started my speech a few days ago I only had the opportunity to point out that one of the interesting changes in this Bill is that only the General Manager is appointed by the State President. That is correct not only in law but also because of the importance of the position that that man occupies in South Africa. Indeed, the General Manager of the S.A. Transport Services heads a corporation that even by world standards is enormous and by South African standards is almost impossible to credit. We wish the new General Manager well and trust that he will make as important a contribution to South Africa in general and to the SATS in particular as his predecessors have in that important role.

This is an important Bill, a very important Bill. It is interesting to have a series of pieces of legislation associated with one department over a few days, because it helps to weave a web of relevance as it were, in the process of these Bills succeeding each other. I do fear, however, that the effect of sitting through a few days of transport legislation will be that it will convince hon. members that the faster the committee system is introduced and the quicker we get away from plenary sessions, the better. Sadly there is only a small proportion of hon. members of this House who do enjoy discussing transport legislation.

The Bill now before the House is of course largely of importance because of the 253 000 employees in the SATS. Furthermore it is a Bill relating to a corporation that has a budget one third as big as the national budget. That alone makes it important. Because of its size the SATS can innovate and experiment. It covers a huge area in South Africa in terms of staff employment. It has a computer division. It has, for example, one of the most advanced workshops in fibre glass design and development, in Durban. It can offer opportunities for training which few other corporations can do. Indeed a corporation as large as the SATS can act as a midwife to introduce new changes and new attitudes. It can, however, also be a brake and a stumbling-block to change and development.

In the socio-economic field the SATS have, as have most State corporations in developing countries, played a vital role in socio-economic development through the services and opportunities provided by employment. The hon. member for Wit-bank, who is not in the House now, mentioned this fact earlier, during the discussion of the Additional Appropriation of the SATS. The SATS have made a major contribution, as the hon. member put it, “vir die opheffing van die Blanke werker in Suid-Afrika”. Furthermore we we all know the important role which the ATKV is playing. We know that it is one of the cultural movements that is actively supported by the Broederbond. [Interjections.] We also know what important role the SATS have played in improving the socio-economic conditions, particularly of the Afrikaans-speaking community over the last 30 to 40 years.

Our party recognizes that role. We know that the SATS have in some instances been a vital factor in moving poorer people—in socio-economic terms—particularly White people, into far better conditions, conditions in which they have been given opportunities for training; for “opheffing”, as the hon. member for Witbank put it. We do not object to that. We believe that that is an important function of the SATS. We also believe that it can be used again in South Africa.

That is why the Bill now before the House is such an important Bill. What we also believe is that this function must be used in the interests of all sections of the South African population. That is the first reason why this is an important Bill. Any corporation which employes 250 000 people in a country the size of South Africa must be important. Secondly this Bill is important because of the changing industrial relations scene in South Africa. During the past week in this House we have passed a number of amending Bills, and also some completely new Bills, in order to change our industrial relations scene. During the past five years, through the leadership of the present hon. Minister of Manpower, we have seen dramatic changes in South Africa’s industrial relations policy. We have seen changes in shop floor conditions, a moving away from racial discrimination and an acceptance in large measure of the abolition of job reservation.

You must not come along tomorrow and say that they are cosmetic changes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member for Mossel Bay that this party certainly does not regard that change as cosmetic and it is because it is not cosmetic that we have supported that change. We feel that it is healthy, realistic, sensible and rational reform. [Interjections.] We have also seen a dramatic change on the part of the Government in its approach to training in the realization that if this country is going to move forward we have to change our laws, which we have done, in order to train our people better.

We have also seen a dramatic change in the attitude of the Government towards unionization as far as industrial relations are concerned. This past week has served to reemphasize it. In fact, Sir, you may remember that there was an interesting debate between the hon. the Minister of Manpower and the hon. member for Waterberg in regard to the “selfbeskikking van ’n volk”. [Interjections.] They discussed the question of trade unions.

*What did the hon. the Minister of Manpower say? He said that there were two principles regarding the self-determination of a trade union. He banged his fist on the table to make his point. What is that point? It is the autonomy of trade unions. The second principle to which the hon. the Minister referred, is freedom of association. He emphasized those two aspects. He stated that they formed the basis of sound labour relations in South Africa. [Interjections.]

May I ask the hon. member a question? Mr. Speaker, I have heard a rumour that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North is a member of the Broederbond. I should like to know whether that is true.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I am not afraid to admit, as some people seem to be, that I am not a member of any secret organization or any secret society. I am not even a member of Mrs. Suzman’s alleged clique! [Interjections.]

It is in this context of changed labour laws that we have to take a look at what this Bill is saying to us. When we consider the question of unionization, I want to say immediately that the attitude of this party is that we do not support any particular form of unionization or in-house unionization. We believe that people should be entitled to select their own representatives. Apparently, over the past 18 months, the Black Staff Association in the SATS increased from 2 000 or 3 000 members to 67 000 members. If anybody knows anything about building up a voluntary organization, then they will know that to increase from a few thousand to 67 000 is exceptionally difficult, particularly in the SATS situation. Perhaps the Ossewabrandwag increased its membership that fast in the early 1940s but that is probably the only organization that could have done so. We are very concerned that the staff associations, including the Black one, should be really representative of the people who work in the SATS.

We now have these two pieces of legislation, the one dealing with the basic conditions of employment which will soon be enacted and the other one which is the legislation before us now. I think we should consider just a few points in regard to which these two pieces of legislation can be compared. In clause 18 of the legislation soon to be enacted we find the provision that there can be no victimization of any employee because of his joining a union of his choice. In clause 19 of the Basic Conditions of Employment Bill introduced by the hon. the Minister of Manpower and which has a bearing on the Bill we are discussing at the moment there is a provision that an employer shall not deduct from his employee’s salary without his written agreement. In clause 37(3) there is a condition relating to racial discrimination and in clause 14 there is a condition relating to the termination of a contract of employment. I believe the hon. the Minister must explain to us—his Second Reading speech is of no help at all—why he is not prepared to allow his Bill to conform to the Bill which his colleague the hon. the Minister of Manpower introduced into the House. The difference between the legislation of the hon. the Minister of Manpower and the legislation of the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs is so dramatic that I believe he owes the House an explanation. He owes South Africa an explanation. [Interjections.]

The Bill is important because of what is happening within the SATS. The SATS say that they want to conform to modern practices in their finances and accounts. They say also that in their costing they do not want to charge what the client can bear, but what things cost. Mr. De Waal, one of the Assistant Managers, said a few months ago that one must see the SATS as a modem business and that they want to compete with modern private enterprise. They come, however, with this strange Bill with which I shall deal in detail within a few minutes.

I believe that we have to appreciate that the SATS are not an island in South Africa. These changes which we are seeing around us are going to affect them. Nothing has highlighted it more dramatically than the strike of the dockworkers last year in Port Elizabeth. Every single stevedore in South Africa, except those employed by the SATS, is unionized through enterprise.

Who organized that strike?

The hon. the Minister will get an opportunity to reply to the debate; let him allow me to finish my speech and then he can reply.

The point is that whether we like it or not—I hold no brief for any particular union—the stevedores working in the same docks talk to one another. They share the same discussions, they talk to one another and they go home together. The point is that one cannot run the SATS separately …

And those who had gone on strike were paid off. I am not going to alter the legislation; I want to keep power in terms of the legislation.

Here we have an employer from the Victorian age talking. The hon. the Minister says he wants to keep power, but he is running a corporation which has a budget a third of the size of that of the Minister of Finance and with 250 000 employees. I therefore do not think his is the right attitude to take.

Must I run the SATS …

What he must do is run the SATS with co-operation and not with the attitude that he will take the power and show a fist.

I must show a profit; this is a business.

The hon. the Minister says “This is a business”, but I want to look at the Bill and then show the House how this business is run. It is run like a Victorian paternalistic State, and not like a modern business. Let us look at the provisions of the Bill. There are provisions regarding the retention of an employee who has committed a criminal offence. There are also provisions for the keeping of an employee who is drunk while performing his assigned duties.

He is an old-time Englishman …

Since when, in a modern society, does one have the kind of sheltered employment which this Bill seems to postulate? Yet, the hon. the Minister says he wants to run a modem, profit-making business.

Yes.

Well, I want to tell him that everybody else who runs modem businesses making a profit is happy to do it under the Basic Conditions of Employment Bill which the hon. the Minister of Manpower has introduced, and they do not need the legislation introduced by the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs. Why can the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs not apply the legislation of the hon. the Minister of Manpower if he wants to compete with the rest of the country?

You are pleading for communistic labour unions. [Interjections.] This is what happened in the harbours.

Mr. Speaker, I think the remark of the hon. the Minister is a little bit out of order.

Sir, I withdraw that word.

Our side of the House wishes me to move an amendment, and I consequently move as an amendment—

Apart from the factors I have already mentioned, the hon. the Minister was quoted in The Argus oh 17 September 1982 as having said that the S.A. Transport Services had appointed a committee of investigation into staff associations. It was appointed in May, but as far as we know that committee has not yet reported. There is a reference to an inquiry by some staff associations relating to the conciliation board. The Minister said that the object was that the labour relations structure fully meet present needs. If that committee is still sitting, I do not believe that the hon. the Minister should come along with a Bill such as this. [Interjections.] I believe that this sort of Bill should be gone into more carefully and investigated thoroughly before this House can agree to it. The Bill itself is a strange, anachronistic and almost Victorian piece of legislation. It deals with the situation in which people are apparently dismissed only after internal disciplinary action has failed.

The crucial clause in this Bill is clause 6, because that provision classifies all employees in the S.A. Transport Services as permanent, temporary, casual or regular. In a letter from the General Manager to the General Workers’ Union, dated 5 February 1982, the General Manager said that no non-Whites were employed as permanent or temporary workers. The hon. the Minister may wish to give us some more information about that, but my information is that there are, in fact, a few non-Whites who are classified as permanent, including one Black man who, because he was a graduate, insisted that he go onto the permanent staff. He was accordingly classified as such. This is particularly serious, because if one looks at this Bill, one sees that there are extremely wide powers for making regulations.

That is not all, however, because in terms of clause 39 the hon. the Minister retains the right to adhere to the effect of regulations that have already been promulgated. I accept that some of these regulations may need to remain in force and that some of them— because of retrospective rights that go back 23 years—might be necessary for pension fund purposes, etc. What concerns us on this side of the House, however, is the fact that although, in law, this Bill is not a racial Bill, if one knows the regulations of the S.A. Transport Services, one sees that it is designed, in fact, to perpetuate racialism.

That is not all, however, because in clause 6 there is also a restriction in the sense that only South African citizens can become permanent employees. Why can people who have possibly worked for the S.A. Railways in Port Elizabeth for 20 odd years, or even for 10 years, not become permanent employees? To me this smacks of a clever ruse to get around the racial problem.

They are “Gastarbeiter”, as in Germany.

It is not the same as in Germany, not at all.

There we have the politician talking. He cannot by-pass that awful situation with a joke, because to call those people “Gastarbeiter” is a very sick joke indeed.

It is not a joke. What happens in England and in America? Mexicans cannot become permanent labourers in America.

These are citizens of South Africa. [Interjections.]

I believe that the hon. the Minister ought to tell the House how many of those 253 000 employees he is so proud of and concerned about—and rightly so—are in fact permanent and how many are temporary, because that is the crucial point. I venture to suggest that it is less than 50% and this hardly has to do with conditions of employment. If one looks at clause 6, one sees that there is a reference there to “casual” or “regular” people. This includes Black people who may have worked for SATS for 40 years. Their conditions are completely different and are not covered in terms of this Bill except that they, like everybody else in the SATS, are denied the right to strike. We accept that the SATS is a strategic industry, but …

Do you want them to strike?

Mr. Speaker, we accept that it is a strategic industry, but to say to a worker that he may never ever strike is, I believe, to deny him his basic right. One can of course build in a certain procedure. One can, if necessary, lay down conditions for declaring an emergency when they may not strike. However, to deny a man, by way of a blanket provision the right to withhold his labour is, I believe, a denial of his basic rights.

He can resign if he wants to.

Do you believe in strikes?

That is not the point. It is a fundamental right in all industrial societies. If you do not know that, you know nothing.

Clause 27 is, I believe, a step forward. It is the clause relating to the appointment of a conciliation board. That, to me, is a welcome improvement. I believe that that could well ensure that there never has to be any industrial unrest if the board works well. There are, however, some other matters which cause us some concern.

In clause 16 there is a deliberate exclusion of casual and regular workers from the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act if they are injured outside of South Africa. I believe the hon. the Minister must tell us why that is, because that seems to me a thoroughly illogical exclusion. Why should it not apply to permanent workers as well? Why only to casual and regular workers?

Then I want to refer to clause 25—we do propose to move some amendments. We are concerned that the family of a man who dies on duty can be moved out of his house with only one month’s notice. We believe he should have another month. We are also concerned that a man who is fired can virtually be kicked out immediately. I think that that is also unreasonable.

What concerns us most of all in regard to clause 32, which relates to the powers the Minister has to make regulations, is that he does not need to consult the staff association. What concerns us is that the Minister of Manpower is introducing here what we believe are sensible, healthy reforms which will stand South Africa in good stead in the future and then one has the Minister of Transport Affairs introducing a Bill which is not consistent with the spirit and the attitude which the Minister of Manpower is reflecting. I believe that that is bad for our country.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member whether he would perhaps make a speech in Soutpansberg on behalf of Minister Fanie Botha?

I must tell that hon. member that I have nothing to do with Minister Fanie Botha’s challenges and that he will have to fight his own battles. It looks as though the HNP might be a factor there.

I believe that, as regards the marking of regulations, the Minister ought to introduce some sort of mechanism for more effective consultation. Then, I believe the hon. the Minister owes us an explanation why he needs retrospective powers for 23 years. I have just received a throat lozenge from the hon. the Minister. That is very kind of him. I just hope it is for soothing the throat and not poison. [Interjections.] It will, however, have to be quick-acting for me to stop my speech now. [Interjections.] I think the hon. the Minister should tell us why he wants retrospective powers going back to 1 April 1960. We know that it is a good principle in Roman Dutch law that things that are in the past remain in the past. Even the hon. the Minister of Law and Order will admit that.

Well, only partially. [Interjections.]

I do not believe that the S.A. Transport Services is going to be isolated from changes in South Africa. I want to quote in this regard from the speech of the hon. member for Walmer in the last budget debate (Hansard, Tuesday 9 March 1982, col. 2461)—

This is also important—

He goes on to speak about productivity. The point is that the S.A. Transport Services is going to be affected by the changes in South Africa. Those figures alone, when compared to modern business, show that the S.A. Transport Services is out of step with the rest of South Africa in terms of the use of White and non-White labour and the increases given to them. What concerns us as an opposition—it is our responsibility to tell the hon. the Minister—is that by coming with a Bill such as this at this time in South Africa we could be sowing the seed of real problems in the S.A. Transport Services. We believe this Bill at this time in this form is ill-considered and should rather be referred to a Select Committee before Second Reading so that we can get as wide a spectrum of viewpoints in order for the Select Committee to come forward with a revised Bill or a Bill which is slightly different from the hon. the Minister of Manpower’s Bill.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Yeoville—who rose at the same time as I did—had spoken it would have been difficult to decide whether he was also speaking on behalf of that hon. member or whether he was possibly speaking on behalf of this side of the House.

I was completely confused by the speech made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North because he based his arguments on two clauses in particular. The one was clause 6, which is concerned with people who are not South African citizens and who may be appointed on a contract basis in the S.A. Transport Services. The other was clause 26 which is concerned with strikes. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North’s party must accept responsibility for the attitude which the hon. member, as their first speaker, revealed here. I want to ask the hon. member in what way clause 6 of the Bill differs from section 4 of the original Act of 1960. The hon. member objected to the fact that workers of the S.A. Transport Services may not go on strike. In what way does clause 26 differ from the original legislation? I am asking the hon. member this question. Is the hon. member not aware that it was decided years ago in this House that when it comes to essential services in the country, a strict standpoint will be adopted as far as strikes are concerned? The main aim of the hon. member’s speech this afternoon was, however, to create the impression that no progress has been made in the S.A. Transport Services as far as Blacks are concerned, that they have no staff association, that no one listens to them and that they have absolutely no say. Apparently the hon. member is a member of his Transport Services Group and he is also a member of the Select Committee on Railway Accounts. He should therefore be aware of all these things. But it seems to me he did not even read what was stated in the 1980-’81 annual report of the S.A. Transport Services. I want to refer him to page 68 of this report where, under the heading “Staff Representation for Blacks”, the following appears—

This is a deviation from the situation as it previously was—

It is general knowledge that the federal council of the White staff associations approved of this move. However, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North rises to his feet here and creates the impression that there is no form of staff representation for the non-White employees in the S.A. Transport Services.

He did not say that.

What does that hon. member want? I want to quote another paragraph on what the S.A. Transport Services is doing. It surprises me that the hon. member has this attitude and I wonder why he is doing this. The S.A. Transport Services is an organization that employs more than 100 000 Black workers. I shall give the hon. member the exact figures in a moment. I certainly did not expect the hon. member to make this sort of speech. I am absolutely amazed. I would have thought that the hon. member would have adopted a strongly pro-S.A. Transport Services attitude, but just the opposite was true.

The next paragraph on page 68 of the annual report reads as follows—

Progress has since been made. Why did the hon. member adopt this attitude? He adopted this attitude because he knows that the S.A. Transport Services is one of the undertakings in which there is the most wholehearted co-operation between Whites and non-Whites. In addition the non-Whites are making tremendous progress nowadays, far more so than was the case 10 or 15 years ago. Today they are being appointed in ever increasing numbers to posts previously occupied by Whites. Why did the hon. member adopt this attitude? If he had done so to emphasize the difference between them and us one could perhaps still have understood it. But I regret that he also acted in such a way that the relations between the various race groups in our country will be marred to an even greater extent.

It is absolutely essential for such a large undertaking as the S.A. Transport Services to have unimpeachable conditions of service for its workers. The hon. member referred to a Victorian type of approach we are supposed to have. Conditions of service must also be practical. Why, Sir? In the first place because one wants to attract people of quality to run the various branches of the S.A. Transport Services. In the second place one must ensure efficiency and a high degree of productivity and, in the third place, one must gain the confidence of the general public so that they make use of the services provided by the S.A. Transport Services. It is a platitude to say that the S.A. Transport Services has a satisfied work force, but the fact that it is a platitude does not make it less true. In spite of tremendous progress in the field of mechanization and automation, there must always be people in charge. The most complex machines and computers, not to mention the planning that must be undertaken in such a large organization, still require people to operate them.

On 31 March 1981 the graded posts for Whites in the S.A. Transport Services totalled 111 000; for Coloureds, 22 000; for Indians, almost 1 800 and for Blacks, 118 000. I am referring only to graded posts now. These posts consist of almost 1 000 different grade designations. It calls for expertise to determine the salary structure of such a variety of workers. For many years now the S.A. Transport Services has had a method of evaluating posts to determine the order of precedence of those posts. It is interesting to know that the S.A. Transport Services has 104 separate salary hierarchies. In order to achieve the highest degree of satisfaction there must be the greatest possible co-operation with the staff associations.

It is against this background that we must consider this legislation. While on the one hand the conditions of service for workers are being made as attractive as possible, the obligations imposed on them by the S.A. Transport Services are on the other hand being intensified. That is why, for example, heavy fines are imposed for offences committed by employees. In the past, however, disputes that arose between the S.A. Transport Services and a staff association caused problems that had to be solved with great circumspection. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North referred to the Victorian era, and how disputes were settled in those days. The only example he could rake up here might perhaps have been solved by the old methods, but in the legislation under discussion provision is now being made for a simpler solution. Now matters can be dealt with far more rapidly. In this regard I refer particularly to clause 28 of this Bill.

When a dispute cannot be settled by a conciliation board, a one-man commission is appointed to lead the investigation and to make recommendations. This one-man commission can be a judge or former judge although not necessarily. In addition the hon. the Minister is required to comply with the recommendations of the relevant one-man commission as soon as possible. These are steps to settle disputes between staff associations and the S.A. Transport Services— between the employers and the workers—far more easily and quickly. In our opinion this legislation is a vast improvement. It shows us that adjustments have to be made, and it is also quite clear that important people were consulted, people with an interest in this legislation—the employees themselves—and for this reason we on this side of the House support the Second Reading of this legislation wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, when legislation of this nature is submitted, one realizes that even a small amendment to a single provision can have a very major effect on the future of those affected by it; in this instance the future of the worker and, of course, the relation between employer and employee as well.

I found it particularly interesting to listen to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. He referred to interesting differences between legislation introduced here earlier by the hon. the Minister of Manpower and this Bill we are discussing now. However, I have a different problem to that of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. In the first place, it is important to me that it be ensured that in this statutory amendment the worker is afforded overall protection. Because I, of course, represent White voters in this House I am particularly concerned about the protection of the White worker. Nowadays, of course, it is an infrequent phenomenon for anyone to stand up and openly say that he represents the White worker and speaks on behalf of the White worker.

You are talking rubbish!

You see, Mr. Speaker, the moment one tells the truth in this House there are people who make interjections, interjections which are not entirely acceptable to me. [Interjections.]

The railway workers are still going to reject you in Langlaagte! [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, in terms of an existing Act the railway worker, as he has always been known, has enjoyed protection for many years. Here I refer to the Railways and Harbours Service Act, Act no. 22 of 1960.

The Bill under discussion is in fact intended to replace that Act. However it contains minor amendments, so minor that one will not detect them immediately. They are minor, stealthy amendments, because after all, we now have a Government that reforms by stealth. They are not people who bring about reform that one can see. They are reformers by stealth. In Afrikaans I would express it as follows: “Hulle is skelm hervormers”.

I wish to point out to hon. members how, in terms of this legislation, we are depriving the State President of his rights. Under the old dispensation a State President had the right to appoint all the officials, and now a State President will only be able to appoint the General Manager. The Minister will now be able to appoint all the other employees, reduce their salaries and fire them as well. It will be possible to pay off surplus staff, etc. If this were to happen under the present system I would not be so concerned, but what will be the position under the tricameral system? [Interjections.] Hon. members must listen. In that Parliament a Minister may be appointed from another Chamber. [Interjections.] No, Sir, I am not afraid. I am merely looking after my people. Such a Minister will also be able to discharge these workers and reduce their salaries, in terms of this legislation, without having to account to the nation or this House. His appointment to such a post would be an appointment in terms of which he would only have to account to the State President, who in any event will be a dictator.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order:

May the hon. member refer to the State President as a dictator?

Order! The hon. member is not referring to the present State President. The hon. member may proceed.

The danger of the new dispensation is not yet apparent to people. Hon. members in this House do not yet realize that they want to transfer the power of this House, the legislative power, to a Minister who is a Coloured or an Indian, and I do not want us to have a Coloured or Indian as Minister of Transport next week. This is what will happen under the new dispensation and then my people will simply have to make the best of it. [Interjections.]

Do we get danger money for sitting here?

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the rights this House gives me and the knowledge I have acquired here I can only speak on behalf of my people who have no vote here. They are people who will be totally depirved of their vote in future if a Minister is appointed in terms of the new dispensation in the implementation of this legislation after which those people will no longer be afforded the opportunity to object to it. It will only be possible to do this in a trade union in a work situation. The power, the “big brother” as it is called, will be sitting over there where one cannot get at it. [Interjections.] That is stated in this legislation.

Where is that stated in the legislation?

Oh really, the hon. member for Roodeberg … [Interjections.] … I beg your pardon, Roodeplaat, should rather be quiet.

Clause 3 of the Conditions of Employment (South African Transport Services) Bill provides—I must quote the clause because many of the hon. members opposite never ready clauses; they do not even read the title of a Bill …

You are the last person to speak about people who do not read clauses. [Interjections.]

I shall quote the clause for their benefit—

1. (a) a decision made under the provisions of this Act or the regulations governing discipline; or
2. (b) an Act authorising a general reduction in the salary of employees of the South African Transport Services.

So what is your point?

And now this is my point: A Coloured Minister of Transport Affairs is appointed in this House, and that Minister comes to this House although he has not been elected by the voters that I represent here, the White railway workers. Under the new dispensation he has no responsibility to this House or its members because he can be appointed and possibly will be appointed by the State President. The State President sees to it that this Coloured Minister is appointed …

You are a racialist.

Harry, I shall send you to Kelvin Grove just now.

I think you are a racialist, and that is that.

Now he knows what the Coloureds have been feeling all these years.

You are a racialist.

I shall grab (“gryp”) you.

You can grab me; you can grab me here or anywhere else … [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon. member for Langlaagte threaten the hon. member for Yeoville by telling him that he would grab him?

No, Sir. I withdraw that statement.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Yeoville say that the hon. member for Langlaagte is a racialist?

The hon. member for Langlaagte may proceed.

Sir, I can understand that the hon. member, who refers to our farmers and to us as Afrikaners as wearers of skins, makes such statements, but let me rather come back to the point that I want to make concerning the worker whom I represent here.

In terms of the legislation I am entitled to see to it that the worker I represent here will know what is going to happen in this House tomorrow or the next day. He must know that he going to lose his rights in regard to the man will represent him. For that reason I can only address a warning to the White worker on the railways and to those Coloured workers who will later also be taken together and will end up having the same problems. I was elected by Whites …

I was too.

Because I was elected by Whites, I want to indicate that in terms of the new dispensation the Government is leaving the door wide open for the White worker of the SATS to lose all protection tomorrow and the next day if we accept this clause. [Interjections.] Either this legislation was introduced too early or it should not be introduced at all. When we look at this legislation we see that in an ordinary period like last year it would have been good legislation, but that under the tricameral system it will create a problem for all of us. We cannot accept this under a tricameralsystem. [Interjections.]

There are many clauses in this Bill that effect improvements. I am certain that there are clauses that effect improvements and in ordinary language, many of the clauses simply seek to adapt the legislation to the times we are living in, The problem is that clauses 2 and 3 create an extremely dangerous situation for the White worker:

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Yeoville is now making a speech by way of interjection. He always wants to be both the undertaker and the funeral director. [Interjections.]

You are burying your party.

He is one of those people who say: “I am a self-made man, and I love my Creator.”

Do not worry, you will bury yourself in Waterberg.

In the Committee stage one can deal with the clauses one by one and point out where there are disadvantages. This legislation contains one great disadvantage which appears in almost all legislation that concerns the railway worker, i.e. the matter of suspension. When a member is suspended, payment of his salary is stopped. Then, if he is later found guilty in a court, this legislation provides that his discharge and the stopping of salary payments is effective from the date of suspension. It is the family of the person concerned who lose thereby. His pension may be totally different if six months have passed between the time when he was suspended and the time he was found guilty. After all, we do not live in a country in which a man is found guilty the moment he is suspended and where, because he is found guilty, this is back-dated to the date of his suspension. I do not believe we ought to do this. Anyone who has experience of the effect on the wife and family Of a railway worker of his suspension and the withholding of his salary, knows that it is not the worker who is then faced with the problem but the family. For that reason we shall deal with the clauses one by one in the Committee Stage.

Today, however, the real issue is the important principle that cannot be accepted, viz. that the powers which, in the old dispensation, were in the hands of the State President, are now being given, to a Minister who may be a Minister of colour. As the hon. the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information said, these people of colour have been misused for many years and we must treat them fairly so that eventually they can treat us fairly After all, that is what he is saying. He says that we should treat them fairly so that when they come to power, they will treat us fairly too.