Mr. Speaker, I move—

In this Bill, an additional appropriation of R229,5 million is being requested, which will bring the total anticipated expenditure for the 1982-’83 financial year to R2 516,8 million. Particulars of the additional amounts which only became known after the main budget of the Post Office had been approved in March last year, and of the purposes for which they are required, are contained in the estimates of additional expenditure which have been tabled.

The amount of R229,5 million, which represents an increase of 10% on the original budget of R2 287,3 million, shows that in spite of the economic recession, the unprecedented demand for all types of postal and telecommunications services is not declining at all. I should like to give hon. members more detailed information concerning the individual additional amounts that are being requested.

Operating expenditure

Staff expenses: The major contributing factors to the increased provision is a marked decline in staff losses and an increase of 9% in the number of persons who joined the Post Office during the first six months of this financial year, compared with the corresponding period last year. This tendency is expected to continue in the prevailing economic climate. In addition, excellent results were obtained at the end of 1982 in the recruitment of school-leavers, which also has a significant effect on the provision for salaries. Higher provision is also required for the departmental obligations towards pension funds and medical schemes, leave gratuities and other miscellaneous staff expenses.

Material and Services

The additional amount mainly provides for higher cost escalation than the amount allowed for on essential maintenance materials for the telecommunications network and on the leasing of computer equipment which is urgently required. Although an additional amount of R5 562 million is required, an appropriation of only R1 482 million is being requested, since the remainder of R4 080 million will be met from savings on appropriations for other purposes.

Cost of Loans and Interest Payments

The higher provision is required for cost in connection with and interest payments on additional loans negotiated during the year in order to—

• — restore operating capital, which dropped sharply at the end of the 1981-’82 financial year, to a reasonable level;
• — finance the initial outflow of savings services funds during the first quarter of 1982-’83 and supplement the anticipated lower inflow during the rest of 1982-’83. Originally, we budgeted for a net inflow of R140 million, while only R100 million is now being expected;
• — ensure that sufficient operating capital is available at the end of the 1982-’83 financial year; and
• — finance the higher estimated operating and capital expenditure.

†Capital Expenditure

As mentioned earlier, the demand for telephone, telex and data services remains very high. Additional provision for telecommunications services is therefore essential to—

• — Further expand the capacity of the telecommunications network; and
• — overtake the ever-increasing demand for services.

An increase in the provision is also necessary to counter the effect of cost escalation which has arisen from the following factors—

* Withdrawal from the Post Office Fund of amounts to be appropriated from the operating surplus

Redemption of Loans: The increased provision is required mainly for the redemption of bridging loans with redemption periods of less than one year which were negotiated to finance the unexpected outflow from savings services funds during the last two months of the 1981-’82 financial year and the first quarter of the current financial year.

Increase of Standard Stock Capital

The further increase in the Standard Stock Account for catalogue items used for the maintenance and expansion of the telecommunications system is mainly the result of—

• — the increase in the general sales tax from 4% to 6%;
• — general price increases amounting to 25% on average over the past 12 months;
• — the growth in the activities of the services;
• — the lower exchange rate of the rand as against other currencies;
• — the greater demand for services, which required higher stock levels in order to prevent shortages from arising;
• — inevitable higher stockkeeping of “high technology” and expensive items, such as data modems, in order to meet the increasing demand;
• — the prevailing economic climate, in which manufacturers have greater spare capacity, with the result that orders are executed more rapidly.

†Financing

The Post Office has three financing sources, e.g. the revenue generated by its services, investments in its savings services, and loans.

As far as revenue is concerned, an amount of R1 712 million is expected, which is more or less in line with the original estimate of R1 716 million.

The net inflow of investments in savings services was, as previously stated, originally estimated at R140 million. However, a consistently high outflow that lasted for several months was experienced. I am pleased to say that the tide has turned and that the net growth is now estimated at R100 million.

With the kind co-operation of the hon. the Minister of Finance, the Post Office was able to negotiate external loans which, together with the estimated operating surplus of approximately R42 million, the provision for depreciation and higher replacement costs of assets of R190 million and the expected net inflow of savings services funds of R100 million, will enable it to balance its books for 1982-’83.

Mr. Speaker, when listening to the hon. the Minister, one gets the idea that everything is going well with the Post Office and that the Post Office requires these additional funds as a result to the increase in business. When one compares the estimates of last year with the estimates of the pevious year, i.e. 1980-’81, and then make a comparison with these additional estimates one gets an entirely different story. The full story has unfortunately not been told by the hon. the Minister in his speech. In order to find out what the hon. the Minister is trying to get at, one should analyse these estimates item by item. Let us look at the item relating to staff expenses, item 1.1. This has gone up by over R38 million. The hon. the Minister has said that there has been a decrease in the number of staff leaving the service and an increase in recruitment of 9%. I cannot understand how he arrived at that figure because a budget should be drawn up for the total number of staff employed over a particular year. Apparently this budget is drawn up on the basis of the number of staff they expect to employ. As far as this is concerned the budget last year was wrong in so far as they employed more staff that they expected to employ. The fixed staff establishment of the Post Office is never known to this House. All that this House is told is the number of staff the Post Office expects to employ and not what is actually required. That is why the hon. the Minister comes to this House this year and asks us to vote another R38 million. I think the time has come that this House should know what the in toto staff requirements of the Post Office are and not only the actual number of staff actually employed.

As regards the balance of the expenditure under the heading “staff expenses” there appears to be little difference, but I am informed that overtime is down by some R6 million. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister for having seen to it that it was not necessary to work the same amount of overtime as before. Naturally, pensions have gone up by some R5 million and tied up with that, also medical and other expenses.

I should like to refer now to the item “Material and services” in respect of which an amount of only R1 482 000 is being asked. I cannot understand, however, how one could budget for R108 million, then save R4 million and subsequently only ask for R1million. There must have been some very bad budgeting done in the first instance. To come along to this House and tell hon. members the Post Office has saved R4 million I submit really does not carry much weight. The situation is that there is one very important aspect to which I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention. That is in respect of the item dealing with repayable contributions towards the local manufacture of electronic equipment. While I am in support of the manufacture of products in South Africa which may be of strategic importance, I believe nevertheless that the time has come that some sort of control of what has to be paid out to support these so-called strategic industries should be undertaken by somebody besides the Post Office. In this case we have had an increase of subsidy from R4,56 million to R613 million for the year 1982-’83. That was the amount paid out as a subsidy to this particular company, a company at Koedoespoort where certain strategic materials are manufactured. This amount represents an increase of 34%, and I think that the time has come that, where subsidies such as this have to be paid out, the Auditor-General should be given the opportunity of investigating those accounts in order to make absolutely certain that public moneys are not spent needlessly and that one is absolutely sure that the Post Office is not being taken for a ride.

In respect of the items under “Capital expenditure” I should like to deal with the question of loans. It is here that, I believe the financing of the Post Office leaves a lot to be desired. Two years ago, when the 1981-’82 budget was introduced here in the House I said in the debate that I could not see how one could finance one’s capital development in the poor manner in which the hon. the Minister of Finance was asking the Post Office to raise money from the public by means of National Savings Certificates and Savings Bank Certificates. I said then that as long as the interest rates which the Post Office allowed to the public were not in line with the market the Post Office was not going to get the money it required. What was the result? I uttered this warning during August 1981. By April, May and June of 1982 there was a net outflow of capital from the savings of the Post Office. It was then necessary for the hon. the Minister of Finance to approve post-haste of a new National Savings Certificate series, on which he increased the interest by more than 1%. In other words, the old rate of interest at that time averaged 8,75%. The hon. the Minister of Finance then had to raise it to 9,5%, while he also had to increase the amount that was allowed tax free per taxpayer from R15 000 to R30 000. This should have been done earlier, because the result was that the money was not available. It is true that the hon. the Minister has managed to catch up under the particular circumstances but this need never have happened because had this not happened the hon. the Minister would not have had to borrow overnight money. It would not have been necessary for him to go running round all over the world to borrow money from other sources while allowing this situation to develop, a situation which has led to tremendous increases in tariffs. Unfortunately, in terms of this debate I am not allowed to refer to them, but there are one or two points in that particular statement made by the hon. the Minister that I should like to deal with. He talked about price and cost increases, high interest rate payments on loans and the ever-increasing demand for telecommunications services making high demands on Post Office finances. He also said that the adjustment of Post Office staff was inevitable to obviate an operating loss, serious financing problems and the build-up of a larger backlog in services to be provided. So the hon. the Minister increases unit tariffs by one cent. It is estimated that some 13,6 billion telephone calls will be made during the 1982-’83 year. That means that there will, in any case, be an increase of at least R136 million during the coming year. Had he been able to obtain more money from the public, however, it would not have been necessary for him to have obtained this R136 million by raising unit tariffs.

Let me now turn to item 1.1.1. I have mentioned the outflow of funds. An income from savings of R140 million was expected, but the Post Office only succeeded in getting R104 million. At the same time the department has had to borrow money, but I am surprised that the department has had to pay R33,5 million more on interest charges for extra loans and bank overdrafts involving the Reserve Bank and other banks, the rate for the Reserve Bank being 13% and that for other banks 18% or more. Had the hon. the Minister obtained more money via the savings accounts, it would not have been necessary to borrow this excessive amount of money.

This brings me to item 3.1, the redemption of loans. Here again it seems as if a terrible mistake was made by the Post Office, because it had to borrow something like R68 million during the course of this year for bridging finance. I am very worried about this particular aspect, because a large portion of this sum had to be used for buying equipment from the manufacturers. In this regard I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question, and this is very important. The amount needed, an extra R46 million, is the difference between R290 million and the original estimated R243 million. What I would like to know is whether the telephone and other equipment which has been bought from the manufacturers is to be put into stock in order simply to help the companies concerned over this recessionary period or whether those items are actually going to be put into use immediately. Because if they are to be put into stock, I must tell the hon. the Minister that I cannot see why the Post Office should be there to support private companies which supply equipment that is merely put into stock.

That is all I have to say at the moment. I am very disappointed that the hon. the Minister has come to this House and asked for this tremendous amount of money.

Mr. Speaker, before I express a few thoughts arising out of what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said, I should just like to convey the sincere thanks of this side of the House to the hon. the Minister for the information on Post Office matters that he made available in good time to hon. members this year.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout had quite a few objections to this additional appropriation which sounded a little strange. He mentioned the fact that in the previous appropriation there had been an increase of R90 million in staff expenditure and that there was now a further increase of R39 million. One must infer from what the hon. member said that this was an indication to him that the Post Office is spending too much on its staff. I should think that the mere fact that the Post Office is in an exceptionally favourable position with regard to staff, as is reflected in this expenditure, is in itself something about which all parties in this House should express their satisfaction. We know that in general it is a problem in the public sector to find sufficient well-qualified staff. When one finds that, partially as a result of recessionary conditions and the pressure on our economy, the staff position has improved, this is a reason to be grateful and not a reason to complain—as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout did.

It was just bad budgeting.

I think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout will concede that no-one can foresee exactly what fluctuations are going to occur in the economy and what effect these will have. One can only make an approximate estimation. It is only to be expected, however, that there will be certain deviations from one’s budget when the economy shows a downward trend. If one considers the total amount involved, it is slightly less than 10% of the total Post Office appropriation. I can hardly see how one can label this poor budgeting.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout spoke in the same tenor about the expenditure of R4 million on materials and services. He also saw this as a possible indication of wastage in the Post Office. After all, that hon. member serves on the Select Commitee on Posts and Telecommunications and he is one of the men who is present when the expenditure and the matter of wastage in the Post Office is scrutinized. He and his party’s representatives on that Select Committee have never in the smaller circle of the Select Committee suggested that there was wastage in the Post Office.

That was the year before last, not this year.

Why is he making these suggestions now during this limited discussion of the Additional Appropriation?

On the same lines the hon. member for Bezuidenhout objected in this budget debate to the interest rate offered by the Post Office Savings Bank. When he does this, his criticisms are misdirected. After all, the hon. member knows the Post Office is controlled by the Treasury as regards the interest rates that can be offered. He must ensure that he does not misdirect his criticism.

We on this side of the House are particularly grateful that it is obvious from this Additional Appropriation that it has been possible for the Post Office, possibly thanks to the present economic conditions, to improve its staff position considerably, as appears from the amount of almost R39 million voted for staff.

As regards the matter of expenditure on loans, set out in Item 1.11, one can agree in a certain sense with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that this is a further illustration of what was idicated in the previous appropriation debate as being the Post Office’s policy, namely to finance a larger percentage of its capital expenditure from its own operating revenue. The target is that it should be 50% of capital expenditure. When one considers how expensive loans are, it is obvious how necessary it is to move closer to the ideal of 50% cover.

Does the hon. member think it is a good idea?

Mr. Speaker, in the previous budget debate the hon. member heard us say that the Post Office should move closer to 50% financing. We know we have not yet achieved that, but that is the direction in which we are moving.

I think it is important for us in a short debate like this to reflect for ourselves that the Post Office must, after all, be run like an ordinary business. Its only source of income is its tariffs. There is no other way of making ends meet and balancing its books if it does not have the income and adjust its expenditure accordingly. When one says that the Post Office must be run like a business, one must also bear in mind that it is not possible for the Post Office in all respects to exercise the same options and to have the same leeway as other businesses have. More than is the case with many other departments, the Post Office must constantly keep up to date with the most modern techniques. It must constantly make use of more modern methods and bring more modem equipment into operation if it wants to keep the people it serves satisfied to pay its tariffs. In addition, it is a fact that we live in a country of vast distances. These are matters that have a significant effect on the cost structure of all the various spheres of the Post Office’s activities. Most important of all perhaps is the fact that this large organization, other than is the case with an ordinary business, cannot select the most profitable sphere in which to incur expenses.

Why not?

The Post Office simply has to provide the entire country with an adequate service. If the hon. member for Bezuidenhout does not know that postal and telecommunications services are one of the most important aspects of a country as a whole, then I cannot help him. It is therefore not possible for the Post Office to say that it only wants to provide a adequate service for those parts of the country where the largest sources of income are.

The AT & T in America makes plenty of money.

Mr. Speaker, that is in fact the difference as regards private undertakings in a country the size of the USA. There it is possible to select specific profitable areas, but in a smaller country like ours this is just not possible. In addition, we also have the extremely important consideration of a decentralized economy in this country, the development of our so-called run down areas, the development of peri-urban areas. It is the Post Office that, in the development of such areas—I am referring to border areas, to decentralization in general—is one of the first organizations that has to provide services—initially it has to literally provide service in the bush. It is therefore almost impossible for this administration to concentrate exclusively on those spheres that can be run profitably. That is why it is necessary for the Post Office to operate as a business that causes its own books to balance in spite of all these factors that an ordinary business in the private sector simply does not come up against.

In view of these considerations, we feel that the Post Office is succeeding very well indeed in its task and we should like to express our support for this appropriation.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Conservative Party I want to welcome the hon. the Minister to his new position. We wish him everything of the best and we want to express the hope that the time he will spend in this position will be very pleasant. Over the years we have found that a Minister of Posts and Telecommunications never lasts long. If he is not “posted”, other things will eventually happen.

Just like the CP leader. He did not last long. He left of his own accord.

Since the hon. the Minister has now made this interjection, I think I must immediately return to politics. With the NP’s new guidelines this position is also at risk. [Interjections.] Let us bring a little law and order into this atter. All three chambers are going to have equal status …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Am I correct in assuming that in a debate on an Additional Expenditure Bill one has to limit oneself to the additional expenditure and that one cannot deal with other subjects?

The hon. member for Sunnyside may proceed.

Since the three chambers will have equal status, it will be a pity if in the new dispensation the hon. the Minister will have to vacate his position so that it can be occupied by a person of colour. In the interim we wish the hon. the Minister everything of the best and we shall support him in his efforts here.

We in South Africa are extremely lucky to have a Postmaster General and top management and other officials of the quality we have in the Post Office.

They are all Nationalists.

A good Minister as well.

Is the Public Service not outside politics?

Unfortunately we cannot say that the hon. the Minister of Law and Order is all that good.

If it had not been for the officials of the Post Office over the years, we may have had a far poorer Additional Appropriation today. I should now like to touch on a few items and perhaps I shall ask more questions later on in the Committee stage.

I note that an additional R38,8 million is now being requested for staff. The hon. the Minister said this was as a result of fewer officials leaving and also because far more officials are now being appointed. Did the sum of R38 million bring in additional revenue for the Post Office? If one has a factory and one appoints many more people to produce, then this must give one additional revenue if they are all productive. We know and accept that many of them are beginners. There are also those people who are involved in administrative work. We therefore realize that everyone cannot be involved in production. I nevertheless want the hon. the Minister to inform us what the additional revenue for the Post Office amounts to as a result of the extra salaries being paid. We know that the Post Office people are very productive. These officials were the ones who over the years when things were difficult, even worked overtime without any additional remuneration.

I now come to the loans. In my opinion almost R20 million extra to repay loans is a lot of money. Where did we borrow this money and at what rate? How is it possible that such a large amount had to be spent on extra costs of loans and interest payments?

One of the first aspects one must consider when one budgets is that one must budget for the year in such a way that there will not be problems. I accept that this was done, but now there is a shortfall of R40 million. We have received extra money from the Post Office Savings Bank, but that amount is a long way away from R229 million. This is definitely something the hon. the Minister can clear up for me.

Something I find alarming is that, as the hon. the Minister said, materials are 25% more expensive. I simply cannnot understand this. Of course many of our requirements had to be imported, but we are constantly being told that there is a depression overseas and that is why our economy cannot get into its stride. If there is a depression, people do not sell their materials and other supplies at prices which are 25% higher. Was there not proper “bargaining”? Did we not try to obtain our requirements at more reasonable prices? In South Africa the prices of our requirements could not have risen by 25%. If the requirements were in fact purchased in South Africa and prices rose by 25% that is shocking. I am therefore calling on the hon. the Minister to give us more information on this matter.

The last item concerns general sales tax which rose from 4% to 6%. The hon. the Minister served with the hon. the Minister of Finance in the same Cabinet. Could the hon. the Minister not have done something to prevent the tax from being increased in the middle of the year and without parliamentary sanction?

In other respects we support the Additional Appropriation, but we should like further particulars on these few points from the hon. the Minister so that we can clear on these points.

Mr. Speaker, I do not deem it necessary to reply to the hon. member for Sunnyside. I am sure the hon. the Minister will reply to the few questions he put. I think the hon. member for Sunnyside and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout see the Department of Posts and Telecommunications as a purely profit-making business, the sort of business that does not receive any subsidy from the Government at all. We must all be quite clear about this. The general public must know that this is the great difference in the case of the Post Office, the Railways, etc. The Department of Posts and Telecommunications does not receive the subsidies that are given to other departments and institutions. The Post Office along with the private sector is therefore subject to all the economic fluctuations.

In this Additional Appropriation we note that staff are returning. When one looks at the staff set-up it is good to see that it is experienced people who are skilled in their vocation or profession who are returning to serve in the Post Office. The fact that money is being requested for these people, means that the Post Office will be saving because a training programme need not be initiated for returning staff.

What assurance do you have that they will stay?

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout who is shouting like that can accept one thing, namely that the people affiliated to the Department of Posts and Telecommunications work as a team. He can go and see for himself. It would be a good experience for him.

Then there is the matter of general sales tax. The hon. member for Sunnyside asked whether the Minister could not have approached the Minister of Finance in order to prevent it. Surely the hon. member for Sunnyside knows better than I do that when the country’s economy is at stake one cannot make exceptions. As a matter of fact this department was prepared to invest R9 million over and above the amount budgeted for as a result of the increase in the GST.

In the Additional Appropriation the upswing in the economy has already been budgeted for. However, he must remember that in this process interest rates rise and that the equipment that has to be paid for was ordered two years ago. The equipment used by the Post Office and its affiliated subsidiary organizations is of such a nature that it cannot be delivered immediately. Approval was assuredly granted a year, 18 months, or two years ago for the expenditure of money at present being spent on this. In submitting this appropriation more money is therefore not being requested. All that is being asked for is approval for the expenditure of money because an infrastructure must be created for the future and we are living in a technological age.

As I have already mentioned, the Post Office is run like a business undertaking on purely business principles. It must also strive to be profitable, even if a certain degree of cross subsidization for unprofitable services is allowed for. However, I do not think that this is a matter which should be debated here. When the main appropriation of the Post Office is introduced we shall consider this in detail. The Post Office does not have shareholders who insist on dividends. Its profit distribution therefore consists of greater benefits for all its clients, on the one hand in the form of the creation fo comprehensive and more efficient services and on the other in the form of reasonable tariffs for as long as possible. This requires a flexible approach, particularly in times of relatively high inflation, in order to help combat inflation. However, it just so happens that it is in the midst of high inflation that the Post Office’s clients require more efficient and more comprehensive services. This places tremendous pressure on the capital programme, as is the case at present and as is proved by this Additional Appropriation.

For the sake of filling in the background one can ask: What gave rise to an Additional Appropriation being tabled in this House today. The reason for this was a continued increase in the demand for communication services, in particular, and price and cost increases of materials and services. One particular highlight of the financial year—and I think one must place this on record—was the supply of 276 000 telephones, the most ever in the history of the Post Office during one financial year.

That was for the previous year.

There was a growth of 39% to R565 million in the capital investment. It seems to me the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has not yet cleaned out his desk. There was also the introduction of videoteks on an experimental basis, the gradual phasing in of electronic telephone exchanges, and the putting into operation of the first optical fibre cable system.

It is also significant that since 1968 the Post Office has never experienced a decline in the demand for its services, not even during periods of economic levelling off. This creates problems for the Post Office because the huge expansion programmes necessary to be able to provide an adequate service make excessively high demands on its physical and financial capabilities, and prevent the backlog from being made up during times of economic recession. There is no doubt that far larger expansion programmes will be necessary in future to be able to meet the demand for services. However, we must also remember that the Post Office only has two sources of finance. It has a great many clients, but only two sources of finance for its capital programmes, namely funds generated by the provision of services which are obviously linked to tariffs, and loan funds. Because of the high cost of and scarcity of loan funds, both in this country and abroad, it is unavoidable that the consumer of the Post Office services who at present enjoys some of the lowest tariffs in the world, must be prepared to make a larger contribution to creating the necessary infrastructure.

With these few words it is a pleasure for me to support this exceptionally positive Additional Appropriation of the Department of Posts and Telecommunications.

Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member for Overvaal I should only like to say that he has spelt out that which we believe in and shall continue to believe in, namely, that is that the Post Office is a business and must be operated as a business even though it is a department of State. We believe that this is a philosophy that has been carried out successfully to date by the Post Office, and we want to see it continue.

At the outset I should like to welcome the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. I call it a “function”, but I do not quite know why. However, I sincerely hope that his appointment is going to be a little more permanent than that of his predecessors. There is an old song about the “Stairways to the Stars.” Well, I sometimes despair for the occupant of the post of Minister of Posts and Telecommunications because his post seems to be the “Stepping-stone to Oblivion.” I do not think that this is a happy state of affairs. We want to see this Ministry occupied on a more permanent basis. There is a saying that the journalist does not really know his trade until he gets his fingers full of ink. Well, I do not think a Minister in charge of this department knows what it is all about until he has had at least three or four years experience, and experienced a couple of shocks.

Sir, this is the first Additional Appropriation since 1979 and I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on a very comprehensive introductory speech in which he gave us a broad outline of why he requires this additional amount of money. It is 10% up on the budget of last year and I do not think that in the current economic climate this could be considered bad budgeting. I am not going to say it is good budgeting because no Opposition spokesman worth anything in this place is going to say that it is good budgeting. But I would say that it is adequate and satisfactory budgeting.

One of the problems attached to being the smallest party in the House is that when a bone is thrown on the floor there is precious little left by the time it gets round to these benches. The hon. the Minister has thrown a fairly small bone before us this afternoon and believe you me, Sir, I do not know whether he himself can see anything left on the carpet. There is hardly anything left for me to chew on. Nevertheless I should like to pass some general comments.

In the first place it is gratifying to note the improvement in the staff position, and I hope this improvement will be maintained. I say so because this has been a problem area in the Post Office for a number of years, particularly on the technical side. It is good to note that young people coming out of school are recruited to the postal service more easily and I hope that their conditions of employment will be made such that these young people will be encouraged to stay and make their careers in this department.

Conversely it is sad to note the increased loss of savings in that most time-honoured Savings Bank of all. The one we all got to know and used as children. This is a situation which requires constant monitoring and updating because it is only by a spirit of competitiveness that the Post Office is going to be able to maintain the level of savings. I am the first to admit that the Post Office cannot expect to match other rates, e.g. rates offered by building societies not to speak of the rates being offered on the “grey” market. But I believe there must be more competitiveness. The Post Office must keep closer to the market-place. They must react more quickly to adjustments in rates in the outside market. By doing that they are going to be able to adjust and hold the people who are saving with them instead of losing them, as has obviously happened during the period under review.

I note further the alarming increase in the cost of telecommunication services. I want to make it abundantly clear that we on these benches will at all times support well-considered expenditure to improve our telecommunication services because it is vital to the growth of any nation that it maintains the best possible service in this field. Things are developing very quickly. The micro-chip has done fantastic things and it is quite incredible to note the pace at which technology is moving. The Post Office has got to keep up with it. So we will support all well-considered requirements in the way of funds to enable us to retain our place. After all we want to stay in the market-place; we want to be competitive in the world, and communications are the life-blood of the nation.

I believe that during the period under review the Post Office has been carried along by the flow of current inflation. That is why we are being faced with this 10% increase on the original estimates. The Post Office has been carried along with that flow. We accept that, and for that reason we will support this additional expenditure. But I believe that the Post Office must do everything it possibly can to ensure that it does not contribute to the strength and rate of that flow of inflation. However, this is a subject to another debate, for the debate on the main budget when it is presented.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hope you will permit me to pay tribute this afternoon to a gentleman who has served us in the post office in Parliament extremely well and has now moved on on promotion. The post office of Parliament is a post office in its own right; it is an independent post office and has its own code—8007 for those who do not know it. Mr. Sproule has served us well over a number of years and we wish him well in his promotion and express the hope that he will continue to go from strength to strength in the department. Naturally we also welcome his successor, Mr. Huddlestone.

Mr. Speaker, it was gratifying to see that the honesty of the hon. member for Umhlanga overcame his political mistake so that he saw his way clear to supporting this Additional Appropriation. I want to add my own congratulations to those he conveyed to our retiring Parliamentary postmaster. We all agree that he gave us outstanding service.

I should like to thank the hon. the Minister, the Postmaster-General and his staff for an exceptionally illuminating tour that was arranged for the Post Office groups of the various parties in November last year. Everyone derived a great deal of benefit from it except, apparently, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. That is the conclusion one drew when listening to him this afternoon.

Although it might have been expected of the official Opposition and of our other splinter friends, it is nevertheless a pity that they misused this occasion to attempt to cast suspicion on the Government by way of unfounded criticism and distorted statements of fact, suggesting that it was guilty of mismanagement and thereby also attempting to bring into discredit an exceptional institution, viz. the Post Office, the Postmaster-General and his able staff. Let me mention a few examples.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said here that because certain material and items used by the department were strategic, he felt that the Auditor-General should specifically investigate these local purchases to ensure that the department was not being cheated. It would be difficult to imagine a graver reflection on the sound judgment of the Postmaster-General and his staff. The same applies to what the hon. member had to say concerning telephones manufactured here and their storage. The hon. member for Sunnyside added his voice to this theme when he asked why, if there were a depression, telephone prices were still rising. Both of those hon. gentlemen were with us on that tour. They ought therefore to know by this time—being also members of the Select Committee—that these items are not like other commercial goods that can be freely traded in the commercial market, but are specifically manufactured for one purpose and one purpose only, and what is more, that this is for the most part done on a contractual basis, and these contracts are negotiated a long time in advance.

I do not believe it is necessary to elaborate further on the contributions of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Sunnyside. The hon. the Minister will probably reply to them in this regard as well.

The only important issue at this juncture, when the hon. the Minister requests that the additional expenditure that was essential in the course of the year be approved, is to determine whether this expenditure was indeed justified. In assessing this, it is necessary to take various factors into account. In the time available I just wish to refer to a few of them.

In the first place, as some of the hon. members on this side of the House have also said, and as the hon. member for Umhlanga confirmed, it must be realized that the Department of Posts and Telecommunications is a business enterprise which must be managed on business principles. Its only revenue is that it earns itself by way of the services it renders and, like any other commercial undertaking, the department is also exposed to fluctuating market factors.

In the second place, however, it must be borne in mind that due to the strategic and economic importance of its services, the department often has to continue to provide these services irrespective of any negative economic curve, and must continue to expand them, too, in order to meet the increasing demand. Moreover, provision must already be made now for any boom period that may be awaiting us. For example, the coming development in terms of the Government’s regional development strategy already requires that tremendous expenditure be incurred with a view to the establishment of the necessary infrastructure for services. After all, what industrialist would want to establish himself at any place if he was told that he would only be able to have telephone services or postal services within a year or two?

In the third place, it must be borne in mind that the department provides specialized services over an exceptionally wide spectrum and that the technology and the trained staff that are required for this must be obtained and must be available at all times. The Post Office must provide for everything from the delivery of an article of mail to the transmission by satellite of a televised image over thousands of kilometres. As in the case of every business enterprise, the ability to do these things is determined by, inter alia, available funds and the capacity of the staff. Of course the latter, in turn, can only be obtained by way of appropriate and market-related salaries and wages.

Fourthly, the Department must take into account the practical implementation of what I believe can only be described as astonishing progress in the technological sphere. For example, the majority of us took great pleasure in watching the recent Springbok rugby tour on television, without once stopping to consider that the image we were watching had to be transmitted from a rugby field in New Zealand via two satellites, each of them 36 000 km above the earth, to the earth station at Hartbeeshoek, from there to Auckland Park and then, in turn, to television sets throughout the country. This is a distance of more than 140 000 km, but we see the image only three seconds later than the actual incident.

Another example is the optical mail-sorter which is at present in use in Johannesburg, a piece of equipment which can literally “read” the address on an article of mail and then proceed to sort the articles of mail fully automatically. Not only must the Department keep abreast of these sophisticated technological developments; it must also implement them in practice by way of research and international liaison and make provision for the acquisition of such equipment or, where practicable, for its manufacture locally.

On the other side of the scale, the department is also concerned with postmen who are bitten by dogs and also people who damage their post-boxes. [Interjections.] That 1957 model dyed-in-the-wool United Party supporter would do better to listen. Perhaps he might learn something. [Interjections.] Time does not permit me to refer to the full spectrum of the activities of the department, but it will be clear from the few instances to which I referred what tremendous and increasing demands are made on the department. Not only is the department complying with these demands, it is also engaged in several fields in which South Africa is in the forefront with unique developments. The fact that this can be done on the basis of tariffs that are considerably lower than those of various major developed countries, is a fine testimonial for the ability and dedication …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member aware that he is taking part in a debate on the Second Reading of a Part Appropriation Bill and not the Second Reading of an Additional Appropriation Bill.

Order! I shall ensure that the hon. member does not digress.

The hon. member’s objections is just as baseless as his political principles. [Interjections.] The fact that these services can be rendered—as I said—at tariffs more reasonable than those of many developed countries, is a fine testimonial to the ability and dedication of the hon. the Minister, the Postmaster-General and his staff. We are satisfied that the affairs of this department are in safe hands. It is therefore with pleasure that this side of the House supports these measures.

Mr. Speaker, I am much in awe of the technological advances made by the Post Office as the hon. member for East London City is. It might be because he represents the area where I went to school that he has developed an insight into those matters, and I hope he develops that insight further. [Interjections.] Unlike the hon. member for Umhlanga, I found a bit more meat on the bone. Shortly after being elected last year, I took part in a tour of a few days, in and around Pretoria, which was organized by the Post Office. I found it a most interesting tour, mainly because the hon. the Minister turned out to be a most gracious host, and for that I thank him. The views I had obtained whilst in business about the Post Office being an undertaking of efficiency, under the able leadership of the Postmaster-General, were certainly reinforced. A word of warning, however, to the hon. the Minister. It is a delicate and unique flower that he has in his hands, and if the trust and the confidence of the business sector in his department is to be maintained, he must be careful not to tarnish its image.

Figures never really tell the full story, and in these estimates of additional expenditure what is interesting is what is not readily revealed rather than what is. On the face of it, there is a 10% increase, and this might be acceptable in these days of galloping inflation, even though this factor should have been taken into account when preparing the estimates for 1982-’83. On the face of it an increase of 10% would not seem to be excessive. Unlike the hon. the Minister’s praise-singers, however, I wish to point out that if one compared currently increased revised amounts with the Estimates of anticipated expenditure for the year 1981-’82, which were published in the estimates of revenue and expenditure for the year ending 31 March 1982, it will be seen that the increase for the items noted in these additional estimates at present before us is of the nature of 42%. So 10% on the face of it seems acceptable, but if one compares apples with apples it is actually an increase of 42%. This is a staggering increase over the last 12 months and calls for careful investigation. The major increases occur under “Staff expenses” due, we are told, to a decrease in staff losses and an increase in recruitment. This points to the severity of the economic down-turn being underestimated last year when the estimates were prepared by the previous Minister. I want to express the hope that the present encumbent will be more realistic in preparing the estimates, particularly as he has already announced that there will be no salary increases this coming financial year.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has already dealt with items 1.2 and 111 but I wish to direct certain comments and remarks on items 2.1 and 3.3. On item 2.1.1 on the original estimates, the telephone subscribers’ plant, there is an increase of almost R90 million. This is understandable because with the explosion of applications for telephones in this country one can understand the need for additional capital expenditure. However, I wish to draw attention of the hon. the Minister and the House to the increase in the use of modems. Under item 2.1.9 there is an increase of R15,8 million, from R23 million to R52 million. This means an increase of more than 100%. With the increasing demand, as the Postmaster-General forecast in his report recently handed out to us, one foresees great additional expenditure. If one couples this item with item 3.3, where there has been an increase of R20 million, it will be noted that in this fiscal year alone an amount of R72 million is tied up in the provision of modems. There is sure to be an increase in demand because as computers develop there will be an increase in demand from the private sector for this. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he investigates allowing free enterprise to handle this matter. I want to suggest that he allows private enterprise to handle the supply of modems for two reasons. The one is that we do have a great deal of capital tied up in this venture. R72 million is certainly not chickenfeed. I am assuming that both these items are purely for the provision of modems. I repeat that R72 million is not chicken feed and it will increase, as we all know. The second reason is that the Post Office has obviously been financing this venture because in his statement of 11 February the hon. the Minister announced that tariffs would be increased considerably. This indicates that we have been undercharging in financing this operation.

I am not suggesting that by handing it out to private enterprise we should lower standards. Indeed, one must demand a high standard from the private sector to ensure that this vitally important service provided by the Post Office is kept at a high level. I hope the hon. the Minister will give serious consideration to this suggestion.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin by making one or two general remarks. Right at the outset I want to say to the hon. member for North Rand that all of us in this House are very thankful and pleased that he is back. Our thoughts were with him in the upsetting experience he went through and one can only hope that the evil doers will find their way to the right place. Perhaps the hon. member has the feeling that his path must cross theirs at some stage. We are gratified that the hon. member is back and we are pleased that he is looking so healthy and strong.

I should like to wish the hon. member for Hillbrow, who is not here today—he informed me that he would not be—a speedy recovery. He has undergone major surgery. I think that there are probably many hon. colleagues in this House who also have trouble with their back vertebrae. One can but convey one’s sincere sympathy and express the hope that he will come back to this House healthy and strong. I must say, after listening to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, that it is clear to me that the PFP needs him a great deal, because it seems to me as if the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is now the temporary chief spokesman on this matter on that side of the House.

I also wish to pay tribute on this occasion to my predecessor, the hon. Mr. Hennie Smit. He has been Minister of this portfolio for the past number of years and was appointed to the President’s Council where he has other duties to perform. I am now rounding off the budget he introduced here last year and I should like to convey to him my thanks and appreciation for a department which I am sure any of my colleagues on this side would want to take over because it is run so smoothly and well. Indeed, it is a department that radiates friendliness and helpfulness. I thank him, because in the years one serves as Minister one imposes one’s stamp on the way such a department operates.

I also wish to convey my thanks and appreciation to a number of hon. members who, in the speeches they made here, paid tribute to the Postmaster-General and the officials of the department. I was fortunate to take over an outstanding team of officials from the outset. I call us a team because I regard us as a team in the Post Office, not as a Minister and officials but as a team comprising the management of a very major business, a business with a turnover of R8 000 million. That is half of the total budget of the country. The department has a budget of R2 500 million and that can certainly not be regarded as a small business undertaking. I am sure that all hon. members who sit here are clients of this department. They are its clients in the sense that they are clients of a business enterprise. I want to say to hon. members that, as the Minister, I shall at all times be prepared to consider proposals by means of which we may effect improvements and anything that we can do to improve the service and even suggestions as far as our budget is concerned. If those suggestions are meaningful and practicable, I shall be prepared to give them my attention. If the hon. members of the Opposition want to propose improvements, I shall be very pleased to listen to them. However, I do not think we should try to score political points off one another in this debate for purely political reasons. For as long as the Opposition allows me to do so, I shall keep this department outside politics. However, they must understand that if they do not permit me to do so then I shall have no choice in the matter.

I should now like to come back to the Postmaster-General, Mr. Bester, and the Deputy Postmaster-Generals, Mr. Raath, Mr. De Klerk and Mr. Ridgard and thank them for the way in which they received me in the department. I also wish to thank them for the way in which they went through the budget with me and for the opportunity I had a short time ago to become acquainted with this department as far as possible. When one has not been trained in that technology, it is extremely important that one should have the opportunity to examine these things.

The hon. member for East London City and other hon. members referred to the tour. He specifically pointed out that the development in the electronic field has been breathtaking. I think it is important that we as a country are at all times in the vanguard in this respect. We need not take second place to anyone in the field of electronics. We have had the opportunity in this regard, and the activities of the Post Office in recent years, together with good planning by my predecessor and the predecessors of the Postmaster-General, have resulted in our having concluded long-term contracts and having been able on this basis to build up an industry which is deserving of tribute rather than petty criticism.

As a point of departure with respect to the answers I should like to give today, I should perhaps quote an old friend of mine with whom I served together for years on the Executive Committee of the Cape Province, Mr. Frans Loots, MEC, who has now retired. He said that there were two ways of going bankrupt. The one was to buy too many “bargains” and the second was to borrow money until one was bankrupt. I believe that there is more wisdom in anyone’s thoughts or any field of business than to warn that by buying “bargains” and borrowing too much one can cause any business to come to grief. The question I want to ask right at the outset before replying to the speech by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is the following: In what business enterprise of which he is a director would he rely on loans, loans and more loans without trying to supplement the amount he requires from income? I am now referring to his capital expenditure. In the second place, would he go so far as to finance his operating expenditure from loans as well? I think that this is a question which he shall certainly have to discuss with me in the main budget when we deal with this again. The man who seeks to finance operating expenditure from loans is a man who is destined for bankruptcy. I hope that in the period for which I am responsible for this department I do not “do a New York”.

†The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that it was bad budgeting. I want to ask him a simple question. Although this can also be debated later on, he can give me an idea at this stage. The hon. member for Johannesburg North did not go as far as he did. He said he was of the opinion that a 10% Additional Budget could be allowed. Can he tell me what percentage should be allowed irrespective of whether one is budgeting for an upswing or a downswing in the economy? Does he perhaps think that somewhere in the world there is a person who is able to budget 12 months ahead in the presence of all the factors which have been mentioned today in speeches and be exactly on the nail cent for cent? In all the various posts I have served in the past—I have handled vast amounts of money administratively—a 10% understimate has always been regarded as a fair amount as long as one can give a fair explanation. One should not underestimate, but very often one has to underestimate.

The hon. member referred to the staff requirements and dealt with the R38 million we require for extra staff. A few days ago there was a newspaper article—I think it was in the Rand Daily Mail—which read that had we applied business principles in the Post Office, we would not have needed to raise the tariffs and, as I understood it, would not have needed to employ the staff. In the Post Office we need the staff. At this stage we have to budget for an upswing because we shall have to meet the upswing. Can one imagine the business community of this country coming back to the Government or to the Minister to point out that although we made certain promises we are not able to install telephones, telex machines and other equipment despite the fact that they require the equipment in order to get going? It is quite correct, as the hon. member for East London City has pointed out, that we are now actually paying accounts for orders we made three years ago. This is actually an unreal type of budget because one has to order well in advance. I have already agreed to certain orders that will only be delivered in two years’ time. All our equipment has to be tailor made. One cannot walk in to a shop overseas to buy this equipment.

*The hon. member for Sunnyside must understand that we cannot simply enter a shop overseas and, because prices are lower now, tell them that we want a few exchanges on the turn. Such exchanges are planned years in advance. They have to be planned in accordance with our specifications and for the specific place where we need them.

†I am overjoyed that we have managed to attract very good staff back to the Post Office. We need these people. We have been able to increase our technical teams, our construction teams and our administrative teams. I am quite happy that nothing that has been spent in this way has been spent unnecessarily. There is something else that must be borne in mind. Had we not reemployed those people who had left the private sector, where else would they have been accommodated? I can assure the House that many former employees of the Post Office have been re-employed by us. People were actually brought back into the Post Office at a cost of R38 million. They were not only brought back into the Post Office, but also into the economy of our country.

The hon. member wanted to know what has been paid out to companies. I cannot give him direct replies at this stage, but one thing which I can tell him is that we have a team of experts that work very closely with these companies. All the companies the hon. member has in mind are on contract. Most of them have long-term contracts. A financial team of the department in whom I have the utmost faith is working with this and I am sure that the officials serving in that team know their job. They work with these companies. They work out what profit is allowed. If there is a balance, it is divided in such a way that we get a certain pay-back. When the companies quoted what it would cost to produce a certain article, they might have been out; but every item is checked. Whether it was imported or locally manufactured, it is assessed properly and on that basis we then pay and get a pay-back.

The hon. member made a long story about the interest on National Loan Certificates being too low. He is quite correct. That must be solved. I have had discussions with the Minister of Finance about it. What happened is that the building societies got ahead of us by a short head. So there was a big withdrawal of capital from our savings bank. However, the hon. member seems to think that, abracadabra, when you have the money in your savings bank, it is not capital. Of course it is capital. One is actually borrowing it from the savings bank. It does not become income one has generated. It is capital just as it would be if it were being borrowed in Germany or Belgium or from Volkskas or anybody else. It is no use saying one would solve everything if one had a bigger inflow of capital which one could borrow. One has to pay it back. It is not generated income. I think the hon. member will accept that. That is where there is a flaw in his argument. We have put the matter right now through the raised interest rate and I hope that, with the help of the Minister of Finance, we will be able to keep it that way.

As regards the question of borrowing, I think I have already given the advice a very trusted old friend gave me years ago when I was a MEC and Administrator, viz. that one should be careful that one does not go bankrupt by buying bargains or by taking up too many loans. The hon. member mentioned the question of bad budgeting and asked why we wanted to move nearer to the 50% ratio in regard to own financing and loans. He said we should investigate this. We do not need to investigate it, because that has been done by the authoritative Franzsen Commission. That commission was the one that suggested that, if one wants to run the Post Office well, one must do it on a 50:50 basis, i.e. loans as against own financing. This past year the figure was only 27% and, with the high interest rate on loans, it certainly cannot stay like that. However, I will explain that in the main budget.

The hon. member wanted to know whether the 50:50 basis was a good idea. That is the question he asked. Of course it is a good idea. He made this interjection when the hon. member for Umlazi was speaking. As I have just said, the Franzsen Commission thought it was a good idea and I am quite happy to accept their recommendation.

*I should like to thank the hon. member for Umlazi. He is chairman of the Posts and Telecommunications working group and I wish to thank him for having taken this task upon his shoulders and also for the contribution he made in his speech. I think he put it very clearly that we have a certain financing policy. I also want to thank him for the way in which he accorded recognition to the fact that I consulted this House before making a statement on the budget. I sent it to every member—there is not one who did not receive it—because I felt that this House should be the first to know. I hope to rectify this matter for once and for all in the main budget. Then the private sector will simply have to wait until such time as I have introduced my budget in this House. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout can also explain this to them. It seems to me that it does not work the other way round. I am criticized for not first announcing it in this House. We shall draw up plans such that I will only do so in the main budget. It is pointless my telling all the businessmen in the country and we all have to keep it secret whereas the members of Parliament to not know about it.

I think that the hon. member singled out a few points very clearly. He outlined the policy that the Post Office is a business, and must be operated in terms of that principle. I hope that in the time that I am serving as Minister, the top management and I will manage to operate it not only as a business but, increasingly, as a good business.

There have been major improvements. As the hon. member said, service must be rendered throughout the country. We cannot only render a service to the PWV area, the Witwatersrand area, where we earn a great deal of money, and then leave all the people on the platteland and the farmers of Sout pansberg, Waterberg and other places, to mention only a few, without a telephone service. I think we realize that with an improved telecommunications service this is the basis of an upswing in the economy. A businessman will not invest in our industrial areas or the decentralized areas that we envisage if he cannot install a telephone, a telex and perhaps our new modems, too, the next day. The Post Office must see to it that it stays ahead. I should like to thank the hon. member for Umlazi for the way in which he brought clarity and a sober approach to the debate.

I also wish to thank the hon. member for Sunnyside for his congratulations to me. I shall ignore his remarks concerning the new dispensation. I can only say to him: “Wait and see”. If the hon. member is still with us at that time then we can discuss the matter again. The hon. member also wished the officials and the Postmaster-General all of the best. I thank him for that. Without a strong team of loyal and able officials, no Minister can achieve anything. The department is totally doomed if it does not have people of quality. I therefore thank him for the words of praise he addressed to the staff. I cannot say what additional revenue has already been brought in by the additional staff. However, I did mention that we had allotted them to work teams. They are on the administrative side. We hope to build up work teams. There are only two things one must have in order to provide services. The first is that one must have the money, and the second is that one must have the work teams to create the necessary infrastructure. If we can keep the work teams strong, and if we can find the money by way of reasonable tariff increases, then it is important that we shall be able to serve the whole country properly.

The hon. member also asked where we had borrowed the money. We borrow money throughout the world, for example in Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and at home.

†I can tell hon. members a success story of loans negotiated by the Post Office. No businessman is going to subscribe to a loan if the loan is requested by a useless business. The best example that I can quote of this is that a few months ago the Post Office needed R50 million and it was allowed to take it on the South African market. The loan was asked for by a particular bank and it was thrown open on a Friday morning. By Friday evening when I was attending a dinner at 19h00 the Postmaster-General told met that the loan had already been subscribed to the extent of R97 million, R97 million in one day!

Why did you not take it?

I did get a bit more than the R50 million; that I can assure the hon. member. However, the hon. the Minister of Finance needed the other; so we let him have it. I can assure the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that nobody is going to invest in this way unless it is a solid investment standing on four feet.

*The hon. member also asked a question concerning the material that is 25% higher. We budgeted for a 12% increase in material. This is in respect of imported material and material that is manufactured locally. Much of this material increased by another 12% for various reasons. They are under the same pressure as we are, namely transport costs, GST and anything one could add to that. However, this is definitely not due solely to inflation, and I shall reply to the hon. member for Johannesburg North in that regard in due course.

The hon. member for Sunnyside said that I was in the Cabinet and he wanted to know why I had not stopped the hon. the Minister of Finance. That is in the interests of the country. I am a strong advocate of GST. If anyone wants to buy something, he has to pay tax on it. In that way everyone who gives out money pays and makes a contribution to tax. Then it is not necessary for me to pay tax on my income alone. Let the man who buys in that way make his contribution. Then every population group makes its contribution; everyone throughout the country makes his contribution. If one imposes this levy, I cannot say to the hon. the Minister of Finance that he should not impose the tax because from those sources we obtain a sufficient amount so that we do not have to tax the hon. members’ income alone. Everyone contributes. In this way, whoever wants to buy a refrigerator, a chair, a table, a loaf of bread or whatever, makes a contribution.

The hon. member for Overvaal made a very sound and well-considered contribution for which I want to thank him. The way in which hon. members, even hon. members of the Opposition parties, listened to him, was clear evidence of the fact that they found his speech illuminating and very instructive, too. Judging by the expressions on certain faces, I am sure that some hon. members sitting here today heard things that they have never realized before, or which they have thus far not seen in perspective. The hon. member said that this budget had been drawn up in the expectation of an upswing in the economy. I believe that this is probably the most important aspect of this legislation. That the Post Office is a business undertaking, a profitable business undertaking which receives no subsidies, was also stressed by the hon. member for Umlazi. The hon. member also referred to the installation of 276 000 telephones.

†The hon. member for Bezuidenhout possibly did not understand what the hon. member for Umlazi meant when he referred to this figure. I shall therefore try to explain the matter again. The total of 276 000 telephones, to which the hon. member for Umlazi referred, will all have been installed in the course of the current financial year, the financial year ending on 31 March this year. It means that we will have installed 267 000 telephones by 31 March. We have, however, already built up a waiting list of 220 000. I shall deal with that matter again when the main Post Office appropriation is discussed here in the House later.

I should like to thank the hon. member for Umhlanga for his kind words of welcome. I do believe, however, the hon. member could have gone somewhat further. He should not have stated that the NRP reluctantly conceded this was a good budget. One must be magnanimous in respect of things of this nature. Confucius used to talk about the great man and the little man. One should rather try to be the great man here and not the little man. One must be magnanimous and reasonable enough to concede that this is a very good budget. Instead the hon. member for Umhlanga was only willing to say that it was a satisfactory budget, and that it was acceptable. The hon. member for Johannesburg North also said it was not a bad budget; he thought it was satisfactory. Unfortunately he was not a “great man” to say that it was a good additional budget. I think he said the budget was satisfactory. I do agree with him, of course, but I must point out that one has to admit that only a superman will be able to budget for exact amounts, I feel we should allow for at least a 10% variation.

The hon. member also spoke about the vital need for telecommunications in the growth of a nation. I believe he made an extremely sensible and important point there. As the technologically strong countries have already done, I hope we will be able to plan a technological strategy for South Africa. If we do not succeed in doing that during the next year or so we are going to fall behind. Once we fall behind we will never catch up again. That is why we help certain countries to produce in South Africa. Once we have our own electronic industry operating in South Africa nobody will be able to cut off our supplies. For a year or two still it might be necessary for us to subsidize—if we can call it that—certain companies. We are, however, prepared to do that because it is in the interests of South Africa as a whole.

*I have already referred to a few aspects of the speech by the hon. member for East London City. I wish to thank him once again for what he said and particularly for his praise of the tour. I thank him, too, for the way in which he, as one of the members who went on the tour, made his specific contribution. I also call to mind the speech of thanks he made at the satellite station—probably one of the best I have ever heard at a social gathering of that nature. The description given by the hon. member of the television transmission of the rugby matches in New Zealand was really something exceptional to listen to. Within a few moments the hon. member had gained our full attention for his account of what really happens when we sit and watch such a transmission on television. When one thinks about it, it is really amazing that we can ever see anything on television, particularly in view of the multiple channels through which transmissions have to be passed. All those transmissions are carried on the Post Office network. The SABC does not have its own network. In that respect we are the boss of the SABC. I thank the hon. member for East London City once again for his contribution.

†The hon. member for Johannesburg North also made an interesting speech. I am quite sure that he is still going to make a good contribution in this House. I should like to thank him for his kind words, and I can only express the sincere hope that I will not be the Minister who will tarnish the flower about which the hon. member spoke. I do, however, want to cross swords with the hon. member about one thing he said. He mentioned the question of galloping inflation. I do not believe one should refer to inflation in South Africa as galloping inflation. It is inflation that everyone is worried about, but there are certain things one simply has to face. If one wants services, good services, one has to pay for them. That is a business principle that pertains throughout the world. What business in South Africa can run without generating some sort of income for either the improvement of the business or its expansion? No business in South Africa can run on loans for years and years until it eventually goes bankrupt, and that merely because it wants to render a public service. I have never heard of any such business before. The Post Office is going to be run on business lines, as it has in the past, and perhaps even more so during the years that I am in this post. Inflation was allowed for in our estimates.

Not enough.

These changes, such as the return of staff, involving R40 million, have nothing to do with inflation. Nothing at all! The increase in capital expenditure has very little to do with inflation in this country, though it possibly does bear some relation to increased costs in other countries. We did allow for infaltion but even though the budgets in different countries do bear some relation to the cost of material, one cannot simply call the relevant manifestation galloping inflation.

I could not quite catch the hon. member’s argument about the figure of 42% and not a 10% increase in the Additional Appropriation. I think one could play around with figures. I think one could bring the figures down to virtually zero if one wanted to. The hon. member said one should compare apples with apples. Perhaps we can proceed with that argument in a later debate. The last question he put to me involved whether we would allow private enterprise to handle the modums. It is a matter we are giving a lot of thought to, but it does have its problems.

Under regulation and control.

Yes, that is the point. That is one of the the main points. It must be under very strict regulation and control by the department. There are many pros and cons. I do not want to give any decision today. I just want to tell the hon. member that what he has noticed and what he is propagating is something we are looking into. There are problems involved. This can only apply to certain recognized modums …

Approved.

… approved by our technical staff. The question I find interesting is that those people would then be able to service the modums themselves and we would therefore not have to run a big staff. We have already looked into this matter. I do not, however, want to give any answer now. Perhaps when we are dealing with the budget itself, I might have a firmer answer. We are, however, looking into the matter.

*I should like to convey my sincere thanks to hon. members who took part in the debate for their contributions. I hope that in the future we shall continue to conduct this kind of debate on the Post Office, which is in fact a non-political department. Although I sincerely regret that I have not been able to take part in the debates of the past few days, I trust that as long as I am Minister I shall be able to refrain from participating in political debates when Post Office affairs are at issue.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, in the first instance may I congratulate you on your appointment to this position and may I also wish you well. [Interjections.] I listened with interest to the hon. the Minister, and after having heard his speech I, too, want to welcome him in his new position. I did not do so initially because I wanted to see whether he had learned anything about his particular portfolio. I must say that the hon. the Minister has shown that he has taken a deep and intelligent interest in his portfolio. He is exceptionally lucky in that he has an exceptionally good start in the Postmaster-General and the other members of his staff who know every detail and who will help him.

I should like to deal with item 1.1—Staff expenses—and the question of the new personnel. In the budget debate the hon. the Minister’s predecessor mentioned the problems which he was having then about getting staff. He mentioned how difficult it was and that certain programmes were being effected in order to get better results and more productivity. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to make absolutely certain that the question of productivity is not neglected even though more staff is available. Secondly, provision should be made to ensure that when there is an upswing in the economy the staff is not lost again to private enterprise. It is necessary that organizations such as the Post Office and the State should be the leaders in this country as far as the provision of employment is concerned and they should not, as in the past, be the followers. That is why they have lost the staff in the past. I hope during this period of recession the Post Office and the State will ensure that members of staff remain, are properly trained—the new members particularly—and that the question of productivity will not be neglected. Unless productivity is increased during this particular period the problems which we had in the past about inflation will certainly be effective.

Although the hon. the Minister has said that during the next year we must consider the whole question of electronic developments in this country I think the Post Office has to be congratulated for one thing and that is that it really took a tremendous step when it decided to introduce analogue exchanges, analogue telephone communications, rather than digital communication systems. I am sure that with the introduction of this particular system the backlog of 226 000 telephones can easily be overcome. The setting up of analogue exchanges is much easier and requires less labour than the present type of electromagnetic telephone exchanges. It is ready made and introduced into the exchange. Small exchanges are required and I believe that through the introduction of this system we will have a much better telephone service.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout mentioned the need to retain the services of as many of these employees as possible in times of greater economic prosperity. The hon. member was also a member of the tour group to which I referred earlier, and I think he will agree with the hon. members of the Post Office study group on this side of the House that in so far as it is possible to create favourable or suitable staff circumstances, the Post Office is doing so. During the previous budget debate, specific mention was made of the tremendous progress that had been made in respect of housing for Post Office staff. Several further housing schemes are being considered, and I do not wish to steal the hon. the Minister’s thunder. However, I feel the hon. member for Bezuidenhout will agree that whatever can be done within an administration to retain its staff will be done by this administration. However, it is not possible for the public sector to compete with the private sector at all times. Especially when there is an upswing in the economy, this is not possible, because the public sector is simply used by private enterprise as a criterion for determining the salaries to be paid to its employees. Then one should take into consideration the fact that the Post Office uses highly skilled and technical staff, in respect of whom it is actually the standard employer. In the sphere of electronics and in the sphere of communications generally, the Post Office is indeed the standard employer and the standard training agent, and the result is that it is also the greatest victim when it comes to the poaching of staff and the offering of irresistibly attractive salaries. Therefore one should have regard to these considerations in discussing the retention of staff, in an economic revival as well. What the Post Office is able to do as a business enterprise is in fact being done.

Clause agreed to.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to explain my point about the increase and the comparing of apples with apples, if I may. Mention has been made that this increase that has been requested is merely 10%, but that is 10% on what was budgeted for this year. If one compares the final estimate for this year, bearing· in mind the items in this additional expenditure, with what was to have been the final estimate for the 1981-’82 financial year, one then sees that it is an increase of 42%. If one takes those figures and compares them with the anticipated figures for the end of the last financial year, there is an increase of 42%. It is for that reason I said I thought it was a substantial amount and I still think it is. 42% is a considerable amount. Some of it is of course explained by the increase in telephone equipment and the increased supply of services. That is why I did not exercise too harsh a criticism on the hon. the Minister. That is the reason for my concern about the 42%.

Mr. Speaker, there are only two things that I want to reply to. The Committee Stage came to an end very quickly; I just wanted to reply to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout about the question of productivity that he was worried about. I can assure him that we will definitely see to the productivity. I think the top management, the Postmaster-General and his deputies, are all very concerned about productivity, but in the whole structure of the department a lot of power is also delegated to the regions. We have very good regional directors. I think that in this coming year—I shall talk more about this during the budget debate—we shall try to get through to every staff member, right down to the person doing the most menial job that there is, to ensure that they will be able to do a full day’s work, because only then are you really working in the business. As far as we can be successful, we hope to carry this through. As the hon. member for Umlazi has mentioned, we shall lose staff with the upswing, but I bet my bottom dollar that, because of the creation of various incentives like housing loans, pensions, etc., those that have come back to us now, will not easily leave us again. They have found that when they go to the private sector and there is a recession, their employer says to them: Thank you for working for me for a year or two. Goodbye. The postal employees are safe in the department. We have to budget in such a way that we have to keep them with us even in bad times. It is in this regard that we sometimes experience a slight problem as far as inflation is concerned.

I understand the comparison drawn by the hon. member for Johannesburg North but I do not think it is a fair one. I think that if one goes back a further year one will find that it is about 60% and it might be more still if one goes even further back. I think we should rather compare this one with the last one and then compare the next one with this one. However, to arrive at a real figure, one can only take the additional amount that one is asking for and compare it with the budget for that particular year. I do not think that one should go further back than that.

I was comparing this year with last year. That is how we do it in business.

Yes, that is so. However, what I say is that the additional amount that is being requested should be compared with the budget for this particular year. That is the only way to assess the increase.

I want finally to express my sincere thanks once again to hon. members who have participated in this debate on all sides of the House and also wish to express the hope that the discussion on the main budget will be as congenial and as friendly as this one has been. On that occasion we shall be able to discuss business principles, inflation and any other matter that hon. members wish to raise.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, when I was speaking on a previous occasion I explained to the House that owing to the new constitutional guidelines this legislation could cause us problems. One asks oneself this question: Why the haste with this legislation? During the past three years this legislation was amended quite a few times. It was amended once in 1980, twice in 1981 and again in 1982, and with this legislation we are substituting the whole of Act No. 22 of 1960. I have already said that in terms of the constitutional guidelines a Minister can be a member of any one of the three chambers. What I want is that we should tell the workers honestly and sincerely what we are doing. Whether it is right or wrong is a matter one will have to decide for oneself. What the worker must know, however, one must tell him, and that is that this legislation makes it possible for legislation to be transferred from this Parliament to a parliament with three chambers and that it is still going to be legislation under which these people are going to fall It is for these reasons that I maintain that we should emphasize these matters. Some of the hon. members opposite will tell me that the State President may delegate, by way of regulation, the powers he possesses in terms of clause 2. Consequently he still continues to be the person authorized.

You have said that already.

It will do the hon. member for Turffontein good to hear it again.

No, it is your memory which is so short.

That is the person who challenges other hon. member and then refuses to resign. He says it is horse trading.

The point remains that there is a difference between the delegation of the powers of the State President and those of a Minister in the new Parliament. I want to put a question to the hon. the Minister. Does he agree with the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information when that hon. member issues the following pamphlet and states the following, which I associate with transport because it is discussed in the pamphlet and is ultimately connected with the legislation as well—

Order! In spite of the hon. member’s assertion that he associates it with transport, I request him to return to the Bill. The Bill is concerned with conditions of service, and the hon. member is deviating from it.

Sir, I should like to point out to you that a definition of “transport” is given here. According to the guidelines transport will not be a group matter, but one of common concern. If it is a matter of common concern, anyone who is appointed will be able to become a Minister of Transport. That is the connection which I make here.

The hon. member must not make the connection too wide though.

The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information writes—

Then we come to the following—

This is a matter of common concern and she can become a Minister of this House. She can become a Minister of Transport Affairs; she can become a Minister in charge of the Railways. This is a fact; it only remains to be told to the people. Does the hon. the Minister agree that a Coloured or an Indian can become Minister of Transport Affairs under the new dispensation?

Yes, of course.

A little louder please; I cannot hear.

You clearly heard me say yes, but I shall reply further. You said the State President is a dictator, but surely such a dictator will not appoint a person as Minister who cannot do the work. [Interjections.]

Is the hon. the Minister now implying that a Coloured or an Indian cannot do the work? [Interjections.] Surely that is discrimination, as I said the other day. [Interjections.] Here we now have an hon. Minister who says that a Coloured or an Indian who is appointed as Minister will not be able to manage such a post. [Interjections.]

Where did the hon. the Minister say that? [Interjections.]

It is important to me to know from the Minister whether this legislation will be applicable under the new dispensation. I can furnish the reply to that question. It is: “Yes, because it will be a law of this Parliament”. No one in the House can say that all the present laws will be replaced. Consequently a person of colour, an Indian or a Coloured, can become Minister of Transport Affairs. All that I want is for the hon. the Minister to admit this and for the Government to say: “This is what we stand for”. That will further the cause of Allan Hendrickse considerably.

Order! I have now afforded the hon. member for Langlaagte an opportunity to digress. However, I think he has made his point now and he must come back to the Bill

Thank you, Sir.

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

No. The hon. member will have an opportunity to make a very good speech in a moment. [Interjections.]

Do you not wish to reply to a question?

No, I do not have enough time. [Interjections.]

One does not have unlimited time in a Second Reading debate.

Yes, you can speak for as long as you like.

I am glad to hear that. [Interjections.] For me there is only one important consideration, namely that members who are going to speak after me, will not concentrate on the Bill. They will play the man. They can do that all week long, but they will have no effect on me.

The question I want to ask is a fair one.

I want to state today that all that has to happen in South Africa is that the voters should be told the truth. The workers should be told the truth. The hon. member for Standerton spoke of the truth as a small, thin little man. That little man should be shown to the voters.

But the truth is contained in that pamphlet.

The NP must ensure that this matter is brought to the attention of the Railway workers before it takes a decision on it. Clause 27(7) reads as follows—

All I am asking today is that the Railway people should be told explicitly in this House what the future holds for them. They should be told explicitly that a staff association will be the only body which will in actual fact be able to act on their behalf, because the White Parliament will disappear under the new dispensation. It will lose its sovereignty completely under the new dispensation and consequently the Railway worker and the worker in general will lose his bargaining power. He will have recourse only to trade unions. The Minister can reduce his salary. The Minister can hold talks with the staff association and the persons of colour who have gained entry there on the question of whether the wage gap should be narrowed further. It can then happen that the bottom-grouping votes for increases below and reductions above. Who would then be facing problems, in such a situation? Sir, it is time the NP, with a strong leader such as the Prime Minister—I know he is strong—stated its case clearly. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, since I am rising to speak this afternoon for the first time, in a debate on the S.A. Transport Services, I should firstly like to congratulate our new General Manager of the S.A. Transport Services on his appointment to that high office. We wish him everything of the best and fruitful labour.

The Bill we are dealing with may be summarized briefly as being an effective streamlining and modernization of the old Railways and Harbours Service Act of 1960 and various other related Acts. When this debate was adjourned last week, the hon. member for Langlaagte was speaking. I knew that I would have to react to the hon. member’s speech. He spoke about so many things, he danced around in so many circles—we could call it a tortoise reel—that one really does not know what to reply to. I went to fetch a copy of his Hansard, but I could not gleam much from that. The hon. member continued his speech here today, but he did not get round to the matters we are discussing at all. He did not get round to discussing the conditions of employment of the workers of the S.A. Transport Services. Last week the hon. member made a great song and dance about his representing White voters in this House. Any fool could have told him that. It is true. We all represent White voters here. What I want to tell the hon. member, is that the voters in Langlaagte, whom he claims to represent, are no longer his voters. In 1981 those voters voted for the principles of the NP, and that hon. member has therefore failed them. Today I wish to tell the voters and the employees of the S.A. Transport Services in Langlaagte that the NP, this Government, will look after their interests in spite of this M.P. who claims to represent them. The only way in which that hon. member may put what I have said to the test, is at the polls. However, I know that the hon. member does not have the courage to do so.

I shall come and stand against you in Kroonstad.

That hon. member does not know what trouble is. If he comes to Kroonstad, he will really find out what trouble is. The Free Staters know how to deal with people who act the way he does. What is the hon. member’s problem? He has spun himself into such a cocoon of fear and mistrust, that he no longer knows which way to turn. He does not trust anything or anyone. That is why his voters can no longer trust him with the important task they assigned to him either. I repeat: We shall look after those voters, for this Government is pursuing a responsible policy. We accept responsibility for all the people living in this country.

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

No, Sir. The hon. member has had an opportunity to make a speech.

Are you afraid of the Indians in the Free State?

The Free State will deal with these matter as and when they occur and, as in the past, it will deal with them with the responsibility with which it has always dealt with all its tasks in the past. That hon. member reminds me of the story of the old bullfrog I read as a child. He sat there puffing himself up, trying to look bigger than he really was. Then he burst and there was nothing left of him. Talking about coming to a sticky end, I think that hon. member should resign. Then he would find out at the polls what coming to a sticky end means.

I said that we had a responsibility to all the people in this country, and therefore also to the employees of the S.A. Transport Services. We shall fulfil our duty and responsibility to the Whites, the Coloureds and the Blacks, in this case, the employees of the S.A. Transport Services. All I ask of the hon. member for Langlaagte, is that he should refrain from impeding the Government in what it is doing. Today there are all the opportunities in the world to assist in establishing order and discipline in our country, as well as within the ranks of the S.A. Transport Services. I do not think there is anything more we can say to that hon. member. He said that we should tell the voters the truth. In this life, there is nothing finer than the truth, and the NP has never flinched from the truth. In future, the NP will tell the voters the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, for as long as it is meant to govern this country. [Interjections.]

However, I should also like to say a few words to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North, who acted as chief spokesman for the PFP in respect of this particular Bill. There was a time when we used to become extremely annoyed with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. However, we have come to realize that his bark is worse than his bite. As time passes, we realize how harmless the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North really is. Nor did this hon. member say much in his speech. I read his Hansard as well. What we did, in fact, glean from him—and he admitted this frankly—is that he is not a member of the Broederbond, nor does he belong to the same clique as the hon. member for Houghton. In certain respects the hon. member also said a few good things about the S.A. Transport Services. However, he also said a few dangerous things.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North made a plea here for open trade unions, as well for people to have the right to strike. I wish to know from the hon. member what he is trying to do. Is he also making a plea for the recognition of outside trade unions? This would mean that we would have to negotiate with an unmanageable number of trade unions, something which would cause a splintering process, and which could perhaps destroy the labour peace which has existed in the S.A. Transport Services for more than 50 years. We cannot afford to let this happen. It would amount to a destabilization of labour relations and labour peace in South Africa. The hon. member would certainly do well to act in a more responsible way when he is dealing with these matters.

However, let us see what the organ, the mouthpiece, of the PFP has to say. I am referring to The Cape Times of course. The one cannot utter a sound without the other following suit. There is an article in The Cape Times of 11 February 1983, under the heading “Union condemns new racist Labour Bill”. When one listens carefully to the speech of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North, and if one re-reads it, one realizes that he wishes, in a very covert way, to read racism into this legislation. [Interjections.] One can see this. It is extremely vague, yet the hon. member says this repeatedly. Of course, I do not wish to slight the hon. member now. However, I ask how anyone of sound mind could read something like this into this Bill.

Today the S.A. Transport Services is a large and dynamic business enterprise, and it is essential that all legislation pertaining to the S.A. Transport Services should from time to time be adapted in such a way as to keep abreast of the demands of the times. In our time, great demands, extremely great demands, are being made on the S.A. Transport Services and as such, and on the employees, the staff, of the S.A. Transport Services as well. We are aware that more than a quarter of a million people are in the employ of the South African Transport Services, a quarter of a million people who have to keep the wheels of the S.A. Transport Services turning on a 24 hour basis, regardless of adversity and economic problems, such as the recession we are experiencing world-wide— and, of course, country wide as well. These are people who continue to render that service under difficult circumstances. Only the best is expected of them. These are a quarter of a million people who can only render that service if they enjoy favourable conditions of service, if in their work situation they enjoy labour peace because the necessary labour, bargaining and conciliation machinery has been created for them so that they may have a say, through their staff associations, in those things they regard is being of real importance in their work situation.

When we speak of labour peace and sound labour relations, we realize that the S.A. Transport Services as an organization may be held up as an example in this country today, and this is not merely cheap boasting. In this regard, one cannot help but given the recently retired General Manager of the Railways, Dr. Loubser, a large measure of the credit for this. What did he do? He implicitly believed that consultation at every level was a necessary prerequisite and that is why, over the years, a position of trust has been built up with the Management, of which all connected with the S.A. Transport Services may rightly be proud. That is also why order and discipline exist among the employees of the S.A. Transport Services. That is why they are people who understand. They understand because they have been given a fair deal. The hon. the Minister can bear witness to this. Today I wish to express my sincere gratitude to the hon. the Minister for coming to my constituency and meeting the people of the S.A. Transport Services in their work situation. The hon. the Minister would be able to tell this House that they are happy people. They are people who understand. When the hon. the Minister spelt out the economic problems of this country to them, they made it clear that they are people who understand. They do not understand simply because they have always been able to trust this Government, but because there is labour peace, as well as the machinery which has been created within the Transport Services to make all these things possible. It is important that we consider these matters, that we improve these conditions of employment of the staff of the S.A. Transport Services in such a way that the people know that they are working for a fine organization, that they like to work there and that they are not only serving the organization they work for, but also our fine country.

I take great pleasure in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kroonstad started fairly well when he said that this piece of legislation before the House was a combination of about 24 Acts which are now being repealed and that it in fact signified the streamlining of the conditions of employment of the employees of the S.A. Transport Services. However, it did not take him very long—only a minute or two—before he took up his position in the trench, took out his rifle and let rip at the CP in the battle of the “kloofs” and the “bergs”. [Interjections.] I do not want to comment much on that. That battle may still last a long time, and who knows what the end result is going to be? There is something I should like to say to the hon. member for Kroonstad and to other hon. members on that side of the House. There are people in South Africa who are unreasonable. They are the radicals on the left wing and the right wing in South Africa. They carry the seed of their own destruction in their hearts. We look forward to the results of those two by-elections. One sees that the CP and the HNP cannot conclude a peace-treaty, and the voters of South Africa must take cognizance of that. I think things will go very badly for both radical rightist parties in those by-elections. We shall still have to see how things work out.

I want to tell the hon. member for Rissik that we are right, but not rightist. The hon. member for Kroonstad fired a salvo at the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North and thereafter sang a paean of praise for the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs, the department and its employees. We associate ourselves with the paean of praise to the employees of the S.A. Transport Services. I must say that they try their best. It is just a pity that the hon. the Minister does not from time to time accept our good advice to improve their circumstances further.

†What we are dealing here with today is the consolidation of some 24 Acts into one Bill, the Conditions of Employment (South African Transport Services) Bill. Generally we find this Bill acceptable, for the simple reason that it is consolidation essentially of what we have had in this country for over 20 years. There are some changes to the conditions of employment in respect of technicalities regarding the relationship between the State President, the appointment of a General Manager—my hon. colleague for Amanzimtoti has already expressed our well wishes to the new General Manager—and the appointment of staff. Essentially the principles contained in this Bill remain the same. There have been changes in detail. That we can always discuss in the Committee Stage where we will be lending some support for the official Opposition, but in some clauses we will not be lending them our support.

I should like to return to the speech of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North because he, like the extreme right wing parties, has been unreasonable in his attitude to the Second Reading of this Bill. His arguments have some merit in respect of the position of migrant workers, the fact that they cannot become permanent employees of the S.A. Transport Services and also in respect of his attitude towards the liberalization of trade union entry into the S.A. Transport Services. His argument has some merit but regrettably, like all radical parties, he has overstated his case. In that he has destroyed the fundamental good which did exist in his argument, as little as that was. Let me say to the hon. member—it comes as no surprise to him—that we will not be supporting their unreasonable amendment and opposition to the Second Reading of this Bill. In life one has to be consistent in one’s attitude. If there is logic in one’s argument people are likely to support one and if one is illogical or unreasonable one will only get minority support. I want to remind the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North that it was not so long ago that his party supported a Bill in this House which gave the Minister of Manpower, in terms of the amendments of the Labour Relations Act, full powers to act arbitrary in the interruption of a collective bargaining process. That is a worse position than what the hon. member is pleading for now. And yet they lent full support to that amending legislation. Where is the consistency of policy of principle of the PFP?

Turning specifically to the position of the migrant worker, why has the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North singled out the SATS to be referred to a Select Committee? Does he feel so strongly about migrant workers or does he feel so strongly about the SATS? Is the hon. member concerned about the plight of migrant workers from other parts of South Africa who cannot become permanent employees and therefore indulge or participate in the benefits of certain employers such as a pension fund, etc., or has he specifically and deliberately singled out the SATS to be criticized? The hon. member is present in the House. I do not know whether he heard my question. Perhaps he can tell us later on what he feels. We are of the opinion that he is being deliberate and inconsistent in singling out the SATS. We all agree, and I am sure the hon. members on the Government side also agree, that we must constantly improve the conditions of service of all workers, including migrant workers. If the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North and his party feel so strongly about the migrant workers that they want this Bill to be referred to a Select Committee, I ask him whether he will include in such an investigation the position of migrant workers in the mines of South Africa as well.

Of course.

Do they agree to a full investigation of the conditions of service of migrant workers in the mining industry in South Africa as well?

Sure.

I am very pleased to hear that, because you cannot single out one organization and not include the other.

But this Bill has to do with the S.A. Transport Services.

Correct. I just want to know whether those hon. members are going to be consistent in the application of what they are calling for. This House will remember the statement the hon. member for Pinelands has made, namely that he includes in his request for a Select Committee the migrant labour system on the mines of South Africa.

Do you support that?

Do I support it? No. That is your standpoint. I will tell the hon. member why. That is the next point I am going to make. Have the migrant workers of South Africa asked that party to speak on their behalf?

No.

Of course they have not. The hon. member admits that. Who knows whether the migrant workers who come to the gold-mines of South Africa from foreign States outside South Africa and— who have always been outside South Africa want to become permanent employees of these companies in South Africa? Do they really want to become permanent employees? It is unthinkable that a man from Mozambique or a man from Zimbabwe, those who are still working here, or a man from Owambo or Botswana will want to leave his national State and become a permanent resident of South Africa.

People from England, Germany and Holland work elsewhere.

How many of them give up their citizenship of their mother countries? They come here because South Africa is able to fulfil an economic need of theirs. I want to vouch for the fact that the majority of migrant workers in South Africa, particularly in the mining industry, do not want permanent staff status because it places obligations on them which are unacceptable to them, such as three weeks leave a year. They also do not want to have money retained here in South Africa and not be allowed to take it back to their homelands, because that would not serve their economic needs. Nevertheless, I am delighted to hear that the PFP will include in their request for a Select Committee that there also be an investigation into migratory labour.

Let us turn to the other major objection which deals with the vexed question of whether one should allow in-house trade unions or whether one should have a right to and freedom of association with unions outside the S.A. Transport Services. This is a very delicate question. It is something that requires considerable thought, because, once again, there are many organizations which should then also come under the spotlight and have their status investigated as well. Let us think for instance, of the Public servants’ Association—I am not sure what the PFP calls it any more—or the Underground Officials Association in the mining industry. There are umpteen examples of in-house associations which serve only the needs of that particular organization. If one is going to call for an investigation into in-house associations one should spread the net as widely as possible and include an investigation into the whole principle of in-house associations and not single out the S.A. Transport Services. This party believes that there should be a right to associate and also a right to disassociate. I think the hon. members of the PFP will agree with that. What is important is that the members of the staff associations of the Railways have the right on a regular basis to elect the members who represent them and speak on their behalf. If they were dissatisfied with the way in which their staff association operated in principle, not in minute detail, surely at their elections they would show their resentment and would protest with all the means available to them.

Like what?

By abstaining from voting, by putting up candidates whom they believe can do the job for them, by passing motions at their annual general meetings. I have not yet heard of a motion proposed at an annual general meeting of a staff association of the SA Transport Services for a vote of no confidence in the system. Improvement can come, but there is democratic recourse for the members if they feel that their association is inadequate. If that is what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North is saying in his amendment it means that he and his party are demonstrating a vote of total no-confidence in the people who run the staff associations of the SATS. That is really what they are saying and I think that they should examine very carefully the implications of the amendment that they have moved to the Second Reading of this Bill.

The NRP also believes in the right to associate and in the right to dissassociate. We believe that improvements can be brought about in respect of both the migrant worker and the staff associations. However, the way in which the official Opposition proposes to do it, is not the right way to do it.

How should we do it?

I think that one should consult with these bodies.

How does one do that except by means of a Select Committee?

One consults with these bodies, one obtains their opinion and one then allows them to do their own negotiating through their own negotiators to improve their conditions of service. Conditions of service are a matter of domestic concern between the employer and the employee. [Interjections.] Of course they are.

What happens if the employer is a party to the dispute?

Well, if the hon. member would take the trouble to investigate the mechanisms for conciliation that are available in terms of this Bill … [Interjections.] You see, Sir, the hon. member for Pinelands has not read the Bill thoroughly.

If he had done so, he would have seen that the mechanisms for conciliation in terms of the provisions made in this legislation for that conciliation are a vast improvement over what he and his party voted for in respect of the legislation dealing with industrial labour relations. [Interjections.] Of course it is. Provision is made here in the event of dispute for the matter to be referred to a judge or ex-judge for arbitration and not to a Minister. However, 10 days ago, that party voted for the Minister to exercise his prerogative and not to refer the dispute to a conciliation board. Therefore we believe that the PFP are being totally inconsistent in their approach and we shall not be supporting their amendment to the motion for the Second Reading of this Bill.

I want to say that when we come to the Committee Stage my party will certainly be dealing with the details contained in the various clauses in regard to which we believe improvements can be effected. However, we are satisfied that in principle this Bill will serve the purpose for which it was designed. The test is there for all to see. For 22 years the component parts of this legislation which is now being consolidated have served the SATS well. Therefore we shall be supporting the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Durban North very sincerely for the dispassionate way in which he referred to this legislation. I also want to thank him for his party’s support for this legislation. The hon. member has already dealt very effectively with the official Opposition, and particularly with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. I just want to tell the hon. member for Durban North that when we have the “berg” elections, there is a “kloof” in every “berg”. Waterkloof is still there and I hope the hon. member will go and see how strongly the streams of Nationalism are flowing there and that under the lush green trees of the NP they will also nominate a candidate in Waterkloof.

A few of the cedars in Waterkloof are going to fall.

I want to take this opportunity, since this is the first time that he is present in this House, to congratulate Dr. Grové sincerely on his wonderful achievements, particularly as far as economic matters are concerned. We now need a person, particularly as far as the economy is concerned, who is able to give very strong guidance. Permit me also to convey my sincere congratulations to Dr. Moolman, who is also occupying an important office for the first time and who is also one of our brilliant people in the SATS, and express the hope that he will also, as in years gone by, take the SATS to great heights.

The legislation before us is legislation of very great importance. It is legislation which was not drafted by the Government alone. There were co-draftsmen of this legislation. I also wish to discuss the contents of the legislation, as well as the criticism that has been levelled at it. On Monday, in Johannesburg, I made a very thorough study of this legislation and I said emphatically to Mr. Benade, who controls the manpower position in SATS—we are now dealing here with the transport workers—that I wanted to know precisely what people would be affected by this legislation. He gave me very interesting figures which I am now going to disclose to this House. It is a good thing that these figures will be placed on record. He said: “Mr. Van Rensburg, the only figure I can give you at the moment is the one which was applicable on 15 January this year.” I replied: “Well, those are recent figures.”

On 15 January the position in SATS was as follows: Whites, 114 455; Blacks, 119 123; Coloureds, 18 628; and Indians, 2 119. That gives a total of 255 041. This total includes 716 SATS workers who are serving abroad. Consequently, if one wants the precise number in South Africa, one must deduct the 716 who are serving abroad from 255 041.

I also had an opportunity to have a word with some of the trade unions. In the legislation there is an interesting point which should be very strongly emphasized, because it is not only the Government and SATS, but there are also a large number of people in SATS who represent all the employees. They represent these 255 041 employees, and they were the co-draftsmen. In group A—the Salaried Staff Association—the president is a grade I clerk. In group B—the S.A. Foot-plate Staff Association—the president is an electrical locomotive driver. In group C—the Union of Train Staff and Operating Grades—the president is a conductor. In group D—the Artisans’ Staff Association—the president is Mr. J. Zurich, a technician with special duties. In group E— the SATS Employees’ Union—the president is a senior container crane foreman. In group F—the Spoorbond—the president is a senior training officer from Road Transport. Then, too, there is the S.A. Railway Police Staff Association, the president of which is a major at Jan Smuts Airport. There is also the Coloured Staff Association, the president of which is a chief clerk in Athlone. Then there is the Indian Staff Association, the president of which is a chief clerk in Durban. There is also the Black Staff Association, the president of which is a delivery service driver in Durban. The most interesting one of all is the Federal Council of Staff Associations of SATS, of which the president is Mr. J. Zurich.

Mr. Zurich made this significant statement to me: He does not like the idea—and I am saying this in all good faith to the Opposition now—of the Opposition now wanting to do the work of the trade unions, because the trade unions, after a great deal of consultation, brought the legislation to where it is at present. They say it is they who did it, but now the Opposition is making the task of the Transport Serviceman, through the staff associations, a difficult one. I shall indicate how it works.

The Federal Council consists of representatives of the various trade unions. Each trade union has the right to nominate three members. The nominees must be members of the trade unions. The staff grades involved must be effectively represented. In practice the president, the vice-president, an additional member and the chief secretary of each trade union attends the talks with the SATS administration. Then, too, there is the Coloured staff. They are brought in and are represented by the SAR and H in the northern and southern areas. They are organized on precisely the same basis as the White trade unions.

There is also a joint committee for the two trade unions which is able to negotiate on matters of policy with the Management or the Minister. This is a joint committee which consists of 16 members.

In addition there is the Black Staff Association which is representative of all Black employees, with the exception of those living and working in the national and independent States. This does not include persons in an accredited position and whose interests are affected by specific trade unions. I am saying this so that the PFP may also take note of it. This trade union originated in April 1981 and is registered in terms of labour legislation of 1956, under which the stevedores’ representation is also included in that of the Black staff. Surely this Bill effects no change in respect of the powers and responsibilities of the Minister on the one hand and of the Board of the S.A. Transport Services on the other. It is very important to us that the S.A. Transport Services is at present the largest employer in the country. It keeps the entire economy of this country going. That is why there must be an efficient transport system. But there cannot be an efficient transport system if one does not have sound staff relations, and this Bill lays the foundation for sound staff relations. It prescribes certain conditions of employment and that the staff should be involved in as many spheres of operation as possible. Here they are being involved. I have already referred to all the staff associations. That is why the provisions of this Bill ensure that employees from the highest to the lowest are affected by it. The State President is referred to in respect of certain matters, but there are references to the Minister concerned as well.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No, Sir. I think I am making a sensible speech, and consequently I do not want to listen to a foolish question. [Interjections.] Provision is also made for salaries to be reduced and even recovered. Provision is being made for temporary employees and for certain qualifications which the staff must possess. Reference is also being made to persons who are unqualified. Reference is being made to persons who are physically disabled. This is also done in the 1960 Act. There are not many changes in this sphere. In the case of reorganization or a reduction of staff, certain people have to seek another livelihood. The legislation also deals with disciplinary steps if people are drunk or are drug addicts. Provision is also being made for appeals and for assistance at inquiries so that the persons involved can be defended.

Provision is also being made for a conciliation board and disputes. Refusal to work is also being dealt with. I hope hon. members opposite are listening very carefully now. They ask why the workers are not allowed to strike. It is also stated in the 1960 Act that it will cost a person dearly if he fails to work, if he retards the progress of his work, if he acts in an obstructive way or if he contravenes his conditions of service.

This Bill also looks after the interest of the employees. The staff of the S.A. Transport Services is like one big family. Its trade unions need not be afraid of the Minister when it comes to negotiations or conciliation. The machinery is adjusted to serve the best interest of everyone. Mutual confidence is now being created. The S.A. Transport Services know that if a dispute arises, regardless of whether it is a major or a minor one, it can be solved in an amicable atmosphere without any confrontation. How can a person have a say in a harbour if he has less than half of the Black workers behind him? How can a man have a say if the accusation is made against him that there was intimidation? Just think of the chaos there would be if a number of splinter groups did perhaps arise in the S.A. Transport Services and the staff had to be defended in separate groups.

The rationalization and streamlining which the hon. member for Kroonstad mentioned does exist here. There is a new model because 23 laws have already been revised. Perhaps we could take another quick glance at Act 22 of 1960. It is still clear in our memories that the English text was signed by the Governor-General, that the Commonwealth loomed large in the background and that recognition was given to Her Majesty the Queen. Slowly but surely we have moved away from the Westminster system, and the State President, the House of Assembly and the free Republic now form the nucleus of this legislation. That is why definitions such as those of “Administration”, “official” and the “Railways and Harbours Board” have fallen into disuse. The Central Railways, as it existed prior to 31 May 1910, is something of the past. If one looks at the law in question one sees that reference was still made then to the Imperial Military Railways. Mention is made there of the “military administration” of the railways in the Transvaal. Reference is also made there to the Orange River Colony. When I think of these things while I am staring through my window, I still see the statue of Old Queen Victoria, with her back turned to me, standing there on her pedestal. One cannot look her in the face. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North spoke about the Victorian era. Surely it is they who recreated the Victorian era. It is their forefathers who were originally responsible for the Victorian era. At the time, when we were fighting for a Republic, they did not fight at our side. Today, however, they are the philosophers who philosophise over the Victorian era. The more I think about it, the more it reminds me of a verse in the psalms which says—

This is in fact the tragedy of the matter, that those hon. members still cling so tightly to the Victorian era, while we left it behind long ago. In view of all these things it is also clear that the hon. the Minister is at present ushering in a new era. There is no whole new system of permanent conditions of employment, and people can now make progress in a very effective way.

After all, it was the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North who said, referring to the S.A. Transport Services: “Here we have an employer from the Victorian age. It is run like a Victorian paternalistic State and not like a modem business.” I have already replied to the hon. member on that point. It is he and hon. members of his party who have recreated the Victorian era. However, the dangerous thing which he said was something on which the hon. member for Durban North—I am very pleased about this—gave him a completely effective reply. The hon. member for Durban North was probably referring to the following words of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North: “But to say to a worker that he may never ever strike is, I believe, to deny him his basic right”. Those are serious words, Mr. Speaker, which the hon. member for Durban North used. We have been safeguarded from strikes in this country. Does the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North know what happens when strikes occur in the outside world? Does he know how unfairly employers are blackmailed? Does he know what happened on the British Railways when they recently reached an impasse, and one thought that the British Railways would come to a complete standstill? Does the hon. member still remember the chaos which prevailed between two trade unions in England, when the one trade union ordered its members to go on strike, and the second trade union refused to take part in a strike? Surely we cannot allow such things to happen in South Africa. The right to strike has been replaced in South Africa with an assurance that no one here will be dismissed. Fixed conditions are written into the new legislation. There is a right to negotiate. There is a commission which will consist of one man, who is appointed by the State President. All these things will happen in a sound and organized way, not as things are happeing at the moment, viz. that people are being stirred up to do things here in South Africa which we cannot under any circumstances tolerate. We support this legislation.

East but not least, I have a few words for the hon. member for Langlaagte. He knows as well as I do that hon. members on this side of the House are also concerned about the interests of the Whites. On the Spoor-bond I fought for years for the interests of the Whites. Today the Whites in the S.A. Transport Services, and anywhere else for that matter, may always rely on me to fight for the interests of the Whites; but I will always fight for the Whites to obtain better conditions of employment and to have representation. What more can one want? Surely the NP has a proud record. The NP has had a proud record since 1924. Was it not the NP which ultimately made it possible for Whites to find a livelihood in the S.A. Transport Services? I am absolutely convinced today that, however other people may see the future, I do not fear the future. All that one must fear is, is fear itself. Of course we cannot see into the future. Today I want to tell the hon. members of the CP about something which I once read, something which made a very lasting impression on me. It was about a person who said that he could not see into the future. He then asked his companion please to give him a light so that he could see into the future. His companion replied: “It would be better if you placed your hand in the hand of God, because he, the all-knowing God, will show you the future.” That is what we need today as well. Although the CP is going its own way, and we are going ours, I believe that we will still, in the end, be able to achieve something great for this nation and this country within the NP, including the best conditions of employment, as provided for in this Bill, for this wonderful organization, the S.A. Transport Services.

Mr. Speaker, the problems that we had with this Bill when we first saw it have been compounded during this debate by the speakers on the Government benches who have spoken in support of the Bill. One thinks for instance of the speech we have just heard from the hon. member for Rosettenville. One also thinks of the speech we heard from the hon. member for Kroonstad with his smug and antiquated approach to the whole question of labour relations in the SATS, an approach which is totally out of touch with the realities of the present situation in South Africa. The initial shock was the manner in which the hon. the Minister introduced this legislation. I think it is a total disgrace. Here is legislation which in many ways is supposed to be the charter in respect of service conditions in our SATS. The hon. the Minister introduced the legislation in a three half-page speech containing 10 sentences. He told us nothing in that speech.

Is there not a memorandum?

Yes, there is a memorandum, as the hon. the Minister points out. However, the hon. the Minister’s speech contained 10 sentences dealing with the whole question of labour relations in the SATS. That was the first shock. The second shock was the interjection that the hon. the Minister made in response to the speech of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. This was where the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North, very justifiably, said that the hon. the Minister had a Victorian attitude. If the hon. member for Rosettenville does not like that, we can call it an ox-wagon attitude. Whatever it is, the hon. the Minister interjected and said: “I will keep the power.” It was real “kragdadige” talk, but again totally out of touch with the labour situation in South Africa. And the hon. the Minister should know, if he has listened to any of the other debates that have taken place in this House on manpower matters, that we are dealing with a situation here where this measure is supposedly an important measure dealing as it does with the conditions of employment in the SATS, with staff management relations, with conciliation procedure and with collective bargaining, with every matter that is of vital importance between employer and employee in any undertaking. So one would have hoped that the hon. the Minister would have used this opportunity to try to introduce some enlightened thinking into this aspect of the administration of the SATS. This is what we are asking. We ask in our amendment that this matter go to a Select Committe so that it can be properly considered. That is what we are asking for. It is no use standing up, as other hon. members have done during this debate this afternoon, and saying that the present situation in the S.A. Transport Services has lasted for 22 years, so why should we interfere with it now? This is really just a consolidating measure. So what are we making such a fuss about? The fact of the matter is that this is an opportunity for the hon. the Minister to emulate the example of the hon. the Minister of Manpower and try to introduce some sort of enlightenment into labour relations in the SATS. This legislation comes at a time when the country has come to accept the need for modem and meaningful relationships between worker and managements in South Africa. Service is an essential element towards maintaining industrial peace in this country and we believe that in that light, if one looks at the need for that, this sort of Bill at this time is totally anachronistic.

What are the reasons—the hon. the Minister must tell us—for the sharp contrast between this legislation and the much more streamlined and enlightened legislation in regard to labour relations introduced by the hon. the Minister of Manpower in recent years? Why the difference? Why is there a difference in the way in which we are handling the situation between management and employee in the SATS? Why is there a difference between that and the normal employee-employer relationship in other spheres? Why must the SATS be so different? Why does this hon. Minister ignore those two basic tenets which we were told were the main pillars upon which any sort of reasonable labour relationship should rest? We know that the South African Transport Services have, through the years, had inhouse staff associations, and I am not saying that these have not served a purpose. I am not saying that some of them do not still serve a good purpose, but the fact is that they have tended very often, when there have been problems, to pull a veil of secrecy over what is happening between employer and employee in the relevant employer-employee disputes in the S.A. Transport Services. There have indeed been problems. We know there have been problems. The hon. the Minister knows that he had problems last year in Port Elizabeth and East London involving the stevedores and dockworkers. These have highlighted again the sensitivity of the issue, and the hon. the Minister should take note of these warnings. It is no good his simply saying “I am going to be the boss always”. He should take note of the signs that are there in a very sensitive area, an area involving a very important section of those employed by the S.A. Transport Services. It is an important section, because the dockworkers are very often under the spotlight. So one is not only dealing with an internal situation. One might well be dealing with an international situation, because there could be international repercussions, and the hon. the Minister must know this. The hon. the Minister must read the signs. He must pay heed to the warnings. He must realize that unless it can be seen that there is a reasonable relationship, that there are reasonable procedures for conciliation, that there are reasonable opportunities for free association amongst the employees of the S.A. Transport Services, he is inviting serious trouble in the future. That is why I again make this request to him. Instead of coming to this House and introducing legislation in a fairly casual way, as the hon. the Minister has done, we say that it could be much more appropriately handled if it went to a Select Committee before the Second Reading is taken.

Let me now go back to the disputes in Port Elizabeth and East London. When the hon. the Minister announced that a committee was going to be appointed to investigate that situation, that at least seemed to be a step in the right direction. It gave some hope that the hon. the Minister was going to try to apply a much more reasonable and workable solution to the problem that had arisen. That committee, however, has not yet reported. Why does the hon. the Minister not wait until that committee reports, or why does he not wait until this matter can be properly considered, before introducing legislation in this House? I have pointed to the sensitivity of the situation and I have also pointed to the vulnerability of the administration in this field. One thinks again of the unexplained disparity between the approach of this hon. Minister, in this field, to labour matters and the approach of his Cabinet colleagues to labour matters in the general content. Surely there is a first-class case to be made out for reviewing all these matters, and the best way in which this could be done, would be to take one’s time over it by sending it to a Select Committee which would come up with a legislation that would be much more in keeping with the needs of the present time.

The Bill embodies certain, principles which are in conflict with all modem labour management requirements. It has been pointed out that it deals with a number of internal regulation at all levels. There is a disguised aspect of race discrimination in it, as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North has pointed out, and there is certainly the denial of freedom of association. Those are the things that stand out when one looks at this Bill. These are the thoroughly bad features of the Bill before us. The Bill, as we know, draws a distinction between temporary and permanent employees. They are given some protection when it comes to the disciplinary grievances and the dispute procedure under the regulations pertaining to the legislation. All the procedures, however, are internally regulated and subject to a final decision by the hon. the Minister himself as the employer. We know too, as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North has pointed out, that casual or regular employees are excluded from the protection afforded in regard to the internal procedures and that contract workers or migrant workers are regarded as casual employees. It is also a fact that Black workers who are either casual or regular workers do not qualify as temporary or permanent employees, and they are therefore, by regulation, excluded from most of the provisions in this regard.

The conciliation procedure, which has been referred to by earlier speakers this afternoon, lays down that staff associations may make a representation to the hon. the Minister or to the General Manager in regard to conditions of service. If no agreement is reached the Minister may, of his own accord or at the request of the General Manager, appoint a conciliation board consisting of an equal number of employees, one-half, including the chairman, nominated by the Minister and the other half nominated by staff associations. When the conciliation board reports to the Minister within 30 days, the Minister “may”, so the clause reads, ask it to reconsider recommendations and the conciliation board then makes a further report. This is the conflict which I think the hon. the Minister should deal with. In clause 27(3) it is stated—

Clause 27(2) states that a board shall make its report and recommendation to the Minister and the Minister may within 30 days request the conciliation board to reconsider its recommendations. However, the following subsection says the Minister “shall” be obliged to give effect as soon as possible to every recommendation. There is a conflict between those two subsections. The first says the Minister may refer it back while in the second is imperative and says the Minister “shall” be obliged to give effect to the recommendations of the board. I think the hon. the Minister or those who have drafted this legislation should look at that particular contradictory subsection.

I want to go further. If no agreement is reached at the end of a conciliation procedure the Minister shall appoint a one-man commission and the Minister will then be obliged to give effect to the recommendations of that commission.

Participation by workers of the SATS in trade unions is restricted to any organization which is officially recognized by the Minister as a staff association. Again, the Minister as the No. 1 employer has the power to determine what a staff association is and therefore he has the power to determine the degree of free association which any of his employees may have. He is the one who decides whether to recognize a union as a staff association or not. While it may be said that employees of the SATS are not prohibited from joining a trade union, the only officially recognized staff association may involve themselves in the procedure laid down in this Bill. If they want to be recognized by the Minister he has the sole say. In other words, he has the power—this is what he told us the other day—and he is going to keep the power. That emerges very strongly in this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No, Sir my time is very limited. In the process of official recognition the staff association is governed by internal regulations promulgated by this hon. Minister. So the whole nature of the conditions of employment in the SATS, the largest single employer in South Africa, is totally in conflict with what is really required in a vast organization of this kind, particularly at this time when one is looking for much more enlightened relationships and procedures between staff and management.

Sir, this certainly is not a Bill which should have been subjected to the sort of treatment it received when the hon. the Minister introduced it in the House. We believe the implications and the need for proper procedures of collective bargaining and conciliation are such that there is a very strong case that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee and be properly considered in the light of the current needs and situation in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Berea, like the previous speaker on that side of the House, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North, seized upon a perfectly normal modernizing measure of this Government and tried to make political gain from it. The only matters which could possibly be debated in the legislation before us are the question of the negotiating machinery in SATS and the status of migrant labourers. It is very clear that the PFP have seized upon these two matters because they have allowed themselves to become the mouthpiece of leftist radical trade unions. In a dispute with the SATS the General Workers’ Union adopted these very standpoints which the hon. members of the PFP have repeatedly put forward. In other words, it is clear that the PFP is siding with these trade unions against the SATS. They are allowing their party to be used as a parliamentary mouthpiece of these leftist trade unions and are therefore using this opportunity to sow suspicion against the Management of this major and strategically important undertaking. Can hon. members of that party, when one is dealing here with a strategic element of our infrastructure, blame us for asking ourselves on whose side they really are? When we are dealing with the survival of South Africa, and the SATS is an essential part of that de fensibility of our country, they are not slow in siding, together with any Tom, Dick or Harry, against this infrastructure of South Africa.

The hon. members of the PFP are suddenly emerging now as the great champions of the Railway workers, the employees of the SATS. I think we on this side of the House can ask them on behalf of which organized group of workers in the Transport Services they are talking? What group of employees in that vast organization asked them to act on their behalf? Is this something which they have merely snatched out of thin air, or is it because leftist trade unions, who would like to get their hands on the Transport Services, need this help which they are so obligingly getting from the official Opposition. All the indications are—this has been the case since the hon. the Minister introduced the legislation and from speeches made by hon. members on this side of the House—that this legislation is based on thorough investigation and close consultation with and between the organized employees’ organizations of SATS. How can the PFP run in from The sidelines now and pose as a champion of those employees? If one reads the statement of the secretary of the General Workers’ Union in his dispute with SATS, one sees that it is the same language which came from the official Opposition. Precisely the same. One would almost say that they had a briefing session with these trade unions before coming to this House to discuss this legislation. Surely hon. members of the PFP are fully conversant with what the standpoint of the Government is, as explained in the statement by the hon. the Minister. They know that it is the standpoint of the Government that this is a strategic element of the infrastructure of our society, and because that is the case, specific, sui generis provision has to be made for those employees. They also know that the hon. the Minister made it clear in his statement that employees of the S.A. Transport Services have certain service benefits which the employees of the private sector do not have. Their conditions of employment are, inter alia, controlled by legislation of this Parliament, the highest authority in the country, something which does not apply to the employees of the private entrepreneur. They have certainty of employment which employees elsewhere do not have. In exchange they cannot expect to have the best of both worlds and have a right to strike as well.

The Labour Relations Act makes it very clear that Railway trade unions have to be internal organizations. In addition, the SATS also has a long-standing agreement with these trade unions.

The hon. member for Berea is trying in vain to imply here that in contrast with the verligte modern approach to labour legislation which the hon. the Minister of Manpower is displaying in his legislation, we are dealing here with an obsolete and Victorian approach on the part of the SATS. The fact remains that the negotiating machinery, the work scene of the SATS, is one which has been maintained for decades. It is nothing new. What we have here is a mere streamlining and modernization of existing practice. Those hon. members can try to denigrate it as being obsolete and completely archaic, but the point remains that this labour pattern has been applied successfully for decades in the S.A. Transport Services. If one has a labour pattern which can be applied successfully, why tamper with it merely in order to effect high-sounding so-called improvements?

I think hon. members of the official Opposition can very safely leave legislation dealing with the conditions of employment of employees of the S.A. Transport Services to this side of the House. We have been dealing with this kind of legislation for more than a generation now, and have been doing so with such good consequences that the overwhelming majority of those people vote for the NP.

Mr. Speaker, the charges made by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat are without foundation in relation to his suggestion that this party holds any brief for any trade union, let alone the General Workers’ Union. However, for the record let it be stated quite clearly that we do not support any trade union whether registered or unregistered. We do not hold membership of any trade union. However, we do stand firm in the recognition of the fact that workers have certain basic and fundamental rights. Whether a worker is employed by a manufacturing company or by the mines or whether he is an employee of the SATS, makes no difference. The hon. member went on to say that because the consolidation Bill before us has served South Africa so well for so long, we should continue along the same lines. However, we all know that the Industrial Conciliation Act which served South Africa for so long and so well has over the past few years been drastically altered. Therefore, the logic of the hon. member does not hold water. Does the hon. member mean that because a situation has existed for a long time there can be no improvement to it whatsoever? Of course not. Therefore, our plea is that when we have an opportunity to make changes that are perhaps even overdue, we should grab that opportunity and not spurn it.

Of course we are concerned about the breakdown that took place in the harbour at Port Elizabeth and to a lesser extent at East London. Of course the General Workers’ Union was involved. They made no secret of it. This fact was mentioned in the Press, and we read the newspapers in exactly the same way as that hon. member does. We know that between 400 and 500 workers wanted to join that union and were willing to strike in order to take advantage of that opportunity. We all know that the hon. the Minister has won that battle, and I think he would be well advised to bear in mind that that is only one battle, but the fight will go on. [Interjections.] Of course the fight will go on; we all know it. It is a fact of life that in South Africa, due to the changes made in the legislation by that side of the House, more and more workers are more and more aware of their basic rights, and they are going to exercise them. Secondly, employers are also aware that there are basic rights both for employers and for employees, and they are learning the skills how best to use them.

I put it to the hon. the Minister that even though there has been a very unsettled time in our labour relations over the last few years with more strikes than we have had for a long time, this is only part of a settling down process which is going to improve, improve because employees are learning the skills of trade unionism, improve because employers are learning their tricks of the trade of the bargaining process and it is going to happen. Therefore not for a moment can we expect that because the situation has been controlled in one particular area, it will not happen again. It is going to happen unless we deliberately bring into our legislation that machinery which provides for and defuses potential strike action and particularly in our harbours which are so vulnerable. That is what we are pleading for.

The fact that we ask that the Bill go to a Select Committee before Second Reading is evident of our desire to see the best possible Bill. I do not think that even the hon. the Minister would suggest for a moment that this is a perfect Bill, that it is impossible to be improved. There is no such thing. Let me put it to the hon. the Minister this way …

Not the way you want it.

No, hang on a minute. Let us look at the process by which legislation reaches this House. Let us take for example the Wiehahn Commission which brought together a team of experts representing all shades of opinion. They studied the problem, they analysed it, they made recommendations, the Government looked at them and accepted some, rejected others and was cautious about the remainder …

Wiehahn is not an employer.

Let me develop my argument.

Then the Government published a White Paper which expressed its view. Very often the commission went back to look at it again, to weigh it all up in the light of the Government’s response and other evidence. Then they published a draft Bill that was circulated for everybody to read. Comments were sent in and recommendations were made. The final Bill which came to this House and which dealt with labour relations, was over the last few years sometimes a very different creature from the one that first went out. It is the process of which I am talking now. Then there would be an explanatory memorandum, and the Bill would be introduced and debated. The result was that there were many, many measures dealing with labour relations which received the support of all sides of this House. That, however, was not the case in the past. We had tremendous struggles and battles here, and that hon. Minister knows this.

What I am saying is that the hon. the Minister gets nought out of ten for the process by which this Bill has come to the House. He has not followed the process which I have just outlined and he has not followed the example set by his hon. colleague. We are saying that because he has not done that, the Bill must go to a Select Committee so that we can look at it again. This deals after all with conditions for the largest group of employees in South Africa. It is true that the hon. the Minister has power; he has enormous power, but he must not abuse it. He must have the best possible arrangement made for all the workers.

Before dealing more specifically with the Bill, I want to return to some comments made by the hon. member for Durban North. He must be extremely grateful to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North without whom he would not have had a speech. All he did was to feed off the speech of my hon. colleague and make a few comments about his comments.

Do you want us to ignore you?

We heard nothing of substance from the hon. member himself, but that is typical.

What are you yourself feeding on?

Wait a minute. I am still going to make my speech. The hon. the Minister must have patience. I know that the hon. the Minister of Law and Order does not have a great deal of patience, but I still have to come to my speech. I am still busy with the introduction.

You still have to come to it?

Yes, there is plenty of time. However, when the hon. member for Durban North had finished feeding off my hon. colleague’s speech, he sat down because he had nothing else to say. It is really quite pathetic.

Let me try to answer his questions. He has been in this House for a few years and knows how Parliament works. He knows that if one refers a specific Bill to a Select Committee before Second Reading, one cannot then immediately bring everybody else in. If one is talking about transport services, one can refer, relate and compare, but one cannot then demand that not only the workers in the S.A. Transport Services but also everybody else must be considered by that Select Committee. He knows one cannot do it. Why on earth does he then ask for it? It is quite ridiculous.

What we will say in principle is that our view of migrant labour is very similar to that of the Dutch Reformed Church. We believe it to be basically and fundamentally immoral and the fact that South Africa bases so much of its commerce and industry on that system is reprehensible. I do not know what that hon. member feels about it, but he can tell the House some other time. In general terms, therefore, we would be in agreement that the system of employing migrant workers and their conditions of service …

We do not condemn the migrant labour system.

… should be reviewed at every possible level in South Africa. We have no favourites here. We are not picking on the S.A. Transport Services. It just happens to be a Transport Service Bill. Therefore, obviously, we are applying our minds to that.

The hon. member also referred to the role played by in-house associations, not only in the Transport Services but in many other areas as well. Of course we accept that. We have no quarrel with that. All we are arguing for is that the workers themselves should make that dicision.

That is what I said.

That is exactly right. So we are agreed on that. We are not saying we are against staff associations in principle, not at all. What we are saying is that, in the case where people are forced into an association and there is no other choice and it is management that makes the decision, we are going back to the old days prior to Wiehahn.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he agrees with the statement made by the hon. member for Berea that the employer should not have the right to decide on which union he will recognize. That is, after all, what he is saying to us.

That is the point.

That is an easy question to answer. The basis for recognition is representativeness. Any employer who refuses to acknowledge the representativeness of a union when it is there by a referendum or in any other way is crazy. He would be out of his mind if he did that. If he knew that 60% of his workers wanted to be represented by trade union A and decided against their wishes to go for trade union B, which was the management’s choice, that would be nonsense. So the key is always not even registration, as the hon. member knows, but representativeness, and that is what we are saying. We are saying that if the workers themselves decide that they wish to join a union, that is the foundation of freedom of association; and freedom of association is one of the cardinal principles of the labour legislation brought to the House not by me but by the hon. the Minister of Manpower who is now in the “berge”.

All we are therefore saying is: Let us have some consistency from the Government. If they are going to challenge hon. members across the floor as the hon. the Minister challenged the hon. member for Waterberg, asking him “Do you accept freedom of association?”, I in turn want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he accepts it.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No. Let me rather put the following question to the hon. the Minister: Does he or does he not believe in freedom of association for workers?

I do.

Well, why on earth do you then not introduce it into this Bill?

Mr. Speaker, if the majority of workers decide that they want to support only one union, will the hon. member please tell me what I must do?

If we can have some evidence of such a decision, obviously it must be taken very seriously. May I put it to the hon. the Minister this way? If he is so convinced that his Black staff association is the union that the majority of his workers want, why does he not let them have a referendum? I leave it to the hon. the Minister to decide. If he is going to be really serious about this, then let us have a referendum. Let the workers make that decision. There is a conflict of opinion here. There are those who are saying that there are many workers, in particular those who work in the harbours … Let us restrict it to that for the moment. What we have here is a reality that none of us can change by imagining that it is not there. The reality, as the hon. the Minister knows better than most, is that the stevedores, those who load and unload ships in the docks, do almost exactly the same work as the SATS Black employees, except that they load and offload from trucks, etc. They are working cheek by jowl. They probably see each other, eat together, drink together and work together. The stevedores are represented by the General Workers’ Union.

But we do not employ them.

No, I am not suggesting you do. What I am saying is that the two groups of workers must be influencing each other all the time. It has to happen. That is the environment. It is suggested that since the General Workers’ Union represents the stevedores—and this by agreement with the employer … I hope the hon. the Minister is not saying to me that because employers, not employees, are involved with the General Workers’ Union they are now committed to some sort of communist plot, that they are now bending the knee to some left-wing association. Employers have agreed that the General Workers’ Union can represent their workers because the majority of the stevedores working for those private companies wanted it that way. It is freedom of association. As a direct result of that their conditions of service have improved. I am not suggesting it for a moment—I do not have the facts, so I cannot; I am hoping the hon. the Minister will tell us—but it is suggested that the conditions of service of stevedores represented by the General Workers’ Union are better than the conditions of service of those workers who are doing almost exactly the same work but are employed by SATS. Inevitably workers are going to compare notes, compare wages and compare conditions and if we are not careful there will be national and international repercussions unless we defuse the situation. We all know, and the hon. the Minister knows, that this is not something that is a secret, that there is an International Transport Federation which has already instructed its general secretary to implement whatever action he deems fit to provide support for the General Workers initiative. I hold no brief whatsoever for the International Transport Federation. I do not even know who they are and I have never met any of them in my life. But the fact of the matter is that they have considerable influence and power, to use the word the hon. the Minister claims for himself. We all know that South Africa’s harbours are vital as far as imports and exports are concerned.

Therefore labour peace is a critical factor and of critical importance in our harbours. On that point we do agree. If therefore there are any conditions, any factors which threaten that labour peace, the effects are going to be far-reaching. They can even affect the economy of South Africa. They can also affect the employment of hundreds and thousands of people, not only in SATS but everybody involved in labour in South Africa because that giant organization is the lifeblood of them all. What I am saying is that what we need inside and outside the SATS is what I prefer to call a Railways Wiehahn, someone to whom the hon. the Minister can assign critical problems. The hon. the Minister says he has already appointed a committee. Why on earth then does he bring this legislation to the House now? We all assume that the committee has not yet reported. Perhaps it has reported. Can the hon. the Minister tell us whether the committee he appointed has actually reported to him or not?

Not yet.

Why then cannot the hon. the Minister hold this legilsation over? Let us have a Select Committee and let us have a look at its report so that we can consider the matter again.

There is potential for conflict in this matter, and the scenario could well be both dangerous and gloomy, and the hon. the Minister’s attitude thus far in this debate can be described in a single word. That is “kragda-digheid”. [Interjections.] Yes, it is most unusual for that hon. Minister to be “kragda-dig”. However, he is now being seen in his true role here. [Interjections.] He had a golden opportunity of defusing the situation in terms of a Bill which deals with the conditions of employment but he has spurned this opportunity. He has opted for the status quo, and in this respect he has been supported by the NP, by the CP and by the NRP, a party which of course usually goes further back than the status quo, if that is at all possible; and all this in the face of rapid and far-reaching changes in our labour legislation. The hon. the Minister must accept that he is not living in a vacuum, that the SATS impinges on and is impinged on by other real factors. The SATS is the biggest employer in South Africa, and the hon. the Minister should realize that labour relations are simultaneously an acute problem and a tremendous opportunity.

That is why I put it to the hon. the Minister that he has failed, not only in the process by which he has brought this Bill before the House, but also in the content of this legislation. The implications of this legislation, as I have already indicated, are far-reaching, both nationally and internationally. This Bill, I submit, transgresses the major principle in labour relations, namely the freedom of association.

The hon. the Minister was furious with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North when he dared to suggest that there were racist overtones in this Bill. What then is the determining criterion of a Black staff association? It is not occupational, which is the normal basis of industry. It is race; it is colour. That is what it is. Now, the hon. the Minister can talk about his federal system. We like things to happen on a federal basis all the time. However, one has separate constituent parts in which there is no crossing of the line, where once again apartheid is deep-seated in the heart of the SATS, and just as it has brought this country to the verge of a standstill it is going to bring that massive and tremendous organization of the SATS to a standstill unless the hon. the Minister roots it out. He has to get rid of it. The hon. the Minister has had the opportunity of doing it, and I still plead with him to accept our amendment and to allow this measure to be referred to a Select Committee. Let us argue the matter out in the Select Committee. If the hon. the Minister thinks we are wrong, let him show us that we are wrong. If he is proved right we will of course accept it. We will then come back to the House with a Bill which will be aimed at the betterment of all employees of the SATS and in South Africa as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pinelands delivered a lengthy argument from which one could infer that this legislation of the hon. the Minister contains no sound provisions whatsoever. He said that potential conflict was inherent in this legislation and he was concerned about the fact that there was no freedom of association and that kind of thing.

But is that not true?

However, there are also people who want the freedom of disassociation, and that, too, is something one should not neglect to take into account. Whenever the Opposition speaks about a matter, they simply cannot resist making an issue of it. However I shall leave it at that.

In this late stage of this debate I wish to say that if one listened to the various Opposition speakers, one had to realize that there was a great deal of negative behaviour to be detected among them, behaviour which is certainly not in the interests of the voters and of those whose interests they have to serve here. In the good old days, when people still travelled in the old motor cars— the old Model T Ford in particular—it is said that if the motor car was approaching a very steep incline, it had to go up it in reverse. The reason was that those old vehicles did not have a petrol pump which could pump the fuel from the petrol tank to the carburettor. The petrol was carried from the petrol tank to the carburettor by force of gravity alone. Therefore, if the vehicle had to go up a steep incline, the petrol supply was not really adequate. I gain the impression that the hon. Opposition are often guilty of going up the hill in reverse when they encounter a problem of any difficulty. However, one sees the road ahead more clearly if one acts positively and looks ahead. Then one may possibly be in a better position to see the obstacles. Then at least one could come forward with a positive contribution to the Government, or the Minister dealing with the matter, in order to improve on the present situation by perhaps pointing out the weaknesses. However, if one’s actions are completely negative, one is not making a positive contribution and one is not serving in the best way possible those whom one represents here. Unfortunately it is true—particularly in the present political climate—that an effort is being made to cast everything that is being done by the Government in a poor light. The attitude is—and I think this may be observed outside as well—that there is no spirit of co-operation in order to serve in the best way possible those whom this concerns. This is the case in this instance, in respect of this measure concerning the employees of the S.A. Transport Services, as well. I shall also quote a few of the remarks of hon. members during this debate, to illustrate that it is true when I say that the attitude of those hon. members has been negative and that they did not strive for improvement or state a case in the interests of those workers which would make conditions more favourable for them and to make the measure more acceptable and more effective. [Interjections.] I am grateful that the Minister concerned, as well as other hon. Ministers, are carrying out their task purposefully, in spite of the negative spirit that prevails here. Despite negative criticism, they are carrying on purposefully and are doing what is in the interests of the people concerned.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned, we were in the process of moving along the roads and railways of our country and we were speaking about the people who make these services possible. We can get somewhere with the vehicles they use, since fortunately they do not make use of tortoises in order to reach their destination.

The hon. member for Pinelands made certain statements and I should like to refer to them briefly. The General Workers’ Union was mentioned and one wonders whether the hon. member is perhaps the link between his party and that organization.

No.

The hon. member is shaking his head. Could he tell us who their link with that organization is?

I do not know. We have no link.

It is in the interest of the employees as well as of the employer—in this case the S.A. Transport Services—that the machinery for negotiation should be on a sound footing. Furthermore, it is necessary that it be realized that there is a difference between a public service and the private sector. Those hon. members who dwelt at such length on the interests of the worker—I find no fault with that—must say whether they are concerned about those who make use of those services. If there is no discipline, that service will never be effective, nor will it be possible for it to be conducted as safely. That is why it is also in the interests of the service that there be proper interaction and that the department should maintain the necessary discipline.

I now turn to the hon. member for Langlaagte. His colleagues realize that they will have to learn to live with the wild statements he makes at times. However, I do not think it is right for us simply to allow them to pass unnoticed. After all, they are on record. I should like to refer to some of them. He made the statement that the Government carried out reform by stealth.

Yes, that is correct.

I shall come to that. The hon. member then came forward with the statement that it was a rare occurrence when someone on this side rose and spoke in the interests of the White worker. Surely that is irresponsible language which that hon. member is using.

You are all afraid.

The hon. member says we are all afraid. He is aware of what has happened in the ranks of the NP over the years and he is aware that the NP has always looked after the interests of the workers over the years. He is aware of this, but suddenly, since that little group deserted, the NP has changed completely. I can understand the hon. member speaking in this way, since he is using typical HNP language. By using this kind of language, they are more acceptable to the HNP, and I think that that is the hon. member’s motive in using this kind of language. I wish to say this to that hon. member: It does not work. Surely he must have learned that the HNP has used these tactics at various elections and have had no success with them. Then he should know that this does not work; it is no use. That kind of language is not in the interests of the workers. That hon. member is pretending to promote the interests of the workers, but this is certainly not in their interests. However, he is making a fatal mistake by acting in this way. He has seen this over the years when there has been dissatisfaction in the ranks of the workers. One speaks like that hon. member did when one underestimates the intelligence of the worker. I have seen this in the past in other labour spheres where similar language has been used and where it has had certain results. Do you know who suffered as a result? The wives and the children of the workers. And I can tell you tonight that those women do not forget those things.

They will never forgive you for what you have done. You have sold out the White man.

You are still going to sell out your party. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, that old story about the NP selling out the White man is no longer being swallowed. It no longer has any effect whatsoever. Those slogans are of no use to those hon. members, since they are obsolete. Jaap Marais and his people have tested them over the years and they do not work. They have no effect. That has been proven at the polls. [Interjections.]

Order!

In conclusion I just want to say this: I appreciate that the task of an Opposition party, whether the official Opposition or anyone else, is as far as possible to point out possible deficiencies and to criticize. However, when it comes to the workers, one expects a responsible Opposition to act in a responsible manner, for if they do not act in a responsible manner, they could harm the relationship between employer and employee in the process. This is not in the interests of any of these organizations, and even less in the interests of the country. Those hon. members like to proclaim from the roof tops that they are going to save the nation. Now I just wish to say that you should take care about the way in which you wish to do so. You will gain nothing by doing so in an irresponsible manner.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to a few of the points raised by hon. members. In the first place I want to say that this new legislation is merely the modernization and streamlining of the old legislation. There are very few substantive amendments in this legislation and therefore I cannot see why it is necessary to appoint a Select Committee. [Interjections.] I cannot see what purpose it will serve.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North asked why clause 32 has been made with retrospective effect from 1 April 1960. The existing regulations came into operation in 1960 and in order to allow these regulations to remain in force, the legislation must be made with retrospective effect.

†The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North also said that in terms of the Bill Blacks cannot be appointed on a permanent basis. Provision is made in clause 6(2)(a) in terms of which different Black peoples can be given regular status. All employees are treated in the same way in respect of strikes due to the fact that the SATS is classified as an essential Government service.

Why not permanent?

This is applicable to Government services worldwide. I shall deal with the question of permanence later on.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North also referred to the differences between the SATS Bill and that of the hon. the Minister of Manpower. The hon. members for Berea and Pinelands also raised this point. The SATS Bill is applicable to one employer. Hon. members must remember that. The Manpower Bill is applicable to a wide variety of employees and conditions of service and must of necessity differ in many respects. Furthermore, the SATS Bill is in respect of an essential State service. I must emphasize this, Sir, because I want to have it on record. The SATS Bill also provides for negotiating machinery at the disposal of the SATS and its employees through its staff associations, and is comparable to the arbitration and conciliation procedures embodied in the labour relations legislation.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North, supported by his party, intimated further that the Bill was a Victorian paternalistic Bill which was out of step with recent legislation of the hon. the Minister of Manpower. The Bill primarily governs service conditions such as the qualifications for appointment, period of notice, promotion, retirement, discipline and so forth of the staff. Only a few aspects relate to labour relations with which I shall deal later. The Bill is aimed at rationalizing existing legislation.

That means using more people to do the same amount of work.

The Bill provides for the conditions of employment of different categories of staff, namely for contract, casual, temporary, regular and permanent employees. It is present policy to appoint Coloureds and Indians and different Black peoples only as contract, casual and regular employees. In order to obtain parity in service conditions between Whites, Coloureds, Indians and the different Black peoples management has during recent years moved in this direction. To date partial or full parity has been attained in such spheres as vacation leave, payment in respect of public holidays, travelling concessions, salaries of certain higher posts, holiday bonus and so forth. Due to the exceptionally high cost involved in obtaining full parity—this will cost us R400 million—the process will have to be effected in stages. To continue with this exercise management has consulted with the various staff associations concerned in respect of the order of priority in which parity should be introduced. Consensus has just been reached and all parties concerned have agreed to a programme consisting of phases. Sir, I had a meeting with all the staff associations, including the Black staff association, last Friday and we came to the conclusion that we could not afford to bring in parity overnight. We cannot afford it at the moment but we are hoping to have it eventually. It is the intention as and when the next salary adjustment is approved also to proceed with the first phase of the parity programme. Upon completion of the full programme the reference to regular employees will require to be deleted from the Act since the service conditions of Whites, Coloureds, Indians and the different Black peoples will then be equal. This means that any member of the race groups mentioned can then be classified as contract, casual, temporary or permanent staff.

Hendrik, do you understand everything you have read?

I am coming to that party right now.

The hon. member for Langlaagte uses words like “sly”, that we “cheated the Whites”…

“Swindled”.

He said that the State President was going to be a dictator.

Definitely.

He asked me whether it was possible, under the new dispensation, for the Minister of Transport Affairs to be a Coloured.

Or an Indian.

I am going to repeat what Mr. Vorster said in this House.

Just say what you say.

Mr. Vorster said in this House that under the dispensation which the hon. members of the CP wholeheartedly supported…

That is not correct.

Of course the hon. members supported it wholeheartedly. The hon. members also agreed when Mr. Vorster said that it was possible.

When did he say that?

It is stated in Hansard. [Interjections.] I can look it up for the hon. members. He also said: “But…

Give us the reference. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. members of the CP were part of our party when we said, with the 1977 proposals, that…

That is not true.

The hon. members agreed in the 1977 proposals that the party which was governing—and these were our words: If the NP is governing, it will do this—appoint the State President. If the NP is governing, the State President will be a Nationalist.

Come to the Minister of Transport Affairs.

Sir, do you know what has happened? I have said before that I do not want to attack and vent my spleen against a certain party, but if an hon. member rises and insults the SATS worker, he is insulting the Management of the SATS …

Who is insulting the SATS worker?

… and he says they are sly and they want to cheat…

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. the Minister is inserting words I did not use. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Here it is: “They are sly reformers” …

Not the workers.

Here we have a Bill before this House which was initiated by the staff associations. Surely the hon. member for Rosettenville told hon. members that this was the case. The staff associations were consulted, clause by clause, but the hon. member says the staff associations, together with the Management of this organization, are engaged in a piece of dishonesty. [Interjections.] That is what the hon. member for Langlaagte said.

I said you were engaged in sly reform. [Interjections.]

Order! Let me point out to the hon. member for Langlaagte that at this moment there is only one hon. member addressing this House, and that is the hon. the Minister. This stream of interjections back and forth is not permissible, and if it continues, we shall not get anywhere in this House. I call upon the hon. the Minister to resume his speech.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Langlaagte say that the hon. the Minister is engaged in sly reform?

Order! What did the hon. member for Langlaagte mean by that?

Mr. Speaker, what I meant by that was that the Government was effecting a statutory amendment here while, in a previous clause, powers were conferred upon the State President. It is not spelt out in the explanatory memorandum what the position is, and the hon. the Minister himself is concealing the fact that the Minister, under a new dispensation, could be a Coloured or an Indian. Consequently I maintain that this is sly reform if it is not spelt out by the hon. the Minister.

Order! I ask the hon. member to moderate his language a little. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Not one of the trade unions or any of the drafters of this legislation—the General Manager, Mr. Malherbe, the chief law adviser, or anyone, for that matter—ever, for one moment, had a new dispensation in mind when they were dealing with this legislation. I wish to state that it was never the idea to pilot through sly legislation.

What happened? The little party opposite became fear-stricken along the way. They became petrified of the HNP. [Interjections.] I repeatedly held meetings for Dr. Treurnicht, during elections in Waterberg, and on occasion I heard him say to the HNP that they were a sect, but today the CP goes grovelling, hand in hand like beggars, to Jaap Marais to beg him for a favour. [Interjections.] That is the morality of the people who claim so piously today that they are conservative and are so honest and sincere. I say that that is a party which I cannot trust if they use this kind of argument in respect of legislation which is not for a moment intended to be sly legislation. I want to quote the following to the hon. member for Langlaagte—

By regulation!

I quote further—

Now the hon. member carries on and says that the Coloured Minister of Transport Affairs will have the right to dismiss my White people “left, right and centre”.

Of course he will.

What does clause 3 state? The hon. member talks about being sly. Why does he not read clause 3? It deals specifically with the reducing of employees’ salaries. The hon. member does not understand what is stated in this clause at all. I quote further—

He said that it could be reduced.

Yes, by this Bill.

—

I do not have the right to reduce a person’s salary in terms of clause 3—neither the State President nor anyone else, for that matter, has this right—unless he consents to it. I quote further—

I must say all these things so that they can be placed on record. As I said, the hon. member publishes a little newspaper in Langlaagte which makes the most insulting statements. It is shocking to read there what I was allegedly doing to the Railway workers. It was said that I had paid people off. [Interjections.]

All the pensioners were paid off, were they not?

The hon. member for Langlaagte also referred to clauses 18 and 19, which deal with disciplinary action and the dismissal and suspension of employees. These provisions are merely a repetition of sections in the Act which have existed since 1960. The staff associations are going to read the Hansard of this debate and I say again that all the staff associations consented to this legislation. We must say this clearly to one another. I do not want to be part of a section, of a small splinter group which wants to engage in politics in this way. It is a disgrace. It is a tragedy for our nation if Afrikaner fights Afrikaner across the floor of this House in the way this is now happening here. The hon. member said blatant things here. It is unbelievable that a person can say these things and insult the staff of the S.A. Transport Services in this way. It is a disgrace.

Not the staff. You are being dishonest now.

Order! The hon. member for Langlaagte must withdraw the word “dishonest” immediately.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

The hon. member for Pinelands, the hon. member for Berea and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North indicated that there were two basic principles in labour relations, viz. the autonomy of trade unions and freedom of association. They created the impression that the legislation at present before this House was an infringement of this principle. I want to give hon. members the assurance that the legislation is not an infringement of this principle. The autonomy of trade unions is not restricted in any way by this legislation; nor is the freedom of association. The legislation simply provides that the Minister has the right to recognize staff associations, which are registered trade unions, for negotiation purposes. Recognition or not of a trade union is, after all, an inalienable right of the employer. I cannot get away from this argument that if I were to recognize the General Workers’ Union or any other trade union today, the other groups may say that they are being rendered helpless as a result of the recognition of other trade unions. Let us preferably make our own trade union stronger. SATS as an employer cannot find itself in a situation in which it is prescribed which trade union it should recognize.

I want to thank the hon. member for De Kuilen. He made a neat contribution.

The hon. member for Kroonstad replied very effectively to the speech made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. I want to thank the hon. member for his contribution. He also emphasized the fact that we cannot allow outside trade unions.

The hon. member for Durban North replied very effectively to the speeches made by members of the official Opposition. He said his party was going to question certain clauses, and he has every right to do so. However, the way in which he acted showed me that he had studied this Bill, and I want to thank him for his contribution.

The hon. member for Rosettenville said that the Opposition was making the task of the staff associations difficult. The hon. member apologized for not being able to be here this evening. Nevertheless I want to thank him for his contribution. What did the hon. member for Rosettenville actually say? He said that he was deeply concerned about the interests of the Whites, but he also said that we should not be afraid. If any hon. member should tell people outside that the hon. member for Rosettenville or any hon. member on this side of the House is not concerned about the interests of the White man, he is telling a downright lie. We have the interests of all groups in this country at heart. Hon. members of the CP, however, go about telling people that we are neglecting the interests of the Whites of South Africa. If one is honest and sincere and is not lying, and you say a thing as it ought to be said, without any ulterior motives, then you win every time. This I have learnt from experience.

†The hon. member for Berea made more or less the same sort of speech as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. I have already replied in connection with a Select Committee and also in connection with the dock workers in Port Elizabeth harbour.

*The hon. member for Umlazi said the PFP was making advances to the radical and leftist trade unions. Surely this is true. The PFP is making advances to the radicals and the leftist trade unions. It is no use our trying to deny this.

Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. the Minister to answer the question we put to him earlier? We want to know why he does not wait until he has received the report from the committee which he appointed to investigate the problems in Port Elizabeth before he introduces legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it stands to reason that even should we receive the report from that committee we cannot divert from the principles contained in this legislation. That is impossible. Even if those people were to tell us that we should pay attention to outside labour unions, the fact remains that we cannot divert from the decision taken, namely that we were only going to acknowledge the one labour union to which our members belong. We cannot divert from that principle.

What did that committee investigate then?

Mr. Speaker, that committee investigates quite a number of things; not only the question of the membership of trade unions. The committee has a wide area which has to be investigated. However, I do not want to go into the matter in connection with the General Workers’ Union now, because it is a sensitive matter. This thing is not being initiated from our country, but from other countries. This thing is being initiated in countries that are seeking South Africa’s downfall. In addition it is a sensitive matter.

[Inaudible.]

Of course! I know what I am talking about. Transport is a sensitive matter. We are very dependent on transport and on contact with other countries. Economically it is necessary for us to remain an exporting as well as an importing country. That is why I consider this matter to be sensitive, and I prefer not to elaborate on it any further.

The hon. member for Umlazi said we would look after the workers of the S.A. Transport Services.

†The hon. member for Pinelands said he was giving me nought out of 10. I am so delighted because if that hon. member should give me 1 out of 10 it would be a warning to me that I was about to lose my job. [Interjections.]

Beware if I give you 2 out of 10! [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Welkom spoke about a negative Opposition. This entire matter has been interspersed with their negativism. There is no co-operation on their part for the sake of the 0,25 million people employed in the S.A. Transport Services. There are some of those hon. members who wish to stir up intergroup dissatisfaction among the Black population groups, as well as among the Coloureds and the Indians who work in this organization of ours. They wish to exacerbate race differences there. I say it is not necessary. It is truly not necessary. If hon. members knew how our Management felt about this matter, how the Railway commissioners and I myself feel about it, how hard we are working for a happy work force, they will realize what I mean when I say hon. members of the CP made a terrible mistake by adopting that attitude. The hon. member for Welkom also said we should have discipline in our undertaking. We shall continue to have discipline in our undertaking. We shall continue to fight for the interests of the worker of the S.A. Transport Services because we believe it is fit and proper that we do so. In a time of financial problems—and when the main budget of the S.A. Transport Services is introduced next week, I shall elaborate further on this—these loyal workers of the S.A. Transport Services said that under the present financial circumstances they realized that they were not able to receive a salary increase. Surely those are positive people. Hon. members of the Opposition must not bedevil these relations. They must keep out of these matters. The hon. member for Langlaagte and some other Opposition speakers, I believe, did our country and our transport organization a disservice with their speeches.

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped (Official Opposition and Conservative Party dissenting).

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill which is before the House is intended to amend several statutory provisions relating to the S.A. Transport Services. The proposed amendments are described in the explanatory memorandum which has been tabled, and I shall only deal briefly with the more important aspects.

The Bill provides, among other things, for the repeal of several obsolete Transport Service laws which were not included in the Repeal of Laws Act, 1981, Act No. 94 of 1981.

In terms of existing legislation, the Level Crossings Elimination Fund is administered as part of the Railway and Harbour Fund, and contributions to the Fund have to be included in the annual Transport Services budget. However, the Railway and Harbour Fund is only a concept which is peculiar to the organization and has no practical status any longer, and it is abolished in the contemplated S.A. Transport Services Finances and Accounts Bill, 1983. Therefore the Bill provides for a consequential amendment of the Level Crossings Act, 1960, in this connection.

†The Bill also provides for the utilization of moneys of the Pension Fund for non-Whites for the purpose of granting loans to members of the said Fund for housing purposes. In terms of the Bill, Coloured, Indian and Black members of the Pension Fund will in future also have the option of contributing in respect of previous continuous non-contributory service.

As hon. members know, the S.A. Transport Services is entitled to sell refreshments, including liquor, on its trains and aircraft. The Bill provides for the amendment of the South African Transport Services Act, 1981, so as to extend this service to include its luxury tour buses.

Other amendments provide, inter alia, for trading, advertising or displaying of placards or pamphlets, as well as the parking of vehicles on the Transport Services’ premises, without authority, to be criminal offences, whilst there are also various other amendments of a consequential nature.

*The hon. member for Berea will say that the Second Reading speech is too short. I have given him an explanatory memorandum, however, and the way I know them, they will enable us to take all the stages of the following two Bills tonight. Therefore I thank them in anticipation.

Mr. Speaker, unlike the previous Bill, this is a non-contentious measure, and in this case a two-and-a-half-page speech is probably just fine. The Bill is really a Committee Stage Bill and is not, as I have said, a controversial one. It contains a number of amending provisions to a variety of Acts, and most of these appear to be an improvement.

I should like to draw the hon. the Minster’s attention—and perhaps he could reply to my comment when he replies to the Second Reading debate—to clause 9 of the Bill which is a little worrying. It relates to the repeal of the Railways and Harbours Finance and Accounts Act and the revenue reserve established in terms of that Act. It states that the total earnings of the S.A. Transport Services shall not be more than are sufficient to meet the necessary outlays for exploitation, capital costs and contributions to a revenue reserve. It would seem that there ought to be some sort of stipulation limiting the percentage of revenue that can be utilized for capital purposes. This does appear to be the case here. Here it seems to be completely without any reservation at all that revenue can be used for capital purposes. In this form there appears almost to be a blank cheque being given to the S.A. Transport Services to lay down any terms and conditions in regard to the use of revenue for capital works. That is the one point that is worrying. I should like the hon. the Minister to motivate the reasons behind the provisions of clause 9 of the Bill.

I should also like to draw attention, of course, to the provisions of clause 11 of the Bill relating to the sacrifices that the S.A. Transport Services are, of course, going to make time-wise as regards personnel who are involved in military obligations. I think it is an obvious sacrifice to the SATS and, of course, is must strain the manpower resources of the SATS to a considerable extent. We know it applies only to Whites who are involved in obligations. This again reflects the burden which this section of our population has to carry in regard to military service.

Other matters touched upon by the hon. the Minister can be best dealt with in the Committee Stage. The question of refreshments on luxury motor coaches, restrictions on vending on railway stations and matters of this kind can be dealt with more effectively in the Committee Stage.

With these words and subject to the questions raised we will support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Berea for his support on behalf of the official Opposition for this Bill. As the hon. member has said, this is a non-conten tious Bill and one expected therefore that there would not be opposition to the Bill from the official Opposition.

*A practice has developed in this House from which I propose to deviate tonight, i.e. the practice that when we agree about a measure, we spend a long time telling one another why we agree. I do not propose to adhere to this practice tonight.

Finally, I want to refer to the provision which is being made in the bill for the pension fund for non-Whites to be used for making housing loans available to non-Whites. I think this is a very good provision, bearing in mind the fact that housing must be one of the greatest needs of non-Whites in this country. It is often alleged that the Coloured in particular attach great importance to political rights, but I am convinced that there are other needs to which they attach even greater importance than to political rights. Those needs are related to housing, employment, school facilities and so on. Since this measure can help to satisfy the need of non-Whites for better housing, it represents a definite advance in meeting one of the greatest needs of the non-Whites. Therefore I gladly support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party supports this legislation. However, there are a few minor points we hope the hon. the Minister will be courteous enought to concede to us. This Bill makes provision for ante-dated pensionable service to be taken into account. This is very important. The Bill also makes provision for certain obsolete Acts that were, through an oversight, not repealed last year to be repealed now. I can understand this because every legislature would like its laws to be of such a nature that there are no laws on the Statute Book which do not really belong there any more. We are also grateful that the S.A. Transport Services is now being authorized to administer the level-crossings elimination funds.

The amendment Bill also makes provision for funds to be made available from the pension funds of non-Whites so that they can build their own houses, and we are glad about this. We just want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this will have a bearing on the 99-year leasehold system for Blacks. We assume this is the case, but we just want the hon. the Minister to clear this matter up for us.

The second matter I should like cleared up is whether this housing scheme will also be available to Blacks in the Western Cape.

Clause 12 of the Bill is being amended so that liquor may be served to passengers on motor coaches. I feel that the intention is— except by way of exception—to give preference to South African products.

One matter that is causing a great deal of concern these days—and I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to this—is that there are certain people who drink too much while travelling on trains of the S.A. Transport Services. This is becoming a nuisance. Those of us travelling down from the North by train have found that there are certain people on the train who do not know the meaning of the word moderation. This is a nuisance to other passengers. I know that the hon. the Minister, who is a teetotaller, will feel the same as I do about this matter.

We are also grateful that trading on premises of the Railways will now also be kept within bounds. This is very important, because many of those people make a nuisance of themselves, and also make the work of the Railway Police more difficult, because they have to deal with so many additional people when they have to keep order on Railway premises. This makes it very difficult for the Railways Police and the passengers. The S.A. Railway Police do wonderful work. It is also thanks to them that today we have one of the safest rail and air services in the world. When a crowd of people blocks the view on platforms or at airports, they are obstructing the Railway Police in the performance of their duty. For this reason we are also grateful that stricter measures will be taken here, particularly on Sundays, when many people visit transport terminuses, not to make use of the transport, but to wander around and make a nuisance of themselves.

We are also very grateful that the matter of pensionable service is going to be improved and that people can buy back service. However, we should also like to ask whether it is not possible—and we know that people who have left the service are no longer in a position to do so—for the hon. the Minister to consider allowing people who have already left the service to be given some or other form of relief, at some time or other, because these people are really battling. Devastating inflation is ruining those people who are living below the breadline. We are making a serious appeal for something to be done for them as well. We have no misgivings whatsoever about supporting this Bill

Mr. Speaker, allow me, before I get to the Bill, to congratulate the new General Manager on his promotion and to welcome him here. A few years ago we worked together on the Select Committee and there already he proved himself to be a person worthy of this position. We want to congratulate him and his staff who prepared the documents we are dealing with here.

I should like to point out that we have returned to discussing legislation and nothing more. I noticed that the last few debates on legislation that took place here deteriorated into political circuses. It is pleasant to discuss these matters in the interests of the S.A. Transport Services and to put other matters aside until the time is ripe to deal with them.

There are a few matters I should like to touch on. It is not necessary to discuss this Bill in depth because we have as it were agreed to agree on what is now before us.

There is one particular matter I want to put to the hon. the Minister and that concerns the question of the provision and sale of liquor on the motor coaches as well. We are aware that liquor is provided free of charge on our aircraft. Tonight I should like to make a serious appeal to the hon. the Minister in regard to this matter. I have seen a man board an aircraft in Durban to fly to Cape Town and drink six whiskys during that flight. [Interjections.] I am very sorry, Sir, but this is a matter I feel aggrieved about and that is why I want to mention it here this evening. Since we are now experiencing a loss in respect of the SATS, can we not begin to economize at this point? I feel that we may as well begin with a saving that will ensure us some return. Some time ago it was said that meals would no longer be served on aircraft but that free liquor would be provided. On some flights one is not even served coffee or tea because liquor is being served. For this reason I want to make a serious appeal to the hon. the Minister to investigate this matter.

I also want to say that it is a pleasure for me to support this legislation wholeheartedly on behalf of this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the NRP to tell the hon. the Minister that we shall be supporting this legislation. As has already been said, there are a number of provisions in this Bill which are improvements and there is nothing really contentious in it. We welcome particularly clauses 2 and 8 which concern pensioners. Clause 2 now enables a person who retires due to retrenchment to receive certain pension benefits in the same way as a person who is retired because of ill-health. I believe that this is a good provision because the SATS are at the present time experiencing certain economic pressures and, as has happened in the case of many businesses in the private sector today, certain people are being retired early for economic reasons. I have always felt that it is grossly unfair to retire a person prematurely because or economic reasons and by so doing deprive him of certain pension benefits when he is within a very short period of qualifying for that pension. I think that this is a very reasonable provision. It is correct and it is right and I commend the hon. the Minister for including it.

Clause 8 concerns the buying back of pension benefits in regard to previous non-contributory service as far as the pension scheme is concerned. This is correct. The hon. member for Edenvale spoke yesterday about the problems facing South Africa in regard to pensioners and retired people. I think he made a very good speech and I commend him on it. I believe that we should all be encouraging our people to contribute to pension schemes so that when they reach the age of retirement they will be well provided for. These should be schemes which are linked in some or other way with the rising cost of living. If we do not do this and we instil in our people the idea that the State will look after them in their old age, we shall find ourselves faced with a great problem. We know today after reading reports from the United States and from Europe that their social welfare or pension schemes are in danger of collapse. In fact, some of them are virtually bankrupt today, and we know that certain welfare state philosophies and ideas have not worked in those countries. We have to get back to the basic principle that one gets nothing out of life for nothing. If one wants to be looked after in one’s old age, one should in some way contribute to that. The provisions contained in clause 8 are therefore very welcomed by the hon. members of this party.

Clause 6 now enables pension funds to be used for housing. We are in agreement with this. We know that the hon. the Minister came to the House last week with his Additional Appropriation Bill and there we saw that because of the economic pressures that have been placed upon him, he did not have the R80 million that he originally had budgeted for staff housing. If my memory serves me correctly he was able to spend only R10,6 million which meant that something like R69,4 million was not available. In regard to this provision he will now be able to use pension funds for this purpose.

I want to make just one of two points to the hon. the Minister. I believe that it is better, if we make funds available, that these funds be used to build houses rather than to buy houses. I mention this because in my constituency which stretches from Louis Botha Airport down to Pennington, many SATS workers have their homes. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that real estate agents have told me—not so much now, but a few years ago when the real estate market was tight—that had it not been for the SATS workers and their home-ownership scheme, times would have been very tight for those agents. This of course is a good thing for those workers, but in these days when there is such competition for housing, I believe that the schemes which the State and State corporations have instituted to provide houses for their staff actually contribute to inflation. They pump money into the housing market and the benefits which they provide their staff are such that the staff often trade upwards when they are buying a house. What I mean by that is that a person who should really, if he was using his own money or if he was borrowing money on the open market to buy a house, set his limit at a level which is commensurate with his standard of earning, is now, because of these benefits of low interest loans, shooting much higher. He can set his sights much higher. In this process such people tend to add to inflation as far as home-ownership is concerned.

Seeing that we are talking about housing, let me point out something else which concerns me. I know of a case in Durban in which a young man, after he had matriculated, joined the SATS. He was fortunate enough to obtain a bursary to study at university, which is a very good thing. He studied four years and then he graduated. Thereafter he was called up to do his national service which will take two years, but he is receiving full pay from the SATS. While doing national service, he got married. He applied for a loan for a house and then he bought a house, so I am told, for R70 000. We know that the SATS are in financial difficulties right now. This man has been on the payroll for something like five to six years, he has not done a stroke of work for the SATS yet he can afford to buy a R70 000 house. What is that man’s sense of values? I am not against people having perks, but then they must deserve them and work for them. I am not against a person obtaining a bursary. In my day I have arranged for young men to get bursaries. I do believe, however, that we could be upsetting our sense of values to the extent that young people today think that the world is their oyster; they can afford anything because somebody will pay for it.

What this has resulted in, is that the SATS find themselves in financial difficulty. We are in a recession and a lot of people are unemployed. I am not suggesting that we are against assisting people or encouraging people to own their own homes, but perhaps the time has come for us to rethink this matter because it may have got a bit out of hand. Maybe that is why today some people are having to pay R70 000 and R80 000 for homes and one hears of flats in Sea Point selling for R300 000 and R400 000. One then wonders where it is all going. We welcome that provision especially in that it applies to non-Whites. I think there should be a greater incentive for the non-Whites to buy their own homes so that they can understand what the free enterprise system or capitalist system is all about.

Clause 9 is consequential upon the next Bill on the Order Paper. There are certain things in the next Bill we are a bit concerned about, but we shall be debating that later. Intending no reflection on the hon. the Leader of the House or on you, Sir, I would have preferred to have debated the other Bill first and this one afterwards because there are certain things in this Bill that are consequential upon the next Bill being passed.

Clause 11 is consequential upon changes to the Defence Act and we go along with that. Clause 12 concerns the sale of liquor on buses. I think that that is a reasonable provision. I think it is not unreasonable for people on a trip from Johannesburg to the Kruger National Park to have some refreshment if they should feel like it. However, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana raised the matter of liquor on aircraft. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I miss the meals we used to get on SAA flights. Especially if one catches the flight from Durban to Cape Town at 5 o’clock in the afternoon to attend Parliament and one has had a hard day in Durban, one misses that when one finds that all one is served on the flight is maybe a little snack-pack and free booze. I should like to know whether this has really benefited the SAA in any way financially. Or has it just made life easier for the cabin crews? I do not know. However, I think the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has a point when he says that perhaps we should go back to charging for liquor …

Hear, hear!

… because people are in fact taking advantage of it.

I am a bit concerned about clause 13 which will empower the S.A. Railway Police to arrest people who are either selling or hawking goods on SATS property, or who are advertising there, etc. We are not in total disagreement with this. We do not believe that people should willy-nilly hawk their wares on SATS property. What I am concerned about, however, is that the SATS are not providing the public with adequate facilities at the railway stations and on the trains. I can give the hon. the Minister an example. If one catches the Orange Express from Durban to Cape Town, which arrives in Bloemfontein, let us say, on a Sunday morning—this has happened to me some years ago—and one gets off the train in order to buy a Sunday newspaper, one finds one cannot buy it on the station. One has to find out what time the train pulls out— everybody says “make sure you do not miss your train”—and then one has to run up the main street to find a little café where one can buy one’s newspaper and then return to the train. [Interjections.] It is even worse than that today. On my way to Parliament this year, I had to go via Johannesburg, so my wife and I got on the Trans-Natal Express in Durban but, before doing so, I rushed into the new station to buy The Daily News. I want to tell the hon. the Minister I could not buy The Daily News on the station, the brand new station in Durban. I was told that I could go to the third-class section because they would have it there but that, if I went to the shops across Umgeni Road, I could get The Daily News there too. I went across the road firstly to a Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet, but they did not sell The Daily News. Then I went to a pharmacy, but could not get it there either. [Interjections.] So I went back to the station and asked where the kiosk in the third-class section was where I could buy The Daily News. I was then told: “Sorry, Sir, it is closed now.” So I said to myself: Never mind, I shall buy a Daily News when I get to Pietermaritzburg.

Why do you have to mention it?

That hon. member is saying that I should not mention this, but we are passing legislation here which is going to prohibit the free enterprise sector from providing a service that I want. And why? Because the Railway services cannot provide that service any longer. And then the hon. the Minister wonders why he does not have paying passengers on his main line services. Anyway, when we arrived in Pietermaritzburg, I got off the train and the first thing that I did was that I went to the old bookstall. When I was a small boy Sir, and we visited the station, we always used to watch the little engine that they have there which raises money, I believe, for the pensioners’ fund. There is a little model engine there and we used to put a penny in it to make it work. Well, next to that little engine there is a bookstall and I thought that I would be able to obtain a newspaper there. When I got there the bookstall was all boarded up and closed. I thought I would then try the coffee kiosk. When I got to the coffee kiosk I said that I would like a Daily News. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member a chance to deliver his speech.

I asked the people at the kiosk why the newsagent was closed. They told me that it had been closed down. I asked them why. They said it was because they were selling chocolates and chocolates were not newspapers. The sale of chocolates belonged to the coffee kiosk. I thereupon asked them: But what about newspapers? Do you have a Daily News? They replied: No, we do not sell copies of the Daily News. I put it to the hon. the Minister that I could not even buy a Daily News at two of Natal’s main stations. So I ask, why is the hon. the Minister wanting to pass this legislation? Do hon. members know why? It is because if one gets on certain trains, especially third class trains, one will find umfaans hawking everything from Long Tom beer to whatever the public wants. They are creating a problem for the Railways because they are not supposed to be on the trains. I am led to believe that they are hidden by the other Blacks should a conductor appear on the scene. In addition, it is said that they are a nuisance. However, I believe they are providing a service to the passengers who are travelling on the SATS rail service which the Railways themselves are not providing.

I have a number of questions on the Question Paper about the availability of services, at our stations, etc. and I await their replies with interest. While we in this party can understand the need to have some sort of control over these things, because I believe there are a lot of irregularities that do occur—we go along with that—but I say to the hon. the Minister that SATS is not meeting the needs of the travelling public, whether they be myself or whether they be a commuter.

End off this journey now.

Finally, there is one other question I want to ask the hon. the Minister. If the S.A. Railway Police at this stage have not had the power of arrest or to issue tickets for illegal parking, what about all the tickets in the past that have been placed on vehicles?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to delay the train for such a long time?

Order!

We are supporting the Bill and we can understand the need for this legislation. However, the matters to which I have referred are matters on which I believe the hon. the Minister should exercise his mind because I believe they are affecting the profitability of the SATS.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Berea for supporting this Bill. He asked me a question about clause 9. As I have said in Parliament on more than one occasion, internal financing will be increased gradually, but it will probably take a long time before we get to the stage where we reach the target of 50% as recommended by the Franzsen Commission some time ago. We shall go into that matter further at the Committee Stage. The hon. member also asked about clause 11. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti also referred to this clause.

*The amendment is intended to bring the provisions of the relevant section into Une with those of the Defence Act of 1957.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay spoke about the utilization of the pension fund for non-Whites for the purposes of housing loans. This is so. The hon. member for Mossel Bay correctly understood that we should like to enable the other population groups, the Blacks, to build their own houses. Arising from that, the hon. member for Nigel asked whether this would be in terms of the 99-year leasehold system. Building loans of this nature depend on the decision taken by the local authority concerned. They must be brought into line with the arrangements already made by the local authorities. However, it is being done in terms of the 99-year leasehold system. The hon. member for Nigel also supports this legislation. He is a much better hon. member for Langlaagte, in any event. The hon. member comes from my neighbouring constituency, and he has not yet insulted anyone in this House. The hon. member for Nigel referred to the serving of liquor on buses. The hon. member wanted to know whether we were going to serve South African liquor. Meanwhile, the hon. member for Langlaagte shouted at me earlier that I owed him a case of whisky. Where does the whisky come from? We should much rather serve red wine from Waterberg, Soutpansberg, Roodeberg or wherever. [Interjections.] We intend to serve South African liquor, and to encourage its consumption in this way.

Furthermore, the hon. member for Nigel spoke about the abuse of liquor at stations and on trains, while the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said that liquor was being served free of charge on aircraft, and that this was creating problems. I am under the firm impression that the management of the SATS ruled that a passenger could have one free drink. Now the hon. member for Umhlatuzana says, however, that a passenger travelling from Durban to Cape Town had six glasses of whisky. And they were free?

All six glasses!

Mr. Speaker, we shall have to investigate this matter.

Tomorrow! [Interjections.]

I shall certainly have this matter investigated. Our problem was that we reduced the staff because we had to show a profit. It happened that an air hostess had to push a trolley loaded with an enormous amount of liquor: then a passenger took out a R20 note to pay for a cooldrink or a beer.

Then accept that Lapa as a donation to the SATS!

We then felt that this was not worth while. If it is true, however, that one specific passenger was served six glasses of whisky, and without being made to pay for it, I believe that the time has come for us to review this whole matter.

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti said he finds it a pity that we are not serving meals on flights any more. No decision has been taken not to serve meals. We have never decided not to serve meals on flights between Durban and Cape Town and between Cape Town and Johannesburg. On a flight between Durban and Johannesburg, or between Port Elizabeth and East London, which lasts 25 minutes at the most, it is surely impossible to serve refreshments. Now the hon. member for Amanzimtoti says that when he has to catch a flight at 19h00 or 19h30, he likes to be served a snack, even if his flight takes only 25 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I think we should give the hon. member for Amanzimtoti 50c every time he flies. The flight is so short; then he can simply buy himself a hamburger when he arrives at his destination. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Nigel also requested us to look after certain categories of workers. I agree with him wholeheartedly. We shall certainly give attention to the problems pointed out by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana.

†The hon. member for Amanzimtoti welcomed the clause in respect of pensions. I thank him for that. The hon. member added that we should use the funds to build houses rather than buy houses. I also prefer a person to build a house because there is a shortage of houses, a shortage which will continue for a very long time to come. During this financial year we have spent R256 million on housing. Only a percentage of that amount was spent on buying existing houses instead of building new ones. When someone qualifies for a loan, however, one cannot compel him to build a house. He is fully entitled to buy an existing house if he so wishes. We must, nevertheless, encourage people to build houses rather than to buy then.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti also referred to an employee of the SATS who was called up for military service and who was subsequently granted a housing loan of R70 000. Why should one want to penalize a man who does military training in order to defend his country, while at the moment an unmarried female teacher with one year service—not six years service—can apply for a house loan and will get it? That is, of course, the right thing to do. It encourages the young teacher to get married, have her own home and raise children. So I think it is a very good thing.

The hon. member complained that he could not buy The Daily News.

Yes.

He is fortunate not to have been able to get hold of one. [Interjections.]

I have nothing against any specific newspaper, but at such a station they sell only 10 newspapers, perhaps. We must go into this matter. We want to make conditions pleasant for the travelling public, but if we have to stock newspapers at kiosks, and people are not prepared to buy more than ten a day, it only leads to further losses. Give us a chance to go into this matter. The hon. member said it was the Trans-Karoo that was standing at Worcester station, or where was it? [Interjections.] Oh, Bloemfontein. We shall go into this question. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti is not a difficult person. He makes suggestions. He tries to improve matters for us, for if something is not profitable, we cannot afford to incur further losses by providing services which are not supported. He must understand that. [Interjections.] Yes, but that hon. member said the kiosk was closed, but what about the person who has to work in the kiosk? The hon. member for Amanzimtoti is the only one who gets off to go and buy a newspaper.

Oh, come on.

Are we to keep it open for that reason? [Interjections.] I do not know the facts of the particulars. However, I shall go into the hon. member’s arguments.

You will not sell newspapers but you give away grog.

I believe that this question of liquor is a very sensitive one. A certain MP—a very good friend—once told me: “I am an admirer of yours. Pull the cork, let’s have a snort; the Airways is a sport.” [Interjections.] The best example of a civilized person is the person who enjoys everything in moderation. I am not a teetotaller, although liquor does not agree with me. It makes me terribly … how shall I say … [Interjections.]

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members are aware, when the South African Transport Services Act, 1981 (Act No. 65 of 1981) was promulgated, the name of the South African Railways and Harbours changed to South African Transport Services. This necessitated various consequential amendments to the Railways and Harbours Finances and Accounts Act, 1977 (Act No. 48 of 1977). The purpose of the Bill before the House is, on the one hand, to replace Act No. 48 of 1977 in view of the need to modernize existing legislation due to changed circumstances, and at the same time, to make provision for the consequential amendments arising from the change of name. The implications of the Bill are explained at length in the explanatory memorandum and I shall only highlight a few of the more important aspects. Before I come to that, however, I want to bring to the attention of hon. members an amendment not covered by the explanatory memorandum. Section 4(2) of Act No. 48 of 1977 provides that moneys appropriated by a Part Appropriation Act shall be utilized only for services in respect of which expenditure was authorized by an Appropriation Act during the immediately preceding financial year. As a result of this provision, provision had to be made in the Additional Appropriation preceding the Part Appropriation Act, for new projects which had to be launched immediately after the beginning of the financial year. Since amounts in the Additional Appropriation for some of these projects would not be spent in the financial year to which the Additional Appropriation referred, the provision of cash was limited to a minimal amount of R1 000. However, this practical arrangement to meet the requirements of the provisions of a law may create the wrong impression. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti raised this aspect during the Second Reading of the Additional Appropriation debate for the 1980-’81 financial year.

Consequently section 4(2) was omitted in the S.A. Transport Services Finances and Accounts Bill. In future such new capital items will be provided for in the schedule to the Part Appropriation Bill. The South African Transport Services are moving in the direction of an integrated budget and in future, in contrast to the present system, only one estimate of expenditure will be submitted to Parliament. The Bill makes provision for this line of action.

Since the S.A. Transport Services have now also entered the local capital market, for practical considerations arising out of the day-to-day management of the S.A. Transport Services, provision has now been made in the Bill to enable the General Manager to invest as he deems fit any moneys in the possession of the S.A. Transport Services which in his view are available for short-term investment.

†By virtue of the fact that repayment of loans and moneys withdrawn to deal in securities do not represent expenditure incurred in connection with the exploitation of or investment in the S.A. Transport Services, provision is made in the Bill to the effect that appropriation by Parliament is not required for these transactions.

As hon. members know, all expenditure in excess of appropriations must be authorized by means of a special Act of Parliament. In terms of the Bill, the Minister may grant authority for money to be made available to defray expenditure in connection with an anticipated excess on an appropriation equal to two per cent of the total amount appropriated by the Appropriation Act or Part Appropriation Act then in force. This provision is in line with that contained in the Post Office Act, 1958 (Act 44 of 1958).

Mr. Speaker, this is an important Bill because it deals with the financial arrangements and accounting system of the S.A. Transport Services. As the hon. the Minister has indicated it contains a number of provisions which the White Paper refers to as “Repetition/amendment”. Many of the provisions are contained in the Railways and Harbours Finance and Accounts Act, 1977, an Act which, amongst other things, this Bill seeks to repeal.

The Bill also introduces some new concepts in accounting and financial control which, I believe, deserve careful attention and scrutiny by the House. I believe it may well have facilitated debate in the House if these matters could first have been ventilated in the Select Committee on the Accounts of the S.A. Transport Services. I think this would have been appropriate in the circumstances and we probably could have dealt with the Bill far better had we had an opportunity of considering these matters first in the select committee.

While the Bill is largely an amending one it is important to ensure that the measure of control which it provides in respect of the finances of the S.A. Transport Services is adequate and prudent and appropriate to an undertaking as important as the S.A. Transport Services. When one looks at the Bill and at what it is trying to achieve one must look not only at what is in the Bill but also at what is not in it. I think when we are dealing with the auditing and control of finance it is very important that we give these matters our full attention. Perhaps a useful starting point is to compare aspects of this Bill not only with the Acts it seeks to replace, but with the Exchequer and Audit Act which governs state financing and expenditure generally. The first thing that strikes one when looking at the two measures is that the control measures which the Exchequer and Audit Act gives the Treasury—section 31 of that Act contains a fairly extensive list of control measures—appear to be seemingly absent from the Bill which we are now dealing with. I can find no other similar measures of control.

If one looks at the Exchequer and Audit Act, section 31, one finds that it gives fairly considerable powers to the Treasury. I quote—

It further sets out in section 31(1)(a) to section 31(1)(r) precisely the form of control which the Treasury shall exercise. I cannot find anything similar to that in the Bill relating to the control of the finances of the SATS. On the contrary, one looks at other provisions in this Bill which in some way seem to indicate almost a lessening of control or almost certainly a lessening of the emphasis on control which has existed in the past. I refer here to the omission of section 19 of the old Act of 1977 which specified and laid down certain sanctions and penalties against employees who caused loss or damage to the Administration by misdemeanours and that sort of thing. That has been omitted and the White Paper simply tells us that it has been omitted. The offences specified in the 1977 Act have been omitted in order— and here I quote from the White Paper—“to allow the principle of the common law to apply”. This does seem to result in a reduction of emphasis on misdemeanours or malpractices on the part of employees and it therefore seems to indicate a lesser degree of control with regard to matters of this kind which are important to the SATS. When the Minister replies to the Second Reading, I would like to hear his views on this aspect. There does seem to be a need for the same measure of control in this Act as operates in the Exchequer and Audit Act. I would like to see more emphasis being given to tighter control.

If one looks at the Bill it is, as the Minister has indicated, in many ways a Bill which lends itself largely to more adquate debate when we come to the Committee Stage. There are nonetheless a number of comments and queries relating to individual clauses which I would like to deal with at this stage because I think if the Minister responds during the Second Reading, it might facilitate the debate when we reach the Committee Stage.

The first query relates to clause 7 on page 6 which provides authority for the Minister to make money available in certain circumstances provided that the total amount shall not exceed 2% of the amount of the Appropriation Act then in force. The hon. the Minister referred to that in his introductory remarks. I believe that the figure of 2% is too high. I cannot see why it was increased from the 1% which was contained in the original Act. The only justification given for this in the White Paper and the hon. the Minister’s introductory speech was that it has changed from 1% to 2% in order to conform with the Post Office Act. We need much more motivation on that as it is simply not good enough. I think the figure of 2% is unnecessarily high and I think the hon. the Minister should give some real motivation other than to tell us that it is simply to conform with what is happening in another branch of State administration.

The other clause that causes some concern, is clause 10 on page 6, which relates to the all-important examination of accounts by the Auditor-General. Clause 10(2)(b) causes particular concern. It is the same as the existing provision in the 1977 Act but if we are amending legislation or introducing new legislation I think we should seek to make it as good as we possibly can. This clause differs again from the Exchequer and Audit Act. Section 42(7) of the Exchequer and Audit Act relates to this type of examination of accounts and exceptions in so far as certain aspects of accounts are concerned. Clause 42(7) of that Act states—

There is a difference here because it is a qualification. The provision which we are now reinserting in this Bill simply states that if it appears desirable—we do not know to whom it must appear desirable—there is no question of confidentiality or anything of that kind—that such accounts or part thereof be excluded, then the Minister may determine to what extent the audit thereof shall be carried out. One wonders again why there is a difference between this aspect of accounting in the SATS and accounting as covered by the Exchequer and Audit Act.

I also have a problem in regard to clause 10(3)(d) which refers to defective vouchers that have to be reported to the Minister. However, I believe that in this case too, where vouchers are missing and they are defective on audit, not only should this be drawn to the attention of the Minister and the Auditor-General but also that provision should be made for the Select Committee on the accounts of the SATS to have this matter drawn to their attention so that members of that committee will be aware of the fact that there have been defects in so far as vouchers are concerned.

A further problem I have is in regard to clause 12 which deals with the question of loans by the Administration. Again, this provision is similar to that in the original Act of 1977 but one has to ask once again whether it is quite adequate simply for this provision to be re-enacted. The clause provides that the General Manager may, with the approval of the Minister granted in consultation with the Minister of Finance, borrow money. One wonders simply whether something more than just consultation with the Minister of Finance is necessary. Normally, when money is borrowed, a Government guarantee is required and ultimately, whatever the SATS may do, if they find themselves in default the ultimate responsibility will of course rest with the State. I believe that to put this matter more clearly it should not only be in consultation with the Minister of Finance that loans are transacted but that in fact the consent of the Minister of Finance should be obtained. As I say, ultimately it will be the Treasury that will have to be the final guarantor of any loan contracted by the SATS. It would seem that here too it would be prudent if this were brought into line and more than simply consultation was implied.

These are some of the problems that we have in regard to this measure. As I have said, many of them can be better debated during the Committee Stage. However, in general terms it is an important measure. One will watch its operation with interest and one will be particularly concerned to ensure that there is adequate control and audit of the accounts of the SATS.

At this stage I want to say that we support the Second Reading of the Bill and we reserve our right to discuss its clauses during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill, the hon. member for Berea expressed certain reservations in regard to the control mechanism as proposed in the Bill. I fully agree with the hon. member that there should at all times be an adequate level of control. However, at the same time I believe that in the case of an undertaking like the SATS which not only renders a service but is also a business undertaking, there should be a certain amount of flexibility. If the control measures are too rigid, that amount of flexibility that can ensure that this undertaking will be a profitable one, is lost.

*The Bill makes provision for a number of consequential amendments due to the fact that the name of the SATS has been changed. Personally I find it a great pity that the name has been changed. The old name, the South African Railways, was so established in our South African vocabulary that when we spoke of a Railwayman we knew exactly whom we were talking about.

That belongs to yesterday.

I have always had great respect— and still have—for Railway people. I think they are among the best human material we have in South Africa. I have personal experience of the contribution Railway people have made to our community over the years and I have great appreciation for it. One has always had such a nice, warm feeling of pride when one could associate oneself with Railway people. Basically, nothing has changed now, of course, but it is after all a bit different if one now has to refer to the employees of the SATS. It does not sound as good as the old name “Railway people”. Be that as it may, it is an accomplished fact, and the Bill now makes provision for certain consequential amendments which have become necessary as a result of this.

Frans, Koedoespoort remains Nat!

I have also referred to the degree of flexibility necessary in order to make the undertaking profitable. Consequently I believe that it is also desirable that the General Manager be given the authority, as the Bill envisages, to make short-term investments, and to vest in the responsible Minister the authority to authorize spending in excess of appropriations of up to 2%, otherwise one runs the risk of constantly exceeding the appropriation without being authorized to do so, and this could have an inhibiting effect on the activities of the SATS.

In conclusion, I thank the hon. member for Berea for his support of the Second Reading of the measure on behalf of his party, albeit with reservations and questions to which I believe the hon. the Minister will presently provide him with satisfactory answers, and even though the hon. member said that the measure could be debated further during the Committee stage. I believe, too, that any reservations that might still exist after the hon. the Minister has replied to the questions of the hon. member and other possible questions, could most appropriately be discussed during the Committee Stage. At this stage, then, I support the measure on behalf of this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Conservative Party I want to say that we, too, support the Bill. Having said this, I also want to express our thanks to the hon. the Minister and the top management for the explanatory memorandum accompanying the Bill.

Of course the hon. the Minister is fortunate that, as is the case with the Post Office, in the SATS we also have a top management of high quality. Thanks to this and all the officials who have assisted them over the years, we can be confident that in future we shall have equally good service from the Railways, to use the old name so that the hon. member for Mossel Bay can feel happy.

There are a few matters we should like to discuss.

Apart from certain changes consequent on the change of name, it is important that, as clause 2 provides—

Of course, it is of importance to us that with the new recognized accounting system it will be easier for the SATS to manage its affairs. This is a positive step in the right direction. A capital appropriation on the one hand and operating expenditure on the other, as we had it in the old days, is of course very cumbersome. A system like the integrated system of the Post Office is far more streamlined.

However, there is one thing the hon. the Minister must explain to me. As long as the present hon. Minister remains the Minister, I have no problems and everything will go smoothly. We know he is a practical business man. However, we are not always going to have such a Minister. I say this with reference to a few other clauses. In the new dispensation it is possible that with the tricame ral system we can have a Minister of colour in this post.

Oh, Jan!

The hon. member for Mossel Bay must just give me a chance to complete my argument. After all, that can happen, or does the hon. the Minister want to suggest that it cannot? The hon. the Minister will not say “No”, because he knows it is a possibility. In Clause 4(2) it is stated: “Estimates of expenditure, in the form determined by the Minister …” I ask myself why it must be “in the form determined by the Minister”. Throughout the world, and in South Africa, too, it is the case that if there is a recognized accounting system, it is prescribed by the professional people. This hon. Minister is not going to make random changes, but we must not draft a Bill in such a way that in the future another Minister can change it in an impractical way. We cannot leave this as it is. I think that the words “in the form determined by the Minister” are superfluous. In certain cases they may be essential, but I think that, as they have been included here, they are a drawback rather than an advantage.

I also want to refer to clause 3. I think it is a very good thing that we are inserting it here. What this amounts to is that the SATS cannot provide social services on a permanent basis and that the central treasury must in fact compensate the SATS for such services. This has always been the case, but I just want to point out that it is only right that this should be so. I am glad about this provision. I also want to make an appeal for the SATS not to be seen as a welfare organization. If in certain cases welfare services must be provided, these must not be the sole responsibility of the SATS; the country in general must compensate the SATS for this. I wanted to make special mention of this because I think it is a very good thing.

I also want to refer to clause 10. In my opinion something needs to be rectified here. In clause 10(2)(a) it is stated quite clearly—

Here the words “in consultation” are used, but in subsection (2)(b) of the same clause it is stated—

I say this should also read “in consultation”. The Auditor-General is the watchdog over everything. What I consider very important is that the hon. the Minister, whoever he may be, should not be able to do so “after consultation”. It must be “in consultation” with the Auditor-General. I think this is very important. If it is not done in this way, a Minister can simply ignore the Auditor-General, who should really have the final say regarding the correctness of the statements submitted. I think this is probably just a small mistake that has crept in. I therefore call on the hon. the Minister to take a look at this.

There is another matter that I regard as very important. Clause 11 in Chapter II reads as follows—

I call on the hon. the Minister to negotiate with the hon. the Minister of Finance with a view to this amount being written off. I do not know why we have always carried over this amount since 1910. This amount should be written off so that it can be deleted from the books of the SATS. I think that on consideration this would prove to be a positive step. It would also allow the accounting system to operate somewhat more positively and with greater ease in the future, and I do not think the SATS would be worse off if that amount were written off.

Apart from that, we support this legislation and we want to tell the hon. the Minister, his General Manager and his staff that we are very glad that they came up with such a positive Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is to be accepted that from time to time certain legislation has to be reviewed, updated and so on. I think that this Bill is one of those cases where this has in fact happened. There are a number of new provisions and totally new concepts that have been included in the Bill and I refer in particular to clause 3 which is headed “Making good of deficiencies in certain cases”. The implications of this clause are that if the SATS are called upon by Parliament “to provide any services or facilities either gratuitously or at a tariff which is insufficient to meet the costs involved in the provision of such services or facilities, the S.A. Transport Services shall as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year present to Parliament on account certified by the Auditor-General, showing” the loss, and that Parliament would meet this loss out of the State Revenue Fund. I believe we must be very clear in our minds what this means. It means that if Parliament decides to put in a commuter line to a particular new township and this commuter line runs at a loss, then Parliament will refund that money to the SATS. On the other hand, if Parliament decides it wants to build a railway line from Sishen to Saldanha Bay in order to transport iron ore to the coast and to build a harbour in order to load this iron ore onto ships for export purposes, and in operating those services the SATS run up huge losses, as they are doing at the present time on that particular line, then Parliament will meet the cost. This means that the South African taxpayer is going to have to be the one who pays. I recall, Sir, that before I became our party’s spokesman on transport matters, way back in the days of the old United Party, I remember my hon. leader calling for this very provision. We felt that it was unfair for the SATS to be burdened with the unprofitable services which Parliament calls upon it to provide for the public in general.

We felt that the State Revenue Fund should actually meet these losses. We agree with that in principle, and it is something we have called for in the past. We are concerned, however, about certain matters. Here I should refer the hon. the Minister to the various transport debates which we have had over the last week or so when we expressed our concern about the control which Parliament has over the finances of the State or of State-run corporations. This is indeed one of the main duties of Parliament. If one should analyse the period during which we sit in this House, one would find that most of the time we spend in debate is taken up by the discussion of matters concerning appropriations. I am thinking now, for instance, of the main appropriation, the SATS Appropriation, the Post Office Appropriation, etc. One of the main concerns of Parliament is to look after public funds.

Therefore, as I said earlier today, and certainly during the discussion of the National Roads Amendment Bill, the powers we have been giving Ministers either to raise levies or to recoup the losses of the SATS, as is the case with this particular measure, is a matter which not only worries hon. members who sit in this House. I should like to make that very clear to the hon. the Minister.

I have just received an information digest from the Chamber of Commerce in Natal. This happens to be the largest Chamber of Commerce in South Africa, i.e. it has the largest number of members of any Chamber. This Chamber of Commerce is very active and keeps itself well informed on commercial matters. Mr. Speaker, with your permission I should just like to quote briefly from this information digest because I believe it is relevant to the matter we are discussing now. Here we have a group of active businessmen expressing their concern about what is happening in this House. The headline is “Moving towards government by decree?” This is the big question, Sir. They express their concern about certain Bills before the House, some of which we have now passed, saying these measures will release Ministers altogether from the need to report back to or be answerable to Parliament for their actions. The next part I should like to quote, reads as follows—

It then goes on to say—

On what clause are you speaking now? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is clause 12(4) that they are referring to.

And that is what the Chamber of Commerce in Durban says.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is what the Chamber of Commerce in Durban says. They are not an irresponsible group of people. I believe the hon. the Minister should concede that point. They are an extremely responsible group of businessmen who operate their businesses at a very high level of competency and maintain a very high standard of ethics, business codes, etc. They are nevertheless expressing their concern about this measure.

Referring to clause 3 now, I reiterate that this is something of which we have been very much in favour in the past. When one considers, however, that the SATS are at the present time running up tremendous losses, and that because of these losses we are passing legislation in this House such as we have done of late—for instance the Road Transportation Amendment Bill—by way of which we place burdens on the private sector in order to assist the SATS in reducing its losses, I believe there are other very important facets of which we should never lose sight. I think we always have to bear in mind what the main function or role of Parliament is, i.e. to look after these money matters. It is because of this that we are rather concerned about clause 4 which involves, and I quote—

In this clause it is laid down that there shall be an Appropriation Bill, that there can be a Part Appropriation Bill, an Additional Appropriation Bill and so on. What concerns us, however, is that section 4(2) of the Railways and Harbours Finances and Accounts Act, No. 48 of 1977, is to be deleted. Section 4(2) states—

There is, of course, a reason for this, and it also applies to the main budget, the Appropriation Bill, as it does to the Post Office Part Appropriation Bill. As I have said, there is a reason for it. The reason is that a Part Appropriation Bill normally provides for a globular figure, as in the one we have just debated at Second Reading. There is no detail to indicate where the money is going to be spent. So the existing provision in section 4(2) gives protection to this House by way of an assurance that there will not be any additonal items—either capital or current expenditure items—added into the budget without Parliament having the opportunity to debate this.

In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister said that a schedule would be attached to the Part Appropriation Bill, a schedule listing any new capital work. That does indeed assist us in our efforts to support the hon. the Minister here, but I should like to get the hon. the Minister’s assurance that this schedule will give us clear details— as we get in the main budget of the SATS— and will not merely give us a globular figure with just a small footnote to the effect that there will be RX million for this and RY million for that. Can he give us the assurance that it will inform the House—whenever a Part Appropriation Bill is introduced and new capital works are included—of exactly what the hon. the Minister has in mind, as in the case of the Brown Book in the main budget? I should like the hon. the Minister to give us that assurance.

The other problem we have is that a Part Appropriation Bill is allocated very little time for debate. We do not have the same time that we do have in the case of the main budget. We could therefore find that with a large number of new items we would just not have enough time to debate them correctly. These are the reservations we have. Perhaps, during his reply, the hon. the Minister will be able to reassure us, firstly that the detail will be there and, secondly, that Parliament will be given the opportunity of debating these matters fully.

The other clause we are concerned about is clause 12(4) in which powers are given to the General Manager to incur expenditure and to borrow or to repay loans without the prior authority of the hon. the Minister or of Parliament. This goes against the provisions in the existing Act and, for that matter, in the Post Office Act and the Exchequer and Audit Act. The hon. member for Berea has mentioned this. We are concerned about the fact that Parliament will lose control. I believe that this is extremely important that we consider this possibility at this stage since, in clause 3, the S.A. Transport Services is being assured of the fact that if so-called socioeconomic services are provided and they run at a loss, the taxpayer will meet the cost. It is for this reason that we believe that Parliament should—even more so now—have a say, in fact a great measure of control, over the finances of the S.A. Transport Services. These are major difficulties that we have with this piece of legislation and I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister, as I have said, will be able to reassure us on these matters.

Mr. Speaker, in general, the previous speakers on this measure, as well as on the previous order of the day, set us an excellent example, an example I, too, should like to emulate, by not wasting time unnecessarily on measures about which there is so much unanimity on all sides of this House. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti supported the Bill in his own peculiar way. He had many misgivings, but if I understood him correctly, he did not actually object to the measure; he merely wanted certain assurances from the hon. the Minister. I take it that the hon. the Minister will give him those assurances.

This is a measure that does not really contain many new principles. That is the reason for the general consensus. The principles are already contained in existing legislation and have therefore already been accepted by this House. The Bill contains few new provisions, apart from those of a more technical nature. I want to refer briefly to a few principles of a less technical nature.

Clause 7 contains the principle that greater powers are to be vested in the Minister with regard to exceeding the budget. I really cannot agree with the hon. member for Berea that the increase here is too large. I feel we have more reason to suggest that the present 1% is far too limited and also that we can give the hon. the Minister and his department more leeway as far as this is concerned. I therefore tend to agree with the hon. member for Mossel Bay. He replied effectively and satisfactorily to the hon. member for Berea.

Clause 8 stipulates two new principles. The first is that the General Manager will now have the authority—which the Minister at present has—to open accounts at approved banks. I think this clause embodies a very sound principle, namely the principle of the delegation of responsibility. It is a sound principle provided it is applied with circumspection. Of course, I do not have the least doubt that the hon. the Minister and his department will approach this matter in a circumspect and responsible way.

In this connection I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister and his advisers to an aspect of the clause that is not quite clear to me. I think there is a concept here which could give rise to doubt. I refer to the concept “an approved bank”. What this means is that the category of banking institutions from which the SATS is at present able to borrow money on overdraft, is being extended from the Reserve Bank and Public Debt Commissioners to “an approved bank”.

In my opinion there is a possibility that doubt may arise regarding the exact interpretation of the concept “an approved bank”. Presumably this means a banking institution registered in terms of the Banks Act by the Registrar of Banking Institutions, although this is not expressly stated. As the clause reads at present I feel it is open to more than one interpretation. I note for example that in another measure at present on the Order Paper reference is made for the sake of caution to “a banking institution registered in terms of the Banks Act, 1965 (Act No. 23 of 1965)”. The other interpretation of this concept may be that it is a bank which has to be approved by the Minister or the General Manager on an ad hoc basis. If this is the case one assumes that procedures must be prescribed in terms of which such approval must take place. There should therefore be a procedure of testing and criteria should be laid down for the approval of such a bank. It is also possible that this may refer to a certain category of banks, and I should therefore prefer it if the term were to be properly defined so that there could be no doubt or uncertainty in this regard.

I realize that I may be raising this matter ex abundanti cautela but it is merely to ensure that the hon. the Minister and his department do not encounter problems with this.

I also want to refer to clause 12. This clause concerns the day-to-day managerial functions of the South African Transport Services. No new principle is involved here either; it is aimed purely at enabling the South African Transport Services to operate unhindered on a business basis like any other large business undertaking. After all, we know that today the Railways is the largest business undertaking in the country. This is mainly a procedural measure, but it is still very important from the point of view of effective management and unhindered authority to act.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti is concerned about the powers being vested in officials here. I find these clauses particularly significant because I see them from the point of view of streamlining the S.A. Transport Services’ administration and business activities.

This clause—and in my opinion this is an important idea—accords suitable and well-earned recognition to the integrity and judgment of the top officials of this organization. I think they deserve it. In fact, they deserve to be entrusted with that responsibility. I think this is a wonderful and well-earned motion of confidence in the integrity and judgment of those people. To withhold such responsibility from these officials would not be a reflection on the persons who occupy those posts as such, but rather a reflection on the system, on the procedure and criteria in terms of which they are promoted to those posts. I think we owe them this recognition and I welcome its being demonstrated in this way.

I think it is a very meaningful provision that the General Manager will also have the authority to invest surplus funds in the short term. When I look at all the provisions I think that this measure has so much merit that it deserves general acceptance and support in this House, as, fortunately, is the case, with the odd reservation that, I assume, will not give the hon. the Minister any problems when he replies.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members have referred to many provisions and in order to give the hon. the Minister of Law and Order another chance to introduce his Bill, I shall deal with it swiftly.

†The hon. member for Berea referred to section 31 of the Exchequer and Audit Act in connection with control measures exercised by the Treasury in respect of funds appropriated for Government departments. The S.A. Transport Services have their own internal audit apart from the audit by the Auditor-General, which is regarded as quite sufficient. The hon. member also spoke on clause 7. He said that the deviation of 2% in respect of the total amount appropriated by the Appropriation Act is too high. Parliament will still be asked to appropriate this money, although it will not be reflected in the estimates of that particular year, but in the estimates of the ensuing year. However,

I shall further refer to that in the committee stage. This is so in the case of the Post Office, and we felt that we should get in line in order to have more flexibility.

The hon. member also referred to clause 12 which deals with loans arranged by the General Manager in consultation with the hon. the Minister of Finance. Consultation in this context implies consent, otherwise a State guarantee will not be issued. We will not get the State guarantee.

*The hon. member for Berea also referred to clause 12. In this regard I wish to tell the hon. member that the provisions contained in sections 16(1), 16(3), and 17 and 20 of Act 48 of 1977 are amalgamated in this clause. Clause 12(3) has been newly inserted. The reason for this is that the repayment of loans and moneys withdrawn for dealing in securités do not represent expenditure incurred in respect of the operation or exploitation of or investment in the SATS and consequently do not need to be voted by Parliament. Clause 12(6) has been inserted to provide that any money in the possession of the SATS which, in the opinion of the General Manager, is available for investment on short call, may be invested at his discretion. Where powers originally vested in the Minister have been transferred to the General Manager, this has been done in order to facilitate the day-to-day management of the SATS.

†The hon. member for Mossel Bay referred to the SATS as a business undertaking and discussed the question of flexibility. I thank the hon. member for his contribution. We must have that flexibility because this is, after all, a business undertaking. In addition, of course, we also come back to Parliament with a budget for the year.

*The hon. member for Sunnyside thanked the top management of the SATS and the Minister. It was one of the good speeches made by the hon. member for Sunnyside. He really did not lie this evening. He thanked the right people.

The hon. member for Sunnyside also put a question in respect of clause 2. This clause, which replaces section 9 of Act 48 of 1977, corrects the incorrect usage of the word “re-keningstelsel”. The word “rekeningstelsel” is being substituted by the correct terminology, viz. “rekeningkundige stelsel” and this correction has also been effected in respect of all provisions in which the word “reke-ningstelsel” is used.

The hon. member for Sunnyside also refers to provisions in terms of which the Minister may determine and also change the form of budgeting. An acknowledged accounting system remains the basic requirement that cannot be deviated from. The hon. member also wanted to drag in the question of a Minister of colour, but I think we have disposed of that issue tonight.

The hon. member also referred to a few other clauses. As far as clause 4(2) is concerned, I just want to say that it is a repetition of section 4(3) of Act 48 of 1977. Because the Minister himself determines the form of the budget, it is not necessary to specify detail of the budget in the legislation. Consequently the reference to such detail has been omitted. The stipulation “but with due regard to the accounting structure agreed on in terms of section 9” is omitted as the accounting structure within the context of an accepted accounting system need not be defined in legislation.

The hon. member for Sunnyside as well as other hon. members also referred to clause 11. This clause replaces section 14 of Act No. 48 of 1977. The Act as it reads at present, creates the impression that the relevant loans obtained from the Treasury represent capital of the SATS. That is not the case. These are still loans on which interest is not payable. The new definition clarifies the matter. The hon. member said that it should be written off, as I have already said, we do not pay interest on these pre-Union loans. Therefore it would not be right to write it off as permanent capital.

†The hon. member for Amanzimtoti referred to clause 3 to which I have already replied. He said it was unfair to expect the SATS to be burdened with uneconomic services. I have also replied in respect of that point. We shall also discuss this point when the main budget is introduced.

He also referred to the Chamber of Commerce of Durban. I want to ask him a question. Does he prefer the SATS to be a State corporation like Iscor?

No sir. Not while the taxpayer is expected to meet its losses.

The Chambers of Commerce in South Africa, however, prefer to have the SATS a corporation like Iscor or Escom. If that should happen, then we would lose control completely. I am glad to hear from the hon. member that he does not agree with the Chambers of Commerce who want control to be taken away. I want to reiterate that the Government, as has been said in the past, will now allow the SATS to be run in the same way as a State corporation. There are various reasons for our point of view, but the main reason is that we want to have Parliament in control of the SATS and its budget.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti asked certain questions on clause 12(4), but I think I would rather reply to those questions during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister—this is a question I asked specifically in my speech— whether the schedule of a Part Appropriation Bill will list in detail any new capital works?

I shall deal with that aspect in detail during the Committee Stage. I shall then also reply to certain other questions.

*The hon. member for Sunday’s River also agreed that one per cent is too limited. The hon. member for Mossel Bay gave a clear explanation that the SATS was a business undertaking, and the hon. member for Sunday’s River supported him in that. The hon. member, when he commented on clause 8, spoke of two new principles for sound delegation. I shall reply to the hon. member’s question about an approved bank during the Committee Stage.

The powers referred to in clause 12 are powers conferred on the General Manager. In fact this is a motion of confidence in the General Manager. It is true that when one appoints a person one has to trust him. It is not a case, though, of now giving the General Manager a green light to do just as he likes. We are dealing here with day-to-day decisions, and because it is just not practicable always to contact the Minister immediately this practical arrangement is being made. Reports must be submitted to the Minister and, of course, Parliament too, in the normal way. The extent of our activities has increased and consequently it has become necessary to effect some of the proposed amendments without giving our powers away.

I thank all the hon. members for their support. They have asked reasonable questions. I shall reply at length to the further questions of the hon. members for Berea, Sunny-side and Amanzimtoti during the Committee Stage.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill merely provides for the insertion of a phrase into the Afrikaans text of subsection (5) of section 26 of the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Act, 1951, in order to bring the Afrikaans text into line with the English.

It is essential that this difference between the two texts be rectified, and to obviate any problems with regard to interpretation, it is proposed that the amendment be given retrospective effect from the date on which the 1982 amendment came into operation, i.e. 24 March 1982.

Mr. Speaker, that was in fact the maiden speech of that hon. member as Deputy Minister of Finance. So, right at the outset I should like to congratulate him on his appointment and wish him well for the future. We have had the opportunity of serving together on various committees and I am sure he will make a major contribution in that post. I just hope that the fact that his constituency is rather bleak is not going to be an indication of what the financial situation South Africa will be in during his tenure of office.

This Bill, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has pointed out, introduces a fairly minor amendment, but I think it is in fact useful and essential that we should look at this particular piece of legislation from time to time because the whole position of auditors and acountants is a very important one. Overseas there are in fact a number of court cases pending relating to accounts that have been signed by public accountants and auditors. Recently we had a case in South Africa in connection with a quoted company where points were raised about the actual auditors’ report. I think that to some extent public accountants and auditors have a conflicting role to play in South Africa. They play a very important role in the financial structure, but it is a conflicting one because sometimes the shareholders believe they are there to look after the interests of the shareholders and sometimes the Receiver of Revenue is inclined to think they are there to look after his interests. I think, however, that public accountants and auditors also have the role of safeguarding the general public. This is particularly important for small shareholders because increasingly people are looking to them to protect their interests. I think this is an onerous obligation. Because it is an onerous obligation and because they are there basically to protect people who are involved with large companies, I want to ask in conclusion whether the time has not come for us to ask ourselves whether it is necessary for small companies to have as onerous an audit as large companies have.

Mr. Speaker, you will understand that it is a very great privilege for me, on behalf of this side of the House, to congratulate my former bench-mate on his appointment as Deputy Minister of this important portfolio and on his first appearance in that capacity in this House. It is appropriate that the hon. the Deputy Minister should be handling legislation tonight which affects a very important profession in our financial and business world, because he is a professional man himself.

We should like to tell him that we on this side support the legislation. It is merely a textual improvement to the Act and we gladly support it.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the CP we should like to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on his maiden speech in his new capacity. We hope and trust that his future speeches will be just as clear and concise as the one he made tonight. He is a professional man himself, of course. It is a pity, though, that he is not a public accountant too, because then it would have been much easier for him to perform his task. [Interjections.]

I just want to make it quite clear that the profession of public accountants and auditors in South Africa is certainly one of the professions that play a very important role in society. Businessmen, money-lenders, consumers, shareholders, all who come into contact with this profession, hold it in high esteem. Only in highly exceptional cases do members of this professional body fail to serve the best interests of any party. We are grateful for the fact that the small anomaly that is dealt with in the Bill is being removed, because these professional people do not wish to and will never accept anything which is not 100% correct. Thank you very much for the change. We of the Conservative Party support it.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches also congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on his elevation to Cabinet rank. We also want to congratulate him on his success with the first Bill that he has brought to this House. I cannot guarantee that all the legislation that he intends introducing will go through as easily and quickly as this one, but we wish him luck and we have no problems at all in supporting this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank hon. members who have taken part in the debate on this important piece of legislation for their participation, their unanimity and the good wishes they conveyed to me. I make bold to say that I hope to experience this unanimity for a long time to come. I also regard it as an important amendment as well as a useful one, because it affects a very important aspect, namely the obligation of accountants towards the public.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In their performance of the functions with which they are charged by law, including the maintenance of the internal security of the Republic and the investigation and prevention of crime, it has been general practice in the S.A. Police for as long as one can remember to erect road blocks on public roads from time to time and to search vehicles— and, where this is justified, the occupants as well. The searches are invariably conducted in accordance with the provisions of sections 5 and 6 of the Police Act, 1958, in conjunction with the search provisions contained in the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977, or any other statutory provisions in terms of which powers of search and seizure are conferred upon the police.

One cannot think of any case where any material objection has been raised to this police procedure. On the contrary, the police invariably receive the co-operation of the public, and I should like to record my appreciation and that of the S.A. Police for this positive attitude.

In spite of this positive attitude on the part of the public, the question has on several occasions arisen in police circles whether the erection of road blocks and the searching of vehicles without a warrant should not be based on a firmer legal foundation. The matter was consequently taken up with the Government law advisers, and after intensive deliberations, they expressed the opinion that from a legal point of view, a general power should be conferred upon the S.A. Police to erect road blocks, barriers or any other objects on or alongside roads, to display signs to ensure that a vehicle will come to a halt and to search vehicles and containers without a warrant.

It is against this background that the Bill is now being submitted to this House for its consideration.

Hon. members are probably aware of the provisions of subsection (4) of section 6 of the Police Act, which confers fairly wide powers of search upon a member of the Force. However, these powers are limited to areas within a distance of 10 km—it was originally one mile—from any border between the Republic and a foreign State. Section 6(4) was placed on the Statute Book after it had been irrefutably proved in 1964 that many persons are recruited in this country and smuggled across our borders to receive military training abroad. This provision is still essential and remains unchanged.

It has become increasingly clear lately that trained terrorists and their accomplices are smuggling considerable quantities of arms, ammunition and explosives into the country to be hidden in caches with a view to future use. It is equally clear that because of their weight, these weapons and explosives are not being carried across the border on foot, but are being hidden in vehicles in all kinds of ways and smuggled into the country in that way.

In the interests of the security of the Republic and all its people, it is essential that the police be properly equipped to combat these practices.

Hon. members’ attention is also drawn to the fact that search without a warrant is confined to vehicles and containers in, on or attached to such vehicles. Searching of persons will continue to be carried out in terms of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act.