Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, as hon. members will perceive from the wording of the motion, this motion has a positive character. It was deliberately worded in this way because I am of the opinion that we live at a time when there is too much emphasis, unnecessary emphasis, on the unfavourable factors in society, whether in respect of politics, social intercourse or our constitutional dispensation. Attention is simply never given to the positive side of matters. This motion, then, is yet another manifestation of the Government’s positive approach to the problems of South and Southern Africa. Some of my colleagues on this side of the House who will speak after me will refer in greater depth to some of these matters.

In reply to a question by members of the Opposition, the hon. the Minister wanted to know who the man was who would want to make an offer for the South African Transport Services and said he would like to meet that man. Accordingly this motion is not intended to sing the praises of the SATS with a good offer in view. This reminds me of the farmer in the Boland who had a dairy. Every Sunday evening some of the milkers did not turn up, but then one of the Coloured people from the neighbouring farm would come over when the last cow had to be milked. He knew, of course, that he would share in the “dop” system which was still in operation at that time. One evening the farmer had had enough of this and, after the milking, gave him a good glass of wine and a tot of vinegar. When he asked him what he thought of the second tot, he replied: “No, that was good wine. The first one wasn’t too bad, but that last one was excellent.” The farmer asked why it was that he praised the second tot. The Coloured man replied: “That last one, it needed praise.” That is not the point here. In the past two weeks we have been discussing transport legislation and have been able to ascertain the attitude of the official Opposition and the CP as regards the discussion of transport affairs. I believe that the motion afforded the opportunity to determine in depth the attitude of the opposition parties to public transport in South Africa and their attitude to the employees in these two departments. It is for the employees in these departments to decide for themselves in whose hands they want to leave their future and the future of their children when it comes to the choice of a political party.

Since I am discussing this matter, allow me to pay tribute to the employees of the various public transport services. I want to wish Dr. Loubser, “Oom Kobus” as he was known to us, a well-deserved rest after his retirement. I also wish our friend and former mayor of Acacia Park, Dr. Bart Grové, all of the best with his tremendous task. I also wish to pay tribute to Mr. Eksteen and to Mr. Frikkie Loots and their colleagues, who are not always accorded recognition for what they do at the national and international levels. We want to tell them that this party had not overlooked the dedication and zeal with which they perform their tasks. On behalf of all hon. members who have gone to learn from those officials from time to time I wish to thank them for the friendly way in which they are regularly of service to us and the friendly way in which they obtain information for us which is not always very accessible.

I have referred to senior staff of the S.A. Railways, the S.A. Airways and the Department of Transport Affairs, but our transport industry does not only consist of highly trained academics. This service also employs some of the lowest trained staff, even illiterates, but nevertheless together they form a smoothly operating whole. Accordingly I ask that this motion be seen as one of thanks and tribute to these people who co-operate to ensure that the wheels and gears of transport in South Africa keep turning. I have often wondered what catastrophe would result if the friendly ladies who work in our two dining halls in Parliament were to go on strike for a single day. Few graver disasters could strike hon. members of this House.

Many of us who have travelled through the Karroo on a stifling hot day have seen a Coloured or a Black man walking along the railway line carrying a heavy key, inspecting the line yard for yard, and in this way making his contribution towards ensuring a reliable and safe transport service. If the discussion of this motion results in nothing more than that the close to a quarter of a million employees involved—from stewards, truck drivers and waiters right up to the General Manager—know that their dedicated service does not go unmarked in the highest Chamber of South Africa, then it will have served a good purpose.

The transport services of South Africa consist of two components. On the one hand, there are the S.A. Transport Services which we previously knew as the S.A. Railways and the S.A. Airways, and on the other hand, the Department of Transport which is concerned with road transport, marine transport and civil aviation. The motion does not concern a single component but rather the totality of public transport in South Africa. That is why I thank the hon. the Minister who is responsible for both branches, that operate entirely independently of one another. [Interjections.] I do not think all of us are always aware of the diversity of the tasks the hon. the Minister must perform. Even the metereological services of South Africa fall under the hon. the Minister. I do not think there are many of us who know that South Africa has two other islands apart from Robben Island. In 1947 and 1948 we annexed the two islands, viz. Prince Edward Island and Marion Island, as well as Bouvet and Gough Islands, and from there metereological services are provided to the whole Southern Hemisphere.

There is something I should like to say to the hon. the Minister. The weather report is probably one of the most professional presentations on television and we may be justly proud of those who present that service. [Interjections.]

The aim of transport in South Africa is not only to provide transport, but also to regulate transport services in South Africa. Since this is so, I believe it has become a matter of urgent importance that we work out a total transport strategy for South and Southern Africa. Accordingly I wish to appeal to the hon. the Minister that we should try to move away from ad hoc investigations and ad hoc planning. We must rather consider a permanent transport planning body for Southern Africa, a body on which the countries of Southern Africa may serve and which can carry out overall forward planning so that we may place transport services, too, on a sound footing, because we know what a key role the transport services play, and not only in South Africa. After all, we are aware of the stabilizing effect it has in Southern Africa, from Cape Town to Zaire. I therefore believe that such a transport planning institution for Southern Africa could give rise to still greater stability in Southern Africa.

This brings me to the subsidization of transport. I believe that the hon. the Minister—and probably each of us as well—would like to provide all public transport free of charge. Economically, however, this is not possible. Nevertheless, on behalf of the industrialists and entrepreneurs in my own constituency I wish to thank the hon. the Prime Minister, the Government, for the judicious subsidization of transport in South Africa, particularly with regard to the conveyance of people of colour between their homes and their places of employment.

I now wish to dwell for a moment on the National Road Safety Council and its staff, who now also fall under the hon. the Minister’s department. It is alarming to consider that 9 000 or more people die every year in road accidents, in traffic accidents. It is alarming, particularly when we bear in mind that 9 000 people are equivalent to the population of a town like Mooi River in Natal. It is alarming particularly when we bear in mind that every year we wipe a town of the size of Mooi River off the map of South Africa. Only then does one realize what a tremendous task this council has to protect people’s lives. Here I am not referring to those who are injured and involve expenditure to the State of many millions of rands, but only to those who are killed.

I should like to wish the hon. the Minister and his officials everything of the best. I do not believe this is a very popular department to control. One does not always want to be hearing about losses suffered or tariffs that are increased. Therefore, when essential services such as those of the SAA, the Railways, the marine traffic services and even the pipeline service are provided, one needs a capable man of experience. We know that our Minister is such a man and we wish him and his senior officials everything of the best.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member who has just sat down has placed this motion before the House today, although it is a “dank die Minister” type of motion; something we have become used to. It nevertheless gives us an opportunity to discuss the SATS and I think this is very necessary in many respects, because there can be no question that in regard to many aspects the SATS do offer South Africa wonderful services. I confess that, as regards the hon. member’s speech, I am not entirely sure quite what the present hon. Minister of Transport Affairs has to do with all that, but perhaps he can tell us a bit more about that later today.

The hon. member has asked us a couple of questions. For instance, he has asked us what our stand is on public transport. He has also asked us what our stand is on the employees of the SATS. Perhaps that will become clear, or clearer, during the course of my speech, because I intend touching on both those aspects during the course of my address.

I think we should start off by pointing out that, contrary to what some hon. members on the other side of the House seem to think, the SATS are of course not the invention of the NP. The history of this organization is a very, very long one. It was actually initiated as a result of the great railway boom in Britain in the early part of the last century. Some highlights might be of interest to the House. As long ago as 1853 the Cape Town Railway and Dock Company was formed. It is interesting to note that this was a private company, which was really the forerunner of the present services we have in this country. In 1859 the Natal Railway Company was formed. In 1860 the first railway was opened from the Point to Durban. So one can go on. The first railway in the Transvaal, the one between Johannesburg and Boksburg, was started in 1890. If one considers the very interesting history of South Africa, one finds that this development has definitely helped to open the hinterland, not just of South Africa but of Southern Africa.

A railway is not just an entity without any elements of humanity. The SATS are the people, the employees, from the very top right to the bottom. They are really the heart of the SATS. The SATS are today the biggest single employer in South Africa. From an employment total in 1912 of 61 000 and in 1946 of 193 000, it has risen at 31 March 1981—those were the latest figures available when I prepared this speech because the figures for 1982 only became available yesterday—to 115 819 White employees and 115 000 non-White employees of whom 130 000 are Blacks. In other words, almost half of all the employees of the SATS are actually Black people. I believe that is a most significant figure. Its history is significant, as I have said, in that it opened up South Africa. It has led to South Africa becoming the industrial giant of Africa and it has perhaps led to the fact that South Africa is the foremost metal and mineral giant of the world. Without the people who make up SATS, without their drive, ambition and energy, nothing can be achieved. As I have said, 271 000 people work for the SATS.

It is interesting, if one looks a little bit at the past and at some of the history of this employment, to see that in 1925 there was a report put out on European labour on the S.A. Railways. The original of the report is in Afrikaans and what I am going to quote is a free and not a literal translation which appeáred in Special Bulletin No. 135—

When one considers the tremendous Black employment today, I find that attitude most interesting. The report states further—

Eight shillings and sixpence was quoted as being a “proportionately high” wage.

I believe that the SATS played a very important job in developing South Africa’s economic potential. Let us consider that in South Africa, scattered in communities in the 1920s and 1930s, there were the poor Whites. Here the SATS really played a role. The poor Whites, who were predominantly Afrikaners, were ill-educated, there were a large number of illiterates amongst them and their skills were few and far between. But the SATS took these people under their wing and in that way played a major part in the economic upliftment of many, many people. For these people no such problem exists today. Some of the children and grandchildren of those employees, of those poor Whites have taken their place in the economic sun of South Africa and occupy very high positions today.

The first point I want to make in this debate is that there are other people in need of upliftment economically in South Africa today, and the SATS must play its part in that upliftment. I would refer here to the Conditions of Employment (South African Transport Services) Bill which we have debated in Parliament only this week. In terms of that Bill no one who is not a South African citizen can be a permanent employee of the SATS. This is bad. We need to uplift the Black people economically in South Africa. If we cannot offer these people permanent employment, they will suffer economically. We must also not forget that a tremendous number of Blacks within South Africa are no longer citizens. There are for example the Xhosas, the Venda people and the people of Bophuthatswana. None of these are any longer citizens of South Africa. Therefore they cannot be permanently employed in the SATS. If we remember what the former Minister of Co-operation and Development, Dr. Connie Mulder, had to say in this House a few years back, viz. that the logical development of the South African policy of separate development meant ultimately that there would be no Black citizens of South Africa, then I believe it is absolutely tragic that there should be a clause of this nature in the Bill to which I have just referred.

There has been a lot in the Press in connection with the conflict between the SATS and private enterprise. I therefore wish to move an amendment to the motion of the hon. member for Roodeplaat, as follows—

1. (1) the advisability of selling components of the South African Transport Services to the private sector; and
2. (2) the extent to which the South African Transport Services are unfairly competing with the private sector.”.

To motivate the amendment, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that over a period of time—only taking the last couple of years—there has been a tremendous amount of conflict between private enterprise and the SATS. Allow me to refer to a newspaper headline of 30 October 1981. It reads as follws: “Sky Couriers pledges fight against SATS monopoly after cargo service ban”. The damage done to this private organization was tremendous, and it was done through a decision of the National Transport Commission not to license N.A.C. to provide a scheduled air service to serve Sky Couriers after the latter had been totally banned from S.A. Airways. This created many problems.

Then we have the case of Magnum Airlines. There was a big fight between the SATS—basically SAA—and Magnum Airlines. Of course we all know today what has happened to Magnum. Then there was also the Rauties transport affair. Only last week I referred here in this House to Rauties Transport. The hon. the Minister is aware of this. I referred to it during the discussion of the Road Transport Amendment Bill. That is yet another example of what people believe is happening through the big brother attitude of the SATS. Then there is also the express truck services. Allow me to quote from a document published by Info Com, No. 23 of 1982. The headline reads as follows: “Express services to get the chop”. So one can go on.

If one looks at the FC Weekly of Friday, 5 November 1982, one reads the following—

So it goes on. From the Financial Mail of 19 November 1982 we learn about “Transport piracy; crippling penalties”. That was the headline. I quote further—

Again, this was contained in the Bill. So one can go on quoting these various aspects. Perhaps one of the worst was the headline that appeared in the Sunday Times of 14 March 1982: “Threats, say agents; incentives, says SAA”. I quote—

I think this indicates that there is a conflict situation. There have been hard words. There have been misunderstandings. I believe many of these could have been avoided. For the purpose of this debate I do not necessarily want to say that SAA or SATS was right and the private sector was wrong, or vice versa. I do believe, however, that the private sector should have the right to see SATS compete fairly in the market place. I do not believe we should make the private sector have to subsidize the SATS unprofitable services by putting up with monopolistic service which is sometimes inefficient or slow or careless. Why should the oil pipeline— users of oil in the Transvaal—have to subsidize passenger transport, or cheap rated transport done at an uneconomic rate by SATS? I think we should consider taking a leaf out of the book of the Conservative Party in Britain. The British Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, has recently sold off to the private sector a number of operating ports in Britain. There was an issue of shares on the Exchange. There was an investment by the private sector in these ports, and everybody seems to be very happy.

Let us remember that we are in the 1980s and not in the 1920s or the 1930s. Infrastructure and trade in South Africa is well developed. The internal combustion engine is actually here. We do have air transport. We are not completely reliant, as we were in the twenties, on trains for moving goods and people. The SATS should not need to be so heavily protected. Let us open up. I quoted in this House last week what Karl Marx had to say in his Manifesto about transport being controlled by the State being basically a communistic idea. Is it right that in 1983 some services should subsidize others? Is it right that so many transport monopolies exist? I contend that the private sector is more cost-conscious and motivated than a State concern. They have to be in order to survive. Let us assume that the SATS sold the pipelines or harbours individually. What would be the advantages to the State? To start off with, there would be a large income arising from the sale. Secondly, we would have a situation where, if the operator operated profitably, a tax of 46,2% would be paid by that operator to the State, so the State would still be getting an income from that service. I also submit that that 46,2% of profit could exceed what the State is currently making.

May I ask a question? The hon. member has told us that certain components should be sold.

No, he did not say that.

I am referring to the amendment moved by the hon. member. He says that certain of the components should be sold to the private sector. Why does he want to sell only the pipeline? Why cannot we sell the passenger service? Why only pick out the eyes? I should like the hon. member to tell me what other components we could sell besides the pipelines.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister should listen to me more carefully. He should use the glasses he has on his nose to read my amendment. I do not call upon the SATS to sell. I say that this House calls upon the Government to conduct an investigation into the advisability of selling. That is a very different thing. I suggest that the hon. the Minister read the amendment properly before he puts words into my mouth that I did not use. [Interjections.]

The other advantages to the State or to South Africa could be that there could be a decentralization of services therefore providing more employment in decentralized areas. The only disadvantages in this that I personally can think of are the cross-subsidization benefits in the SATS where an uneconomic service is subsidized by an economic service. In this computer age, I believe that we should know what uneconomic services cost us. If it is in the country’s interests to run services at a loss then why should oil users in the Transvaal or harbour users in the Western Cape pay for those losses? Let those losses rather be clearly identifiable and let the whole country fund those losses.

I am not trying to pretend that these arguments are the last word on the subject. Obviously there are many counter-arguments. I am well aware that the hon. the Minister and perhaps other hon. members opposite will advance various counter-arguments. I fully accept that. However, what I do submit, is that we need an authoritative public scrutiny of these problems and a considered report by experts. I want to tell the hon. the Minister categorically that we do not want a report by departmental experts. Such experts often have a desire to toe the line according to what the current line is. Let us rather have a public scrutiny of these problems by a committee composed of members who have been very widely drawn. Certainly let us draw certain members from the public sector but let us also draw some members from the private sector. Let us also find academics suitably qualified in the field and appoint them to such a body. I think that such a body would be of great advantage to South Africa. If its findings were that the SATS carry on as they are doing, this would give him very good ammunition, authoritative ammunition against the official Opposition or any other opposition party. However, I believe it is necessary at this stage, more than a century since the Railways were founded, that there should perhaps be a change in strategy. Here I want to refer to what the hon. member for Roodepoort said in his speech. He suggested that we should look at the strategy and I think that this is one of the strategies that we should look at—the conflict between the private sector and the SATS.

In conclusion I want to say that we want the best possible solution for South Africa. Maybe by instituting an investigation of this nature we can arrive at the best solution.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, who has just resumed his seat, agreed with quite a number of aspects as far as this motion was concerned, and I thank him for that. Of course the hon. the Minister himself will reply to the amendment he moved, but I am afraid I must tell him in advance that the fact of the matter is that every large organization like the SATS is of such a nature and is organized in such a way that it has to provide certain services that are less profitable while others are more profitable. It is the total number of services it provides that enables it to provide all the services. As soon as the private sector comes into the picture, it is only prepared to take over the profitable services with the result that the SATS is left with the unprofitable services.

There is the classic case I can remember— reference has already been made to this in the past—of the people who transport cherries from the Eastern Free State. The cherries are transported in private trucks to Johannesburg, but the owners of those trucks do not want them to return to the Eastern Free State with empty boxes. The empty boxes are then loaded onto a train while the lorries return to the Eastern Free State transporting other goods. That is the way the private sector works, and the SATS is left with the empty shell after the yolk has been removed.

I should like to support the motion of the hon. member for Roodeplaat. In my speech I want to concentrate in particular on the part the SATS plays in stabilizing our neighbouring states on the subcontinent and on the contributions we are making to become friends with our neighbouring states.

The SATS has developed into a model transport system which compares favourably with and is better than most systems in the world. One of the greatest ideals of President Kruger and the former South African Republic was realized on 2 November 1895 when the last bolt was tightened and the first direct rail link between Pretoria and Lourenco Marques came into existence. These events ushered in an era of mutual dependence and good neighbourliness in South Africa. Two years later the northern rail link between Mafeking and Bulawayo was also completed. Cecil Rhodes’s dream of a railway line from the Cape to Cairo was admittedly never realized, but this rail system was the start of what later became the main artery of the transport infrastructure in South Africa.

I should like to associate myself with the motion of thanks being expressed to the Government, the hon. the Minister and the SATS. We want to thank them for the outstanding service they are rendering and have rendered to South Africa. I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Roodeplaat said so effectively by pointing out the important part the people of the SATS play.

I want to start with those persons sitting there in the officials’ benches. We can work our way down that row until we get to the lowest paid official. Every one of them is part of this large team of more than a quarter of a million people. We have a soft spot for the Railway workers. There was a time when this country was burdened by terrible droughts—as is also the case now—and when there was unemployment in this country as a result of a depression. In those days it was the S.A. Railways that offered most of our people, the poor Whites, a livelihood, when there was nowhere else for them to turn. The S.A. Railways, as it was known in those days, played a very important part in this country in this regard, and here I agree with the hon. member who resumed his seat a while ago.

I mentioned that in my speech I wanted to point out the stabilizing role we have on our neighbouring States. It is a fact that some of our neighbouring States do not have the ability to use and to operate their own infrastructure properly. That has led to their still remaining dependent on the RSA. I can, for example, refer—and everyone is aware of this—to the situation in the harbour of Maputo, which at one stage was one of the best, most flourishing and busiest of harbours. However, that harbour has deteriorated to such an extent that other countries—including the USA—are no longer prepared to make use of it to import or export their minerals. In contrast the RSA is an industrial giant, with a well-developed economy, political stability and a well-trained work force. We also have a good transport infrastructure and thorough knowledge and experience of the every day realities of Africa. In spite of our being political outcasts, we have, ironically enough, always been willing to help our neighbours, and—this is important—they have always been prepared to make use of our services. To this day we lease diesel locomotives to Zaire, Zambia, Mocambique, Zimbabwe, Swaziland, etc. We also help them with repair work on these locomotives because they cannot do it themselves. We give them technical aid; we exchange technical knowledge with them; we help them to train their staff and we even second our staff to help them in their own countries. I want to emphasize that the aid we give to these States is, of course given on a business basis. They must request it, and when services are rendered to them they must pay for those services. From what I have said it should be clear that South Africa is engaged in a stabilizing process and that we do not want to destabilize them. As far as transport is concerned, South Africa is totally independent of its neighbours, but our welfare and stability is nevertheless closely allied to the welfare and stability of our neighbours. We prefer neighbours who can meet their own needs, because we realize that if they do not eat well, we cannot sleep peacefully. Our future is closely linked to that of our neighbours, those neighbours around us. That is why we are the natural market and outlet in Africa. We are nearest to them and we offer them the most reliable, most economical and best products for their needs. For the good of us all and for the sake of peaceful co-existence and future of our children we must look ahead. Mutual respect and co-operation based on sound business principles is our motto. In such a situation no-one is a loser, there are only winners.

I mentioned earlier that the rail network in South Africa has become the main artery of our transport services. History is repeating itself now. During the Rhodesian war Rutenga was linked up with Beit Bridge. In 1978 Swaziland was linked up with the RSA, and it has already been agreed to link up Swaziland with Komatipoort, through which the mineral-rich Eastern Transvaal will be directly linked up with Richards Bay in 1985, with all the benefits this entails. The size of the South African rail network can possibly best be measured against the fact that at any given time approximately 7 000 goods vehicles of the S.A. Transport Services are travelling on foreign railway lines. At the same time approximately 1 500 foreign trucks are travelling on South African Railway lines. The conveyance of the imports and exports of neighbouring states contribute R213 million to our revenue annually. South African trucks travel as far as Zarїre and this supports a flourishing mutual trade between us and them. Agriculture and mining of the southern states in Africa developed earlier and more rapidly than those in the north of Africa. Our infrastructure and technology has developed over a period of 300 years, and in the sphere of gold mining in particular we have become a world leader. What are the facts today? Only 6% of Africa’s total population lives in the RSA, but they use 60% of the energy generated on the entire continent. The RSA generates approximately 58% of all of Africa’s electricity. 74% of Africa’s electrified railway lines are in South Africa and 42% of all motor vehicles and 48% of all tractors are in the RSA.

This Government is constantly being accused of destabilizing its neighbours. Only recently, during the no-confidence debate, the Opposition made allegations to this effect. However, they based this on unfortunate incidents, for example the Seychelles affair, which I do not want to discuss again now. Certain of our news media join in merrily in creating this image, that we are destabilizing. I mentioned earlier that the size of our rail network can best be measured against the 7 000 goods vehicles travelling on that network at any given time. I mentioned that we earn the tremendous amount of R213 million from this. For this reason I can say without fear of contradiction that the stability of our neighbouring states is in our interests. We say this every day. We do not ask what sort of government a country has. However, we prefer it to have a stable and strong government. We are looking for stable neighbouring states. Economically and militarily South Africa is the strongest country in Southern Africa and we realize that we have most to lose in the event of instability in our neighbouring states. The internal situation in a country has repercussions for its neighbours, particularly when states are economically dependent on each other. A community that is politically mature and economically stable will have more moderate political standpoints and vice versa. Stability in a region serves to promote the Western capitalistic economy. Stability creates conditions in which communism cannot grow and on which it cannot thrive. It is in South Africa’s own interest to encourage and to establish stability in our neighbouring states so that it can play the part for which it is so ideally suited, that of being the workshop of Africa. However, I could go further and mention the postal and telegraph services we render. I could give a lengthy account of the medical and health services we provide to our neighbouring States—one could say to the whole of Africa—in the form of vaccines that are made available, research that is done and the publication of the results of such research. We also treat foreign patients. These medical services we render cannot be rendered anywhere else in the world.

We White South Africans are not colonists. We are just as much a part of Africa as any Black man. The total onslaught of the Marxists is intended to destabilize the RSA, but the RSA is prepared to enter into nonaggression pacts with any state. What better proof can one find to emphasize South Africa’s good intentions?

In conclusion, I just want to make a final point. Is it not true that we have to make laws to keep citizens of neighbouring states out of the Republic? How many people are not crossing our borders from inter alia Mozambique, or as refugees from Zimbabwe? How does one explain this? They are prepared to leave the heaven of their own area, their independent state, and sacrifice it to come to the land of oppression—the land of apartheid, as it is called—instead of remaining in the Utopia they come from.

The land of milk and honey.

We are stabilizing. We are not destabilizing, and in this respect we must give thanks for the part played by the S.A. Transport Services and the S.A. Airways about which one could make a separate speech. We have Airways offices in virtually every country in the world, forming a small cell to demonstrate South Africa’s good intentions. We have people in the outside world who have to make tremendous sacrifices—frequently their lives are in danger—to put South Africa’s case. This motion is not intended merely to thank the hon. the Minister. This motion is intended to thank the people in the top echelons of management, the people who do the planning, the people who have to make predictions, the people who have to determine what is going to happen in five or ten years’ time and when we should order certain aircraft, when we are going to need certain aircraft. This is a motion of thanks to them, but also a motion of thanks to every other worker in the S.A. Transport Services.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kempton Park must forgive me for not reacting directly to the statements he made. I shall associate myself with some of those statements as I go along, because in the main I agree with what he said.

However, I should like to refer for a moment to the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, in which he asked that an investigation be conducted into the advisability of selling certain components of the SATS to the private sector. Behind this request for an investigation there must surely lurk the idea that certain of the components can in fact be sold. In this regard I should like to put a question. If such an investigation were to be conducted and the results were to be made known, what would the private sector like to take over? Would they like to take over those components that are profitable or those components operating at a loss? Then we can without doubt say that they will most certainly want to take over those components making a profit, because I do not believe there is any company in the private sector that would like to take over a business operating at a loss. In other words, that investigation will merely result in the private sector knowing what activities are profitable ones for which it must “bargain”, to use that word.

On the other hand, it is also the case that, if this investigation is conducted and the SATS knows which activities are profitable and which are operating at a loss, surely they will not under any circumstances want to cut their own throats by selling the profitable components and retaining the components which are operating at a loss so that they must run at a loss. One cannot allow a large undertaking like the SATS to operate at a loss throughout, because then it may as well stop operating and private companies can buy the components showing a loss as well if it pleases them to show an interest in such components. Merely on these grounds we on this side of the House reject this amendment and we shall therefore not support it.

You are making a very good speech.

As always.

The necessity for effective and successful transport services in the Republic of South Africa and also from the Republic of South Africa to countries across its borders—an international service therefore—need not be debated. We all endorse the absolute necessity for such effective services. In addition all of us would like to co-operate to bring about such effective services. Whether it be services on land, in the air or on the sea, the fact of the matter is that without such effective services many things will grind to a halt or many undertakings will not be successful. The present transport services as we know them today, the exceptional standards they have achieved both nationally and internationally, and their effectiveness did not materialize out of the blue within the space of a year or two, but are the result of development growth and improvement over many decades. The degree of success we have achieved with our transport services in all their diversity, on land, at sea and in the air, is all thanks to gradual development over the years and to people who made a contribution in this process to a gradual build-up with the aid of science and technology which became available of services which nowadays to a great extent work successfully and effectively. For example, when one pages through the reports of the S.A. Railways and Harbours of the past decades—I think that name stirs a feeling of nostalgia in the heart of any historian—and also through the annual reports of the past decades of the Department of Transport, one finds the proof and history of this gradual development growth and improvement. If I have the time, I should like to return to this later.

It is interesting to read about the days in 1948 when the Government of the late Dr. D. F. Malan inherited the transport services from the old United Party Government. If one looks at that picture, one sees that it was a gloomy picture. There was not much to write home about. Since that time, under people like Ministers Paul Sauer, Ben Schoeman, who occupied the position for 20 years, and Lourens Muller, a successful and effective transport service of which we can be proud today gradually took shape. Every report attests to the contributions of people who were there and who since left the service.

The history of the SATS and of the Department of Transport is not a history strewn with roses. When one pages through the old reports and one sees what happened, one realizes that these people contended with many problems along the way, problems for which solutions had to be sought and found in order to provide a standard and effective service. There were many obstacles which had to be overcome to achieve that ideal. However, as far as I am concerned, the most important aspect is that as far as the realization of the development and growth of an effective standard service is concerned, there is one fact we must not lose sight of, namely that this success cannot be credited to a Government or a Minister. It is my personal conviction that credit should go in the first place to the staff, those officials and workers in the department who made it possible for the Government and the relevant Ministers to realize the goal for which they were striving.

As far as I am concerned, this is the essence of a problem in regard to the motion before this House. I have a problem with the wording. I feel that what can be read into this, although it is not said in so many words, is that actual thanks must be given to persons to whom the real thanks are due.

The hon. the Minister will have to agree with me, and I say this in all fairness, that the aircraft flying and the train running are not in the first place to his credit, but to the credit of those officials, those people who prepare the aircraft, get it into the air and bring it safely to its destination, and those people who have to marshal the train and get it safely to its destination. For this reason I feel in all fairness that the hon. the Minister will have to agree with me when I say that in the first place thanks are not due to a Government or a Minister but to those officials and workers who have over the decades remained faithfully at their posts, have done their duty, and have realized their vocation to provide a successful and effective service. An integral part of this system is the brainpower, the academic, technical, mechanical organizational and administrative knowledge and expertise of many officials and workers. It is their initiative and perseverance, together with hard work and sweat, that deserves the praise. For that reason I should like to move as a further amendment from this side of the House—

I am referring in particular to the former officials, and in this regard for example I just want to compare two annual reports of the S.A. Transport Services. In the annual report of 10 years ago the names of the top officials in the Management are mentioned. Mention is made of the names of about 10 or 12 people. In the latest report the names of the top officials of the management, as at 1 December 1982, are also given. If I am correct, there are only two names that appeared on the list 10 years ago that are also on this list. That means that most of those people who had to carry that heavy burden have already retired. However, they made a particular contribution to the service that we have at our disposal today. That is why I believe it is fit and proper for us as well to pay tribute to persons who provided the service in the past and who are no longer in the service.

The same also applies to the Department of Transport. When one reads that department’s annual reports of several years ago, and compares them with the latest report, it is also the case that the latest list of names no longer contains the names of persons who took the lead in the past and carried that department.

Since I am referring to the staff in particular, I feel that you, Mr. Speaker, will give me this opportunity to congratulate Mr. B. J. Groenewald in advance on his promotion to Deputy General Manager of the SATS. I believe that this promotion after years of faithful service has been well and truly earned. It therefore gives us pleasure to wish him every success on the road ahead. I should also like to congratulate Dr. Antonie Moolman on his promotion. He was promoted to Deputy General Manager with effect from 1 March of this year, at a relatively youthful age, to replace Dr. E. L. Grové who has been promoted to General Manager of the SATS. I want to express the hope that from this youthful age this gentleman, in the specific post he now fills, will go from strength to strength and will reach even greater heights in the service of the SATS. Our best wishes accompany these officials on the achievements they have accomplished.

While I am now referring to these top officials—and in passing I should also like to add the name of the present General Manager to this list: he has not filled this post for long and we wish him everything of the best—I cannot neglect to convey my best wishes to the Director General of Transport, my good neighbour in Pretoria. I want to express the hope that since he has occupied this post for a number of years now, he will continue with great success to build the department in which he at present serves.

Now that I have referred to these high-ranking officials, I also want to agree with what the hon. member for Roodeplaat and the hon. member for Kempton Park said. They also referred to the other people in the service of the SATS. We must never forget that man who braved the heat of the sun along the railway line or that man putting his back into wielding a stoker’s shovel, to give the train the power to reach its destination. Nor can we forget that foreman who alone at some station, without companionship, had to perform his task, or that man in the work shop at Koedoespoort who must stand in the heat of the furnace with his tongs and sledgehammer to provide that essential service too. [Interjections.] I just want to tell that hon. member who just made that interjection that I am not trying to woo anyone when I pay tribute to those people who did that work that the hon. member is not able or qualified to do.

The SATS has experienced a tremendous shortage of manpower, particularly in recent years. This shortage of manpower has resulted in a burden being placed on available manpower. We are convinced that the available manpower did everything possible to provide the successful and effective service expected of them. Many of them spent a great deal of extra time on duty. There were times when these people had to spend so much extra time on duty that they neglected their private and family life. They also made these sacrifices for the sake of a successful service. These people also became used to overtime remuneration or after-hours remuneration and for many of them this after-hours remuneration actually became the source of revenue that assisted them to lead a decent life, to achieve those things in life that they wanted to achieve. Circumstances have now arisen that have led to this overtime remuneration being taken away from them and one cannot get away from the fact that when a person has become used to this, when he has become used to this income, the he has in any case organised his life accordingly. If that revenue is then taken from a person, he has that shortfall and that lack of the necessities of life, which means that he must make sacrifices in this regard as well. For this reason I just want to say that these people were also prepared to make these sacrifices for the sake of the service they rendered and are still rendering. They were prepared to accept this matter philosophically and to continue this service with satisfaction.

For this reason I believe that these people should also be thanked and praised today for the attitude they displayed in the service for the benefit of the SATS.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Koedoespoort contributed to this debate in a remarkable way today. The hon. member said that he had nothing against the motion as it stood, but then he moved an amendment which now also forms part of this discussion. Who represents every Railwayman in this House? It is the NP who represents the Railwaymen, for if it were not for the Railwaymen, the NP would not be sitting here. It is the NP, the hon. the Minister and the Government who deserve the thanks. Therefore I, as a former Railwayman, receive acknowledgement too, since I am part of the Government. The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs lives together with the people of the SATS. He helps the economy of the country to progress, and therefore part of the motion pertains to him as well, since it refers to a continually good transport service built up under extremely difficult circumstances.

I do not understand why the hon. member for Koedoespoort does not wish to give the hon. the Minister full credit. After all, we feel that the hon. the Minister is in charge. If we were to offer representation to all the people outside, this House would not be large enough for everyone, but these people are, in fact, represented by the hon. the Minister and the Management of the SATS. Today we thank them.

I am surprised that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central has moved an amendment. It seems to me that he does not have sufficient confidence in the top-level management.

Nonsense.

We have the finest people in management. How can anyone claim that the local people have better brainpower than the people in management? Surely this is not true. They carried out an in-depth study overseas, and they are the people we need to solve transport problems.

I am extremely pleased that the hon. member for Roodeplaat has moved the amendment. With further reference to what he said, I think it has become essential that immediate attention be given to the documentation of driver’s licences and the control of drivers in order to control and co-ordinate road traffic more effectively with a view to limiting road accidents to a minimum. This is all I wish to say about that at this stage, since this is something we could speak about at a later stage. However, I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister does not wish to say something about that as well. It is no use rail traffic being sound, while road traffic is in such a wretched state. An improvement must definitely be effected in this respect.

We must bear in mind that while continued good transport services are rendered, we live in a world in which changes take place rapidly. It is, in fact, our transport service which can make or break the Republic. Our transport service may cause us to be completely dependent on other States if we ourselves do not have a sound transport service. After the Second World War there was an unprecedented revival in the industrial sphere as well as in the entire economy. We are aware that in fact, our growth rate was, the highest in the world.

If we could organize it so that the private sector could once again compete with the SATS—this is apparently what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central wants—it would be a heavy blow to us; and to those who now want more for overtime, and those whom the hon. member for Koedoespoort was talking about. We have had to cut down so that the workers could be increasingly productive, so that we could do more work with fewer workers. This is so essential, for was it not this matter which effected us most severely?

The revenue from high-rated traffic remains at a low level and cost pressure is having a detrimental effect on working expenditure. How would the private sector be able to survive if they were to find that whereas they had budgeted for a surplus of R60 million, a deficit of more than R300 million had arisen within the space of a few months? Would that not mean the end of the private sector or the end of many businesses in the private sector? We are being challenged to come forward with purposeful economy measures so that eventually we may resist the influence and onslaught of aliens. This is so important to us that this Government and the hon. the Minister, our own Minister, has taken timely and effective countermeasures, something for which this Government is well-known. Now it can depend on the loyalty and the responsibility of its 255 000 employees. For example, if one looks at the safety record, in contrast to the lack of safety on the roads to which I have just referred, one sees how it has been maintained. For example, train accidents have been reduced by 35%. Is this not a remarkable achievement for which we should thank this hon. Minister?

I wish to say this, too: What would the private sector in East London and Port Elizabeth have done? Would the private sector have been able to deal with 255 000 tons of maize in one day? I want that hon. member to tell me. Is the private sector capable of doing that? The South African Railways did that. Could the private sector at Saldanha Bay load an average of 6 544 tons of iron ore per hour? They must tell us.

I want to see what a private enterprise can do. Would they be able to deal with this enormous amount of goods like we can? Would they be able to convey 650 million commuters per annum in one direction in their cities? [Interjections.] Would they be able to issue 50 000 “40-off cards” to senior citizens at such a reasonable price? No, Mr. Speaker, surely it is abundantly clear that in the long run, it is our transport services which are wonderful, for they have a sound core for the Railwaymen, technically, as well as administratively. After all, it is clear that they are people who enjoy satisfaction, thereby assisting the private sector as well. Was it not the Railways which entered the local market and developed the Railway manufacturing industry in the private sector? Where would a firm such as Union Carriage and Wagon, in Nigel, have been if it were not for the S.A. Railways? Where would Dorbyl and Barlows have been if it were not for the South African Railways? It is, in fact, the South African Railways which has effected large-scale development by way of local expertise.

One may consider what is happening nowadays with all our various extensions: One of these days one will be able to travel from Johannesburg to Pretoria by train at a speed of 150 km per hour. Record speeds of 250 kilometres an hour have been reached. Now hon. members can see. It is the hon. the Minister, that top-level management, it is they who have made the tracks, the wagons, the braking systems and bogies and who have altered the traction power, mass and length of trains to such an extent. Just think: Today one can already speak of trains of 210 wagons and a mass of more than 20 000 tons and which are 2½ kilometres in length. Nowhere in the world have the achievements of this hon. Minister and his top management been equalled on the width of a railway line. And he is doing this in a responsible manner. Just think: In this country the load per train has been increased by 66,3%, the coaches per train by 46,3%, the average speed has already increased by 18%. I tell you this is wonderful. The other day I came down on the Trans-Karoo. It left Johannesburg station one and three-quarter hours late.

Why?

Because improvements are being effected on the railway line between Pretoria and Johannesburg so that that hon. member may soon travel at a speed of 150 kilometres per hour. That is the reason why the train departed late. [Interjections.]

But now I want to tell you what that train did. I have never seen a train run so well. We were only an hour late after having departed at six o’clock. The train left Johannesburg one and three-quarter hours late, but at Kimberley it was only an hour late. At De Aar it was only eight minutes late, and eventually it had to stand over for a while at Beaufort West. Eventually it also had to wait longer at Touws River. It reached Cape Town station ten minutes before the appointed time. We thank the hon. the Minister for this wonderful achievement of his. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. members must not incite the hon. member for Rosettenville so.

Mr. Speaker, the greatest achievement is that the hon. the Minister is soon to obtain the largest aircraft ever built anywhere in the world—the new 747SUD. This is part of the modernization programme. It is the largest passenger aircraft ever built. How thrifty this hon. Minister is! Instead of conveying 624 passengers, the hon. the Minister has only made space for 410. He looks after our comfort. He looks after the comfort of the official Opposition, the NRP and the CP. Do hon. members not wish to thank him for all he is doing? I think he is a wonderful Minister. We truly have a sound, sustained transport service for which the NP and the Government deserve the greatest measure of honour, praise and gratitude.

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the hon. member for Rosettenville because he certainly loves SATS.

And the Minister.

Yes. In fact, both he and the hon. member for Roodeplaat have turned this debate into one of singings of praises of the Minister and the various Transport Departments, which include the SATS. It is very clear from what they have said that they are very self-satisfied indeed. We have just heard from the hon. member for Rosettenville about the capabilities of the SATS regarding the loading of iron ore at Saldanha and about all the various improvements that are being made. He also challenged the private sector to meet such achievements. I want to say to the hon. member that in Durban there is a food loading enterprise, privately owned and built by private money, that loads food at the rate of nearly 1 000 tons per hour. If we could only produce more of this food I am quite sure we could load it at 6 000 tons per hour. Of course, I am speaking about the loading of sugar at the sugar terminal in Durban.

There is an old saying which says: “Show me a satisfied man and I will show you an unmotivated man”. I want to put it to the two hon. members from the NP that they are very satisfied indeed. I submit to them that the NP in regard to the subject under debate is certainly not very motivated. The NRP strive for continuous progress and that is why we are always dissatisfied with this hon. Minister, with his legislation and with the operation of his services. We know that the SATS are facing a serious financial crisis at the present time. We also know that for the sake of South Africa and for the sake of our economic stability we must be dissatisfied with things. We must be motivated and seeking to continually improve the operations of such a major undertaking as the SATS. As has been said here this morning, the SATS is the largest employer in South Africa. It employs over 250 000 people and it has the largest single budget of any operation in South Africa. We cannot afford to be complacent. We cannot afford such a large undertaking to be less efficient than we believe it could be. We cannot go along with the hon. member for Roodeplaat because I believe he is too self-satisfied.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central presented his amendment to the motion and I must say to him that there is some merit in it. We believe the SATS is getting itself involved in certain areas which we believe could be far better served by the private sector. We know the hon. member for Rosettenville is correct that there is cross subsidization and that certain services are run at a loss, the so-called socio-economic services. I would have preferred the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central to have possibly indicated that there should be an investigation into the role of the S.A. Transport Services in South Africa’s changing economic circumstances. Had he said that, I think it would have covered the subject more adequately. I believe that hon. member showed his typically woolly-headed thinking, however, when he said on the one hand that the S.A. Transport Services must be used to uplift the Blacks. In other words, it must be looked upon as a sort of welfare organization to improve the standard of living of the Blacks. [Interjections.] On the other hand he says that the SATS must sell off one of the most cost-effective sectors of its operation, namely the pipelines. [Interjections.]

He never said anything like that.

I believe that hon. member should have given it a little more thought. [Interjections.] I agree with the suggestion of the hon. member for Roodeplaat that there should be a central South African transport planning body and that this body should look at and develop a total transport strategy for South Africa. I believe that is a very good idea. I further believe that the objective of that committee should be to provide South Africa with the most economic transport required to meet the country’s needs. That hon. member referred to attitudes, and all I can say is that the NP’s attitude is that of a very self-satisfied cat that is licking its chops, while the PFP’s attitude is one of using the Public Service as a social welfare organization. [Interjections.] This party’s attitude, on the other hand, is that there should be constant striving for productivity and profitability. [Interjections.] This party is not satisfied with the transport services in South Africa. We are not satisfied that there have been 9 000 deaths on our roads. We believe that the Road Safety Council should do better, that it should reduce the road deaths, for example, to 8 500 next year. We believe that the utilization of plant by the S.A. Transport Services is too low. I have spoken about this in the budget debates in the past. We also believe that the costs involved in operating the S.A. Transport Services are too high. We believe that the service is not as good as it should be.

Let us take Durban airport, for example. The services there are run by the S.A. Transport Services, the subject of debate at the moment. The services provided at the Durban airport today, however, are simply not good enough. Try to get a booking on an aircraft today which is flying to Durban. In fact, try to get a booking on an aircraft almost any time of the week and see how difficult it is. Just try to raise the S.A. Airways’ office on the telephone. Even that is difficult these days. [Interjections.]

Say something positive for a change.

Say something positive? [Interjections.] We are here debating the S.A. Transport Services. Those hon. members will, of course, say that everything they say is positive. We, however, are striving for a better operation, and we do not make any bones about that. [Interjections.] We are not satisfied with the restrictions the Department of Transport Affairs is placing on the private transport sector in South Africa, because in so doing certain inefficiencies of the S.A. Transport Services are being passed on to the private sector. We cannot afford that in our economy today when we should be going for growth and the curbing of inflation. I want to make it very clear that this does not mean that we have anything against the staff of the S.A. Transport Services or the staff of the Department of Transport Affairs. Not at all. We know that they try hard. We know that they are extremely loyal employees of the South African Government, but we do believe that they can do better. We believe that the hon. the Minister has been given the responsibility of leading them into a future in which their performance can be better. This is his responsibility, and for this reason I should like to move as a further amendment—

In conclusion I want to say that there is another area I am very dissatisfied with. The hon. member for Roodeplaat referred to Prince Edward Island, Marion Island, Gough Island and all South Africa’s weather stations. We know that the Weather Bureau falls under the Department of Transport and that the people attached to that bureau have difficult jobs, especially those stationed way down in the south. However, I have a major complaint. I believe that these people are just not delivering the right kind of weather South Africa needs in general, and particularly the kind of weather Natal needs at present in order to sort out its drought problem.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by telling the hon. member for Roodeplaat that I am very grateful that he has moved this motion. Then, too, I want to begin by reacting to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central and his party. Firstly the hon. member asks that we sell parts of the SATS.

No, I did not call for that.

Could we begin by selling the passenger services, for example? The hon. member for Koedoespoort asked what services should be sold. I think that in the business world, the rule is that one begins by selling those services that show losses. One does not sell one’s profitable services. Therefore it is very easy to furnish a reply in this regard.

Secondly, I wish to react to the request of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central for a commission consisting of academics and others to investigate the possibility of this detachment and sale of services. Not so long ago it was the attitude of the PFP—and they went round gossiping to this effect— that South Africa was governed by commissions. Now I no longer know what to think. Are we to appoint a commission only when it suits them …

That is a good idea.

… or are we to appoint a commission when the Government regards it as essential? I therefore wish to propose to the hon. the Minister that he ignore the suggestions of that hon. member because whatever we do he will criticize it, since he sees no good in anything. He has been a little confused ever since the hon. member for Constantia said at one stage that the Government was simply trying to destabilize everything. I should like to take the question of destabilization further in a moment with reference to the speech of the hon. member for Kempton Park. The official Opposition must decide what they want. Do they want a commission when it is essential, or is there to be a commission when they think it suits them? I should like to say that as far as the appointment of commissions is concerned the Government has thus far been reasonably successful, in the sense that in the reports, answers have been received on the issues in respect of which such answers were sought.

I should like to illustrate the main topic of my speech with the statement: Mobility brings prosperity. The point of departure, then, must be to bring about sustained prosperity. In this regard all the hon. members who spoke before me referred to the staff of the hon. Minister’s two departments, namely the SATS and the Department of Transport. I want to associate myself with the good wishes conveyed to everyone who has been promoted. I also wish to say to these people and also to all the people who work for the Minister at various levels that in terms of the wording of the motion of the hon. member for Roodeplaat, the thanks and tribute goes to them, too, and not to the Minister alone. The Minister has contributed a great deal in that he has afforded them the opportunity to assist in developing the SATS and the Department of Transport with all its branches to the point that has been achieved to date.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Kempton Park who made a very good speech in which, referring to the criticism of destabilization that was advanced, he proved the opposite and refuted that criticism. He indicated that the SATS contributed a great deal to stabilization in Southern Africa.

I should like to associate myself with the statement in the no-confidence debate by the hon. the Prime Minister, to the effect that the SADCC—the South African Development Co-ordination Conference—should be expanded and provided with the maximum finance as soon as possible, in order to provide for the creation of a transport infrastructure. Until now not a great deal has come of the efforts of this organization to obtain finance. I therefore sincerely hope that the countries of the world will contribute financially towards assisting these people to provide the infrastructure, since if this infrastructure is provided within Southern Africa I can give hon. members the assurance that this will be to the benefit of the SATS and to that of the Republic of South Africa as a whole.

A further point to which I want to refer, concerning why I regard it as important to address a request to the SADCC to obtain and spend the money as soon as possible, is that transport knows no borders. Transport crosses borders without difficulty. Throughout the world political and economic borders have been imposed which only reduce mobility and thereby deprive many people of prosperity and lead to lower standards of living. As far as destabilization and the role of the railways in this is concerned, we must state very clearly that the main characters playing a role in the negative reaction that is in progress in Africa are the tragic figures of fate. I shall mention a few of them briefly: starvation, low food production, human massacres, the population explosion, etc. All these things contribute to the problems. I therefore wish to express my thanks that the SATS is prepared, despite all the criticism and all the problems involved, to increase the mobility of all countries surrounding South Africa and by doing so to contribute towards an increase in prosperity in those countries.

This brings me to the criticism that has been levelled at the losses suffered by the SATS in recent times in particular. Hon. members will recall that the laws passed recently have all concerned the department of the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs. We have divided on them several times here and many hard words have been said. The deficits have arisen due to several reasons and in this regard I should like to enter into a debate with the three Opposition parties concerning the specific deficits of the Railways. We must acknowledge that the deficits have been exceptionally heavy this year and that there are various reasons for them.

In the time that remains I should like to dwell on this and consider the single most important cause at the micro-economic level, viz. the socio-economic services. What is most important about those socio-economic services is the question: What is the merit in providing those services? And what is the merit in continuing to provide those services in South Africa? These are the questions I should like to put to the hon. members of the Opposition. I want to put about three or four questions to them in this regard. There are still speakers on their side who must please react to these questions. It is a hackneyed concept that internal subsidization must not take place. It is also a hackneyed concept that is being discussed at present in the debate in the transport world that the Railways must refrain from providing socioeconomic services. I agree with that, but then we must just consider the consequences. I shall now try to indicate what the socio-economic services mean to South Africa. So that we know what we are talking about, and in order to explain the position of the SATS in this regard, I want to say that socio-economic services are those services that cannot be provided at economic tariffs but are economic from the point of view of the community as a whole. This definition encapsulates the whole problem of what we have to sell. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central asked: What are we to sell? I think that the hon. the Minister furnished a very clear reply the other day to a question by one of the hon. members of the CP: Show me a buyer and I shall sell components of the Railways. I hope that when the hon. the Minister sells he begins by selling the passenger services—not only the passenger services of the Railways, but the passenger services of the road motor transport services as well, on which large amounts are paid by way of subsidies. This year the two departments of the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs will together be spending approximately R850 million on the subsidization of passenger services. These services can be provided for a large number of reasons. People are so quick to say that they should be stopped, that they are no longer essential services. One of the most important reasons that we must consider, however, is the reason that derives from history.

Even before 1910 the structure of the four independent railway systems that were then in operation made provision for a tariff structure of which internal subsidization formed a part. Just before Union, at the National Convention of 1909, the principle was laid down in the policy. Section 102 and section 106 of the South Africa Act, which applied until they were replaced by section 13 of Act No. 67 of 1980, made of South Africa, as far as I know, the only country in the world in which an economic activity of a division of a specific market—the transport market; the railway services—was incorporated in the constitution. That provision applied from 1910 to 1980. These are statutory provisions that cannot simply be abolished overnight. This, then, is what happened, and the provisions contained therein stood for 70 years. However, since 1970 the repeal of that provision has been called for. Now that the statutory provisions in question have been repealed, we can proceed to attempt to ascertain how socio-economic services may be accommodated. It is therefore not so easy to change these things overnight.

In due course I shall deal with what the effect would be if we were to seek to change these things overnight.

As I have already mentioned, the passenger services are the biggest single subdivision in regard to which losses are suffered. In the 1972-’73 financial year those losses amounted to R120 million. The losses in the 1982-’83 financial year are estimated at approximately R700 million. Hon. members can see, therefore, to what extent they have increased. However, the losses on those services are compensated on the one hand by way of a contribution from the Minister of Finance and also by way of partial internal subsidization. If I may venture an opinion, I should say that the SATS is doing its best to keep these losses as small as possible. I shall motivate this statement I have made by way of several figures that I should like to quote. In the 1981-’82 financial year, we must recall, approximately 770 million passenger journeys were undertaken. Now I want to refer to the figures of a developing country like the Republic of South Africa, and do so in comparison with the highly developed countries of the world. Hon. members must please forgive me. I know that there is nothing so uninteresting as statistics in a speech. Nevertheless I do want to mention these figures.

I want to illustrate to this House the worldwide trend to subsidize passenger services by way of the following figures. In 1981 the estimated losses suffered by the French railways amounted to R5 600 million. In the same year the losses of the West German railways were estimated at R5 100 million. The Dutch railways, which operates in a far smaller area, sustained losses estimated at R650 million in 1981, whereas the estimated losses of the British railways for the same year amounted to R1 270 million. The losses sustained by the Japanese railways in the same year are estimated at R4 400 million. In the USA, where passenger services were again taken over by the federal government in order to maintain them and to afford the population mobility, the estimated loss for 1981 was altogether R830 million, which was subsidized by a direct subsidy, while just more than R1 000 million had to be covered from capital appropriation.

Now I just want to deal with the country that is always being held out to everyone as the Utopia as far as rail services are concerned, viz. Switzerland. In the late ’seventies, Switzerland also began to encounter problems. The result of Switzerland’s problems were of such a nature that for the year 1981 its subsidy amounted to a total of R450 million. In the case of that small country, Switzerland, the amount was R200 million less than that of South Africa. All these subsidies derived from the resources of the central Government. As I said earlier, some of the subsidies derive from the resources of the central Government and some are obtained by way of internal subsidization. Therefore these facts show that the competitive position of the SATS is influenced—we admit this—because it has to offer services the full costs of which it cannot recover from the users in question. It has to recover them from other services. We must recognize that. It is a problem. Therefore its competitive position is weakened and I think this ought to be taken into account when the sharp criticism is expressed: Where are we going with the SATS?

This problem can, of course, be very easily solved. I do not think it is difficult to solve this problem. We can increase the tariffs at one stroke—and by so doing this problem. However, I wish to mention a few other figures to illustrate what happens. As hon. members are aware, since the 1976—’77 financial year the cost of passenger services has increased annually by an average of 18% to 19%. Since 1970, fares have risen by an average of 8,26% per annum. If this trend continues, the total subsidy is estimated at R3 000 million for 1990 and R20 000 million for the year 2000. However, if it is assumed that fares will in future increase annually by an average of 15%, the total subsidy in 1990 is estimated at R2 800 million, whereas in the year 2000 it is estimated at R17 000 million. If the cost increases are taken as given, then passenger fares will have to be increased by plus/minus 25% annually in order to eliminate the subsidy by the year 2000. An immediate elimination of the subsidy would require an increase in fares of almost 200%, which is impractical. Due to the elasticity factor, which in such a case would be greater than unity, people would simply stop travelling. In such a case a very large proportion of the population would become immobile, and this would lead to unemployment and other problems that that involves. If these passenger services were to be suspended today and these people were to travel in private motor cars, the effect would be that an additional amount of fuel of between 500 million and 700 million litres would have to be used to convey these people.

I wish to ask these few questions. Hon. members know that the SATS has done a great deal of work in the North Western Cape to provide water at its own expense. I should like to ask the hon. member for Gordonia: Does he want the SATS to suspend that social service, yes or no? The opposition has very little to say when this kind of question is asked. My next question is: Do those hon. members think it is essential that we should all of a sudden start conveying at full cost the deciduous fruit that we are at present conveying at approximately 40% of the cost? We know that a reasonable quantity of fresh vegetables is conveyed for something under a quarter of their full cost. My question to those hon. members is: Is that what they want? Must we suspend these social services immediately? So those are the questions I put to them and I await their answer. [Interjections.] They shout and kick up a fuss when they should provide us with decent replies to our questions. The hon. the Minister is conducting a debate in preparation for the budget he will deliver on Wednesday, when we shall have the opportunity to iron out these problems.

In conclusion I just wish to make this one remark. The Opposition accuses the NP of not being interested in the consumers and the lesser privileged people. As I sum up this matter as of now, after the silence that prevailed here, they are the so-called protest speakers but it is the Government that takes the action.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, just before business was suspended for lunch, the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed asked a long list of questions. I am afraid I shall not have enough time left, so I shall deal briefly with only three of the serious questions.

In the first place, he wanted to know whether the PFP was opposed to the provision of social services by the SATS. The answer to that is an unequivocal no. We are not opposed to it, especially as far as the passenger transport of Black commuters is concerned, for the specific reason that mass transportation of people is definitely more cost effective. From a purely cost point of view, the whole community will benefit by it and a better utilization of resources will be achieved.

In the second place, he wanted to know whether the PFP was opposed to cross-subsidizing. Once again I say no, because it is an accepted business principle that one does make use of good lines to subsidize other lines.

In the third place, he asked whether the PFP was opposed to the protection of the SATS against private carriers, for example. We say that protection ensures that the railways—please note that I say the “railways”, and not the SATS—and therefore the railway system, can be better utilized, thereby reducing the need for further road-building, for example. We are not in favour of protection which is aimed at protecting the road transportation services of the SATS against private road transport.

I live midway between the railway line and the national road from Johannesburg to Durban, and there I see the container train passing by almost empty every day, but while that is happening, the trucks are labouring up the hill. Every puff of smoke from their exhausts is currency leaving the country. On top of that, they pollute the environment. The hon. the Minister should examine his price structure and the service rendered by his organization to find out what is wrong. We know that when goods have to be transported over more than 200 km, it is cheaper to do it by rail.

†I now turn to the motion. Being a very positive person, I wanted to move an amendment which would still keep a very positive motion going, and that is to delete the words after “this House thanks the Government and in particular the Minister of Transport Affairs” and to substitute them with certain other words so that the motion would read—

Being also a fair-minded person, I realize, however, that the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs cannot get all the credit. He was ably assisted by other Cabinet colleagues. Not only are there no proper roads or trains or whatever transport system for the use of the Black tide to return to the homelands, but in fact there is nothing to which they could go back.

The hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs, for instance, did nothing to meet the energy needs of the rural Third World part of South Africa. There is no firewood left, nothing to heat their homes, nothing to heat the water in which they wash themselves or in which they can cook their food. In the city one can of course flick a switch or turn a tap. Rather than to walk 15 miles to find a few scraps of combustible material or a bit of drinking water, come to the city!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare neglected to bring medicine to the people in the rural areas, but still he is surprised that they want to come to the cities. The hon. the Minister of Education and Training did not bring schools to the people living in the rural areas, but he did build schools in the urban areas. Where does one expect the people to want to go to in such circumstances? The hon. the Minister of Finance would not allow White capital and industries to go into the homelands, and therefore all the jobs were created in the urban areas. So we can go on. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture was so busy looking after the 70 000 farmers in so-called White South Africa, who can only just manage to make a living on 75% of the land area of South Africa, that he never gave a thought to the ten million Blacks who were supposed to make some sort of agrarian existence on 13% of the land area. Now there is virtually nothing to go back to for a Black farmer. In one study it was found that the rate of loss of top soil to the sea is reducing. That may sound like something to be happy about but the sad truth of course is that there is just no more top soil left that can be washed to the sea.

There are also some other examples in regard to housing, etc. Everything indicates that people must come to the cities. I am afraid the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs alone is not to blame for the failure of apartheid. It was in fact a total onslaught by the whole Cabinet and this Government.

*In one commission after another, the new guard of technical specialists tell us that the old ways of apartheid are leading nowhere. I think we are beginning to see that some hon. members realize that major changes are required. In the field of transport, too, I believe that new guidelines should be provided. It is simply not good enough to carry on with the old plans with regard to transport while drastic changes are taking place in every other sphere. A new overall plan must be drawn up so that the hon. the Minister will not put on his railway hat one day, his national roads hat the day after and his bus conductor’s hat the day after that. It seems to me that action is being taken on an ad hoc basis at the moment. We find that one moment a commission on bus transport is appointed, the next moment one on toll-gates, and then, out of the blue, there is a levy on fuel. The various road authorities each have their own budget, their own objectives and their own officials. I think it is time the hon. the Minister approached transport as a total system.

Talking about the overall situation, I should like to come back to last week’s debate, in which we discussed the fuel levy. Even there it was clear that some hon. members, including the hon. the Minister, always lose sight of the overall situation when we are discussing a specific subject. When we talk about transport, everyone says that this is the country’s top priority, and when we talk about housing, everyone says that this is the top priority. Surely everything cannot be the top priority.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti alleged that the PFP was opposed to road building because we are supposed to be so altruistic that we want to provide schools and houses for everyone, while he alleges that investment in roads is essential in order to develop the economy so that everyone will subsequently be able to obtain houses and schools.

†I want to point out to that hon. member that at the time of the debate we were discussing means of raising money for just one particular element in the whole transport system, namely national roads. That is what we were talking about. I also want to point out that while it is certainly comfortable to travel on dual-carriage freeways across the rural expanses of this country, we do not consider that that element of the overall transport system is the top priority, even more so when one looks at it against the overall allocation of resources. Capital is only one of the resources that go into the building of infrastructure. One also needs manpower, equipment and materials.

Are you against employing more people?

I shall come to that. Each one of those elements is in short supply. The hon. member says goods must be able to be transported freely. The last boom did not run out of fuel because it sat idling at Uncle Charlie’s. It ran out of steam because of a shortage of skilled manpower and the resultant wastage due to inefficiency at the work-place. Nor did it run into a traffic jam at 10 o’clock on a Tuesday morning. In other words, what can be said is that the road system in South Africa is quite adequate to cater for normal commercial transportation of goods from any one point to any other point in South Africa at a reasonable cost, in a reasonable period of time and within the normal working day in which business is conducted. What he is, in fact, suggesting is that the only way to solve the morning and afternoon peak hour problem is by building more and more roads.

How would you like to get the peak hour traffic?

I shall be getting to that. The hon. member for Kempton Park, speaking about the same subject, stated it as an absolute truth that there is no greater saver of fuel than the freeways.

But do you not agree?

Mr. P. C. CRONJÉ: No, of course I do not. That is patent nonsense. It is a fact that any one trip on a freeway will save a little fuel vis-à-vis travelling over a lower standard road, but that is not a great philosophical discovery. It is just a plain, simple economic fact. [Interjections.] The greatest saver of fuel, however, is simply to walk rather than to drive.

Ah!

But, if one has to drive … [Interjections.] … then what must be done is to increase the efficiency of the vehicle. In the transportation of people that means, first of all, that one must ensure a higher occupancy rate for vehicles during peak hours. Four people in one car, driving on a low standard road between two points, will use a lot less fuel than four people in four separate motor cars on a freeway. That is the point. It is a simple fact. In other words, freeways attract motor cars and people make less efficient use of motor cars or public transport. So, in fact, the consumption of fuel goes up.

*The hon. the Minister also said that fuel was being wasted because the cars had to stand idling at Uncle Charlie’s. This, too, is only true, of course, if one accepts that the car had to be there in the first place. By the way, I just want to say that I think the problem at Uncle Charlie’s has remained unsolved for too long and that it should have received top priority long ago. Of course, one can eliminate all traffic jams in one day and reduce petrol consumption during peak hours by at least 50% without building a single extra traffic interchange or extra piece of road. All one has to do is to make a regulation to the effect that no car which does not contain at least three persons is allowed to enter the city. That would solve the problem in one day.

The hon. the Minister also asked whether we did not want the Du Toit’s Kloof tunnel to be built, because, he said, it would save 10 million litres of fuel. If there were no financing problems, it would have been a wonderful project to undertake, of course. Then everyone could drive through the tunnel, look up and see the name written there: The Schoeman Tunnel. That would be wonderful. However, we must bear in mind that the most important saving which will result from the use of the tunnel, the factor which makes the project an economic proposition in the first place, is the saving in respect of heavy vehicles. Otherwise it would not have been an economic proposition. It is also possible, of course, to save a further 10 million litres of fuel without building the tunnel at all. What the hon. the Minister should do is simply to ensure that by far the greater part of the goods transported by heavy vehicles over the Du Toit’s Kloof Pass is transported by rail. The train from Cape Town to Worcester takes about three hours to reach its destination, and that method of transport is certainly cheaper than transporting the goods by heavy vehicle. As it is, the railway line is considerably under-utilized, and even during an upswing in the economy its rate of utilization is only 55%. I think this is one of the most obvious examples of unco-ordinated planning when one considers that one is working with a limited budget.

Then I want to say something about priorities. In this connection I want to come back to the hon. member for Durban North, who spoke about employment. It is true that the Minister has tried, by means of the fuel levy, to make the national road building programme independent of the economic cycle. He wanted to invent a kind of perpetual motion for the road building programme, as it were.

Have you forgotten what I asked you?

If this is done, surely it means that other programmes, in respect of housing and schools, for example, will be even more adversely affected during a recession. It also means greater unemployment in the construction industry. Hon. members will recall that the same type of equipment is used for road building and for township development or the building of dams, for example.

With an amount of R30 million, one can build approximately 20 kilometres of freeway. This will provide employment for about 400 people for three years, or 1 200 man-years. This is on the site itself. However, very few people outside the project will be involved. However, if that amount of R30 million were spent on housing, one could provide about 5 000 units of low-cost housing with services, or about 2 000 economic units. This would provide on-site employment for about 1 000 people for approximately four years, or 4 000 man-years, as against the 1 200 man-years in respect of the road building project. Moverover, it is a fact that for every worker on a building site, many others have to work in factories, for example, to provide windows, etc.

The same applies to road building.

The point is that it does not. Those hon. members said that we should not build houses, but that we should rather build roads. If there is a choice, one should not choose roads.

I want to conclude. We have inherited a road and rail system in South Africa which is far superior to the standard of other services, such as the provision of schools and housing. This is particularly true when we look at the Black homelands. We inherited this from the days when people believed, as the hon. member for Amanzimtoti does, that roads offer a better return than the provision of houses and school facilities for our Black fellow-citizens in South Africa. I think the hon. the Minister has a duty to the people of South Africa to work out new guidelines in the transport industry as well, for if the other two chambers of Parliament were to meet, I am sure that the kind of legislation he has piloted through this year would not be accepted by the other two chambers. What seems indispensable to the White chamber would be as regarded as a luxury and would feature very low down on the list of integrated priorities for all the people of South Africa.

I should like to indicate a few guidelines which the hon. the Minister could bear in mind in the meantime. Firstly, the system we have inherited should be better managed, so that the present system of harbours, railways and roads may be effectively utilized as an overall system and the various services may no longer compete with one another with the result that the one grows while the other becomes a white elephant. Secondly, we are very fortunate in South Africa in that many people still make use of public transport. The Minister should ensure that the supply keeps pace with the demand, otherwise the position will be reached where everyone will have to commute by car. Finally, the Minister should immediately render more assistance to the homelands, where the expertise and the funds to undertake transport planning are lacking. The White authorities are planning as though the political borders were oceans, as though there were no people living beyond the borders. Pietermaritzburg and Durban are surrounded by unplanned urban areas which are more densely populated than the adjoining White residential areas. The hon. the Minister has a duty, therefore, not to tell them, as was said in the case of Pietermaritzburg, when they did want to take the adjoining Black area into consideration, that they are not allowed to do so.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I should like to announce that third party premiums in respect of the 1983-’84 insurance year will not be increased despite the fact that considerable concessions have been granted during the past few years to the victims of motor accidents, for example, concessions were made to the members of lift clubs, to passengers in motor vehicles, to members of the Defence Force, etc. In respect of the coming year until 1984, the motorist will therefore pay the same third party premium as the one which was in force in 1964, in comparison with comprehensive motor vehicle insurance which has gone up by 400% during the past 10 years alone.

That shows that we have been ripped off for years.

It shows good management.

*As regards third party premiums, we have since 1966 received an amount of R838 million to cover these costs. The request every time was for an increase which would amount to R167 million. However, the department refused to grant an increase, so that the amount over this period was never more than R838 million.

The hon. member for Greytown referred here to our freeways. He does not understand the matter very well. In 1978 the National Road Fund received R154 million, and in the coming year we expect an amount of R157 million. This is a backlog which we have built up in only one year. As a result of inflation we shall build up a backlog of R65 million. That was why I could not understand why the Opposition were opposed to our requesting 0,7 cents per litre for the Road Fund.

You asked for carte blanche.

The hon. member for Roodeplaat introduced a motion here which I appreciate because it is time we discussed the business of transport with one another. The hon. member asked for a transport planning body for Southern Africa. We have already investigated the general aspects of this matter. We have now arranged with the Director-General, Mr. Eksteen, with Dr. Grové and the commissioners and all our top-ranking officials, to hold talks every 14 days. Last Monday we had the first round of talks. We are co-ordinating, we are calling upon people and we are planning, in co-operation with the investigation of course, and I trust that we will develop in a direction in which there will be more co-ordination.

The hon. member also referred to the Weather Bureau. These are people who make tremendous sacrifices and therefore I appreciate what the hon. member said about the Weather Bureau presentations on SATV. I have just received a telex which I found very encouraging because there are people in our country who cannot believe that we are experiencing such a terrible heatwave, in February to such an extent that heavily laden Boeings cannot take off in the middle of the day. The telex reads—

I am merely mentioning this. If one is really in difficulties, and according to the weather forecast there is no mention of the Transvaal, but the South Easter is blowing in the Cape, then you already feel a bit better.

The hon. member for Roodeplaat referred to the high death rate on our roads. As example he mentioned that the number of deaths on our roads were equivalent to the inhabitants of a town like Mooi River—of 9 000 people—being wiped out every year. We have an arrangement with the CSIR to put together a central road traffic bureau for us. Early this morning I listened to Adv. Botha’s shocking figure. There was one person who issued 250 motor vehicle licences in one day without any tests whatsoever. These people are driving around in our country. The eyesight of 8% of the motor vehicle drivers in our country has never been tested. Among the people of colour who are motor vehicle drivers and truck drivers, 11% of them are unable to distinguish between red and green.

They are all Progs!

If we look at all the things that are happening, then I say that we must have another standpoint in this country. We shall have to move in the direction of issuing a licence to a person with that person’s thumbprint affixed to it, and on which particulars of that person appear. I know our people are not very enthusiastic about thumb-prints, but it is a system which has been adopted in many other countries of the world. It is essential in order to exercise the necessary control.

†The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central says there is unfair competition between the private sector and the South African Transport Services. Against that the hon. member for Greytown says that we need not build the DuToitskloof tunnel but that we should force people to use the train services instead of the road. Sir, I really feel extremely sorry for the hon. Leader of the Opposition. What fun it must be to listen to the caucus of that party. You are dealing with what are probably the most divergent views one can hope to find.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central suggested that we should sell components of the S.A. Transport Services. He proposed that we should have another committee to investigate the possibility of selling components of the S.A. Transport Services. But, Sir, who will buy the passenger services? One must be as stupid as a Prog to buy the passenger services of the S.A. Transport Services.

What about the S.A. Airways?

The hon. member wants to sell only the profitable parts of the service.

With a loss of R83 million?

No, it is more than R90 million! [Interjections.] Still, it is the lowest in the world. What is more, SAA is going to show a profit within three years.

When La Mercy Airport is opened.

Let us look at subsidies. The taxpayer in the United Kingdom subsidized British Railways to the extent of R1 221 million last year. For this year it is estimated the subsidy will be R1 274 million. 27% of the expenditure in respect of passenger services is covered by a subsidy. In Germany the subsidy last year was R6 971 million.

*Last year France subsidized its railways by an amount of R4 263 million.

The hon. member for Kempton Park referred to the role of the SATS in Africa. When my Vote is discussed in this House later this year, I shall sketch the role played by the SATS in forming friendly relations with countries in Africa that do business with us.

The hon. member also referred to our workers who are purposeful. I want to thank the hon. member for Kempton Park for the way in which he brought the problems of all the people at Jan Smuts Airport to my attention. He is an hon. member who devotes attention to the people living in his constituency.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort said that the motion had been incorrectly worded. His amendment is precisely the same as the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Roodeplaat, except that the hon. member for Koedoespoort omitted the reference to the Minister. Of course I am not looking for praise. I merely represent the SATS. Apparently the hon. member for Koedoespoort has something against the motion before this House because he thinks that I am being praised in it. I support his amendment of course, but the hon. member for Roodeplaat drew up his motion without consulting me about it in advance. He did so in an honest way, and in addition included the reference to me because he wanted to thank me for what I had done for the SATS. Of course I know very well what the hon. member meant. However, I shall support the amendment of the hon. member for Koedoespoort.

I now wish to refer hon. members to a letter sent to me by a very respected and prosperous farmer from the Western Transvaal. He wrote as follows—

Mr. Speaker, do you know who that prosperous farmer is who sent me this message? It is the hon. member for Ventersdorp who sent me this letter. The hon. member was not lying. He cannot lie because he is a maize farmer! [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Koedoespoort also had quite a lot to say here about the fact that we have abolished overtime. Fortunately, however, he did say that circumstances had developed to such an extent that overtime had to fall away. Now I wish to put a question to the hon. member for Koedoespoort. If a disaster should suddenly strike our country in that the CP took over the reins of government—just suppose this were to happen—would the hon. then, as Minister of Transport, also have allowed overtime to fall away?

But I did not criticize you on that score.

However, the hon. member is dishing up another story here with which he wishes to go to his voters and tell them that he made some gesture or other on their behalf here because their overtime had fallen away. Now I want to ask the hon. member whether we should have allowed overtime to fall away because the trains are not running at full capacity or not?

You should have governed this country better. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Rosettenville said that the railway lines should always be well looked after and efficient, but the roads should also be in good condition. The hon. member for Rosettenville is known as Oom Sporie. He speaks about this organization of ours with a fond heart. He does not merely disparage it, but brings us a fine message every time.

†The hon. member for Amanzimtoti, Mr. Speaker, replied very effectively to the PFP. He said a very important thing, namely that we can improve the performance of the SATS. There is a lot of scope for improvement. I agree with the hon. member for Amanzimtoti on that point.

*The hon. member Dr. Welgemoed discussed uneconomic transport services and the whole matter of passengers, and said that we should have these two aspects investigated. I agree with the hon. member in that respect. He also said that we should apply cross-subsidization, and went on to refer to the contributions of the State in the developing countries. The hon. member is a transport economist and he quoted important figures. We shall go into this matter further during the discussion of my Vote.

The hon. member for Greytown drags politics into everything he discusses, at every possible opportunity. Once again he raised his old cry of “everything for the White man”. In addition the hon. member said that we should promulgate a relation to the effect that no passenger vehicle with less than three passengers may enter an urban complex. Is that the policy of the PFP? Should we now promulgate a regulation and stop people when they do not have more than three passengers in their motor-cars? [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I do not think that I should reply any further to this.

With such a regulation the PFP will not even be able to enter an urban area. [Interjections.]

Yes, so help me, that is true. [Interjections.] Where, in my part of the world, am I going to find three Progs to squeeze into a motor-car? [Interjections.]

My time has almost expired, Mr. Speaker. I just wish to say in conclusion that we had a few very fine contributions in this debate, contributions for which I have appreciation, contributions expressing thanks to the SATS staff. We cannot do this work without those loyal people. From the heads of the departments down to the humblest worker, regardless of his colour—even the person who is at present employed as sweeper in a station building—all deserve our thanks. Then, too, I wish to refer briefly to the attitude of our people. I should like to quote an extract from a letter which I received—and I receive many letters—from a Mrs. Bredenkamp of Berkeley Road, Dunnottar. She wrote as follows—

That is only one example. There are people who criticize us, but there are also people who value our services. In a debate such as this mention will be made of liquor which is not served on an aircraft or liquor which is in fact served free of charge. I say that this letter which I have now quoted is compensation for all the “jazz” I sometimes have to put up with!

I thank all members, particularly those of the NP, for their contributions.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 34 and motion and amendments lapsed.

Mr. Speaker, I move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

The first point that I want to make clear is that the NRP does not look upon South Africa as being a Third World nation. We certainly will concede that we are part of Africa and we also concede that a large portion of our population may subscribe to Third World value systems and may indeed, in many instances, live under circumstances very similar to those that are found in Third World countries such as tribal subsistence agricultural peasant-type farming. This may be so but we believe that the entire dynamics of our people, the very ethos of those people who elected us to sit in this hon. House, belong not to the Third World but rather to the First World. Who of us sitting here will deny the fact that our people subscribe to the values that are to be found in the capitals of Europe and in the capitals of North America, not those that are found in Africa as a whole or, for that matter, those that are found in South America? Our people in South Africa want stable government. They want sound and efficient infrastructures, they want law and order, they want a modern and effective educational system from the primary right up to the tertiary level, they certainly want a dynamic and prosperous economy so that jobs can be provided for all, and they would like to have a standard of living that is second to none in the world. We believe that our people also want a compassionate society; that is to say, that we should look after those less fortunate than ourselves, those who have been handicapped, those who are frail and aged and especially those on pension. We believe that those objectives are the tasks of this Parliament. I will concede that in many respects we have succeeded over the years in achieving many of the goals our electorate desire, despite the multitude of very complex problems that beset us. Therefore, I wish to tell the hon. members in the Government benches that our performance as a nation and the NP’s performance as the governing party in South Africa must not be judged by comparing it with that of other nations such as Brazil, the Argentine and Mexico. We must judge our performance in South Africa against the standards we set for ourselves as a White, Western-oriented, Christian and industrialized nation. As we face up to the greater task of building an even greater nation, an even greater economy which is going to embrace all the peoples in our country of all groups, despite their own varying value systems, as we move towards the greater new Republic which we are striving for, we must resist the temptation—as regrettably the hon. the Minister of Finance failed to do yesterday—to justify our own failures by comparing our economic performance and South Africa’s rate of inflation with that of countries such as Brazil.

In this regard I must be very critical of the hon. the Minister of Finance, because this I believe is a very common failing of his, and not only his, but also that of very many hon. members of the NP. When the going gets tough and the Government’s performance does not quite match up to the standards which we, the people, desire, they revert to comparing our South Africa with some South American and African republics whose standards and value systems are totally alien to our own. Therefore I put it to the hon. members on the government benches that if we are to have a truly meaningful debate today, we must decide at the outset to judge our economic performance against the values, the standards we set for ourselves; that is to say the objective to which I have already referred.

The second point I want to make in setting the tone of this debate, is that all too often some of us try to bluff the others by quoting selective statistics and figures as the hon. the Minister of Finance did yesterday in trying to prove that South Africans are better off today than they were two years ago despite the fact that we have had an inflation rate in excess of 14%. Yesterday the hon. the Minister said that real wages and salaries grew by 3,5% in 1980 and by 4,4% during the first nine months of 1981 while the real gross domestic product per capita grew by 4,9% during 1980 and by 2,2% during the first nine months of 1981. The hon. the Minister said that because of this there had been a significant rise in living standards in South Africa. I may say that I believe he made a great play of this at the NP congress in Durban on 20 August last year.

I want to submit that the hon. the Minister was presenting only half the truth. What about the previous nine years? What about 1982? I ask the hon. members on the Government benches what happened to the standard of living of Whites between the years 1970 and 1979. I have here the most recent figures up to January 1983 from Stats, an independent statistical agency. I want to quote them. In the year 1971 real earnings—that is on average salaries and wages in the non-agricultural sectors—grew by 3,6%; in 1972 it declined by 0,1%; in 1973 it grew by 0,9%; in 1974, by 1,8%; in 1975 it started a very long slide; it declined by 0,4%; in 1976 it declined by 2,4%; in 1977 it declined by 2,2%; in 1978, by 1,4%; and in 1979 by a further 1,1%. What happened in the nine years from 1970 to 1979 to the real earnings of White South Africans as a whole? I put the stress on “as a whole” because this includes both the extremely wealthy or well-off people who probably did not suffer a decline in their real earnings, as well as the low-income group, the pensioners whom we believe suffered tremendously during this period. The average real wage earned during the nine year period declined by an overall figure of 1,3%, or an average of 0,144% per annum. The facts show that for the nine years prior to the windfall gold boom of 1980 the average White South African standard of living was declining.

Compare it with Europe.

This does not mean, as I have said, that the fat cats like that hon. member who actually experienced increases in their wages found that their standard of living declined. There were many people who were not earning high salaries and who were not receiving increases, and their standard of living dropped. Certainly, as the hon. the Minister has said, 1980 and 1981 showed much improvement. What about 1982? By the signs of today, with inflation back at over 14%, the lack of growth we are experiencing in South Africa, in times of recession, daily reports of bankruptcies in certain businesses, rising unemployment—barely a day goes by that we do not read about these things—I am prepared to wager that the gains of 1980 and 1981 are going to a large extent be cancelled out completely.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. the Minister uses statistics, why should I not? Things are not as rosy as the hon. the Minister tries to make out they are. Growing economic prosperity in South Africa or in any country is dependent upon a continual growth in our gross domestic product; that is real growth after the effects of inflation have been deducted. We cannot achieve this with a high rate of inflation. It has been repeatedly stated that South Africa must achieve an annual growth rate of 5% in order to ensure not only the White population against a drop of their living standard, as has been happening, but also to ensure sufficient wealth creation to provide …

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member prepared to answer a question?

No, I do not have the time. One must create the wealth to provide for a far better living standard for all our non-White populations.

Statistics clearly show—I want hon. members to listen to this because it is extremely important—that while White earnings declined during the nine years between 1970 and 1979 …

What is your source?

Government statistics. Statistics clearly show that while White earnings declined during the nine years between 1970 and 1979 the real income of Coloureds actually rose by an overall 10,9%. Asians’ real income during that nine-year period rose by 28,3% and that of Blacks by a massive 52%. What do these facts add up to? Briefly it means that during this nine-year period there was a transfer of wealth from the White group in South Africa to the non-White groups, to such an extent that the White standard of living dropped the 1,3% I have referred to while the standard of living of the other race groups increased substantially. That of Blacks increased by 52%.

On 27 July 1982 Oggendblad indicated that this was so and it did a study regarding the number of minutes a person must work in order to be able to buy a loaf of White bread. In 1981 Whites had to work 3,6 minutes and in 1982 they had to work 4,2 minutes. Coloureds, Asians and Blacks had to work 36 minutes in 1981. However, in 1982 Coloureds had to work only 13 minutes, Asians 12 minutes and Blacks 16 minutes. This gives an indication that there has been a transfer of wealth. We will all recall that early 1970 studies done by the University of Natal in Durban revealed that many Blacks were living below the poverty datum line. We also can recall that as a result of this Natal experienced considerable industrial unrest and as a result there was a concerted effort to raise non-White wages considerably over the following few years. We do not disagree with this; we believe it is an admirable approach to the problem. However—this is the crunchline—there was no commensurate increase in productivity and as a result of this the inflationary spiral commenced.

Inflation is caused by too much money chasing too few goods. During early 1970 money that would have otherwise been invested by Whites in order to enable our economy to grow was paid out in increased wages to non-Whites while there was not an increase in productivity. As a result of this we started the inflationary spiral. [Interjections.] I am prepared to admit that the price of oil increased considerably, but it was also fuelled by the Government’s monetary and fiscal policy and South Africa was launched on a tremendous inflationary spiral which has lasted well over 10 years now. The hon. the Minister may boast about economic figures of 1980-’81 but the facts are that he was once again saved by the gold boom and not because this Government did anything positive to address the problems of both the need for real economic growth in South Africa and the root cause of inflation, namely the lack of productivity, as I intend to prove to hon. members.

What has this meant in terms of living standards? To be sure, the fortunate ones who have been receiving substantial salary increases, who have been receiving perks— such as the housing perks we have just been passing on to the employees of the S.A. Transport Services, and other such as motor cars and expense accounts—or for that matter young people who are just entering the employment market and have reasonably good jobs, have all been very marginally affected. But what about the pensioners, those who have retired? The rents index shows that there have been considerable increases, sometimes threefold or fourfold increases. The food index shows that food prices have also increased considerably. Clothes are also far more expensive. The people in the lower income groups, the pensioners, are fast descending that slippery slope to poverty, and this also applies to retired people who are living off past investments. Today these people find their life-time savings practically wiped out completely because of inflation.

What about the family man, the chap who is in his late thirties or early forties and may have three children, youngsters going to school? We know that these mouths have to be fed and we know that school costs and expenses are increasing. School fees are now being added, in Natal at least, and also elsewhere, I am sure. Parents have to pay these fees. The prices of school clothes are also increasing. The other aspect about people in this position is that because they are middle aged and may be in a middle management sort of job, their rate of salary increase is not keeping pace with inflation. Inflation is slowly grinding these people into the ground and their living standards are declining. [Interjections.]

What about South Africa’s underemployed, and what about South Africa’s unemployed? We know that the dependency ratio of Blacks is 6:1, which means that for every one Black that is employed in the work-force there are six others who are dependent upon his salary. [Interjections.] The standard of living of these people is now on the decrease, and if we continue going the way we are going, I believe that their standard of living will fall to below the poverty datum line.

This brings me to the Blacks who are employed, those who are fortunate enough to have a job. As I have already said, they are enjoying a rising standard of living. The numbers of South African Black unemployed, however, are increasing, and the reason for this is that South Africa is in a period of recession. South Africa’s growth is not achieving the desired level of 5%, and this is because the Government has failed to bring inflation under control. It has failed to bring the level of inflation down to what this party would lay down for South Africa, i.e. a maximum of 5%. [Interjections.] This Government is responsible, to a very large extent, for the high inflation rate. In the past, as a result of this Government’s policy, Blacks were given a minimum of education. This Government refused to train Blacks. This Government implemented labour legislation that restricted the mobility of the work-force. [Interjections.] The National Party believed that no White man should ever work under a Black manager. [Interjections.] All this has resulted in low productivity. [Interjections.] Hon. members keep asking me for my sources. Let me therefore give my sources. Let me quote from the National Productivity Institute’s annual report of 1981-’82. On page 4 it is stated—

For South Africa, however, the figure was only 1,1%. On the same page there is a table indicating the GDP per economically active person in constant 1975 prices. There is a list of 21 nations. South Africa is second from the bottom. In the period 1972 to 1980, it is stated very clearly here, the GDP per economically active person in constant 1975 prices in South Africa dropped by 0,7%. In regard to other nations the figure rose as follows: Greece 3,72; Portugal 1,25; and Turkey 3,69. So it is very clear that the productivity of the people in South Africa has not increased and, as a result, overall South Africa is going backwards.

It is in these terms that we believe we must measure the Government’s performance. Because of this low performance, we condemn the Government, because the result is rampant inflation. Therefore the standard of living of South Africans is declining. [Interjections.] Slowly but surely South Africa—I pause to let this sink in with the vociferous hon. members over there—is losing the race against time, the race to lift our entire population into the value system of the First World. The long-term danger of losing this race—and statistics show we have been losing it over the last ten years—is that the Whites of South Africa could in the future find their way of life reduced to that of Mexico, Brazil and Argentine, the countries to which the hon. the Minister of Finance referred yesterday. [Interjections.]

It is for these reasons that I have moved this motion condemning the Government for failing to get on top of inflation. Inflation is South Africa’s number one economic problem today and, if this country does not get on top of it in the very near future, South Africa is in danger of sliding backwards.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will take a question now, I want to ask him whether he supports the increase of 7,5% in the sugar price … [Interjections.] Wait a minute. Does he support that increase of 7,5% announced by the Government or does he support the demand for approximately 15% on the part of the sugar industry.

Oh, very clever!

That hon. member is now trying to play politics … [Interjections.]

Order!

I am answering the question, Sir. This Government is slowly grinding the sugar industry into debt. It has already borrowed R130 million and I believe it is going to have to borrow another R60 million for the season that is just over and, if this continues, the Government is going to push the South African sugar industry into so much debt that eventually that hon. Deputy Minister of Finance may have to bail it out.

Answer the question. [Interjections.]

What about the Equalization Fund?

I believe that the increase was not sufficient, because the hon. the Deputy Minister’s predecessor destroyed the growth of the Equalization Fund of the sugar industry about six years ago when the price of sugar was reduced in order to play a bit of petty politics just before an election.

Why are you so embittered about sugar?

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti and I think we all welcome the opportunity to discuss this very important matter in depth. I must say I was a little bit surprised that he got so worked up. I think that that is very often the problem with our whole economy too, viz. that the moment it becomes overheated, inflation becomes rampant. I therefore want to warn the hon. member for Amanzimtoti not to get so worked up because his inflation rate may also go up.

We are concerned about people. You are not.

I do not deny that we have a high inflation rate in South Africa. I do not deny that our inflation rate is in fact too high and that it has a detrimental effect on our economy. However, for the hon. member for Amanzimtoti to infer that the Government is solely to blame for inflation and is solely responsible for resolving the problem of inflation is, I think, completely unrealistic.

Excuses, excuses!

I also think that his answer to the question put to him by the hon. the Deputy Minister is very good proof that he has not got the answer to this situation either.

*I want to say to hon. members that I appreciate the fact that we are able to discuss this highly important matter because it affects the whole essence of the South African economy. Not only that; as far as I am concerned, it affects a very important nerve of the future of the entire subcontinent of which we form a part. We in South Africa— and I want to speak positively—must ensure sound relations, peaceful co-existence and effective defence. In this way one can mention a long list of priorities. If we do not have a strong, sound and vigorous economy, we cannot expect a great deal. I tend to agree with the hon. member for Amanzimtoti that inflation is our enemy No. 1 in this country. It is not merely an economic enemy. It is our greatest enemy in this country, and I think that the Government has repeatedly proved that it gives it a very high priority.

I want to say to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti that many years ago, Lenin said that the surest way of undermining the capitalist system was by way of inflation. Inflation affects the whole root system of a sound economy, whereas Marxism flourishes in a situation of chaos. It is true that in point of fact, inflation is a fairly new problem for South Africa and the South African economy, a problem we have been faced with for about the past 15 years.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti pointed out several of the consequences. I also wish to do so because it cannot be denied that this is a significant problem. Accordingly I briefly wish to mention six grave consequences. It results in an unjust redistribution of income; it weakens the position of the exporter; it means that regular adjustments to administered prices have to be effected; it undermines confidence in the future; in particular it undermines people’s sense of thrift; it leads to speculative, unproductive activities and—and to me this is very important— it undermines the fact that we must live for tomorrow, and makes of us people of today. Last week we held a debate here on yesterday’s, tomorrow’s and today’s people. But particularly as far as the economy and inflation are concerned, we have no option but to be people of tomorrow. The problem with inflation is that it fuels itself and often has a snowball effect.

I want this House to take an in-depth look at this matter, at where it comes from and what causes it and, in the second instance, at what role a government can play in preventing inflation and what this Government is doing to prevent inflation. In the third place, I want to point out that the private sector, and the individual in particular, will themselves have to play the biggest part in the war on inflation. The State can lay down certain guidelines and create an infrastructure, but ultimately it is a matter for the private sector and the individual. I have little doubt that 1983 ought to be the anti-inflation year in South Africa. However, in my opinion it is totally unfair and unrealistic to blame inflation entirely on the Government.

If we are to take a brief look at where inflation comes from, I want to mention five reasons. In the first instance, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti said that we were not a Third World country. I agree with him. We are not a Third World country, but we are not a First World country either. We are a combination of a First and Third World country, we are a microcosm of the world. We also have the situation of an over-supply of unskilled labour and an under-supply of skilled labour. As soon as a country has that situation, it has the problem that unskilled people have to be used to perform skilled work and that they have to be paid more than their productivity is worth. All this leads to inflation. In the USA there are 10 unskilled people for every manager. In South Africa the ratio is 50:1, and if we do not do something about it, it will be 70:1 by the end of the century. It is pointless saying to the unskilled man in one’s employ—and here I am speaking to the private sector— that he need not be concerned about his wage because he earns more than the unskilled man in Zimbabwe, Nigeria or wherever. That is true. When we consider the statistics, then that is in fact true. But it is not a fair argument, because the unskilled person here in South Africa compares his position with your position and with my position and with the position of the skilled man who works with him. All these things lead to inflation. I have little doubt that a good 40% of South Africa’s rate of inflation of 14% is contributed by the fact that we pay our people more than they produce, and in particular because we are using our unskilled workers for skilled work.

Whose fault is that?

Prosperity in the Republic will always go hand in hand with the high rate of inflation, due specifically to our relatively small skilled labour force. I shall come in a moment to the question put by the hon. member for Bryanston. Secondly, as a developing country, South Africa will have to be dependent on imports for a very long time, imports, on the one hand, of raw materials and oil, and of sophisticated machinery, motor-cars and so on. In doing this, we also import the rate of inflation of the country of origin of the imports. On the other hand, when one exports raw materials, one does not export the country’s inflation rate. The prices of imported goods increased by 15,6% between 1981 and 1982, and accordingly imported inflation has had a significant effect on our internal situation.

I expect that one of the members of the NRP is still going to speak about agriculture and that he will put the blame on agricultural products. I want to tell that hon. member in advance that in our country, with its unfavourable climatic conditions, agricultural production is characterized by surpluses on the one hand and by shortages on the other, more so than in any other country in the world. Nevertheless South Africa is one of the few countries in the world that produces enough for its own population and, in addition, is able to export to the rest of Africa. The marketing system in South Africa has developed out of a depression and a drought. High food prices must not be ascribed solely to the imposition of control measures. I shall come back to this aspect later. To a great extent they are the result of unfavourable climatic conditions that cause disturbances in the demand and supply situation. We are a large country with not a great many people. Whereas many people are concentrated in certain urban centres, the production areas are distributed throughout the country. As a result, it is expensive to get the product to the consumer.

We are a relatively small population and cannot afford making sophisticated machinery ourselves. Accordingly we are dependent on imports.

I now come to the question of what the Government is doing and can do to combat inflation. The Government has decided to withhold salary and wage adjustments for this year as far as possible. The price of petroleum products was reduced last week. The argument from the other side of the House was that the reduction was too little. I say that it is important to ensure that in the present situation a psychological climate be created in which to break inflation. I think the Government is succeeding in this regard. Only consider the reduction of 2,5% in supertax, the Escom tariffs which were less than they were to have been, the sugar situation to which the hon. the Deputy Minister referred, third party insurance which was not increased, etc. Interest rates, particularly short-term interest rates, have been reduced.

Then there are the short-term disadvantages which hon. members of the Opposition often emphasize. Things like Sasol and A.D.E., which are long-term projects and which will be to our benefit in the long term in our struggle against inflation, may not be viewed in the light of the effect they will have on our inflation rate in the short term. The hon. member for Bryanston wants to know what we must do. I believe that this Government is doing more than any previous Government with regard to the training of labour. Over the past three parliamentary sessions our legislation in this regard has been adjusted to enable us to normalize our labour situation and get the best productivity out of our people. Hon. members of the Opposition will probably discuss control again. If control of agricultural products has had one wonderful benefit in this country, it has been that it has limited the middleman so that the end product could reach the consumer cheaply. What finer benefit do we have in this country than bread? In South Africa we have the cheapest bread in the world. However, there is one thing we must realize very clearly. In a homogeneous country like Germany, and even in the USA, it is very easy to combat inflation. One does so simply by creating unemployment. However, in South Africa, with its heterogeneous population, we simply cannot afford to have large-scale unemployment, because by doing so we would cause revolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just wish to complete my argument. If there is still time afterwards. I shall answer the hon. member’s question with pleasure.

Very often people talk about a free economy. I believe that we in South Africa, a country with a First World and a Third World situation, will never, with the best will in the world, be able to have a totally free economy. It would be simply ridiculous. We shall simply always have to claim to have a mixed economy in South Africa. Even a country like the USA does not have a totally free economy. There, too, there are certain control measures, particularly with regard to agriculture.

In the third instance, I should just briefly like to draw the attention of the House to the contribution which the private sector and the individual in particular will have to make in the combating of inflation. I believe that the success of all efforts will depend on the degree to which South Africans can be taught to live within their means. We shall also have to learn that no-one in South Africa—whether a member of the First World or the Third World part of the population, and irrespective of his race or colour—can lay claim to a bigger share of the prosperity of this country without a corresponding increase in his contribution. I believe it is a very good thing that in the present circumstances the State is not making general salary adjustments. In recessionary conditions the Public Service has succeeded over the past few months in building up its establishment considerably. I am, however, profoundly concerned about the question whether the private sector will co-operate in the present circumstances. If the private sector does not also begin to slow down as far as its adjustments are concerned and an upswing occurs in our economy, then we in the South African employment situation will be faced with a considerable problem. A deliberate effort will have to be made by the broad mass of people to lower their standard of living, and they will simply have to be prepared to be satisfied with fewer luxuries.

At the same time a sense of thrift will again have to be instilled in people and they will also have to be future-oriented, so that we can again become people of tomorrow. In the mean time, the private sector will also have to ensure—and this is just as much the task of the private sector as it is that of the State—that more emphasis be laid on productivity; that is to say, there will have to be greater efficiency of labour and of the other production factors. This is not always the task of the worker. Most of the time it is the task of the manager or the employer.

Then, too, there is another suggestion I want to make, viz. that building societies will have to concentrate on smaller loans instead of a smaller number of larger loans, so that more people may be encouraged to obtain accommodation. I believe that the building societies ought to have a far greater difference in interest between a small loan of, say, R15 000 and a bigger loan of R40 000 or R50 000, in order to encourage people to obtain more modest accommodation. You know, a few years ago a double garage was an absolute exception. Nowadays it seems to me as if one does not get a house sold unless it has a double garage. I welcome the fact that building societies are not reducing borrowers’ payments when interest rates are reduced, but instead are having them repay their loans more rapidly as a form of saving. I have no doubt that the State has a very important role to play in the fight against inflation, but the contributions of the private sector and the individual are indispensable.

In conclusion I want to tell hon. members about a letter that I read recently in one of our daily papers. The hon. member for Stellenbosch must excuse me, but the letter was from Stellenbosch. This person said that he had noted that the S.A. Handelsinstituut was going to carry out an in-depth investigation into the reasons for inflation, and that the Economic Advisory Council of the hon. the Prime Minister was doing the same. He said that one need only go to Stellenbosch to see what the reasons for inflation were. He said that every second man had a cheap housing loan. Some of them received them from the State, but the majority received them from the private sector. The result was that the majority of these people had houses that were hopelessly too expensive and luxurious to afford. Surely that is true. In the second instance, the writer said that one need only go and have a look when the schools came out at half-past one. He said that all the mothers were there in father’s German company cars while father had a nap after lunch. He said that in his time the children walked to school themselves or rode on bicycles, and the fathers had to get to work on their own. Surely we know this is true. He said that in the third instance, when he was at University in Stellenbosch there were three places where one could go and eat. I think that in my time it was the same. He says that there are now about 30 hotels, braai restaurants and other fine eating places, and that if one does not book a week before the time, one does not get a place.

I fear that we must search our own hearts. Our standard of living in this country is simply too high, and the individual in the private sector will have to make a very important contribution in the fight against inflation. Inflation is South Africa’s Enemy No. 1. The year 1983 must be tackled by the authorities, and not only by the authorities, but also jointly by the private sector and the individual, as the anti-inflation year.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Paarl made what I believe to be a very constructive speech. He emphasized the necessity for education and training and he is obviously very aware of the importance of inflation in relation to our future in this country.

I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Finance is not with us today because much of what I have to say concerns what he said in his reply to the debate on the Second Reading of the Part Appropriation Bill yesterday. I think I had the right to believe that he would be here. He said that there would be a debate on inflation so he was not going to say much at that stage. Hon. members must therefore bear the fact in mind that I actually thought that he would be here.

The hon. the Minister of Finance criticized the willingness of the Opposition to recognize positive things in the South African state and in the South African economy. He said—

He said that he would also quote statistics to bear this out. Well, Sir, he is the Minister of Finance and I believe that statistics that he quotes should be accurate. What he actually said was the following—

He went on to say that that meant 50 countries. I think that ordinary politicians may be permitted to use loose figures every now and again in an argument. That is the way of politics. However, I believe that a Minister of Finance is very much in the position of a director of finance of a company. His figures must be correct and he should not use them loosely. I checked up on his figures and of the 50 countries to the north of us there are many that have a very, very substantially higher income than either Venda, Ciskei, Transkei, kwaZulu, Lebowa and Gazankulu. On average there are nine there which have 40% more income, and I have deliberately excluded Gabon and Libya who have very substantial incomes. This in unfortunate because it creates the impression that things are not so bad in our own Black States and homelands. However we argue about what should be done, I do not think we should “draai doekies om” the situation. That sort of remark tends to do exactly that.

The Government cannot ignore its responsibility for inflation. It either failed to realize the dimensions of this problem or it avoided the difficult decisions that sorting out this problem involve. When our inflation was originally lower than that of our trading partners, we were smug. When it was the same, our attitude can best be described as: “Well, it is an unfortunate phenomenon, but it happens in the best of families.” When it became two and three times higher than that of our trading partners, we tried to ignore it; we turned our back on it. In fact, it will be remembered that in the last budget debate the hon. the Minister of Finance only made a passing reference to inflation.

This is a habit which that hon. Minister has: When we have an economic windfall, then he takes credit for it. One could be excused from believing when the country was awash with money because the price of gold was high, that the hon. the Minister was the reason for it, but when things go the other way and there is a disaster, I do not notice the same preparedness to take responsibility for it. The truth is that at the time when we should have been controlling the money supply very, very carefully, we let it to get out of hand and subsequently we have never been able to regain control of inflation. The hon. the Minister has allowed it to mushroom unchecked. I think to avoid inflation requires certain discipline, certain self-denial and certain good management. These are things which we were not prepared to give and we are also not prepared to take the difficult, the harsh, the unpopular political decisions that are necessary to bring inflation under control once it has gone out control. This requires the type of courage that is prepared to lose electoral support even in the run up to an election, but I do not see that type of courage among the Government members.

The days are gone when a short recession would immediately bring inflation to heel. There was a time when there was no more problem with inflation, because it quickly adjusted itself when the economy was checked. That, however, does not exist anymore and it has become a recognized fact that any successful onslaught on inflation has to be on a broad and comprehensive front. The control of the money supply is not sufficient anymore. The establishing of market-related interest rates is not sufficient anymore. One can pull money out of the economy by taxation or by curtailing public expenditure, but all those monetary and fiscal devices on their own are inadequate. By the middle of last year the Government was applying many of these—most of them by the middle of last year; it was a little bit late, but the Government was doing so—and what was happening? In January this year inflation was still running almost unchecked at 14,4%.

Let me put the Government’s attitude to inflation in a nutshell. It is quite prepared to accept the high rate of inflation as an inescapable aspect of its own policy. Just to confirm that, let me quote what the hon. the Minister said yesterday—

I think that highlights the fact that he has accepted that order of inflation. He believes one can live with that order of inflation because the elements of the South African society that are most adversely affected by inflation cannot bring their dis-satisfaction home to the Government. They are either old, retired or they are Blacks with no political power base whatsoever. Why is this so? The rest of us, people with bargaining strength, can meet inflation. We can cope with it. It is an inconvenience, but it is manageable. However, for those people it is a tragedy of the first order, a source of suffering, anguish, broken pride and even a source of death. This is no exaggeration. It is impossible to exaggerate the effect of an inflation rate of 14% on people who are in that condition. It initiates a process of wealth redistribution in the wrong direction. It takes from the poor and needy and gives to the strong. To those of us who have learnt by experience and who have the economic skills to live with the circumstances. However, for the old and the retired it is a disaster.

When it comes to fighting inflation it is the poor again that take the strain. Blacks lose their jobs by the tens and thousands in times such as we are in now. We had a meeting of civil engineering contractors last night and it is anticipated that in that industry alone several tens of thousands of people will have lost their jobs by the middle of this year. There is no social security service for those people. They will not be adequately cared for when they are dumped, as they will be, in the veld. What is the effect? They have to retire to the independent Black homelands. What do they think of the free enterprise system as they sit and watch their children waste away from kwashiorkor in the places which several of us saw in the Ciskei at the end of last year? Can one really believe that communism has the same terrors for those people that it has for us? These considerations place a tremendous responsibility on this Government.

The Government first of all has to get inflation under control and keep it there and secondly it has to alleviate the stress on the people who are suffering and taking the brunt of the attempts to cure it. One of the most iniquitous of the things we do to these people is the imposition of a general sales tax on basic foodstuffs. Here again I must take issue with the hon. the Minister. In his speech he said that general sales tax was 6% and that it was the lowest in the whole world by far. That is the sort of half truth that we should not have from the hon. the Minister of Finance. He is in a very special position. Everytime somebody from the hon. the Minister’s department talks about a figure the whole House wants to feel that figure is irreproachable. The hon. the Minister did not tell us that value added tax in Britain has zero rating as far as most foodstuffs are concerned, that books are excluded, that fuels— with the exception of fuels on roads—are excluded, that buildings are excluded, that exports are excluded, that children’s clothing is excluded and that medicines are excluded. [Interjections.] I do not think that was satisfactory.

When a messenger came to Marie Antoinette and said that the people were rioting because they had no bread she was supposed to have said: “Let them eat cake.” What we say is: “Let them pay a higher tax on the few loaves they can afford.” We are in fact in a pretty mess and the funny thing is that the bulk of the House is totally and blissfully unaware of this. It gives a strange Alice-in-Wonderland atmosphere to our deliberations. We talk of the hardships of Blacks and the implications of our policies but we completely ignore the effect on Whites, because they impinge just as strongly on Whites. It is absolute nonsense to believe that in some way we are isolated from that tragedy. It depends entirely on the period that one is looking at. This Government is offering us a short-term tragedy as far as the Blacks are concerned, a medium-term tragedy as far as Blacks and Whites are concerned and a long-term tragedy—an exclusive offer—for Whites alone. It is of little significance to move the inflation rate to 10% unless it is just a milestone on the way to 3% or 4%. The Government must now launch an all-embracing strategy to eliminate inflation as our major economic problem. The best initiative so far has been that launched by the hon. the Minister of Manpower. Our industrial legislation is good. I should like to quote Dr. Tusenius. He is a man I have always thought was quite a friend of this Government, but what did he say the other day? He said—

That is a very interesting statement. But to be fair, let me say that the Department of Finance has adopted—though perhaps belatedly—most of the monetary and fiscal measures that it can adopt to bring financial discipline to our economy. These are rendered completely ineffective, however, when ideology impinges on the economy. This is a phenomenon that the Government simply has to face and come to terms with. It is, of course, going to involve standing the policy of the NP on its head. Firstly, unless there is geographic mobility of labour, how is one going to develop a labour market? It would be impossible! Secondly, one will not generate adequate vertical mobility, and that is the great thing now in the NP think tanks, viz. to achieve vertical mobility of Blacks in private enterprise. We are all for it, but unless one gives people the incentives that come from owing one’s own home—not on a cock-eyed 99-year-leasehold basis, but owning the houses outright—one will never develop the motivation that is necessary to pull people up in those circumstances. Thirdly, one will not significantly improve productivity whilst Blacks are considered foreigners in the areas in which they work. Without rights, without a stake in the Republic of South Africa, how can they feel committed? It follows that they must have South African citizenship and a say in the political decision-making in this country. Fourthly, one will not manufacture goods which can be sold profitably overseas, which can be exported profitably—and this is a fundamental aspect of our economic future—by the injudicious decentralization of industry. Fifthly, the question of monopolies must be taken up infinitely more strongly than it has been up to now. Attention must also be paid to the concentration of industry. 6% of enterprises in the manufacturing industry, own over 80% of the assets. Our Competitions Board, I am afraid, is really the proverbial bulldog with rubber teeth.

Ah, come on, now.

Definitely. One only has to look at its record to see that. The whole question of administered prices is crying out for attention. There have been useful comments in the financial papers about this recently. All forms of price and cost indexing should be reconsidered. I believe that is a built-in inflation racket.

Another aspect that should be looked at is the fee-setting practices of professional associations. We are supposed to be grateful, at the moment, for a 1,6 cents per litre reduction in the fuel price. We are told that the drop in crude oil prices is between 3 dollars and 6 dollars per barrel. I cannot get back to a decrease of 1,6 cents per litre from that. I believe that one has to ask oneself whether the Government has put the price of fuel up or whether it has brought the price down. Let us accept the fact that the producers of crude oil have brought their prices down, but if the Government has now increased its margin, I do not believe it can take any credit for having brought the price of fuel down. Then one reads on top of that that they sanctimoniously hope that private enterprise will pass this benefit on. The Government has just, significantly, I believe, failed to do that specific thing.

The hon. the Prime Minister has stated that the basic responsibility of Government is to maintain order within which private enterprise can fulfil its function. He is right. Without order, without a controlled society, private enterprise cannot run properly and inflation will run riot. However, we cannot expect in those circumstances that the Minister of Finance and his department are going to sort the problem out. They are technocrats, financial technocrats and, to be fair, they apply many of the disciplines that need to be applied, but now we find that political decisions have to be made. We have to tackle the underlying factors that make our economy susceptible to inflation.

Firstly, the policy of settling Blacks in large numbers in the veld has got to be reversed. The systematic urbanization of these people is the only way in which to make them productive and to stop them being a drain on the economy. Secondly, the Government must make a statement that all people within the boundaries of the old Union of South Africa will be South African citizens.

One man, one vote!

Thirdly, it must make a statement of intent making it clear that ways and means will be sought and negotiated with the leaders of other groups to give all South Africans a say in the political decision-making process.

If one’s ambition is to run a free enterprise economy, it cannot be based on selective freedoms chosen to suit those people who happen to be kings of the castle at a particular time. The hon. the Minister of Finance was right when he asked: “What more should the Government do in the way of fiscal and monetary policy?” He can do little more. There is not much more he can do. It must now address the deep underlying factors which makes South Africa susceptible to inflation.

Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the hon. member for Walmer for having hit on some very important points during his speech. I will refer to some of them in the course of my own speech, but at the same time I want to say we are very sorry to see that the hon. member for Yeoville is not participating in this debate, particularly in view of the past experience he has of the financial world and in view of his, shall we say, reputation.

Where can he be?

Beyond that, I think the hon. member for Walmer has done a sterling job. Possibly he will make a very good successor.

You are such a small party that you are small in your minds as well.

Why? We just want to know where Harry is.

Yes, where is their group leader?

You are a very small party!

What are you getting so touchy about?

Order!

There is the famous saying: Give credit where credit is due. It is a pity to see it discounted in the manner in which it has been by those hon. members.

I also listened with great interest to the hon. member for Paarl who …

You have just been listening with interest so far.

Yes, indeed. Perhaps the hon. member might try that as well. [Interjections.]

You have been boring up to now.

I probably will remain so for the rest of my speech as far as that hon. member can understand things. I should just like to point out that some of the points the hon. member for Paarl made are, I think, highly significant in this debate. He has indicated that the Government’s attempts to reduce and contain inflation are extremely positive; but they are not. They go halfway, or should I say, they go a quarter of the way. As the hon. member for Walmer said—and this to me was one of the most important points he made in his speech—The Government is afraid to make unpopular political decisions to solve inflation in this country. We must be well aware of the price that countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom have had to pay for bringing down inflation. It is quite clear that the same price and the same principle that they have applied to bring down inflation cannot be applied equally to this country. How much more important is it that the inflation rate in this country be contained to a figure where it can be regulated and brought down without disrupting our society as has been the case in the United States and the United Kingdom.

A debate on this matter would be incomplete without some reference to the agricultural sector. One must look at the overall picture in agriculture to try to assess exactly what price agriculture is paying with regard to inflation. Let us look at the imbalance we see in the agricultural industry at the present time. We have surpluses on the one hand in the form of meat, wheat and, temporarily at the present time, of dairy products. We have shortages which are going to cause, as we read in the newspaper this morning, a loss of some R800 milliom in foreign exchange. Let us now look at the economic situation in which agriculture finds itself. I want to point out clearly that the present difficult situation has been highlighted by drought conditions, but is drought not the basic reason for the problems in the agricultural sector. The drought conditions have brought to a head the problems of an ailing industry. The figures that I am going to give hon. members later will give an indication of the degree to which the agricultural industry has been ailing in this country. Basically we are looking at a situation of input costs outstripping prices received for products. It is appreciated that the consumer can only pay so much for a commodity and, therefore, it is absolutely vital that input costs be kept to a minimum. This has been preached from the Opposition benches for years and years in this House, but it seems to have gone without any determined effort by the Government to pay regard to these warnings. Insufficient cognizance has been taken of obvious trends within the agricultural industry over recent years. Everyone in this country gets carried away when a good year is experienced or when there is a surplus and one would never think that there is going to be a shortage again. One is led to believe that this is likely to be the permanent trend for the industry in the future. But how stupid we are! We always forget that tommorrow “is nog ’n dag” and that it can also bring with it problems that are completely different to what they are today. So what we have got to do in agriculture—and this is where we come back to the present inflationary situation—is to ensure that greater effort must be made to remove the present sense of uncertainty, because this is responsible for the inconsistent production pattern that is prevalent in this country at the present time. This is costing agriculture millions of rand because there are farmers who are trying to chase a general production trend while chopping and changing from one commodity to another, and as a result they are being driven into a corner by the momentum of inflation. I would like to point out that this is problem area No. 1, as I see it. Agriculture has to contend with the fact that requisites—in other words inputs—are purchased retail but the farmer receives wholesale prices for his products. It is interesting to note that the farmer is receiving probably 50% of what the consumer pays. However, in spite of the role the marketing boards are flaying in narrowing the producer-consumer gap they have had absolutely no control over the inflationary trends of inputs in agriculture. We are therefore basically confronted with a situation in which, as a result of inflation, input costs far exceed the price of the product.

Let us now take a look at the price trends over a 12-year period between 1970 and 1982. The increase in farming requisites—in other words the cost of production—increased by 387%. The increase in producer prices over that same period was 303%—a deficit of some 30%. This includes the record maize crop of 1981. When this is related to the net income it reflects that the producers net income is down by 26%. Heavens above, how can one then say that the drought situation is solely responsible for the plight of agriculture? That has been positively proved incorrect.

There is little doubt that the producers have been called upon to pay inflated prices for certain input items. I am delighted to see that the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism is in the House now. It is quite clear that the inflated prices in respect of a number of agricultural input costs is the result of the Government’s protectionist policies related to what are termed strategic goods. This of course raises the question of whether exploitation and profiteering by certain manufacturers has been taking place. It is for that reason that we in these benches welcome the investigation that has been commissioned by the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism. We request and we trust that the findings of this investigation will be made public as soon as possible after it has been received.

One can criticize the Government for having allowed such manufacturers free rein while the farmer has had to foot the bill. In spite of the fact that machinery is available to control abuse and exploitation, and ensure that the principles of protectionism, are adhered to. There is little doubt that exploitation has taken place but what has the Government done about it? As the hon. member for Walmer said, the Government has not made use of the machinery at its disposal to prevent abuse. I must emphasize that. I do not think that people realize the seriousness of the position of agriculture in S.A. today. Since 1979 interest payments have increased by some 344% to R903 million. In 1981-’82 interest payments alone amounted to R356 million. Input expenses generally over the period from 1979 to 1982 increased by 45% whereas the increase in returns over the same period was a mere 26%, little more than half.

Let us now take a look at what has happened in regard to short-term external credit. I am talking now about credit outside the Land Bank. In 1970 the external credit was 27% of the total short-term debt. In 1982 this had increased to 45%. However, I would say that the most startling figures that anyone could present are the ones that I am about to quote. In 1974, 83 cents were spent op inputs to receive an income of R1. In 1981 it required R1-39 to produce an income of R1. In 1982 it required R2-63 spent on inputs to produce an income of R1. What is happening to the industry?

They are going one way.

Little wonder then, Sir, that the total agricultural debt as at 1981 amounted to R4,8 billion. This is a staggering figure and if one averages it out over the number of farming units it means that the average farmer has a debt load in the vicinity of just under R80 000.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the time available to me does not permit me to complete all that I wanted to say. However, I do want to stress that there are certain aspects which merit the immediate attention of the Government and, while one has been critical, I think that one must inevitably come up with certain positive suggestions. There is little doubt that the agricultural industry is faced with the situation of cutting costs to maintain production. That is impossible at present. Another factor is that production must be increased, and we know what the effect of this can be in times of surplus. There must also be greater output from the agricultural work force and this can only be given effect by means of improved training systems for those participating in the agricultural industry. The final suggestion I wish to make is that the Government should adopt a more positive approach to encourage the development and utilization of natural resources at regional level.

Because of the lack of a positive long-term agricultural policy the Government is now faced with a massive rescue operation if it is going to save the South African agricultural industry and restore it to its rightful place in the South African economy.

Mr. Speaker, I only have ten minutes at my disposal in which I shall try to make a contribution.

Firstly, I wish to say that this matter is an extremely important one, not only for South Africa, but throughout the world. It is amazing to contemplate inflation in our country. There are really two elements of inflation. There is cost-push inflation and demand-pull inflation. As far as demand-pull inflation is concerned, the hon. the Minister of Finance may take certain steps, but cost-push inflation is the responsibility of the hon. the Ministers of Industries, Commerce and Tourism, and Labour. To me it speaks volumes that these hon. Ministers—or so it seems to me—are not going to take part in this debate. Now the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance has to speak, but the hon. the Minister of Industries is the real scapegoat, since it is he who did not see to it that the cost of living was curbed a little. The price of fertilizer has risen by 13%. When that happened, the hon. the Minister sat back a little and closed his eyes almost completely, for he did not see that increase. I think we have the wrong man on the hook. The hon. the Minister and the hon. the Minister of Manpower are the two culprits.

I wish I had more time at my disposal, but I must nevertheless refer to Landbouweek-blad of 11 February. In that edition, Dr. J. B. W. Laas—he is an industrial and business consultant—made this very significant statement—

Financing is the aspect which the hon. the Minister of Finance considered.

Have a little cocoa!

That hon. member is extremely nervous about the candidate in Waterberg. He is probably afraid that the other candidate will be a member of the PFP. [Interjections.]

What has the hon. the Minister done to curb the average rate of 15% in recent years? The hon. the Minister is responsible for this, and the world has been looking to him, but now he is evading his responsibility and the hon. the Deputy Minister has to reply to this debate.

What is inflation in reality? If it is a question of cost-push inflation, it implies the following: Excessive increases in administered prices—this is controlled by the hon. the Minister—in other words, where prices are not exclusively determined by impersonal market forces, but where the Government or specific market participants play an important role. Secondly, there are exogenous wage increases; in other words, where the bargaining power of trade unions and so on are imposed. It is here that the hon. the Minister and his colleague, the hon the Minister of Manpower, come into the picture. The third is imported capital and intermediate goods. These are three extremely important points.

We now come to demand inflation on the other hand. Here we have certain factors which may be eliminated by the hon. the Minister of Finance, and he has taken certain steps. The excessive demand could be ascribed to various other factors, for example, Government expenditure, but this the Government has also tried to combat. Of course, there is also consumer demand, as well as investment expenditure. All three of these factors may occur due to too much money in circulation or the speed at which money circulates.

What has the hon. the Minister of Finance done? He has taken certain steps. For example, he has implemented stricter control over the money supply by way of high interest. He also implemented lower Government expenditure. He has even done something about the tax structure in order to combat inflation. However, that hon. Minister did nothing or very little. Perhaps I should not say he has done nothing.

I am not ignoring the hon. the Deputy Minister, but that hon. Minister is the person we are really talking to. It is true—we all accept this and it has been proven worldwide—that cost-push inflation cannot be combated by way of wage and price control regulations. In the USA this has been proved. However, there are other ways and means.

Last year, when the budget of the hon. the Minister of Finance was being dealt with, I asked him to appoint a commission of inquiry to investigate this matter in depth and to see what could be done. That was an important aspect I touched on, but what happened? Unfortunately, the hon. the Minister ignored me completely and he did not get round to that aspect. He did not comply with the request we addressed to him to appoint a committee or commission of experts to investigate the matter. I think that this is an important thing the hon. the Minister of Finance neglected to do. However, what do we see now? The Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, a body comprising a number of Afrikaans businessmen, appointed a commission which has arranged a conference in Johannesburg for 21 and 22 March. The theme of the conference will be: “Inflation: Identification and analysis of all factors contributing to inflation in South Africa”. According to the AHI, various departments and Ministers have promised to co-operate. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to instruct his department, and to make that conference a success, and to see to it personally that it is a success, for this is important. This is not a matter of politics; South Africa’s interests are at stake. Our people, our consumers are struggling. Other hon. members have already pointed this out. I call upon the hon. the Minister to make every effort to assist the AHI.

We should try not to make political capital out of this, but I do want to refer again to the American publication from which I quoted earlier when the hon. the Minister said that that did not appear in the publication. I have with me the supplement from which I quoted the other afternoon. It is a supplement to the Institutional Investor. The hon. the Minister of Finance conducted an interview with these people overseas and in the supplement, 10 questions are put to the hon. the Minister of Finance. One of the questions, the tenth, reads as follows—

To this the hon. the Minister replied—

I wish to tell the hon. the Minister that there are certain things we should not make a political football of, and one of them is the income of a people. Productivity is important and one cannot simply narrow the wage gap without increasing productivity for the sake of political consideration. I request the hon. the Minister please to give his attention to this.

Mr. Speaker, I was rather shocked by the simplistic way in which certain hon. members of the Opposition wanted to solve the inflation problem, and concentrated on trivialities in an attempt to make political capital out of them. In particular, it seems to me that certain hon. members of the NRP would like to go and fight in Waterberg. They can take the hon. member for Sunnyside with them.

We readily concede that the money supply has increased too rapidly in recent years. In 1980, 1981 and 1982, our money supply increased by 27,4%, 25,1% and 19% respectively. We fully realize that this is a major problem. However, one should not magnify the problem unduly, and associate with it things which do not pertain to it. First of all, we should examine what has been happening to the price of gold. From 1978 to 1980, the gold price rose from $193 a fine ounce to $613 a fine ounce. Hon. members must realize that gold is an extremely important factor in our economy, and such an enormous increase is bound to have a profound effect on the economy. Let us see what happened then. With this surplus which developed in the balance of payments, a great deal of money flowed into the country, money which immediately became available to the private sector, and of course the private sector made use of it. When one examines the credit given to the private sector by the banks, one sees that in 1980 it amounted to R3,6 billion, in 1981 to R5,6 billion and in 1982 to R3,6 billion. Unfortunately, we did not allow the banks or overseas investors in this country to take their money out of the country during that period. That concession was only recently announced by the hon. the Minister of Finance. It is a great pity that it was not allowed at that time, but there are many reasons why we exercised control over the flow of currency from South Africa to other countries. With this exceptional increase in the money supply, and in the turnover of money as well, it is understandable that we had strong inflationary pressure in our economy. However, the Reserve Bank realized this perfectly well. Under the guidance of the Governor, Dr. De Kock, the Reserve Bank began to take action at once. However, when the Reserve Bank began to take action, we began to experience a rapid decline in the gold price. I believe that in our discussions of inflation, we ignore the problem with which we are faced because of a fluctuating gold price. This is one of the most difficult problems one can have when the gold price goes up from $193 to more than $600, then goes down and subsequently shoots up again. This makes it extremely difficult for the Reserve Bank to control and channel the money supply.

Let us go further, however. We had a world recession—this, too, is ignored— which began to have a negative effect on our balance of payments. Our exports of coal and other minerals began to decline, and we began to experience an enormous deficit in our balance of payments. Let us take, for example, the first quarter of 1982. If we eliminate seasonal problems and make our calculations on an annual basis, we see that we were faced with a deficit of R7 billion. When the Reserve Bank wanted to start dealing with the problem of inflation, it was faced with a serious balance of payments problem. The Reserve Bank regarded this as priority number one, so I cannot understand how the hon. member for Sunnyside could conclude that the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism should have solved the problem. I simply do not understand it, because commercial policy is somewhat different from monetary and fiscal policy. [Interjections.] If the Reserve Bank had implemented a very strict monetary policy when it was faced with that enormous deficit of more than R7 billion, what would the effect on the economy have been if we had gone back to the old gold standard? We would have had tremendous unemployment. We would virtually have destroyed our industrial structure. Therefore the Reserve Bank had to be careful. It could not simply rush in and try to reduce the deficit by means of an excessively strict monetary policy. That is why it began by allowing the rand to depreciate. It is not realized that between 1980 and October 1982, the rand depreciated by 34% as against the dollar. We must realize that we are a country that imports on a very large scale—I think more than 30% of our GDP. So those imports have become 34% more expensive. This has an inflationary effect on the economy. One has a choice: One can return to the gold standard, as in the old days, and kill the economy, or one can use the depreciation of the rand to produce an ameliorating effect on the economy. Furthermore, that enormous deficit has to be financed. On the one hand, one has to fight inflation, and on the other hand, one has the terrible deficit in the balance of payments. The Reserve Bank then made use of an enormous amount of short-term loans from overseas. What was the effect of this on the economy? Of course it was to some extent inflationary. In addition, a 10% levy was imposed on imports. What was the effect of that? One must remember that the top priority was to rectify the balance of payments. Now it is often said that the Reserve Bank did not take action.

That is the monetary side. I want to go further. I think it was the hon. member for Sunnyside who said that we had spent too much. Really, Sir, I do not know where he gets that idea from. After all, we have a fiscal policy which can be regarded as one of the best in the world today. Our deficit on our budget, expressed as a percentage of our gross domestic product—and I shall quote figures—is among the lowest in the world. When we realized the enormous problem of overspending and an excessive money supply, the State withdrew a billion rand and put it into the Stabilization Fund. The State also increased certain taxes, such as the general sales tax, company tax and the savings levy.

What was the effect of this policy? Interest rates were bound to start rising. They did in fact start rising. We cannot get away from that. The prime rate went up from 9,5% to 20%. On the one hand, of course, this was a means of discouraging imports, but in the initial phase it also fuelled inflation.

This is the situation in which the Reserve Bank found itself. We should have a much easier situation in 1983, because the Reserve Bank has got its balance of payments under control now. It is expected that a surplus may develop in the first quarter of this year. The Reserve Bank succeeded in obtaining a loan from the International Monetary Fund. This means that it can begin to repay the short-term loans. Furthermore, with the interest rates going down again after rising enormously in the recent past, money is now going to become cheaper for the State again. One cannot just borrow money. One has to pay for it. It is easy to say that the money should be generated from the economy, but who is going to pay for it? The taxpayer is going to pay for it.

I just want to come back to the role of fiscal policy, which has been criticized. I have referred to the additional taxes that were levied and the higher interest rates to combat the problem with the balance of payments. The deficit on the budget, expressed as a percentage of the gross domestic product, was 4,4% in 1979. It dropped to 2% in 1980. Then it rose again to 2,7% in 1981 and it is estimated that it will be 2,8% in 1982-’83. Now it is said that we keep referring to Brazil. Let us look at the 14 top countries in the Western world. Their average deficit rose from 1,9% in 1979 to 4,1% in 1982. There is no getting away from it: Too big a deficit leads to inflation. One of President Reagan’s biggest problems is that his enormous deficits are creating uncertainty in the American economy. It is argued that the deficits should be reduced. Our Minister of Finance has succeeded in getting our deficits under control. I think we should be grateful for that.

To summarize, I want to say that as far as monetary policy is concerned, I think the Reserve Bank has done an excellent job. They could not have done anything else: They first had to attend to the balance of payments, and now they are in a position to fight inflation. On the fiscal side we can only pride in the record of our Minister of Finance. Let us look now at the cost-push position, because this fight to get the balance of payments under control has also had its effects, and one of these is cost push. I asked one of our biggest companies to provide me with figures, and it is very interesting to see what these figures show. Between 1980 and 1982 their prices rose from 100 to 134. The depreciation of the rand caused their costs to rise from 100 to 135. The cost of their Black labour rose from 100 to 282. Their interest went up from 100 to 378. In other words, the fight to get the balance of payments position under control had an inflationary effect to begin with, and now the price increases are gradually tapering off.

My time is running out, but there is just one more aspect I want to deal with, and that is the terrible rise in the cost of living.

I would have thought that your final speech would be a better one. [Interjections.]

The theme of one hon. member was that the standard of living in South Africa had deteriorated. Let us first see what has been happening to the Whites. I am referring now to the real personal income of the Whites. I like to give my source; the following figures were provided by the Market Research Bureau of the University of South Africa. Between 1960 and 1965, real personal income increased by 32,6%; between 1965 and 1970, by 30,6%; between 1970 and 1975, by 23,7%; and between 1975 and 1980, by 3%. The figures for Blacks are as follows: Between 1960 and 1965, it went up by 30,2%; between 1965 and 1970, by 40,3%; between 1970 and 1975, by 49,3%; and between 1975 and 1980, by 23,4%. I understand that the NRP does not like this narrowing, because it now seems that they are going to fight in Waterberg. If there had been such a recession in this country, the consumption of durable products would not have risen so much. The consumption of these products rose by 42,7% between 1977 and 1981. Motor-cars went up by 65,4%.

In conclusion, I want to say the following. In the light of the outstanding growth we have had and the inflation which has admittedly been very high, especially in recent years, are we to destroy growth as the Americans have done, while you know, Sir, that the employment figure among their Black youth is 52%? Can we afford that kind of unemployment in South Africa? We have a responsibility towards all our people. I think we are dealing with inflation from all sides, taking into consideration all our people in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member Dr. Marais seemed to base his argument on the Government having done a good job and the fact that the situation was inevitable because of the price of gold, the depreciation of the rand, the interest rates etc. He prefaced his remarks by saying that it was rather unfortunate that the members of the Opposition generally were playing politics on such an important issue. I think it is fairly normal in this House for people to talk politics. I always thought that was the idea behind it.

The speakers this afternoon, depending upon whether they were on the Government side or on the Opposition side, have to some degree used statistics and I should like to say that perhaps I shall not use statistics in what I have to say because I feel rather like the late Disraeli, Prime Minister of England, when he said in the House of Commons that there are lies, damn lies and statistics. I think there is a lot to be said for that. It would seem to me that statistics mean what one wants them to mean or one can misinterpret them to mean anything else. In yesterday’s debate the hon. the Minister of Finance admitted that he did indeed have inflation which was at a somewhat higher level than he would have preferred. In parliamentary terms I would be inclined to suggest that he means he is very unhappy about it and that it is too much. That is how things are normally said. The normal way of saying it is that it is not too bad. Therefore I believe that the hon. the Minister of Finance is perfectly aware of the fact that our inflation rate is unsatisfactorily high. The causes of inflation are basically the same the world over. It is basically because there is too much money available. That is one of the reasons. Another reason for inflation is greed, too easy credit and excessive Government spending. Who is indeed responsible for the creation of this inflation? One can make all the excuses that one likes but ultimately it cames back to the same thing, namely that the Government of the day is responsible for the creation of inflation.

They are the only people who create new money, which causes an excessive amount of money to get into circulation. Furthermore it is their legislation which allows for financial institutions to give what they call near money, or credits which are used in lieu of money. Therefore it is quite clear that it is the Government who is totally responsible for the attitude that financial institutions adopt towards inflation, and they themselves are responsible when it comes to the printing of new money.

Governments throughout the world, over a long period, have been using inflation and inflationary financing for political purposes and for political advantage. Regrettably, however, almost invariably when this is done the advantage is a short-term one, and there is a very, very hard day of reckoning which has to follow. Usually the methods that they adopt to appease their voters are found in excessive wage rises, excessive social benefits and, certainly in some countries, the financing of ideologies, while, in other countries, it is found in nationalizing the various commercial industries. As I have said before, bearing these factors in mind, it is quite clear that the Government is a very, very substantial contributor to the problem of inflation. I do not, however, blame the Government solely and totally for inflation. I believe they are very large contributors towards inflation but not totally so. I believe that commerce also plays an important role in the creation of inflation.

In particular I would mention only a few areas of commerce in which, I believe, this contribution has originated. In the first instance the financial institutions, and particularly the banks with their plastic money, are making people buy things which they cannot afford, which they do not need, and on which they should indeed not be spending their money. Furthermore, they are not selective enough in their buying. All I can say about easy credit is to quote the old familiar saying: “Easy come, easy go.”

Again, there are these cartels, such as the massive Anglo American organization which, I understand, owns 52% of the shares quoted on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, or controls 52% of the companies anyway. They are once again one of the causes of inflation by virtue of the fact that they buy in and destroy smaller businesses. The monopolies, such as the brick industry, the cement industry, and others also buy out every piece of competition that is at hand and make sure that there is no competition which would keep prices at a reasonable level. In regard to the supermarket chain stores, I want to say that they are the vultures that are growing ever more massive upon the carcasses of our dying grocers, butchers, greengrocers and other small shop-owners. The liquor trade too is largely in the hands of two organizations in South Africa today. Here again we have large monopolies that make such huge profits that they have in fact to mop up their excessive liquidity by buying themselves into other spheres of business, once again destroying more smaller businesses. The wealth of South Africa today is gradually—in fact, not so gradually but very rapidly—falling into the hands of a relatively small number of people. This is creating an inflationary situation because there is no competition. I say therefore that commerce does play a very important part in the inflationary spiral. However, I also want to say that in this regard too the Government is to some extent responsible because they are allowing this sort of thing to happen. They have created a legal structure which permits of this type of takeover, the creation of a commercial socialist state within the State, and I believe that this is going to be very dangerous indeed in the future. It is also going to give free enterprise a very, very bad name indeed.

I should like to deal now with one particular matter which is of considerable interest to me. My hon. colleagues in these benches have touched on various other matters but I want to touch on one aspect of inflation which is to my way of thinking very important, namely housing. In dealing with this topic, I am referring largely to the White community. I shall touch upon the position of the Blacks at a later stage. In 1948 it was possible to rent a decent two-bedroomed flat in an urban area of Durban for between R20 and R25 per month—I know it was pounds in those days but that was the actual value in today’s currency. A three-bedroomed house on a quarter acre stand could be bought for between R7 000 and R8 000, and the rates were very low. The position today is that a two-bedroomed flat in Durban is selling for R54 000—a two-bedroomed flat in a very, very ordinary block of flats in a very ordinary area. The rental for those flats—and this is what the complaint is about—is only R295 per month whereas a proper return on a financial investment of that nature should be something of the order of R645 per month. As far as a house is concerned, one will have to pay for the same sort of house in the same sort of area I mentioned previously something of the order of R70 000 to R80 000. In this regard I want to point out that it means that during the period from 1948 up to the present the price of a flat has increased to between 12 and 15 times what it was in 1948 while the cost of the same type of house has gone up 10 to 12 times. This is really quite a serious matter especially when one considers the statistics issued by our own department. I have here a departmental document that was issued today in which it is stated that from 1950 up to the present the rand as being worth 100 cents in 1950 will only purchase 15 cents worth of goods today; in other words, its purchasing value has dropped to one-seventh of what it was then. Therefore, housing has experienced inflation at virtually double the rate and damage of inflation to the rand.

I am primarily referring to White housing at this stage, but in so far as the Whites are concerned, if they are prepared to endure a little hardship in some other way, they can at least get hold of a house. The situation for non-Whites is considerably worse. There has been inflation in their housing costs, but I think it has been of a lesser degree because a great deal of their housing is being Government aided and subsidized. Although they have a lesser degree of inflation, they have less opportunity of even getting a house at all because houses for them are not available in sufficient quantities. I realize that at the present time the hon. the Minister of Community Development is very well aware of these facts; in fact there are commissions afoot to endeavour to look at and to resolve these problems. I submit, however, that housing is one of the more expensive items on any family budget and this is crippling many families who try to live in decent conditions.

Having said what I think about private industry, I now want to mention a few things which I think the Government can do to ease the situation in thfs particular field. I do not want to pre-empt the functions of the commissions on it, but these things are fairly obvious and I am certainly not talking on matters relating to the commission. There is excessive bureaucracy, there are very high rates of interest, there are excessive building regulations all over the country in every municipality, the tax structure penalizes developers and landlords, there are massive removals—the Department of Community Development has played a major role in massive removals and demolitions in areas as part of the group areas ideology—and there are the colossal monopolies which have been allowed to create inflationary conditions in their products, thus killing any sort of effective competition.

In fairness, having apportioned a major share of blame to the Government, let me point out that there is still a certain amount of fault that falls on the general public itself. The Government is responsible—I still say in Government we have the primary people at fault—but the secondary people at fault are commerce and industry because of their particular ways of handling things, but as far as the general public themselves are concerned, I think they are also great contributors to the inflationary spiral.

The old virtues of thrift and endeavouring to get good value for one’s money seem to have gone by the board. Many of the younger generation want to start off in life where their parents finished off. As a consequence they feel, regardless of the cost, regardless of having to borrow money to do it and regardless of having to pay ridiculous interest rates, they must have certain things. The merchants—obviously they are in business to sell—will sell and the general public, particularly, as I say the younger people, are committing themselves to huge debts which they find very, very difficult to meet. As a consequence the modern day money lenders and usurers must really be rubbing their hands with glee because the situation is really terrific. A mental approach is being developed by so many of the public that not only should they have things; they should have them now. They feel they are entitled to them regardless of whether they work for them. I am sorry to say that it is the attitude which, as a general rule, people of our generation have allowed our own children to develop. Again in the building trade one finds that the ordinary young person today is apparently not satisfied with the basic sort of house with which his parents were satisfied 30 to 40 years ago. He has to have two bathrooms, fitted carpets, a swimming-pool, double garage—you name it—and all the amenities. All these things are not necessary but add to the costs. This is inflationary. This is all part and parcel of the inflationary process. I believe one of these things which could be suggested and given serious consideration is to determine that building societies should not extend their loans to cover such things as swimming-pools, double garages, double bathrooms and things like that.

Do you have a swimming-pool?

No, I have not.

And a double garage?

No. Bad luck! Government policies and control have been largely responsible for our huge inflation. I believe that if the shackles were to be taken off the building industry and they were given something of a clear run they would be able to resolve many of our problems. I have various associations and connections with the building industry and I have a document here that I had a builder prepare for me which states that with a reasonable amount of co-operation from local authorities and Government agencies—he is not asking for any money—a three bedroomed house with living-room, kitchen and bathroom and with normal hot and cold water facilities, can still be built to this day—this was dated October last year—for R18 000. This is for a block and tile house.

Where?

In Durban, Johannesburg and Cape Town. This is a firm which works in all three places. If one can only get rid of a lot of the hampering that goes on with developers and people in the building trade I believe there is some chance of achieving the dream that many people—I think most of us—have of having South Africa as a country with all of our population home-owners—little capitalists in their own right if you like. I believe it can be done but one has to remove a lot of restrictions.

Finally, my hon. colleagues in these benches have covered a range of matters in the inflationary sphere and which are responsible for crippling family budgets. Inflation is a thief which is stealing the savings of our public. It is the most critical enemy we have and I believe it is imperative that this be treated with just as great an urgency as is necessary to resolve the problem of the terrorists in South West Africa.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to move the following amendment—

I shall try to refer very briefly to what was said by hon. members who participated in this debate, and after that I shall deal with the more general matters of interest arising from hon. members’ speeches.

What the hon. member for Walmer tried to proclaim here was absolutely nothing else but a laissez-faire policy. If the political solutions which he suggested were in the end to be implemented, it would mean only one thing, viz. that the economy of the country would be totally destroyed.

The hon. member for Mooi River complained a great deal about what a bad time the fanners were having. That is correct, and we also have many other problems in this country. We admit it, but I must also say that agriculture is feeding the entire South African population. Last year we exported agricultural produce to the value of almost R2 000 million. That says a great deal for the farmers, but it says as much for the system under which they are producing here. [Interjections.] The hon. member also complained about the tremendous burden of R4 000 million which the farmers had to bear. What he did not state, however, was what the farmers’ assets were.

What are they?

This R4 000 million—and I am speaking completely off the cuff now—represents, as far as I can remember, only approximately 16% of their assets. Surely this is an excellent state of affairs. In addition, this Government, as far as agriculture is concerned, does nothing without involving organized agriculture.

The hon. member for Sunnyside … Well, what can I say about him? I think all I can say is that he gave the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism notice of the subject he was going to talk about in the discussion of the hon. the Minister’s Vote. However, I wish to thank him for having praised the Department of Finance for the department’s actions in connection with monetary matters.

I accord recognition for what is right, but what is wrong, I castigate.

The hon. member for Umbilo must be congratulated on having delivered a very balanced speech here this afternoon. As a matter of fact, I think he gave the hon. member for Amanzimtoti a very fitting reply as far as this motion is concerned. [Interjections.]

*The hon. member for Umbilo said many things here with which I can agree. He spoke about the high price of those flats, but one of the aspects to which he himself referred was the tremendously high standard of living in this country. That is our problem of course.

That brings me to the hon. member Dr. Marais, and I hope I will soon be able to refer to him as the hon. member for Waterkloof. [Interjections.] He referred to a very important aspect, and that was the tremendous fluctuation in the price of gold and the monetary problems which this caused us in forecasting and regulating our monetary and financial affairs. If one thinks of the tremendous part which gold plays in the regulation of our monetary situation, one realizes that what he explained here so expertly was entirely correct, and I thank him for doing so.

The hon. member for Paarl pointed out that collective action was necessary in this country if we wished to master this serious inflation problem, and what he said was absolutely correct.

I should now like to refer to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti who moved this motion in this House. The hon. member said certain things with which I can agree. After all is said and done, there is not one of us who would not like to see prosperity in this country, but his reaction to the question which I put to him on the sugar price, gave the game away. The fact of the matter is that in order to combat inflation the Government recommended an increase of 7,5% in the sugar price. The sugar industry, however, insisted on approximately 15%, and that is of course the fundamental problem which the hon. member also has. All of us kick up a fuss about inflation—the hon. member cannot put a question to me now, but once I have come to the end of my speech, he may do so—but as soon as we have to do something positive, people do what the hon. member did. Excuses are made. [Interjections.]

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

No, I am afraid not. [Interjections.] I shall answer a question if I have any time left at the end of my speech.

George feels embittered about sugar.

I have seldom before encountered a motion couched in such strongly condemnatory language as the motion of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, while the facts demonstrate precisely the opposite. Available statistics—I have them with me—indicate that the wage of every worker in South Africa, regardless of race, has risen more rapidly since 1948 than the consumer price index to which the inflation rate is linked. Precisely the same trend also applies to pensioners of all races. As the hon. the Minister of Finance pointed out yesterday, social pensions have increased twelvefold during this period, while the cost of living has increased sevenfold. Add to that the fact that a large percentage of our pensioners also have a private income, large or small, and that even the social pensioner may possess assets of R10 200 and an income of R504 per annum and still receive a maximum pension of R143 per month, plus free medical services, plus a considerable subsidy if that elderly person is living in a registered home for the aged. The Government goes out of its way to accommodate pensioners—they are the people who are affected the most—as far as possible every year. What is more, I want to tell the hon. member …

When last was there an increase in the means test?

… that pensioners have great appreciation for the actions of this Government. They testify to this every time.

Particularly for Lapa Munnik. [Interjections.]

A discussion of inflation is welcomed, but a condemnation of the Government, as contained in this motion, is completely inappropriate and is not in accordance with the facts. The day the Western world lowered the gold standard in the depression years, in the early thirties, an indissoluble marriage was concluded with the problem of inflation in its more modern form. In this way the creation of money through credit received a tremendous boost and the economist Mandel is in fact correct when he states: “The Western economy sailed to prosperity on a sea of debt”. To my mind, it is as clear as crystal that the primary cause of permanent inflation, particularly in the post-war years, was the extension of bank credit to the private sector. When I say this, I am in no way condemning the credit system as such. All I am saying is that credit should be handled with great circumspection and responsibility. That is what this Government is ensuring.

The economic causes of inflation are wide-ranging and almost none of us are blameless, as the hon. member for Umbilo did in fact say. An American agricultural economist was right when he said—

Consequently there are no innocent parties. Pointing a finger at the Government now, as the hon. member for Amanzimtoti tried to do, displays a misconception of a very complex situation.

Although rooted in the economy, inflation has over the years, as it became part of the pattern of life of communities, acquired other components as well, of which the politico-social is the most important. It is pre-eminently for this reason that we are conducting this debate today. It is because the Opposition regards inflation as a political weapon to commandeer the voters against the Government, and to hold the Government responsible for alleged social evils. These recriminations lead to the intensification and preservation of inflation. Let us admit to one another now that there are people who flourish on inflation. Our accusations provide them with a validity of action. This politicization of inflation contributes to social and political tension, which in turn are inclined to undermine people’s economic achievements. There are many people who hide their failures behind inflation. It is easy to blame inflation for your downfall, while you toss around on your bed like a door on its hinges. You see therefore that the politicians, particularly the Opposition, make their contribution to inflation as well. The Government confirms in word and deed that it is absolutely in earnest about combating inflation. The question is: What is the Government doing in its specific sphere to combat inflation, things for which it is frequently attacked and, as happened today, condemned? In the first place, Government spending is being limited as stringently as possible. Attempts are being made, with the greatest efforts, to keep Government expenditure within the budget limits. The monetary sphere is characterized by a stricter control of the money supply, particularly of credit-granting, the adjustment of the interest rates when money as well as capital market conditions justify this, and a supple exchange rate policy so as to ensure that the exchange rate is a correct reflection of the conditions on the exchange market. The abolition of exchange control over non-residents, coupled with the confidence which this has created throughout the economic world, augurs well for investments, in the long term, too, for South Africa. Finally, there is ongoing, close co-ordination between the Reserve Bank and the Treasury.

I should now like to deal briefly with the accusation—an accusation which, strangely enough, was not made very often today—that the Government had allowed the money supply to go out of control during the 1980-’81 gold boom. This was probably because the hon. member for Yeoville did not speak. It is correct. Too much money did enter the country too quickly. The Government took up a considerable amount of that money and repaid short-term overseas loans with it. Our sound position as far as foreign debts are concerned, is one of the reasons for the financial confidence in our country on the part of the outside world; and specifically the confidence which the IMF has in us. However, to sell State paper on a large scale, to pay huge amounts of interest and not to employ the money for any specific purpose, places a tremendous burden on the Exchequer and on the taxpayer. Seen in retrospect, I think that the large money supply and the very gradual cooling off of the economy and reduction of that money supply also produced strongly positive benefits.

If you can justify this you can justify any rubbish. [Interjections.]

I am dealing with it. In the first place, (a) there was a growth rate of 8% which gradually decreased …

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

Why did the hon. member not participate in the debate?

You are talking nonsense now.

The hon. member does not want to participate in the debate, but he still has the most to say here.

… (b) the lowest unemployment of all times; (c) the drastic reduction of taxation; and (d), most important of all, this extended the period of prosperity so that South Africa did not even come close to experiencing the depths of a recession which its Western trading partners experienced, and are still experiencing.

The State is expected to protect its citizens against exploitation as far as possible, and the promotion of effective competition in our business community, which is unfortunately too small and too limited, is consequently of the utmost importance. The Government does this by way of eliminating restrictive practices, through the implementation of the Maintenance and Promotion of Competition Act. Despite what the hon. member for Walmer had to say about the Competition Board, I can tell hon. members that the Competition Board investigated at least 10 cases during the past year. As hon. members have probably observed, there is already another amending Bill on the Order Paper which is intended to improve and tighten up the existing Act, particularly as regards the control over and the combating of cartels and price maintenance. The Maintenance and Promotion of Competition Act is the Government’s principal weapon against exploitation.

In addition to the implementation of this Act, there are also three consumer organizations, i.e. the Consumer Council, the Housewives’ League, the Verbruikerstigting, and in addition to all these the media, particularly the newspapers, which co-operate actively to disclose and point out irregularities. These organizations and institutions are the watchdogs of the consumer. In addition every hon. member and every member of the public is at liberty to expose every alleged restrictive practice or a case of exploitation and lay complaints concerning such practices before the board. Everyone must make his contribution if we want the fight against inflation to succeed. The worker, too, must make his contribution.

Unfortunately this is not a painless process. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti wants to make it a painless process for the sugar farmers. Such a process does not exist. In this connection the Public Servants set an exceptional example by not insisting on extraordinary salary increases now. I am making special mention of this today. In this respect the private sector did not co-operate fully. Salary increases of up to 25% were granted. One major industrialist, however, together with his employees accomplished an exceptional achievement, an achievement which I also wish to mention here today. The prices of his products for January 1982 and February 1983 are as follows—broiler chickens: January 1982, R2 per kg; February 1983, R1,40 per kg; canned peas: January 1982, R1,89; February 1983, R1,69; canned beans: January 1982, R1,19; February 1983, R1,49; cauliflower and mixed vegetables: January 1982, R1,99; February 1983, R1,59; frozen fish: January 1982, R2,29; February 1983, R1,99. This amounts to an average price reduction of approximately 20% in one year. What are the facts in view of this case? In the first place the heart of the matter—the central fact—is co-operation between the employer and the employee as well as the salary increases. In the second place it is the highest measure of competitiveness, and in the third place, no protection. I shall have something more to say later about the question of protection.

Where the Government has a say in prices and the so-called administered prices, it tries to keep price increases as low as possible, and if possible to bring about further reductions as well, as has just happened with the fuel price. Moreover, the Government grants generous tax benefits with regard to the training of manpower in order to increase and promote productivity, and also in order to be prepared for the next upswing in the South African economy, an upswing which we are all expecting, even the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, who is complaining so much now.

Only a joint effort on the part of politicians, of the economists from all sectors, of businessmen and labour leaders, and one which is made with objectivity and responsibility, will enable us to master this problem of inflation. The economic and financial policy of the Government is succeeding. This is not my verdict but the verdict of the critical outside world which has in the recent past displayed astonishing confidence in the economic stability of the Republic of South Africa. It is there for anyone to see who wishes to see it.

Mr. Speaker, the Government can put an end to inflation tomorrow by taking drastic action involving control and restrictions. However, it will then bring the economy to a standstill and put millions of people out of work and deprive them of an income. In this way we would be playing into the hands of those people who wish to destroy us. Unemployment is the spark in the powder barrel of revolution. Is that what you want? There are people in South Africa who do. The Government must act in a disciplined and well-balanced way and face up to its priorities fearlessly. For this reason it sometimes has to take steps which are inflationary in order to cope with and avert an even greater scourge. Recently, when we experienced the tremendous disparity in our balance of trade, the Government had to raise the surcharge and allow interest rates to soar so that money could flow into the country again. Both these measures are very inflationary, but the alternative is to allow your country to become insolvent. The protection of local industries, although we can import at cheaper prices, is extremely inflationary, but we are a country under threat. We must be self-sufficient, otherwise we are vulnerable and our enemies know it. Thousands of millions of rands are being spent on defence, once again inflationary, but also the price of stability. The Government announced that R1 000 million would be spent on the consolidation of the national Black States, once again inflationary. The Opposition calls this an ideological squandering of money. They are wrong. It is the price of stability which we have to pay if we want to keep on living in this country. [Interjections.] Compare our country with any other country in Africa, where their policy was adopted. [Interjections.] We concede that an inflation rate of 14% is too high. It is far higher than those of our Western trading partners. If this makes those hon. members happy, then I want to say the following: It does not mean that our people are worse off than the populations of those Western trading partners. An overseas survey which appeared in The Cape Times of 24 January 1983, singled South Africa out as the cheapest Western country in which to live.

What is the average level of income?

A recent survey by the Union Bank of Switzerland of the cost of living in the 47 largest cities of the world indicated that the cost of living in 36 of those 47 cities was higher than that in Johannesburg. The reason is obvious. Our inflation rate is calculated at our own price levels. If prices are low then the cost of living in South Africa is low, although our inflation rate is higher. The inflation rate of the aforesaid countries is low, but the price which they pay for it in the form of unemployment, is far higher than here in our country. Every individual must fight against this complex problem. We teach people how to earn money, but I think we must make a joint effort to teach people to spend money judiciously.

Mr. Speaker, before I ask leave to withdraw my motion as it is expected of me, I should like to thank all the hon. members who have taken part in this debate. I believe it has been a very balanced debate. I believe that Hansard will show that there are lots of statistics and other points of view which I think will assist those of us who are concerned about inflation to get a balanced view of this particular problem.

Before I ask leave to withdraw the motion, I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister, seeing that he asked whether I approved of a 7,5% increase in the price of sugar, whether he approves of the 14,5% to 16% increase in Escom tariffs and a 25% increase in postage tariffs. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Minister says he supports the increases. I think I have made my point.

I now ask the leave of the House to withdraw my motion.

Mr. Speaker, of course I support it, but I say … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Amanzimtoti has already asked leave to withdraw his motion, and the hon. the Minister must now ask the leave of the House to withdraw his amendment.

Sir, I ask leave to withdraw my amendment.

With leave, amendment and motion withdrawn.