Mr. Speaker, I trust that we shall continue this afternoon on a calmer and more sober note than the one on which we ended proceedings yesterday evening. [Interjections.]

If we want to make a mistake with our budgeting programme, we should consider our budgets in isolation. We cannot consider the budget which we are now discussing, in isolation. We must consider it in conjunction with previous and future budgets. This budget is merely a link in a long chain of budgets over many years. Moreover, every budget has a significant effect on the one that follows it. If we were to make drastic cuts on an ad hoc basis, we could do immeasurable harm to our infrastructure and its expansion programmes, and also to the future development programmes of the SATS because one cannot economize so much when things go badly, or not so well, that when good years come again, the effect of the budget is such that we lag behind.

The SATS plays a leading role in the development of this country, and the hon. the Minister therefore had no choice; he had to budget in the way he did. As far as the tariff adjustments and increases are concerned, he had no option either. If there had in fact, been alternatives we would definitely have heard about them during the course of this debate. Obviously the SATS must be run on business principles. It is also true, however, that the profit motive we find in the private sector is not always as strongly developed in the SATS. However, the motive to render service remains, and because this is the case I want to refer in particular today to one of the more positive aspects we in this House must take cognizance of and draw each other’s attention to.

The activities of the SATS cover a wide spectrum—from the transportation of dried fruit to livestock, from poisons to motor vehicles. Most of all, however, is that the SATS transports one of the most precious cargoes one can imagine, namely people. Because this is the case, the safety of our passengers is one of the highest priorities of the SATS. I want to point out specifically that in this regard the SATS has achievements to its credit of which it can justly be proud.

Every passenger or client of the SATS has every right to expect punctual service. Every passenger is equally entitled to expect that he will be conveyed to his destination safely. For that reason it is as well that we take a brief look at the steps taken to ensure the safety of our transport services in general and our passengers in particular.

I want to refer more specifically to the transportation of passengers by the Railways. If we take a look at the list of safety measures adopted, we note that it is an extremely long list. In addition to the normal inspection of wheels, brakes, couplers and moving parts, there is also the ultrasonic testing of metal parts, and the SATS also has, inter alia, an X-ray unit capable of inspecting metal parts up to the thickness of 18 dm and detecting defects in them. Research is also being undertaken on a continuous basis to produce better access doors, better material, better bogies and better couplers, and new equipment is constantly being tested in order to ensure the safety of passengers. These are inputs that have a definite effect on the eventual price of a ticket. Therefore when hon. members of the Opposition criticize us about the tariffs of the SATS, they must remember that the prospective passenger, when he pays for his ticket, is not only purchasing the right to transport: considerable costs have been built into the price of that ticket to promote his own safety and comfort.

We are living in a modern time, and we are also travelling in a modern time, a time in which modern signalling systems and computerised train schedules ensure the safety and comfort of the passenger. All this equipment costs vast sums of money and we are inclined to forget this. We are so geared towards convenience that most of us only give a moment’s thought to the lonely inspector on foot or the people in the track measuring cars, people who are constantly engaged in inspecting every gap, every weak spot, the geometry, every kink in our permanent ways. We forget about the people who work throught the long, dark hours of the night to ensure our safety. I believe that we must be profoundly grateful to these people because they perform an extremely important and difficult task.

We can take the matter further, and see that even in the training of staff, extremely stringent standards are set, so that when we eventually purchase a ticket, we need have no doubts about the high standards the SATS has set itself to ensure our safety.

Having said all this, the human factor still remains. It is therefore a feather in the cap of the staff of the SATS that during the present financial year, not a single passenger died or was even injured. Because the human factor is always present, we shall never be able to eliminate accidents entirely. However we can keep them to a minimum. That is why I believe that the direct and indirect costs we incur in this process are a good investment and that we must continue with this. We must also remember that these are expenses that will always be present, whether we are living in a time of economic revival or in time of recession. Those costs are always present and they also have a direct effect on our budget.

Perhaps the hon. the Minister would consider putting something into his next annual report for us about the direct and indirect costs, the price of safety in the SATS, and the effect it has on our cost structure.

Having said all this I think we must also look at the record of the SATS in this connection in order to see the results of this programme in its proper perspective. In the past financial year, passenger trains travelled more than 54,25 million kilometres, and in the process almost 753 million passenger journeys were undertaken. Over the past 10 years the average no. of passenger journeys per annum exceed 645 million, and during this period 175 passengers died in accidents while 384 were injured. This represents just over 1 death per 40 million passenger journeys and just over one injury per 20 million. This is an achievement of which the SATS can justly be proud.

As the largest employer the SATS has safety record which towers above any comparable undertaking with comparable risk factors. If we just take a quick look at the achievement of the S.A. Airways in this connection, we see that this year the SAA flew 99 000 flight hours and in the process transported more than 3,5 million passengers and 60 000 tons of freight. In the process the SAA covered a distance in excess of 9 million kilometres. I want to compliment the hon. the Minister and the S.A. Airways on this remarkable achievement.

In conclusion I should like to quote from page 38 of the annual report of the department under the heading “Claims-Prevention Measures”. It reads as follows—

I am informed that my time has expired. All I want to say is that I think that what I have quoted is a good idea and I think it should be taken up. I think this cup should really be a “grand” cup. It should be called “The floating trophy for safety and efficiency” and should bear the name of the hon. the Minister of the SATS, Mr. Hendrik Schoeman.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for False Bay who has just sat down, is the successor to a man who held that particular seat and who became a Railway Commissioner. In fact, the hon. member for False Bay owes his seat to the fact that his predecessor was appointed a Railway Commissioner and therefore a vacancy was created in that constituency. I sincerely hope that the hon. member’s career and his discussion of SATS topics will be as distinguished as those of his predecessor.

The hon. member mentioned two matters one of which I agree with and the other with which I disagree. He spoke about the safety of passengers as far as the SATS are concerned. I agree with the hon. member that we do have a proud record in this regard, and particularly as regards SAA. I think that the safety record of S.A. Airways must be one of the finest safety records in the airline world. However, for the hon. member to suggest that the hon. the Minister of transport had no alternative but to present as dismal a budget as he has done, is something with which I disagree very strongly indeed. I believe that there are many alterntives and I may perhaps deal with a few of them during the course of my speech this afternoon.

It is my intention to confine my speech to the S.A. Airways. I do not in the main intend to be complimentary, but let me state at the outset that I believe that SAA in the air is one of the finest, if not the finest in the world. Its flying crew can indeed be described as “those wonderful men in their flying machines”. Their safety record, as I have already said, is I believe absolutely outstanding.

When one looks, however, at the budget which is in front of us today, one can only be appalled as far as the SAA is concerned. For SAA we are budgeting for a loss of no less than R120 million. In one year we budget for a loss of R120 million! What is more, I believe we do not have the same excuses as the Railways with their inability to recover costs on passenger transport; just the opposite! One looks at the record of fare increases in recent months by SAA and one finds that the increases are quite astonishing. In November 1981 SAA increased its fares by 32,5%; in April 1982, by a further 12,5%; and in January 1983, by a further 10%; in other words in a short period of 14 months the air fares of SAA were increased by 64%; yet, despite this, the losses mount up—R120 million budgeted for next year.

Let us look at the past. In the year ending 1980 SAA lost R54,2 million; 1981, R39,6 million; 1982, R57,9 million; and the estimate for 1983 is R99,2 million while it was originally budgeted to lose R83 million. In the last four years a grand total of R250,9 million has been lost and now we budget for another R120 million.

It is a fact that throughout the world a number of airlines have been making losses. I am fully prepared to concede that to SAA, but I also want to point out that not all international airlines or all airlines are making losses.

All of them.

No, that is not correct, and I shall quote statistics proving that.

What are the magnitudes of these losses by airlines? In 1982 the US airlines as a whole—in other words all the airlines operating in the US—lost $550 million. Of that $550 million, Pan Am itself lost $327 million which was the worst of the lot. Some, in fact, made profits and I can quote a company called People Express—this is not a big airline—which carried 357 000 people—this I submit is quite a lot of people—and it made a profit of $2,7 million. I can also quote from a trade magazine that Scandinavian Airlines, SAS, made a profit of R100 million in 1982. So not all airlines are unprofitable.

The next question which one asks oneself is why there are such big losses in the US and elsewhere. The hon. the Minister in this country of course blamed the price of oil, the price of jet fuel, for the big losses, and he has correctly pointed to the tremendous escalation in price, but in the US and elsewhere the answer is not the escalating prices—they have had escalating prices as well as far as oil is concerned—but the answer is price wars. Let me quote from Time of 21 February this year—

Yet they are in fact doing it for only $99! Further on in the same article it is stated—

That is the reason why, in America, there are headlines such as “Turbulence in the skies”. They attribute fully to the price wars on cheap fares the fact that the airlines in America suffer such hefty losses. I personally benefited from some of these cut fares. Last year I flew from Gatwich to Corfu. It was approximately a three-hour trip by Boeing 737. My return fare—and I was in the air for almost six hours—was £70. Compare that with some of the prices we pay internally or externally on South African Airways.

Why did you return? You should have stayed there.

The main reason for the losses suffered by overseas airlines involves the price war, but S.A. Airways does not have this competition. Internally it has a total monopoly on the main internal routes. Externally the airlines coming into South Africa are strictly controlled and the fares are also incredibly high by cut-rate standards overseas. Here I am not talking about normal price structures. I am now talking about cut-rate standards. This has a detrimental effect on other facets of South African life, for example the tourist industry. If we had the same rate per kilometre flown as some of the airlines with their cut-rate fares overseas—transatlantic routes, for example—our tourism from the USA and Europe could increase dramatically. It could increase as much as fourfold or fivefold, and the spin-offs from this for the hotel industry and many other industries would be tremendous. I should now like to quote the hon. member for Kempton Park, who said in his speech yesterday (Hansard, 7 February 1983)—

He was talking about the SAA—

Later in his speech he says—

And he was right. It is very important that we should have tourists in South Africa because they are of tremendous benefit to our economy. They bring in foreign exchange, foreign currency, and generally the whole country can, in fact, benefit. Despite the advantages of the monopoly on internal service and no cut-rate fares between the rest of the world and South Africa, S.A. Airways still budgets for a loss of R120 million.

Let us analyse those losses. Revenue has increased dramatically. [Interjections.] Yes, perhaps the hon. the Minister should take some of those cut-rates overseas and stay over there. Revenue from passengers is five-sixths of the total amount of revenue, and this has grown from R414 million in the financial year ending in 1980 to R653 million in the financial year ending 1982, an increase of 58%. In the financial year ending in 1983 it is estimated that it will bring in R767 million, an increase of 17,4% on that for the financial year ending in 1982 and 85% on that for the financial ending in 1980. So from 1980 to 1983 revenue from passenger fares has increased by 85%. Yet passenger journeys only increased from 3,797 million in 1980 to 3,977 million in 1982, an increase of only 4,7%. So an increase in passengers of only 4,7% must be compared with an increase in fare revenue of a full 85%. Obviously fare increases are what have made the big difference here.

Let us look at expenses in general. Flying operation expenses have certainly increased, and jet-fuel costs must account for a very large share of that increase, but not all. What about staffing costs? How effectively are those staff members used? Is the flying crew fully utilized? Or do they have long periods sitting at home waiting for the call to tell them they are taking a particular flight? Sales promotion expenses increased from 1980 to 1983 by 95,2%. That is a tremendous increase in promotional expenses. Administration charges—that concerns the men who sit in their ivory tower and run the business, plus all their support mechanisms—have increased by 55%. Depreciation is another factor. Let me quote from Business Travel of March 1982. Under the heading “SAA: Public inquiry needed” one reads—

Following that up, I put a question on the Question Paper for reply by the hon. the Minister earlier this session. My question was (Question, col. 336)—

I expected some facts and figures, but I did not get any. I received a most unsatisfactory answer from the hon. the Minister. The reply was—

What does that mean? How quickly does one write off a Boeing 747 or 737 for instance? I should like some figures from the hon. the Minister on the individual aircraft— there are not that many—currently in use by the SAA. The types in use are the Boeing 747, the Boeing 747 SP, the Boeing 737 and the Airbus. Perhaps I could be given the figures just for those. Then, as I have indicated, the rate of depreciation is applied on the current replacement cost. I wish businessmen in this country could have the privilege of being able to depreciate their assets on the basis of current replacement cost. I am sure that the hon. the Minister of Finance and his tax collectors would have a lot to say about that.

As I have said, I believe that that question was very poorly answered. A number of questions were asked in the particular article to which I have referred, questions which I believe are valid. I quote—

Let me again quote some answers I got from the hon. the Minister in this regard, because I raised this very subject last year. The average number of seats occupied in the South African wide-bodied Boeing 747 jet was the following: Zurich to Vienna 25, return 44; Rome to Athens 88, return 103; Lisbon to Tel Aviv 85, return 100; Frankfurt to Amsterdam 39—in a wide-bodied 747!—return 76; and Frankfurt to Brussels 20—they must have rattled in that aircraft—and return 30. I submit that all these flights run at a dead loss to S.A. Airways. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what is in fact happening on the latest route, that from Johannesburg to Houston. How full is it? My information is that it is approximately 30% full and that the crew have to spend no less than one full week hanging around in Houston before they return.

Let me again quote some flying times I quoted last year: Johannesburg-Vienna by SAA 17 hours 20 minutes and by SAS 12 hours 15 minutes; Johannesburg-Tel Aviv by SAA 19 hours 25 minutes and by E1 A1 9 hours 55 minutes; Johannesburg-Rome time saving 3 hours 20 minutes; Johannesburg-Frankfurt time saving 3 hours 25 minutes; and Johannesburg-Athens time saving 5 hours 50 minutes.

What are you quoting from?

I am quoting from the schedules of the S.A. Airways. The hon. the Minister is always telling us how much jet fuel costs us and for what a large percentage of our total costs that is responsible. Yet we persist in flying to all these capital cities at fares which are calculated on the direct route distances. I therefore believe we need a complete reassessment of many of our international routes.

Attitudes towards customers also need to change. I will not again quote again from the circular about blackmail from which I quoted before in the House. It is now old history. Domestic add-on fares have been increased enormously by the S.A. Airways. I want to quote from an article under the heading “SAA axes domestic add-on fares”—

These are all fare increases on the S.A. Airways.

We have recently been told by the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs that jet fuel is to come down in price, and has now indeed come down, by 1,5 cents per litre. I want to explore some assumptions. On 3 March 1982 the hon. the Minister told us (Hansard, col. 2005) that fuel costs accounted for 37% of the total SAA expenditure. This would mean that the total fuel bill of the SAA in 1983-’84 would be approximately R433 million. I do not know what the SAA pays for its jet fuel, but I assume that 1,5 cents per litre represents a saving of approximately 5%. I might be wrong. It might be too much or it might be too little. However, if it were 5% S.A. Airways in the coming year would then save R21,6 million. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the decrease in price was taken into consideration in the 1983-’84 budget, and if not, what the estimated saving would be. Perhaps by the time the hon. the Minister has to reply his boffins could have worked out that figure.

All in all, I believe the budget for the S.A. Airways is most unsatisfactory, and I would personally urge a far more businesslike approach to the running of the S.A. Airways in future. Sir, I support the amendment of the hon. member for Berea.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to react to one aspect of the speech of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, viz. the item depreciation and higher replacement costs in the working estimates of the S.A. Airways. In the first place, I want to tell the hon. member that it is recognized accounting practice to make provision for depreciation. Will the hon. member grant me that?

Yes.

In the second place, it is also a recognized accounting practice to make provision for higher replacement costs in working estimates. Will the hon. member also grant me that?

No. You cannot do it in the accounts.

In that case we cannot conduct a debate. I urge the hon. member to study accounting practice, because in the time of high inflation in which we live, one must do one’s bookkeeping in such a way that one can also budget for higher replacement costs. If one does not do so, one is eventually going to find oneself in a position where new assets must be purchased, and one does not have the capital to do so. That is why all the recognized companies follow this procedure in order to place and maintain themselves on a sound financial basis.

I now want to refer to the working results of the S.A. Transport Services. There is a specific economic climate against the background of which the working results of the SATS must be seen and interpreted. The hon. member for De Kuilen and the hon. member for Kroonstad have already referred to this. Accordingly I shall not dwell on it. We see that in terms of the total picture the SATS finished the financial year, as far as their working estimates were concerned, with a total deficit of R58 million. If one analyses this R58 million further and looks at the four different main services, one sees that pipelines had a very good result and ended the year with a credit balance of R163 million, while our harbours ended the year with a credit balance of R140 million. In contrast, the SAA had a somewhat uncomfortable year and ended the working year with a deficit of R53 million, mainly as the result of an increase in the fuel price. However, the operating mine-field of the SATS lies in rail transport. Along with inflation, the operating account of the Railways is one of the biggest economic problems facing this country. Why is this? It is because the Railways ended its working year with a deficit of R150 million, and if one projects this back over the past six years, one finds that financially speaking the Railways has had an accumulated deficit of approximately R350 million. The figure for the present financial year is not yet available, but if one looks at the working estimates for 1983-’84, one finds that as far as the Railways as such is concerned, a deficit of R853 million has been budgeted for. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that, together with inflation, this deficit of R853 million on the operating account of the Railways is the biggest economic problem that is going to be facing the hon. the Minister and his management in the year ahead. Why do I say this? It is because rail transport is concerned with basic commodities of life. Everything must be transported. If the deficit were to be eliminated by means of tariff increases, this would have an escalating effect and inflation would increase drastically. The Administration is therefore confronted by this question: How can this deficit be financed? It cannot be financed from internal sources—I wish I had the time to reply to the hon. member for De Aar— but only in one of two ways: Either by means of cross-subsidization or by means of an increase in tariffs. What happens if one makes use of cross-subsidization? The railway component of the SATS is the senior partner of the SAA, the harbours and the pipelines. Its renevue and expenditure account totals R4 100 million. If we want to make good the loss on rail transport by means of cross-subsidization from the profits on pipelines and harbours, then the junior partners, which are responsible for approximately 10% of the revenue of the SATS, must carry the senior partner, which is responsible for 80% of the expenditure of the SATS. I maintain that these junior partners, pipelines and harbours, are not able to finance the massive deficit on Railway transport. So much, then, for cross-subsidization.

If the loss is to be made good by means of tariff increases, this would also be counterproductive. On page 1 of the annual report it is made quite clear that in terms of tonnage, high-rated traffic is decreasing, whereas lowrated traffic—also in terms of tonnage—is increasing. If we sought to supplement the revenue of the Railways by means of tariff increases, what would happen? High-rated traffic would be priced out of the market and in this way the high-rated traffic, which is the revenue-bearing transport for the SATS, would be diverted to other modes of transport.

The problem is that the basis on which the SATS is able to generate revenue is dwindling. Today high-rated traffic constitutes 12% of the total tonnage transported and that percentage is going to become smaller as tariffs rise further. That is why I do not think that the option of resorting to tariff increases is open to the hon. the Minister.

I want to approach this problem from another angle, viz. the angle of capital expenditure. Last year R1 631 was spent in this regard, 81% of which was used for goods and services connected with rail transport. In other words, capital obtained at a high premium and a high interest rate, is being ploughed into a branch of the SATS which is working at a loss. If one analyses the matter carefully, one finds that the circle within which the SATS has to operate is constantly becoming smaller. Depreciation and higher replacement costs already total R475 million. These are levied on assets which, from a business point of view, generate not revenue but losses. The problem facing the hon. the Minister is that as far as the transportation of goods and passengers is concerned, the more goods one transports and the more passengers one transports, the larger one’s losses become—one’s profits do not grow; one’s losses do.

What we therefore have here is a complicated economic problem, and there are only two factors the administration has to isolate in this regard. There are only two factors. The first is passenger services, which at the moment burdens the Railways account with a loss of R600 million per annum.

R690 million.

The hon. the Minister says it is R690 million. In addition there are the costs involved in lowrated traffic; in terms of which 160 million tons of goods are transported below cost.

As far as the first factor, passenger services, is concerned, we have now reached the point where we must ask whether the Railway user can carry this loss or whether it has become a matter of national importance. As far as the loss on passenger services is concerned, we must decide one way or the other. We cannot place a steadily increasing deficit on a shrinking basis of revenue-generating traffic. By doing this we shall only be painting ourselves into a corner. A decision will therefore have to be taken within the foreseeable future first to sever the link between passenger services and the Railways and then to forge that link with the Treasury. After all, it is a matter of national priority. If this can in fact be done, the question which arises is not a question of the first order as the hon. member for Berea and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti would have it.

In his amendment the hon. member for Berea asked that the private sector be allowed to make a greater contribution to transportation services. This is one subsection of his amendment.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti wants a transport commission to be appointed to determine the share of the private haulier in the SATS. I do not believe this is necessary. Basically the problem is exactly as we have already explained it here, and if the question of the first order is replied to, namely, whether the deficit on the passenger services can be severed from the Railways account and linked to the Fiscus, the question of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti will no longer apply, because then the SATS will be able to do what it is called upon to do in section 7 of its Act, viz. to operate an economic transport service in accordance with normal business principles, which will be to the benefit of the whole of South Africa, if only these elements are isolated.

I therefore call upon this House and the hon. the Minister, as well as the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance—although he is not at present in the House—to try to see to it that these things are done. This element is the basis and the root of inflation. As soon as costs rise, as soon as tariffs rise, this has a cumulative effect throughout the entire economy. If 100 tins of condensed milk are transported, and the tariff has increased by 10%, that increase is not divided among the 100 tins—but 10% is levied on each tin. Here, then, we have the root of inflation.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Berea and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti could suggest a solution to this entire element of the operating budget of the SATS, it would be most welcome. However, they have shied away from the entire problem thus far. They do not want to discuss it, because after all, it is far easier to criticize than to come up with solutions.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bellville dealt with the activities and finances of the SATS in an extremely competent way. Many other hon. members who spoke before him also dealt with the activities and the finances of the SATS, a budget which does not look very promising. However, I do not wish to react any further to what the hon. member for Bellville said, since I wish to put forward a few ideas on the political milieu in which the SATS will have to function in future. For that reason I should like to move the following further amendment—

1. (1) Parliament will retain authority over all legislation affecting the S.A. Transport Services within the area of jurisdiction of the White Republic of South Africa;
2. (2) a Coloured person or an Indian will not be appointed as Minister, Deputy Minister, or a member of the Board, of the S.A. Transport Services;
3. (3) the White worker in the S.A. Transport Services will be protected;
4. (4) the necessary segregation measures are being taken to prevent crowding-out at stations and on premises of the S.A. Transport Services;
5. (5) racial mixing on trains and at public holiday resorts of the S.A. Transport Services will be prevented; and
6. (6) high priority will be accorded to the provision, maintenance and improvement of services conveying commuters to and from places of employment.”.

During the Second Reading debate on the Conditions of Employment (South African Transport Services) Bill, the hon. member for Langlaagte put a question to the hon. the Minister. He asked: “Does the hon. the Minister agree that a Coloured or an Indian could become the Minister of Transport in a new dispensation?” The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs replied: “Yes, of course.” Then the hon. member for Langlaagte said the hon. the Minister should say that a little louder and then the hon. the Minister, with Waterberg and Soutpansberg and the possible forthcoming elections at the back of his mind as this thought flashed through his head, had second thoughts and added: “You said that the State President would be a dictator, but such a dictator would not appoint someone who could not do the work as a Minister.” I wish to say to the hon. the Minister now that we on this side of the House— and I believe the Rev. Hendrickse as well— would like to know what the hon. the Minister meant when he said: “Surely the State President would not appoint someone who could not do the work as a Minister.” [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister’s reply seems to be an insult to the Coloureds and the Indians. [Interjections.] It seems as if the hon. the Minister wants to say that a Coloured or an Indian minister would not be able to do the work. [Interjections.] No, I am not being insulting. I want the hon. the Minister to tell us that he did not act in an insulting way towards those people. This is the question I am putting to him. Did the hon. the Minister mean that there is no Coloured or Indian who is suitable and competent enough to become the Minister of Transport Affairs? Was that not his intention?

No.

The hon. the Minister of Community Development says no. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs agrees with him. [Interjections.]

I should like to tell the hon. the Minister of Transport that the CP …

Messes everything up, yes.

… says that there are Coloureds and Indians who are competent enough to be Ministers—Ministers in their own Parliaments, of their own portfolios and in their own areas. We say that they are competent. We do not wish to insult these people. There are opportunities for them. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister and his party must be careful not to go the same way as the old United Party. The old United Party issued a little green book: “You want it, we have it.” I wish to say to the hon. the Minister that he should be careful not to give one reply in order to gain the support of the Coloureds and the Indians, and another reply to the White railway worker in order to retain his support for the NP.

That is false.

That hon. Minister may be insulting if he wishes and he may insult me personally, but what I should like is that he and his party should not say one thing to satisfy the Coloureds, and another thing to try and retain the White worker in the SATS for the National Party.

I have had the experience of NP workers saying: Yes, a Coloured can become a Minister, but surely PW would not appoint a Coloured. I have had experience of this.

They probably told you that in Kuruman.

Yes, in Kuruman.

And what have you been telling them all these years?

That is not what I told them. [Interjections.]

If NP workers are confronted with the remark of the hon. the Minister who said: “Yes, of course a Coloured may become the Minister of Transport Affairs”, such an NP worker replies: “Surely you know that there are no Coloureds or Indians who are competent enough to become a Minister of Transport Affairs”. The NP worker could now show him this Hansard and say: “You see, Hendrik said that”.

But surely I did not say that.

Where did he say that?

But it could be interpreted that way. [Interjections.] The NP workers are interpreting it that way. [Interjections.]

I have yet another problem with the reply which the hon. the Minister gave last week. The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs emphasized a new principle which is inherent in and which fits in with the guidelines for the new dispensation propagated by the NP. This is a dispensation of one country, one nation, one Government and one Cabinet. This is a principle which means that in appointments to the Cabinet and the councils of South Africa, only merit will count. In the 1977 proposals it was completely different. There would be a White Minister of Transport Affairs, and I should like to quote from this document which the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs published—

In the new dispensation, there will no longer be separate development in which Whites will govern Whites; the position is going to be that it will not matter whether one is White, Coloured or Indian. If one is the right person, one must be appointed to that post on merit, just as Tobias was chosen for the Springbok team.

Was Tobias chosen for the Springbok team on merit?

I would not like to misunderstand the hon. the Minister, and that is why I wish to ask him whether my inference is correct that appointments will be made on merit.

I cannot answer you because you distort (“verdraai”) everything.

He is a distorter (“verdraaier”).

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to say that the hon. member for Kuruman is a “verdraaier”?

Order! The hon. member for Kuruman may proceed.

Surely appointments to the Cabinet are political appointments, in other words, members of Parliament from all three chambers are eligible for positions in the Cabinet. The guidelines also state that people outside Parliament may also be appointed. However, we know that there is a problem in this regard, for if to many people from outside are appointed to the Cabinet there will be too many Ministers who will not have to account to the voters for their decisions.

Since the hon. the Minister and his department are already budgeting and planning for 1984 and 1985, I say that planning must also take place in respect of the activities of the S.A. Transport Services Board in future. The S.A. Transport Services Board plays an extremely important role in this planning, as well as in these activities. All Railway affairs are channelled through the board. Last year the hon. the Minister praised this board highly. He said last year that he regarded the board as being so important that he regarded the three Commissioners as Deputy Ministers. I agree with the hon. the Minister that it is an extremely important board, and I think the board renders excellent services to the SATS. At present the board consists of three members; Messrs. Albertyn, Erasmus and Aucamp. All three of them are former members of this House. Therefore all three of them are political appointments, and, as far as I know, all members who were appointed to this board in the past, were also political appointments.

No, that is not correct.

There may have been a few exceptions. I wish to put a question to the hon. the Minister. Is the hon. the Minister planning to enlarge the board when the new dispensation comes into operation? [Interjections.] I think that it is only logical that since politicians from this House have traditionally been appointed to that board …

It is not traditional.

… politicians from all three chambers in the new Parliament should be appointed to the board of the SATS. [Interjections.] Is the hon. the Minister planning to appoint members of the other chambers to that board as well? [Interjections.] We think that it would be only logical to do that. Is the hon. the Minister going to appoint people to that board in the ratio 4:2:1, the ratio of the number of members in the three chambers and the electoral college? [Interjections.] I am asking this because the Rev. Hendrickse recently said at Somerset East that he would not be satisfied unless the Cabinet was also formed on a 4:2:1 basis. [Interjections.] If the hon. the Minister appoints Coloureds and Indian members to the board—which I think is simply logical in terms of the Policy of that side of the House—I just wish to ask …

Jaap Marais would put forward a much better case than you.

The hon. the Minister is speaking about Jaap Marais. [Interjections.] Jaap Marais is the ally of Mr. P. W. Botha in Waterberg and Soutpansberg. [Interjections.] A vote for Mr. Jaap Marais in Waterberg is a vote for the NP. [Interjections.]

Order!

A further question is: If those members of the board are, in fact, appointed, are they going to live in Water-kloof? Is the State also going to purchase houses for them in Waterkloof? [Interjections.] Where will the children of those members of the board attend school? [Interjections.] I also wish to put another question to the hon. the Minister. It is contained in our motion. The SATS and the ATKV have their own seaside resorts. Mr. Kriel, the MEC in charge of local government in the Cape Province, said: “Eie strande is die ideaal van NP.” However, he also said—

That is what Mr. Kriel said. When a member of the Provincial Council asked him whether they would be able to choose where, he said that he would have no objection if they chose Sea Point. If those people were to choose Hartenbos or Natalia, would the hon. the Minister have any objections? I think the hon. the Minister should tell hon. members in this House. [Interjections.] As a result of the political milieu in which the SATS will have to function in future, an institution which affects the lives of thousands of people in South Africa, I think the hon. the Minister should furnish us with a reply on this matter.

Order! Before calling upon the next hon. member to speak I wish to point out that a point of order was raised a moment ago concerning the use of the word “distorter” (“verdraaier”). I examined the context in which it was used and found that the hon. the Minister had first said “You are distorting the facts”, upon which the hon. member for Kimberley South said: “You are a distorter.” I do not think that is parliamentary in the context in which it was used, and accordingly I call upon the hon. member for Kimberley South to withdraw the word.

Mr. Speaker, I did not say that he was a distorter (“verdraaier”). I said he was a “turner” (“draaier”).

Order! No, the hon. member used the word “verdraaier”. I call upon the hon. member to withdraw the word.

I withdraw it, Sir. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs say: “I stand by what I said: You are a damn scoundrel (“dêm skelm”)”? [Interjections.]

Did the hon. the Minister say that?

Yes, Sir.

The hon. the Minister must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The hon. member Dr. Welgemoed may proceed.

After all the sensitivity on the part of the CP and after everything that they have said, I want to dwell for a moment on the amendment they moved. It begins by anticipating matters. As far as I know, the new constitution has not yet been tabled. However, in recent times in particular the hon. members of the CP have been talking about it and in particular, causing friction. Last night my bench mate said very clearly to the hon. member for Nigel that they were trying to hijack the White worker of the SATS. My colleague dealt very effectively with that aspect. [Interjections.] Since the hon. member for Jeppe is so talkative, he should tell us whether the CP is still echoing the views of the AWB.

Oh no, you ape … [Interjections.]

Let us look at the amendment moved by the CP. In it the following is asked—

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I want to put a point of order: May the hon. member for Jeppe call the hon. member “an ape”?

No. The hon. member for Jeppe must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Sir, you have my sympathy because I do not know how you are going to continue confining him to his cage. [Interjections.] In the first place, a question is asked in this amendment about White South Africa. The answer is: Yes, this Parliament will continue to have jurisdiction. Now, however, I wish to ask another question with reference to the problem stated here by the CP. They ask who the General Manager is going to be. Now we want to know: According to their policy we have one railway system. But what about the heartlands? Are there going to be 625 general managers for the Coloured railway line and something more than 300 for the Indian railway line, not to mention the Whites as well?

What is the case in Bophuthatswana?

I say that the Railways will be managed as it has always been managed up to now.

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

No, sit down. You have spoken enough. Those hon. members are consistently causing friction before the election. Not one of the speeches made on that side thus far has been about the S.A. Transport Services. They have only discussed politics. I now want to come back to the subject of the debate.

In my opinion there has been a great deal of unjustified criticism, particularly of the management of the SATS and the hon. the Minister. This criticism, for the most part, relates to two points. The first is that budgeting has been inadequate. The second point of criticism is that the hon. the Minister and the management of the SATS interpreted the economy incorrectly. Those are the two main points of criticism levelled by the Opposition. Let us discuss those two points for a moment.

It is surely a recognized fact that throughout the world the transport sector is in a crisis at the present time. Various speakers on this side have discussed this. This statement does not only apply to the S.A. Transport Services but to the entire transport sector. All modes of transport are involved in the crisis that prevails in transport at the moment.

To begin with I want to refer to the airlines. In the twelve months up to the middle of this year, American Airlines will show a deficit of more than $3 billion. The figure for 1982 was a little more than $2 billion. The airlines for the rest of the world are in the same position. The position in the shipping industry is the same. A large proportion of the sea-going fleet has been put in mothballs because it is a problem to utilize those ships. Hon. members will recall that during the discussion of the motion of the hon. member for Roodeplaat, the hon. the Minister quoted figures relating to the losses suffered by the railways systems of the world. Harbours throughout the world are in serious difficulties due to the drop in demand for marine traffic. The harbours are not being utilized and are having difficulty obtaining an income for further expansions with a view to a future upturn.

As far as the RSA is concerned I should like to single out road transport. At the moment approximately 25% of the road vehicle service fleet is standing idle because there is no work. On those grounds I contend that the entire transport sector, not only in the RSA, but throughout the world, is experiencing difficulties in these times of crisis. This causes me to query whether all the people in other parts of the world also read the economy incorrectly and budgeted incorrectly. I refuse to belive that. Therefore we may reject with the necessary contempt the point of criticism advanced here. The Opposition must realize that the transport sector is one of the most sensitive in the national economy as a whole. It has been shown in practice that there are very few sectors that are as sensitive as the transport sector, particularly when there is a downturn. Moreover, the transport sector will also be the first to have to meet the demands when the business cycle is in an upward phase and attains a higher level.

Throughout the world the question is being asked: Why is the transport sector experiencing problems? It is customary that the transport sector throughout the world provides for peaks. As soon as peaks are involved we encounter the problem that in a downward phase the transport sector drops so much further as far as peaks are concerned. Now we come to the point about which I want to pay tribute to the hon. the Minister and his department, i.e. that they have not ceased to tackle capital works. Capital works are expensive and cannot be provided overnight. That is why it is imperative that we continue to make provision for the upward phase, although at a retarded tempo, because as sure as there is a downswing now, there will be an upswing as well, with the increased demand that that entails.

The volume at present available in the transport sector is probably about 20% to 25% less than it was 12 to 15 months ago. It is a simple exercise to find the reason for the losses being suffered at present. In the same breath I also wish to point out the dangers that threaten us at present with regard to the internal subsidization concept which is being forced onto the S.A. Transport Services. Here I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Bellville, who spelt out this point very clearly. If we think that the deficit on socio-economic passenger services amount to approximately R690 million to R700 million, then it is interesting to note that the contribution of the hon. the Minister of Finance in the 1982-’83 financial year was in the region of R340 million. That still leaves a deficit of approximately R350 million. That amount is approximately equal to the deficit. I wish to appeal today for a move away from the principle that the S.A. Transport Services must always make use of internal subsidization to iron out the problem of the socio-economic services. Things cannot go on like this. In the course of several downward phases of the business cycle we have seen that this does not work. When there is an upward phase there is a possibility of accommodating this principle, but the moment there is a drop, it cannot be accommodated. This facet brings me to the point that there are insufficient goods that could be used to make provision for these socioeconomic services. Accordingly I should like to make a request here that consideration be given to the matter of internal subsidization. I shall come back to this in a moment with reference to the amendment of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti.

The saving in cost due to increased effectiveness and the other purposeful economies have contributed greatly to improving the financial position, but if the S.A. Transport Services did not itself have to carry the R700 million deficit suffered on the socio-economic services, the organization would have balanced its books for the preceding financial year. This brings me to a point that stands out very clearly, and that is that transport demand is essential and that that transport demand must be so constituted that the SATS can have its rightful share. As soon as it obtains its rightful share it can make use of internal subsidization, but if itidoes not obtain it, then that places it in a competitive position, and at the moment there is not sufficient freight for everyone in this country.

I now come to the amendment of the hon. member for Berea. In my opinion this hon. member is somewhat wide of the mark in that his amendment contains contradictions. The first leg of his amendment is an example of this, in that he states that tariffs must be levied in order to ensure increased revenue. I want to give hon. members the assurance that if that happens we shall encounter the problem that traffic will be diverted away from the SATS and may even dry up. The first leg on the hon. member’s amendment reads—

I have a problem with that. The SATS cannot keep increasing its tariffs. In certain instances we are discouraging freight, and we should realize this. The SATS cannot continue to increase tariffs to compensate for socio-economic services. That principle must be abandoned, and the sooner the better, if our railways want to be in a position to be competitive.

The second point advanced by the hon. member for Berea, about which he and I have already crossed swords, is the third leg of his amendment, in which he talks about the racial policies of the Government. I have put the question to the hon. member for Berea before. I do not know whether Japan, France, Germany and the United States have apartheid, and yet their deficits are far, far greater than ours. Accordingly I request the hon. member to kindly have the third leg of his amendment withdrawn by their next speaker. It would be appropriate to take a penetrating look at how people in the business world draw up their budgets and perform their calculations. The SATS do it in the same way as private organizations do their calculations when they make investments. The hon. the Minister must give us the figures in respect of what the deficit on passenger services is going to be for every R1 million that the Railways invests in these services. It is essential that we have this figure so that we can resolve this matter for once and for all, if necessary, at the Third Reading. On page 18 of the report of the S.A.Transport Services Board for 1982 it is clearly spelt out that the tariff structure and policy of the S.A. Transport Sevices, as embodied in the S.A. Transport Services Act, 1981—and this is where the trouble lies— makes matters difficult in times of low business activity, and this is why the deficits accumulate. I refer hon. members to that if they wish to look it up. Another problem that arises here is that if the Minister gives us that figure, we shall see how quickly the deficits on an invested amount become equal to the capital invested. According to what I have been told by the General Manager, within five to eight years those deficits are equal to the capital invested. I see a problem in this. On 25 February the hon. member for Greytown said in the course of the discussion of a private motion moved by the hon. member for Roodeplaat that the PFP accepted that socio-economic services were essential, that cross-subsidization was essential and that rail transport should be protected. Those are the three points that the hon. member made, and in this lies the reason for my request that other sources of finance be used to put rail transport in a competitive position. The competitive position of rail transport is being weakened; that is the direction in which we are moving at the moment.

This brings me to another point which is relevant from time to time, viz. the point that when things are going well with the railway system, everyone insists that we make it a State corporation. The Marais Report made a recommendation to this effect in paragraph 701. The then Minister, Mr. Ben Schoeman, shot it down. In recent times this has come to the fore again due to a discussion of the matter by the Handelsinstituut and the report of the Klue Study Group. The present hon. Minister reacted to this on 25 November 1982 as follows—

I go along with this. Until such time as the competitive position of the SATS, due to socio-economic services, is not of such a nature that there can be a movement to free competition we must forget about making it a State corporation. I am in favour of free competition but then it must take place at a point at which it will not upset the power position within the market factors in the various transport modes. Such a State corporation would not solve the socio-economic problem either.

I have with me a report which appeared in the Japan News. We know, of course, that the Japanese railways is a State corporation. Nevertheless they are showing an average annual deficit of R4 000 million. Let us see what the Government has done to assist that State corporation—

Here, then, we see what stage a State corporation has reached in Japan. My opinion is that if we want a State corporation to solve the problem in respect of socio-economic services we had better forget about it. Until such time as we have solved the problem in connection with socio-economic services the Ministry of Transport must remain in control of affairs. I also wish to point out that in various West European States in which State corporations also operate, their problems have by no means been solved and the State has had to intervene on a large scale because there, like here, they have been unable to make use of internal cross-subsidization.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to reply to me on two points. The first is this: What is the possibility of us achieving a still greater degree of co-operation with private initiative? We see what is going on at Richards Bay, where an excellent co-operation agreement has been entered into between the coal people and the railways. However, I believe that if we can succeed in obtaining the co-operation of private initiative to a still greater degree, this would assist us in the acquisition of capital and cause the private entrepreneur to be more bound to the services in which he is interested. In this regard I want to refer hon. members to a brief report which appeared in this morning’s Cape Times on page 19 concerning the export of coal through Richards Bay. According to that report, exports are being cut by 35%. But whereas exports are being cut by 35%, the capital equipment is still standing there. We cannot pack it away or sell it. Next year the demand may increase again, and then we shall have to have the equipment to deal with the increased demand. In the meantime that equipment, which is very capital-intensive, must be maintained while there is no revenue to cover the maintenance. I therefore ask that we spread the risks that we run in the modern economy to some extent.

The second point on which I should like a reaction from the Minister is one which I want to deal with very circumspectly. Several questions have been asked about this in the past as well. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti has proposed certain commissions too. In this and previous sittings the hon. the Minister has put forward various principles and policies as regards the financial policy of the SATS. I agree with the norms he has set, but I ask that the supplying of socio-economic services which are made good by internal subsidization be examined in depth once again. The Franzsen Report only solves part of the problems. I ask that the Franzsen Report be considered together with the other possibilities. I think that in the light of what has been said in this debate thus far it is essential that fresh consideration be given to ways in which this problem may be solved. Last year I asked the hon. the Minister to continue with the drafting of a national transport policy. He appointed committees and working groups for this purpose as well as to investigate a Transport Advisory Board. I myself also helped to initiate this. I ask that this be stopped. It is not going to work. After I have seen how it works in other countries, I want to state that it is not going to work. An Advisory Board alone does not solve problems. Let the hon. the Minister rather appoint a committee within his department to enable the ministry to establish a broad advisory and co-ordinating body, because if one wants to advise, one must also be able to coordinate. The one without the other does not solve any problems. I should be obliged if the hon. the Minister would declare his views on the desirability of such a possibility.

Mr. Speaker, I think we should be grateful to the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed for his presentation here this afternoon. He has certainly brought this debate back onto the rails. What he has said comes from an expert in this field and I want to commend him on the remarks he made, coming as they do, close to the amendment moved by my colleague the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. For instance, I commend him for his comments in regard to involving private initiative to a greater degree in Railway matters. This is what we would like to see, and it is therefore very interesting to hear this sort of talk coming from that hon. gentleman who, as I said earlier, is acknowledged as an expert in the transportation field.

Sir, I have a certain amount of sympathy with the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs. The situation we face here today is that while he is most probably the most popular personality in this Chamber, he is having to defend one of the most unpopular budgets we have ever seen. I am pleased that he yesterday expressed more than just a passing interest in the amendment that was moved by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, so much so that he immediately called for a copy of that amendment, which was subsequently sent to him across the floor of the House. I should ask the hon. the Minister to study that amendment again, and I refer him particularly to paragraph (2)(b). It ties in here with the comments that have just been made by the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed. We are calling for a commission—if one wants to call it that—that will enable the Transport Services to have a board of directors whose responsibility it will be to gear the SATS more to the needs of all sectors of the South African economy and to ensure a tight rein on expenditure, and raise the productivity of all SATS assets. I believe this is terribly important. I believe that one of the greatest assets of the SATS …

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member tell us whether he intends the foundation of a corporation of the nature of Iscor or Escom?

So, Sir, we do not envisage that. We are not looking for that sort of thing at all. I think the amendment that was moved by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti is quite clear. The intention of it is quite clear. It is not intended that we should have an Iscor-Escom type of organization. We are looking for a board that will incorporate and embody people from all walks of life in South Africa, and not just merely those with a political background.

One of the greatest assets of the SATS is of course its staff. That is an asset where we should like to see productivity levels raised. I should like to see this action put into effect in my particular field of interest, and that is the SAA. In the limited time at my disposal I should like to pass a few general remarks about the SAA. Ever since the so-called oil crisis of 1973—and I use the word “so-called” reservedly—and a number of oil crises we have had subsequent to that one, escalating prices have been the order of the day throughout world airlines. The airlines of the world have all subsequently had viability problems. I believe that the South African air traveller has had more than his fair share of price increases, which have been initiated in order to meet rising costs. We are invariably told at every increase that fuel is far and away the major contributory item. This we accept but we do believe that we have reached the stage now where the hon. the Minister must agree that tariff increases over the years have outstripped fuel price increases percentagewise. I am sure that the hon. the Minister, if he examines the figures, will find that that is indeed the case.

I wanted to devote my remarks more particularly to the internal service of the SAA. I believe it is particularly the internal service that needs attention. South Africa needs its airways, but equally SAA needs South Africans. It needs South African commuter traffic. It needs the travelling public of South Africa or else SAA cannot exist. I should like to put it to the hon. the Minister today that he must beware. He must beware that tariff increases do not drive the businessman back into his motor car. This can easily happen. This can happen between the cities of say, Durban and Johannesburg, or Pietermaritzburg and Johannesburg. It can happen between the cities of Bloemfontein and Johannesburg. It can happen that the businessman will say that he will make up a car-load of his colleagues and that they will go together to say, Johannesburg to do their business. He will say that it will be a lot cheaper than to travel by air. We are fast approaching that very situation, and I believe that this is one of the reasons for the fall in what I call commuter air traffic between all those centres. I know that Cape Town probably presents a slightly different picture. The same could also happen, however, between East London and Port Elizabeth, or between George and Cape Town. The permutations are endless. I leave that to the hon. the Minister to think of. I think the time has come for a close examination and a reappraisal of all other costs incurred in operating a successful and a popular airline, because that is what I believe S.A. Airways is. It is a successful and a popular airline. However, we must also look at the other costs besides fuel.

I want to pose this question: Is the hon. the Minister happy that staff productivity is maintained at an acceptable level? I also want to ask another question that has been asked across the floor of this House on numerous occasions: Is it necessary for internal services to provide the sophisticated cabin service that they do? Do we have to have it? We have talked about free drinks and free food in in this regard I have my own personal view. I do not believe that anybody should be given a free drink on S.A. Airways. Like the PFP caucus that always has problems, I have a problem with that particular point in my caucus. However, I have no problem with the fact that I do not think it is necessary for a businessman who gets up, drives to Durban airport, climbs aboard the aeroplane and makes his way to the first class section to have to wipe his face on a hot towel. I know it sounds silly, but what for? Why must we have all these little frills and fancies? They all cost money. I also ask: Are personnel in our airport terminals fully employed? Are they employed to their peak productivity? Do we not sometimes incur unnecessary expenditure in respect of hotel accommodation for crew and cabin staff on our internal services? I think this is a point worth considering.

I should also like to add my voice to that of my colleague regarding costs that have to be borne by S.A. Airways in respect of free passes and special concessions. I believe that the cost of free passes and special concessions to State personnel must be borne by the departments concerned and not by S.A. Airways. [Interjections.] They should be borned by the relative Ministries. The hon. the Minister must pass the buck. The other departments have got to pay. Parliament has to pay for the transportation of members of Parliament. That is what it is all about. Unfortunately, the limited time at my disposal precludes my dealing with this vexed matter in greater detail. However, I do want to remind the hon. the Minister that S.A. Airways is an airline that we all take pride in. We want to see it grow but we do not want to see it grow at the unnecessary expense of the taxpayer.

I should like now to turn to a matter of a domestic nature although I think that it is a problem that could be experienced across the length and breadth of South Africa. It is for that reason that I am raising it during this Second Reading debate. It may be argued that the rains that fell yesterday and overnight may obviate the need for further discussion of this point. However, I do feel it is something to which we should address ourselves now and that it is also something that we must bear in mind for all time. The little town of Gingindhlovu in my constituency last week found itself with sufficient water for a maximum of 12 days, and this after stringent water rationing had been in effect for some while. Gingindlovu uses a maximum of 75 kilolitres of water per day, that is, with rationing. Sappi, which is a firm that is well known, is situated at Mandini on the banks of the Tugela River which is some 25 to 30 kilometres away. Sappi on its own and out of the goodness of its heart offered to load two 36 kilolitre tankers per day—these are SATS tankers—which could then be transported from Mandini up to Gingindlovu. This is co-operation of the highest order under extreme conditions. As I have said, the distance by rail is between 25 and 30 km. On Friday morning I was advised by my MPC of this urgent problem and, in the absence of the hon. the Minister, I immediately contacted the General Manager of the SATS, Dr. Grové, and told of the problem because the SATS Administration in Natal had correctly advised the authorities concerned that there was no special tariff that they could apply. You see, Sir, the book says that one can get a special reduction only in respect of droughtstricken areas but nowhere can one ever define a town as a droughtstricken area. It may sound ridiculous but this is actual fact. There is no special tariff laid down in this regard.

May I interrupt? It was decided yesterday to grant a special discount in this connection.

Hear, hear!

I thank the hon. the Minister, Sir. That gives me all the more reason to continue with what I want to say and that is that I approached Dr. Grové and I received a sympathetic hearing from that gentleman which I think is highly commendable and for which I am extremely grateful. He told me that he would speak to the hon. the Minister. I knew full well that once he has spoken to the hon. the Minister, that he, the hon. the Minister, would react favourably. I believe this is something that needs to be highlighted because should this appalling drought continue in other parts of South Africa, other areas could be similarly affected. I do not expect the SATS to subsidize water traffic, but I do believe that such traffic should be dealt with on a cost only basis. I think that is probably what the hon. the Minister is offering us in my constituency between Mandini and Gingindhlovu. He is obviously going to make an announcement to this effect, and should he make an announcement of the acceptability of this principle for other areas, I think it would come as a great relief to South Africans who are being very sorely affected by the crippling drought in which we find ourselves.

I have unfortunately run out of time. I have other matters which I should have liked to raise with the hon. the Minister, but I should like to stress the points that I have raised in connection with SAA. I should like to ask that the hon. the Minister and the Administration apply themselves diligently to to the effects of continuing escalation in tariffs and the continuing escalation of ticket prices on SAA. They should look very, very carefully at productivity in SAA because if we are to maintain and grow internally in SAA, we cannot afford to go on hiking the prices in order to offset these rising costs.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umhlanga dealt mainly with matters of a more local or domstic nature and also with matters of a more administrative nature in regard to which he addressed himself more specifically to the hon. the Minister. I assume that the hon. the Minister will set his mind at rest. Nor was there anything controversial in what he said either. There may even have been constructive ideas. I am certain that in that regard, too, he will get a satisfactory reaction from the hon. the Minister.

I should like to touch on one specific aspect of the Administration’s programme of rationalization. There is a well-known saying—and there is a great deal of truth in it— that a crisis is the best test of a person. It is the best test of character and ability. And this applies to an individual, it applies equally well to a body like the SATS. It is also a well-known fact that during the past number of years, at least during the past year or two, the SATS has had to endure severe crisis conditions. It has been afflicted by them, and we have had to endure very hard times as a result of the difficult financial situation being experienced throughout the country. Actually we are in a recession.

Clearly these conditions have shown us what the SATS is made of, and more specifically the calibre of the human material of the SATS. In this regard I also want to agree with what the hon. the member for Umhlanga said when he referred to the human material as a major asset of the SATS. When I refer to the human material, I am thinking more specifically of the top management. The hon. the Minister is in the position of ultimate responsibility, but he is very ably assisted by a select corps of top officials.

The organization, under this leadership, has reacted to the situation in which we find ourselves and has handled it not only extremely ably and with great dedication, but also with the utmost responsibility. The budget speech of the hon. the Minister also gave striking proof of the responsible way in which this situation was handled. I do not want to go into detail. I do not have the time. In general terms I want to say that the hon. the Minister and his department displayed the courage to do what was in the interests of the country in the medium and long term. The hon. the Minister and his department also withstood the temptation to do things—or refrain from doing things— which would have been popular only in the short term. Nowhere are these truths better illustrated than in the department’s measures to rationalize its passenger train services— and more specifically the suburban passenger services. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister and the department deserve to be complimented—in fact to be praised—for the programme of rationalization of passenger train services. I also maintain that my evidence in this connection carries a great deal of weight, because I am giving evidence as a representative of a constituency in which there was initially very strong resistance to the proposed curtailments. As a result I had to address very strong and serious representations on behalf of the relevant commuters to the hon. the Minister and his department opposing the proposed curtailment of the services. I also want to state that the hon. the Minister and his department deserve appreciation and praise for the way in which those representations were received and the way in which they acted in connection with the entire matter. I should like to return to this later if time permits.

The interested parties in this specific case—those who were affected—were mainly Railway workers, and also factory workers. In my constituency a great many of the voters are dependent on suburban train services for transport to and from their places of employment, in this specific case, in two separate directions, namely from Despatch to Port Elizabeth on the one hand and to Uitenhage on the other.

When it became known—the hon. the Minister indicated in his budget speech last year already that this would happen—that the services would be curtailed, and that there was even a possibility of their being phased out, there was considerable dismay in that part of the world. That is also quite understandable, if one bears in mind that a community like that has become very dependent on the convenience of those services over the years. In addition there was also a fact we should not lose sight of—and I think the hon. the Minister and his department will readily admit this—namely, that the curtailment on that specific section was drastic in the extreme, as was probably also the case on sections in other urban areas. These proposed curtailments were drastic ones. Just by way of illustration—I cannot, however, refer to all the cases—I want to mention the position on the Port Elizabeth-Despatch-Uitenhage section. Of course this also applies to other metropolitan areas where under-utilized suburban services have been run for many years. In consequence of the facts I have just given, it became evident that changes had become imperative if the position was to be improved. On that section there were 52 passenger trains in the course of the week, from Monday to Friday. If one considers that this was to have been reduced to 20 trains, one can understand the alarm this would cause members of the relevant community. However we must give the Railways credit for handling the problem extremely carefully. As I said, train journeys were to be reduced from 52 to 20, which would mean a saving of no less than 60%.

If one considers the utilization of those services at that stage, one sees that the action of the Railways was understandable and justified. If we analyse the 52 services, we find that the position was briefly as follows: Nine of those 52 trains had a utilization rate of less than 5%, in other words, no less than 17% had a utilization rate of less than 5%; five trains had a utilization rate of between 5% and 10%; the rate for nine trains fell between 10% and 20%; for seven trains between 20% and 30%; for eight trains between 30% and 40%; and for six trains between 40% and 50%. The remaining eight out of the 52 trains had a utilization rate of more than 50%. This means that only 15% of the 52 trains had a utilization rate of 50% or more while the rate for 85% was less than 50%.

Then, too, we must bear in mind that space for standing passengers was not taken into consideration in this calculation. If one also takes space for standing passengers into consideration, the utilization rate will be even lower. If one also takes weekend trains into account, those running on Saturdays and Sundays, the position is even more unsatisfactory. There were 53 such trains and only 13% of them—only seven of the 53— had a utilization rate of more than 50%. In other words, no less than 87% of the 53 trains were underutilized by 50% and more; seven even had a utilization rate of less than 5%. Here, too, space for standing passengers was not taken into consideration.

The proposal here was that there would be a saving of 73,6% because the number of train journeys would be reduced from 53 to only 14 per weekend. This was a drastic proposal that involved sweeping reductions but under the circumstances, and after the position had been explained, we accepted that the rationalization programme was fully justified and even essential. One could perhaps even maintain that it would have been irresponsible of the SATS to continue with the unsatisfactory and uneconomic utilization of trains. The community can feel grateful that the administration was patient for so long and continued with those uneconomic services for so long.

We should also like to express our praise and appreciation to the Minister for the way in which he and his department reacted to the representations addressed to them on behalf of the relevant commuters at that stage. I think we have here a striking illustration of the responsible way in which the SATS deals with sensitive matters of this nature. It attests to the seriousness, the understanding and even the compassion with which the interests and convenience of commuters are considered. It also attests to the circumspect way in which the SATS deals with such matters. There was no suggestion of autocratic implementation of this programme. There was full consultation, and not only by means of correspondence. I want to praise the hon. the Minister for the fact that he treated this matter and the representations he received so seriously. In addition to placing his commissioners and other top officials at our disposal towards the end of last season to explain the matter to us, at my request and at the request of other interested parties the hon. the Minister took the matter further so that we could even investigate the matter on the spot. We were able to sit around a table in Port Elizabeth with the commissioners and top officials and the matter was explained to us with the aid of all the necessary apparatus. I must say we are convinced that there was no alternative but to continue with the rationalization programme, and that it would actually have been irresponsible not to have done so. On behalf of the community and everyone using that service I want to express appreciation to the hon. the Minister and his department for the way in which they acted.

I also feel it is no more than right that we should also give recognition to, and express appreciation for, the way in which that community reacted. These were far-reaching measures which in many cases caused inconvenience. People had to make adjustments because they no longer enjoyed the same facilities. In some cases even their hours of work had to be adjusted. However, this was done, and I think the fact that the community reacted in that way deserves our praise, recognition and appreciation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sundays River furnished interesting figures concerning the rationalization of train services and the occupation of passenger trains, and he also referred to matters affecting his constituency. I think he will excuse me if I do not react to those matters any further.

Unfortunately, I was not present when the debate commenced yesterday, but if the hon. the Minister has not yet been thanked for the wise decision not to announce tariff increases, I wish to do that now in advance. I am doing so specifically on behalf of the farming community of the Republic of South Africa and particularly on behalf of the stock-farmers in the North West. If tariff increases were to be announced now in order to eliminate losses, the stock-farmers would scarcely be able to make ends meet. The right decision was taken. A fine Minister took that decision, and it was a good decision. We thank him sincerely for this.

The problem of the SATS today has been repeatedly thrashed out here. The hon. the Minister and the SATS are not the cause of these problems. There are various causes such as the cost factor, the inflation rate and the drought. I wish to associate myself whole-heartedly with other hon. speakers who have already said that it is not for the SATS alone to render a social service. One need only look at the figures with regard to the suburban passenger services quoted here. One could also consider the 40-off card, the Tripper Card for the national serviceman, as well as the welfare services rendered in times of drought and in crises. These things are not done for the SATS, but are done in the interests of the country.

I wish to address myself to the hon. the Minister on one point. We live in a vast country—this is true and it is no use wanting to refute the facts—and often semi-utilized and under-utilized vehicles are used. I have previously asked whether it would not be possible to use lighter vehicles in those areas. I feel that such an “Orange Express” would be able to render a much better service going up the Roggeveld mountains and the Nuweveld mountains than the large “Diamond Ts” and it would also be able to convey the most essential commodities at a much cheaper tariff. I foresee that this could bring about a considerable saving for the SATS.

I hasten to come to another point. In fact, I wish to point out what a stabilizing factor the SATS is, not only in the economy and the development of the Republic of South Africa, but also in that of Southern Africa, of the continent of Africa. More or less 50 years ago this country, as an industrial country, was mainly dependent on imports for its industrial development. The Railways as well. However, since then the Railways, through close liaison with, and encouragement from the private sector, has grown as our country’s economy has grown. Through its development policy, it caused industries to develop here which today are mainly dependent on the SATS for their existence.

Therefore the SATS has not only made its contribution as the largest employee in this country, it has also been indirectly responsible for the creation of opportunities of employment at firms and other enterprises. With the technical knowledge of its inspection staff, the SATS has supported these firms through thick and thin, not only so that they may supply the needs of the SATS, but so that to a large extent, they could become competitive abroad and enter the overseas markets. The SATS played a very important role here too, in introducing these firms to foreign countries.

The SA Airways, another branch of the SATS, followed virtually the same course. Geographically, it is situated far from its purchase centres, its workshops and it maintenance markets. Therefore the SAA necessarily has to concentrate on working out its own designs, methods of construction, repair procedures, maintenance schedules, and so on. It has succeeded in this to such an extent, that today it is able to play an extremely important role in Africa and it is able to give technical advice and assistance to our neighbouring countries as well.

Today South Africa is a leader as far as transport in Southern Africa is concerned. Geographically, South Africa is situated in such a way that Africa may benefit from the wealth, the stability and the economy of the Republic. Today the RSA has agreements with the majority of the States in Africa. The SAA is prepared to assist these people with the training of cabin, air and ground staff. The Republic is prepared to exchange knowledge in every sphere purely for the sake of economic co-operation. This also fits in with its constellation policy for Southern Africa. Today, although the SATS only has one-third of the total length of the railway lines in Africa, it deals with more than two-thirds of the ton kilometre load on the continent of Africa. This is almost fifteen times more than Zimbabwe, which deals with the second most traffic on this continent. As I have already said, our geographic position lends itself extremely favourably to this, and Africa is completely dependent on the SATS for its railway requirements. Air and passenger traffic crosses and recrosses the borders between our country and other countries. Transport agreements have already been concluded by the SAA. As I have already said, time does not allow me to mention the names of all the countries in Africa with which such agreements exist. The SATS has this transport network at its disposal throughout the length and breadth of the continent of Africa, wherever trade is carried on, as well as in our national States in the independent States and even in the far north of South West Africa, as well as in other States in Black Africa. The SATS has extended this railway network everywhere as the main artery of transport in Africa, to a strong economic factor everywhere. That is why the Republic of South Africa can offer the rest of Africa more today than any other power, even more than the communist countries that are pouring arms and ammunition into those countries, and much more than the Western World, which simply continues to pour in money.

Today South Africa affords the rest of Africa, all the countries south of the equator, the opportunity of co-operating with a trustworthy neighbouring country, in the sphere of exchanging knowledge and expertise, which could be placed at the disposal of those countries, as well as assistance in the extension of their infrastructures, the training of staff and the construction of training facilities. Furthermore, the Republic of South Africa has the will, the ability and the determination to co-operate with friendly countries on a purely economic basis in contrast with what is so often alleged about us in such an unfair way, viz. that we wish to act as a destabilizing factor in Africa. Nevertheless, the Republic of South Africa renders excellent assistance to all its neighbours and proves itself as a country which can bring about stability everywhere in Africa. All countries in Africa can benefit from this rich source of economic power, stability and expertise, to the advantage of the Republic of South Africa, as well as to the advantage of every other country in Africa in order to make this a happier country for us all.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to support the hon. member for Beaufort West in his plea for the SATS to be seen as a major factor in accomplishing cooperation and stable relationships in Southern Africa. We believe that has been one of the important factors in the history of the SATS, and indeed anybody who looks at the history of the formation of the Union of South Africa will see that one of the major factors encouraging the formation of that Union, but simultaneously also one of the biggest problems in bringing about the Union of South Africa was in fact the unified railway system, and also an attempt to meet the tariff problems of the different colonies and republics which were united in order to form the Union of South Africa in 1910.

The SATS have, as I am sure the hon. member for Beaufort West is aware, played a vital role in building relationships in Southern Africa.

I do not believe, however, that I can carry on without returning to some points the hon. member for Kroonstad has raised on two occasions during debates in this House. That is à propos the question of the PFP being apparently, according to him, “’n voorstander van oorsese vakbonde”, etc. Our concern with the labour situation in the SATS is not an attempt to represent any overseas interests or any union interests. In fact, to allege that we do so would be rather like saying that because we say there is a thunderstorm coming we are responsible for the lightning that strikes a house or hits somebody. What we are saying is that in the field of labour relations, unless the SATS is aware of what lies ahead, it could find itself running into problems. I believe that the CP should also be made aware of the fact that we are in entire disagreement with their amendment. Our experience is that the White worker in the SATS who has time to think—and most of them do have the time—knows that our South African society is a changing one. Many of these people live in my constituency and my experience has been that while they are conservative in the best sense they are also realistic. They know that South Africa cannot afford to protect people simply because of the colour of their skin. It must rather be because of the efficiency of their work. A certain person said to me: If certain people are going to be protected simply because they are White it will be like taking a case of first grade apples, putting in two or three third grade ones and despatching the whole lot as mixed grades. It is quite wrong that people should be protected simply because of the colour of their skin.

In regard to the amendment of the CP, it is interesting to note the English translation of the word “verdringing”. It has been translated as “crowding out”. I do not think that anybody, whether White or Black, likes to travel in overcrowded circumstances and to have to tolerate dirty and overcrowded conditions. As we see it, although the White traveller is increasingly in the minority because he does not use rail travel to the extent to which he did, he is obviously entitled to travel in comfortable and hygienic conditions. The solution in this regard is not a racial one. The solution is the establishment of more adequate facilities in respect of all public transport generally.

It seems to me that one of the themes of this debate has been the fact that railway planning in the SATS has been dealt a serious blow. Because the planning in this regard has apparently suffered some sort of a lapse the SATS find themselves in their present circumstances. In his speech the hon. the Minister laid considerable emphasis on the fact that he had been caught flat-footed, as it were, and that it was only in about May that he and his financial advisers realized what was happening. I do not believe that that is an adequate excuse on the part of a corporation of the size of the SATS. It simply is not good enough to say that circulars are sent to many customers in advance of drawing up the budget in order to obtain some idea from them of their business requirements. As the hon. the Minister stated in his speech, the SATS is part of the world economy. South Africa has an open economy and we are obviously affected by what happens in the rest of the world. If we had been monitoring what was happening in the rest of the world accurately I do not believe that we would in fact have had this kind of shock, because that is clearly what it was. It was a shock to the hon. the Minister and his financial advisers that this state of affairs obtained. I think we must appreciate the fact that when there is a serious recession such as we have been experiencing— and anybody who monitors what is going on in the rest of the world will agree that this is so as far as the economy of the Western World is concerned—and when the SATS through Sishen, Saldanha and Richards Bay are so dependent on high-bulk export commodities, then there is clearly something wrong as far as the SATS are concerned. If there is one thing that we have all learnt from this unfortunate budget I think it is that it is not good enough for the hon. the Minister’s financial planners and advisers simply to take the temperature of South Africa. It must anticipate the world trend; the problems, for example, which any country that exports large quantities of raw materials would suffer as a result of the serious decline in Western economies. Not only that: If our inflation rate at the moment is double that of most of the Western economies, obviously people are not going to trade with us or use our harbours. This is the kind of information which should be constantly monitored by the hon. the Minister. If there is one thing we have learnt then it is that there must be a serious reconsideration or an upgrading, or perhaps a changing, of the economic planning done by the department of the hon. the Minister. Any major industrial corporation in South Africa has economists who are doing research and who are monitoring what is going on. The hon. the Minister should tell us something about what his department does in this regard. I know that he has an Assistant General Manager responsible for planning, but we want to know what sort of economic unit he has which studies and monitors the economy of South Africa and the world.

We also have to look at the role of the SATS in our economy. In a developing country, or a country with an economy which the hon. the Minister of Finance calls an immature economy as opposed to countries in Western Europe with mature economies, not necessarily the Southern European countries, but a country like Western Germany which has, in economic terms, a mature economy, the role of something like railways is essentially, as the country develops, a pioneering role, a developing role. As an economy becomes more sophisticated and more mature, rail services develop problems. Those are not only problems which a maturing economy produces but there are also problems in regard to distances in South Africa. There are similar problems which we see in our rural areas. When there are good tarred roads constructed, the small rural towns become depopulated. There is also the phenomenon of large supermarkets stifling the smaller grocery stores.

These are some of the problems with which the SATS are saddled, because as South Africa’s economy is maturing, the SATS are left with a structure, a system which has served a very vital function and still serves a very vital function, but a function which is changing. For that reason one finds that more and more private transport is moving into the situation.

I am sorry that the report of the S.A. Transport Services Board was tabled only this morning because I believe that for a Second Reading debate the report of the board is a very important document to have. Those of us who read such reports every year will notice that usually in chapter IV the board is so bold as to venture discussion on matters relating to the problems of the SATS. In chapter IV of this year’s report, they discuss the tariff policy. I think it has been a useful discussion although there are no answers. While we are talking about the board, I should like to point out, for the benefit of the hon. member for Kuruman, that actually the board has three ex-politicians on it and a fourth member in the form of the senior commissioner, Mr. De Villiers, who is not a politician as far as I know, although he does have a close relative who is.

He was an MP.

You are too young to remember that.

There have been many members of the SATS Board who have not been politicians. There have been professors of economics and so on. From our point of view I think it is unfortunate that the SATS Board has become another roosting place for ex-politicians. I say this because no matter how competent they may be—and I am not suggesting there should not be a politician on that board—it seems to me that what one wants are people with special skills. [Interjections.] I do, however, also want to ask the hon. member for Kuruman a question. If he were invited to serve on that board together with an Indian commissioner, would he be prepared to serve on that board?

If we were to come to power … [Interjections.]

What I am asking is: If he were asked to serve on that board with an Indian member of the board, would he be prepared to serve on the board?

Not a peep out of them!

That is of course … [Interjections.] … going to be the critical question in this House, because if the constitutional processes of the Government are carried through, it is going to be interesting to know whether the hon. member for Kuruman and his colleagues would be prepared to serve on multiracial committees and, in fact, in this Parliament. [Interjections.] I believe that members of the public are entitled to know, to be given a straight answer by that party. [Interjections.] The tariff policy discussed by the board—which I have indeed been mentioning—raises three important issues. Let me refer the House to page 19 of the report of the S.A. Transport Services Board. There we have three principles that I believe this House should be reminded of. The first one is—

The second one is—

One can, of course, include “socio-economic services” under that. Then thirdly it is stated that—

There is then a long debate, and the commissioners seem to feel that there should be a cost basis for tariffs rather than a value basis. On page 25, however, they change their view. This House knows that the S.A. Transport Services makes a huge profit out of the pipelines. On page 25 it is stated—

At least the word “bear” is place in inverted commas—

What these two quotations highlight, as I see it, is that we cannot have our cake and eat it as far as the S.A. Transport Services is concerned. The hon. member for Bellville, I believe, raised a number of problems associated with this House’s responsibility for the affairs of the S.A. Transport Services, because of course the S.A. Transport Services has a national function—a national interest—as well as a purely business function. In this discussion the commissioners point out, for example, that low export tariffs may be important—in the national interest—at a certain stage in our economy to raise money for exporting iron ore, because we perhaps need the money to finance other developments. As they also point out, however, one could push up those tariffs to encourage local beneficiation, so that instead of exporting iron ore, we actually export pig-iron, which is clearly better for our country because it creates jobs, etc.

[Inaudible.]

The problem is that in the national interest we clearly have to balance these aspects, and the S.A. Transport Services has a role to play in that regard. If we are therefore going to apply sound business principles, I believe that we should point out—also from this report— some points where sound principles are not being employed. On page 15, for example, in a footnote the following is pointed out—

The following is interesting—

who apparently cannot be members of the New Superannuation Fund—

So, again one sees a situation which is far removed from sound business principles. I believe that one of the biggest challenges this hon. the Minister, his board, his staff and the General Manager face is to try to ensure that the SATS applies sound business principles to its total labour force, which would include the introduction of more Blacks, and Non-Whites, in higher grades of employment. That is exactly what the hon. member for Walmer pointed out, namely that in South Africa today the easy way out for good management—actually, it would not then be good management, but bad management—is not to grasp the nettle. I want to say that our experience as a party is that the ordinary White South African is not a fool. If one explains things to him and spends time motivating them, he is prepared to see what is in the long term interests of South Africa, and that includes giving Blacks a better deal.

Another point in relation to labour is brought out quite clearly on page 17, where the commissioners tell us that in December 1982, R14 million less was paid for overtime and Sunday time than in June 1982. I believe that this is another thing that must be looked at. Those of us who have been helping people with pensions and so on, know that, for example, there are people employed as checkers who are already receiving pensions and also very large salaries. They now get further salaries as temporary employees and live in inexpensive SATS houses. I do not believe that that is really in the national interest. I believe one should rather employ another person and allow the pensioner to enjoy his retirement, even though he may know the job. In this way one can get a more effective use of labour.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to take the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North with me on a train trip. He flies far too much. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North is a complex person. Now he wants to explain the complex tariffs of the SATS further, but he is wide of the mark, because the matter is too complex for him to understand. When he gets confused in that sphere, he ends up by coming back to the colour bar, and then he is only concerned about the people of colour. However, we on this side look at every colour under the sun in its particular sphere and we preserve our White identity at all costs.

At a later stage I wish to refer to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central and to say something about the SAA, but first I want to come to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. It was very interesting to listen to him, and he spoke about free passes yesterday. As the hon. the Minister will know, however, that hon. member is much more privileged than I, because he has a pass which entitles him to trips which I do not have. The fact is that he is able to travel on the Drakensberg once a year and on the Blue Train once a year because he is a Natalian. However, a person who is not a Natalian cannot travel on the Drakensberg unless he pays the full fare. I have tried it myself.

So what?

One sees, therefore, that we are being discriminated against in favour of Natal. Natal gets far more privileges than we do. [Interjections.]

I asked a former Minister of Transport Affairs why the Drakensberg only travelled to Natal. Why can the Drakensberg not travel through the Hex River Mountains? In this way one would be combining the dragon and the witch. I shall suggest a route which the Drakensberg could follow. Let it travel across the Eastern Cape Midlands to Port Elizabeth and along the Garden Route. All our tourists ever see, even from the Blue Train, is the barren Karoo. Then I have to explain to them where the rain comes from, why it is dry and why there is not more scenery. I really want to plead for an intermediate train to be introduced between the Blue Train and the Trans-Karoo. The Drakensberg should travel to Cape Town and it should be an air-conditioned train which we can be proud of.

I come now to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. That is where the water is so sweet, but when I have finished with them, the water will be very bitter. He suggested that the affairs of the SATS be investigated by people from outside. In 1947, his predecessors, the old United Party … [Interjections.] They were very clever when they wanted to institute an inquiry into railway tariffs. According to the UP, there was no one in South Africa in 1947 who was competent to lead that inquiry, and the chairman, Sir Charles Henry Newton, a former general manager of the London and North-Eastern Railway, was thereupon brought to this country. I should like to know what became of that inquiry. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti should tell us more about those tariffs. Why could the inquiry not be conducted by local people? Why did someone have to be fetched from the London and North-Eastern Railway to investigate South Africa’s affairs?

After the NP had come into power, at the time when the position of the S.A. Railways was extremely precarious—I shall refer to this presently—a very interesting mission came to South Africa. It is very interesting— in the light of the new approach which may be followed by Australia, as a result of pressure that is being brought to bear on their new Government to maintain closer contact, especially in respect of the S.A. Airways,—that there was a significant movement years ago. Railway missions from Australia came to South Africa shortly after the NP had come into power. They came to make a study of our electrification programme and our equipment for loading coal. They really gathered wonderful information and later expressed the greatest appreciation to the NP Government for all the knowledge they had acquired here.

When was that?

That was in 1949. The first mission landed at Durban on 2 October 1949 and left Cape Town on board ship on 3 December 1949, on their way back to Australia. They went to Witbank, they visited the harbours and they also gathered information about our equipment for loading coal.

I can quite understand that the Opposition should feel vexed and worried about many matters. It is clear, after all, that the SATS is the victim of the low point in the world economy. That we cannot deny. Tension is running high between the countries of the world today. The burden of debt of the Third World has introduced an element of uncertainty into the transport industry of the world and we are one of the victims of this. There are so many uncertain factors that one has to draft budgets from day to day. In spite of what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North said, the top management has to take new decisions every day to resolve absolutely urgent matters. If we could improve our growth rate from minus 2% to minus 1%, it would mean an extra income of R62 million for the SATS, depending on certain factors. I say this on the basis of the figures mentioned in one of the documents that have been tabled. An increase of only 1% would increase the revenue of the SATS by R62 million. Now we are faced with certain problems, however. There is surplus stock elsewhere in the world, and South Africa will not be able to achieve new heights before 1984. In addition, there is South Africa’s agricultural production, the prevailing drought conditions, and there is the fact that the construction industry is not operating at the high level we would like it to and, that industry, too, does not yet have those inputs we would like to have. But we know that with the policy of decentralization, it will not take the SATS long to get going again under difficult circumstances. I do not wish to deny today that we are in a very long tunnel and that the locomotive is finding it very difficult to pull the heavy load up the mountainside. But there the hon. the Minister is sitting. He is our driver, and he will keep that train on the rails. He is a responsible Minister. He may be quick on the road, but he is careful to stay on the rails. Therefore I know that he will get us through this long black tunnel and across the mountain beyond it. He will take us to the mine-dumps of Carletonville. He will take us to the cedars of Waterkloof. He will take us to the well-wooded Waterberg region and to the burning sun of the Soutpansberg. He will get us there; all we have to do is trust him.

I remember very well the delightful scenery one passes through while travelling by train, especially through the Hex River Mountains. I remember, too, that at one stage a long drawn-out whistle came from the locomotive. That was still in the days of the steam locomotives. After such a whistle one knew that a very long tunnel lay ahead. Then one had to close the windows, for if one did not close the windows, one would suffocate in all that smoke whirling about. Then the lights were switched on.

I can understand that the Opposition is feeling bored at the moment. They do not quite know what to do. Now they keep on peering through the windows to see what is going to happen eventually. When one considers the NP’s record, on the other hand, I have no fear for the future. The NP has actually built up the Railways as an organism in this country. I should like to refer hon. members to Hansard of 28 April 1947, col. 3397. That was before the NP was in power. It only came into power on 26 May 1948. Capt. Hare said at the time—

Then, in col. 3400, Mr. Sullivan asked—

The Minister of Transport replied—

There you have the solution—plenty of revenue.

May I remind the hon. members of the Opposition of what the position was in 1948, when the NP took over? I am not referring hon. members to a newspaper report, but to what was said by Sir Marshall Clark, the General Manager at the time, in his annual report for the period ended on 31 March 1948, i.e. before the NP came into power. He said—

Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that for the first year after the NP came into power, we did not have enough steam locomotives available to us. More than one-third of all the steam locomotives in the country were at the workshops at that time. Now we can imagine how difficult it was to effect the repairs to those steam locomotives. A total number of 563 steam locomotives had to undergo extensive repairs. At the same time, less expensive repairs had to be effected to 17, and light repairs to 272 steam locomotives.

Now let us see how many days, on average, it took to repair a steam locomotive while the UP was still in power. Those 563 steam locomotives to which I have just referred remained at the workshops for 48,3 days on average. The 17 locomotives that had to undergo less extensive repairs remained at the workshops for 40,3 days, while the 272 locomotives which had to undergo light repairs remained there for 16,2 days on average.

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure how these things work, but adding up all these figures, I have calculated that all those locomotives would have been repaired within a period of 180 years. [Interjections.] Yes, it would have taken 180 years.

However, what else happened during that time? There was not enough coal to keep the locomotives going. The supplies had been so badly depleted that at one stage, less than 25 000 tons of coal was available, and the existing supply would have lasted only two days. As a result, train services had to be curtailed, and even suspended. Coal had to be shipped to Cape Town from Lourenco Marques. The power station at Congella was out of action because the coal supply had been exhausted. It was indeed an alarming state of affairs.

Eventually, however the NP appeared on the scene. In due course, the NP provided the necessary locomotives and rolling stock by means of which the whole problem was eventually solved. When I consider everything that was done in the time after the NP had come into power in South Africa, I am amazed. We had no locomotives or rolling stock available. Under the NP, however, the transportation of livestock reached new heights. In 1949, the number of livestock units transported by rail increased by 1 million over the previous year. Eventually, thousands of animals were conveyed by train from the drought-stricken areas. Yes, there were droughts in those days as well. There were droughts, just as there are today.

However, there is yet another matter I want to mention. There were floods, too, devastating floods. In spite of a shortage of locomotives and rolling stock, however, the NP overcame all problems caused by the floods. Talking about commissions of inquiry, I wish to refer to something which was mentioned in the 1948 annual report. This is something which is upsetting me all over again. During that year, a total number of 120 257 glasses were stolen from the dining-cars of the Railways. Those glasses simply disappeared. No-one knew what had become of those glasses. [Interjections.] In addition, 106 472 teacups disappeared, as well as 67 064 saucers. The Administration is still looking for those cups and saucers today. [Interjections.] In addition, 34 900 teaspoons disappeared. Can we imagine the losses suffered by the Railways during that time? Who had to pay for them, however? Ultimately it was the National Party that had to foot the bill for all those things that had simply disappeared. [Interjections.]

However, I want to give some more details about the situation. Marshall Clark says here that the Railways should have new telephone switchboards. Do hon. members know how many of these they got? They got only six new switchboards, which were installed at railway stations. Only six new switchboards could be installed during that priod. They could not afford to buy any more.

On 26 January 1949—and I should like hon. members of the PFP to listen to this; I should like them to make a note of this, because it is one of the achievements of the NP—barely a year after the NP had come into power, separate wage statements were introduced for all non-White employees. The only exception was casual non-White labourers. For the first time, each non-White employee could see what his gross income was, as well as the amount that had been deducted for every item. In this way, the payment of non-White employees was placed on the same footing as that of the Whites. This was done by the NP Minister. In this case, of course, it was Minister Paul Sauer.

Mr. Speaker, it is always pleasant to listen to the hon. member for Rosettenville, because he always has something interesting to say. Of course, I do not agree with the account he has given of conditions under the old United Party. These were people who were going through very difficult times in the post-war period. I believe that in dealing with a matter such as this one, one should always keep in mind the prevailing economic circumstances.

What is the position today? When we analyse the arguments of NP speakers, we find that they are trying to explain something which cannot be explained, because they do not understand it. [Interjections.] I want to explain to hon. members what the problems of the SATS are. [Interjections.] I only hope hon. members will be able to contain themselves until I have finished.

Order! The hon. member for Langlaagte can safely leave it to me to take action in that regard, if necessary.

Thank you, Sir. The fact of the matter is that the SATS and its management do not operate in their own set of economic circumstances which can be isolated from the national economy and from the political dispensation of which the SATS and its departments form part. For that reason, one cannot blame a department today when there are shortages. I shall indicate to hon. members today where the shortages originated and why, in my opinion, they were caused by political maladjustments. Management is not responsible for them. It is not the task of management to join issue with its Government.

Please repeat that last bit. We do not quite understand it.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to put this question to the hon. member for False Bay. He quoted from a document last night which I believe had something to do with the railway workers. What was the hon. member quoting from? [Interjections.] I am asking what the hon. member was quoting from. The hon. member said he was quoting. Is that correct? [Interjections.] The hon. member said he was quoting from my speech. Is that correct?

No, it is not correct.

So the hon. member sucked it out of his thumb.

The hon. member had a nightmare.

Mr. Speaker, I should just like to deal with the hon. member for Kroonstad before I proceed to discuss the activities of the SATS.

Order! I just want to point out to the hon. member for Langlaagte that the question before the House is the Second Reading of the Transport Services Appropriation Bill. The hon. member should address me on what is contained in the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I accept your ruling. The hon. member attacked me for more than an hour. Perhaps you were not in the Chair, Sir. He did it several times. The hon. member has a certain way of saying things. I suppose I could reply to him in some other debate, although he did it in this debate.

I should like to ask the hon. nominated member a few questions. The hon. member and the hon. the Minister should tell us why the revenue of the SATS’s transport services in particular dropped by 8% and 11% respectively in May and June. The hon. member held a function in Johannesburg together with the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. According to a Press report I have here, it was—

[Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members should give the hon. member for Langlaagte an opportunity to finish his speech.

I read further—

[Interjections.] I may tell hon. members that although my English pronunciation is not always perfect, I believe, nevertheless, that I have a working knowledge of English. I quote further—

Why? Who drew up this list? Who are the people whose names appeared on that list? Why did the revenue of the Transport services decline by 8% during this period and why was there a sharp decline in the revenue from road transport? That is a question I am asking today.

But it was not an SATS function.

In saying this I want to indicate that the problems which arise in the SATS and in other departments are sometimes caused by political decisions.

I asked the hon. the Minister a question in connection with housing at Sentrarand—

What is the amount? R21 162 000 for 1 229 Blacks! This is three times the cost of building the Carlton many years back. [Interjections.] Tell me whether it is necessary to accommodate a non-White at about R17 000 per person per bed. Is it necessary? My worker who lives in the Louw Geldenhuys Hostel in Langlaagte has an ordinary mattress and an ordinary bed and next to the bed he has an ordinary steel cupboard. In many cases there are two ordinary beds to a room. We are applying a political philosophy which is bringing the country to its knees economically. It is bringing the national economy to its knees, because the political preceptors are interfering with the departments. The political preceptors are penetrating the departments and taking control of certain situations.

When we consider these matters, I find it shocking that an expenditure of R21 162 000 has been planned for 1 296 people.

When were those houses built?

There are no houses; it is a hostel.

When was that hostel built?

Recently.

When is “recently”? [Interjections.]

I want to come to the next point. The hon. the Minister told me one day that I was not telling the truth; no one had been laid off and all the workers who had been employed were still working for the SATS. According to his budget speech, however, 27 000 people were no longer in his employ during the past year.

Are they not perhaps pensioners?

Whether they were pensioners or other people, they had still been employed.

But there is a big difference.

Such a person had been employed and had been making a living through manual labour. What does the hon. the Minister say, why were they laid off? [Interjections.] Lately we have been faced with a further political problem! [Interjections.] When the President’s Council was created—and it is costing us R7 million every year—permission was granted for the members to travel by train free of charge. [Interjections.]

Like you do.

It is costing us R7 million a year. [Interjections.] Now I come to that hon. member, and he must listen carefully to what I am going to say. I quote—

However, I do not know why it is only super-White—

That is not right.

Let me spell out to the hon. members what they do not understand. When a member of the President’s Council—I am not talking only of Coloureds or Indians, but in the passage I have quoted, specific mention is made of Coloureds and Indians—wishes to travel from Port Elizabeth to Cape Town, for example, or perhaps to Johannesburg, he can board the train at any place en route and expect any one of us to surrender his berth to him. [Interjections.] The department stipulates that that person can get on the train and take the seat of any one of us. Then we have to be accommodated somewhere else on the train.[Interjections.] Just listen carefully—

[Interjections.]

What newspaper is that, Barney?

This is the good old Sunday Times. [Interjections.] I quote further—

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

No, the hon. member must sit down. [Interjections.]

Who wrote it, Barney?

That is healthy compartment-sharing.

What I object to is this kind of reform on the sly. Why does the hon. the Minister not say in this House that this is what they are doing? Why is the grading of those people not divulged? Why is it not announced that as VIPs, those people are higher up on the protocol list than a member of Parliament, for example, or a member of the ordinary public? [Interjections.] How is it being done, however? I quote—

Yes, it is a cover-up. The report goes on to say—

Why are we not allowed to know what is going on? Why must it all be done on the sly? [Interjections.] Why can the hon. the Minister not say what they actually have in mind? Why can he not say that when a Coloured, Indian or White member of the President’s Council gets on a train, any one of us who is a passenger can be ousted from his compartment where he is sleeping, and the same applies to one’s wife and children? [Interjections.] He can have one moved to another compartment and one will have no choice in the matter. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister and I have known each other for many years, and I want to ask him to tell us quite frankly where he is going with the Railways.

Mr. Speaker, faced with a lack of arguments on which to base any criticism of the SATS, the speakers of the CP have decided to play politics in this debate, as we have just heard from the hon. the member for Langlaagte again. They are turning a very important debate into a political football, in the same way as they are playing politics outside.

That goes for the Nationalist Press as well.

Order!

We only hope that the Railway workers outside will take cognizance of the fact that these people are playing politics with South Africa’s most vital interests.

I want to come to the hon. member for Nigel, who created an impression in the debate yesterday which, unfortunately, we cannot allow to pass without comment. The hon. member created the impression that this side of the House made derogatory remarks about our Railway workers and about the Afrikanerhood of Railway workers.

Yes.

They are repeating that statement. Another hon. member of the CP said here by way of interjection: “Today they are being sold down the river,” meaning the Railway workers. I want to say it is deplorable that Railway people should be dragged into politics by the CP in this way. This is cheap politicking on the part of the CP when they exploit the people who render such outstanding service to the country, i.e. the Railway people. This side of the House honours the Railwayman who so often helps has to put things right and who makes sacrifices when the Railways finds itself in a crisis, as it does at the moment. The CP must not involve the people of the SATS in its petty politicking. The Railwaymen do not like it and they will deal with the CP accordingly. The workers of the SATS are among the most steadfast voters we have in this country.

They used to be.

They know they can trust the NP through thick and thin. That is why these people are staunch supporters of the NP.

But that is not true.

An hon. member of the CP says this is not true. He is welcome to visit my constituency, because it is a constituency which includes many Railway workers. I can testify to the fact that these people are among the best supporters of the NP. A Railwayman was chairman of my constituency committee in Bloemfontein North for years, and he did an excellent job. He has died, but we still honour his memory for the way he served for NP. I want to tell the hon. members for the CP that the Railwayman will not be tempted by the siren song of the CP. [Interjections.] The Railway people know perfectly well that the CP would lead them into a political desert. They also know that the CP offers them no future because the CP’s political star is already on the wane.

Who is making a party rally speech now?

I want to tell the hon. members of the CP quite seriously today that they must not think that they have a monopoly on Afrikanerhood. [Interjections.] No one is better able to protect Afrikaner interests than the NP. This has been proved over the years. No one has greater appreciation for what the Railwayman has done for Afrikaner culture in this country than the NP, because the NP and the Railwayman have waged this cultural struggle side by side and are still doing so today. I want to tell hon. members of the CP that no one has done more to harm Afrikaner interests than they have.

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

The hon. member for Nigel tried to create the impression yesterday that this side of the House no longer cared for the Afrikaner and the Railwayman. I want to tell those hon. members that the Afrikaners in the Railway service have been protected by the NP for years and that they will continue to be protected by the NP in future.

I regret that owing to a lack of time, I could not come to my actual speech. I hope I shall have an opportunity to do so at a later stage. I just want to tell hon. members of the CP that they must not turn the Railway worker into a political football.

Mr. Speaker, we are now experiencing the dying moments of the Second Reading debate of the Transport Services Appropriation Bill. In this debate we listened to negative as well as positive and constructive criticism. Had it not been for the “good old Sunday Times", the hon. member for Langlaagte would not have had a speech.

Irrespective of what was said in this debate, tomorrow and the day after tomorrow and the days and months ahead will depend on the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs, the management of the SATS, the executive officers and the 252 000 officials of the SATS. These people will ensure that the spirit and attitude they display will totally erase the negative criticism of this debate. We want to wish those hon. members well in the year which lies ahead.

In the State President’s opening address at the start of this session reference was made to the housing shortage in our country. A few days ago the Government announced its housing strategy. This will lead to 500 000 dwelling units being offered for sale to the occupants of those houses or to other persons who need them for accommodation. I think this is a positive step to promote home ownership in the Republic.

This afternoon we are engaged in the Second Reading debate of the Transport Services Appropriation Bill. As far back as 1937 the S.A. Railways & Harbours appointed a commission known as the Housing Commission of the S.A. Railways and Hharbours, under the chairmanship of a certain Mr. Hoffe. The recommendations of that interim report amounted to the fact that home ownership had to be promoted. That was as far back as 1937. It is interesting to note that during those years it was decided on a maximum amount of £1 000 for a house, excluding the land. For the lower income groups there was, however, a maximum of £600. The commission was faced by the following problem: How can one expect an official to pay a deposit to purchase a dwelling unit? Consideration was also given to a contribution of 2% on £600 being made, which amounted to a deposit of £12. However, the people did not have that amount of money. They therefore decided on a 100% housing scheme to promote home ownership. It is interesting to note that in October 1981 the average price of a house was R45 895. One year later, namely in October 1982, the average purchase price of a house was R60 475.

As far as the 100% housing scheme for officials is concerned, a scheme which was introduced in 1937, it was extended in later years to the other races, namely to the Coloureds, the Asians and the Blacks. However, the SATS was aware that it could not meet the demand in this way, and another scheme was therefore decided on, namely a scheme in terms of which officials could make use of funds from building societies and where the SATS would make a 10% contribution. When an official raises a 90% loan from a building society, the balance of 10% is guaranteed by the SATS to ensure that that man will get a 100% loan to purchase his own home. Later on a scheme was introduced which was underwritten by the pension funds, still at a subsidized interest rate, namely 4% and 5%. We are extremely grateful for this. This afternoon I can also tell hon. members that over the years the SATS has helped more than 98 000 officials to purchase their own dwelling units. A total amount of R2 607 million has been spent to provide housing for officials.

This afternoon I should like to make a friendly appeal to the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs. Since the SATS still has 26 306 dwelling units which are being let, I am asking that an investigation be made as to whether these dwelling units cannot be made available so that officials can purchase them as their own homes. I do not think there is a happier day for any husband and wife than the day when they purchase a home of their own. When their child returns from school in the afternoon, they can tell him that the house now belongs to them. He will then be able to tell his classmates at school that his family need not move again because they have their own home. I want to praise the SATS for the fact that they have played their part over the years. If one looks at the 1983-’84 budget, one sees that provision has been made for the purchase of a further 4 200 units for officials of the SATS. I invested other major employers, for example, the Post Office. The Post Office has 729 dwelling units and 12 blocks of flats costing R33 million. If we look at the subsidies paid to make it possible for Post Office officials to purchase a home, we note that up to and including 1982 a total of R46 million was spent. If we take the matter further by considering the position with regard to Escom, we find that between 1949 and the present that undertaking has erected a total of 8 000 dwelling units for its own employees. Escom still has 1 000 dwelling units which can be offered for sale to its officials. The SATS has set an example in this country which is definitely worth following.

In conclusion, I just want to make a friendly appeal. In making this appeal to the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs, I am at the same time making it to all employers in the Republic of South Africa. It is, namely, to make provision for welfare housing. I am aware that officials of the SATS do have a welfare organization. However, I should like to ask that the SATS become involved in the provision of welfare housing, because by the year 2000, in 17 years’ time, there will be more than 500 000 people over the age of 65. I feel we should take cognizance of this. That is why I am making a friendly appeal to every employer in this country to give preference to welfare housing.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that three amendments to this Bill were introduced, three amendments which differed vastly. Strange proposals were made. The hon. member for Berea asked that certain sectors be delineated for the private sector. However, he did not say which sectors. This is in any case absolutely impossible. We have tremendous financial problems.

However, there is no time to elaborate on this further. I should like to say more now but my hon. Whips are telling me I cannot. I therefore move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The amendments to the National Parks Act, 1976, are aimed at eliminating deficiencies that have been identified in the existing Act and at making provision for the further extension of the conservation programme.

Clauses 1 and 4 of the Bill embody proposals aimed at facilitating the administration of the Act. The need for the definition of “poison” as it appears in the Bill does not require any elucidation, and accordingly I shall not discuss clause 1 further. In clause 4 it is proposed that moneys appropriated by Parliament for the purchase of land for national parks be deposited directly into the National Parks Land Acquisition Fund, where it will remain available for this purpose. In practice, problems are experienced in synchronizing land purchases with the availability of funds, and at present, all moneys not spent at the end of the financial year in question, are forfeited. The proposed amendment is aimed at eliminating this problem.

We now come to clause 2, clause 3 and clause 5 of the Bill. It is well known that in the Republic of South Africa there is a need for the establishment of additional national parks. The acquisition of land for this purpose is, however, a capital-intensive undertaking. In this regard I might mention that section 20 of the National Parks Act, 1976, prohibits prospecting and mining activities within national parks, and this, in turn, implies that the mineral rights in land must also be obtained when such land is purchased for the purposes of a national park. The cost involved is high in cases where it is known that mineral reserves occur in the land in question. Moreover, apart from the aspect of cost, it can sometimes therefore not be in the national interest to make known mineral reserves inaccessible by declaring such land a national park.

Without permitting prospecting and mining activities in already existing national parks, and in order to eliminate any possible doubts, it is being proposed that the Act be suitably amended to make provision for the declaration of a second category of national park in which no restriction will be imposed on such activities. Accordingly, provision is also made in the Bill for the inclusion in such a national park of land in private ownership for the period for which the owner in question and the National Parks Board of Trustees may agree. This provision will make possible the management by the board of relatively large areas for the purposes of the Act on a relatively long term basis without involving heavy capital expenditure for the board, which would indeed be the case if the board had to purchase the land.

As far as clause 6 is concerned, we are all aware of the increasing illicit trade in ivory, rhino horns, etc. As a result animal species are threatened with extinction, and this would be a irretrievable loss. Accordingly it is deemed essential to impose exceptionally heavy penalties for the unlawful hunting of elephant, black rhinoceros and white rhinoceros and, at the same time, to take the opportunity to adjust the fines that may be imposed for other offences in terms of the Act, taking into account the relative drop in the indeterrent value over the years.

† Mr. Speaker, as a result of the transfer of the Marine Development Branch to the Department of Environment Affairs on 2 August 1982, the determination of the seaward boundary of a national park in terms of section 30 of the Sea Fisheries Act, 1973, has become a matter which can be dealt with administratively in the department. An appropriate amendment of section 30 as set out in clause 7 of the Bill is proposed in this respect.

As a further step in the functional rationalization of the public sector, it is considered expedient that lake areas, established in terms of section 2 of the Lake Areas Development Act, 1975, be brought under the control of the National Parks Board of Trustees. The functions of the Lake Areas Development Board can easily be taken over by the National Parks Board of Trustees as the aims of both these boards are to control, manage, preserve and develop that precious gift betowed upon mankind, nature. Clause 8 of the Bill will make such a transfer possible.

Mr. Speaker, before I make a few remarks about this Bill, you will no doubt permit me to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his recent appointment as Minister and on the introduction of his first piece of legislation in his new capacity as Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries. We came to know the hon. the Minister in his previous capacity as, if I may say so, a person who creates the impression that his heart is in the right place as far as conservation affairs are concerned. On behalf of the PFP I therefore want to assure him that we want to co-operate with him on a constructive and positive basis as far as environmental affairs are concerned.

† Mr. Speaker, the Bill before us has seven identifiable elements, most of which we welcome and accept unreservedly. The inclusion of a wider definition of “poison” now makes it possible for poachers to be apprehended who are in possession of drugs which are capable of immobilizing an animal thus enabling them to steal ivory or rhino horns. To the extent that this gives the legislation more teeth and places authority in the hands of officials to apprehend these nefarious individuals, we welcome it unreservedly.

The principle of new offences is the second element and the principle of the punishment fitting the crime is most applicable here. We welcome the distinction that is now being drawn between the penalties in regard to elephant and rhinoceros as against those in respect of other animals and we accept the increases in the fines that are now being prescribed.

We also welcome the amendment in regard to the Sea Fisheries Act. There is an urgent need for the establishment of new national parks in our country. The limitation that existed in the past of 1,85 km out to sea was an arbitrary one and we accept the fact that the boundaries of marine parks should follow natural contours. We welcome this as well.

The question of the takeover of the Lake Areas Development Board is an aspect which is a little more troublesome. The question of whether it will be a good thing to absorb the Lake Areas Development Board into the National Parks Board as merely another branch of the National Parks Board raises the question of whether one loses effectiveness if one removes executive activity from a local area. The Lake Areas Development Board has a distinguished reputation as an effective body which does very good work in its area. We had some hesitation about that clause, but we have spoken to the individuals concerned and we are satisfied that the department does not intend swallowing up the Lake Areas Development Board in attempt to manage the lakes from Pretoria. That would certainly be a retrograde step. We are satisfied that it is a step in the right direction to gather environmental legislation into one harness. At the moment we have a proliferation of environmental laws. Different pieces of legislation are administered by different departments. As this Bill constitutes one step on the road of co-ordination of the legislation, we shall support it, but with the one plea that the involvement of local individuals should never be lost. I have the assurance that this is not the intention of the department and that it will be applied on a basis that will still involve the local people. On that understanding we welcome the Bill and we shall support this aspect as well.

I now come to the question of the National Parks Land Acquisition Fund, a question which deserves a little more attention. To say the least, this is a proposal which is welcomed with acclamation by this side of the House. It is a proposal which is very long overdue. The history of this particular issue is traced back to Act 60 of 1979 which the hon. the Minister in his previous capacity introduced into this House. In introducing it, he made the point that there was a pressing need that certain parks which were too small to be viable should be expanded. The Bill was therefore introduced with the correct intention that money would be set aside for the creation of new parks. We had no quarrel with the intention and we supported that Bill, as the records show.

The actual practice, however, has been pitiful. Earlier this session I tabled a question and the answer reveals that the only money which the board had managed to attract to the fund through bequests, subscriptions, donations and interest in round figures amounted to R14 000 in 1980, its first year, R118 000 in its second year and R245 000 in its third year. The clincher, however, is that not a single hectare of land, according to the answer to that question, has been purchased with that money. Therefore although the legislation was introduced with good intentions, it led to nothing, nothing by way of setting aside land for conservation purposes in South Africa. To the extent that this is going to put money into the kitty for a proper programme of land acquisition, we heartily support it.

I think, as a spur to the Government to do something about this question of land acquisition, one should look at the history of this question and at the standing in this regard of South Africa in relation to that of other countries in the Western World, and in relation to other countries in Southern Africa. We have the most well endowed, privileged and richest part of Southern Africa and yet our standing in terms of setting aside national parks when compared to that of our neighbours is pitiful. Let us make some comparisons. Kenya sets aside 11,16% of its land for national parks. Botswana has 14% set aside; Tanzania 8,5%; Zambia almost 8%; and Zimbabwe 5,7%, but South Africa, in terms of national parks, has only 2,4% set aside. I know that provincial parklands expand this figure somewhat but they do not expand it to the point that these other countires have reached already. If one looks at the setting aside of national parks, one sees that we only have two national parks of more than 100 000 ha in extent. Most of the countries in the Western World put us to shame in that regard. The United States has 16, Russia has 15, Australia has 12, Zambia has 10 and Japan—a small island nation— has 8 national parks greater than 100 000 ha in extent, according to the Wild Life Society.

Let us also consider the unique veld-types that South Africa has within its borders. 70 unique veld-types have been identified as being worthy of preservation. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources sets as a standard, for conservation, the setting aside of 10% of each of the unique veld-types. They do not use the term “veld-types”, but we all know what we are talking about. It is the international standard that 10% of these unique systems should be set aside. But how do we compare? 47 of the 70, two-thirds of the total, which are in our trust to preserve for the future, have a conservation status of less than 1%. Only five of our veld types are conserved in accordance with the international standard of 10%. In this respect one must mention the fact that this Government’s priorities—and I am not singling out the present hon. the Minister in this regard—in regard to conservation over the years have been wrong priorities. This Government regards itself as the spiritual and political legatee of Oom Paul Kruger, yet Oom Paul, I would venture to say, would look upon this Government’s track-record since 1948 as being shameful. [Interjections.] Oom Paul was fighting for the cause of setting aside threatened land for conservation as far back as the last century. In 1899 he set aside the area which is now the Kruger National Park. He fought that battle and was described as “a lone voice” at the time. Before that—in 1884, I believe—he raised this matter for the first time in the old Volksraad. Since 1948, however, this Government, according to African Wild Life, has only set aside an average of less than 3 000 ha per annum in the form of parklands. An area of 3 000 ha compares unfavourably with the size of many private farms, yet that is all that has been set aside since 1948. This amount of land also compares unfavourably with the amount of soil that spills into the sea each year. The amount of soil that washes into the sea every year is the equivalent of 10 000 ha of good top soil, according to the calculations. The equivalent of 10 000 ha is flushed into the ocean. We preserve less than a third of that each year. So the backlog is enormous, but consider the kind of money this Government has spent acquiring land for ideological purposes, land which serves no other purpose but to change the colour of the skin of the occupants of that land. In many respects this has, of course, had retrogressive conservation implications. If one bears that in mind, it is clear that this Government should hang its head in shame. To the extent that this amendment will give the Government the right to put more money into this activity—and here we are speaking about real money and not just good intentions, as expressed in 1979—we fully welcome and support this particular amendment. It is long overdue.

This brings me to other aspects of the Bill, the more controversial aspects, for example the question of prospecting and mining in a national park and the question of giving the Government the right to set aside land in a national park without acquiring the mineral rights at the same time, which means, of course, that prospecting for minerals is to be allowed in those parks. In considering this aspect, the Government must forgive us if we approach this with a measure of suspicion, because the history of this question of mining in a national park is an unhappy one. I am sure that hon. members on that side of the House would be the first to concede that there has been great drama involved in the question of mining in a national park. Mining in the Kruger National Park was mooted some five-odd years ago, in 1978, and it created a tremendous storm. In the last few years the issue went to ground. The public reaction to this question is on record as having been overwhelming. Market Research Africa published the findings of a survey which showed that 78%, or more than three-quarters, of the White population would be against mining in the Kruger National Park. At the time the Argus group of newspapers ran a petition and collected nearly 100 000 signatures calling on the Government…

How many did you collect in Constantia?

Plenty. That was a petition calling on the Government not ever to mine in the Kruger National Park. Any Government which were to attempt to mine in the Kruger National Park would in other words be flying very severely in the face of public opinion. It was suggested that the only way in which the Government could get authority to mine was via the backdoor. I am not accusing the hon. the Minister of having such intentions, but that is the climate in terms of which this Bill has to be judged.

The second aspect which gives some legitimate grounds for suspicion is a statement made by the chairman of Iscor at the time. It is on record. I have a copy of his speech here. It was delivered to the South African Mining and Metallurgy Institute on 10 March 1978 and it was reported in the Press. In that speech Mr. Muller said that the coking-coal available in various parts of the Northern Transvaal would “meet the corporation’s requirements up to at least 1983” and that after that Iscor would have to look around in the vicinity for further supplies. We are now in 1983. At the time, the Press reports said there was a reprieve for the Kruger National Park. They spoke of a five-year reprieve and quoted Chairman Muller to the effect that 1983 was mentioned as the deadline by which date they would have to have access to those reserves. That is another reason why one approaches this particular proposal with some degree of caution and suspicion.

Another aspect one could mention is a quote that appeared in The Argus in March last year. It referred to the Bill that is now before us, although possibly not in its present form, and said: “The Government’s stand bedevils plans for the new national parks”. It quotes unofficially that the Government told the National Parks Board “that it was not prepared to set up new parks until the conservation bodies agreed to allow prospecting and mining if these were deemed necessary in the future”. That is fair enough if it applies to new parks on a negotiated basis, but it is not fair enough if it applies to the Kruger National Park. Also in March The Argus made a further statement which is on record and of which I have never seen a denial. It may not be well-founded, but it did appear in public and it did cause many people to become tremendously concerned. The Argus unofficially quoted a Government source as follows—

That is absolutely unfounded.

I am absolutely delighted to hear the hon. the Minister say that it is unfounded, because it would be a shameful attitude if it were correct. I mention these things so that the hon. the Minister will understand why we approach this particular Bill with tremendous caution.

I now want to turn to the Bill itself. Section 20 of the present Act being amended is absolutely clear. It is short, simple and unambiguous. What is proposed to replace that clause is a clause which is long, complicated and potentially ambiguous. I say this after consulting with certain legal people. The clause does not lend itself to a simple, straightforward and clear-cut interpretaton. One has to read the clause together with clause 2 in order to arrive at its true intention, and one ends up having to infer what the intention is. At the end of the day it seems to square with what the hon. the Minister’s stated intention is, but in strict law it opens the question of whether a future court might be in some doubt as to the intention of the legislature in introducing this specific clause in its present form. A blanket prohibition is replaced by an enabling clause. One must ask the question whether there is not the risk that a court may in the future interpret this enabling clause as opeing the door to the question of mining, even in existing parks. Despite the hon. the Minister’s stated intentions is it not possible that the court may interpret the present clause as meaning that this legislature did not find the concept of mining in a national park repugnant and therefore permit its application to include even the Kruger National Park? We will, however, support the Second Reading on this question, accepting in good faith the hon. the Minister’s stated intentions. However, I should like to serve notice now that we do this on the basis that we will move an amendment in the Committee Stage to sharpen up this distinction between existing parks, which should remain absolutely inviolate, and a future generation of parks in regard to which the principle of negotiated exploitation would be acceptable.

We also have other reservations which, time permitting, I will touch upon. However, on this crucial point of for the first time allowing mining and prospecting to take place in national parks we feel strongly that we must retain the prohibition and maintain the intent of the Act. In fact, it is even stated in section 4 of the Act, dealing with the object of a park, that a park should be retained in its natural state. If the existing clause is retained with its current prohibitory wording and if one by exception allows the negotiated exploitation which the hon. the Minister is asking for, that will satisfy us; in other words, what we are saying is that our attitude to the Bill on this point is one of conditional support. We support it provided we can satisfy ourselves that the hon. the Minister’s intentions can be specified in the law and placed absolutely beyond doubt. We will then be satisfied on that point. Therefore, we will support the Second Reading on the clear understanding that the principle of allowing mining will apply to future parks only under very carefully controlled conditions. We will accept the Government’s assurances in this regard at the Second Reading and we will move the amendment to which I have referred to tighten the clause up to our satisfaction.

The final aspect of the Bill which also deserves some careful attention is the whole question of acquiring parks but not the mining rights to those parks. We accept that this principle provides a means of stretching money to facilitate the purchasing of more land for national parks. [Interjections.] It is long overdue, as we have indicated.

Business interrupted and debate adjourned.

Mr. Speaker, I move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 24—

On Friday afternoon, 4 March 1983, in broad daylight in Northcliff, Johannesburg, members of the S.A. Police, in plain clothes and in a plain motor vehicle, drove up alongside the car of an innocent man, Mr. Kobus Duvenhage, and shot him dead. Only two weeks earlier another innocent young man, Mr. Bryn Eudey, was shot dead by policemen in his vehicle in Pietermaritzburg. To the bereaved families of these two men we in this party would like to express our deepest sympathy and say that we feel strongly some part of the depth of bereavement and suffering they are experiencing.

Of the facts available about the most recent incident, the shooting of Mr. Duvenhage, there are, quite apart from the shooting, a number of facts which cause us the greatest concern and which must be raised in this House. Mr. Duvenhage was shot just after 15h00 but he did not die for some two and half hours. The police knew immediately that they had made a mistake. They knew who he was but they did not contact his wife. She was only told of the incident some seven hours later after his death. She was thus denied by the police the possibility of being with her husband in his last hours. His widow, when she was finally told by the police at about 22h00 of her husband’s death, asked the same police to let her see her husband’s body. They told her that she could not and that she would have to wait until three days later, i.e. until Monday, to see the body at the mortuary. She herself, denied this assistance by the police, went alone to the mortuary on the following morning, i.e. Saturday, and after begging and pleading was finally allowed to see the body.

Mr. Duvenhage, whose only guilt was to own a white Cortina motor car, said after the shooting and before he lost consciousness: “You guys mustn’t shoot like that”. That powerfully simple and heartrending, cry sums up what this whole country feels in towns and homes from Cape Point to the Limpopo Rivier about this sort of incident. That is what speaker after speaker in this party argued in this House exactly six years ago this week against section 49 of the Criminal Procedure Act which makes death by shooting, in a wide variety of arrest cases, justifiable homicide. At that time we set out the figures of the people shot dead every year by the police. That was the argument to which that side of the House, the Government, turned a completely deaf ear. Let me give hon. members the figures. In 1976, 203 people were shot dead by the S.A. Police and, incidentally, that figure excludes the number of people shot dead during the Soweto riots. In 1977, 149 were shot dead; in 1978, 203; in 1979, 163; in 1980, 178; in 1981, 175 and in 1982, 188. That is carnage. It was this statutory protection that the judges in our Court of Appeal referred to in the case of the State vs. Labuschagne in 1960 as “the extremely, indeed dangerously, wide protection afforded by the section.” I am referring here to the Appeal Court in Bloemfontein. It was of precisely this sort of case and this sort of section in the Criminal Procedure Act, an earlier one, that Mr. Justice Schreiner, Judge of Appeal, in Rex vs. Brits in 1949 said: “Fire-arms may, if the protection is too easily obtainable, be likely to be used to prevent the escape of someone suspected, reasonably but perhaps wrongly, of some possibly not very serious crime.”

Of course, this is not the only country in the world in which such a thing can happen. In London, England, on 16 January this year, an innocent man, Stephen Waldorf, was shot in a motor vehicle by policemen in error. But what did the relevant responsible Minister, the Home Secretary, do?

He immediately suspended the three detectives involved and rose in the House of Commons and spoke of the gravity of the incident and said that nothing like that should happen again. The standing orders of the Police in the United Kingdom stipulate that there should be no shooting unless (a) the police are in danger or (b) the public are in danger.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what did we get from our Minister of Law and Order after two tragic deaths in the space of two weeks? Have the policemen concerned been suspended? No, Sir. Has the hon. Minister stated his determination to prevent such an occurrence from ever happening again? No, Sir. In fact he said the very opposite. He says that he accepts that the police acted according to their best judgment. Is that a proper attitude for the hon. the Minister to adopt? Is it proper for the hon. the Minister to exonerate the police in advance? No, Sir. Has the hon. the Minister on any occasion stated that there are standing orders stipulating that there should be no shooting unless the police or the public are in danger? No, Sir. Has he indicated that he is prepared to create such a standing order? No, Sir. Has he indicated that standing orders of the police need a drastic revision? No, Sir. Even Die Burger this morning says that it trusts that there will be a look at the wider question of the use of fire-arms by the police and it expresses the hope that there will be no hesitation about reviewing the guidelines or of imposing them more strictly. However, nothing like this has come from the hon. the Minister.

There are also other aspects which urgently require to be answered by the hon. the Minister. The first of these is why no warning shots were fired. Secondly: What steps were taken by the police before they opened fire on Mr. Duvenhage in order to kill him? Thirdly: What attempts were made before shooting to apprehend Mr. Duvenhage? These are questions that must be answered by the hon. the Minister. According to reports in certain newspapers, the hon. the Minister says that he did express regret about the incident, that he stated that he was very sorry that a man had been shot. He also says that he expressed his sympathy with the wife of the deceased. That is as it should be. However, that is not enough, not nearly enough. It in actual fact reveals an absolute failure to understand what his responsibility in the matter is. After all he is the man who is responsible, and he will realize just how responsible he is when one day he becomes the first defendant in an action instituted by the two little children of Mr. Duvenhage for the damage he has done to them, because he would be the first defendant in that action and they can sue him at any time during the whole period of their minority. This is so because the people who killed Mr. Duvenhage, the police concerned, were acting as his agents and on his behalf. But what did the hon. the Minister say to a concerned South African public and to the family, the victims of this killing? He expresses no more than sympathy and regret while of his agents, the police, he says that he accepts that they acted according to their best judgment. In other word, he springs to support and praise the perpetrators of the deed, pronouncing their innocence in advance. But it is his duty to prevent this sort of thing, not to condone it. He is an elected member of this House, and as such owes a duty to the people of this country and is responsible to them. The hon. the Minister has a penchant for cavalier judgments on every available issue and his irresponsible statements do more to perpetuate the climate for this sort of tragedy than anything else. At the time of the Seychelles debâcle he stepped in quite unnecessarily to announce that no crime had been committed. What a foolish condonation of violence and how wrong he was proved by the Supreme Court! And now, again, in the Duvenhage killing, he said the police acted according to their best judgment. Sir, I say as a Minister he is not an asset but a liability. What is required from a responsible Minister of Law and Order is: (1) An appreciation that the law is entirely unsatisfactory. Section 49 of the code creates justifiable homicide out of the killing of a fleeing child wanted for the theft of a 10 cent chocolate. That must be changed; (2) Police standing orders or instructions have to be investigated in depth and put on a proper base.

The criteria should probably be along the lines of reasonable apprehension of immediate danger to the police or to the public, together with the seriousness of the crime involved. In any event the inquiry should be conducted by a senior judge, the way it is usually done in this country. A senior judge should preside over any commission of inquiry with a mandate to investigate the existing law and the procedures to be followed by the police in respect of the use of fire-arms. It is a job which could be given to the S.A. Law Commission, a body comprised of judges and senior legal men, to investigate. However, a departmental investigation by the police in private, and an inquest or criminal trial are quite inadequate in view of the tragic record of deaths we have had over the years in South Africa.

Finally I want to make this point. We in the PFP believe that the police, like any other group of people, have amongst them some undesirable elements and errant members and that the majority of the police do not want to be tarred with the brush of the undesirable elements. We believe that the majority will welcome a setting right of the guidelines and of the law in order to make their job easier. They do not find their jobs easy when they are entrusted with very wide powers and when they are not given clear directives on the use of fire-arms. That is why we on this side of the House, in debate, attempt to get the powers of policemen precisely and clearly defined in Bills and do not wish to leave them in the position where the police are saddled with absolute powers and a dilemma situation in practice.

What is totally unprofitable is to argue, as was done in this House last week, that nobody who is innocent would object to the police having absolute powers. To that kind of argument the Duvenhage and Eudey incident are deeply eloquent and tragic answers.

Mr. Speaker, as were all other hon. members in this House, we in the CP were shocked to hear of the tragic death of Mr. Kobie Duvenage. Along with many other people of this country we should also like to express our profound sympathy to Mrs. Duvenhage and her little children, as well as to her family and the family of her late husband on the tragic circumstances under which Mr. Duvenhage died at such a young age. We all realizcjhat this must really be a painful experience for that family and their nearest relatives.

The hon. member for Pinetown gave us a complete account of the available facts as they have been reported to us in the Press and elsewhere. I feel we can say that we can understand that there are many people who find such an incident inexplicable; who find it inexplicable that anyone should die under such circumstances, allegedly at the hand of a member of the S.A. Police. At the same time we can also understand that people throughout the country may be feeling that there are members of the S.A. Police Force who are possibly guilty of resorting too readily to the use of fire-arms.

Because a complete investigation has not yet been made into all the facts which led to the tragic death of Mr. Duvenhage, there are of course at present many divergent opinions regarding the facts of the matter. There are also many questions one keeps asking oneself. However, one thing is certain, namely that at this stage, while we are gathered here in this House, the facts of the matter are not clear. That is why I believe that it would not be fair or correct to condemn the behaviour of the police blindly and unconditionally. After all, one must take into account that when the police are acting in the execution of their duties they cannot judge every case as if they are sitting peacefully in their sitting-rooms. In the case under discussion the police presumably, as so frequently happens in similar cases, had to use their judgment in the heat of a police chase after a suspected notorious criminal. It is known why the police followed Mr. Duvenhage’s motor-car. After all, we can deduce this from reports we have received on the matter to date. In the course of this pursuit, these tragic events took place. During this chase the police had to make judgments and take decisions which cannot summarily be condemned without a proper investigation. The hon. the Minister has already expressed his sympathy to the Duvenhage family because of what happened and the S.A. Police also announced at the highest level that the actions which led to Mr. Duvenhage’s death were regretted. When we in this House judge the behaviour of the police then we must take the circumstances in which the tragic events took place into consideration soberly and objectively. I do not have the time now to say everything one would like to say in this connection. However, I think that we in this House must definitely guard against overhasty condemnation of the behaviour of the police in this specific case. At this stage the CP cannot stand by and give support to any request for the appointment of a judicial commission. Until such times as this case has run its course and has been finalized, we shall not be able to give our support to any request for the appointment of such a commission.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that there is one single member of this House who does not feel deeply the tragedy that has befallen this unfortunate family. I say more in sorrow than in anger that regrettably the hon. the Minister of Law and Order does not, on occasions such as this, choose his words wisely. That is part of the make-up of this gentleman. This is regrettable, and I believe that the time has come for him to examine his every utterance very carefully in the future.

We too join with those who offer their condolences to this family. I think that the hon. member for Pinetown has more than adequately set out the circumstances of this occurrence. I think too that this tragedy is compounded by the fact that it has followed so closely upon similar incidents—two in Pietermaritzburg just recently and one that I know of that occurred last year in my own constituency. The public of South Africa are deeply concerned. We had an incident of a similar nature in Britain recently, a case of mistaken identity. A man was shot. I want to join with the hon. member for Pinetown and I want to quote the actual words that were used by Mr. William Whitelaw. I commend these words to the hon. the Minister.

[Inaudible.]

We will be, Mr. Minister, because on your conscience rests this matter. Mr. Whitelaw said—

That, Sir, is what that hon. Minister should be saying. [Interjections.] Positive steps, Sir, should be taken now and the first positive step that must be taken is that the law of this land must be reviewed. Section 49 must be put under a microscope and reviewed. However, what is more important, something has to be done immediately—action from this moment. The first thing is that the police must identify themselves properly before they resort to drastic action. This is easy. Every vehicle should be equipped with a siren of a type that is available only to the S.A. Police so that the public will know that that siren is on a police vehicle. Portable warning lights should be carried in every police vehicle. I know that this sounds a little like Kojak on a Saturday night but you know, Sir, there is something very realistic in that suggestion because if it is good enough for the United States in America it should be good enough for the Republic of South Africa. However, the most important thing of all I want to say is that we in this party deplore this happening. We grieve over this happening and we say to this hon. Minister: Do what you can and do what you must to ensure that this does not happen in our country ever again.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pinetown has every right to request the debate and state his case in the way he did. Because time does not allow one to reply properly to it, I just want to make two observations. It is a pity that the hon. member, as chief spokesman of the official Opposition, never misses an opportunity, inside this House or outside when serious matters have to be discussed between the two of us, of being personally insulting.

Would it not have been better to start your speech by expressing sympathy towards the family?

I just want to tell the hon. member that I also have no time or respect for a man like him who is not prepared to call a terrorist a terrorist. [Interjections.]

I am responsible for a very sensitive portfolio, and I want to tell hon. members that they must not expect me to run around agitatedly every time there is a crisis. They must not expect me to do that, nor must they expect me, every time there is a crisis, to reply immediately or within the first few hours to all the questions the hon. member puts to me. That is not how things must be done when one is dealing with these sensitive matters.

Very briefly, now, I should like to furnish certain information. In this case the Government expressed its regret at the first possible opportunity. This was conveyed personally to the family. Sympathy was expressed personally on behalf of the Commissioner of Police and on behalf of the Government. An investigation on a high level was immediately ordered by the Commissioner.

How high?

One of the competent senior detective officers in Johannesburg, the officer in charge of the detective branch in Soweto, was given personal instructions to investigate this matter. This is a senior officer outside the division in which the incident occurred. The dossier will be submitted in all possible haste to the Attorney-General for consideration of the facts and for his decision in this connection. No facts are being suppressed in any way. Full statements are being taken, if they have not already been taken, and will be submitted to the Attorney-General.

We are dealing here with decent people, but in exactly the same way I want to say that the police officer involved is also a decent man. He is also a hard-working policeman and he is also a person who is terribly sorry about the incident which occurred.

What are the facts? The police were investigating a theft case involving motor vehicles and other items. In this connection five White men and two White women had already been arrested on that date. All of them had made statements as accused persons, and they implicated a certain Manie Nieuwoudt, who was also known as Tony Smith, as their leader. He was being sought by the police on charges of motor theft, fraud and attempted murder. In addition he was known to be a very dangerous man. During the investigation of the case six Cortina motor-cars, a motor-cycle, TV sets, electronic musical instruments, etc., had been seized, including a bullet-proof vest which was allegedly worn by Nieuwoudt whenever he went out to steal motor vehicles.

On 28 February a photograph of Nieuwoudt had been shown on TV 1 to indicate that he was being sought by the police. On 3 March the police received a report that Nieuwoudt was at a certain address and that he was there with a 1982 model white Cortina, registration number FHZ 911 T. This information was conveyed to the various divisions of the S.A. Police.

On Friday, 4 March, a home in Westdene was broken into, and according to a reliable witness a White man in a motor vehicle, registration FHZ 911 T—it was a White Cortina—had committed the crime. This information was once again conveyed to the various divisions of the S.A. Police involved in this kind of case. On that same day the police received a report that Nieuwoudt was at that stage sitting in that motor vehicle at a certain address in Windsor Park, Johannesburg. The police, under the command of a major, immediately sent a team of experienced detectives to the scene. A member of the team was Detective Warrant Officer Swanepoel, who was involved in the investigation of the case.

Upon their arrival Nieuwoudt was not there. At the scene an officer instructed the police who were with them in various motor vehicles to conduct a search in the vicinity for the motor vehicle in which Nieuwoudt was supposed to be. While Detective Warrant Officer Swanepoel and other police were patrolling in a motor vehicle in the vicinity and in particular, as far as this case was concerned, in D.F. Malan Drive, they spotted a white Cortina, a 1982 model with registration number FHZ 911 T. Detective Warrant Officer Swanepoel immediately reported it to the other patrol cars in the vicinity and followed the motor vehicle in question. He, and the other men, made attempts to stop the driver, but without success. He then fired one shot at the vehicle to warn the man, but the person in the motor vehicle drove on and a second shot was fired, after which the vehicle came to a halt, with the unfortunate result which we are all aware of today.

This is the preamble to the incident which occurred there, but naturally, because this is a case which is being investigated and which can come before a court in so far as it involves criminal as well as civil aspects, it is surely not expected that any further details will be furnished beyond the general outlines which have been broached here.

The hon. member for Umhlanga and others have objected to my allegedly having said that I accepted that the policemen in question had at that moment acted to the best of their judgment. Conveniently the words “at that moment” are being omitted. However, I want to emphasize them. With the information at my disposal, I merely say that these men at that they were dealing with Nieuwoudt and realized that he was a dangerous man who even, on occasion, wore bullet-proof vests. This was the man they were dealing with according to their judgment and knowledge at that moment.

Here we had an unfortunate combination of coincidences which, I am sure, everyone regrets terribly. I shall make no further comment on the matter except to single out a few aspects. The policemen involved in the incident are experienced policemen. They are experienced detectives who were under the command of an experienced officer. The service of Detective Warrrant Officer Swanepoel and the other members of the Force who were involved was not suspended immediately after the incident and to this day has not yet been suspended because the Commissioner and I have no information at our disposal indicating that there was any question of wilfulness or intent on their part.

What about incompetence?

What have the police done in the past, and again in this case? Immediately after the incident the Commissioner of Police once again issued earnest instructions to members of the Force in connection with the handling of weapons by members of the Force. There are comprehensive regulations and standing orders on the handling of fire-arms. These run into many pages. There are clear criminal law provisions in our criminal code in connection with the handling of fire-arms. There are clear judgments passed down by our courts, the Supreme Court and others, on the handling of fire-arms by members of the S.A. Police. In their training, regulations in connection with the handling of fire-arms under all circumstances are drilled into them. At police station level, at district commandant level and at divisional commissioner level the men are constantly being spoken to, issued with instructions and warned in regard to the handling of fire-arms. I, personally, have on more than one occasion within the ranks of the S.A. Police, in the form of warnings and directives, drawn attention to the question of the handling of fire-arms. It is an extremely serious matter in the Force, one to which constant attention is being given. If one considers the large number of crimes which are being committed, and if one considers the cases in which the police were involved and persons were killed or wounded and on the other hand at the number of cases in which police were killed or wounded, one is grateful to be able to say that, although the numbers are large, the percentages in perspective are nevertheless small. However, this does not detract from the seriousness of the matter.

I can give the assurance that no member of the S.A. Police will, of his own accord, want to use his weapon against any person or under any circumstances. We try under all circumstances, regardless of whether it is a riot situation or any other situation, to do our part and solve a problem without a weapon, to restore calm in riot situations without a weapon, to catch a man who wants to escape without a weapon. But the test which is laid down is an objective test, while the policeman sometimes has a fraction of second or at most a few seconds in which to pass that objective test. If he passes that objective test as happened in Benoni when a policeman opened fire at two terrorists in the street and shot and killed one of them while the vehicle was blown up by a hand grenade—then he is praised and a medal is presented to him. However, if he does not pass the test, a test for which he has only a few seconds, we want to cruxify him.

All I ask is that we should bear these things in mind. We are dealing with serious matters. I have now informed this House as to the approach of the Commissioner of Police, the Government and myself in connection with this kind of incident. Against this background and with this approach we are daily trying to carry out an extremely sensitive and difficult task.

Discussion having continued for half an hour.