Mr. Chairman, several questions have been put to me. I shall reply to them quickly.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central raised the question of smoking on aircraft. The hon. member seems to have problems with this.

† It was clear from a discussion that there will always be a difference of opinion about the smoking of cigarettes on aircraft. As 60% of the demand for seats is from non-smokers we have decided to increase the seats for that category accordingly.

*Mr. Chairman, I want to interrupt my remarks to say welcome back to the hon. member for Hillbrow. [Interjections.]

Thank you very much.

For after action satisfaction smoke a Lexington! [Interjections.] If the hon. member for Hillbrow had a smoke every now and again, he would be able to be present in this House more regularly. In any event, I am very glad to see him back. [Interjections.]

† The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central also stressed the necessity for stopovers of flights at George. The whole pattern of SAA flight stop-overs at George and other airports is presently under investigation. The hon. member, however, only referred to certain days of the week. The over all picture of flights stopping over at George, however, is being investigated at the moment.

*The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central enquired about the possiblity of having the H.F. Verwoerd Airport declared an international airport. I want to tell the hon. member quite frankly that this is not possible. The introduction of international flights from Port Elizabeth would not be justified, because there are simply not enough passengers who would make use of it.

The hon. member for Rissik spoke about the station premises at Rissik, Loftus Versfeld Park and Hartebeesspruit stations. I had the matter investigated at once, and the position at those stations is as follows. The approaches to the subways leading to the platforms are clean and free of any vegetation. As far as the complaints with regard to assaults are concerned, there was a case of assault at Rissik about three years ago. The matter was reported to the Police, but some doubt exists as to whether the assault actually took place on Railway premises. The police could not be certain whether it took place on Raiway premises or not. The Police records for the past six months were checked, and it was found that no cases of assault had been reported at any of the three stations during that period.

That is not correct.

Well, that is what the Police told us.

Nevertheless it is not correct.

Mr. Chairman, it is possible that assaults took place outside the Railway premises, in a street somewhere, perhaps, which people have confused with the station premises. According to the police records, no assault has taken place on Railway premises during the past six months.

The hon. member for Rissik also spoke about the toilet facilities at Jan Smuts Airport. Attention is being given to the matter. I concede that these facilities at Jan Smuts Airport need to be renovated. The building itself is also very old in some places.

Then the hon. member for Rissik pleaded for a railway line to Hoopstad. The hon. member for Winburg has raised this matter with me repeatedly. I do not know why the hon. member for Rissik is interfering in the constituency of another hon. member. [Interjections.] Over the years, several requests have been received for such a railway line. However, it has not been possible to justify it economically. During 1980, only 5 300 tons of freight were conveyed to and from Bloemhof and Hoopstad by our road transportation service. Mr. Chairman, this is only half a trainload. However, I do not expect the hon. member for Rissik to interfere in Daantjie Scott’s constituency. He is simply bedevilling matters there. When he advocates such a railway line, Mr. Speaker, it means only one thing, and that is that we should delay the whole thing even further. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Umhlanga raised the matter of the GPO transporting its own mail and parcels between Johannesburg and Pretoria. Out of a total of 188 million tons we lost only 20 tons to the Department of Posts and Telecommunications.

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister tell us what percentage of the parcel and postage revenue that represents? We are talking about highrated tariffs; not coal and iron ore.

The 20 tons I have just referred to, Mr. Chairman, I am sure, represents no more than 0,001% of the grand total. We are still undertaking the uneconomic transport of goods between Pofadder and Koekenaap. Should the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications want to transport postal items between Pofadder and Koekenaap, we will still have to do that. I told that hon. Minister to take those 20 tons with my compliments. We have had to increase our tariffs, however, and that is why the Department of Posts and Telecommunications are doing that themselves now. We knew this was coming all along.

Do you mean to tell us it is 20 tons a day?

Yes. There are four loads of 5 tons every day. Small trucks are used for this purpose. However, a faster service can be provided in that way. Moreover, the trucks are empty on the return journey.

This bring me to the hon. member for Gezina. He also asked me quite a number of interesting questions.

The wall between the goods shed and Francina Street, in the hon. member’s constituency, will be built towards the end of July this year. The Pretoria City Council, the Department of Posts and Telecommunications and the SATS have agreed that each party will contribute to the building of the footbridge over the Apies River. A detailed programme is being drawn up at the moment.

The hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Pietersburg both put questions to me concerning racial segregation at stations. The hon. member for Pietersburg should take cognizance of the fact that I am going to pay a visit to the Pietersburg railway station myself on Wednesday. There are still two stations at Pietersburg—a station for Blacks and a station for Whites. With the aid of a computer system, however, the issuing of tickets is now being centralized. The hon. member is given the assurance, however, that the segregation of the various race groups at stations is conducted in a meaningful manner.

† The hon. member for Sea Point is smiling. His question to me was whether I was ashamed or proud of apartheid on trains and on stations.

Be a good boy and say that you are ashamed.

It must be done in a meaningful way. Where necessary, passengers are segregated at booking and ticket offices on the basis of the class of ticket that is being bought. Seperate but equal facilities are still being provided with regard to toilets, refreshment rooms with table service, platform benches and shelters.

[Inaudible.]

I shall come to you in a moment.

No, I am coming to you.

The hon. member must remember what happened after her interjection last time. Separate facilities are also provided at pedestrian stairways, footbridges, subways, and entrances and exits of station buildings where there could be any danger of overcrowding resulting in friction.

[Inaudible.]

I want to ask the hon. member this question. [Interjections.]

Order!

There was a possibility of the city council of a certain big city deciding to abolish separate amenities on buses. I received a letter from a lady who has to work although she is nearly 60 years old. She works as a café assistant and she has to leave at 11 in the evening. She wrote me a letter and told me that the mayor of that city was driving around in a limousine, just like some hon. members opposite. [Interjections.]

*I am not talking now about the people who have no knowledge of this and who have not experienced this. I have taken a bus ride myself in that city at midnight. [Interjections.] Now the hon. member for Houghton is making interjections. I want her to reply to this woman who is almost 60 years old and who has to work. She wrote to me to say: I am just asking you. While the city council wishes to do away with segregation, come and have a look at what is going on in this bus at midnight, where we are travelling in a diesel bus through areas where the streets are not even lit.

But crime is colour-blind.

The lady tells me that the city council wishes to do away with that segregation. [Interjections.] No, no. I am not a member of that city council. The hon. member for Sea Point asked me whether I was ashamed or proud. The hon. member for Yeoville took the trouble of inspecting the Durban station in our company. There I asked them at the station whether, if we switched around the facilities for the Whites because there are more Blacks who make use of the station facilities, in order to make the bigger facilities available to the masses, and the smaller facilities to the Whites, who are a minority, they would be satisfied. However, are we expected to make it obligatory in this country to cause friction as a result of overcrowding? The hon. member for Pietersburg spoke about the Pietersburg station. There are some days when 12 Whites get on the train, as opposed to some hundreds of Blacks. I want to say that I do not regard this as a question of looking down on people of colour. [Interjections.] I am prepared to say this in Sea Point. I live there, and I am afraid that the hon. member for Sea Point will have to do something for his voters as far as swimming facilities in that residential area are concerned. [Interjections.] He should go and see what happens in the streets of that constituency on a Saturday afternoon. [Interjections.] I have said in this House that I am prepared to leave Sunnyside and to go and live in Mamelodi, but on one condition: I want to live in Mamelodi among people of my own kind. Those people from Mamelodi can go and live in Sunnyside. Do not take it amiss of me if I start planting trees and improving the appearance of Mamelodi. All I ask is to be allowed to live in a separate area. This has been the standpoint of my party all along.

Hendrik, you are on the wrong side of the House!

They want to politicize everything. I ask those hon. members: Come with me on a train to Mitchells Plain, where a Coloured woman tells me: Sir, the Blacks are crowding us out. Can we not please have a separate train for Coloured people?

Are you going to segregate them for Coloureds as well?

But that is the way we are made, my friend, do what you will.

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. the Minister a chance to make his speech.

I want to emphasize again—with this I conclude my remarks in this connection—that I am not prepared to have people crowded out, nor is it my party’s policy to do so. The composition of our population is such that there is a numerical imbalance. We have to look after the minorities in this country as well. If we look after minorities by telling someone that he will be sharing his compartment only with people of his own kind, is this wrong? If I say to the person of colour I say that he can buy a first class ticket and we shall give him an equally fine compartment—he will get it—and we shall give him the best part of the station, because he belongs to the majority, and not because we look down on him, but because he and his people want to be on their own, just as the other population groups want to be on their own, do I have to feel ashamed when I say this? Have I said anything wrong?

The hon. member for Kroonstad referred to certain problems in a very interesting way. He said that I had visited the Kroonstad station in his company. On that occasion I met and inspected all the staff sections. I must tell him quite frankly that we cannot build a new station at this stage. We must first make a little money; meanwhile we must economize wherever we can.

† The hon. member for Durban Point referred to the matter of reduced annuities for SATS staff who were dismissed for disciplinary reasons. He also made reference to alcoholism. I did refer to these matters in the past. The whole matter regarding the granting of reduced annuities to members of the staff was explained to the hon. member on various other occasions. He referred to a resolution by the Federal Consultative Council regarding welfare reports which should be taken into account in cases of this nature. We are busy with this, but it is very difficult when it comes to certain disciplinary action and especially when alcoholism is involved. We are, however, investigating the whole matter and I think the hon. member can rest assured that we are paying attention to this problem. I know this matter is close to his heart.

The hon. member for Durban Point made a comparison between the activities of the Catering Department, but he compared the situation in 1954 to that in 1982. Well, it is altogether a different story. There is now a new company which provides flight meals, and as I indicated earlier, we are reconsidering the whole matter. As I have also said, we are going to save money on providing meals.

*The hon. member for Koedoespoort requested that the Koedoespoort workshop should be protected at all times. We are giving attention to this. This is one of our finest work shops and it has to be protected.

The hon. member for Sundays River referred to the radio relay station on Devil’s Peak. It is true that the SATS intends to build a radio relay station there. Its purpose will be to provide better radio coverage on our suburban trains with a view to ensuring the safety of our passengers. The SATS is deeply aware of the fact that from a conservation point of view, Devil’s Peak is extremely sensitive. For this reason, all interested parties were approached during July last year. The National Monuments Council does not object, and we are at present negotiating with the Government Departments concerned in order to give attention to the hon. member’s proposals.

† The hon. member for Walmer requested a breakdown of the staff totalling 252 000 on 15 February 1983. Should the hon. member refer to page 30 of the SATS Board, he would obtain all the figures he requested. At the moment there are 113 898 Whites, 18 785 Coloureds, 2 112 Indians and 116 710 Blacks. Staff recruited and employed abroad number 716.

*The hon. member for Kimberley North made a fine speech. He referred to the school in Delportshoop, where he taught a little boy whom he said would go far one day. When one knows where Delportshoop is, one knows, too, that the people in that region are people of character. The little boy whom he taught is Dr. Grové, the present General Manager.

The hon. member also asked for certain marketing actions. We are giving attention to this. Now I want to mention one example to the hon. member of what we are going to do now for marketing purposes. Many other hon. members have spoken of the cost of airline and train tickets. In an attempt to obtain the maximum rate of occupancy on domestic flights of the S.A. Airways, incentive fares have recently been introduced. In this morning’s newspaper and in Friday’s Beeid, announcements were published about the incentive discounts we are granting on train journeys. Apart from the discounts for families and groups which have already been introduced, I am pleased to be able to announce that a discount of 40% on the usual air fares is being introduced for groups of 40 or more passengers. This discount will apply on flights which are not being fully utilized and the intention is that by way of experiment, the facilities will at first only be offered in respect of return journeys when the groups travel together all the time. Hon. members sometimes ask whether it is not possible to grant a discount to a group of members of a band or orchestra or to a group of sportsmen. If they now make use of flights nominated by us, such as the 20h30 flight to Johannesburg tonight, we shall give them a 40% discount if there are 40 people in the group. And would you believe it, not a single hon. member has shouted “Hear, hear!”

Hear, hear!

That was my reply to the request made by the hon. member for Kimberley North.

This brings me to the hon. member for De Aar, who asked a question in connection with the dining-cars on the trains. Trains which do not have dining-cars are scheduled to stop at stations where refreshment facilities are available. Particulars regarding the times of departure of passenger trains, as well as of stations where refreshment facilities are available, are indicated on the railway timetable.

When someone embarks upon a journey, therefore, he is able to know that the train will stop at a place where refreshments will be available between 13h00 and 14h00.

The hon. member also requested that priority be given to the building of a second platform at Orange River. However, could the hon. member tell me how many people board the train at Orange River? I notified the hon. member on 28 August 1981 that certain changes were going to be made to the railroad and signalling so that passenger trains travelling in either direction could stop at the existing platform. Due to a lack of funds, the work is expected to be done during 1984. We shall also ensure that the mobile step to which the hon. member referred is regularly available. We have telephoned the station master there and asked him to give attention to the matter.

The hon. member also suggested that the platform at Noupoort station be extended. The S.A. Transport Services is aware of the problem at Noupoort. There are several stations in the Republic where the platform for passenger trains are too short. Such platforms are being extended on a priority basis as funds become available.

The last request made by the hon. member for De Aar was that when passenger trains stopped at De Aar station, the third class carriages should not stop right opposite the waiting room for White ladies. Of course, trains arrive at De Aar station from every conceivable direction. We have arranged with the staff that the train should stop in the way he requests, but there are a few cases where this is simply not possible. However, we are giving attention to this problem regarding the trains at De Aar.

† The hon. member for Johannesburg North raised the matter of over-bookings on direct flights between Cape Town and London. Over-bookings are resorted to as a protective measure against the loss of revenue due to passengers not showing up.

*It is done all over the world, of course. The country is full of agents. In the case of some flights that are fully booked, only 70% of the people turn up. One can go and talk to the people of El Al, British Airways or Lufthansa. They will all tell you that they over-book, because there is no system which enables one to find out whether all the people are going to turn up. In the unfortunate case of this flight, everyone turned up, including 14 of the over-booked passengers. We put those people up in a hotel and put them on a flight the next morning. However, this was a highly exceptional case. I apologize to those 14 passengers, but I must say that none of them is angry. We dealt with them all in such a way that they are quite happy. If we only accept bookings until the flight is full, however, we experience problems. I indicated the other day that three flights to Hamburg and back cost us R1 million. If 30% of the people who were booked fail to turn up, therefore, we lose money. This happens to everyone. However, it is regrettable that it happened to us.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North also spoke about air fares.

† He said that air fares on all international routes should be approved by the respective Governments and should be applied by both sides. He raised the question of cheap fares at short notice from South Africa to Europe. One cannot cut the fares from Africa to Europe. In terms of the IATA agreement and all the other agreements we have, we are not allowed to cut the fares as he would like us to do. It is known that certain “bucket shops” sell approved fares at a discount. This practice is one of the causes of the serious financial problems in which airlines find themselves.

*The hon. member for Nigel referred to the connecting line between Sentrarand and Balfour North. The relief brought by other Sentrarand connecting lines means that the line to which the hon. member referred will not be built in the foreseeable future. The East Rand Metropolitan Transport Advisory Board found that there was no justification for a railway connection between Vorsterskroon and Alra Park. Of course, all these matters will be reviewed from time to time as the area develops.

The hon. member for Greytown spoke about the interest with regard to housing. We shall send him the reply to this. The hon. member is not here, and he told me that he would not be here. That hon. member says he is an engineer. Then he asks why we are moving away from steam locomotives. A maximum of two steam locomotives can be connected to a train. When one uses a steam locomotive, one can only connect two, while in the case of diesel locomotives, six can be linked up, and only one driver is required. This is what the engineers tell me. Therefore it is much more economical under today’s circumstances to switch over from steam to diesel. The hon. member for Greytown also referred to the time of departure of the Trans-Karoo. I shall let the hon. member have the reply to that as well. There is no problem in this regard.

I want to thank the hon. member for Gordonia for his contribution. He said that 80 000 animals would have died in his constituency if they had not obtained railway wagons within 24 hours to transport water. Why is he so grateful for the service? I made some inquiries. It was the way in which he and his district agricultural union approached the Railway Administration. It was their friendly approach which elicited the response: We shall do it as soon as we can; not a single animal must die; we shall see to it that the trains are provided and that the water is transported there.

The hon. member also spoke about a young Jersey bull which he had bought from the hon. member for Humansdorp. When a wagon is booked for transporting a bull by train, seven animals are loaded into that wagon. In this case, two mistakes were made to begin with. One bull was put in a wagon intended for seven animals. The other big mistake was that he actually went and bought a Jersey bull. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Humansdorp has to live, too, and he will switch to Friesian cattle sooner or later. [Interjections.] The Jersey farmers and I are good friends. A Friesian farmer once told me; When one has milked a cow until the bucket is full and drops a penny into it, one can see right through the milk to where the penny is lying at the bottom. Then I said: That is right, but when one drops a penny into the bucket and one adds all the milk from the Jersey cow, it will not quite cover the penny. [Interjections.] I thank the hon. member for Gordonia.

The hon. member for Heilbron won a municipal election for the NP and his speech dealt with that. I thank him for his contribution.

The hon. member for Uitenhage said that money should be made available on a regular basis for moving the mechanical workshops at Uitenhage to Cuyler Manor. The hon. member will have seen how much money we have already made available. He is very concerned about Uitenhage and I appreciate his interest in the Railway people in particular. He has invited me to visit this area and I shall do so immediately after the parliamentary session. Then we can go into the details. Meanwhile, I am sending him the replies to his questions, which were very reasonable.

† The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens referred to the food provided on flights. He said we should pay more attention to the food. He said the bun he received was not very fresh. We are busy looking into the whole matter of food on planes. As I have said before, it is costing us about R1,40 per head and 73 cents for drinks per passenger. It is therefore not a big expense. We are nevertheless paying attention to the whole matter.

*The hon. member for Sea Point spoke about Granger Bay. The matter is explained in detail in this morning’s Burger, and it corresponds exactly with my reply. Therefore the hon. member need only read this morning’s Burger.

† The hon. the Minister of National Education will reply to this whole matter during the discussion of his Vote. It is said here that the SATS has not replied yet. We expect to give the reply within a week’s time. We feel that the hon. member for Sea Point has a point there. We can develop this area. However, we have a problem with Somerset Hospital. We know all the arguments, all the pros and cons. We will wait for the report. We expect the hon. the Minister of National Education to make a proposal to the Cabinet, after which we will go into the whole matter. I am open for business. If we can sell some of the area at a substantial profit—we are looking for a few dollars—and if it can help the development of Cape Town, I am for it all the way.

What about the Victoria Basin?

That will also be dealt with in the report. The whole lot will be dealt with in the report.

The hon. member for Sea Point also suggested that new stations should be multistorey blocks for commercial use. It is strange, but we had a meeting with the Management in Johannesburg in November and we decided that this was a very practical idea. We have ample space at stations which we can sublet for parking and on which we can build multi-storey blocks which can be offered to private enterprise on a tender basis.

*The hon. member for Sea Point does not always advocate the wrong things. This is a good suggestion he has made here.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to respond on the question of overseas tour operators being able to book the domestic sector of tours through the S.A. Airways.

I have a very long written reply available in which the whole position is explained. I will send the reply to the hon. member. There are certain problems regarding the selling of domestic tickets compared to the selling of overseas tickets. A certain company overseas complained about this system. According to them a wealthy man in New York may fly S.A. Airways, if he can also buy a ticket on the Blue Train.

*There are so many arguments and rules regarding this matter. We shall let the hon. member have a written reply.

The hon. member for Hercules suggested that a committee of experts be appointed to find out what the travelling requirements of train passengers are. I thank the hon. member for this suggestion. We are doing market research in that connection at the moment.

The hon. member for Witbank made a very good speech in reply to the speech of the hon. member for Langlaagte. The hon. member for Witbank gave a meaningful reply. I want to ask him—he is my neighbour—to do me the favour of making the same speech during the debate on the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Community Development, because the hon. member gave the hon. member for Langlaagte the full and true reply with regard to Mayfair. However, the houses in Mayfair are not Railway houses.

The hon. member for False Bay referred to the enormous cost involved in operating private aircraft. The hon. member is right in saying that most of our pilots receive their training in the use of private aircraft. However, the cost of operating a private aircraft has soared. I can see that the hon. member has made a thorough study of the subject. The hon. the Minister of Defence is also interested in this matter, because in an emergency one needs more people with private pilot’s licences. The hon. member referred to the cost involved, but fortunately the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs and the hon. the Minister of Finance have reduced the price of fuel for private aircraft. However, I shall send the hon. member the full particulars.

The last hon. member to whom I want to refer is the hon. member for Rosettenville. We have become a bunch of materialists. However, the hon. member for Rosettenville spoke about meeting the spiritual needs of our people. The hon. member is the editor of Spore, and I advise hon. members to read the publication. When one is in such a hurry and when one is making money, one sometimes loses that contact. However, the hon. member for Rosettenville restored it to us last Thursday. No matter how much money one makes, one will not be happy if one is spiritually deficient. I want to tell the hon. member for Rosettenville that it is necessary, not only for me, but for all of us, to slow down a little from time to time and to reflect on where all the prosperity is coming from. Even though we have a drought at the moment, even though we are faced with losses, we still have so many other things to be grateful for. The Good Lord is going to give us rain again, and we are going to make profits again. I want to say that the hon. member for Rosettenville is the rose of Rosettenville.

Schedules agreed to.

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

Mr. Speaker, before dealing with other matters relating to this Bill, I feel I must coment on some of the remarks made by the hon. the Minister this afternoon relating to the apartheid policy of the SATS. I wonder if the hon. the Minister realizes the implication behind some of his comments, especially when he reiterated that apartheid and discrimination are alive and well on the SATS.

I never uttered those words.

Well, the hon. the Minister certainly indicated that apartheid was the policy of the NP and that this was the policy that was going to be applied on the SATS. If that was not the implication of what the hon. the Minister said, then I do not know. I think that the hon. the Minister’s comments and attitude were most revealing. They were most revealing because they showed up the two-faced approach of members of the Government party on the whole issue of colour in South Africa. I wonder how the hon. the Minister can reconcile the statements he made this afternoon with some of the other things to which this Government says that they are committed. It would appear, for example, that the Coloured people of South Africa are good enough to woo when the Government wants to woo them for their new constitutional dispensation, but they are not good enough to share the same compartment with Whites on the SATS. It would appear that people who are not White are good enough to lend credibility to the Goevernment’s so-called normal sports policy when they attend rugby or cricket matches at Newlands, when they can mix freely with people irrespective of colour and sit and watch those events, but the moment they leave Newlands and get on to the station platform or into a railway carriage, they are totally different and must be separated. This is what the hon. the Minister is saying. There is no logicality. There is no logicality in anything that the hon. the Minister has said if it is related to the belief that the Government is moving away from the old style apartheid and the separation of races in South Africa. The hon. the Minister’s comments affirmed again this afternoon that the Government is more and more committed to racism in its administration of the country. The hon. the Minister cited a number of irrelevancies. He talked about how it was necessary to protect people from using the same buses because they needed protection. He gave a long story about bad lighting in roads, bad behaviour of people and this sort of thing. But, as the hon. member for Yeoville interjected, there is no colour bar in this sort of thing when it comes to preserving law and order. If there is bad behaviour on a bus or a train it does not know the difference of colour. It might be bad behaviour on the part of Whites or it might be bad behaviour on the part of other race groups, and certainly it is the function of the SATS, as in any other service of the Government departments, to protect the public against bad behaviour. It is their function to ensure that there is good behaviour, that there is proper policing and this sort of thing, but it is quite wrong and totally irrelevant to suggest that this can be done on the basis of separation of races and that this is the reason why there should be bad behaviour. The hon. the Minister should realize that the majority of his customers are people who are other than White, and I believe they deserve better than the sort of remark which has come from him this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, I should now like to come to other matters relating to the Third Reading of this Bill. During the Second Reading debate we expressed our severe reservations in regard to the background against which these budget proposals have been presented. It certainly is common cause that this is the most dismal and unsatisfactory budget of decades. Having listened to speeches from both sides of the House it seems to be only the hon. member for False Bay who thinks this was a good budget, but if one looks at the facts, people look upon this budget, for whatever reason, as a very bad budget indeed against the background against which SATS are operating. After raising tariffs across the board last year, the hon. the Minister budgeted for a deficit of R10,5 million. But he ended with a deficit of R370 million, and that after he found himself, as he admitted in his budget speech, compelled to take emergency steps to effect economy measures throughout the service. For instance, he had to take steps to prune capital expenditure by R650 million and to prune the staff complement of the SATS by 20 000 units. At the end of last year he also took the step of raising tariffs once again by between 10% and 15%. But despite all that he still ended with a deficit of R370 million, in general terms about 37-times larger than the deficit he budgeted for. So if that is not a dismal and unsatisfactory state of affairs, what is?

For the coming year the hon. the Minister is budgeting for a deficit of R634 million. One can only hope that the hon. the Minister’s assessment of his deficit for the coming year is not going to be out by the same margin than the year that ends in March, i.e. this month. If that proves to be the case it conjures up a situation which one might describe as too ghastly to contemplate. So I hope the hon. the Minister’s assessment is a little more accurate for the coming year than it was for the current year.

The effects of the massive deficit for which the hon. the Minister is now budgeting is a matter which we must debate in this the Third Reading and in doing so we cannot disregard our experience during the current year. This I believe reflects bad planning on the part of the hon. the Minister and his failure to anticipate and adapt to the financial realities of our time. In the course of the Second Reading debate we on these benches called for adequate planning and we criticized the hon. the Minister for having failed to take a number of steps. For instance, we criticized him for having failed to provide more efficient services to increase the number of goods and passenger traffic. Furthermore we criticized him for failing to eliminate unnecessary and wasteful expenditure and for having failed to come to a proper arrangement with the Treasury in regard to uneconomic passenger services. We also criticized him for failing to allow the private sector a greater measure of responsibility in regard to the provision of transport services in South Africa.

Government members have accused us of not having indicated what we would have done to avert the situation which has led to the present economic crisis in the SATS. The answer to that is implicit in the amendment which we moved at Second Reading. The answer as to what should have been done can be found there. It is also implicit from the fact that we have not criticized the hon. the Minister for the steps that he took, belatedly, to meet the situation. For example, we have not criticized the hon. the Minister for cutting back on expenditure. On the contrary. I commented on that with approval. We have not criticized the hon. the Minister for his reduction of the personnel complement of the SATS. On the contrary, I commented with approval on the fact that the Administration was now intent on improving productivity even with fewer staff.

These were matters, however, which, as I say, were totally implicit both in our amendment and in our failure to criticize the hon. the Minister for the emergency steps which he took. Our criticism in regard to those steps was only that they were steps that were taken belatedly and that the problems should have been recognized far earlier by both the hon. the Minister and the Administration. Instead of facing up to these facts, however, and asking themselves why these matters had not received attention before, hon. members on the Government side— speaker after speaker—simply relied heavily, if not entirely, on the worldwide economic recession in order to explain away their problems and the present economic plight of the SATS. No one denies that the general economic situation—the economic recession—must have had a serious effect on the financing of the SATS. However, that is only part of the story, and the effect of the recession, if not the exact extent of the decline, should have been foreseen and provided for more adequately and much sooner than was done. However, that, in a sense, is now water under the bridge, and one can only hope that the hon. the Minister has learnt a lesson from his experiences last year.

That brings me to the immediate future as far as the financing of the SATS is concerned. Apart from the fact that the hon. the Minister has told us that we are now budgeting for a deficit of R634 million, we appear to be moving deeper and deeper into the area of the unknown. The hon. the Minister has told us that he is estimating a total revenue of R6 243 million, against which he is estimating an expenditure of R6 878 million—in other words, a deficit of R634 million. Now, where are the funds coming from to meet that deficit? That we have not yet been told. The hon. the Minister, while in his budget speech making no provision whatsoever in the working estimates for tariff increases, has of course hinted heavily that this might have to be reconsidered later in the year. I want to ask—if the problem is not going to be resolved by way of increased tariffs—from what source, what other source, can we hope to face up to this deficit and to minimize it? We all hope that there will be an upturn in the economy and that there will be a return to a positive growth rate. Is this perhaps what the hon. the Minister is relying on? Is he hoping that something will turn up in a Micawber-like fashion, which will minimize his problems in so far as the deficit is concerned? I see the hon. the Minister is nodding his head. That means he is hoping that something will indeed turn up.

Or is there any more definite type of planning which might give rise to some optimism when one looks at the immediate financial future of the SATS?

Then there is another vital matter which is still totally unsatisfactory in so far as this debate is concerned. Speaker after speaker on the Government benches joined in the annual refrain on the subject of uneconomic passenger services. However, no light has yet been shed on this issue. No proper light has been shed on it at all in this debate. The hon. member Dr. Welgemoed acknowledged the problem which I had raised repatedly in these debates previously. The hon. member Dr. Welgemoed said that were it not for these uneconomic passenger services, the socio-economic services provided by the administration, which resulted in a loss of some R600 million a year, we would not have been faced with a deficit problem at the present time. Well, that may be so. However, the hon. member for De Kuilen, in his speech during the Committee State, responded to my questions to the hon. the Minister and simply said that if there was an economic recession which affected the SATS, the same would apply to the Treasury and therefore we could not resolve this problem at the present time. That seems to be the stage we have reached now.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister now how this matter is going to be dealt with. Has he had any discussions in principle—never mind the non-availability of money at this stage—and has there been any resolution in principle of this problem between him and the hon. the Minister of Finance? These are some of the matters which I believe should be resolved and dealt with during the course of this debate.

My time is very limited and we shall soon be coming to the end of this Third Reading debate. We know that we have to vote the funds which the hon. the Minister requires in order to ensure that the SATS continue to operate. However, in doing so, we want to express the hope that there will be better planning this year. We hope that there will be a curtailment of indiscriminate spending—we shall watch this carefully—and we will look for the curtailment of unnecessary expenditure. We will also look for greater productivity and hope for better services and more realistic marketing as well as better co-operation with the private sector. We also hope that the hon. the Minister has learnt a lesson from his failures over the past year.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. the Minister, if he would, to reply to me on the few aspects I mentioned during the Committee Stage as regards the matter of differentiation in fares. It was in connection with trains with dining cars and those without dining cars.

I think the hon. the Minister also misunderstood me as regards the trains that do not have dining cars. I was not referring to stations where the SATS has made provision for this. I know that the trains stop there at specific times, for example, at Kimberley. I was referring to station like Kraankuil, Belmont and Witput, where there are hotels. I asked that the trains stop at those stations for a specific period so that passengers will know how long the train will stop there. In the summer one develops a tremendous thirst between De Aar and Kimberley. There is no problem at Kimberley because they have the necessary facilities there.

Transport is the most important artery in a developed industrial country like the Republic of South Africa. The SATS has a difficult task. It must be run on business principles. It must protect its own interests, and in the process it must ensure that it is economically viable. The SATS must ensure that increases in tariffs do not adversely affect the economic growth of the country and at the same time it must transport non-profitable goods, for example livestock. There was a time when members of the official Opposition pleaded and insisted that the conveyance of livestock be left to free interprise. The hon. the Minister did that, but a great many of those private hauliers did not earn as much as they had expected from that undertaking. The result was a gradual return of the conveyance of livestock to the SATS, and we now have the situation that the SATS is the only body that has thus far been prepared to convey livestock at a loss.

Since the hon. the Minister will most probably have to make a decision on the tariffs for livestock when tariffs are increased in future, I should at this stage like to appeal to him on behalf of the farmers of South Africa to take the terrible drought and the poor product prices of the farmer fully into consideration before he makes any decision in this connection.

The SATS will also have to be compensated by the Treasury for the essential socioeconomic services it renders. The SATS finds itself in the position of being unable to refuse to convey uneconomic goods. It is compelled to do so. In spite of the total tariff increase during the past financial year of 25%, owing to an inflation rate of 13,8%, the SATS has been unable to make ends meet. It seems to me as if the Government is trying to control the inflation rate solely by means of monetary measures, of which the aspect of interest rates is one. Therefore only the symptoms of inflation are being treated, and not the cause. The main reason for inflation is still an increase in wages without an associated increase in productivity. Wages incease, but productivity does not. I hope that there was a thorough sifting process when superfluous labourers left the service of the SATS. By this I mean that I hope the sifting process was so thorough that the bad workers left and the good ones remained.

I agree that the problem with salary parity is that we make things so attractive for the Black man in the country of the White man that he will never feel the need to assist his country to develop. That is a fact, and that is why parity must be dealt with circumspection.

In my Second Reading speech I referred to an energetic marketing programme, and when he gets to his next tariff increase, the hon. the Minister must be careful not to negate this good work being done in terms of the marketing programme by announcing increases which are counterproductive. Such increases will be to the detriment of the programme.

You are making a good speech; you must come and sit on this side of the House. [Interjections.]

The travelling public, too, is obviously always sensitive to increased fares. I travel by train a great deal. I think I am the member of this House who uses our train services most. I have been struck by the fact that many of our people no longer purchase meals on the train, not because the meals are unappetisingly presented, nor because they can purchase a meal elsewhere for the same price, but because they are hard up; they simply do not have the money. They pack their own hamper and take it with them on the train as they used to do in the old days.

As a result of the present economic situation, our people no longer have the money. It is a fact that as a result of the percentages their increases have totalled over the years, the Whites have had to pay the price to achieve parity. In this process the White man has, unfortunately, lagged behind.

I am sure that the hon. the Minister has already taken preparatory steps to borrow money abroad. However, I should like to mention that in spite of the steps taken by the Reserve Bank, pressure is still being exerted on bodies to withdraw their investments from South Africa to the extent that the economy in the USA improves or recovers.

The important part played by the SATS outside South Africa should not be underestimated. In spite of the spectres that are conjured up from time to time, we are at present doing business with 48 countries in Africa. The hon. the Minister mentioned the good business that can be done with Zaire. The SATS is therefore indispensable to Africa.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister to be very careful about closing down or downgrading stations in rural areas. There must be a joint effort by him, the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications and the State as such, so that we do not find ourselves in the position that stations and post offices are closed down, and then at a later date millions of rands have to be spent to send people there to reopen them. We must grant the necessary concessions while the people are still living there.

I should like to thank all the workers of the SATS for their hard work and express the hope that the salary increases will be worthwhile to all of them, and that in the process the hon. the Minister will not forget the essential adjustments for the pensioners.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Berea started his speech by criticizing the hon. the Minister for allegedly having stated that our passenger services should be run in terms of so-called apartheid ideology. I listened very carefully to what the hon. the Minister said, however, and the hon. the Minister never dealt with ideology at all. All the hon. the Minister did was to recognize the realities with which the S.A. Transport Services has to contend. He merely stated that the SATS had to take cognizance of certain circumstances that exist and had to comply with certain relevant requirements. The hon. member for Berea’s attack on the hon. the Minister on these grounds was, I would suggest, therefore totally unfounded and uncalled for.

What are the circumstances?

We are in the process of discussing an Appropriation Bill which makes provision for a huge deficit of R634 million, and from this it is clearly apparent that the SATS is experiencing serious financial problems. During the past few days a diversity of reasons for these financial problems have been advanced. Various solutions to these problems have also been proposed. The proposed solutions related primarily to saving and economizing. However, when a budget does not balance, one can do either of two things in an effort to cause it to balance. On the one hand expenditure can be pruned and on the other hand efforts can be made to boost the income.

I suggest that, apart from economizing wherever possible, an attempt should also be made to boost the income, even if this entails additional expenditure. This may perhaps sound contradictory, but when I say that expenditure should be pruned, I am referring to those areas where it is possible to prune expenditure without such a step being counterproductive, and when I refer to additional expenditure, I am referring to those fields—and I shall elaborate on this later— where additional expenditure could in fact generate additional income. It is a financial or economic fact that an entrepreneur should be prepared to invest first, before he can expect a dividend.

It is a fact that the average consumer, or user of services, is to a great extent the slave of the practices and criteria which apply in his environment. By means of a judicious use of advertisements and the creation of specific fashion trends, a seller of goods and services can dictate to a large section of the public what and how they should buy. On the other hand the behaviour of the seller vis-à-vis the public ought in fact to be based on a meticulous analysis of the needs or preferences of the average consumer. Consequently there ought to be a close interaction between consumption and the demand for goods or services on the one hand and the supply and marketing of goods or services on the other.

As far as passenger services are concerned, I suggest that thorough, expert research should be carried out into what the priorities of travellers are when it comes to their requirements; that it should be scientifically ascertained whether travellers accord the highest priority to comfort, to safety, to speed or to costs, because on the results of such an investigation will depend to what the SATS should accord the highest priority in the provision of services. I suggest further that an attempt should be made to comply with the requirements of the travelling public according to those priorities. What is equally important is that the SATS should be projected in the light of those priorities.

I shall quote a few examples by way of illustration. On some main line trains the diningcars have been replaced with refreshment cars. I take it that this was done for the sake of cutting down on expenses and effecting economies. However, I wonder whether the savings or economies so effected compensate in any way for the poorer service being rendered, whether they compensate in any way for the deterioration of the image of the service which is being rendered. My experience has been that in these refreshment cars one is seldom if ever served anything in glasses. Use is made throughout of plastic tumblers or of a kind of foamalite tumbler.

That is true; and it is not pleasant at all.

I accept that this is an economizing measure. However, I think it is an economizing measure which is counterproductive.

Hear, hear!

The image of the transport service is not improved in that way.

I also think that insufficient distinction is drawn between first class and second class amenities on the main line trains. Only last week I was travelling first class on the train and a fellow passenger was surprised when he found that his first class ticket did not include bedding. If a greater distinction would be drawn between first and second class, for example by including bedding in the price of a first class ticket, the status of the service could be enhanced.

I am convinced that the lower we make fares on main fine train services, the fewer passengers we are going to attract. I believe that by enhancing the status of the service by improving the standard of that service, we will be able to make the service profitable because we will then attract more travellers. I think the travelling public will be prepared to pay more, provided the standard of the service improves and the status of travelling by train is enhanced. Then it will once again become popular to go by train. It must become a status symbol, as is indeed the case with the Blue Train for example. It ought to be the same in respect of other main line trains.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mossel Bay had some very interesting things to say. He said we must not lower the quality of our service because certain people demand quality. I want to submit to him that it depends on the needs of people.

I said the needs must be determined.

Therefore one can afford to have a Blue Train and run it efficiently and economically, but there must also be other trains that meet the needs of a different strata of society. I agree entirely with the hon. member.

One point which I have tried to put across in the debate so far is that while we are trying to achieve that quality, at the right price, we must be careful that we do not load the cost unnecessarily. I have raised the matter with the hon. the Minister about people travelling on the passenger services on various free passes and concessions. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister that when we ask questions in the House, that he will not be evasive. I referred during the Second Reading to a question which I had asked earlier about the cost of the various concessions. The hon. the Minister’s reply was as follows—

The question I had asked involved an extremely important part of the cost of operating passenger services. Yet, when I pressurized the hon. the Minister in the Second Reading he came with a figure and said that the total cost was R28 million. Just like that. I also pressurized him further about the average price of a journey. I said that if one looks at the average revenue earned per journey in 1978 and compared that with 1982, one will find that the average revenue per journey has dropped from R1,70 per journey to R9,12. The reply I got from the hon. the Minister was—

Will the hon. the Minister then tell me why the average cost per journey for second-class travellers increased from R5,80 to R16,50 during the same period? The hon. the Minister comes with replies which, as my hon. colleague says, are inconsistent and leaves us at times a little bit concerned.

The other aspect of loading costs, which I have referred to, is what is termed “inflation accounting”. The hon. the Minister sent me a reply to questions I raised during the Committee Stage. We in this party are very concerned about inflation. We are looking for the causes of inflation and for ways and means to cure inflation. The public is very concerned about the fact that the Railways is this year losing more than R300 million in operating losses. I want to challenge the hon. the Minister: I believe the finances of the Railways had never been in a better position than they are now. Why do I say that? If one studies a balance sheet one finds that the reserves in the SATS balance sheet has increased and increased to the point where today they have over R2 000 million. They are increasing at the rate of something like R300 million to R400 million per annum. I tried to find out the reason why. This is despite the fact that there have been operating losses during the past few years and despite the fact that there have also been considerable capital expenditure during the last few years. I believe that the reason for this increase in reserves is due to what is called inflation accountancy, i.e. the hon. the Minister is now depreciating the Transport Services assets on replacement cost as opposed to historical cost. There is merit in this type of thinking. For example, if one buys a vehicle today for R10 000 and one has to replace it in five years time for R20 000 one should write into one’s costs a rate of depreciation that will ensure that one’s investment has kept pace with inflation. If one has not done that, then one is out of pocket. But if one has borrowed R10 000, as most of us who have created our own businesses over the last 20 years have done, and if one uses the normal capitalistic system of borrowing money when one does not have it, and one depreciates one’s vehicle on replacement cost, the average amount that one charges to costs as depreciation, is R15 000, so that at the end of the period one has R15 000 in one’s hand. One then repays, for example, the hon. the Minister who has lent one the R10 000, and one has R5 000 in one’s pocket. Now one wants to buy a new vehicle. It is now going to cost R20 000. One now has capital formed in one’s pocket of R5 000 which is 25% of the value of a new vehicle. Therefore one has gained, but the hon. the Minister, who has lent the R10 000, can only purchase a half a vehicle. He has lost.

The hon. the Minister referred me to the Institute of Accountants which has laid down guidelines for the so-called inflation accounting. When I was in Durban on Friday I had discussions on this matter with four accountants. I have all the information from the Institute here and I have read it very carefully. In order to overcome this problem of depreciating assets purchased by using either one’s own capital or using loan capital, they have developed a formula, they call the financial gearing adjustment. This is to say that if one has borrowed one’s capital one should not charge depreciation on higher replacement costs, and the formula should be used. I found out today that the SATS are not using the financial gearing adjustment. The reason for this, they say, is because the SATS are using a lot of their own capital and Treasury loans which they now consider to be their own capital. They consider that it is their own capital they use so that they can now charge depreciation on replacement costs rather than on historical costs.

If one studies the 1982-’83 figures one finds that the SATS are using R5 372 million of their own capital and they have borrowed or have loan capital of over R6 000 million. Therefore they should be making the adjustment. I believe that because they are not making the adjustment, the reserves have increased to the point where I say the hon. the Minister can afford not to put up tariffs. In order to fight inflation he should live for a while off the fat that he has built up over the years. I have the figure here. It is R1 985,8 million that is sitting in investments and loans to other people.

I refer the hon. the Minister to the latest issue of the The Financial Mail and I am going to send him a photostat copy because I do not have the time to read it to him. In this issue one sees the headline “Time again for ingenuity”. I am referring now to the electricity price. We know, for example, that Escom is at present having an investigation into their system of financing their development. I think the hon. the Minister should read this. Then on page 1 043 there is an article “Prices—the anomaly of official fixing”. One finds that whenever there is an administered price into which is written interest on capital and depreciation according to replacement costs, that the increase in tariffs, whether it be for electricity from Escom, the price of Iscor steel or whatever it is, is skyrocketing. I believe it requires investigating.

I therefore appeal to the hon. the Minister to speak to his colleagues, especially when it comes to administered prices, and ask whether it is not time to review this method of costing because I believe it is inflationary.

Let me give an example of the sort of thing that happens. Some years ago Iscor was trying to sell steel to the United States. The Americans then accused Iscor of dumping subsidized steel in the United States. Iscor admitted that it had two methods of costing; one for export which excludes depreciation based on replacement costs and one for local consumption which includes depreciation on replacement costs. This means that South Africans are paying more for their steel in order to fund Iscor’s capital development programme, as has happened with Escom and certainly with the SATS in recent years.

I appeal to the hon. the Minister to investigate this matter because I believe South Africa has got to get on top of the inflation problem, the most serious problem facing South Africa today.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mossel Bay tried to explain that the hon. the Minister when he spoke earlier today was not dealing with ideology but simply with the circumstances which the SATS have to cope with. He did not of course tell us what these circumstances were; neither did the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister merely cited the case of a lady who had to catch a late bus and the difficulties she encountered. It is very likely of course that she might encounter difficulties from White criminals and thugs just as easily as she might encounter difficulties from Black thugs and criminals. So I do not believe that the reason he gave the hon. member for Berea for retaining apartheid was a very solid one. He said earlier on that this system was preventing friction. Let me remind the hon. the Minister that in this House on all sorts of occasions we have had that same argument, the argument that apartheid prevents friction. I remember being in this House when the then hon. Deputy Minister of Bantu Affairs stated that if we were to allow Blacks to serve as shop-assistants that there would be friction in South Africa; and that if we were to allow Blacks to serve as bank clerks, there would be friction. Also that if we were to allow Black telephonists there would be friction in South Africa. But all these things have happened and I do not believe there has been an increase in friction in South Africa as a result. On the contrary. I think everybody has valued the services those Blacks have provided, efficiently and courteously. [Interjections.] Members say it was done in a very responsible way. It was done in response to economic pressure, and equally as a result of the loss on transport services; integration on these services is going to have to take place too. I think hon. members are going to be astonished at how little friction is going to result. Of course there may be incidents, as there are incidents today on segregated buses. But hon. members would be amazed at how quickly the White public of South Africa will accept integration of these services, just as they have accepted integration in sport, in hotels, in post offices and in respect of all the other public amenities. The hon. the Minister of course threw out one of his charming remarks about “That is all right for you; you travel by car”, as if the hon. the Minister leaps on a bus every morning to come to work. Let me tell the hon. the Minister that this is not an egalitarian society and it has never aspired to be an egalitarian society, any more shall we say than American and other Western democracies. What we ask for is equal opportunities for all people in this country and accessibility to public amenities for all sections of the community irrespective of race. That is what we ask for.

Now, Sir, while I am on this question of leaping on buses, I was surprised at the hon. the Minister the other day attacking the flagship of the SATS, i.e. the Blue Train. This train is praised throughout South Africa; as a matter of fact, throughout the world. It is renowned throughout the world. Yet the hon. the Minister referred to it in the most derogatory terms by calling it a “snob” train. Sir, that is not a very nice term to use of the flag-ship of the SATS rail services. I am sure the officials were not very pleased with that, and I want to tell him that I am not very pleased with him either.

Now we are going to sell tickets.

I am not very pleased with that either because he then had the effrontery to go on and say that the Blue Train was only being used “by the monied Helen Suzmans and people of that kind”. [Interjections.] That was a disgraceful remark. First of all I have to tell the hon. the Minister that to my sorrow I have not been on the Blue Train since World War II, and that is a long time ago. But I travel economy class on the SAA while the hon. the Minister travels first class at the taxpayers’ expense. Similarly the hon. snobby Minister travels first class when he goes abroad, and I am sure he never pays a cent out of his pocket for that.

Now you are making a mistake. I will show you my receipts.

It is all right for the hon. the Minister to make personal remarks about me, but apparently it is not all right if I retaliate, although making personal remarks is not my normal custom. But I think the hon. the Minister has an impertinence to refer to me in those terms. He is probably a lot more monied than I am, although I bet he pays much less tax than I do.

Who is personal now?

I am being personal, deliberately so. I am giving the Minister a taste of his own medicine and it is high time he got it. As I was saying, I bet he is paying much less in taxes than I do because he is a farmer and as a result of that lives freely … [Interjections.] He charges everything to farming expenses. So I am not so very impressed with the hon. the Minister’s personal attack on me. I would like him to know that when I travel overseas I travel first class and pay for it out of my own pocket. Furthermore I always choose SAA because I consider that while I enjoy generous concessions as an MP inside the country, the least I can do is to give SAA my custom. I am not at all sure that after the hon. the Minister’s spiteful remark about me the other day that SAA has not lost a customer. I hope the hon. the Minister will realize that. He must learn not to make spiteful remarks about his customers.

Sir, having dealt with that rather personal matter—and I hope from now on we won’t have anymore personal remarks in this House—I want to return to other matters, matters which I believe to be of greater importance. Last year I had occasion to approach the SATS about the inconveniences suffered by Black daily passengers—not those with weekly or monthly tickets— through not being able to get return tickets when they purchase tickets at stations. I understand now that they can buy two single tickets, which does at least avoid them having to queue up in long queues twice, once to get into town and once to get home again. So I am pleased about that, but that does not alter the fact that they are paying more. They are paying more for the two single tickets than they would pay for a return ticket. The explanation I got for this does not seem to me to be very valid. It has something to do with people at turnstiles, etc. So I hope the hon. the Minister will reconsider this.

Let me at the same time warn the hon. the Minister against contemplating any increases at all in the fares between the Black and Coloured townships and the places of work from now on, because as the hon. member for Berea has already said, inflation is the biggest enemy of all and so the hon. the Minister must avoid any increase in fares for people who have got to get to work for the rest of this year.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton will understand if I do not react to her speech. Unfortunately I only have five minutes at my disposal, and therefore I wish to address myself at once to the hon. the Minister personally.

After I had made a speech in this House last week during the Second Reading debate and had also moved an amendment, I was unfortunately compelled to leave. However, I sent the hon. the Minister a note in which I apologized for not being able to be present here to listen to his reply. I wrote the hon. the Minister a really polite note.

Daan van der Merwe has already dealt with the entire matter here.

Mr. Speaker, I wrote the hon. the Minister a polite note, in which I explained to him that unfortunately I could not be here when he replied to the Second Reading debate. Despite this, the hon. the Minister said during his reply that he regretted having to refer to me, since I had moved an amendment and then I had simply gone off. The hon. the Minister also said that he had gone to some trouble to be able to reply properly to my amendment but that I had simply sent him a little note saying that I would not be there that afternoon. Mr. Speaker, for the sake of record, I should just like to make it clear that I did not say that I would not be here, but I wrote to the hon. the Minister saying that I was unable to be here.

When one moves an amendment, one remains here. [Interjections.]

Furthermore, I wish to make it clear to the hon. the Minister that I did not move the amendment in my personal capacity, but …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal explanation: I should like to explain to the hon. member for Kuruman …

Mr. Speaker, I cannot listen to the hon. the Minister’s explanation now. I only have five minutes in which to complete my speech. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister can give his explanation at a later stage. [Interjections.] I wish to make it clear to the hon. the Minister that I did not move the amendment in my personal capacity, but that I did so on behalf of my party. Therefore if the hon. the Minister was preparing to reply to that amendment, he might as well have done so. However, I read his speech carefully and I came to the conclusion that he furnished no reply to that amendment whatsoever. [Interjections.] I want the hon. the Minister to realize that it does not befit him to behave as badly as he did the other day. [Interjections.] Just listen to what the hon. the Minister said about me: “Of course, he had to go to Waterberg to go and slander us there.” I wish to make it clear to the hon. the Minister that I will not go and gossip behind his back. We shall tell them to their face here in the House of Assembly and on political platforms that we do not agree with this proposed new dispensation of political integration. [Interjections.]

Thirteen years ago I made my maiden speech here in this House. On that occasion I made a request, which was that when the railway line between Sishen and Saldanha was completed one day, that railway line should be extended to run through Kuruman as well, so that it could join the existing rail connections at Pudimoe. Therefore I wish to say on this occasion that I am grateful that the hon. the Minister, by way of an announcement in this House—of course, a similar announcement was made last year by the former hon. Minister of Internal Affairs; now the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning—revealed that that railway line was going to be built. Therefore I wish to thank the SATS sincerely today—and of course, the hon. the Minister as well—for finally deciding to make the extension of the Sishen-Saldanha railway line to the Witwatersrand a reality. This is a decision which opens up a new world; which opens up new possibilities for the Northern and the North Western Cape. This is a railway line which is going to play a large part in the future development of South Africa. The hon. the Minister went on to say that if the money for this project was available in the 1988-’89 financial year, the railway line could be completed and opened to traffic by 1993.

Since that proposed railway line is going to serve a developing area, an area which borders on independent Bophuthatswana, and since it is going to be a railway line which is going to play an extremely important role in commuter traffic between the mining area of the developing Northern Cape and neighbouring Bophuthatswana, and since the farming communities of the North Western Cape and South West Africa have to incur heavy expenses for the conveyance of their stock to the Witwatersrand, and since that railway line is going to play an extremely important part in the future development of South Africa, I wish to ask the hon. the Minister whether the building of that railway line cannot be accorded a much higher priority, so that it will not be necessary to wait for it for another 10 years. I should very much like the General Manager of the SATS, who was born in that area, to experience the completion of that railway line during his term of office, and to see that railway line being put into operation to be utilized in the interests of the North Western Cape, and particularly in the interests of South Africa as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to take issue with the hon. member for Kuruman. Right at the outset I want to point out that his entire speech during the Second Reading debate was interspersed with conclusions and inferences that, in my humble opinion, were totally incorrect. I want to state categorically that the hon. member was deliberately distorting the facts and the truth, with an eye, of course, on the coming by-elections in Waterberg and elsewhere.

Just tell me how I did that.

To start with, in reply to an interjection made by the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs, namely “Jaap Marais would have made out a far better case than you”, the hon. member for Kuruman said: “The hon. the Minister is referring to Jaap Marais. Jaap Marais is Mr. P. W. Botha’s ally in Waterberg and Soutpansberg.”

He still is, in Waterberg.

He said: “A vote for Jaap Marais in Waterberg is a vote for the NP,” whereas he was well aware that Willie Marais, the HNP candidate in Soutpansberg, was going to withdraw.

No, that is not true. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Rissik says that he did not know that. I do not hold it against him that he did not know it. He does not even know that he himself was an old United Party member.

Is that so?

Yes. He does not want to know about that. I now ask that hon. member: “Who is whose ally in this by-election?” [Interjections.]

After the hon. the Minister had clearly and categorically stated that a Coloured or an Indian could become the Minister of Transport Affairs in the new dispensation, the hon. member quoted from a question put by the hon. member for Langlaagte. Unfortunately he is not present today. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister said that the State President would not appoint anyone who could not do the work, and the hon. member for Kuruman replied that to him that sounded like an insult to the Coloureds and the Indians. Of course the State President will not appoint a person, irrespective of whether he is White, Coloured or Indian, if he cannot do the work. It goes without saying that he will not appoint such a person. On the contrary; that hon. member sitting there has never, in the 13 years he has been here, been appointed to a position, because he is not capable of doing the work. [Interjections.] The same applies to the hon. member for De Aar. That is why he has not been appointed Administrator of the Cape and that is why he will never be appointed to the Board of the SATS either. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister was not insulting anyone. He was merely stating a fact. I want to ask the hon. member a question. Since there are thousands of Coloureds employed by the SATS, could a Coloured Parliament have its own Minister of Transport Affairs? [Interjections.] Yes, I am asking those hon. members this question.

Yes, if they should decide to.

If they should decide to. They can also have a Deputy Minister. The same applies to the Indians. If they were to take such a decision there could be an Indian Minister of Transport in the Indian Parliament.

And in Venda and in Bophuthatswana as well. [Interjections.]

Jan, you cannot shout me down even if you want to. [Interjections.]

Order!

This could therefore lead to the position where we would have three different Ministers of Transport Affairs in South Africa, a White Minister, a Coloured Minister and an Indian Minister. [Interjections.] The position could therefore arise that there could be three Ministers of Transport Affairs in the Council of Cabinets and because there are more non-Whites than Whites employed by the SATS, the Indian or Coloured Minister could determine policy and the two Ministers could insist on representation of their people on the Board of the SATS.

May I ask a question?

No, I only have ten minutes. I have no objection to that. However, I want to ask the hon. member whether he objects to Coloureds being represented on the Board of the SATS? [Interjections.] I am asking this of that hon. member. In his speech the hon. member asked a number of questions. I am merely replying to the hon. member’s question and asking him a question in turn. [Interjections.] No, Sir. What I do in fact object to is the reprehensible inference, to put it that way, the hon. member drew when he asked the hon. the Minister whether a Coloured or an Indian, if he became a member of the Board, could live in Waterkloof. [Interjections.] That is precisely why that hon. member is sitting there: He does not understand the policy of the NP. After all, the policy of the NP states categorically that a Coloured, no matter what Board he serves on, will live in his own Coloured area which has been proclaimed as such. His children will attend Coloured schools.

The Minister too?

Yes, the Minister too. In any case, I am not discussing Ministers, I am discussing the Board of the SATS.

Let us reverse the picture. Let us assume that we have achieved the Utopia of those hon. members. All the Coloureds will therefore be removed from the Transvaal. I now want to know from that hon. member whether he will tell us today where, if his party comes into power and a Coloured person is in fact on the Board of the SATS, those Coloured will live? Remember, there is no Coloured heartland in the Transvaal. Let us assume that a Coloured man from the Transvaal is transferred to Cape Town. He is an employee of the SATS and he is transferred to Cape Town.

What if an Indian is transferred to the Free State?

It does not matter whether it is a Coloured or an Indian.

Can a White man or another Coloured move into the house vacated by the Coloured worker when he is transferred? Can a Coloured purchase that house if it is offered for sale? The hon. member is not replying, but when they address public meetings they say that cannot happen.

But you do not understand it.

There is another question I want to ask the hon. member. The hon. member said he did not object to a Coloured serving on the Board of the SATS.

That is not what I said.

Oh, then the hon. member does object to that.

I said it was logical according to your policy.

Has he ever objected to a Coloured serving on the National Housing Commission? Has he ever objected to Coloureds being represented by their own people on the Group Areas Board? After all, that was an arrangement made in the time of the previous Prime Minister. Did he object to it?

We shall reply to that.

Then there are also the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Evironment Legislation. One of their recommendations was that the Environment Board had to be constituted in a certain way. The hon. member for Kuruman was the chairman of that commission that recommended that members of all population groups should be considered for appointment to that Board. Surely that means everyone—Whites, Coloureds, Indians, Zulus, Chinese—across the board. This could also lead to the majority of members of that Board belonging to other population groups. [Interjections.]

I am utterly convinced that the hon. member who made such a fuss here did so with an eye on the by-elections which are to take place.

In the last minute I have at my disposal I should like to break a lance for the S.A. Railways Police Force. Because I only have half a minute left, I only want to emphasize one aspect: The woman in the S.A. Railways Police Force. At present we have approximately 50 women in the Force, including two officers and five warrant officers. All women are trained at the Esselen Park Training College, where they are lectured on defence, laws, regulations, the use of fire-arms, first aid, physical training and parade ground drill. As far as I am concerned, the most important aspect is that these women in the Force compete for promotion on the same basis as their male colleagues. They also receive equal salaries. Could the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs not bring this to the attention of the hon. the Minister of National Education, so that he could apply the same principle to women teachers? In conclusion, I just want to express a word of appreciation for the part played by Black women in the Force; they are members of the Force who play an indispensable part in investigating crime and they make a valuable contribution to the maintenance of State security. In all the various spheres or levels all the population groups in South Africa employed by the SATS are part of a vitally important link. With that I conclude my speech.

Mr. Speaker, when I listened to the discussion that took place between the hon. member for Kimberley South and hon. members on this side of the House, I came to the conclusion that there are probably going to be three railway stations in Kimberley, i.e. Kimberley, Kimberley North and Kimberley South, because that is the only way, it seems, that certain hon. members of this House can be satisfied. Who is going to have Kimberley, who is going to have Kimberley South and who is going to have Kimberley North, however, will be a problem that will have to be solved. [Interjections.]

I should like to deal with the question of tourism and the S.A. Airways. I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister when he said—

I must say, however, that I cannot agree with certain statements made by the hon. the Minister about the fares paid by people coming to South Africa. Every time the hon. the Minister stood up he started to blame IATA for the present level of fares. I have here, however, a magazine called Business Traveller. It is published in England and deals with travel. It is very interesting to read this magazine, because it devotes an whole booklet every month to the discounting of fares. I quote—

In another portion of the magazine it is stated—

Not a Government inspector?

Yes, but that only applies in Germany. [Interjections.] Let us, however, see what happens in Switzerland.

Because it is illegal.

Yes, but not in Switzerland. I quote—

The article goes on to state—

When I read things like this, I cannot understand why it is so that South African fares including those for tourists coming into South Africa, are fixed, with the blame always placed on Iata, even though the S.A. Airways themselves can do something about it. Only today I received, from Pan American, a pamphlet which states the following—

In it there is a special section devoted entirely to flights between Johannesburg and the USA or from the USA to selected destinations. If one travels 10 000 miles one gets special concessions. A trip from New York is just on 8 000 miles, so if one does a return journey to South Africa on Pan Am one can start getting all these benefits. Why should a person therefore travel on S.A. Airways when these benefits are offered in this country? This information was in my post only today. [Interjections.] It says here, for instance, that when one receives a “World-pass” and one has travelled the distances they mention here, one has the opportunity to earn free trips, and so on.

I should like to deal with one last point, namely the question of students who go to study overseas. I believe that it is in the interests of South Africa that South African studens should be given the opportunity of going to study overseas. However, it is only when going to Great Britain that a student can get a reduced fare. It is completely unfair that those who go to the USA or other parts of the world cannot get a reduced fare. This applies particularly to the USA, because at this point in time that is where most South Africans are going to do their honours and to study further.

Mr. Speaker, during the Committee Stage I forgot to thank the hon. member for Winburg for his very sound contribution in connection with costs and profitability. He is a walking calculator and I thank him for his contribution.

† The hon. member for Berea said we must increase revenue, but in the same breath he says we must allow the private sector a bigger share of the transport business. How can we increase revenue by allowing the private sector to take away more of our business? That is the reason why I cannot reply to more of the points of his amendment. It is impossible. It is full of anomalies. The official Opposition plead for the private sector to be given a bigger slice of the business and then they complain that we do not have enough revenue.

Then the hon. member said he was shocked at my reply in regard to separate amenities. This also applies to the hon. member for Houghton. Can you believe it, Sir. I referred to a woman who wrote to me that she works till 11 o’clock in the evening …

That was about catching a train. It had nothing to do with colour.

It concerned the lateness of the hour.

No, it does not relate to colour. But there is a population difference of 1 in 6, and even 1 in 10. The hon. member for Houghton must go with me on a train journey in the middle of the night. [Interjections.]

Try it, Helen. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Berea also referred to uneconomic passengers and the fact that he did not get a reply on that. I am sorry to have to say that we are still busy with that. The hon. the Minister of Finance does not have the money at the moment to pay for the losses of R690 million on passengers. As I have said, this is a very viable business, but if one loses R690 million annually on passengers, one must get it somewhere. The hon. member has a point there. I said last year that I hoped that this year we would come to a decision on this matter, but the Minister of Finance has financial difficulties. We are referring this matter back to a Cabinet Committee to see what we can do. The hon. member is against the idea of having the employers contribute. He does not like that. However, one cannot expect the Government alone to pay the R690 million and one cannot expect the commuters to pay for it. We have to get it somewhere. As regards increasing revenue, I shall refer to that later on.

*I have told the hon. member for De Aar that I shall reply in writing to the points he raised with regard to the trains. He also said the Railways were obliged to render uneconomic services. That is quite correct. Not one of the free enterprise people would be prepared to go and fetch five bales of wool in the area of that hon. member. I thank him for his contribution. The free enterprise principle is readily manipulated to suit people’s purposes, but with a view to rendering essential services, a national service, a service for the man on the remote Karoo farm, one has to have an organization capable of doing this kind of work.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay raised the question of additional revenue and the needs of the travelling public. We shall look into the matter as to whether the improvement of meal facilities on trains would generate that much more revenue. He also said the difference between first class and second class was too small. We are looking for methods to attract passengers and we shall look into those proposals.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti referred to price increases. We shall disagree about the formula of devaluation, but I shall send him a full reply in that regard.

† He said we built up a fat R8 000 million and need not increase tariffs. The hon. member referred to the devaluation formula of people he visited in Durban and compared it with the formula of a non-tax-paying company such as ours. He must bear in mind that we have loan facilities overseas and here in South Africa and that we have financial help from the Government. We are working according to a different formula. I shall, however, come back to the hon. member on the points he raised.

I have not been in this House for as long as the hon. member for Houghton, but do hon. members know what happened last Thursday? During a discussion in this House there were interjections from the other side of the House, and I said the Blue Train was actually a “snob” train. It is a “snob” train, Sir. It is a “snob” train in the right sense of the word. Previously in a 14-day period we had three, four and later six trips. Then we increased the fares by over 55%. Now, in a 14-day period, we have seven trips and there is still a waiting list. The Blue Train is much cheaper than the other super-luxury trains overseas. Sir, do you know where I made the mistake? I referred to the hon. member as a rich person. That was the first time she came back on this. The Cape Times reported perfectly correctly that I said that the Blue Train was for the moneyed Suzmans. Another paper also reported it that way.

*And what was the hon. member’s reaction today? She said that I flew overseas “left, right and centre” at the expense of the taxpayers. She also said that I paid less tax than she did. Very well, but then she is at least paying tax! [Interjections.] I shall never direct such a negative remark at her. I am not prepared to divulge my personal affairs in this House or to enter into a competition with her as to whom pays more income tax. However, she could not take a joke. She could tell me what she liked and I made the mistake of mentioning Helen Suzman’s name, instead of mentioning Harry Schwarz’s name. He, at least, would have reacted differently. Harry would not have been as hurt. [Interjections.] The hon. member went further and said that because I was a farmer I did not have to pay tax.

† Can you believe it, Sir? I had 900 Prog votes against me in the last general election. The Prog candidate lost his deposit hands down, but I am going to read to the Progs— 50% of them are farmers—what Helen Suzman has said. [Interjections.] Therefore we shall achieve nothing by drawing this kind of personal comparisons. I am sorry that I said the Blue Train is a “snob” train for the Suzmans. I have had only one trip in my life on the Blue Train and I shall never do it again. I wasted my time and I do not want to produce recipts for certain things which I have paid for. I do not want to sponge on the taxpayers of South Africa. That is not my idea. I am not saying that the hon. member for Houghton does it.

*I am not going to hurt her as she hurt me. However, if I want to draw another comparison, I shall not use her name. In that case she must not be angry with me.

While the hon. member for Kuruman was speaking, I wanted to rise to tell him that he should not continue to deal with that matter as I had made a mistake. I have already told Daan van der Merwe so. The hon. member wrote me a note and I regret having acted in that way.

I accept that. Thank you very much.

The hon. member for Lichtenburg, however, is still going to have a very hard time because he keeps on interjecting that I am not an efficient Minister. I am just waiting for a meeting at Lichtenburg where I shall make mincemeat out of him.

The hon. member for Kuruman also asked for a railway line from Sishen. Old man Humphrey du Plessis started that in this House. Be honest, at least. At his insistence and at the insistence of the Northern Cape Regional Development Association pressure was brought to bear at the time—there are hon. members in this House who are able to confirm this—to have that railway line constructed. We are not arguing about that.

The hon. member for Kimberley South gave a fine reply.

Do you agree with him?

Leave it at that for the moment.

Mr. Speaker, will the hon. the Minister try to give a high priority to the construction of that railway line in the interests of the development of that region?

We shall give it consideration if the funds are available, because I know that the North Western Cape is eagerly awaiting that railway line.

The hon. member for Kimberley South was quite correct. I do not know how to bring this home to those hon. members and I repeated today that they did not understand the new dispensation. It does not mean that separate residential areas, for example, is to be scrapped with a stroke of a pen.

You must come and explain it to us.

In that case I shall have to go to them very early in the morning and I shall have to explain it as simply as possible.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether the hon. member for Kimberley South was correct in saying that those Ministers who would be Coloureds, and Indians in the new dispensation would live in their own residential areas and not in the residential areas of the Whites?

That is correct.

Thank you.

The President’s Council decided unanimously that we were not going to move away from separate residential areas.

Where do the members of the President’s Council live?

At the moment I do not know. I do not want to talk politics now, but to peddle the rumour that separate residential areas are something of the past, is not correct. It is simply not so. The hon. member for Kimberley South was quite correct.

† The hon. member for Bezuidenhout was not here during the Second Reading debate and he was not here for most of the time during the Committee Stage either. I have already said that one can cut prices. The hon. member mentioned Pan Am, but does the hon. member know that Pan Am does not need to fly around the bulge of Africa? They fly direct, yet they cannot show a profit. The hon. member expects us to cut prices, but we have to fly around the bulge of Africa. How on earth can we cut prices on a R90 million loss?

You do not fly around the bulge to America.

The hon. member does not understand the whole thing.

I do.

The flights that Pan Am take are much shorter than the flights that SAA are taking. Even to America they fly a shorter route than SAA does. Yet they still show a loss. And why are they able to cut prices? It is because they get subsidies that we do not get. I can prove this to the hon. member. The hon. member also referred to Swissair. Does he know from where Swissair gets its money? They possess a big share in Nestlé. Swissair possess nearly 40% of the hotels in Switzerland. Swissair has a 50% slice in a factory which makes pesticides for agriculture.

*Just give the SATS the opportunity to buy hotels and to manufacture pesticides and, upon my soul, I shall give them my support. Then you will see a profitable undertaking, Sir!

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister why the NP, after they came into power in 1948, got rid of the idea of putting up luxury hotels all over South Africa and why did they get rid of the General Manager whose idea it was? If they had not done that they would have been in the same position as Swissair.

But hon. members opposite always talk about private enterprise. Does the hon. member say that the SATS must start investing in hotels?

I am talking about 1948.

Forget about 1948. I was not even born then!

*Unfortunately I have to conclude now. For almost five weeks we have been dealing with matters affecting the SATS and now we are reaching the end. Arising from the criticism of the Opposition, the positive contributions from this side of the House and the talks which this side of the House has with the management on a continuous basis, we intend giving very careful consideration to the suggestions we have been given with regard to efficiency, friendly service and regaining traffic. Last year in May the S.A. Transport Services unexpectedly experienced a financial slump. Nobody had expected it. However, our men are inspired. They say that increased productivity and a more market-oriented approach to the rendering of services are their first priority. And allow me at this point to mention something in passing. The hon. member for Berea asked what we were going to do in October. We cannot increase tariffs while we are not attracting traffic. We first have to rectify a few things and reduce the inflation rate to below 10%. Consequently I say that it is going to be our endeavour to bring about an upswing in our traffic and to regain some of the traffic rather that to say that tariff increases offer the solution at all times. It does not work that way. In that way one kills one’s industries as well, eventually rendering it impossible for us to be an exporting country. That is what will happen if we keep on making freight and rail traffic more and more expensive.

The second strategy which the SATS are going to follow in the future will be a more market-oriented policy. By means of this strategy, as well as with the personnel we have, I believe that we shall be able to achieve our objectives.

I was asked to name the staff associations of the SATS and their presidents. The president of the Salaried Staff Association is Mr. Brian Currie. The president of the S.A. Footplate Staff Association is Mr. D. C. Henn. The president of the Running and Operating Staff Union is Mr. J. F. M. Niemand. One should hear Mr. Henn and these other people argue at meetings the Staff Associations have with me. One should hear them advance arguments with regard to the increase in the cost of living and the problems of lower-paid people of all colours, and one should then hear them ask for salary increases. Then, however, we have to tell them the magnitude of our losses, and see in what a reasonable and fair way they approach these matters. Mr. J. Zurich is the president of the Artisan Staff Association. The president of the Employees’ Union of the SATS is Mr. R. R. Rowe. The president of the Spoorbond is Mr. M. J. Voigt. Oom Sporie also knows him well The president of the S.A. Railways Police Staff Association is Mr. J. M. Labuschagne.

The hon. member for Kimberley South dealt with the Railway policeman. I shall still give him a reply in this regard.

The president of the Coloured Staff Association of the SATS (Southern Areas) is Mr. F. J. Hendrickse. Mr. H. V. du Sart is the president of the Coloured Staff Association of the SATS (Northern Areas). The president of the S.A. Railway Indian Staff Association is Mr. S. Edward, and Mr. N. M. Mbewu is the president of the Staff Association for Black employees of the SATS.

These people, along with the Management, and along with the most humble worker, are prepared to place the business of the SATS on a sound basis once again. I believe that we shall be able, with the contribution of the public of South Africa, to place the business of the SATS on a sound basis once again, and that this will happen soon.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I confirm, as I said when the debate was previously adjourned, that the attitude of the PFP to this Bill is one of conditional support. We will support the Second Reading of the Bill on the condition that the principle of allowing mining in a national park, under strictly controlled conditions, will only apply to future national parks and not in any way to already existing national parks. We accept the hon. the Minister’s verbal assurance in this regard, and we will seek to confirm that assurance with the aid of Committee Stage amendments.

I should, however, like to ask the hon. the Minister to clear up a matter relating to coking-coal in the Kruger National Park. He could do that when he replies to the Second Reading debate. I want to refer to a question which I asked him on 25 February this year—question No. 10—of which the second part reads as follows—

The hon. the Minister’s reply was no, and yet, on 9 March, I asked the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs a similar question. Although the similarity between the two questions was very strong, the latter hon. Minister’s reply was to the effect that during the past two years an extensive geological survey, including stratographic boreholes, had indeed been undertaken in the Kruger National Park. At worst, Mr. Speaker, there is a conflict between these two replies. At best there is a rather big misunderstanding, which one should like to see cleared up as quickly as possible.

The one is a geological survey, and the other is prospecting.

Well, that is a very thin distinction, Mr. Speaker. That is merely splitting hairs. It does not seem as though the hon. the Minister was aware of this geological survey. Otherwise, his reply to the question as I phrased it to him would almost lead one to believe that I was being deliberatley kept in the dark. However, a more important question is this. If it is firm Government policy not to allow mining in an existing park—and specifically, coking coal mining in the Kruger National Park—then why was it deemed necessary to conduct a geological survey at all? That is a question that needs to be cleared up because the present situation is sowing seeds of doubt about the Government’s intentions in respect of the Kruger National Park. I must say that I am not happy about the situation and I hope that the hon. the Minister will provide the House with an explanation in his reply and an absolute reassurance in regard to the Kruger National Park.

The final aspect of this Bill which I should like to discuss is the principle of acquiring new lands for national parks without acquiring mining rights. We accept that this principle is a means of stretching money in order to facilitate a programme of declaring new parks on a substantial scale. We shall support the principle on that basis. However, in its application, we call for the greatest possible circumspection because there are certain reservations we have that I should like to mention in regard to the application of the principle in practice.

Firstly, we are concerned about the principle of creating a whole generation of second class parks which have been partially despoiled by mining or related activities. That is not a good principle. There may in fact even be some conflict between this and the provision of section 4 of the principal Act which states that the object of a park shall be to retain an area in its natural state. We only accept the principle at this stage, and we do so reluctantly, for pragmatic reasons. However, we want to stress the point that the goal of the Government should always be to have first class national parks with no strings attached wherever possible. I sincerely trust that there will be as few exceptions to this goal as possible.

The second misgiving that we have is that this new provision places a huge onus on the Minister to make wise agreements with the owners of mineral rights. We are placing the negotiating trust in the Minister and the question one has to ask is: Who will pay for a bad deal? If the hon. the Minister does not strike the kind of agreement with the owner of mineral rights which will protect the future of the park in a proper manner then all that will happen is that the cost of solving those problems will be transferred to future generations at inflated prices. In fact, a bad deal will place ransom rights in the hands of third parties in the future.

Our third misgiving relates to the restoration of the landscape in a park after mining has taken place. Clearly restoration will not be a problem in certain cases and no long term damage can be expected to be caused. However, in other cases, where one is dealing with a unique ecosystem, restoration could prove impossible in certain cases. If an ecosystem is unique and it has been damaged one cannot recreate it by means of bulldozers and whatever financial steps one may wish to take. In such cases there may be a choice between mining on the one hand and the loss of a genuinely unique ecosystem on the other—and one thinks in this regard, for example, of the Langebaan Lagoon which could be part of a West Coast National Park. There was once a madcap scheme to extract salt in the vicinity of the Langebaan Lagoon. It is also rumoured that there are large deposits of kaolin in that vicinity. If kaolin or salt were to be extracted in the Langebaan Lagoon wetlands, this would cause irreparable damage to that unique ecosystem. The plea we make to the Government in such cases is to pay the price now and never allow ransom rights to be placed in the hands of the owners of those mineral rights at some future date. There is an old saying of which the hon. the Minister is no doubt aware, namely, “die goedkoopste dag is altyd van dag”. If we have to prevent mining in a unique situation then let us pay the price today.

As far as these misgivings of ours are concerned, our attitude is that the Government should include in the Act the power to make regulations and the power to call for environmental impact studies to cover these problems that we have identified. We shall also be dealing with this matter during the Committee Stage. On that basis we support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, since this is the first legislation introduced by the hon. the Minister in his new portfolio, we on this side of the House would like to congratulate him. We want to wish him all of the best. We think he is a very good choice for the execution of this tremendous task which has been entrusted to him. He has been involved in agriculture his whole life long; not only on the practical side of farming, but in agricultural organizations as well. In addition, he has an understanding of nature. We therefore feel that he is cut out to achieve success because he has the necessary understanding, understanding not only for the Parks Board but for the whole effort of the Department. Rationalization has resulted in a fine example of amalgamation.

I should also like to thank the hon. member for Constantia, the chief spokesman of the official Opposition on environment affairs, for the assurance that he will try to co-operate with the department in a constructive way. His assurance that he will try to do so as far as possible is a commendable gesture on his part and we welcome it.

† Having said that he was prepared to cooperate on a basis of constructive engagement and having given his broad support for the Bill, he then proceeded to sow suspicion on many actions which he considered flowed upon the Bill. I am nevertheless sure that that is certainly not the intention of the Bill and is certainly not in keeping with the attitude he displayed when he opened the debate. I shall be kind in assuming that when the hon. member spoke the first time, he was only trying to fill his allotted 30 minutes. Therefore I intend ignoring much of what he said. There are, however, a few things which I must say as a result of his remarks and on which I must take issue with him.

He said for example that not a hectare of land had been acquired by the Land Acquisition Fund. That is true, but the fact is that the hon. member knows that the fund was started a short while ago. One has to allow the fund to develop itself so that a substantial amount of money can become available. If there is not a substantial amount in the fund, one can do absolutely nothing with the fund. If the hon. member had done his homework, he would have known that negotiations are currently under way for the utilization of the fund to expand the Karroo Park. This is a very deserving cause because it is a park which needs to be very much bigger than what it currently is.

He also created the impression that nothing had happened on the national parks front over the past year and that there had been no expansion at all on the national parks front. That, however, is not true. The hon. member will know that last year the Addo Elephant Park was increased by 861 ha. He should also know that Golden Gate Park was increased by 1 449 ha and that the Kalahari Gemsbok Park was increased in size by almost 10 000 ha. He should know of all the conservation work which is taking place in respect of our marine resources. What the hon. member said was misleading and not true.

The hon. member also said that we protect only some 2,4%—with the provincial parks included, maybe a little more—of the surface area of our country. He then gave us all kinds of percentages of what other countries allocate for national parks. I want to tell him that to talk of percentages can be misleading because, for a start, the Kruger National Park is bigger than many countries of Europe and Asia. Percentages in themselves are therefore misleading. If one nevertheless insists on using percentages, one must use the correct ones. By the IUCN norms about which the hon. member spoke, he would have to include for the purpose of his calculations other areas. He did not mention, for example, that we have eight Wilderness areas comprising 244 598 hectares in South Africa, that we have 31 nature reserves in State forests measuring some 54 711 hectares and not that we have declared mountain catchment areas on private land comprising 417 941 hectares. If one adds all this up—and this is land that would qualify, but the yardstick that hon. member has used, as land under the protection of the State—one sees that we are talking of an area of land in South Africa comprising more than 6 million hectares, something like 60 785 square kilometers or 5,4% of the surface area of our country. So the fact is that the remarks he made in that regard were misleading and inaccurate. We know—and here I agree with the hon. member—that with the burgeoning population, the exponential population growth, with urbanization and with the industrial development of our country, there are and will be huge challenges to the environment of South Africa. We know that as circumstances change, it has and will become necessary to find new tools with which to meet those challenges. We also know that there are many viable representative eco-systems in our country that are either unprotected or threatened, in one way or another, by some form of assault on them. It is true on the land, it is true at sea and it is true in the intertidal zone. It is also true, since we want to bring more land under the protection of the State, that we must realize that there is competition for the land, enormous competition, and because there is competition for that scarce resource, the land, the price is driven up. The fact has emerged, in varying degrees in different parts of our country, that the multiple use of land will have to become the accepted norm if we effectively want to extend the areas under protection in South Africa. In that regard this Bill is a magnificent step in the right direction. This Bill is important because it is yet another tool in the hands of those who would conserve in South Africa. This Bill does not, in any way—the hon. the Minister has said it, and I will repeat it—affect the status quo as far as the current traditional national parks in South Africa are concerned. If one wanted to alter the activity or the size—reduce, increase or do anything to it—of those parks, if one wanted to mine in those parks, recourse would have to be had to this Parliament, and that is a fact. So his fears in that connection are completely unfounded. A geological survey which has, in fact, been conducted in the Kruger National Park does not constitute prospecting. Nor does it constitute mining. The fact is that the whole country is subject to a geological survey, and it would be ridiculus for us to assume that a large tract of our country such as the Kruger National Park could be left out of such a survey. So the status of the existing national parks cannot be altered by this legislation. I also want to add that it is extremely unlikely, in my view, that the current national parks will be increased in size using the new categories before this House today. I think that if they are expanded, they will probably be expanded in the traditional way in that the land and everything connected with it will be acquired.

I have said that the Bill is an important instrument. There are, in fact, very large tracts of important land that should be used for nature conservation in South Africa. If the mineral rights to that land are of such importance as to place that land way beyond the possible economic reach of the National Parks Board, must we then turn round and say that being purists we will not acquire the land without acquiring the mineral rights, and knowing that we cannot acquire the mineral rights, we must therefore not acquire the land? In fact, we will have to allow for the multiple use of land to hold sway. We will have to acquire that land if we want it for conservation purposes, yet not acquire the mineral rights. In many cases these mineral rights are rights nobody even contemplates using now or perhaps for a generation or two to come. The fact is that that land can be brought into use as a national park for the public benefit now. I am quite certain that if and when mining ultimately takes place on such tracts of land, it will obviously be done as sensitively as possible and it will obviously be subject to an impact statement, as any development of that kind in a sensitive area would in fact be. What is true, then, is that the conservation rand is going to be stretched and that we will get more mileage from the money we spend on conservation. That is then the one category of new parks contemplated by this legislation.

The second category concerns land which is currently in private ownership and which in many cases is being used as private nature reserves. Such land can be included in a national park and utilized for conservation for the public benefit while certain activities currently taking place on that land can continue. I want to give hon. members an example. Take the Langebaan Lagoon. There are fishermen living in cottages there who have been there since the world began. This kind of clause will allow those people to continue to live in those cottages as they always have while that land is included in what could be a national park in the area. One has the same thing where a person has a private nature reserve on which he has a fishingshack which he would not like to give up while he would not mind at all if that land were included in a national park and were for all practical purposes to be run as a national park for the public benefit. That can now be done with the proviso that he can continue to put the land to the limited use to which he put in the past. I think that the creation of this new category of national park is a very great step forward, a step in the right direction.

If one looks at the game population of South Africa and one looks at the enormous proliferation of private nature reserves on private farms in the Cape Province alone, one sees that there is more game in the Cape Province today than there was a hundred years ago, much more. Why is that? It is, again, because of the more flexible attitude towards the proclamation of land to be used for conservation purposes. I want to remind hon. members that in Great Britain over a quarter of a million people five in areas which are so-called protected areas. They live there under agreements which have been negotiated and which places certain restrictions on what they can do there.

A further category of parks that now comes into being is of course that of certain lake areas, control over which may be transferred from the Lake Areas Development Board to the National Parks Board. This also is a very good step in the right direction. I say that because the Lake Areas Development Act has of course been applied only to a very localized area, namely the Wilderness area. Wonderful work has been done there, but the principles of the Lake Areas Development Act can be applied far more widely, for instance in regard to estuarine areas which are currently unprotected. I think that this is also a very important developemnt in conservation in South Africa.

When we look at conservation as a whole, what do we see? We see that three new categories of land have come into being in terms of this Bill. If we consider, in addition, the new conservation categories that have emerged from the Environment Conservation Amendment Act of last year in terms of which areas can be proclaimed as natural areas under the Physical Planning Act, for example Table Mountain, we see that the arsenal in the hands of conservationists in South Africa has been extended considerably. So we have the management committees to look after nature areas and we have the categories I have just mentioned. If we add to that the Forest Act and legislation relating to the wilderness areas, nature reserves, protection forests and provincial reserves, we find we have quite an array of weapons to promote conservation in South Africa. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that it may well be that we should now be looking at rationalization of the legislation. Having created all these things, the time has perhaps arrived for us to look again at the rationalization of all of these activities. For that reason we will be looking with interest at the work of the President’s Council, which is currently investigating nature conservation. One also looks forward with interest to the investigation of the Commission for Administration, which is also doing work in that direction at the moment.

Clause 7 allows the national parks to extend their sphere of activities from 1,85 km to a more appropriate distance into the sea. I think this is a very important development. The current thinking is that it will probably be something like six miles. It is envisaged to extend the limit to something like six miles.

I want to say something about marine parks whilst I am on the subject. We know that among the areas which are under-protected at the moment, are the marine areas. The established principle on land is to have the exploitation function separated from the conservation function. National parks, for example, are pristine areas where no development is allowed to take place. The areas are managed as natural areas. Then there are also other areas of the country where rational exploitation takes place. The principle was established therefore to remove the conservation-oriented function from the exploitation-oriented function. I think we should proclaim more representative pieces of our coast and seas on the west, south and east coasts of our country and, having done that, we should proclaim them as marine parks. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that we consider creating a marine division of the Parks Board which would then take over the function of looking after these new marine parks. The Board itself should then reflect this marine leg of the Parks Board’s activities. It is essential that we also have areas at sea where no development, bait collecting or fishing of any kind will be allowed and where nature can simply climax. These areas can act as a point of reference for us when we look at what is happening to the rest of the marine areas of our country.

The clause which allows for moneys appropriated by Parliament for land acquisition in any one year to be transferred to the Land Acquisition Fund, is obviously a good thing. It is a practical measure. The fact is that very often a deal is negotiated in one financial year but only concluded in a other, in which case one has to go through the whole rigmarole again of coming back to Parliament. This is therefore a much more practical way of doing things.

One is delighted—one is also pleased to see that the Opposition feels the same way— that the fines are being increased for the hunting of elephants and rhino. We know the commercial value of these animals is very great and therefore they are subject to poaching. People will take great risks in order to kill these animals.

*We are very proud of this legislation. We think it is very important legislation. It is good legislation. The hon. the Minister recently addressed the council for the Environment at its first meeting and said on that occasion that his motto on his farm had always been that one day he would like to hand over his farm to his son in a better condition than that in which he received it. He also said that he hoped that that would be our motto when we conserve the environment in South Africa. I think it is a very good motto and I think that by means of the steps we are taking in this House today, it will be possible for us to bequeath to posterity a more beautiful and better South Africa. I take pleasure in supporting the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is an exceptionally pleasant privilege for me to speak after the hon. member for Maitland as well as the hon. member for Constantia. Both hon. members are conservationists in the finest sense of the word and one feels almost hesitant and a little nervous about making a contribution after two experts like those have spoken about environmental conservation with reference to the legislation before us. Nevertheless, all of us who are interested in environmental conservation and national parks feel inclined to make a contribution as well.

Before doing so, however, I wish to associate myself with the two previous speakers by congratulating the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries sincerely on his first appearance in this House in his present capacity, and also by congratulating him on his appointment to that position. I want to give the hon. the Minister a piece of advice. I know him to be a first-rate wool farmer. However, I want to encourage him to become a fish farmer as well. I shall tell hon. members why. When he was Deputy Minister of Agriculture he discovered one day that the Government had added on the “Fisheries” Vote as well. I knew that the hon. the Deputy Minister was not a fish farmer. He was then promoted from that position to the position which he now occupies, and sure enough, here the fishes are coming after him again. Now he is Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries. Still, I believe that with the assistance of such a good fisherman as the hon. the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries, he will make a success of fish matters as well.

Of course when one is discussing environmental affairs, one is dealing with a subject one would like to discuss at greater length than merely the provisions of a piece of legislation, such as we have before us at present, and one wishes to digress even before one comes to it. Most of us, when we discuss our national parks, know that there are many people who are listening to us with great interest and enthusiasm. That was also the case with the previous two speakers. It was a privilege for us to listen to them. I know that all the hon. members in this House, as we sit here today, are interested in our national parks. They are gentlemen who cultivated an interest after they had previously perhaps been here holiday makers or visitors to one of our many beautiful and famous national parks or one of our lovely provincial parks, to say nothing about our excellent private game reserves. They gradually moved away from merely being an ordinary holiday maker and visitor. I think it must also be pleasant for the Director General to know that hon. members in this House have indeed become conservationists.

We are very proud of the parks we have in South Africa. The hon. member for Constantia referred to the extent of these parks. At a later stage of the debate we shall return to certain things he said.

At this stage, however, I believe that one wishes to emphasize once again that we really appreciate the fact that our people have become conservationists. We have become conservationists because we should like to protect our flora and fauna, and because we should like to preserve and protect objects of geological and archaeological interest, articles of historic and educational interest. That is why we are really proud of this. That is why we are also proud of the fact that this amending Bill is before the House today. It is of course due to the fact that over the years there have always been dedicated Ministers, as well as dedicated officials and board members, people who were conservation conscious in the finest and fullest sense and meaning of the word—environmental conservationists. Consequently we thank the hon. the Minister and his officials, and in particular, too, the members of the National Parks Board, for the excellent service they have rendered over the years.

The legislation under discussion, if we take note of the contents of each clause, deals with the protection of animal life, with the need for more land for the expansion of national parks, as well as with a growing population of people who have a need for and for whom it is essential that we make provision for those necessary recreational facilities as well, and also for the introduction of our conservation task in South Africa to everyone in the country. Moreover, it deals with another very important aspect, viz. prospecting and exploitation. Past experience has taught us that when mention is made of the prospecting or exploitation of minerals in the National Kruger Park, to mention only one example, red lights literally begin flashing. Then there is alarm in the minds of people because they got the feeling that something very special was perhaps being threatened.

If one does not read through the legislation we are now dealing with carefully, and if one does not grasp the meaning of the amendments and supplementary measures it contains, one can eventually arrive at all kinds of erroneous conclusions about prospecting and about the exploitation of mineral rights, and also, of course, about the acquisition of additional land for the purposes of national parks. That is why it is in fact necessary for us to take very careful note of the provisions of each clause of this legislation.

As I have already said, it deals in the first place with the protection of animal life. Clause 1 and clause 6 deal specifically with this matter. There are hon. members who have already touched on this matter. Consequently I will contend myself by saying that we, too, fully support those amendments. When it comes to the protection of a specific species of animal in the game reserve, for example some of our most previous varieties of bigger game, the penal provisions which apply here have been made so much stricter that I believe not even the hon. the Minister of Manpower here will again get off with an admission of guilt a fine of R20.

I also think it is necessary that we should for a while give more attention to certain statements which the hon. member for Constantia made. The hon. member’s contribution to this debate was really excellent. Even though we differ with him on certain specific points—and I am still coming to them—we must nevertheless concede that he did us a service by, in his own way, singling out the two most important aspects in this legislation and drawing our attention to them here.

In the first place the hon. member for Constantia placed great emphasis on the National Parks Land Acquisition Fund and in the second place he gave special attention to the possibility of prospecting and exploitation of minerals in our national parks becoming, as I have already said, a real problem. These are the two main points which he singled out in his speech. Because all of us have become particularly conservation conscious, it is of course true that any attempt to strengthen the Land Acquisition Fund will meet with general approval and support. That is why our party also welcomes the amplification of the provisions of this Act which seek to achieve this. Something which is closely associated with the strengthening of the Land Acquisition Fund is of course the acquisition of more land for the expansion of national parks all over the country. The purchase or acquisition of more land in other ways is also a matter of great concern to us. One really cannot overemphasize the need for more land for our national parks. To most of us who are interested in this matter it is a primary need. There is also the question of the expansion of our national parks. I have already indicated why we should like that additional land and why we should like to have larger parks. When we think of these matters we do not simply think about the conservation of animals, plants, etc. but, as I have already said, we immediately think of the acquisition of more land. We become aware that we have to do far more to comply with and bring to implementation this important objective in our legislation. We therefore associate ourselves with the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Constantia that more land should be acquired for that purpose. We are aware that there is great enthusiasm from many quarters for the acquisition of more land, whether by way of purchase by the State or by way of that which we are now laying down in our legislation. It is gratifying to know that the general public is very interested in this specific task, viz. that we must acquire additional land for this purpose.

I have here in front of me a cutting from Die Burger of 2 March a few days ago, in which the environmental reporter made the following statement—

That is why it is gratifying that the private sector, particularly during the past year, has begun to make large contributions to the special fund for national parks. I think all of us in this House welcome that attitude on the part of private organizations which wish to support us in this matter by way of increased contributions.

However it is also a fact that Mr. Brynard, the Director-in-Chief of Parks, pointed out on the occasion of the presentation of a considerable amount of money by Saambou-Nasionale Building Society for this commendable purpose, that only about 5% of South Africa’s total surface area consisted of nature conservation areas, and that only half of that area comprised national parks. He said that according to international criteria it ought to be at least 10%.

It was in fact in connection with this desire that South Africa should make a larger surface area available for this purpose that the hon. member for Constantia drew very interesting comparisons in connection with what the situation in South Africa was, and the hon. member for Maitland also reacted to that. He also drew very interesting comparisons for us and emphasized what was happening in other countries. Although this is our standpoint, too, there are nevertheless many other factors which we have to take into consideration when we discuss this comparative position. One need only think of the millions of people in South Africa whom we have to provide with food. None of us have any doubts as to the important task which rests on the shoulders of the South African farmer to provide South Africa, and even the world, with food. When we therefore wish to draw camparisons with a view to the acquisition of more land surface for that extremely commendable purpose, we should not simply compare South Africa with countries such as Botswana, Kenya, Tanzania and so on. There are specific reasons why those countries are more able to make large tracts of land available. I do not wish to lapse into arguments in this connection, but I must point out that when one thinks of a country such as Botswana, one must remember that one can easily advance the colossal Okavango swamp area as one of the reasons why that country was able to make a larger area of land available. It is a fact that that area is virtually beyond the reach of most conservation conscious people. It is only the extremely small groups of people who can get there. There are other reasons as well as to why a fair comparison cannot be drawn.

I want to repeat that when we think of acquisition and/or expansion with a view to complying with a desirable or internationally acceptable quota, we should also take our different internal factors into consideration. All of us know that agricultural land is a commodity that is becoming scarcer. The growth of cities and towns, the establishment of industries, the rapidly growing population and our dwindling livestock population necessitate that we cannot, without great circumspection, make larger areas of land available for that purpose. However, the ideal is always there. We must give the hon. member for Constantia full marks for the fact that he emphasized that we should in practice try to attain this ideal in so far as it was within our means to do so.

I really believe that we need not be ashamed of what we have, because what we have is definitely something we can be proud of, as I have already said. I think one should have a balanced point of view when one is discussing more land for national parks.

However I wish to reproach the hon. member for once again dragging in an ideological argument when he said that too much land was being given up for the implementation of our ideological objectives. I do not think that is a fair argument to advance. I think his accusation in this connection was somewhat misplaced in this debate. All of us seek conservation and all of us support it sincerely. All fair steps will be supported.

The hon. the Minister submitted legislation to us and in clause 2 a modus operandi is being created for us, a means whereby we can now acquire land which has become almost unattainably expensive, land which if the mineral rights on that land are still to be included, would be beyond our means to purchase, by means of negotiation by the Minister. I know the hon. member pointed a finger at and warned the hon. the Minister of Community Development who is responsible for the purchases to act with the great circumspection when he concludes the contracts. Yet steps and procedures for the acquisition of further land are now being included in the legislation, and one has great appreciation for that.

When it comes to the question of prospecting I really think the hon. member for Constantia went too far in sowing suspicion as to the possible dangers which this was going to bring in its wake. On that score I cannot agree with him. To tell the truth, I think it was an unfair allegation when he claimed that when it came to the possibility of prospecting in national parks, an attempt was being made by means of this legislation to slip in through the back door. I think that statement of his was really a nonsensical allegation. The legislature has placed all its cards on the table. The hon. member complained a little about the complexity of the clauses concerned, and said that they did not read very easily and that if an action should arise and the Act had to be implemented in practice, the people dealing with it—the court in the final instance—would have problems. I, with my limited knowledge of law, read the clauses and found the provision lucid and clearly defined. All of us know that previously it was an established fact that prospecting in the existing national parks was absolutely prohibited. However, there is nothing in this clause which in any way affects the status quo. If the very good voters of the hon. member for Constantia would give us a few million rands, and we were able to purchase additional land, on which minerals, were present, that land would also fall into category 1 properties on which no prospecting may take place. It is only on this specific land, which is acquired in this manner, that prospecting may take place. If one looks with great clarity at the legislation before us, one sees that there are no problems. I see no danger of our in any way being driven into a comer in that there will be prospecting on any of the category 1 properties.

However, I wish to repeat one argument. If we wish to have more land, we should be more flexible in our negotiations to acquire that land. We must accept that if there are negotiations with a person to acquire land or if he were to donate the land voluntarily for a certain period for utilization as a park, and if there should be any appreciable economically exploitable minerals on that land, such a person would surely impose limitations and conditions, and one will have to accept this. In the same breath, however, it must be said that no prospecting can ever take place for the existing category 1 parks, unless the matter is once again referred to this House. This is an absolute protective measure which is an integral part of our legislation. We do have appreciation for the contribution made by the hon. member for Constantia, for once again we find ourselves in an area where we have many things in common on conservation in general. So we on our part thank him for that.

In conclusion I just want to say that we fully support this legislation—every clause of it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. Mr. Theunissen for the particularly positive and balanced way in which he supported this legislation. I thank his party for its support for this legislation.

Of course, any person in his right mind would support this legislation. I do not think there is anyone in the Republic of South Africa—as a matter of fact, anyone in any country in the world who would not react positively when the conservation of the beautiful things in any country are at issue, and that is, after all, what this legislation is about. As a matter of fact, one has to resist the temptation to use the time of this House to wax ecstatic about the beautiful things one finds in a country like South Africa. They are world famous. Perhaps we frequently do not sufficiently appreciate those things the Creator has given us and perhaps we are sometimes a little lax in our appreciation and preserving the things we already have in conserving these things. The slogan for the promotion of tourism in the Republic of South Africa is that South Africa is a world in one country, and this is in fact true, because it gives an indication of the wide variety of natural assets we have in this country. The various speakers who have already participated in the debate today have already praised these aspects and have already given their support to this specific legislation. What the hon. member for Constantia said was true, namely that as far as the amount of land set aside for national parks and conservation areas is concerned, in a certain sense we compare unfavourably with some other countries in the world. That is indeed true. However, it is just as true, as the hon. member for Maitland indicated, that we must not allow ourselves to be misled by the figure of 3,4%. The hon. member for Maitland quite rightly indicated that when we consider the total size of our conservation areas, they comprise 5% of the area of this country. It is also equally true, as the hon. member Mr. Theunissen indicated, that when we draw comparisons between the conservation efforts in South Africa and those in other countries, specific factors must be taken into consideration. One very important factor, as he also indicated, is the population density of specific countries. This plays a particularly important role when a decision must be taken as to what percentage of the area of the country must be set aside for national parks or conservation areas. It is nevertheless also true that we in the Republic of South Africa must attempt to set aside additional areas in which we can pursue our conservation programme. I have in mind not only national parks, but also other conservation areas. I think that is one of the reasons why this Bill is before this House today.

We have specific problems in this regard. One can easily say that because we are all conservation conscious and would very much like to establish parks, we must simply purchase the land. The question is: Where is the money to come from? When one is faced by that problem, one must also try find a solution, and our solution is embodied, inter alia, in this amending bill. In the Republic of South Africa, with our population and with the available land, high potential agricultural land, it is also true, as the hon. member Mr. Theunissen said, that we cannot merely proceed in an unrestricted and uncontrolled way to create parks and in the process use good agricultural land. This will not work. We must at least feed the population as well. On the other hand, I am convinced that there are specific areas that do not have a high agricultural value, that could be used in the future as additional conservation areas, or additional national parks if necessary.

This Bill affords us the opportunity to utilize additional land for national parks without acquiring the mineral rights. I think this is commendable. However, various speakers have already pointed out, and I just want to repeat briefly, that we naturally do not want to create the impression that this means that we can simply undertake prospecting and mining activities in existing national parks. That is not the intention of this Bill. It does not affect existing national parks. It only affects new land which may be added.

In conclusion I want to link up with the reference made by the hon. member Mr. Theunissen to the private bodies that have recently come forward and placed their money at the disposal of this particular effort. I am convinced that whereas some bodies have already made commendable contributions, there are still many bodies, as well as private individuals, that could make money available for this effort, because an investment in this is an investment for the future, an investment for future centuries and an investment for our descendants. I personally feel that one of the best ways to bequeath one’s money is to bequeath it for use in a conservation effort for the future. It gives me great pleasure to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the NRP I would also like to express our congratulations to the hon. the Minister on the occasion of his guiding his first Bill through the House. Those of us who had the good fortune of coming into contact with him in his previous portfolio are delighted to see that he has attained the promotion which he so richly deserves.

From the outset, may I say that we in these benches will be supporting this legislation through all its stages. I wish to state that in doing so there are one or two aspects which have been dealt with by previous speakers, but to which I would like to give a different approach. It is quite clear that South Africans are looking more and more to outside recreation to fulfil a very important need, particularly in the urban areas. This is resulting in greater pressures on camps, reserves and all the parks, whether national or provincial. It is inevitable that those in charge of the environment of this country must appreciate that these are requirements that must be satisfied. It is highly desirable that this form of recreation should get particular attention, not only from a health point of view, but it is important that the town-dweller in particular be brought into closer contact with nature. I think this is something which has been felt to be most necessary amongst all urban people. It is for this reason that I feel that this legislation is something which is positive and which will make a contribution in meeting the future needs in this particular respect. There is little doubt that South Africans can be proud of the national and provincial parks which we have at our disposal at the present time. However, it is absolutely necessary that we recognize the need to expand the area which is allocated to nature reserves and parks.

What we must also remember is that we have an ever-increasing tourist industry. We can regard our Parks as one of the prime attractions of this country. Wherever one meets tourists one is confronted inevitably with nothing but praise and complimentary statements in regard to thé magnificence of our national parks and nature reserves.

We must also remember that parks and reserves in other countries on this continent are becoming increasingly threatened and the tourist industry of the world is going to look more and more to this country to satisfy the needs of those interested in wild life preservation. It is logical therefore, Mr. Speaker, that efforts should be made to acquire additional areas and to bring a greater area of this country into the whole concept of nature conservation. It is for this reason that we support the concept of greater flexibility being available to facilitate the acquisition process. We accept the statement that the hon. the Minister has made that no mining will be allowed in existing national parks. I think it has been underlined sufficiently for us to accept the assurance and the spirit in which it was made to the House. We see this legislation as a means of facilitating the expansion of national parks and I would emphasize the point that was made by the hon. member for Constantia where he said that we do not want to get carried away in this regard by acquiring what one might refer to as second grade national parks. I think it was a very relevant point that the hon. member for Constantia made. We do have a high standard and it is a standard which we should continue to pursue in the future.

The greater flexibility to which I have referred does mean that it will now be possible to accomodate existing mining and mineral rights in the future acquisition of additional land which otherwise, would be impossible to acquire, on account of the costs involved. It must also be borne in mind that there are potential Park areas on which mining operations are being carried out at the present time.

In referring to the proposed subsection (2)(b) of clause 2 we appreciate the fact that this makes provision for the inclusion of private owned land in national parks. This we see as a logical provision. It is no longer necessary to acquire a total area as in the past or as was the case where all land rights had to be acquired. One appreciates also that it is no longer easy to acquire large tracts of land for purposes of establishing national parks.

We welcome the inclusion of immobilizing drugs in the category of “poison”. We welcome too the increased penalties in relation to elephant and black and white rhinoceros. One is very much aware of the extinction threats that face many of these species in other countries. The amendment to the Land Acquisition Fund I feel will meet the situation in regard to the retention of funds voted by Parliament which now can be carried over for specific purposes.

It is quite clear also that the practical advantages of the transfer of marine development to the Department of Environment Affairs and Fisheries is a logical step. The taking over of the function and powers of the Lake Areas Board we regard as being a sensible means of rationalization.

We regard this as a practical form of legislation and one which the NRP has very much pleasure in supporting.

Mr. Speaker, today is a very big day for me. The reason for this is that through this National Parks Amendment Bill, I am afforded the opportunity to thank the Government sincerely and from the bottom of my heart on behalf of my constituency and the whole of the Northern Cape for the announcement made first by the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and then by the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries, to confirm that a national park will be established in Barkly West. I can only assure the hon. the Prime Minister of our sincere thanks and appreciation for his share in this Cabinet decision. The first diamond was found near Hopetown in 1866, and at the same time the first alluvial diggings were begun at Klipdrift, which is today known as Barkly West. As a result of that, tens of thousands of fortune-seekers flocked to that area. The influx of people was so tremendous that by the second half of 1870 there were literally thousands of diggers living on both sides of the Vaal River. Inevitably this gave rise to all manner of problems. Eventually it led to the diggers proclaiming their own republic on 30 July 1870 with a certain Mr. Stafford Parker as president. That was how the Klipdrift Republic came into existence. However, the day inevitably arrived when the diggers had to give up their short-lived freedom. Governor Sir Henry Barkly sent his representative to the Klipdrift Republic to proclaim that Britain claimed the area as its responsibility. In this way, Klipdrift was rechristened Barkly West. In later years Barkly West was represented in this House of Assembly by Cecil John Rhodes.

Today, now that the riches have been removed, only the graves of past prosperity still remain. None of those riches were ploughed back into Barkly West itself. That is why this announcement is more important to us who live in the Northern Cape than the discovery of the first diamond in that part of the world. We have no major industries. Now the entire Northern Cape is going to gain access to the largest single industry in the world, namely tourism.

Due to this announcement the Northern Cape with its tremendously rich historical background can now really be introduced to the world for the first time. This Amendment Bill has now made it possible for land bordering on the nucleus to be incorporated without its being necessary to forfeit ownership and without affecting the mineral rights of any party.

Without this amending Bill it would not have been possible to establish a national park in Barkly West. It is possible that that national park could become the third largest national park in South Africa. The only two parks that will be larger will be the Kruger National Park and the Kalahari Gemsbok Park. What will make the Barkly West national park unique will be its accessibility from all directions. It has a wonderful network of roads, is also accessible by rail, and is within reach of the modern airport at Kimberley. Perhaps the most important factor of all is that that national park will not border on any foreign state or national state. Hon. members will therefore understand why I am supporting this Bill so enthusiastically. Due to the Bill under discussion the game park that has been announced can be made viable. That is why this is of particular importance to us who live in the Northern Cape, not only for the present, but also for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members for a very interesting discussion and a very thorough thrashing out of all the aspects pertaining to this Bill. May I at the outset express my sincere appreciation to the hon. member for Constantia, the hon. member for Maitland, the hon. member Mr. Theunissen and the hon. member for Mooi River for their kind words of congratulations expressed to me.

I feel honoured when hon. members refer to me as a conservationist. I have been a conservationist all my life. When I was in agriculture people actually used to call me ou Sarel Bodembeskermer. I feel very proud when people call me ou Sarel Bodembeskermer because I grew up in the Karoo, and in the Karoo one is taught to conserve.

If one does not conserve one will never come out on top. That is perhaps the reason why I am a conservationist and why I have devoted my life to conservation, particularly to the conservation of the Karoo. I also want to say immediately that I am proud to be at the head of a department of this nature because this department is really a department of conservation. We have to conserve our water resources, we have to conserve our forest areas, we have to conserve our environment and we also have to conserve our fish resources. This is absolutely crucial as far as our country is concerned.

*I should also like to refer to what the hon. member for Maitland said here, and I also want to thank hon. members for the fact that they are so unanimous in regard to this department and its objectives. I have an article of faith—the hon. member for Maitland mentioned this—and that is that in my life I have tried to leave my son a better farm than I received. In this department I am going to try, together with a group of officials to whom I truly wish to pay tribute today, with this department to hand over to posterity a better South Africa than I received. [Interjections.] On this occasion I should like to express my confidence that with the help of hon. members in this House and the unanimity which we have on these matters, we shall be able to succeed in doing this, if we will only take the bull by the horns and do the right things.

† I want to reply briefly to a few remarks that were made here and I want to start with the hon. member for Constantia. The hon. member expressed the hope that local content would not be lost in regard to the lake areas. I just want to tell the hon. member that we will definitely use local content. The board will not disappear completely. We will definitely continue to use local content. It is absolutely impossible for the National Parks Board to regulate everything from Pretoria. Local content will certainly have to be used especially as regards the lake areas. The hon. member mentioned the Langebaan lake area specifically. Local content will obviously have to be used because the National Parks Board does not know all there is to know about all these various areas. Therefore, I can assure the hon. member that we will definitely be using the services of some of the members of the Wilderness Lake Areas Board.

The hon. member also raised the question of nature conservation in South Africa as compared with the position in other countries.

*Mr. Speaker, you will allow me to make a few observations in connection with this matter. I think the hon. member for Maitland as well as the hon. member Mr. Theunissen have already, in a very thorough way, covered certain aspects of this matter which I want to discuss. I just wish to elaborate on this very briefly. We must be very careful when we quote percentages. The hon. member for Maitland referred to the large surface areas which do not appear in the surveys that have been made. I want to go further and say that there are many farmers in the country who have already caused certain parts of their farms or their farms as a whole to be declared conservation areas. Consequently when we make these calculations, we must take this into account. I wish to associate myself further with the hon. member Mr. Theunissen by simply saying that measured against all norms as far as agriculture is concerned, South Africa is a relatively poor agricultural country. Only approximately 12% of our country is high potential agricultural land. Hon. members must therefore realize that we have to be very careful about proclaiming parks in an uncontrolled way. I am an advocate of our preserving certain ecological areas for posterity. That is also what the hon. member for Kimberley South has just been saying. I shall come to him later. The Government decided to establish a park in Barkly West because we do not already have the ecology which is found in Barkly West in a park. That is why I am in favour of that park being established. We must be very careful that we do not cause good agricultural land to be declared national parks. At the end of this century we could find ourselves with a problematical situation if one considers the water which is available for agricultural purposes. This water will have to be utilized primarily for food production in agriculture. We must therefore be extremely careful and try to preserve an equilibrium between the creation of sufficient conservation areas and the preservation of good agricultural land. I shall make this my task. In fact, I have already discussed this matter with the Parks Board and we are completely ad idem on this point. We understand one another and in this respect we shall do everything in our power. As the hon. member for Mooi River also said, this does not argue away the fact that although our people have become urbanized during the past few decades, they still have the desire to go out and enjoy nature. They want to breathe in the country air, even if it is only for a weekend or during a vacation. That very fine characteristic of our people we should try to respect in this country. We should create sufficient facilities to afford our people opportunities to escape from cities over weekends and so on. I think this is very necessary. Therefore I thank the hon. members for all feeling that we should create sufficient facilities in this respect.

I come now to the question of mining in the new as well as the old parks. The hon. member for Constantia mentioned two questions which he placed on the Question Paper. The one was answered by me and the other one by the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that if drilling has taken place during the past 18 months in the Kruger National Park, I was really not aware of it. I am being honest with him; I am not going to try to bluff the hon. member across the floor of this House. I have given him an honest reply.

Let us suppose that drilling was in fact done. Then that drilling was done for purposes of geological surveys which had to be carried out. All that was involved was geological surveys. This was not prospecting in any capacity. That is an absolute assurance that I want to give the hon. member.

I shall deal right now with geological surveys in our country. I think it would be wrong if we prohibited even the geologists from establishing what mineral reserves there are in our national parks. I think it would be a good thing if we could tell those who come after us the extent of the mineral reserves in our country, some of which occur in the Kruger National Park and some, say, in Barkly West, so that they will in fact know what kind of mineral reserves we have. Consequently I support the fact that our geologists are making surveys, in our parks as well, but of course without doing any damage to the environment. There is, however, an assurance I want to give absolutely categorically: Before any prospecting or mining can take place in the old parks, parliamentary sanction has to be obtained. I wish to add that as the head of this department I shall not allow any prospecting or mining to take place unless Parliament has sanctioned such a step. I want to give an absolute assurance in this connection; we cannot allow it. Nevertheless I concede that it is perhaps advisable to know what mineral reserves there are.

Let us suppose that the northern part of the Kruger National Park has excellent deposits of coking coal of a high standard. This is of course a relatively scarce item. If there are such deposits and the Government comes to Parliament for consent to mine that coking coal, it will not be possible for it to do so unless it gives the park compensatory land in exchange for that land. Consequently there will have to be an exchange of land. We shall definitely not withdraw land from a park for mining purposes unless we add compensatory land to that park. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that this is definitely not necessary at this stage; there are sufficient deposits of this mineral in the rest of our country. Nevertheless I think it is a good thing that we do tabulate this, so that we know where we stand as far as our reserves are concerned.

I also want to reply briefly to the statement that this measure will help to create second-class parks. I will accept that hon. members meant this in the good sense, but I also want to give hon. members the assurance that the parks we are now going to create are not going to be second-class parks. If there are mineral deposits, small areas will be exploited, but when we discuss the amendments of the hon. member for Constantia during the Committee Stage, we could perhaps say a little more about this, and I intend in fact to say a little more about precisely how mines and industries are going to operate in such a park. We could then elucidate this matter a little better. All I want to say now is that we do not intend to establish second-class parks. They will be first-rate parks.

I should now like to refer to the hon. member for Kimberley South, and I am now coming to what is perhaps one of the most sensitive areas of this legislation. The Government has decided that a park is to be established in Barkly West. I announced that the central area of this park will be the Pniel lands which at present belong to the German Missionary Society. I wish to deny categorically here today that we are going to expropriate that land, as is being alleged in some newspapers. That is not true. The Parks Board has never in its history expropriated land for a park, never once! Nor to we intend to do so now. We shall negotiate—we are at present negotiating—with the owners of the land. We will use expropriation only as a last possibility, but I am prepared to enter into long negotiations before I proceed to expropriate. When one establishes a park, when one creates someting splendid for this country, one does not want to drag in the ugly aspect of expropriation. We are negotiating in this matter at present. The Press must therefore be very careful how they handle matters of this nature. The Northern Cape needs tourism. We must give the Northen Cape an infusion. As I have already said, we must establish a park for the Northern Cape on ecological grounds as well. Consequently it is a great pity that the Press has, by means of speculation, narrowed our options a little in regard to negotiations for the acquisition of this land. I am very sorry about that. Since these matters are of a very sensitive nature I wish to ask the Press today to act very carefully in this respect. At present we have taken steps to open negotiations in connection with the Pniel lands. There are also negotiations over other land which is even more sensitive. Consequently my request to the hon. members is that we should please handle this matter very carefully. We shall do everything in our power to try to acquire the land by means of negotiations. Our negotiations in regard to Barkly West, but also the envisaged West Coast Park, are already in an advanced stage. If we have to introduce measures such as those which are being proposed here—I shall come back to this tomorrow during the Committee Stage—we could cause those negotiations to fail overnight. However, I do not want the negotiations to fail, because here, along the West Coast we are able to establish something worthwhile, provided hon. members give us the opportunity to finalize these negotiations first and establish the type of park which we are advocating in this legislation. Then I assure hon. members that we can establish something fine and the same applies to Barkly West.

I think I have dealt with all the points raised by hon. members. I should just like to thank the hon. Mr. Theunissen—I think I have mentioned his name—for his congratulations. I just want to say in passing that he was one of two members of that party who congratulated me when I was promoted. I have great appreciation for that. That more or less disposes of the Second Reading.

I want to conclude by thanking hon. members once again for this fine discussion. I thank hon. members very sincerely for feeling so strongly about conservation, for feeling so strongly about the creation of fine parks which can be of great value to our people. Thank you very much for supporting this legislation. During the Committee Stage tomorrow we shall take a further look at the amendments which the hon. member for Constantia is going to move.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the real reason for this Amendment Bill has been given to the House, but not by the hon. the Minister, who galloped through his Second Reading speech at an alarming speed and used the Committee Stage of the Bill to try—unsuccessfully, I may add—to score debating points, quasi-legal debating points, off my colleagues the hon. members for Durban Central and Pinetown. The real reason for this Bill was in fact given by the hon. member for Krugersdorp. He told us this Bill was being introduced because there was doubt whether the police had in the past acted within the law when they set up road blocks and conducted searches of vehicles. That is the real reason for this Bill, not the rather ambiguous reasons given to us by the hon. the Minister.

I was here when the hon. the Minister delivered his Second Reading speech, but I was not here during the Committee Stage of the Bill or the rest of the Second Reading debate, as I was away. However, I can assure the hon. the Minister that I have read the debates very thoroughly and know exactly what was said during those two stages of the Bill. If the reason given by the hon. member for Krugersdorp were not the case, there would have been no need for this piece of amending legislation. The proof of this, I believe, was inadvertently given by the hon. the Minister when he triumphantly produced a lot of statistics in his reply to the Second Reading debate showing that last year something like 29 000 roadblocks had been manned by 71 000 policemen, resulting in over 4 000 arrests for various offences. There were 1 000 people arrested for possession of dagga and over 900 arrested for drunken driving. Several thousand were also arrested for a variety of other offences. All this detection and prevention of crime was, however, performed under the law as it stands. These impressive statistics, therefore, are not relevant at all to the argument that the police need wider powers to enable them to perform their duties.

I believe that what is relevant, and is of course the reason for this Bill, is that if any untoward action had taken place during the setting up of those roadblocks or during the searches, under the existing law, the law as it stands, the police would have been accountable in the courts of law if any court proceedings had resulted from those untoward actions. I should like to take this opportunity to ask the hon. the Minister whether in his reply to the Third Reading debate he can tell us whether in fact any people were, for instance, shot or wounded at roadblocks or during searches, whether any people attempted to evade arrest after their cars were stopped, and whether people without valid passes tried to escape arrest and were in any way injured by the police during such action. I believe that this is what all this is about and I believe that, since the police will now not be accountable for any actions performed during searches or at roadblocks, a new principle is indeed being introduced in this Bill.

The hon. the Minister tried to make capital out of the fact that in 1979, when an amendment to the Police Act was introduced, I as the spokesman at the time for the official Opposition on police matters did not object to the clause—it was clause 2— extending the search limit from 1 km from the borders to 10 km. Border areas obviously have a very special significance. They are quite different from the interior of the country. Therefore the fact that we did not object to giving the police carte blanche at that stage is also irrelevant to the argument which I am advancing today. It is one thing to give the police wide power to search, without being accountable, in border areas. These areas have to some extent become sort of military areas throughout South Africa. However, it is very different and quite unacceptable to us, to allow a search of any vehicle to take place on any public road anywhere in South Africa.

I want to develop this argumeet, namely the question of the new principle which, we believe, is being introduced by this Bill, a little further. The hon. member for Umhlanga who has been vociferously supporting this Bill said during the Committee Stage— col. 2219—that if the powers of search had been extended to include the searching of an individual and if the police were to be given carte blanche to carry out a search of individuals, he and his party would oppose that. I want to tell the hon. member that we are going to remember this when the hon. the Minister comes back to the House, as he surely will, in a year or two to ask for the powers which the police are getting now, to be able to search vehicles without accountability, without having to have any reasonable grounds—that is what accountability means—to be extended to enable the police to search any person. It has been my experience that powers given are always extended. Always the hon. the Minister or whoever introduces such a Bill, will say that certain powers were allowed the previous year and that he is only asking for slightly extended powers. He will say that there is no new principle involved. That is exactly what he is saying today.

The principle, of course, is basically the same. Who is to know what bombs or lethal weapons are not concealed on an individual’s person rather than in the boot of his car? I am surprised therefore that the hon. the Minister has not already asked for this power as far as the search of persons is concerned.

That brings me to another very interesting comparison. Not so long ago in this House we passed an amendment widening the definition of “explosive”. However, there was a proviso—although not exactly in the form of a proviso, but nevertheless it was conditional—that the possession of an explosive is an offence only if circumstances give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the person in possession intended to use it for the purpose of injuring any other person or damaging property. Hon. members on that side of the House, as well as the hon. member for Umhlanga, question how one could ever prove that one has a reasonable suspicion about anything. Yet, this is exactly what we did when we passed the Bill extending the definition of “explosive”. That was all that was done. We did not at the same time remove the necessity for having a reasonable suspicion before an offence could be said to have been committed. More particularly, the offence had to show that the person intended to use the explosive, in terms of its extended definition, for the purpose of injuring some other person or damaging property. Again it is the same principle. Therefore I cannot understand how the hon. nember for Umhlanga, for instance, and the hon. the Minister, can say to us that we should not worry because this bill has nothing to do with the searching of a person. The argument is completely illogical.

We in the PFP supported the Explosives Amendment Bill which extended the definition of “explosive” because it retained the necessity for a reasonable suspicion. I can tell the hon. the Minister that we would not have supported the Bill had it not contained the necessity to prove a reasonable suspicion. I wonder how long we are going to have to wait before the hon. the Minister comes along again and says that no new principle is involved, that we have already accepted the principle in the Explosives Act and that we are simply removing the necessity for proving reasonable suspicion. I was very amused in reading the debate to see the really nifty footwork of the hon. the Minister. When he replied to the Second Reading debate he castigated the hon. member for Durban Central for not having quoted a single authority when he said that that the rest of the civilized world does not have legislation such as is proposed in this Bill. However, when the hon. member for Durban Central did quote at length from the report of the British Royal Commission of 1981 on Criminal Procedure to prove his point, the hon the Minister then said in effect: Who cares what they do in the United Kingdom? It does not matter at all. We do not care what authority you quote.

They have different circumstances.

Yet, one of his main arguments against the hon. member for Durban Central was that he did not quote an authority at an earlier stage of the Bill. Since the earlier stage of the Bill a very relevant article has appeared in the Argus of Tuesday, 8 March, and this article describes the law as it applies in Great Britain and it mentions the fact that there is presently a Bill before the British House of Commons to extend the Act of Search which applies to metropolitan areas in Great Britain. The idea now is to extend this to the rest of the country. The Bill has not yet been passed and there is a great deal of controversy over it and a great many objections to the Bill. But the Bill does contain a very important proviso if the provisions are extended to the rest of the country. There must be a reasonable suspicion that an offence will be committed. In other words, the police are still accountable in a court of law for anything that might happen during the search of a vehicle. They would have to prove in a court of law that there was reasonable ground for suspicion that an offence had been or was about to be committed.

The article appearing in the Argus also mentions various other countries. It mentions that in Italy the police do have the power to stop and search any car on the road without a warrant. But that is the only country that it states as having such powers. As far as West Germany is concerned the powers are very circumscribed and I think that nobody can deny that West Germany has been subjected to a great number of terrorist attacks by gangs such as the Baader-Meinhof gang and other gangs of terrorists. But nevertheless in West Germany the Government maintains that the police should not be given powers to stop and search vehicles without having a reasonable suspicion. Even more circumscribed is the law as it applies to Australia where police can set up road blocks in certain areas to catch criminals, but each action must be linked to a specific suspicion. Nowhere in Australia, writes the correspondent from Brisbane, Mr. Ernest Shirley, are the police empowered to stop and search cars at random and without a warrant, although a warrant is not required if there is a reasonable suspicion that the car has been stolen or is conveying a wanted person, concealable fire-arms or drugs. In the United States, I might say, the police are barred from stopping or searching vehicles on the road unless they have probable cause to believe that an illegal act is involved. Indeed, random searches are forbidden under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, i.e. the Bill of Rights. So the hon. member for Durban Central was perfectly right when he stated that, internationally, the right of the police to stop and search cars without a reasonable suspicion, where they have no warrant, is forbidden.

Does the hon. member not know that the hon. member for Durban Central did not know it on the first day but on the second one?

What does that matter? The point is that the Minister should have known that. The hon. the Minister is the one who is introducing the legislation. He is the one who is responsible for this legislation. What does he mean the hon. member did not know?

I could see by the look on his face that he did not know on the first day.

That does not matter at all. [Interjections.] That is completely irrelevant. It does not matter at all whether the hon. member knew or not, on the first day. The person who should have known is the hon. the Minister. He is the gentleman who introduces this legislation. Where he thought he had scored a point originally, when he was under the impression that nobody had any information about the international situation, he says now that it does not really matter. Perhaps he is trying to have it both ways. I might say that I checked the relevant information pertaining to Israel over the weekend because I certainly did not know it during the early stages of the discussion of this Bill. In Israel the situation is that except in military areas the right of the police to search is circumscribed. They have to have a reasonable suspicion that an offence is about to be committed or has been commited.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are going well beyond the steps which are taken in other countries where terrorism is also experienced. We are not the only country in the world where terrorism is a problem.

Mr. Speaker, I hope very much that the hon. member for Umhlanga will read the Argus article because he was very vociferous about this point of what happened internationally. Finally, I want to point out that I see in Hansard that the hon. member for Umhlanga and the hon. the Minister both have said that the PFP is soft on security. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umhlanga has learned absolutely nothing from the sad and disgraceful history of his old party, the once great United Party, which vanished for the simple reason that it came apart at the seams when it began to go soft on the rule of law. [Interjections.] It was from then onwards that the United Party began to disintegrate. [Interjections.]

We only got rid of the radicals.

After its support of the Schlebusch Commission the United Party disintegrated entirely because it forefeited the respect of even its most loyal supporters. That is the reason why we are today the official Opposition and why the hon. member for Umhlanga belongs to the Natal Remnant Party. That is all one can call it because, with the exception of one hon. member, who incidentally largely agrees with our views on the rule of law, that party has no support throughout the country whatsoever.

Moreover we are impervious to this cry of total onslaught and of lacking patriotism, which, I might say, is the last refuge of the scoundrel, as Johnson once put it. He said invoking patriotism was the last refuge of the scoundrel. I must stress that we are impervious to all of this. We believe that South Africa could manage very well by following accepted practices of the Western democracies.

Therefore we shall oppose the Third Reading of this Police Amendment Bill.

Mr. Speaker, before I deal with the speech of the hon. member for Houghton in broad outline, I hasten to say that when the hon. member reprimanded me about a statement I am said to have made during the Second Reading, in a sense I was concerned that the hon. member would get me into trouble with the hon. the Minister. However, it is perfectly clear to me that the hon. member for Houghton did not read or understand the speech of the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.] The hon. member may have read the speech of the hon. the Minister; however, she did not understand it. In the written speech of the hon. the Minister, of which I have a copy with me—I emphasize that I do not have the hon. the Minister’s Hansard here—it clearly states that this matter under discussion has been discussed by the State law advisers and that after in-depth consultations, they were of the opinion that from a legal point of view, it is appropriate that the S.A. Police be given a general authorization to set up roadblocks, barriers or other objects on or next to roads, to display signs to ensure that a vehicle will come to a stop, and to search vehicles and receptacles without warrant.

When the hon. member for Houghton reprimanded me in this way, it was characteristic of her whole approach to this speech of the hon. the Minister, as well as to this entire debate. As one would generally expect, the hon. member did not address us on the basis of a particular theme. She simply touched on various matters. She repeatedly tried to sow doubt without discussing the essence of this particular Bill. [Interjections.]

Let us compare the speech of the hon. member for Houghton during the Third Reading debate on this Bill and the speech of the hon. member for Durban Central during the Second Reading debate of this same Bill. The hon. member for Durban Central will most probably also enter this debate. When the hon. member for Durban Central reacted to the speech I made, he reproved me for saying that one should consider this Bill in the context of a particular philosophy. What was the reaction of the hon. member for Durban Central? He said that the hon. member for Krugersdorp was a man who liked to rely on a philosophy. He said that I had used absurd arguments, and using that kind of unbridled language, he reproved all my colleagues as well as the hon. the Minister.

However, after having listened to the hon. member for Houghton, I can only draw the conclusion that one cannot judge legislation of this nature if one does not consider it against a background of a particular situation in a country. One has to consider it against the background of a particular situation in a country …

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton is now making her second speech during the Third Reading debate. I do not think that is permissible. [Interjections.]

What did the hon. member for Houghton do? She quoted authorities from Great Britain, West Germany and Australia, thereby supporting the hon. member for Durban Central. When the hon. the Minister reacted and said by way of an interjection that the hon. member did not have the answers on the first day, but that she had, in fact, had them on the second day, the hon. the Minister’s interjections was dismissed as being ridiculous. What I am saying now is absolutely relevant. What really happened here?

On the first day this Bill was discussed, the hon. member for Durban Central indicated that authorities in Western Europe did not support the hon. the Minister’s standpoint, but his own standpoint. Thereupon the hon. the Minister asked him to quote one rehable source which would support that statement of his. The hon. member for Durban Central could not do so. What is one to infer from this?

One must infer that, in general, hon. members of the PFP are hoping and trusting that somewhere in the Western World there will be support for their point of view. We give them that argument as a bonus. One cannot compare the situation in South Africa with any one of the three examples used by the hon. member for Houghton. Why not? Because their constitutions, their basic principles in terms of which they operate, their modus operandi under a particular system of human rights, are not comparable with those in South Africa.

What is the situation in South Africa? In South Africa situation, since the laying upon the Table of the report of the Rabie Commission, we have been making a case for the existence of a particularly factual situation in South Africa which makes it necessary for us to utilize our own South African methods to organize our circumstances in South Africa. We claim that we can learn and benefit from the wisdom of the other Western democracies, but we govern South Africa in a truly South African manner. That is why it is simply not relevant when we try summarily to transplant the charter of human rights from West Germany to South Africa, to let it take root here and then to believe that it must work. Our factual circumstances are different.

However, let us look at some of the other arguments of the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. member for Houghton sides with her colleagues, and with the hon. member for Durban Central in particular, when she says that there must be reasonable grounds before the police can stop someone at a roadblock and order him to allow his vehicle to be searched. Mr. Speaker, what are those hon. members doing? What is our political defence against his argument of theirs? Our political defence against this standpoint is that we need this measure in order to make proper action by the police possible in the combating of crime and the maintenance of law and order.

In terms of what do those hon. members want the police to operate? They want the police to operate in such a way that they really cannot operate at all. They say—and here they are following the example of section 22 of the Criminal Procedure Act—that they want a reasonable suspicion to be an integral part of the present legislation as well. What can we glean from this? I think I could make a case for each of these standpoints. The onus of proof rests with the police to prove and to indicate that they had a reasonable suspicion that it was necessary to act. Secondly, it is not sufficient for a police official to say that he had a reasonable suspicion. He must furnish reasons for his suspicion. Thirdly, a police official must have this suspicion when he begins to perform his action. If those three elements are brought into play, in which circumstances would the police be able to set up a successful roadblock on the outskirts of Bloemfontein or anywhere else in the RSA after there had been a bomb explosion in that area? This example was also used by the hon. member for Durban Central. Let us turn this argument! around and say that, on the basis of information received, there is a possibility that arms or drugs are being imported into the country. In view of these three elements I have just spelt out, on what basis would the police be able to set up a roadblock in any area? The hon. member for Durban Central is not only making it impossible for the police to carry out their duties; he also, in fact, does not want them to carry out their task successfully.

What is the other extremely unfair and unseemly argument which the hon. members of the PFP advanced? Those hon. members say that they cannot vote for this measure before this House. They cannot support us at all when we ask for these particular powers to be granted to the Police Force, because they say that the moment we have these powers, we will extend them next year to the individual as well. Is that a reasonable suspicion?

The hon. member has not been here long enough.

The hon. member for Durban Central says that I have not been here long enough. In this case, the onus of proof rests with the hon. member for Durban Central to say that a reasonable suspicion exists. Has he discharged his reasonable suspicion? Has he met the demand of a reasonable suspicion? Not at all. He hazarded a wild guess, and if so responsible a member as the hon. member for Durban Central, hazards guesses in this way, how are the police going to set up a roadblock to catch someone if they can only guess? This is certainly not a meaningful argument.

Without repeating the arguments advanced during the debate on the Second Reading and the Committee Stage, we feel at liberty to request the support of this House for the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, after somewhat heated debates on this matter during the debate on the Second Reading, as well as the Committee Stage, the hon. member for Houghton has been calmer this afternoon than on other occasions, and I think one could say that we can now consider the effects of this legislation fairly calmly. This is something we assess on the basis of four questions, and the first is: Is this amendment essential? The second question is: Is the authorization to set up roadblocks to search vehicles and receptacles found in those vehicles a fair one? Thirdly, the question is: Will the measures being established by this legislation be sufficient? In the fourth place: Will this amendment enable the police to do their work effectively? Assessed on the basis of these four questions, I am of the opinion that we can, in fact, reply to them in the affirmative.

In my Second Reading speech I pointed out that in the changing circumstances in which South Africa has to deal with the grave threat of an onslaught on our internal security, it is essential that our Police Force should have the indisputable legal right to do what is in the interests of the security of our country and its people. That is why I say that what this Bill envisages is the legitimization of police action in setting up roadblocks. There must be no uncertainty in law concerning their right to act in such a manner. When I say this, I say that we should also take into account the realities of our society as it is today and as it will be in the foreseeable future.

Therefore the actions of the police at roadblocks will increasingly be closely connected to internal security. We have taken note of the fact that the PFP are attempting, by way of an amendment, to hamstring the police in the execution of their task and duties. We cannot go along with this because— I should like to reiterate this—it is acceptable, as the Rabie Commission also repeatedly stated, if all the relevant circumstances are considered, that it will be in the interests of the country and the community for there to be a reasonable degree of intervention in the personal freedom of the individual. The setting up of roadblocks and the right to search vehicles and receptacles in vehicles represent such reasonable intervention in the freedom of the individual. By being permitted to do what they have always done in past years without any objection from any political party in this House, this step to legalize police action of this nature is justified.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill has been debated in a somewhat emotional atmosphere. I wish we had debated it as we should debate all measures in this House, and that is in isolation. We are looking at a particular piece of legislation which seeks to do a particular thing, but unfortunately we have been side-tracked, we have been pulled off the rails time and time again by being reminded that this or that could happen or some other ghastly fate could befall us as a result of the Bill.

I must say that I think the hon. member for Houghton argues far more convincingly than do the advocates in the benches of the PFP, namely the hon. members for Pinetown and Durban Central. I think she presents her arguments far better and she certainly puts a far more convincing case because she does not regale us with a legalistic argument; she puts it the way she wants to and she does it rather well. She made a point when in her address she said: “We shall remember this”. Yes, I agree—they will remember it. So, too, shall we in these benches. We shall remember this piece of legislation. We shall remember it for all time. We shall remember it very, very clearly should the hon. the Minister ever come to ask for this sort of power in respect of individuals or persons. Should he do that, let me assure the House that we shall oppose the hon. the Minister with all the power we have. That we shall do, but the hon. the Minister is not asking for that power in this piece of legislation—the hon. the Minister is asking that the police be granted the power to search vehicles; in other words motorcars, trucks, inanimate objects that go on a road, on a highway, on rubber wheels …

And robots?

… not people. The individual is not to be searched. Does the hon. member want to ask a question?

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member why it is easy to prove that there is need for a reasonable doubt as far as a person is concerned but not as far as a vehicle is concerned?

I shall come to that very point in my presentation. As a matter of fact, I think I had better come to it right away. In reply, I ask myself how a policeman can possibly prove reasonable grounds or, as the hon. member for Houghton puts it, reasonable suspicion where a roadblock is involved. As I see it, the police manning a roadblock are dealing with a situation where a flow of traffic is passing that particular point. How are the police then to say: We will let three go and suspect the next one? It is just impossible to do that! I believe the police are not going to set up a roadblock unless they have reasonable grounds for believing that something is going to come through that particular point in a vehicle, but they do not know in which vechicle. If they do not then search every vehicle, how on earth are they going to …

[Inaudible.]

No, we are not talking about searching people. That is what I am trying to tell the hon. member for Houghton: We are not talking about searching people; we are talking about searching vehicles. If the police are to set up a roadblock, they must be able to do so effectively. We do not have the money for the sort of futile exercise where the police can go out and say: Let us set up a roadblock here; “dit is ’n lekker plek hierdie”. The police are there to set up a roadblock when they feel there is a need for that roadblock, when they feel there is a cause for that roadblock, when they feel there are reasons to believe that somebody is going to be smuggling something through that point. It does not have to be arms. It can be drugs, or anything that can be a danger to our society. Under those circumstances they are going to set up a roadblock in order to stop the vehicle that is smuggling a particular kind of merchandise.

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

All right, the hon. member can ask her question if it is a little one, an itsy-bitsy one.

Sir, I wanted to ask if the hon. member knew how many times last year roadblocks were set up on the road to Soweto and the residents harassed. It happened night after night.

We give up. Tell us how many times.

As my hon. colleague says, we give up. Really, I do not know, but I am prepared to accept …

It happened night after night.

All right, Helen has made her speech.

You see, Sir, the PFP—bless their hearts—question this but they do not give us any idea of how the police are to operate. They do not tell us the answer to this problem. They do not give us an idea in this regard. If I knew the answer, I would like to give it as an alternative, but there is no answer to it. If one suspects that a crime is being committed under these particular circumstances, this is the only way one can act to counter that crime.

The hon. member for Houghton has said that the Rule of Law caused the demise of the United Party. She is entitled to her opinion, but let me voice mine. My opinion is that softness on security is going to annihilate that party over there. It is going to annihilate that party not only from without, but also from within, because its attitude towards security is eating its very guts out from within itself. It becomes more obvious as each day goes by: That party is going to tear itself apart on its attitude towards security.

Wait and see.

The hon. member says “Wait and see”. I hope we do not have too long to wait. We are all waiting to see what happens with the Defence Amendment Bill to come.