Mr Speaker, I listened attentively to some of the very interesting speeches delivered here yesterday by hon members on the Government side. Many of them implied that the SATS should not be subsidized but that the rates for passengers and goods should be increased in order to avoid the payment of so-called subsidies. I intend to expose the fallacy of the premises upon which either arguments were based. First of all, however, I should like to draw attention to some of the remarks made by the hon member for Kimberley South, and I quote from his speech, as follows (Unrevised Hansard, 5 March):

I intend to return to this later because I believe the premise upon which this argument is based is completely false.

In dealing with this SATS Budget one is amazed at some of the speeches made in connection with a business of this magnitude. It is a R15 billion business with a R7,25 billion turnover and a R1,75 billion expansion programme, and also 500 000 employees. Honestly, Mr Speaker, when trying to discuss the affairs of a business of this magnitude one should have a certain degree of sympathy with the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs, who is in charge of this business. In spite of that, however, I must add that the hon the Minister, in introducing the 1983-84 estimates, during March last year, as well as the revised estimates tabled here in the House after his latest Budget speech, so clearly reveals the pattern he has adopted, which is one of still budgeting for too little revenue and too much expenditure. The revised estimates for 1983-84 show that he should take in an additional R205 million in revenue and spend R418 million less.

I believe he is going to do exactly the same again during the coming financial year. In his Second Reading speech he said that the better use of material, equipment and money had been responsible for the SATS estimated working deficit of R634 million for 1983-84 to result in an actual deficit of R11 million. I would be the first to admit, Mr Speaker, that while listening to the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech I really began to believe that we had a financial Wizard of Oz in this House.

In addition to the capital side there was a further saving on investments of R64 million, according to the hon the Minister. Then, however, the hon the Minister spoilt it all for himself by announcing tariff increases. In that way he spoilt his whole game. He ended up like the lion in “The Wizard of Oz”, who was always crying because it seemed to him that nothing would ever go right.

To have saved some R623 million under the most adverse circumstances would have been a daunting task in the light of the following decreases in traffic. High-rated traffic decreased by 11%. Low-rated traffic decreased by 13%. Coal and coke traffic remained almost static, as did harbour traffic. Passenger services decreased by 4%, Airways traffic by 11%, while pipelines remained almost static too. The only increase was in road transport passenger traffic, which increased by 13%, but the role this type of traffic plays on the whole is very, very small indeed.

In addition the hon the Minister tells us that he has reduced the staff component of the SATS by 14,7% during 1983-84. To this, however, must be added the more than 10% decrease in the staff component during 1982-83. Thus, on 1 April 1984 the SATS will employ the massive figure of 62 250 workers less than during the previous year. The question is who these people are who, in these times of drought and depression, have been deprived of their work and their earnings. Are they workers who can least afford to be without work; and if so, who is providing for them now? I should like the hon the Minister to explain in some detail who the people are that have been retrenched by the SATS.

The hon the Minister says further in his speech that the SATS was one of the first undertakings which, early in 1982 identified the intensity of the world recession, and took immediate action. He adds that a strategic management plan has been formulated in order to improve the effectiveness of the organization, and that we do see now the result of this initiative. Those are very, very beautiful words indeed, Mr Speaker, but how has this been put into effect, and who have been the victims of this so-called initiative? Mr Speaker, there have been three massive hikes in tariffs during the past two years. The first was on 1 April 1982, and the second on 1 January 1983, while the third increase is to take effect on 1 April 1984. The cumulative effect of these is what we will witness; not the actual individual rise in tariffs. The result of these three massive hikes in tariffs since April 1982 means that first class passengers tariffs have gone up by 30%, while second class passenger tariffs have been increased by 36%, and tariffs for third class passengers by 55%. Commuter fares in respect of first class passengers have gone up by 42%, and in respect of third class passengers by 51%, while goods rates have been increased by an average of approximately 39%. There is something radically wrong when the lowest income earning group in the country has had to pay for the greatest increase in tariffs during the past two years. [Interjections.]

It is perfectly true that the SATS per se have not been responsible for the population shifts of non-White people to the outskirts of towns in and around the large metropolitan areas. These people need transport more than ever now in order to earn a livelihood. Yet it would seem as though the SATS have imposed upon them the greater proportionate share of the burden brought upon the country by the apartheid policy of the Government, in which these commuters have no say whatsoever.

You are talking nonsense.

I am not talking nonsense, and the hon member knows it. [Interjections.] It is enough that the SATS have to bear the avoidable losses on running costs that occur on socio-economic railway lines. It should be so far and no further as far as SATS are concerned. It is absolutely fair—and I want the hon member for Kimberley South to listen to this—that the White electorate who voted that Government into power should now pay for the privileges that they believed the policy of apartheid bestowed upon themselves. This is compensation for socio-economic services and it is a due charge against the Treasury, not against the commuter, because it is really in the main a tax to maintain the apartheid laws and particularly the Group Areas Act. It should, however, not be necessary—and I want to say this sympathetically to the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs—for that hon Minister to go cap in hand to the hon the Minister of Finance every single year to try to obtain payment. It is here that it is necessary for us to understand the difference between compensation and a subsidy. According to The Oxford Dictionary “compensation”:

On the other hand, a “subsidy”:

There is a very basic difference in this regard. The SATS is, according to law, a business organization that has to operate on its own. If the State wishes to make use of that business organization it has to compensate it for any losses that it may incur in undertaking what it has to do.

The job of the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs is to provide transport where that transport is required and, if it is the policy of the Government that uneconomic lines whether branch or commuter lines have to be built, then the Treasury has to bear the financial burden in this regard. Therefore, for the privilege of apartheid, the Treasury must pay. The hon the Minister will have to obtain at least R500 million during this year and, as he said, the sooner the better. Employers also contribute to the Black Transport Fund a transport levy which is controlled by the Department of Transport. Some of this money should also be diverted to the SATS.

May I ask a question?

No, I do not have the time. The hon the Minister must tell this House of the problems he is encountering in regard to the insufficient amounts in compensation for socio-economic services and thus take us into his confidence.

I want now to deal with what I believe to be an overestimate in respect of revenue. If hon members will look at page 3 of the document with which we have been furnished in relation to the monthly revenue and expenditure account they will see that revenue is exceeding expenditure for the first time since July last year. The hon the Minister has informed this House that he was able to keep expenditure at bay last year by some 11% to 12%. Surely his estimate of almost R5,5 billion for 1984-85 can be reduced by the same kind of savings as he applied in 1983-84. Therefore, despite increases in salaries and wages which are absolutely necessary, the hon the Minister should, by the end of the year, be able to show a surplus. I hope that when he does show a surplus he will give us the privilege of hearing that he is going to reduce tariffs in respect of goods and passenger services.

This is not the first time South Africa has had a depression. This is not the first time we have had a recession. I would ask the hon the Minister to read the report of the Sir Guy Granet Commission on Railways and Harbours which was published in 1934 when we had exactly the same problems, if not even worse, in South Africa. This is what is said in paragraph 68 of the report:

This is what is said in paragraph 72:

I hope that is what is going to happen to the hon the Minister in the near future.

In conclusion I should like to deal with the mini-bus question and the position of the SATS. In the annual report of SATS for 1983-84 on page 72 it shows clearly that in all metropolitan areas except Pretoria there has been a decline in third-class suburban traffic. On the other hand there has been a growth in the use of mini-buses. This is due in no mean measure to the increase in fares because the increase in fares had made the mini-buses competitive. It must be clearly understood that mini-buses operate at competitive fares and they are not as confined as the railway system to fixed points of pick up and alighting. They can start from the city centre streets and passengers can alight at their homes. The Welgemoed Commission in its final report on Bus Passenger Transportation, however, recommends legislation for the elimination of the mini-bus as a taxi in the legal definition sense.

This informal industry which is developing and which now plays a very important role in the socio-economic life of the Blacks, must under no circumstances be removed. I want to tell the hon the Minister that if the SATS supports this legislation, it will be making a very big mistake and any legislation which the hon the Minister might introduce might bring him to the same phrase which Shakespeare used and which I have slightly changed:

I pray that the hon the Minister will heed our warnings.

Mr Speaker, when discussing the concept of taxi’s, which is not at issue here, but which he has dragged into the debate, the hon member for Bezuidenhout must tell us which part of the taxi community he is opposed to. Is it those who have permits or those who do not have permits and do not exist? That is the first question to be answered. It is also time we took a look at the report to ascertain exactly what is stated therein.

Have you looked at the report yet?

The hon member for Bryanston should rather keep quiet about this. He should rather speak about subjects he knows something about, for example when he and his wife threatened not to co-operate with the Randburg Sun because the Randburg Sun propagated a yes vote. I brought this cutting with me because I knew that the hon member would put his foot in it:

He should speak about that, and then we shall speak to him.

The commission stated very clearly that as regards the existing taxi’s or “combi taxi’s”, as they are also called—I am referring to recommendation R.36—that all existing rights should be retained. For the sake of the hon member for Bezuidenhout and the agitators of the UDF I shall quote it:

However, the hon member did not read the report; he prefers to listen to his friends in the UDF.

I have the whole report.

To have the report means nothing; the hon member should read it. I now want to put a question to the hon member. We are debating the taxi’s here. The hon member must bear in mind that at present there is a movement in progress in South Africa, a movement launched by certain organizations, for example the UDF, to break down the existing means of transport such as rail, bus and lawful taxi’s, so that they can control the labour force of South Africa. Now I want to ask the hon member to state whether, when he debates here, he is speaking about the authorized taxi or the unauthorized one. The unauthorized taxi has no right of existence before it is legalized. They are not recognized anywhere, and those that exist are recognized by the commission. That is stated here in black and white.

Mr Speaker, I shall now come back to the debate on the budget. In the first place I wish to associate myself with the congratulations conveyed to the hon the Minister, the management of the SATS and the staff of the SATS. Then, too, I wish to congratulate the railway police, who will shortly be celebrating their fiftieth anniversary. In addition I wish to convey my thanks to all who have supported the SATS in one form or another over the past twelve months. I think that we owe those consumers, too, a debt of thanks.

I also wish to associate myself with the concern expressed by the hon member for De Aar about the losses that are still accumulating, and at the same time I wish to convey my thanks to the Minister and the Cabinet for having chosen the alternative of lower cost and higher productivity with a view to future pruning of expenditure, in order to maintain tariffs at a lower level. It is not desirable for us simply to continue increasing tariffs, and as far as that is concerned I shall later in my speech come back to the competitive position of the SATS. This organization is encountering a major problem as far as this is concerned. A political figure in England, a person who is also a transport economist, said this, and I offer the hon the Minister these words of comfort:

No tariff increase is pleasant. The only pleasant things are salary increases and greater profits, and where tariff increases make demands on both, it is to be understood that there will be criticism and that such criticism should be regarded with great circumspection. Unfortunately it is true that the SATS, too, is subject to inflation and to normal market forces, just like any other sector in the economy of South Africa.

I agree with the hon the Minister that in the short term, cross-subsidization is the only way to make good our deficits. There is no other way. But let us consider a few possible alternatives and face the facts. The crucial issue is still: What about the socio-economic services rendered by the SATS? In this regard, too, the hon member for Bezuidenhout failed to furnish an answer which contributed in any way to a solution of the problem. The question is whether we should close all branch lines. I do not think so, because if that were done, it would only plunge the rural areas into even greater difficulties. The second question relates to the R750 million deficit on passenger transport. Together with the Treasury we shall have to consider how we can solve this problem. At the moment the Treasury does not have the necessary money available. It is a pity that we had to increase the third class tariffs by a higher percentage than the rate of inflation. But the Government is not unapproachable in this regard, and has said so time and time again. Let us take a brief look at what the problem is at the moment. The problem is that during the 1982-83 financial year, third class suburban passengers paid only 29% of the total cost of their transport. Therefore, to a certain extent it is reasonable that those passengers should make a greater contribution in the future. No business enterprise can survive if its revenue covers only 29% of its expenditure. Tariffs for the conveyance of agricultural products can also be increased. For example, as regards the conveyance of livestock, the total cost coverage over an average distance of 1 000 km is only 49,4%, whereas that of pulp wood is 68,8% and that of six metre long empty containers, only 39,9%. The question is whether these tariffs should be increased all at once. I do not think so. We must carry on with the existing tariff structure, which is causing so many problems, until we have found a solution. We must all co-operate to find a solution and not merely try to criticize. As far as South West Africa is concerned, I agree with the hon the Minister that he must speak to the Administrator General. There are railway lines in that area with a utilization factor of only 12%, and we cannot continue subsidizing the system there to such an extent.

I am a champion of the idea that the total transport market should be more market-orientated over the long term. Moreover, this must take place as soon as possible, but always in an orderly fashion so that all participants will have the opportunity to be effective and make a profit, because without profits none of us can continue to exist. I should like to associate myself with what the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said on Friday, viz that South Africa is the only country in which the gap between the First and Third Worlds is narrowing. We must determine what role transport has played in this process, and transport must then be afforded the opportunity to continue to perform that role in the future. A great deal has been said about the free market system, in this debate as well, and in this regard I want to refer to what the hon the Prime Minister had to say about this subject at the Good Hope Conference. At the time the hon the Prime Minister referred to deficiencies in the system and said that certain conditions also applied to the implementation of such a system. I agree with the hon the Prime Minister that those conditions are not being complied with at present, particularly as far as the socio-economic services are concerned. At present, socio-economic services are being shifted onto the State. In many instances the socio-economic services are in practice being shifted onto the State by the private sector in the market situation.

When the goods market is analyzed, it is evident that only about 20% of the goods market is still regulated. Therefore the whole struggle concerns 20% of the goods market. The SATS has 33% of the total market, whereas approximately 20% of the goods market is regulated. The question that now arises is why the private sector has not taken over the other part of the market, which is uneconomical. A solution will have to be sought so that the socio-economic services, too, may be divided among all the different carriers in South Africa.

I want to request the hon the Minister to investigate section 8 of Act 65 of 1981. The SATS must be relieved of the obligation to publish all its tariffs. The SATS must be afforded the opportunity to negotiate on tariffs with its major clients. At this stage it is pointless publishing all the tariffs, because the major users of the SATS derive no benefit, whereas the SATS’s competitors will simply bid lower than the tariff scales of the SATS. We can still have fixed tariffs for small consignments, but I wish to ask the SATS to be able to decide on tariffs for large consignments. It is of the utmost importance that consideration be given at this stage to our dropping the existing system. It would be preferable to come to a mutual agreement about costs.

Another aspect that is important in this regard, is that the SATS must be allowed a greater discretion in deciding on a mode of transport to convey uneconomic goods. It does not matter whether it is its own, nor does it matter if they are outside modes of transport. However, there will have to be greater play among the most important transport modes in this country in order to keep costs low and have a better competitive position if we wish to proceed as specified in the 1910 constitution and as was clearly spelt out up to and including 1980-81 as the charter of the transport services. The SATS has a specific charter which was stated in the constitution. We are the only country in the world—as far as I have been able to determine—in which the charter of the country’s transport services is spelt out in that country’s constitution. Fortunately this has now been deleted.

With regard to criticism of the SATS because it forms part of the Government and everything that that involves, I should like to refer to the following words from the book State-owned Enterprises in the Western Economies. The authors formulated this matter as follows:

I think that the SATS is still doing this at present. We must judge it in that spirit and not merely advance criticism. We must sit around a table and analyze the problem of the SATS and solve those problems.

Mr Speaker, it was a pleasure to listen to the authoritative hon member Dr Welgemoed.

It is a generally accepted fact that the quality and standard of an employer is undoubtedly determined by the way in which he treats and cares for his retired employees. If this yardstick is taken as a norm, then the SATS is an employer of the highest calibre, because it has a wonderful record as regards the treatment and care of its retired employees, generally known as pensioners.

It is a generally accepted policy that the pensioner is entitled to a pension or annuity according to the contributions he made to his pension fund during his period of service. These contributions are usually fixed at a certain percentage of his monthly salary. The amount payable as an annuity is calculated according to established formulas, and usually it is not subject to annual increases or adjustments. When the cost of living then rises, as it has during the past few years, the pensioner finds it very difficult, if not impossible, to make ends meet on his annuity, unless the employer, although not obliged to do so by law but for humanitarian reasons, increases and adjusts the annuity annually by an amount which more or less keeps pace with the rise in the cost of living. It is in this regard that the SATS has and is maintaining a wonderful record. The SATS definitely cannot be accused of indifference towards its retired employees, since it is the established practice to revise and increase pensions regularly whenever general salary adjustments are made as a result of the rising cost of living. When pensions are revised by the SATS, thorough regard is had for the fact that pensioners who retired a number of years ago, are worse off than those who retired more recently. This gap or difference may be ascribed chiefly to the difference between the salaries of employees who retired in the ’fifties and ’sixties and the salaries of those who retired later, because as a result of the smaller salaries, contributions to the pension fund were also lower, with a resultant lower pension being paid out on retirement.

The fact that the SATS recognizes these differences, which have an historical basis, and has in fact tried when adjusting annuities to narrow this gap, deserves special mention. To prove the truth of this statement, I shall give just a few examples to indicate how the differentiation is effected with the adjustments and increases. On 1 April 1971 the annuities of pensioners, including those of the widows of pensioners, were increased as follows: The pensions of those persons who retired prior to 1 March 1968 were increased by 15%; the pensions of those persons who retired between 1 April 1968 and 31 March 1969 were increased by 12½%; and the pensions of those persons who retired between 1 April 1969 and 31 May 1971 were increased by 10%. Let me give another example. On 1 April 1982 annuities were increased as follows: Pensions payable on or before 1 December 1973 were increased by 18%; pensions payable between 2 December 1973 and 1 December 1979 were increased by 16%; pensions payable between 2 December 1979 and 1 April 1981 were increased by 14%; and pensions payable between 2 April 1981 and 1 April 1982 were increased by 13%.

In view of these two examples it is quite clear that over the years due regard was had for the differences when adjustments were made. That is the reason for the differences in the percentage increases. When studying the increases and adjustments, it would almost seem as if it had been accepted in principle that there should be a differentiation, and a higher percentage increase should be allocated to those pensioners who retired longer ago.

In the Budget under discussion it would seem as if there has been a deviation from this principle or if it is not a principle then at least it is a very sound practice, because from 1 March 1984 annuities have all been increased by 10% plus the statutory increase of 2%. I want to make it clear at once that in the present financial circumstances we are deeply and sincerely grateful for that increase, but I do want to ask the hon the Minister, if it is at all possible, to revert to the principle, the sound practice, of differentiated increases in respect of pensioners who retired prior to a certain date, as was done in the case of all previous increases and adjustments. In order to illustrate how the SATS, by means of annual increases and adjustments, is constantly striving to enable its retired workers to co-exist with the steadily rising cost of living, it ought to be mentioned that a pensioner who retired on 1 March 1968 with a basic pension of R100 per month, will receive a monthly pension of R474,1 on 1 March, after all the increases and adjustments have been made. This example set by the SATS regarding the care and treatment of retired employees is indeed worth imitating, and everyone concerned is extremely grateful and appreciative. In view of the above, it is no wonder that the retired Railwayman can assure me, with moist eyes and pride in his voice: “I worked for a good boss.” We should like to thank that good boss most sincerely on behalf of all pensioners and widows of pensioners.

There is another matter I should also like to bring to the attention of the hon the Minister and hon members of this House. These Transport Services pensioners, particularly those in the lower income groups, live with and among other pensioners, in many cases as neighbours in the same block of flats. These other pensioners are elderly or physically disabled persons who receive social pensions, the so-called old-age or disability pensions. A so-called green card is issued to those persons who receive social pensions. This green card is one of the most important documents which anyone in South Africa can possess, because it is the key which opens many doors. I want to refer to only a few of the doors which it opens, and the resultant financial advantages.

In the first place, a person in possession of such a green card pays only R24 for his television licence, compared with the stipulated amount of R42. In the second place, a green-card holder can have a new telephone installed or an existing telephone transferred at a cost of only R25, compared with the stipulated amount of R75. In the third place, the green card gives access to free medical services. In the fourth place, in certain cities the green card ensures free travel by bus. In the fifth place, in all branches of a certain supermarket group the green card-holder receives 5% discount on all purchases. Let me make it quite clear at once that we do not begrudge green-card holders these privileges. As a matter of fact, we are sincerely grateful for them. However, this brings me back to the SATS pensioner living in the same block of flats, in the same street or in the same of house, with a difference in pension of about R100 per month who does not share these privileges.

Consequently I want to make a very serious appeal to the SATS to issue a card with the necessary particulars on it—the colour does not matter, but it will probably not be green—to its pensioners receiving a monthly pension of, say, less than R500. Holders of such cards should also enjoy certain privileges in respect of television licences, telephone connections and transfers, etc. This will not entail any additional expenditure for the SATS, except for the cost of printing the cards.

In conclusion, I want to say that individuals and service organizations in a community provide highly appreciated and wonderful services to holders of green cards by way of excursions, receptions, transportation to church services and shopping centres, etc. I want to appeal to those persons who perform these specific services not to forget the low-paid pensioner of the SATS when they carry out these wonderful acts of charity.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Kimberley North touched on a few matters and made representations which I support. I hope that the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs will give attention to the matters he raised.

It is true that when one is faced with something that is good, one has to admit it. Accordingly I, too, wish to associate myself with other hon members and convey my thanks to all the officials of the SATS, from the highest to the lowest, for what has been achieved this year, and since the hon the Minister has had a share in encouraging and motivating the staff, I wish to thank him as well.

I intend asking a few questions, and I should like us to debate them across the floor of this House. I wish to turn at once to the hon member for Gezina. When we were all still in the NP together, that hon member was so conservative that some people thought he was going to join the HNP. However, once he had made the slight mistake of first leaving with us and then coming back, he has tried to be personal towards us. Why does the hon member not follow the example of his colleagues and argue matters point by point? I feel it is high time I reprimanded the hon member. [Interjections.] After all, he does not have the sole right to become personal; other people, too, can make personal remarks. Perhaps the hon member thought that he would get a high post, such as that of Minister or something of that nature, but he has not even become a Whip.

I have the Hansard of the speech the hon member made yesterday and I now wish to deal with his arguments. He referred, inter alia, to the hon member for Nigel as follows (Hansard, 5 March 1984):

In other words, the hon member is saying that our politics are absurd. [Interjections.] In other words, the hon member for Gezina says that the hon the Minister is also absurd because he is budgeting for a surplus. The officials are absurd when they work towards a surplus budget. When that hon member wants to become personal, he should count his words. In my opinion, the hon the Minister and the department acted correctly in reducing the large deficit to R11 million. However, according to the hon member, if there had been a surplus of just R1 million, that would have been absurd.

Let us now determine in what respect every point in the motion is absurd, and then, when he replies, the hon the Minister must tell us which of these seven points are absurd so that we may know in future. The hon member for Gezina thinks that the hon the Minister is absurd because he wants to show a surplus and wants to eliminate accumulated losses. The hon member Dr Welgemoed, too, said that he was concerned about the accumulated losses. The first leg of the amendment of the hon member for Nigel reads:

1. (1) active steps will be taken to cease introducing budgets that provide for a deficit and to wipe out the accumulated loss suffered by the SA Transport Services …

According to the hon member for Gezina, the hon member Dr Welgemoed is absurd because he says that the accumulated loss must be eliminated. Where and when has there ever been a business enterprise that did not strive to make a profit? Surely every business enterprise tries to make a profit, because that means better salaries, better benefits and lower tariffs.

What is the second leg of the amendment, which is also supposed to be absurd? It reads:

1. (2) the House of Assembly will retain authority over all legislation affecting the SA Transport Services within the area of jurisdiction of the White Republic of South Africa.

[Interjections.] One can see how frivolous hon members are becoming. They are getting hurt, and now they are becoming frivolous. Is it now the wish of the hon member for Gezina that the SA Transport Services must not be dealt with as requested in the above amendment? Will the hon the Minister exert himself to ensure that the SA Transport Services will remain within the area of jurisdiction of the White Republic of South Africa? After all, his department and all the officials try to maintain this, and they will continue to do so.

Let us look at the third leg of the amendment, namely:

1. (3) a Coloured person or an Indian will not be appointed as Minister, Deputy Minister, or a member of the Board, of the SA Transport Services.

Hendrik has already promised that.

Yes, let me quote what the hon the Minister said. I quote from the Sunday Times of 27 March, when the hon the Minister was addressing a meeting at Wilge River in the Waterberg constituency. There the hon the Minister said: “Never, as long as the National Party is in power”—the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs said—“would there be a Coloured Minister of Transport.” [Interjections.] Those are very fine words, of course, and I am gratified that the hon the Minister did say that. However, the hon member for Gezina thinks that the hon the Minister is absurd. After all, he says that the amendment we moved is also absurd.

I also wish to quote what the hon the Minister went on to say according to that same news report:

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Does the hon member for Sunnyside think I am so stupid as to ask that another fellow should take over my job? Surely I should never say any such thing. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on that occasion the hon the Minister said that he did not believe that at that point there was a Coloured who could take over his post. Now I should like to ask him a question. In our amendment we ask him to give us an assurance in this regard. Therefore we want to know from him whether he thinks that there is a Coloured today who is competent to take over his portfolio from him. [Interjections.] If I remember correctly, during the referendum campaign it was argued that if the yes-vote were in the majority, it would still mean that the Whites would not have to forfeit any of their existing rights. Surely this is one of the existing rights of the Whites. [Interjections.] It is one of the existing rights of the Whites that there should be a White Minister of Transport Affairs in a White South Africa. This, too, is what we are asking for in our amendment. We want it placed on record that we as members of the CP insist that this should be so. We can give the hon the Minister the assurance that he will enjoy the support of the CP at all times if he insists that what we ask for in our amendment should apply. [Interjections.] That will be a very good thing.

Fourthly, in our amendment we request the guarantee that White workers of the SATS will be protected. I now wish to know from the hon member for Gezina whether he has not argued, like the rest of us, in favour of the protection of the White worker. Or do the interests of the White worker not count for anything with him nowadays? [Interjections.] What, then, is the hon member opposed to today when we ask that the White worker should be protected? [Interjections.] The White worker has been protected in several ways over the years. The fact that the White worker has enjoyed protection has not meant that other workers have been supplanted and eliminated. However, we demand that the White worker will be protected. [Interjections.] I believe that in the SATS it is the task of the hon the Minister and that of the General Manager of the SATS, his entire top management and all others in authority to see to it that the White worker is indeed protected. [Interjections.] We also wish to express our thanks today for the way in which these things have been done in the past. Therefore I say that we in the CP demand that it stay that way. [Interjections.] We plead that it should remain that way, but apparently the hon member for Gezina knows nothing about this. [Interjections.]

This brings me to the fifth leg of our amendment, in which we ask that the necessary segregation measures be taken to prevent crowding-out at stations and on premises of the SATS. The hon the Minister must please tell us whether he is now going to do away with all segregation measures or whether he intends to continue applying them. I think he is going to continue to apply them. That is what he is going to do. [Interjections.] I believe that the amendment moved by the hon member for Nigel is important for all of us. It is in the interests of the Whites, the Coloureds, the Indians and the Blacks. [Interjections.] We must not all be put together in the same kraal. When that happens, we shall have friction and conflict. This eventually gives rise to unpleasantness, and in the long run that can lead to riots. However, when we keep people separate, we prevent all these problems. For 33 years the NP applied separate development, and also maintained peace and harmony in the SATS by way of separation. It always worked well. Everything ran smoothly. However, if we are going to mix everything at this point we can only expect trouble and difficulties. [Interjections.]

At this point, Mr Speaker, I just wish to refer briefly to the sixth leg of our amendment. In it we ask that racial mixing on trains and at public holiday resorts of the SATS be prevented. In the past, train facilities were separate. Whites, Coloureds and Indians travelled separately in all three passenger classes. Surely it is unnecessary to mix them at this stage. We ask that the same situation be maintained. If the NP was acting honestly, ethically and correctly during the referendum campaign by saying that the Whites need not forfeit any of their existing rights, then surely it is correct that we should ask these things now, so that they can be clearly confirmed? Or are they going to abandon them now? I hope that this matter will be maintained as such, and accordingly we ask in the amendment that this be retained. None of the points in our amendment I have mentioned thus far are absurd, or constitute anything that the hon the Minister and the entire SATS cannot strive for.

We ask in the seventh place that:

I recall that during the election campaign in Parys the hon member for Gezina held a meeting in Lichtenburg. He made a great deal of the contention that we want to give absolutely nothing to the non-Whites. I say that that is an infamous untruth, and if I had been outside, I should have used a different expression. We are prepared to give far more to the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Indians than that hon member opposite is prepared to give them. We say that it will indeed be taken into consideration that there should be proper, thorough, efficient and rapid transport for them to and from their places of residence and their places of employment. If they have that, then those people will be content, employers will be content and South Africa will be content.

There are a few other points in the budget to which I wish to refer. When I say to the hon the Minister that I am going to criticize, then I also wish to say that I shall do so in a responsible fashion in a constructive spirit and with a view to being constructive. None of us likes increased tariffs and I think the hon the Minister likes them even less than I do because it is he who is responsible for them. However, it is true that at a certain stage one has no alternative but to increase tariffs. Salaries have to be paid, working costs have to be covered and the money has to be found somewhere. If there is a down turn in the economy, with the result that little can be exported and therefore one has fewer goods to transport, then one will not collect the revenue one expected. I therefore understand that the hon the Minister has seen fit to increase tariffs. However, I cannot agree with the average 9,8% increase with regard to livestock. I want to thank the hon member Dr Welgemoed for having spelt out the position for us by saying that 49% of the transport costs with regard to livestock are recovered thereby. I want to ask the hon the Minister to reconsider this increase. A disaster has struck not only the farmers of South Africa, but the whole of South Africa. We have already heard of so many cases where farmers have sold out that I wish to say to the hon the Minister that those farmers have nothing left and that we must not take from them in the form of increased tariffs the little they may still have left. If those tariffs could be reduced then the urban dweller would have to pay them. In my opinion that is the only good point raised by the hon member for Gezina, when he said the other day that the consumer should contribute his share as well. I thank him for having said that. [Interjections.] No, Sir. The CP is open-hearted and sincere. If a man has spoken the truth then we give him credit for having done so.

In his speech the hon Minister mentioned that there would be a deficit of R106 million. I am sure that we could have made up that deficit in a different way. Since my time has expired, I just wish to appeal to the hon the Minister to do his best to accommodate the farmers, because each of us has a duty to help them to the best of our ability.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Sunnyside, who has just resumed his seat, tried to support the amendment moved by the hon member for Nigel. On the one hand it was a little difficult for me to follow the hon member but on the other hand I should like to remind the hon member that the hon member for Nigel also asked the hon the Minister to reconsider the increase in tariffs. On the one hand he advocated, although he was, to a certain extent, hiding behind the word “endeavour”, that the losses suffered by the Railways should be wiped out immediately, but on the other hand there was to be no increase in tariffs. Surely this is illogical.

The hon member went on to refer to a few things. It seems to me I should do him a favour and send him a copy of the new Constitution Act so that he can see how the new dispensation will work. [Interjections.] If he were to read the new constitution, he would see what he did not vote for. Then he will also understand why his party took such a tremendous beating. [Interjections.] However, I want to ask him how he voted in 1982 when this House decided that the SABC Board would also include people of colour among their number. Did he vote for or against this? He need only say “yes” or “no”.

When was that?

Now the hon member does not remember. [Interjections.] A few years ago the Department of Community Development decided that the very important National Housing Commission would also have people of colour as members because this was important since their affairs were also managed by the commission. I want to know from the hon member whether he ever took exception to this. It was such a pity that on such a wonderful occasion when we had to give an account of the stewardship of one of the largest organizations in South Africa, we had to listen to a cheap political discourse. The hon member has been a member of this House for many years and he should know better. However, I want to comfort him, because I found one ray of hope in his entire argument. I found it in the last paragraph of the CP’s amendment, for in it the CP expressed concern for the welfare of the commuter. I want to congratulate the party on that and I want to say: “Keep up the good work.”

On this occasion, in the few minutes at my disposal, I want to confine myself to one of the important components of the SATS, namely our harbour industry. If we want to get a complete picture of our harbour industry we should, without boring each other, take note of a few of its facets. The first facet is that during 1983 our harbours handled no fewer than 13 256 ships. In the second place we handled the enormous quantity of 17 million freight tons. In the third place, our harbour industry, like the other components of the SATS, was also faced with the bitter consequences of the world recession, world inflation, the tremendous drought in South Africa and the high interest rate.

Having said this, one can understand how grateful we are, how proud we are of this component. In spite of the factors I have referred to, this industry was able to show an operating profit of R224 million in 1983. This year the hon the Minister was able to budget for a revenue of R717 million, expenditure of R568 million and a possible profit of R231 million. I feel these are tremendous achievements in the annals of this component particularly when one considers that as a result of the recession our container industry alone declined by 114 000 units in 1983 and our freight traffic by approximately 11,5 million tons. I maintain that this was a tremendous achievement.

The question which arises now is this: Seen against this background, this overall picture I have tried to sketch, to what should we attribute the fact that in the midst of a world recession we were able to accomplish this achievement in our harbour industry? I would say it was due to various factors. In the first place the staff manning the harbours were responsible for their successful operation. As is the case in other sectors of the SATS it is also the aim and ideal of our harbour industry to provide a harbour service which meets the requirements of our country. In order to achieve this, one needs trained staff: rationalized, motivated and trained staff.

The harbour industry succeeded in reducing its staff by 947 and in providing the necessary training to equip every staff member for his task. In this way it succeeded in building up an effective staff to operate our harbours successfully under very difficult circumstances.

In the second place, the matter of harbour equipment had to be attended to so that those items which no longer fulfilled their function could be withdrawn. In this connection it is interesting to note, for example, that 40 fork lift trucks of between 4 and 12½ tons, 31 wharf cranes (4 ton), two mobile cranes and seven tractors were withdrawn. When one realizes that one four-ton fork lift truck costs R30 000 and a wharf crane costs R250 000, one realizes how much is being saved both in the short term and in the long term.

In the third place the operation of our harbours was so successful because the harbour authorities kept their fingers on the pulse of the needs of our harbours. In this regard constant adjustments had to be made. Let us consider containerization, a technique which ushered in a new era, a new dimension in our harbour industry. It is alleged that one container ship can do the work of ten conventional cargo ships. This makes one realize what a tremendous impact containerization had on harbour planning, dry-dock planning, etc.

In this debate reference has already been made to the mini-container which has been taken into service, as well as the shared freight system. Essential improvements had to be made at our container terminals to meet the requirements of the time. Here I am thinking for example of the Belcon container terminal here in the Cape Town area. The plans for the building complex there were designed by the architectural section of the SATS. In the first few months this complex has been in existence it has already handled 52 000 containers.

Then one thinks of the container terminal at Capital Park which will come into operation in July 1985, the proposed container terminal at Swartkops near Port Elizabeth and the supplementary container terminal which may be established at Isando.

I could elaborate on these things, but the point I want to make is that the harbour authorities are succeeding in keeping pace with modem developments. At the moment they are considering the putting into service of a computerized hydraulic baling press. I think wool farmers will be interested in this. Using conventional or existing methods, 96 bales of wool can at present be packed into a container, but once the new system comes into operation, it will be possible to load 108 bales into a container. This will mean a saving of R450 per container.

One also thinks of the effort being made to get general, world-wide acceptance of a standardized container of 2,6 metres. One can also mention the radio control system in Port Elizabeth, namely the coastline VHF radio consoles, which brought about a revolutionary improvement in control. This system is also going to be installed at other harbours. One can also refer to the modem diesel tug fleet, which is unique in Africa. This fleet is equal to the best in the world.

It is such a great pleasure to talk about the achievements of the harbour industry that one could discuss them for far longer if one’s Whip was more lenient. In the times in which we live today, it is, however, important to refer to a few rays of light. These rays of light are going to be extremely important to the SATS and the harbour industry in the future. For example, in November 1983 no fewer than 40 540 containers were handled in Durban harbour, which was a record.

My benchmate has just told me that my time has almost expired and there is therefore one final ray of light I want to mention. In 1977 we introduced containerization in South Africa. At that stage 145 400 containers were handled. In 1983 this figure had increased to 610 000 containers, which was 67 000 fewer containers than the record number handled in 1981. During the last quarter of 1983 our container traffic increased to such an extent that there was an increase of 35% in containers being landed and an increase of 18,5% in containers being shipped.

I believe there are wonderful years ahead for our harbour industry, and for the SATS as well. I believe that the major turning point in the world recession has come. I believe that the hon the Minister, his department and our harbour management deserves our thanks and appreciation.

Mr Speaker, it was nice to listen to the hon member for Newton Park. I am sorry that his time expired, because he was making a very interesting speech.

The financial achievements of the SATS during the past year testify to exceptional managerial expertise. I think that to reduce a budgeted loss of R634 million to an actual loss of R11 million is an achievement of which South Africa can be exceptionally proud. That achievement was accomplished under the most difficult circumstances imaginable for a transportation service. The drought and the world recession combined to make life difficult for the SATS instead of easy. It was not the fault of the SATS that the transportation of ore and minerals declined by 18%. It was not the fault of the SATS that Korea and Taiwan entered the steel industry. It is not their fault that Taiwan is at present the largest ship builder in the world. It is not the fault of the SATS either that so many substitutes are being found for steel and that the recycling of steel has increased to such an extent that the exports of iron ore from our country declined by 18%. Their achievement was a fine one.

The SATS also has to cope with another tendency which is to be found throughout the world. It is that as the affluence of a population increases, the mode of transportation changes from rail to road. In 1975 the SATS conveyed 42% of all golds. In 1982 this had declined to 40%. On the other hand, the goods conveyed by private organizations rose from 58% in 1975 to 60% in 1982. In 1975 the SATS conveyed 40% of all passengers. In 1982 this figure had declined to 36%. On the other hand the number of passengers conveyed privately rose from 45,2% in 1975 to 51,9% in 1982. This is an tendency which the SATS must take into consideration.

In 1970 the SATS conveyed 2 449 642 head of large livestock. By 1982 this had decreased to 726 866, a decrease of almost 60%. In 1970 the SATS conveyed 9,25 million head of small livestock. By 1982 this had decreased to 1,5 million, a decrease of between 70 and 80%. What are the reasons for this? It is because the farmers have become so prosperous …

Farmers can no longer afford to send their livestock by rail.

Oh please, be reasonable now. Farmers have become so prosperous that they are conveying their livestock in trucks; and not only in hired trucks either, but in their own trucks. Surely that hon member hails from a livestock farming area, and he knows that this is true. The farmers are no longer conveying their livestock by rail, but in their own trucks. What is more, the only livestock still being conveyed by the SATS is the small consignment of five or six head of cattle and 20 or 30 sheep. Larger consignments of between 60 and 70 sheep are no longer loaded onto a railway wagon, but are conveyed in double-decker road trucks. To prove that my statement is true I could mention that our road transportation service has performed well during the past year. Passenger kilometres have risen by 13,5% and goods kilometres by 18,7%. This proves the tendency of a change-over from rail to road transportation, something which is irreversible. As the affluence of the population increases, so that tendency will continue.

What is the reply to this dilemma? I think it is simply, in the first place, to accelerate our road-building programme in order to meet the steadily increasing need, and, secondly, to eliminate uneconomic services further. For reasons advanced by the hon member Dr Welgemoed, however, such uneconomic services cannot simply be abolished. I want to suggest that they could profitably be replaced with motor transportation services.

Before I conclude, I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether it is true that Hofmeyr is going to get a new station.

With that I should like to wish the hon the Minister and his Management a very successful financial year.

Mr Speaker, I will not follow the line of debate of the hon member for Hercules. I have an axe of my own to grind, but before doing so, I should like to refer to the hon member for Sunny-side. We on this side of the House believe in fair and equal treatment for all the workers. Therefore that hon member’s request for protection for the White workers amuses me, and I wish to ask him why he persists in asking for protection. I want to put it to him bluntly: Do he and his party suffer from an inferiority complex, or are they afraid to compete on an equal basis and put their so-called superiority to the test? With the greatest will in the world, does he really believe that the Whites can go on and on retaining their privileged position in this country? I wonder if he would like to answer that. I doubt whether he can.

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

My time is too limited. The sooner he realizes that he cannot, the better it will be for him.

I want to refer now to certain people in the employ of the SATS who were dismissed for reasons other than fraud or theft during the sixties and up to December 1981. Many of them were dismissed for the reason that they suffered from a disease. Some people will of course not accept it as a disease, but others, who are a little more sympathetic and have a little more tolerance, will accept alcoholism as such. Others were dismissed for the reason that they did not take transfers. Many of these people had given long and faithful service to the department. They were forced to pay into a pension fund to safeguard their future. They were dismissed from their positions and were in fact only paid back their contributions, but without any interest whatsoever, let alone anything else. It has been reckoned by good authority that the interest accumulated by the pension fund on the contributions made by these employees has earned the pension fund in excess of R250 000. Now that is a lot of money in any pensioner’s language. What is further alarming is that in most of these cases these people were not even afforded the opportunity of a premature retirement or of at least receiving a part annuity for services rendered. One can in all sincerity ask whether money earned in this way by a pension fund is not more or less tainted money. The further question can be asked: What is the end result in some of these cases? In many of these cases they have been thrown back onto the labour market, but the possibility of their finding a position on the open labour market is very remote indeed. I will refer to one of these cases later on. Most of them have had to wait until the age of 65 to apply for an old age pension and live on that. They have then become a burden on the State. The pension fund of the department has, however, taken no social responsibility whatsoever upon itself in this regard.

As I have said, I shall refer to a particular case later on. To be more specific, let us look at two cases. Firstly, there is the case of an employee who worked for the SATS for 31 years. Having started off as a boy messenger, he became an artisan and then qualified to become a draughtsman. During the 31 years of service he has had a few weeks’ sick leave for minor ailments. In the latter part of his service, when he realized his affliction, he used periods of his annual leave to attend a clinic. That was a voluntary attendance of a clinic to try to cure himself. I want to quote from a letter he wrote after his dismissal and his appeal:

Yes, let us look at what has happend. After 31 years of service he was dismissed. He appealed but the appeal was turned down. He appeared before the board and the board upheld the decision. Then he requested an annuity and the Minister also rejected that. One wonders why, especially if one looks at the letter which he received from his superior. I quote:

Now comes the crunch:

This is a letter from the Assistant General Manager, Staff. I wonder if that official has ever heard of compassion or empathy? I wonder if he has ever thought: “There but for the grace of God go I”?

There were alternate punishment. The SATS knows there were alternate punishment. Why were some of these not invoked? When considering that alcoholism may not be regarded as a recognized sickness in terms of the Railways and Harbours Service Act—and as such one can accept the imposition of some of the punishments that could have been applied—the contention persists that confiscating pension moneys, that is interest earned on capital put in by a worker, can only be regarded, I believe, as tantamount to embezzlement. These are hard words, but that money is important to that person. Enforced resignation or retirement from the service in this particular case will at least have been sufficiently appropriate, particularly when we are aware of other cases that were handled in the same way. In other words, in other cases persons were retired with reduced annuities for identical and parallel infringements of this specific regulation.

I want to put a question to the hon the Minister in this regard. Would he allow private enterprise to have done that? I wonder. When one considers the letter that was written by the Assistant General Manager, Staff, advising an employee that he was not going to recommend an annuity one can ask and one can reasonably suspect that there was a personal grudge by an immediate superior at the time, and thus an unsatisfactory report could have been concocted, which I believe may have been influential in prejudicing decisions. Being dismissed after 31 years of service is a pretty hard blow. What makes it worse is that that particular person had a daughter who had just started at university and he also had two minor children to care for. Is that any encouragement to give someone the incentive to rehabilitate himself? I do not believe it is. I believe it is anything but.

Let us also look at a second case. In this case an employee with 27½ years of service with the SATS was dismissed at the age of 55 for the same problem, namely alcohol. He was thrown onto the open labour market but he could not find another job. He battled until he was 65 and he is now receiving an old age pension. Not only is this unfortunate gentleman having to pay the penalty of being dismissed, but he is also paying another penalty, namely that he is fined for the amount of money he should have received in interest on his contributions. He is therefore receiving a double punishment. I respectfully ask the hon the Minister, who is after all a fair-minded person who says he has the welfare of his employees and ex-employees at heart, to re-examine these cases of employees who have been dismissed for reasons other than theft or fraud who have had more than 20 to 25 years of service with the SATS. I believe it is incumbent on the hon the Minister to reconsider, bearing in mind what I have said earlier, that the interest accrued is a considerable sum of money. I am therefore hopeful that the hon the Minister has the compassion and the empathy to put himself in the position of those people and to seriously reconsider the matter. Indeed, I am quite sure that the hon the Minister will do this.

In conclusion, I once again wish to bring the gap between the pre-1979 pensioner and later pensioner into perspective. The department is to be commended for decreasing the wage gap between Black and White, and for their efforts to improve the position of the Blacks, but I respectfully submit that more attention should be paid to especially the older pensioner. With the present increase of 10% that each pensioner receives, we have the case of a pensioner who went on pension in 1972 and is now getting a pension of R479 plus an allowance of R44. His 10% increase is worth R47. On the other hand there is the pensioner who went on pension a year ago, holding the same grade and the same post as the other pensioner. His pension is R1 025, while his 10% increase is worth R100 to him. The gap is therefore getting wider and wider. I know that pre-1979 pensions were worked out on an average of the salary of the last five years; then it dropped to the last three years and now it is a month. The position is that the gap is very wide. Is it so wide because of the added contribution that the latter pensioner has made? I believe that this is something that is causing greater hardships for the pre-1979 pensioner, and it is making his life very difficult. I believe that he is entitled to the same standards of living as he enjoyed while working. I put that to the hon the Minister and ask him to please do something about it.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for South Coast made a reasonable contribution to the debate. Naturally I cannot dispute the facts of the cases to which he referred, but I am in the fortunate position to be able to testify positively to the goodwill with which the hon the Minister and his department dealt with cases which I brought to their attention. I can testify to the sympathy and even compassion with which the hon the Minister and his department dealt with heartbreak cases. Of course the hon the Minister cannot take compassion as the only criterion, and there are probably cases, too, where “no” has to be the ultimate answer. My experience has been, however, that before finally saying no, everything possible is done to accommodate heartbreak cases in particular.

The time at my disposal does not enable me to say much about the budget, but I do nevertheless wish to associate myself with other members in congratulating the hon the Minister and his department on the exceptionally good results of working achieved this year. They represent a dramatic improvement on last year’s figures, and one must accept that this is the result of loyal dedication and to a tremendous team effort under competent leadership.

I want to give the hon the Minister and his department a testimonial today as a representative of a constituency in which many of the voters are SATS employees. The SATS is undoubtedly an excellent employer, and also a highly-appreciated servant of the South African community. Sometimes disputes do arise of course, but I think that we should iron out these by means of correspondence, and around the conference table. The testimonial I want to give the SATS is that it is a fact, if this was not previously the case, or perhaps not the case to the same extent, that service in the SATS has today become a much sought after career. One indication that the SATS has become a popular vocation is the increasing phenomenon of ex-servants, former employees of the SATS, who are seriously interested in rejoining the service. Latterly it frequently happens that employees who resigned from the service very soon realize that they have made a mistake, and then try hard to withdraw their resignation and in that way keep their job. In some cases this phenomenon has even become a headache for representatives.

When I say that a career in the SATS has become very popular it is probably attributable to a great variety of factors, and I want to refer briefly to only a few of them. I believe that this is the case owing to the package of conditions and privileges of employment which is today being offered by the SATS. It is also because of the great diversity of career possibilities and opportunities available in the SATS. Moreover, it is also because of the excellent training opportunities which exist in the SATS. Last, but not least, it is because the SATS, in my opinion, is a model employer. The hon member for Kimberley North spoke about a “good boss”. That is simply another way of putting it.

I first want to say a few brief words about these indications to which I referred. During 1983 no fewer than 8 588 ex-servants of the SATS applied for re-employment. During the same year 1 031 of them were re-employed. That amounts to approximately 12%. I believe that under normal circumstances a far greater percentage of these candidates would have been successful. But we know of course that owing to the prevailing economic situation a restriction has now been placed on employment, and that only essential vacancies are being filled as a result. Applicants for posts are chosen very selectively. They must have a very good previous service record, and must also produce proof that their work record since they left the service is indicative of stability.

As far as career matters are concerned, I think it may justifiably be said that since the SATS is probably the largest single employer in the Republic, it also offers a very wide spectrum of career possibilities, which at the very least compares very favourably with those of any other employer in the country. There are many golden opportunities in almost every conceivable vocation, as well as in every possible technical direction. There are opportunities for promotion to managerial posts which compare favourably with anything that can be offered elsewhere in the public or the private sector. If it is perhaps not possible for the SATS to compete with the private sector in all respects, it can at least compete in regard to the responsibility borne by the incumbents of top-level posts, the status it offers them, the opportunities for professional and technical realization, and for personal satisfaction as well as opportunities to render service to the community. I believe that the SATS offers occupational scope and opportunities for promotion which could do justice to the very best human material, to the very best talents that are to be found in the South African community.

When I say that the SATS is a model employer, I must also refer briefly to the following. According to the 1982-83 annual report, the SATS employs 250 357 staff members, of whom 113 767 are Whites, 188 565 are Coloureds, 2 099 are Indians and 115 626 are Blacks. I want to say that the SATS does care about each one of its more than 250 000 workers. It has the interests of each one of them at heart. It tries to negotiate the best salaries, wages and other conditions of employment for every worker. It does everything in its power to ensure a satisfied and happy work force. We, as representatives, who constantly have to approach the hon the Minister and his department with the needs and problems of transport service voters, can testify to the understanding and sympathy and even compassion with which our representations are heard and dealt with, even in those cases where the merits of one’s voter’s case are sometimes rather doubtful.

Particularly those of us who represent large numbers of SATS employees have had experience of the thorough attention devoted to our representations and of the responsible way in which such problems are investigated and considered and resolutions in that regard adopted. If I had the time to do so, I would be able to present a few excellent examples in this connection of the experience which I had with several individual cases.

Then, too, when the SATS acts in relation to the community, the Administration does not spare any expense or trouble to accommodate the people involved and to explain personally to them the reasons for the action that was taken. I find it striking that the hon the Minister said the following in his Budget Speech:

In this connection I can testify at first hand to the validity of that claim and if time allows I could report on a few good examples in this connection.

I also wish to return very briefly to the conditions of employment package. We have as an example the salary scales with the thirteenth cheque as part of those scales. There are also the fine opportunities for promotion which I have already mentioned. There is ordinary leave and sick-leave, the home-ownership scheme with all the tremendous benefits this offers the employee, medical insurance, travel and other concessions, gratuities and pensions as well as widows’ pensions and pensions for dependents, transport expenses paid upon transfer, the Railway Provident Fund which is available in particular for assistance to the underprivileged, the regular adjustment of pensions—an aspect which the hon member for Kimberley-North dealt with at some length—and many other advantages and fringe benefits. If we take all these things into consideration we must concede that they compare very favorably with any comparable posts elsewhere, not only as far as State and semi-State undertakings are concerned, but even as far as employees in the private sector are concerned.

I also want to refer to training facilities. Any large business undertaking is to a certain extent obliged to be self-sufficient in the training of its staff. According to experts the SATS can boast of a particularly thorough and effective system of personnel training. This applies to apprenticeship as well as in-service training. As hon members know, the main centre for personnel training is the training college at Esselen Park. There are also branches of this college at quite a few other centres. Altogether there are 287 instructors, according to the annual report for the past financial year, as well as 8 858 employees receiving training at the college.

According to the report the college has a very good record as far as examination results are concerned. There is a training scheme for engineering students and there is also a bursary scheme for engineers and other staff such as administrative officers, as well as facilities for part-time study. There are apprenticeships and even internships. The SATS has been accredited by the Medical and Dental Council as a training institution in the sphere of occupational research and guidance, and for 1983-84 11 students from outside the employ of the SATS were accepted for training. There were also 13 employees of the SATS who completed their internship during 1983-84 and who were registered as psychologists with the Medical and Dental Council. Finally, since my time has almost expired, I could perhaps say something more about the package of conditions of employment and promotions. It is understandable in such a large organization promotions will frequently give rise to problems, particularly since promotions are in so many cases accompanied by transfers, and also because there are normally many candidates competing for the same promotional post.

The Administration goes out of its way to ensure, in the first place, that as many as possible of the senior candidates will be promoted and then at the same time, for understandable reasons, to limit the transfers and the disruptions associated with them to a minimum.

Sometimes an employee has only himself to blame for any disappointment in regard to promotion, for example by allowing himself to be nominated for a whole series of posts for then he must also determine himself the sequence of his preferences. It can therefore happen that when a post which is low on the order of preference list of the specific employee falls vacant first, he will have to forfeit the opportunity for promotion in favour of an employee who is his junior and who also comes into consideration, but who caused himself to be nominated for a smaller number of posts while the vacant post appears high on his order of preference list.

When an employee refuses an offer of promotion, he exposes himself to penalization in terms of the staff regulations by not coming into consideration for promotion for a period of at least 12 months.

I think that the few facts I have mentioned justify my statement that in the Railways, we are dealing with a much sought-after employer.

Mr Speaker, we have become accustomed to hearing the hon member for Sundays River make his regular positive and solid contribution in this House, as he has just done again. It is very clear that he has the interests of the SATS employees at heart and that he has made a thorough study of the matter and has given a lucid explanation of it.

Among other things he referred to the treatment of the employees of the SATS. I should like to refer to the word “treatment” in the course of my speech, but in a more literal sense of the word. When speaking in a debate on the SATS budget, one could almost say that hon members have talked big over the past few days. Perhaps I should rather say that there has been talk of big matters. There has been talk of a Budget of approximately R7 000 million. There has been talk of the SA Airways as the giant of Africa. There has been talk of the SATS being one of the biggest employers south of the equator. In those terms we are talking of big numbers and big figures.

It is really very important that under these circumstances, one tends to forget the smaller matters. If one were to break down into its primary components the SATS and everything else involved, if one went to the heart of the matter, one would be faced with one aspect, namely the people themselves. In this case one would be faced with the SATS employee and his family. I want to say more today about the people themselves in the sphere of transport affairs.

In talking about people, about the SATS employee and his family, nothing illustrate this better than the medical aspects of the SATS; that is to say, the health and welfare of the worker and his family. This brings one to the true soul, the essence of the person himself.

Any firm which takes good care of the health and welfare of its employees will obviously take care of other aspects as well. A company may take very good care of certain aspects, but if it does not take good care of the health and welfare of its staff, it will fail in its task. We have said a great deal about change recently. With the discussion of the new constitution, the referendum and everything these involved, constitutional change was the focus of attention. Under these circumstances we sometimes forget about other changes, even dramatic changes, and I should like to refer to changes in the sick fund system and health services of the SATS. Even though this subject has not been so strongly highlighted, the changes that have taken place in this respect have been almost as dramatic. In evaluating a budget, one of the best criteria one can use is to answer the question of whether or not the increased expenditure which is being asked for is justified. Once again, I want to relate this to the employees of the SATS and the medical aspects of their lives.

I should like to distinguish between a provident fund and a medical fund. A provident fund, as it has historically developed, is a medical provident fund, sometimes called a benefit society, and it is an agreement between the employer and the employee. Anything can be contained in the terms of that agreement, because it only depends on what the employer and the employee have agreed on. In this way a provident fund may provide, for example, that it will only pay for an illness which is not connected with the person’s sex. When one is suffering from inflammation of the bladder, for example, they will pay one’s medical expenses, but they will not pay for an inflammation of the prostate, because it is connected with the patient’s sex. At a certain stage, for example, the sick fund of the SATS did not pay for confinements since these could be connected with the patient’s sex. It is almost as though every woman who has fallen pregnant has misbehaved and has to be discriminated against.

I talked about the same subject in this House on 12 March 1975. At that stage, certain improvements were to have been effected to the sick fund on 1 April 1975. At that time I complained that those improvements which were to be effected on 1 April 1975 were inadequate. I complained about the maternity benefits, because there was a formula in terms of which certain medicines had to be prescribed. For example, there was an antibiotic which was only yellow and red. Whether the man’s toe, his child’s throat or his bladder was infected, a red and yellow capsule was prescribed. Railway patients began to think that their doctors were incompetent because they prescribed the same capsule for all the various illnesses. However, we occasionally prescribed purple and red capsules outside the railway areas, because one was not bound by that restriction under those circumstances. This was the style of treatment that the railway officials received. They could not choose their own doctors and had to consult railway doctors. The railway doctor could not choose his patients; he simply had to accept the patients. In those days the railway patient could not consult the specialist of his choice. For example, he might be living in Bethlehem, where his specialist also lived, but he was forced to consult the specialist in Bloemfontein. All these conditions in the provident fund gave rise to dissatisfaction. As I have already said, I complained about this to the then Minister on 12 March 1975 and he said that changes would be introduced to the whole system on 1 April 1975. Among other things, he said the following:

We gave it a chance and it did not operate well. On 1 April 1982, almost two years ago, the Transmed Scheme was introduced. The Transmed Scheme works like a medical aid society. This new scheme has certain characteristic features which make it even better than the ordinary sick fund, such as the scheme to which the members of this House belong, namely the Parmed Scheme. I just want to outline a few features of this scheme of the SATS. No membership fees are payable. It is true that there is a charge of R4 per married member and R2 per unmarried member, but this is for a special provident fund from which certain donations are automatically made to help members who have very high medical expenses due to circumstances beyond their control. But no membership fees as such are payable in respect of this fund. As I have already said, members have a free choice of general practitioners, specialists, hospitals, chemists and medicine. They do make a small contribution, between 10% and 25% on average, to the doctor’s fees and so on, but these contributions are quite small. Present members who are pensioners and widows, and members who become pensioners and widows within five years from 1 April 1982, are not required to pay any part of the fees of general practitioners and specialists, and must only contribute 10% in respect of medicine. This is another benefit, and in the same way I could refer to members who are dependents at the moment and who will subsequently become widows, and so on. Another benefit is the fact that members have no expenses with regard to hospitalization, operations, theatre services, ambulance services, blood transfusions, private nursing etc. The fund pays for these in full. Members are no longer required to pay for confinements either. Except in certain exceptional cases, accounts are paid departmentally and the amount of the medical expenses for which the member is liable—the 10% to which I have already referred—is then deducted.

The hon the Minister said the following in his Second Reading speech, and I fully appreciate the truth of this statement:

There is a saying, “Put your money where your mouth is”. Here we may well ask whether this is what the SATS and the Minister are in fact doing. Do they put their money where their mouths are? I want to quote certain figures with regard to the sick fund for the year 1981-82 and 1982-83. These are the latest figures available to me with regard to Transmed. Management expenses were R4,7 million in 1981-82 and R11 million in 1982-83. In 1981-82, medical services amounted to R24,3 million, and in 1982-83 they amounted to R44 million. The amount spent on hospitalization in 1981-82 was R14,2 million, and in R1982,83 it was R28,2 million, which is twice as much. Maternity benefits amounted to R0,4 million in 1981-82 and in 1982-83 it went up to R1 million. Transport costs went up from R0,3 million to R0,4 million. The cost of medicine was R27,1 million in 1981-82. This dropped to R24 million in 1982-83. This is a very interesting figure, but I do not have time to elaborate on it now. The fact of the matter is that doctors now see their patients more frequently and prescribe better, in spite of the fact that they still prescribe purple and red capsules. In 1981-82, the partial repayments amounted to R7,2 million, and in 1982-83 they amounted to R10 million. In the 1981-82 financial year, the total expenditure of the sick fund was R78,2 million, therefore, and in the following year, 1982-83, it was R118,6 million. This amounts to an increase of R40,4 million, which shows that it is not only a question of talk. Things are being done as well.

I know that a few million rand extra is now being requested in the Budget for medical services. The question is whether this is justified. The doctor/patient relationship has improved tremendously for the railway worker. I was a Railway doctor myself and I know what I am talking about. I acted as locum in a so-called Railway practice for two weeks recently. The position used to be that if there were six doctors in a town and one of them was rather lazy, his number of patients kept dwindling, and in the end when he had hardly any patients left, he accepted a Railway appointment. I know this was the exception to the rule, but such cases did occur. Railway doctors did very good work, but they were not paid according to the amount of work they had done. They simply received their money at the end of the month, irrespective of whether they had seen many or few patients. This had an adverse effect. The fact is that when a Railway patient wanted an appointment and could not get it, he grew suspicious of the doctor and said to himself: “It is because I do not pay.” Now the doctor and the chemist are being paid just as they would be paid in terms of any other fund, including Panned—they are not overpaid, though. With the conditions laid down by the SATS, I think we may commend the SATS for what it is doing for its people.

I want to conclude with one final remark. I have said that many millions of rand are spent of behalf of the staff of the SATS—I refer to the amount of R118 million for one specific year—without any membership fees being paid by them. Now I just want to ask the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs to have a serious talk with the hon the Minister of Finance. If the hon the Minister of Finance starts fiddling with fringe benefits, he must not fiddle with these fringe benefits of the Railway workers.

Mr Speaker, I want to apologize to the hon member Dr Vilonel for the fact that I am not going to react to his speech. I want to raise a completely different matter.

I want to draw the attention of this House once again to the state of affairs concerning the safety of passengers and staff of the SATS at stations and especially on trains. There has been no change worth mentioning in the statistics with regard to the crime rate over the past few years, at least, not in the Cape Peninsula. Some crimes have increased in recent years and others have decreased. However, I think that few people would deny that the situation in general has been poor and, in fact, remains poor. What has attracted the renewed attention of the public, particularly in the recent past, I believe, has been the striking degree of self-confidence, virtually of arrogance, with which some of the crimes have been committed. I am referring more specifically to the cases in which one or two conductors have been assaulted. One has even been murdered on a station platform. In my opinion, this indicates the prevalence of an attitude among persons with criminal tendencies which simply cannot be tolerated. The situation which already exists in many of the residential areas on the Cape Flats has now spread to the stations and trains in our area, where violent gangs and individuals believe that they are actually in control of matters and are not prepared to tolerate any interference with their behaviour, whatever form it may take. It seems that some of these criminals no longer even bother to conceal their presence or their activities, and that they have, in fact, succeeded in frightening and intimidating the public to such an extent that they can throw their weight around with confidence and can rob and assault people and do even worse things to them, just as they like. The Government should view this situation in the most serious light. It has become an accepted fact among those who are paid by the week, certainly in the Cape Peninsula, that to board a train for home late on a Friday afternoon with one’s wages in one’s pocket is a dangerous risk which should be avoided as far as possible. Consequently, many of these workers prevail on their employers to pay them on some other day of the week, or earlier on a Friday, so that they can return home earlier. Some workers, especially domestic servants, who work on a daily basis, prefer not to work at all on a Friday so that they do not have to expose themselves to this risk. In saying this, I am not suggesting that the risk does not exist during the week as well. However, it exists in particular on a Friday afternoon, when gangs and individuals know that workers have money on them. That is the day when the situation gets completely out of control.

One of the steps recently announced by the hon the Minister to protect the SATS staff in particular is to absolve conductors of the obligation to get off a train and walk the full length of the platform to make sure that passengers have boarded or alighted from the train, or for the other purposes for which it was necessary. One can understand that this has somewhat improved the circumstances of the conductors, but I do want to point out that in a certain sense, it means a surrender of territorial advantage to violent criminals on stations and trains.

†There can be no doubt that the thugs will see this move as an admission on the part of the Government that it cannot maintain order and safety on stations and that it is therefore rather withdrawing its staff, thereby in a sense allowing criminals free rein on the platform. I think if anything can make those thugs more bold it is the knowledge that they have in effect driven the SATS staff indoors into the relative safety of their parts of the train.

Why do you not quote the whole report? Then you will see that we are going to increase our police force.

Yes, I am aware of that. I will deal with that. It was also decided to allow conductors to travel with drivers for their own safety. This again, I am afraid, does not address the real problem. Once again I can see that it is temporary relief for conductors when they are faced with problems in carrying out their tasks. However, it is surely not a hiding-place on a train that should be afforded the conductors of the SATS but rather the necessary protection and total safety in which to do their jobs properly. It is a well known fact that conductors have long been very wary of moving about on trains, particularly on certain routes in peak hour traffic or late at night. Some of them are in fact just too afraid to go there at all to carry out their tasks. Now in effect this situation has been formalized in that conductors have been allowed to stay with the drivers at certain times and on certain trains. Surely this must result in some kind of loss of revenue for the SATS. I just wonder whether we are not allowing ourselves to be drawn into a spiral of loss of revenue, resulting again in an inability to address the problem financially by appointing more staff to the Railway Police to contend with it.

As far as passengers are concerned, I accept the point which the hon the Minister made that the SATS is in fact going to appoint more policemen and is going to try to use them more effectively. However, the other steps that have been taken do nothing but reflect an incredibly dangerous situation facing passengers. Certainly as far as conductors are concerned, they have found the situation so dangerous that they have to be protected. Obviously the same protection cannot be afforded the passengers who travel on the trains or use the platforms. In fact, as far as they are concerned, if anything could undermine their confidence regarding their own safety, I believe that those measures have done so. Therefore, I believe quite honestly and sincerely that the hon the Minister’s reaction to this situation has been inadequate. Although his actions were well meant and certain steps were being taken, obviously under pressure from staff associations and bearing in mind that certain short term measures had to be taken to relieve the situation—it must have been a severe shock to the people concerned that one or two of their colleagues had been assaulted and murdered in such a way—the hon the Minister must be aware of the fact that under no circumstances can these measures be seen as a long-term solution. Whatever the cost, this situation must be tackled urgently and in a very imaginative way.

We are living in a country which, in a sense, is obsessed with security when it comes to acts of terrorism or sabotage or any type of crime motivated by political considerations. However, in the meantime people are suffering on an incredible scale from the effects of boundless criminal behaviour in the townships, on the trains and now on the platforms. I honestly believe that the presence of police on every train and on every station will eventually be the only solution. I realize that it may involve the SATS in extra expense; it may mean a huge staff draft and it may bring about all sorts of problems, but other institutions have faced similar problems. For instance, representations were made at one stage that City Tramways should do away with buses on which only a driver was on duty. It was maintained that a conductor should be on duty as well as a driver in order to have somebody maintaining law and order on the buses, and I have seen some of the figures advanced in this regard. However, whatever the position was in that regard, I believe that it will be much easier in the case of the SATS to provide that type of service, although I am not suggesting that it will not involve additional expenditure. It is going to cost money but I believe that unless we put a stop to this criminal activity, and unless this matter is dealt with very urgently, the situation will get completely out of hand. I want therefore to appeal to the hon the Minister to give his urgent attention to this matter because in my opinion this is one aspects of the SATS on which money simply must be spent if that is the only way this problem can be solved.

I want to refer to one other matter mentioned by the hon member for Cape Town Gardens yesterday. I think he said that there were moves afoot in the Cape Town City Council possibly to use the beach constables employed by the council to attend to some of the subways during the winter. I suggest that the hon the Minister discuss this matter with them to see if he cannot make some kind of deal with them to use these beach constables on the subways and possibly on stations where the SATS is responsible for law and order. I hope the hon the Minister will react to this suggestion in the course of this debate.

Mr Speaker, this afternoon I probably find myself in greater sympathy with the hon member for Green Point than has been the case with any of his previous speeches in this House. I agree with him that not only the safety of the officials of the SATS but also of the passengers on suburban services is of the utmost importance. However, I believe that the entire problem goes deeper than simply the Friday behaviour to which he referred. In my opinion we shall have to develop a system by means of which, generally speaking, we shall have to accept payment by way of credit transfers. I am not only referring to the staff of the SATS now, although it was years ago that the SATS, internally, set an example in regards to monthly paid staff.

I think the private sector in general will have to start considering the possibility of paying their weekly remunerated employees by means of credit transfers so that no employees of the SATS need carry more money around with them on a Friday than they really need. In the long run, this is the only way in which one could prevent this problem of “mugging”, to use the English term for it.

Mr Speaker, I should actually like to say a few words about the management philosophy and technique of the SATS. Yet before I do so, I cannot omit to refer to the amendment of the hon member for Nigel, and say a few words about it. The hon member for Nigel moved an amendment on behalf of the CP, which consisted of seven subdivisions. I do not want to spend too much time on the first or seventh leg of his amendment, which dealt with the budgeting technique of the SATS, and with the provision, maintenance and improvement of services to commuters. I believe these are reasonable conditions on the part of an Opposition party.

However, paragraphs 2 to 6 of the hon member’s amendment are nothing but a party-political ploy. These paragraphs have very little to do with the management of the SATS and its budget. Paragraph 2 refers to an assurance required from the hon the Minister that the House of Assembly will retain authority over all legislation affecting the SATS within the area of jurisdiction of the White Republic of South Africa, and paragraph 3 requires the assurance that a Coloured person or an Indian will not be appointed as Minister, Deputy Minister, or a member of the Board of the SATS.

These two paragraphs of the said amendment are requiring assurances in connection with a matter on which the voting public of South Africa has already given its unequivocal verdict, in November 1983. The CP is therefore requiring assurances here in connection with a matter on which it has already suffered a dismal defeat in the eyes of all the voters of South Africa. In these two legs of its amendment the CP is trying to fight the referendum campaign all over again in this debate on the SATS budget. Do hon members of the CP really believe that they can deceive anyone in this way?

Did the NP reconcile themselves to the 1943 election result? [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the CP’s amendment suggest that there is no protection for the White worker, that no steps are being taken to prevent excessive crowding-out, and that no segregation measures apply in the SATS and at its holiday resorts. Surely hon members of the CP are well aware that this insinuation is unfounded. The aim of these paragraphs in their amendment is to use the desire of the NP to have this budget in order to force a vote which they can tout around outside this House for party-political gain.

One need only make two remarks about this transparent political tactic of the CP. The first remark is that this method is hopelessly obsolete and anachronistic.

However, there is something else I should like to refer to briefly, Mr Speaker. In the development of the Westminster system which we are now relinquishing, this kind of thing happened more than 200 years ago. At one stage in the development of the constitutional system which eventually led to our Westminster system, the British king had to accept that he could not pass legislation without the approval of Parliament. However, he also knew that Parliament had to pass the budget otherwise the country’s administration could not be carried through. As a result, he resorted to the tactic of appending unpopular measures to budget legislation which he then tried to pilot through the Lower House. This was a ploy known as “tacking” and this system of “tacking” died out completely in Britain after many years because it simply did not work. If hon members of the CP really think that, 200 years later, they can try to resort to “tacking” in connection with a financial measure, for trifling political gain, then they are very wide of the mark. This is an obsolete practice which has been meaningless for a very long time now.

However, this is not all. Another observation which one could make about this method being adapted by the CP is that nothing better illustrates the fact that the CP is totally unable to criticize this budget on the merits than this action of theirs. The CP could not level any really probing criticism at the administration of the SATS regarding the past year or its pre-estimation of its needs for the year ahead, except for the two superficial points mentioned in the first and seventh paragraphs of their amendment. From that point of view therefore this amendment is in fact a compliment to the hon the Minister.

I am afraid that the time I was allocated is running out. I should just like to say a few words about the management philosophy of the SATS. As long ago as 1979 the then Minister of Transport said the following, inter alia, in his Budget speech under the heading “Management by objectives” (Hansard, 7 March 1979, col 1962):

At that stage, four years ago, reference was already being made to management by objectives. This was therefore the start of a process which has developed today—as the Minister envisaged at the time—into a complete management philosophy which the SATS has called goal-oriented management. As a matter of fact, it goes further than mere management by objectives. Management by objectives determines what has to be done, but strategic or goal-oriented management is more comprehensive. It not only includes the plan but also who should implement it and how it should be implemented.

Throughout the entire period of the development of this management philosophy and strategy, the SATS has shown that it is keeping pace with the latest developments in the business sphere. After all, it is generally accepted that management is more than merely a supervisory function,—a function which supervises and keeps an eye on how specifically delineated tasks are performed. Management subsequently became a separate dynamic function which included the identification of objectives, the motivation of the work force, the monitoring of and constant evaluation of the performance of certain tasks. During the past few years the SATS has therefore accepted a strategic management philosophy which is aimed at making the future happen, instead of merely being a spectator as events unfold around the Administration.

We already find the first measurable results of this management philosophy in this year’s annual report, and I shall come back to this in a moment. It is not possible for me, particularly, in view of my earlier remarks, and the time they took, to give attention to all the components of strategic management. I do not want to elaborate any further on the steps which were taken to bring this management philosophy to its logical conclusion. What I do want to emphasize is that this management philosophy gave rise to a situation in which the SATS no longer gropes about haphazardly to discover where outside factors are taking it. Among the many uncertainties in which the Administration has to move we have here a deliberate and scientific endeavor to shape the future with the help of equipment which enables them to make a thorough analysis.

I think the crucial test of any management philosophy, any management activity, is whether such a management process is working in a measurable way. In the annual report we have at our disposal, the SATS referred to the fact that this management strategy, together with the plans of action drawn up in terms of that strategy, brought about a quantifiable improvement of no less than R217 million in the Expenditure Budget alone this year, that within nine months the SATS was able to reduce its manpower component by 28 000 and that by means of marketing actions corresponding increases were achieved in the revenue of the Administration.

A large organization like the SATS, which is established on business principles, cannot afford simply to move forward on a hit-or-miss basis. Here we have evidence that within the space of a few years far-sighted action was possible, and because this was the case, it was also possible, during the past year, for the SATS to achieve such a large saving in its expected deficit as that to which various speakers have already referred. Consequently we can also accept that this new Budget for the new financial year has been prepared and considered in the light of that overall strategy of the Administration. In view of this, it is a great pleasure for those of us on this side of the House to support the Budget.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Umlazi referred to the amendment of the hon member for Nigel as political gimmicks. He added, with reference to the assurances that the CP requests from the hon the Minister in the amendment, that the CP was beaten in the referendum. Now the hon member is asking the CP to lie down and submit because South Africa voted “yes” to the new constitutional dispensation. I want to give the hon member the assurance that the CP will not take it lying down. We shall continue to fight in this House until the CP has overcome, and I want to say to the hon member that that will not take long, either. I have a very soft spot for the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs. I have considerable respect for him as a person, and I should very much have liked to say only good things about him today. Nor do I want to reproach him personally for the situation in which he finds himself as Minister. The hon the Minister is the victim of a party that is off the track and is leading South Africa and the SATS into a new constitutional dispensation which will have catastrophic consequences for the Whites of this country.

The hon member for Newton Park accuses the CP of rejecting multiracialism, whereas it supposedly accepted multiracialism in 1982. He gave the example of appointments to the Board of the SABC.

That is true.

The hon member for Kroonstad and other hon members are saying from platform to platform that in 1980 the CP accepted multiracialism and is now rejecting it. I suggest that the hon member for Kroonstad read a speech of the hon the Prime Minister in Hansard, column 247 of 6 February 1980. I quote:

The hon member for Kroonstad must listen carefully now:

Before 1982 it was a sovereign White Parliament that established these boards, and at that stage the hon the Prime Minister said that he would not violate the right of self-determination of the Whites in Parliament. I now wish to say to the hon member for Newton Park and other hon members that it is they and the hon the Prime Minister who were still rejecting multiracial government in 1982. Now, however, they accept it.

The Budget we have before us at present, is an historic budget. It is the last budget of the SATS that will be approved by a sovereign White Parliament. [Interjections.] Hon members laugh about that, but am I right or am I wrong? This budget is the last budget of the SATS that will be approved by a sovereign White Parliament. It is the last time the Whites alone will decide how the SATS is to be operated and financed. The money for which provision is made in this budget will be utilized over a period during which the jurisdiction over the SATS of this sovereign White Parliament will be transferred to a multiracial, tricameral Parliament.

What of it?

Therefore hon members agree with me that this is the last time that a sovereign White Parliament will approve a SATS budget.

Yes.

The hon member Dr Vilonel says “yes”. For part of the financial year for which provision is made in this budget, the Select Committee on the Accounts of the SA Transport Services will, as the watchdog of the White Parliament, keep a watchful eye over the accounts of the SATS, but for another part of the financial year it will quite probably be a multiracial Standing Committee that will take over from it as watchdog. It will really be a piebald watchdog. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he has his plans ready for the implementation of this new dispensation for which we must now make funds available. In this budget money is being requested for, inter alia, the implementation of the new dispensation, and therefore I take it that the hon the Minister has his plans ready and that he will provide us with answers to the questions asked. Let me ask him whether a multiracial Standing Committee will replace the Select Committee on the Accounts of the SA Transport Services. Will the new watchdog of the new Parliament consist of Whites, Coloureds and Indians?

The hon member for Rosettenville said yesterday that he did not wish to react to the amendment of the hon member for Nigel because he found it too complicated. Since a by-election is to take place in Rosettenville shortly, I should like to explain the CP’s amendment in very simple and clear language for the edification of the hon member, because the hon member may find it necessary to support the amendment. All the Conservative Party is doing in this regard is to take a very strong stand in support of the matters for which that hon member and I have fought within the National Party over the years. The preamble of the amendment reads:

Then follow certain things that we request, and I wish to say to the hon the Minister that we shall support the Budget if he says that he will endeavour to ensure those things that we request in the amendment. Let me deal with certain points of the amendment. Point (6) of the amendment asks that the hon the Minister give us the assurance that he will endeavour to ensure that racial mixing on trains and at public holiday resorts be prevented. I want to ask the hon member for Rosettenville whether he will support me when I ask the hon the Minister to prevent racial mixing on the trains? [Interjections.] Will the hon the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs support me if I ask that? [Interjections.] He is running away. Will the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs endeavour to ensure that racial mixing on trains is prevented, or will he do what the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs is asking him to do … [Interjections.] … that is to say, to prevent racial integration on the trains and buses of the South African Transport Services.

Yesterday the hon member for Rosettenville spoke about the diplomatic role played by the SATS. What happened last year, however? On one of Cape Town’s suburban trains Colin Croft, a West Indian cricket player, was asked to leave a White coach. There was an international outcry. The SATS and the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs were criticized and condemned on all sides. Bitter attacks were made on the hon the Minister with regard to this incident. What was the background against which this incident took place? Just before that, on 2 November, South Africa had pronounced, with an overwhelming majority, that an Indian or a Coloured could become Minister of Transport. Here a foreign guest, a West Indian, was told that he could not travel in a White coach. Referring to this, The Argus wrote:

This newspaper states that in the Peninsula a spontaneous mixing is taking place on the trains, whereas the man to whom I referred was removed from the train. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he is aware that this spontaneous mixing is taking place on the Peninsula trains, particularly among young people. Is he aware of that?

When last did you travel by train?

That is not relevant now. What does the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs have to say about this matter? Another question to him reads:

To that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs replied:

He went on to say:

I want to say to the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs that in my opinion it is scandalous that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs should have left his colleague in the Cabinet, the Minister of Transport, in the lurch in that way and condemned him. I should like that the hon Minister to tell us today whether he is going to endeavour to prevent racial mixing on our trains or whether he is going to allow himself to be prompted by the outside, by liberals and by Minister Pik Botha, and is going to allow racial mixing to take place freely on the trains and buses of the SATS. He must tell us whether he is going to do so. I think he owes it to this House to tell us today whether he is going to implement the principles of separate development in the operations and services of the SATS or whether he is going to give in and tread the slippery path towards full integration in the operations and services of the SATS. Once one is on the slippery slope of integration, it is quite logical that one will not be able to turn around.

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

No, Sir. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister must tell us today whether he is going to endeavour to end racial mixing in the SA Transport Services or whether he is going to give in and allow matters to slide until there is full integration on the services of the SATS.

Can I reply to that tomorrow? Why today?

The hon the Minister can do it tomorrow too. He need only promise me that he will reply to it. I shall say to him here and now that he must bear in mind that one cannot sit on two stools: One cannot have separate development and satisfy the outside world. One cannot satisfy everyone in the world. That reminds me of the policy of the old United Party which the NP has to a large extent taken over, a policy of “you want it, we have it”. The hon the Minister must not tell us “you want it, we have it”. He must not tell us that we have separate development and integration. We should like to know where he is heading as far as the SATS is concerned.

As far as the third leg of our amendment is concerned, the hon the Minister said last year: “Of course a Coloured can become Minister of Transport Affairs, and an Indian can too.” I do not believe it is necessary for me to ask the hon the Minister whether he supports the third leg of our amendment. After all, he has just said that he would not like to give his job to someone else. I take it, therefore, that he supports that point. I want to point out to the hon the Minister that the Board of the SATS consists at present of three members, former politicians. They have done very good work over the years and I know that the hon the Minister has a very high opinion of their work. I have already said that I assume that the hon the Minister has his plans for the future ready. Can he, therefore, tell us whether he is going to enlarge the Board of the SATS to make provision for the appointment of Coloureds and Indians as well? [Interjections.] Does the hon the Minister envisage appointing a Coloured or an Indian to that Board when the period of service of the present members expires? Does the hon the Minister envisage giving Coloureds and Indians any say with regard to the board of the SATS? In terms of the policy of the new National Party, of which the hon member for Tygervallei is the Chief Whip, I think it is logical that Coloureds and Indians must be appointed to that body. We should like to see whether the hon the Minister is going to do it. I want to ask the hon the Minister to endeavour to ensure, as requested by the CP, that Coloureds and Indians will not be included in that board or in the Cabinet.

Unfortunately my time has expired. I take pleasure in supporting the amendment of the hon member for Nigel.

Mr Speaker, I listened attentively to the speech of the hon member for Kuruman. He spoke very aggressively as it were. Before going further I should like to ask him a question. He intimated that the NP Government was involving everyone—the Coloureds, the Indians, you name it.

Yes.

He says “yes”.

Is that not true?

I am asking a question now. The hon member has had his turn. Can the hon member for Kuruman tell me whether I am correct in saying that he was chairman of a Select Committee on Environment Affairs? [Interjections.]

I have already replied to that.

Was the hon member chairman of that select committee? [Interjections.]

I have already replied to that in detail.

Was the hon member the chairman of that select committee? [Interjections.]

You are not in court now.

This has nothing to do with the hon member for Jeppe. The hon member for Kuruman was chairman of that select committee. That committee recommended that a multiracial board be appointed. [Interjections.] Of course that is so. The select committee of which the hon member was chairman, recommended it. I cannot understand how a person can contradict himself so. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

I was representing the people when that hon member was still in nappies. The hon member for Kuruman spoke about racial mixing on trains. What does he mean thereby? I think that it is years since that hon member last travelled by train. However, this is simply being used for political purposes in order to gain votes. That is what it amounts to. It is pointless trying to win votes at this stage because there is no election in sight.

You hope so, with your majority of only 89.

Old chap, you are welcome to come and see what is going on there. [Interjections.] Sir, there are people whose sole concern is scoring political points. [Interjections.] I do not wish to waste any more of my time on them but wish to turn to the Budget of the hon the Minister.

Nico, why did you attend secret meetings, then?

I did not attend any meetings. [Interjections.] That hon member who has such a lot to say admits that he attended secret meetings. [Interjections.] Would you believe it? That is proof that when one is driven into a corner, one comes out with the truth.

You were there too.

I am very pleased that the hon member for Jeppe admits that today. He denied it for years, but now he is admitting it. [Interjections.] But, Sir, those hon members are trying to put me of my stroke.

Did you not tell them about the meetings?

Tell whom?

That you were a spy with us? [Interjections.]

I am pleased that these questions are being asked because I am now going to expose certain people to public contempt. [Interjections.] The hon member for Rissik, who has such a lot to say now, is the man who, when he was still in this party, travelled to the South Coast and hid behind an official. He hid behind an official in order to carry out his plans. This is the man, who, on the South Coast of Natal, spoke about our hon Prime Minister as the JR of the NP. [Interjections.] Now he is coming here and loudly proclaiming things of this nature. When this was investigated, however, he denied it. Then this party saved him. The NP saved his skin. [Interjections.] That is the kind of person who is trying to taunt me now. I said this in a previous debate in this House, and I am going to repeat it this afternoon; that certain members of the CP do not know what the truth is. [Interjections.] I regret to say this, but it is the truth. I repeat: certain members of the CP do not know what the truth is. [Interjections.]

I now want to come back to the budget. I listened attentively to the budget speech of the hon the Minister, and I am impressed by the calm way in which he delivered it. The hon the Minister mentioned, inter alia, the achievements of the SATS over the past year, and it ought to be pointed out that the actions of the staff associations led to a reduction of 14,1% in the expenditure for December 1983 in comparison with that of June 1982. The improved utilization of material, equipment and money contributed towards reducing the budgeted working deficit of the SATS from R634 million for the present financial year to an expected deficit of only R11 million, and that is an outstanding achievement.

Accordingly it was totally unnecessary for the hon the Minister to introduce an Additional Appropriation this year. My feeling at this stage is that the hon the Minister, his commissioners, the General Manager together with his staff, and the entire top structure of the SATS, are to be complimented on producing a Budget of this nature in such extremely difficult circumstances.

However, I think it is a great pity that I should have to address myself to the official Opposition, too, at this stage. I went into the matter and found that the amendment moved this year by the PFP was almost identical to the amendment that has been moved by them every year since 1978. It is almost entirely the same, with just a few words changed here and there. They level criticism, and then they put it to us that it is their duty to criticize because they play the part of watchdog. We do not mind their criticizing, of course. They are fully entitled to criticize. However, I appeal to them, when they criticize, to confine themselves to constructive criticism. It is not necessary for them always to advance destructive criticism. What the criticism advanced by hon members of the PFP in their amendment amounts to, is, firstly that this Budget is inflationary. They have been advancing the same argument since 1978. What their second point of criticism amounts to is that there is no planning, that the Government is being shortsighted and that the public are getting the short end of the stick. Last but not least, they make a political issue of everything. This is something I cannot understand. To put it very mildly, I just wish to say that I regard it as a great pity that the PFP makes a political issue out of everything.

I regret, too, that the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North is not present in this House at the moment. I do not have much time at my disposal, but I do want to devote a few minutes to him in order to prove that what I have just said in regard to the politicking of the PFP is indeed true. Yesterday the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North…

Did you ask him to be present?

All I am saying is that he is not present at the moment. It does not matter that he is not present.

But did you ask him to be present?

Come off it! Are you the Whip? [Interjections.] The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North began his speech as follows, and I quote (Hansard, 5 March):

I then, by way of an interjection, asked why not, whereupon the hon member came up with the following answer, and I quote again:

Do you see, Mr Speaker, that I am quite correct when I say that the PFP makes a political issue out of everything? [Interjections.] Unfortunately the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North went on in the same vein. He said:

The hon member said that in so many words, and now hon members of the official Opposition seek to deny it. It is stated here in black and white. I have it before me. That is why I say that hon members of the official Opposition are making political issues of these matters. [Interjections.] However, the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North went on to say:

Still later in his speech the hon member said:

However, the hon member concludes that they do so out of their own free choice, but that those people who are sent so far away from their places of employment have not themselves chosen to do so, and that it is therefore the Government that is responsible for them having to travel so far by train every day. I now wish to ask the official Opposition this: Do they want housing to be made available for those people? We must make housing available to those people. Does the official Opposition want those people to remain in the old Crossroads?

In the few minutes still at my disposal, I wish to say a few words about the goods services. In his Budget speech the hon the Minister put it like this:

However, the hon the Minister and his management did not leave it at that; they introduced the rapid freight service, which means that goods leaving Kaserne in Johannesburg in the evening arrive in Durban the following morning and are there handed over to the delivery service. The same service has been introduced from Johannesburg to Cape Town. Unfortunately my time has now expired, but I should like to discuss this matter again on a later occasion. In conclusion I just wish to convey my sincere thanks to the hon the Minister and his top management.

Mr Speaker, I shall be commenting on some of the matters raised by the hon member for Umhlatuzana during the course of my speech. However, as the last speaker from these benches in this Second Reading debate I want to stand back for a moment and look again at the hon the Minister’s Budget in the light of some of the speeches that have been made from the Government benches.

I listened to most of the speeches made yesterday and today and I think it is noteworthy to mention that all parties during this debate have given credit and high praise to the Administration in respect of the economies that have been effected and the considerable achievement in reducing an anticipated deficit of R634 million to a mere R11 million. It is often said—the hon member for Umhlatuzana said it again today—that all the Opposition does is indulge in destructive criticism and that it never gives praise. I do not believe that that can be said in regard to this aspect of the Budget because, as I have said, credit has been given where credit has been due. The achievement in reducing the deficit is clearly the result of increased administrative efficiency, pruning the staff establishment, sifting uneconomic operations and cutting back on unnecessary expenditure and investment.

This is, of course, totally in line with what the new General Manager identified as being necessary when he took over that post at the beginning of last year. He was interviewed by the Press at the time. I referred to this matter during the debate last year and I want to refer to it here again because I think that in the light of what we now see in the Budget it is interesting to go back to the comments of the General Manager when he assumed office so as to be able to identify the pattern that has emerged since then. In his statement which was published in The Argus of 11 February 1983, Dr Grové said, inter alia:

He went on to say:

It appears that we are seeing the beginning of this in some of the innovations announced in the hon the Minister’s Budget Speech in regard to passenger services, and we hope that these innovations will produce the anticipated results.

In the same statement that was issued when the General Manager took office, in dealing with labour matters, he said that labour which was one of the SATS biggest expenses would have to be reduced dramatically. He went on to indicate that they had already cut back on staff from 279 000 to 250 000, and he then made the following comment:

This has already been shown to be a fact. On capital goods the General Manager at that stage said he intended to give the matter an entire and thorough going-over. He said then that we had R685 million tied up in spares and other stores, capital which to all intents and purposes was simply lying idle. He went on to say that he was confident that we would make substantial savings in that sector if we could cut back buying indiscriminately and trim our purchases to our immediate needs. He already seems to have succeeded in doing that as well. All credit is due to him for doing so and identifying some of the factors which had placed the SATS in the desperate plight they were in at the time he took over.

I praise the General Manager, and the hon the Minister can thank his lucky stars that the General Manager has achieved what he has done because prior to this the hon the Minister had allowed a serious situation to develop where clearly there was over-expenditure, there was over-staffing, there was improper planning and all at the taxpayers’ expense. For that the hon the Minister must take responsibility. The hon the Minister has a great deal to answer for in regard to that state of affairs.

There are also a number of other matters in respect of which the hon the Minister has much to answer for. Before getting to direct matters relating to the Budget and the financing of the SATS, the one matter I want to come to and in respect of which I believe the hon the Minister has to be very careful when he gives an answer to this debate is a matter which will be of vital concern to the nation. I refer to the hon the Minister’s reaction to the amendment moved by the CP. The hon member for Kuruman has dealt with this again this afternoon and I want to deal with it too because here I believe the reaction of the hon the Minister is going to be of vital interest to the nation.

The amendment moved by the CP and particularly paragraphs (2) to (7) is of course in direct line with the philosophy of the CP. It is racist in the extreme and it is totally unacceptable to us on these benches. Having said that, I want to say I believe the CP has in fact done a service by introducing this amendment because the fact is that in a climate of change in South Africa, what the CP are pleading for in their amendment is the retention of the status quo. That is what their amendment amounts to. They are asking the hon the Minister to give an assurance that the status quo is going to be preserved in this climate of change in South Africa. All these things, if one goes through them, exist in South Africa at the present time. This House has total authority over legislation relating to SATS, a Coloured or Indian person is not a member of the SATS Board, is neither Deputy Minister nor Minister. The necessary segregation measures about which the CP talk to prevent crowding-out at stations and on premises apply at the present time. Racial mixing on trains is frowned upon and prevented. These are there, and this is the status quo which the CP would like to see retained.

The hon the Minister is going to walk through a minefield and tonight he is going to have nightmares because he will have to reply to this tomorrow, but the interesting and fascinating thing is going to be the hon the Minister’s reaction to it. The hon the Minister must react to that amendment and when he does so, he must bear in mind the fact that this is the last time that he will be involved in getting his Budget through this House alone. He has to realize that next year, because the affairs of the SATS will be a general affair in terms of the new dispensation, the affairs will be scrutinized by the White House, the Coloured House and the Indian House. In this situation the hon the Minister when he replies tomorrow must have in mind some of the questions which might be asked of him from now on. I want to ask him for example whether he thinks that this House can retain authority over SATS within what is termed the White Republic of South Africa, whatever and wherever that may be. Does the hon the Minister think that is possible? Secondly, does the hon the Minister think that he can tell the Coloured and the Indian Houses that no Coloured or Indian will be appointed on grounds of race as Minister or Deputy Minister or as a member of the SATS Board? It is a question which he might well be asked next year. Or, thirdly, does the hon the Minister think that he can tell those Houses that the necessary segregation measures will be taken to prevent overcrowding at stations and SATS premises on racial lines? Or, fourthly, does the hon the Minister think that he can tell them that he will prevent racial mixing on trains or at holiday resorts administered by the SATS? Does he think that he will get away with it?

The hon the Minister must come clean on these questions. He must not dodge this issue tomorrow because these questions are vitally important. The amendment moved by the CP is a plea for the retention of the status quo. We want to know what the position of the Government is in regard to these matters. I want to know, for example, what the position of Coloured and Indian members of Parliament is going to be next year. They will be equal in status with us as members of Parliament. Will they be forced to travel in segregated coaches or segregated compartments on trains of the SATS? Will they be subjected to racial segregation on railway platforms or premises of the SATS? A very good question which was asked by the hon member for Kuruman, is whether they will be subjected to the same disgraceful treatment as was meted out to the West Indian cricketer Colin Croft who went into a “Whites only” coach? At the time when that furore was raised over the treatment of Colin Croft, a Government spokesman said that it would of course not have happened if he had been accompanied by a special liaison officer. Does the hon the Minister intend that these Coloured and Indian members of Parliament should each be accompanied by a special liaison officer when they travel on the SATS?

They should use an escort agency.

Yes, perhaps the Schoeman Escort Agency will then come into operation. Or is it intended to give exemption to those people because they are members of Parliament? If that is the intention, does the hon the Minister think that those members of Parliament will accept that sort of exemption knowing that the people they represent are still going to be subjected to the same sort of racial discrimination as they have endured in the past? It is quite correct that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said at the time that he deplored the Colin Croft incident and that he needed it like a hole in the head. When he replies to this debate, the hon the Minister must tell us what his attitude is, otherwise we are going to have a great many more holes in the head in the years that lie ahead. It is a crunch question and it has to be answered by the hon the Minister. Is he going to keep to the status quo, or is he going to move with the times and, in the spirit and atmosphere of change, pull down some of these barriers which affect people other than Whites? These are vital questions which the hon the Minister has to answer.

I want to leave that subject there and return to the Budget. Leaving aside the one bright spot, which is how economies are going to be affected and which I have already dealt with, I want to say that this Budget and the debate around it have revealed that all the old problems in respect of our transport services still remain in South Africa. Notwithstanding increased efficiency and effective economies, these problems are going to continue to eat into our transport services unless they are confronted and solved. There is, and I return to it without apology, the overriding problem of uneconomic socio-economic services provided by the SATS. This has been dealt with by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central and the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. It has been raised through the years, but the Government seems incapable of coming to grips with it. Every year the hon the Minister tells us that he is having talks with his colleagues, but the hon the Minister is one of the most senior Ministers in the Cabinet. Why can he not influence the Cabinet that this is a priority matter in regard to the SATS? Until he does, this millstone around the neck of the SATS is going to drag the economy of the Administration down into an impossible position.

I am told that my time is up. I had a great deal more to say on this subject, but let me then say in conclusion that I believe that the hon the Minister should take immediate action to influence his Cabinet to see that this is treated as a priority matter. The Minister of Finance has funds for other matters, for example when it comes to the financing of apartheid, consolidation or removals. Why should the SATS pay the price of the whole apartheid structure in South Africa? For reasons I have indicated we cannot approve this Budget and will vote for the amendment of my colleague.

Mr Speaker, I have a growing conviction that this Budget is a fantastic one, because all the arguments so far have revolved around politics and not around the budget.

I shall reply to all the speeches in full tomorrow. There was a time when the hon members of the Conservative Party were sitting with us on these benches when former Minister Ben Schoeman said 15 years ago that we would get people of colour as firemen when we could not find any Whites. We have moved with the times.

But not a person of colour as Minister.

I shall come to that. The hon member for Berea asked me similar questions. Changes must come. When one is a practical politician, one realizes that circumstances change. There are a few things which I should like to make clear. Hon members may ask whatever questions they like, but this party does not stand for mixed residential areas.

What about mixed travelling?

We have spelt it out repeatedly. The hon member for Kuruman sat next to a person of colour during a flight the other day and nothing happened to him. When it comes to school and residential facilities …

And travelling facilities?

What is wrong with that? I shall spell it out tomorrow. My time is up, so I shall reply to these points tomorrow. I want to repeat that this side of the House understands what is going on. We live in a country in which there is progress. We are not stagnating.

Is integration progress?

There are two forms of integration.

Healthy and unhealthy.

Look at the standpoints adopted by the NP in 1948. Any practical politician should have seen that there would have to be adjustments. We have surrendered nothing. It is no use being bitter. I am not that type.

The hon member for Berea always adopted a reasonable standpoint as his party’s spokesman on transport affairs. The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central has now taken over from him, and I have already congratulated him. This is one of the smartest positions in this House, to be chairman of a transport group. However, the best speakers on transport affairs are on this side of the House.

Sir, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, during the Second Reading we objected mainly to whether it was desirable that a particular prohibition be watered down by this legislation in favour of the mining industry.

After the hon the Deputy Minister had given an explanation during the Second Reading as to how he saw the matter, we once again held in-depth discussions with officials and the legal adviser of the department and we decided not to move our amendment. I should also like to explain that in our discussions with the officials of the department we wrestled with a problem which could arise if the hon the Minister should refuse to grant permission for the subdivision. The possibility was also considered that if the Minister should refuse, and the farmer, being the owner of the agricultural land, is consequently unable to perform his obligations in terms of the contract entered into with the mining industry or in terms of an option granted to the mining industry which is then exercised, that farmer could be subjected to a suit for damages by the mining company. Because we realize that this possibility is, in fact, a debatable point, we decided not to move our amendment after having had in-depth discussions. If the Minister should refuse to give permission for the subdivision, any possible suit for damages would not be in the interests of the farmer. Therefore, since we are not going to move our amendment, we would like to place this on record.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member Mr Theunissen for his party having changed its standpoint on this clause. As he rightly said, it is in the interests of the agricultural industry that this clause should remain. I do not intend being malicious or rubbing salt into the wounds. This party’s change of mind is in the interests of agriculture, and we therefore thank the hon member most sincerely for this.

[Inaudible.]

Since the hon member for Rissik is making an interjection, I must just pause for a few moments and say a few friendly words about him.

Are you still a rightist radical?

The hon member is the leader of the rightist radical party in the Free State. [Interjections.] Since he and the hon member for Brakpan are continually making interjections … [Interjections.] … that we are “boerehaters”, and that we serve the financially powerful and that we are not interested in the agricultural industry, they must expect…

You listened to Mr Harry Oppenheimer on television yesterday …

You see, Sir, there you have it. This is what the whole objection to this legislation has been about. [Interjections.] I was in the process of discussing this very calmly with those hon members, since I think the CP’s spokesman on agricultural matters, the hon member for Barberton, is a very sensible man and would not allow himself to be misled by hon members like the hon member for Rissik and the hon member for Brakpan.

Did you take the lesson he gave you to heart?

Order! I just wish to point out that we are dealing with clause 2 of the Bill at present.

I think that like the spokesmen on agriculture of all the political parties in this House, the hon member for Barberton is also an agriculturalist and is interested in agriculture. The hon member for Rissik and the hon member for Brakpan can decide to make a political football of agriculture if they wish. That is their choice.

What were you doing last week?

I was pleading with the hon member Mr Theunissen to change his mind. The hon member can go and read my Hansard if he wishes. I therefore thank the hon member Mr Theunissen today for changing his mind. It is in the interest of agriculture that this be done. I thank him most sincerely once again.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Third Reading

Mr Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No 56:

Mr Speaker, I wish to make a few brief remarks. The Bill deals with a subject which is of interest to agriculture. We were not quite happy with the amendments specifically as worded in the present Bill. Particularly since we are dealing with agriculture and with farmers, who are not all versed in the law, as some of us pretend to be, we think it is necessary that an attempt be made to word a Bill in such a way that no one can misinterpret it or that no possibility exists that it could be misinterpreted. I maintain that there may be legal debating points in the existing clauses of the Bill about which people may disagree. I am convinced that the hon the Deputy Minister would agree with me that it is necessary that patient and careful attention be given to all the provisions once again; not only to the provisions of the amending Bill we are dealing with now, but to all the provisions of Act No 70 of 1970. After doing so it may perhaps be necessary to submit a new, consolidated measure to Parliament then.

Mr Speaker, on behalf of this side I want to thank the hon member for Barberton once again for their support of the Third Reading of this Bill. I agree with him that there should be no unclearness as regards any of the provisions in this legislation. Fortunately the hon member is a lawyer. We as agriculturalists usually understand the meaning of the legislation although we sometimes have to read it carefully. However, the legal draftsmen have their methods according to which they do things. I agree with the hon member. We should have no unclearness in any of our agricultural laws. These laws are drawn up in the interests of agriculture and they should therefore be distinct and clear. I thank the hon member once again for his support.

Mr Speaker, I should like to thank hon members who participated in the discussion of this legislation most sincerely. It is often said that we cannot really convince one another across the floor of the House, but this was one case where this is possibly what happened. I do not really want to say that I convinced hon members opposite, but at least they changed their minds after we had discussed the matter in this House. I am very grateful for that.

It is of the utmost importance—the hon member for Barberton rightly pointed this out—that there should be no confusion about our agricultural legislation, and particularly not about this legislation. I myself am not a lawyer. I simply have a feeling for legal matters. I found it a very interesting exercise to argue a little with those versed in the law about the provisions of this legislation. I think the amendments we have now effected to the Act will be to the benefit of agriculture in general and that we have cleared up the difficult position in which mining companies were placed as a result of the statutory amendments effected in 1981. I think everyone should be happy now.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr Speaker, I should just like to amplify some of the points which have already been made by both sides of the House, and in particular by my colleague the hon member for Mooi River. In particular I should like to refer to the question of stock inspectors and the implementation of, what everybody in the House has indicated, is a very effective and well-consolidated measure. In fact it really is quite a serious matter when one realizes that so much of what is contained in this Bill relating to stock diseases, particularly tick-borne stock diseases, rests on the shoulders of a band of men in the inspectorate of the veterinary services division who in the past have had a very, very raw deal. They have been extremely poorly paid and their numbers have dwindled. They often have to attend to epidemics of a serious nature on our borders, particularly foot-and-mouth disease, causing a vacuum internally in the country. In fact they do extremely important and very necessary work. I would venture to suggest that unless we pay attention to these men and to the valuable services they render, we could run into very serious trouble. In this day and age when transport from one end of the country to the other is a matter of an overnight run for a big stock-carrying vehicle, and when the movement of stock from one part of the country to another is a daily occurrence, I believe that we are playing with fire if we do not ensure that the service rendered by the inspectorate is of a very effective and high standard. I would therefore suggest that the department consider looking at the inspectorate in a new light as I believe that we have moved into an age where these people really should be qualified right up to technical level and be considered as an adjunct to the whole agricultural scene. I feel that we should look at this matter holistically in the same way as we approach the aspect of extension officers and the technicians who are responsible for much of the physical layout work in respect of contours, furrows, survey work and matters of that nature. I believe that the people concerned with the inspection of stock and with veterinary services and who render other necessary services, should not only be dealing with control measures but should to a degree have an extension function as well. It should, in fact, become a very sought-after career for young men leaving school who want to farm but do not have the capital to farm on their own or perhaps do not have the necessary experience to manage a farm. He could perhaps enter the livestock industry through this channel and in this way receive a very good grounding in livestock farming and at the same time assist in maintaining the standard of this service that is so important in agriculture.

I believe that there is room for tremendous improvement in the service in the process of maintaining standards. We could look at it as another facet of the modernization and updating of our approach to agriculture. One thinks, for instance, of the question of compulsory inoculation against anthrax. If the inspectors are called away to the border and there is an outbreak as a result of a slackness in the services, 30 years’ work goes by the board because any given area requires a clear period of 30 years before it can be considered to be absolutely free of that disease.

In the past stock inspectors would come around and do the inoculation themselves. However, as a result of the pressure of other activities that practice had to be dropped. Inoculation became compulsory by the owner himself. It may sound a very simple operation and one which one would expect all owners in their own interests to be able to do, but in fact that does not happen. All they have to do is to buy the necessary vaccine, give the batch number and show that they have got the empty bottle, and there are still people in the industry who in fact do not take the necessary trouble. We therefore have a very dangerous situation in that the progress that has already been made by these excellent services under very difficult circumstances can be nullified as a result of a relaxation of control when, as I believe, that control should actually be maintained and increased in order to place the whole approach to the livestock industry on the correct level.

A further point I should like to amplify is the one made by my hon colleague in regard to control across borders. In this country at the moment we have a situation where we have 10 national or independent states within or across our borders. This situation has already shown itself to be an extremely tricky one as far as scab is concerned. When there is an outbreak of scab one is obliged to deal through the Department of Foreign Affairs so as to be able to come back to the veterinary services in the country concerned in order to have the desired situation in respect of control on either side of the border implemented. Of course, this complicates the situation tremendously. In this respect we would like to urge that there be the utmost co-operation between the Republic of South Africa and these independent or national states which will have to be brought about by means of a common policy in regard to the control of disease which knows no boundaries, as far as the livestock industry is concerned. Having to deal through the Department of Foreign Affairs in order to implement what should be ongoing and daily control is something that we really cannot afford. It is simply playing with a situation like the spread of a disease which knows no barriers at all. It slows the whole process of control down and it adds a further dimension to the difficulties experienced by the border farmer who already has to deal with tremendous pressures that are in many cases, especially if he is a new border farmer, brought about by new boundaries. He already has to put up with a whole host of factors that impinge upon his daily life and his ability to make a living. When one adds to this the question of a lack of control just across his fence in regard to which such a farmer can do very little, particularly where he is bound by any number of regulations in regard to the care of his own livestock, it really makes the situation very much more complicated. In lighter vein, may I say in this regard that I sincerely trust that the disease that we diagnosed during the last debate does not spread and that we do not have to find ourselves classifying ticks into different categories. We already have “bont” ticks and “bont” legged ticks. I do not know where my hon friends in the CP would find themselves classifying those in regard to whether they constitute either an “eie saak” or an “algemene saak”. [Interjections.] They may have a problem in that regard. I think that if we take matters to ridiculous limits where we are each going to have our own aeroplane to go home in because we do not want a “gemengde lugredery”, we are going to have the same problems as we have with ticks. [Interjections.] ’n Gemengde bosluis-sakeonderneming sal seker baie gewild wees.

In somewhat more serious vein I just want to get back to emphasizing the tremendous importance of an up-dated, efficient and dynamic inspectorate as far as the stock diseases aspect of veterinary services is concerned.

Mr Speaker, since we are continuing our discussion on legislation with regard to animal diseases in South Africa today, as well as with regard to the question as to whether such legislation is necessary—after all, we have to establish a principle—I find the attitude of some people interesting, particularly those in the farming industry, that in a certain sense the question is asked whether it is really necessary to combat animal diseases. This question is asked because these people believe that a natural immunity should be cultivated in these animals. According to them, by protecting animals against these diseases by artificial means, one is, in fact, weakening the resistance of the animals. They regard the protection the animals gain by the administration of certain vaccines as being merely an additional cost factor, something which could perhaps have been prevented by correct breeding. Hence the question whether or not it is really necessary to combat animal diseases in South Africa.

However, when one looks at the results when animal diseases are not combated, and compare this with the results when animal diseases are in fact combated, the conclusion is very interesting. If we bear in mind that there are approximately 28 million sheep in South Africa, and we put the value of those sheep at, say, R40 per sheep, whilst in addition we take into account that there are approximately 8,4 million head of cattle in this country, with a value of approximately R400 per head, it appears that the total capital value of the cattle and sheep in South Africa amounts to just under R5 000 million. If we add all the poultry, goats, sheep, horses and other small livestock and calculate their total value, we come up with an amount of approximately R6 000 million.

Are we counting the tortoises as well?

Yes, but their value is only the few cents in the final amount. If we take this total amount into account, and we consider the results if all those animals are not protected against an outbreak of contagious diseases, it is quite clear how essential it is that the livestock of South Africa should, in fact, be protected. That is also the reason why legislation of this nature exists. This legislation was initially drawn up in 1911 and consolidated in 1956, and it is now being rewritten in its entirety in order to bring it completely up to date.

We encounter an exceptional new and interesting approach in this new measure. Other hon members who have already participated in the debate have, in fact, elaborated on this depth. I wish to dwell for a moment on the institution that administers the health of our animals in South Africa and on the many achievements that institution has attained along the way.

It is interesting to note that the Division of Veterinary Services of the Department of Agriculture receives an annual budget of approximately R14 million. This covers the current costs of this division, which are paid by the State. When we see this in relation to the livestock of the country, it appears that the Government pays R14 million to maintain a capital value of approximately R6 billion.

If we should convert this amount into an insurance premium, it appears that it is probably one of the cheapest premiums one could obtain to protect an asset that means so much to the country. If, in addition, we take note of the expenditure of these funds by the Division of Veterinary Services of the Department of Agriculture, it appears that they are mainly administrative costs—the costs of controlling foot-and-mouth disease, scab and other diseases; brucillosis and tuberculosis as well. Of course, this also includes payment for diagnostic services. Research is not really included in this. This really has a bearing only on the cost of real control measures, and if there had to be a cut-back on the money for this division, it would mean that services would have to be curtailed as such. When such services have to be curtailed problems will arise, as the hon member for King William’s Town has in fact already pointed out. There are problems that require attention. We cannot curtail these services even further.

It is also interesting to take note of the manpower position in the Division of Veterinary Services. It is so often said that there is a shortage of veterinarians. This story is often heard in the rural areas in particular, particularly at congresses for farmers. If one looks at the occupational figure of veterinarians in South Africa at present, it is interesting to note that whilst there are 80 posts for State Veterinarians, only six of them are vacant. There are 545 posts for stock inspectors, of which 98 are vacant. There is a total manpower of 682 people in the Division of Vetinary Services and 108 of these posts are vacant.

One could take this aspect of veterinary services further and if one looks at the service being rendered, one sees that provision is made in the legislation for two kinds of diseases viz controlled diseases—those are diseases which, if they should occur, have to be reported—and the so-called uncontrolled diseases. There are approximately 26 of these controlled diseases, and one could also refer to them as notifiable diseases. We are speaking about foot-and-mouth disease and anthrax and all the other diseases that are highly contagious and do a great deal of damage. The other 83 diseases are combated in a different way and normally they do not cause such serious losses, although in isolation they could also be serious in restricted areas. One thinks of pulpy kidney and, to a certain extent, blue tongue. If provision is not made to combat them, they could be very disadvantageous.

To combat these diseases, Onderstepoort manufactures 52 kinds of vaccine on a continuous basis. Various other vaccines are manufactured at the request of farmers or communities who need them. What is interesting about these vaccines is that they are amongst the cheapest in the world. Many people from overseas countries come to South Africa to see how this can be done. If one looks at how it is done, one sees that they are not manufactured in huge laboratories as they are overseas. Nor is it the result of tremendously intensive capital inputs, but with the small amount of funds at its disposal Onderstepoort operates a practical setup that functions easily and is productive. Even in times of crisis there has never really been a shortage in this country. It sometimes happens that Onderstepoort provides the necessary vaccine within a period of three weeks after a major outbreak has occurred. A farmer is like that: He waits until the animal is ill and then he thinks that the vaccine must make the animal well again.

The Division of Veterinary Services has had a few fine achievements in consequence. One could look at the establishment of Onderstepoort and what has resulted. The lamsiekte problem has been solved, as was the rinder pest problem in 1904, the combating of lung sickness in 1924, European swine plague in 1918, glanders in 1945, Nagana in 1952, East Coast fever in 1954 and infectious anaemia in horses in 1945. These are all problems that have endangered this country’s livestock, but due to the very effective action by Onderstepoort and veterinary services they were controlled and practically eliminated.

There were approximately 1 200 outbreaks of anthrax in South Africa in 1927, but this year there were basically only two. This is an indication of the tremendous achievements of those institutions. This is a disease that does not only create problems for the animal, but for humans as well. We think of foot-and-mouth disease which is no longer being controlled as it should be in our neighbouring states. However, through inspection services and regular supervision by the Division of Veterinary Services that disease is restricted to an area around our borders, and when outbreaks occur, they are restricted to the immediate vicinity, or even to a specific farm. Most of the outbreaks can be attributed to our neighbouring states. In the past African swine plague has caused relatively serious problems as far as our swine-stock is concerned, but today it is limited to only one outbreak every two years, or even every three years.

Then there is scab, which is also a controlled or notifiable disease and which was practically eradicated in the past, but which is now gradually taking root again due to a number of reasons. One of the reasons for this is because people have become accustomed to the fact that scab no longer occurs. Because farmers used better remedies to combat parasites in particular and because they no longer dipped so often, the incidence of scab increased gradually. The Division of Veterinary Services stepped in and a few years ago there was a compulsory dipping campaign, which later became a voluntary dipping campaign, which meant that farmers had to dip once a year of their own accord without the department having to compel them to do so. The Division of Veterinary Services sometimes places notices in the newspapers to urge farmers to dip their animals, since a number of farmers neglect to do so. This could cause problems for us in the future. If the Division of Veterinary Services doe not obtain the voluntary co-operation of farmers, it will have to begin compelling farmers to follow its prescriptions once again.

This Bill deals with a particularly interesting aspect in one of its clauses. There is nothing that makes a farmer more angry than when he keeps his animals healthy and scab breaks out on a neighbouring farm, with the result that the entire area is placed under quarantine and he is also compelled to dip his animals. It often occurs that when the cause of such an outbreak is investigated, it is found that it was someone who purchased sheep from elsewhere, or that he has a farm in another district or that he rents land there, or that he assisted a neighbour who had gone hunting in the Kalahari and returned with a few “live” skins and that those skins were contaminated. That is how the disease was transmitted as a result of a series of circumstances. Everyone suspects, or perhaps they know, that someone obtained cattle and sheep illegally from across the border because they can purchase them more cheaply than on the South African market. In other words, in a certain sense, that person has smuggled those animals. One cannot prove this, however. This legislation, however, is now making provision that such a person can no longer get away with this kind of thing so easily. In many of the court cases that have taken place as a result of such activities, people who have been guilty of this practice have got away with it on the basis of technical points. This will no longer be the case, since he will have to prove under certain circumstances that he did not smuggle these animals. He has to prove ownership of those animals in order to allay the suspicion that they came from a neighbouring country. I think this is an essential provision which is now being given substance in this legislation. Initially this side of the House had problems with this provision, but sufficient assurances are incorporated in the Act so that malicious prosecutions cannot be instituted, but provision is simply being made that someone must be able to prove his innocence satisfactorily for the protection of all the other farmers in his area. I think this is an essential provision which is being placed on the Statue Book.

The crux of the matter is that most of the diseases amongst our animals occur as a result of the disregard for sound control measures. One of the commendable aspects of the work of the Division of Veterinary Services is its inspection services. People who visit herds on a continuous basis and see whether there are any problems are appointed in every area. They report back on a monthly basis and they draw up a report on their activities. This service is, in fact, unique in the world. It is a pity, however, that as a result of a lack of manpower and money, this service has to be curtailed and that it can only be maintained in areas where serious animal diseases occur.

In addition, the inspection services are supported by a system of 11 diagnostic laboratories throughout South Africa and to which farmers and communities can go for the identification of local problems. This has had á tremendously positive effect in many areas and has led to an increase in agricultural production. Our livestock have also benefited tremendously from this. This is particularly true in the case of State Veterinarians in the rural areas who do not easily establish themselves in the country areas from choice, but who are sent there by the State. They make a tremendous contribution and we are deeply indebted to this division for continuing this service and taking the trouble of filling those posts.

There is another aspect of the Division of Veterinary Services which I find very interesting, viz liaison with overseas countries. It is one of the few institutions in South Africa that still has access to the OIE which controls animal diseases. We still have contact with that organization, not because of a specific preference for us, but on the basis of our achievements and the example we set. We simply command respect abroad, since the people there cannot do without us. This is the reward for what is spent on this division in this country. I wish to make a plea that even more funds be made available to this division, since they perform a fine service. Their services are not restricted to this country, but in certain respects, they spill over into the diplomatic field, and not only with regard to overseas countries, but they are concentrated on Africa in particular. Countries in Africa are visited on a continuous basis and assisted with preventive measures, and Swaziland, Mozambique and the other countries along our borders, as well as the dependent and independent states in South Africa are assisted with the combating of foot-and-mouth disease. These countries are visited on a continuous basis and only when problems arise are diplomatic channels used. However, there is a constant programme with regard to visits and assistance to these states around us. This assistance is really to our benefit, since it restricts those diseases to those countries. They can be combated there before they spread to us.

I also wish to raise an aspect with regard to border control. Under the Toll Union Agreement there is a relatively free movement of goods to all areas. One of the exceptions is the movement of stock. Stock are not permitted to move freely and they must be subjected to inspections and certain other conditions before they are permitted to enter the country. I think this exception must be retained as such and should be stepped up even further. We are grateful that the Division of Veterinary Services is standing by that agreement.

Previous speakers referred to the combating of tuberculosis amongst dairy cattle. The Division of Veterinary Services began giving attention to this on an organized basis in 1969. At that stage approximately 1,14% of the herds were contaminated, but through their actions and the programmes of diagnosis they introduced, that figure is now 0,11%. If there are sufficient funds to introduce follow-up services, this disease can be eliminated completely from our country’s dairy herds.

Having said all that about the Bill, there is something else to which I want to refer. It concerns our veterinarians. They do not have an easy task here in our country. A veterinarian does not have a simple or easy job which is performed indoors, but he works outside and has to cover long distances, often under conditions which leave much to be desired. In the process the veterinarians have acquired a very special place amongst the farming community. The image of a prosperous and well-ordered department is demonstrated in practice by these people and it is greeted with respect. That respect also contributes to the fine image of the department, the Government and everyone in this country.

I am privileged to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I should like to say how much I appreciate following on the hon member for Prieska. He is a gentleman who knows his subject. He spoke about the control of animal diseases and he also paid tribute to the Division of Veterinary Services and to the Department of Agriculture. We agree that the amount of money devoted to this division should not be reduced, neither should the staff.

I should, however, like to speak to a different aspect of the question. One keeps animals in good health for the sake of the products they produce. The problem arises in moving the products from South Africa to other countries to which we export. That is why I intend moving an amendment to the definition of “controlled purpose” in clause 1 so that it will read:

In other words, I think our duty lies not only in preventing diseases from coming into South Africa, but also in preventing diseases from leaving South Africa. Because of that our exports suffer. I want to say that international boundaries do not act as the limits for animal diseases. We find that no South African products can be exported to the United States because there is a provision in the American veterinary laws that no products coming from countries which have certain specified diseases are allowed into the country. Two specific diseases which are mentioned are foot-and-mouth disease and swine fever. The hon member for Prieska mentioned that as far as foot-and-mouth is concerned, this is limited to the borders of South Africa and the farms in those areas. As regards swine fever, we only have one outbreak once every two to three years and swine fever is really restricted only to the Northern Transvaal.

Soutpansberg!

Yes, there are people whom I hope will also be restricted to the Northern Transvaal. They will probably spread a disease in South Africa that we all wish to avoid. In any event, the situation is that when we publish the list of controlled diseases, as far as the rest of the world is concerned it says there has been an outbreak of or there is foot-and-mouth in South Africa and there is swine fever. As far as the people in the United States are concerned, they do not know that foot-and-mouth disease is restricted in South Africa to the borders, nor do they know that swine fever only appears in one small portion of the country.

Let us consider the question of the production of pork products. South Africa could export a large quantity of, for instance, canned hams to the USA but we cannot get one single tin in. I want to suggest to the hon the Minister that in respect of controlled diseases South Africa should be divided into regions and that when the outbreak of a disease is announced, it should be per region so that people will know that in Natal, for instance, there is no swine fever, nor is there swine fever in, say, the Cape Province. We would then have a case to present to the Americans. We could show them that there is no swine fever in, say, Natal or the Boland. We could then sell our particular products to the USA. [Interjections.] Certain of our veterinarians have actually approached the US Department of Agriculture to try to get this particular problem solved, but the Americans have said quite openly and straightforwardly: “You have foot-and-mouth and also swine fever in South Africa”. I believe that the only way in which we can overcome this problem is by dividing the country into regions and thus having a case. That is why I hope the hon the Minister will accept my amendment and will also accept my recommendation with regard to dividing the country into regions.

Mr Speaker, I should like to thank all hon members who took part in the debate for their support. I think the seriousness and large degree of expertise with which hon members evidenced in participating in the debate is proof of the great importance of the subject under discussion. The fact that a matter such as animal health is discussed with such seriousness in this highest forum, this House, will probably motivate our farmers to keep more strictly to the rules, regulations and prescriptions.

I want to thank the hon member for Prieska for an outstanding speech. He has done his homework very thoroughly.

It costs the country a great deal of money to maintain these services, and if we do not obtain the co-operation and support of our farmers, I am afraid that all the efforts made by the State will prove futile.

I now come to the matters hon members raised in their speeches.

†The hon member for Pietermaritzburg South expressed his concern about the fact that the provisions of the Act do not apply to our neighbouring States and said that because of that we need power to act against people who allow animals to come across the borders. The same point was also raised by other hon members.

*That is why I should specifically like to dwell for a moment on the control of animals and diseases in animals that may cross our borders. The Division of Veterinary Services, as pointed out at some length by the hon member for Prieska, is highly thought of abroad and also in our neighbouring states. It is not, however, merely a question of high regard. It is also a question of our officers—we can do with even more of them—are actually physically doing work in the neighbouring states. They are doing research there and are keeping themselves a breast of the situation there. We also provide those states with a very important diagnostic service. This prevents diseases coming across our borders without our knowledge. For example, several years ago we had outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in Swaziland, and we made apparatus and staff available to that state. We also co-operate with Zambia and Mozambique in eradicating the tsetse-fly that causes nagana. What is important is that we are still a member of Sarccus, the South African Regional Commission for the Conversation and Utilization of the Soil. Through this association, with its very long name, we have special links with our neighbouring states and also international links. We are also still a member of the so-called Organisation Internationale des Épisotiques. That is an organization to which most of the countries in the world belong. They meet once a year in Paris, and matters of common interest concerning animal diseases, amongst other things, are dealt with by them, whilst information of importance to member countries is collected and distributed by them. At this meeting measures for assisting the respective countries are formulated. So although we are worried that in the neighbouring states there is not the same degree of control that we have, we are nevertheless monitoring the situation there, having as we do close links with our neighbouring states by way of the individual organizations.

One is sorry that one has to waste a valuable part of one’s labour force on something like border control, because if control measures across the border were the same as those in our country, we could use the inspectors, who have to exercise border control, carry out border patrols and ensure that border fences are properly maintained, for other important work. This Bill does, however, make provision for our retaining very strict control over the importation of animals from our neighbouring states.

I think the hon member for Prieska also referred to the movement of animals over the borders between the TBVC and the LBS countries, saying that this did not form part of the Customs Union Agreement. We do, however, have bilateral agreements with the relevant countries and can thus exercise proper control.

The hon member for Pietermaritzburg South mentioned rinderpest. When we in South Africa want to refer to something that happened long ago, we always say it happened before the rinderpest, ie in the previous century. It just so happens that I recently read a book in which the rinderpest, and the tremendous effect it had on South Africa’s livestock, was very graphically described. It is, of course, a disease one has to be continually on one’s guard against and as recently as 1963, in countries such as Israel, Kuwait, Lebanon and Amman, there were indeed cases of rinderpest. In Africa rinderpest occurs in a line from the Sudan to the Ivory Coast and also in Tanzania. At the moment Nigeria is the country most hard hit by the rinderpest problem. It was only recently that our Division of Veterinary Services was notified by the OIE, to which I referred earlier, that rinderpest had also broken out in Mauritania. As a preventive measure Zambia has already inoculated the cattle on the northern border with Tanzania against rinderpest.

At Onderstepoort, about which I should also still like to say something, the situation is constantly being monitored, and there is a constant supply of vaccine in stock so that if this dreaded disease were to break out in South Africa, we would be able to combat it.

Other hon members also made very interesting speeches on this Bill. The hon member for Beaufort West specifically referred to Onderstepoort and the important role it plays in our veterinary services, and it is truly an experience to visit Onderstepoort and see what is being done there. There is a new unit that will develop a vaccine against foot-and-mouth disease, and I hope it will be available no later than this year. Our research institutes make an exceptional contribution, and the hon member for Caledon also referred to the importance of research.