Mr Speaker, I move:

I am privileged to submit to Parliament this Transport Services Part Appropriation Bill for the 1987-88 financial year. At the same time I wish to avail myself of the opportunity of paying tribute to my predecessor, Mr Hendrik Schoeman.

Hear, hear!

He is a man who, in his own, characteristic fashion, made an exceptional contribution in this House. Together with the S A Transport Services I wish to place on record our appreciation for the excellent way in which he administered transport matters during his term of office.

Economic Review 1986-87

The moderate upswing in the economy which was anticipated for the 1986-87 financial year was hampered by various factors. A growth rate in the region of one per cent is now expected in the real gross domestic product for 1986-87 as against the 2,5 per cent on which the budget was based.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to welcome the hon the Minister to his first performance in this House as the newly appointed Minister of Transport Affairs. He was one of not very many National Party Deputy Ministers who were promoted to a full Cabinet post during the last reshuffle of the Cabinet. Moreover, Sir, he was promoted to a very important Cabinet post. I wish him the best of luck. I believe the question of transport is too important in the South African economy, particularly at this stage, not to have a Minister who does an excellent job for the SA Transport Services. We need it, Sir. We need it badly because transport, as one will see if one reads the White Paper and the National Transport Policy Study, has been operated to the disadvantage of the South African economy for many years.

It is going to be this hon Minister’s job to fix that. I hope he will do it quickly. I hope he will do it well, and I wish him luck in this job.

Sir, it would be an omission on my part, too, if I did not pay tribute to his predecessor, Mr Hendrik Schoeman, the previous Minister of Transport Affairs. He had a very long and very illustrious career in this House, and I must confess that I found it very difficult to tackle him in this House because he was always so pleasant, he always had a joke and he was totally impossible to pin down. I will never forget when—it is something I am going to mention later in my speech today— I told him it was cheaper to ship an article from Cape Town to New Orleans than it was to transport it by road from Kimberley to Cape Town, and his answer was: “Well, who built the road from Cape Town to New Orleans?” After that it was very difficult to continue to thump him.

There is no doubt about the fact that we shall miss him in this House. We differed politically and I think that politically we differed very seriously with the former hon Minister of Transport Affairs, but without doubt he was a pleasant person to work with and we shall miss him.

I would also like to thank the staff, the General Manager and the top management of the SATS for the work they have done during this year which is drawing to an end. Within a month and a half the year’s work will be done and they will be starting the next financial year.

They are a smaller staff than they used to be, and this is as it should be. They were seriously overstaffed in the past and the reduction in staff in the SATS has, I believe, been to the economic advantage of that service and also to South Africa. I am not sure if the process has been completed yet. There might be some further reduction in staff. I would hope that the bulk of that reduction in staff comes because of a reduction in the services of the SATS as a result of privatization rather than because of any other reason.

However, on behalf of the Official Opposition, I do thank them for their work during this past year. No doubt, I shall be saying the same thing again when we get to the full budget for the SATS, which I understand will probably be in June.

That is if you get back!

That is “when” I get back, not “if" I get back!

The hon the Minister has talked about privatization and he was responsible in his previous position for investigating the situation. I now want to give him a little word of warning. If it is the intention to privatize, we in the Official Opposition welcome it. However, if he goes selling off large chunks of the SATS, or even smaller chunks, I would hate to see the funds generated from that sale of assets being used as current revenue. That would be selling off items of a capital nature. I believe those funds should then be used for expenditure of a capital nature from which South Africa ultimately can benefit, but it would be a very great mistake if we used the proceeds from privatization for current revenue and not for capital expenditure. There is no doubt that there is a tremendous need for action in terms of deregulation and privatization in the SATS, but I shall discuss that later in my speech.

What is also interesting, is that like the State Revenue Fund part appropriation, this part appropriation is also a pre-election part appropriation of the SATS. I have no doubt that we are getting the sweet news now of how well the SATS have done, but I believe that when we get to June and the election has been held, we are going to see that hon Minister standing up and saying that he greatly regrets it and it is very unfortunate, but he will have to increase tariffs for various services right through the SATS.

Are you sure he will still be the Minister?

Yes, my colleague reminds me that I should say: If he is still the Minister at that stage; in fact if he is still a Member of Parliament at that stage.

This is an election budget. If this had been the main Budget which is normally this month for the SATS—normally about the third week in February—I bet that he would have announced tariff increases here and there. However, these have been delayed and they have been delayed specifically because of the fact that in two and a half months’ time we shall have a general election. Therefore, this is an election part appropriation which, to an extent, goes to prove something that I said in the Budget Debate last year, and that is that the tariff increases which were announced last year were far too harsh. I said this last year, and when one looks at the results and one sees that the hon the Minister was ablle to announce today that the profits of the SATS were going to be in excess of R100 million, I think it bears out the fact that the tariffs were too high.

The hon the Minister said:

However, I submit that there is a third reason—the most important one—and that is that tariffs were raised too high last year. That was a very crucial factor which enabled the SATS to show the profit they are currently showing. It is also the reason why this hon the Minister has been able to delay increases until after the election.

At this stage I want to move the following amendment to the motion of the hon the Minister:

1. (1) racial discrimination has been removed from the passenger services of the South African Transport Services;
2. (2) racial discrimination has been eliminated from the employment practices of the South African Transport Services;
3. (3) deregulation and privatization are implemented to a meaningful extent in the transport sector; and
4. (4) the South African Transport Services raises its level of business efficiency and service to the public.”.

Sir, I do not intend to speak for very long about racial discrimination in the SATS. I have spoken about it many times and hon members of the other Houses of Parliament have also spoken about it at fair length over the past couple of sessions since they have been around. It does exist.

I was saddened when I sat at Newlands cricket ground—shortly after we had come down from Port Elizabeth for the session— watching an international cricket match with the Australians playing cricket against South Africa. From my seat, as I sat, I could see the commuter trains of the SATS going past the Newlands cricket grounds, and I could see the “Whites only” signs on their coaches. [Interjections.]

I believe that, surely, in this day and age we have gone beyond that. Surely we can share South Africa with our fellow citizens in an equitable manner, without having these demeaning signs. Let us never forget that it was the fact that Mahatma Gandhi was thrown off a train all those years ago that swayed him into being a strong campaigner against racism. Who knows if there is not another little Mahatma Gandhi, a child in Cape Town, who may be thrown off a train and thereafter become a desperate opponent of this Government and racism in general. Sir, it is time racism went.

The same thing applies to employment practices in the SATS. I am aware that there is a parity programme and that a couple of the steps in this programme have been implemented. Perhaps in his reply the hon the Minister will tell me how far they have gone and what has still to be done, because in various areas there is still a situation in which employees of the SATS who are not White are not treated as favourably as people who are White. This is a fact. It exists, and it is high time it ceased to exist.

The last leg of my amendment deals with business efficiency and service to the public. I think it is quite extraordinary that now, in 1987, we get a headline in today’s Business Day which reads:

It is extraordinary that the SATS should have to spend R200 million to become competitive. I want to quote Mr Koos Meyer: “Deregulation would bring stiffer competition.” He also said:

It is about time that they became better, quicker and faster! Why does it have to take a National Transport Policy Study costing millions of rand and a White Paper against deregulation to suddenly have the SATS turning around, saying: “ We are going to spend R200 million to become better, quicker and faster.”?

Mr Koos Meyer says: “Express freight trains are being speeded up. Tests have shown the Cape Town to Johannesburg travel time can be cut from 29 hours to 21.” They are cutting the trip by eight hours just because they are now are going to get some competition from buses! Why did they not do so earlier? The train journey from Port Elizabeth to Cape Town—I think this is still the case— took 32 hours if you were White and 36 hours if you were Black! One can do it by a SATS bus today in 12 hours. The duration of these train journeys should have been cut a long time ago. It is time that the SATS became better, more businesslike, quicker and faster. I welcome that spending of the R200 million. If it achieves its objective, it will have been well worthwhile.

I want now to turn to the two middle legs of my amendment. Because the White Paper on National Transport Policy has such an impact on the SATS, I do not believe it is possible to consider the part appropriation of the SATS properly without considering the White Paper. There are many things to be welcomed in the White Paper and I do so unreservedly. One, for instance, is the Black taxi situation where they are going to be allowed to compete more favourably in the South African market. However, perhaps the most important thing is that when it is implemented this White Paper will help to reduce the stranglehold which the SATS has had over transport in South Africa for so many years. It will not take it away altogether but it will be a major step in the right direction. That stranglehold has cost this country dearly over the years and it has been shamefully abused.

For this not only the SATS are to blame but also the Ministers of Transport and the Government over many years. They have let the tail wag the dog. It has even gone so far that a story circulated some years ago that when the then hon member for Helderberg held the portfolio of Transport the then General Manager of the SATS, Dr Loubser, threatened resignation unless the Minister was replaced, which he was.

I have no doubt that the actions over many years of the SATS have driven the costs of transport to South Africans far higher than they should have been with the inevitable inflationary consequences. I have mentioned the railway tariffs from Kimberley to Cape Town and I will not repeat it, but think of the consequences of this for our battling exporters.

One of the worst examples of the SATS interference was the campaign they conducted against private haulage contractors. Literally millions of rand were spent on legal fees, applying for permits and fighting cases.

These costs had to be recovered in the cost of transport. What was worse was that the SATS had their own police who were shamelessly used to protect the SATS commercial interests. For example, in three months in 1984 the SAR Police impounded no fewer than 46 vehicles belonging to the private sector. These vehicles were competing with the SATS.

The National Transport Policy Study found that 30% of the applications for permits before local road transportation boards were opposed by the SATS. This meant costs for appeal, advocates and attorneys. This increased the costs of transport.

It is stated in the White Paper that the abolition of the road freight transport system will save the country more than R60 million per year in direct expenses related to permits. I do not believe that it can be denied that our transport policy and the incredibly powerful position of the SATS within the system, have operated to the disadvantage of our country for many years. In fact as regards transport this Government stands condemned out of its own mouth. Let me demonstrate this.

According to the National Transport Policy Study:

The Government in its White Paper accept this view. They themselves accept, therefore, that they were out of line. Why, then, have the Ministers of Transport allowed this deviation for so long? I believe it is because of the strength of the SATS. They have run rings around the Ministers, Sir, and they appear to be doing so still. It is high time that this stopped; and if it involves breaking the SATS into four separate organisations. I, for one, believe it could be in the best interests of South Africa as a whole.

When I look at the White Paper, I am concerned by all the pre-conditions, notably those relating to the SATS, which, I note, are accepted by the White Paper. I do not believe these pre-conditions should be allowed to delay the implementation of the recommendations that have been accepted by the Government. We must not have delays, Sir; we need action!

If we proceed as soon as the necessary legislation is passed—which must happen this year!—it will be of significant benefit to the country and its people. We must not allow the SATS to delay that process. They have already altered railage ratings fairly considerably to allow for a more even distribution within the railage mode of transport and less cross-subsidisation between commodities.

The Government must take responsibility for meeting in full—and I emphasise “in full”—the cost of providing uneconomic socio-economic services. One of the big problems of the SATS is the losses they have to incur in transporting the victims of apartheid from where they are forced to live to their place of work. [Interjections.] Of course! I am not suggesting that commuter transport is not unprofitable in other parts of the world as well, but ours is excessively unprofitable because of the policies of this Government. The Government must meet these costs. They are costs incurred by the SATS, and the Government must meet them as soon as possible. This country is crying out for an efficient, cost-effective transport system, and only the Government stands in the way at this time. Any further delay in bringing about the necessary changes will be to the enormous discredit of the Government.

When we consider the rail services of the SATS, we need to do so against the background of current international experience. The whole system is of such a nature that to make a railway line part of the private sector, does not appear to have worked anywhere. Even in the home of private enterprise, the USA, experience has taught a hard lesson to the railage system. I therefore do not see any chance of privatisation of the SA Railways in the foreseeable future. We must ensure, however, that their actions do not redound to the detriment of the country as a whole, and that they operate strictly on a competitive basis and not according to any system which allows them to abuse their position of having a direct line into the Cabinet itself.

This does not mean, however, that there are many services carried out by the Railways which cannot be privatised. These could be engineering, consulting, catering, and many other services which could be provided on tender by the private sector. Why, for example, should the Railways provide the catering services for this Parliament? I see no reason why. It could be contracted out to the private sector. They should do it.

The biggest opportunity for privatisation within the SATS, however, lies in road motor services, and I welcome the announcement by the hon the Minister that they will not expand their present road network. I fail to understand, however, why the Railways should be allowed to compete with the private sector on the roads of South Africa at all. Surely the original purpose of the Railways was to provide transport which could not be provided by the private sector because of the enormous cost or the difficulty of providing rights of way et cetera. In this it was brilliantly successful, and it helped to open up the interior of this country. This does not apply to road motor transport, however, and it never has; so why should the State compete against its own population? It makes no sense.

Firstly, there is the transport of passengers by bus. For years the SATS have prevented the establishment of viable intercity bus services. They have forced people to travel by train or by plane, or not to travel at all. We have seen since they introduced intercity bus services how successful and how fully booked they have been. This shows that the demand is there and that this Government has been throttling that demand. Fortunately, this era has now passed—I hope forever—and the buslines are developing with every day that passes. Enormous numbers of passengers travelled by bus over the Christmas season. However, these private lines have been having to fight the SATS all the way. Ask Mr Ferreira of Interkaap here in Cape Town. I understand that there is now a new policy which prevents the SATS from opening up any new intercity bus services. I congratulate the hon the Minister on this, but that is not enough. I believe that any bus services operated by the SATS should be sold off by public open tender to the private sector—not as one big globular business but line by line in order to spread the service among smaller businesses and so help the small businessmen in South Africa. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he will do this.

I come now to the subject of freight transported by road. It is my view that this should also be done by the private sector. If there is a railage leg in an overall freight movement, then of course the SATS should transport the goods to and from the railage point, but that is all. I see absolutely no point in allowing the SATS to compete with the private sector, using what amounts to taxpayers’ funds. I have no doubt that the private sector can handle this business, which must of course be deregulated, and that there is no need to involve the State. I believe that experience teaches us that the free-market system will ensure the best rates for the job and that there is likely to be a reduction in transport charges countrywide as a result.

I find that I am running somewhat short of time. I just want to quote something which Dr Wassenaar said in connection with the private and public sectors, and which I think is apt under these circumstances. The quote is as follows:

I am dreadfully afraid that what Dr Wassenaar has said, has been true of the transport sector and I therefore hope that this new White Paper will herald a departure from that situation. We must do so with dispatch, however. We must not allow vested interests in the public sector to delay the process of separation and privatisation.

Piet Koornhof's tortoises are still alive and well. Both in this matter and in the deregulation of transport, however, they must not be allowed to place stumbling blocks on the road to change. We need to go a lot further than we have currently gone, and the time in which we have to do it, is awfully short. I believe that this hon Minister has a very onerous task ahead of him, and that is to implement this process of deregulation and privatisation.

If we are going to wait for all the preconditions of the SATS to be met, and for all the new regulations in regard to quality to be implemented, then we shall yet again be in the hands of the bureaucracy, and that could delay proper implementation until the mid-1990s. We cannot afford this. We cannot allow the tortoises to obstruct the objective of greater efficiency and lower costs. It is the duty of this hon Minister to implement this White Paper. If deregulation as proposed by the National Transport Policy Study is not a reality by the first quarter of 1988, then the hon the Minister will be failing in his duty.

Mr Chairman, I should like to discuss the amendment of the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. In my opinion, the first subject he touched on served mainly as a speech to his voters. I am referring to the first two parts of his motion, in which he held forth on racial descrimi nation, and so on. I think the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister will speak to him about that. [Interjections.] I shall deal with the third and fourth parts during the course of my speech.

I wish to associate myself with the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central, who congratulated the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister. On our part, I think we have all already congratulated them in the caucus and on other occasions. Since they are dealing with their first Transport Services debate, however, I want to congratulate them on their appointments, and wish them everything of the best in their posts, particularly in the times in which the Transport Services finds itself at present.

I also hope that the predecessor of the present hon Minister, Oom Hendrik, will have a good rest, enjoy farming and be successful, just as he achieved the success of ending his final year with the Transport Services with a profit.

Let us now look at the amendment of the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central, and at points 3 and 4 in particular. I think he regrets having moved the amendment, particularly as far as point 3 is concerned, viz that deregulation and privatisation should be implemented to a meaningful extent in the transport sector. Just to prove that the hon the Minister is serious about this, let us look at the speech he made less that half an hour ago. The hon the Minister gives a very clear indication of his objectives over the long and short term, and I quote:

I quote further:

I really think that that point of the amendment could really be taken out before we vote on the amendment.

At this stage I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he is also going to table the report of Dr Wim de Villiers at a later stage when he and the Cabinet have had a chance to study it finally, but even before that report has been laid upon the Table, the hon the Minister is already prepared to announce certain privatisation measures. I shall speak about deregulation later.

Once again I quote from the hon the Minister’s speech:

I am also one who complains when I do not get a seat on an aircraft, but I now want to appeal to the passengers of South Africa, with the airways in particular, where it so easily affects people, to be a little patient. In South Africa we cannot offer the frequency that overseas countries can, since we do not have the travelling population. If we want to be profitable in the sphere of transport, we will have to reduce the quality of our service just a little as far as frequency is concerned, so as to handle full loads.

Nonsense!

The hon member for Bezuidenhout is shouting “nonsense”. We have to choose between a tariff structure which doubles so that we can catch a plane from Cape Town to Johannesburg every hour …

I am speaking about the efficiency of service.

I know that the hon member will have a chance to speak later. He reminds me so much of the advertisements that appear when I am watching sports programmes on television. I am just waiting for television to bring on an OK Bazaars advertisement just when the golf ball is on its way to the hole. [Interjections.] The hon member’s remarks put me off, just like television advertisements in the middle of a programme put me off. [Interjections.]

As far as frequency is concerned, and with a view to what we can afford in respect of economic tariffs, we shall have to strike a happy medium. I am not saying that the SAA has not found a happy medium, but we shall have to find it so as to make it as attractive as possible so that we can cover costs and make a profit. This applies to more than just the airways, but I am speaking about the airways because it affects people most directly.

I should like to thank the hon the Minister for coming up with his policy of privatisation and deregulation at this early stage. I shall come back in a moment to the White Paper which was tabled about a week ago. All I want to say at this stage is that it has now been proved that the hon the Minister is serious. In fact, he has been appointed to his present post from his previous post in which he was involved with deregulation and privatisation. He has not yet been in this post a full three months, and already we are seeing the first results. I want to wish him everything of the best and assure him that we support him in this regard.

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central was making an election speech when he said that tariffs would increase later. The hon member will recall that last year we also spoke about tariff increases, and then a large percentage—I cannot recall the specific figure, but it was more that half if I remember correctly—of the tariff increases went to making provision for increased salaries and pensions. If we want to pay our people more—the hon the Minister will tell us in his main budget whether there are in fact going to be salary increases—we must know now already that the largest part of that increase will go towards salary and pension increases. In our lives we have often seen—the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central pointed this out again—that the economy and politics in this country are very closely linked.

This reminds me of a “koeksister”. The parts are plaited together and they fry together, and when they are taken out and placed in the refrigerator, they also cool down together. We should bear the example of the “koeksister” in mind when we look at transport in South Africa from a strategic point of view.

I am somewhat concerned about the White Paper on National Transport Policy. Transport policy objectives are set out on pages 8 and 9. I know that they are mainly economic objectives, since this report is addressed to the Minister of Transport Affairs. However, I should like to say that the strategic function of transport should also be taken into consideration. Transport is extremely important to the welfare and survival of this country, as we have recently seen where there have been boycotts, stone throwing and the burning of buses and taxis. I hope that when this matter is discussed at Cabinet level and legislation is drawn up—although this is the field of the Minister of Law and Order—more attention will be given to the strategic function than is being done in the White Paper at present.

To me the title “White Paper on National Transport Policy” is also not quite correct. Where is aviation? I am aware that the Margo Commission reported on it and that a White Paper appeared in that regard. It was stated in the White Paper that legislation would be drawn up. I think the title of the White Paper should have been: Certain aspects of the White Paper on National Transport Policy.

We never propagated it here.

Like the ball, the hon member is on his way to the hole again. [Interjections.]

What is bothering me at this stage is that we will have to involve that section of the transport services to a grater extent when we look at legislation.

In the final chapter, chapter 7, there is a very clear indication of how the implementation programme will proceed. I want to ask the hon the Minister, if he has time, also to give attention to including aviation in the final section of chapter 7, particularly 7.3, which deals with the legislative programme. Aviation and buses are becoming increasingly interwoven, and we must present the whole package to the standing committee after the election.

Where are you going to be?

I shall be here. The hon member need not worry; 1984 proved that I shall be here.

The changes recommended in the new White Paper pose tremendous challenges to the entire transport sector of South Africa. If we advocate freedom, it must not only be freedom for certain sectors, individuals or modes of transport. When we speak of privatisation, we must look at various things. The hon the Minister mentioned a few things with which I fully agree. As far as I am concerned, the pharmacies of the SATS can also be included in this whole package. I think the hon the Minister would agree with me. I am only mentioning one of a whole series, as I do not think we have time to dwell on them all now. Prompted by the report of Dr Wim de Villiers, the hon the Minister knows precisely what he wants to do, when he wants to do it and what he wants to achieve.

The budget showed us that there has been a reasonable saving. The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central also quoted Business Day on what is being done to become more competitive and to cut costs. If I understand the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central correctly, he has no problem with that, in fact, he encourages the SATS to proceed with that. If that is his standpoint, I support it.

I now want to come back to a few things in the White Paper that could be problematic at present. I get the impression that the eight transport objectives that have been sketched are easier to talk about than to achieve. These objectives, which appear on page three of the White Paper, are so important, that I should like to ask the hon the Minister when he will be able to inform us which of these important prerequisites will be accepted, and which not. I should also like to know how he is going to try to achieve some of the objectives which are more difficult to implement in practice.

I support you.

I thank the hon member for Bezuidenhout.

These eight prerequisites constitute the most important part of the White Paper, and the future and the practicability of the White Paper depends on them. I think each of these points warrants a debate of its own, and I hope that when we return after the 6 May, we will all have a chance to debate this White Paper in Parliament. We should be given an opportunity to sharpen one another’s wits and exchange ideas on these various points. I shall refer only to the first one as an example. It reads:

Early last week Mr Croeser from the Department of Finance said that the regional services councils would apparently collect around R800 million in their first year. That R800 million is just enough to finance the commuter services. I certainly hope that that money will not be used for that purpose, since the regional services councils will be doomed before they have started. I hope we will make other arrangements, and I will support the hon the Minister if he tries to obtain funds from other sources. R800 million is not sufficient if the bus subsidies are included.

We could easily say now that we must increase the tariffs on passenger services, but if we do this with first-class train commuters, their tariff structure will have to increase by approximately 350%, according to statistics at my disposal. In the case of third-class commuters, tariffs will have to increase by around 200%. I do not think we can do this. Nor do I think we can implement it together with inflation over a period of five years.

These eight points must not be used—here I support the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central—to delay the principles of deregulation which we want to implement and to which the hon the Minister has bound himself. The deregulation principles must be implemented as soon as possible. I am convinced that if we can do that, it will naturally lead to adjustments.

I have here a number of telexes regarding the White Paper; some of them are flattering, and others much less flattering. Let us leave it at that for the moment. The large majority of people who have already commented, were aiming at the horizon in the long term, forgetting about the present problems. I think the hon the Minister should proceed as he decided—that being according to the announcement in his speech on the Transport Services Part Appropriation Bill—the matter must calmly be implemented as of now.

I do just want to add in this case that the people should know that deregulation and privatisation are not matters that are only going to affect the Government, since they are also going to require adjustments from the private sector. We must prepare ourselves so that we realise that both the public and private sectors will have to make adjustments. When we speak of privatisation or deregulation, the same rules must apply to both groups in the game. I agree with that, and I think the hon the Minister also hinted in his speech today that the rules of the game should be more uniform for everyone. However, I say that we should first deregulate, and then privatise. The hon the Minister did in fact announce that he would not go any further with certain expansions. I find no fault with that and I support him. My standpoint, however, is that we first deregulate and draw up the rules of the game before the Minister privatises. I agree with what the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central said, viz that there should be privatisation in respect of as many people as possible so that there can be competition.

It should not be thought that with the process of privatisation everything is going to be allocated to the existing authorities. We must guard against this and create a new market force when we go ahead with privatisation.

I wish to conclude by discussing safety. This is quite a problem at present, and I am concerned about it when we implement deregulation. Point 1.3 of Chapter 1 of the White Paper on National Transport Policy refers to the implementation of the recommendations. Various prerequisites are mentioned, of which point (5) contains the key to successful deregulation. I quote point (5):

Deregulation over the past decade in countries such as Australia, Britain, Canada and the USA has shown that we should be serious about that point, otherwise deregulation is going to lead to chaos, as has happened in one or two of those countries. We need only look at the deregulation of road transport in Australia, where this point, although they stated it, was not implemented. The result was that costs that initially would have been reduced owing to deregulation, in fact increased.

I should therefore like to make a plea that this aspect as part of deregulation be given the necessary attention as of now. Whereas the Government previously controlled economic and technical regulations, we now only retain control over technical regulations, which are mainly safety aspects. If we do not bear the safety aspects in mind, our roads are going to be overloaded and damaged owing to competition. Furthermore, people’s vehicles are not going to meet the safety standards.

I want to ask the hon the Minister, his department, the Police and all traffic officers in South Africa, whether they belong to the province or a municipality, to implement this aspect stringently and mercilessly.

Mr Chairman, I should like to congratulate the hon member for Primrose on his promotion to chief spokesman on the SATS in this House. In the standing committee we have come to know the hon member as someone who can make a very positive contribution.

I should also like to agree with what the hon member said at the end of his speech concerning deregulation.

In his speech on the Transport Services Part Appropriation Bill which the hon the Minister introduced here this afternoon, he referred, under “Passenger Services”, to the tight economic climate and increasing competition by buses and kombi taxis. At first they were known as “pirate taxis”, but they have now been legalised.

I am also concerned that the required standards for the vehicles of the SATS and the public bus companies are not required for these private kombi taxis. We are going to have problems in this country if we do not have the most stringent measures and supervision over this transport service.

I should like to associate myself with the hon members who welcomed the new hon Minister of Transport Affairs. On behalf of the CP, I want to welcome the hon the Minister most warmly and wish him every success in this particularly difficult portfolio he is holding.

Until after 6 May. [Interjections.]

I do not want to say much about former Minister Schoe man, except that I hope he enjoys his rest and the time he can now devote fully to his farming.

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central pleaded here for the removal of the signs denoting the separation of races on the passenger coaches of trains. Hon members will understand that I adopt precisely the opposite standpoint. The day we change this regulation which has been proven over the years, there will be absolute chaos on certain stations in certain areas and suburbs. That is why I say—I shall come back to this later— that I am pleading for the retention of these separation measures. We have experience of the fact that where some of these separation measures have been removed, it has already given rise to shoulder-rubbing situations. If we wish to promote racial harmony, it can only be done by way of separation measures in this country with this population composition.

Mr Chairman, I move as a further amendment:

1. (1) is stimulating inflation with certain of the measures built into the budget;
2. (2) promotes the racial integration of passenger services;
3. (3) causes Whites to be crowded out at railway stations by people of colour; and
4. (4) fails to serve the interests of the White worker.”.

I also wish to associate myself with previous speakers by expressing my gratitude and that of the CP to Dr Bart Grové and his senior staff for the competent way in which they keep the wheels in motion. I also want to express our gratitude to every employee of the SATS for his contribution in this large organisation. Nowadays it is not always easy for the executive officers of this large organisation to keep things running smoothly and the wheels in motion. We greatly appreciate it.

In the hon the Minister’s speech under the heading “Passenger Seivices” reference is made to the technical staff of the SA Airways who made a fine contribution to the revenue of the department, and I should like to congratulate those people on the R17 million they earned. When we are dealing with the SATS and are closely involved with the Railways, we are so inclined to forget about all the other departments. I was therefore very pleased that the hon the Minister specifically mentioned today that the technical staff of the SA Airways earned this fine amount of R17 million for this department.

In his Budget Speech the hon the Minister said that he would leave the increases in salaries, tariffs and pensions until May. He did not add that he would leave them until after the election. I would personally like to add that he is leaving them until after the election. The people are now being told to be very good and vote for the NP, then they will get a nice big increase after May. I am not saying that the hon the Minister said that, but that is the whole spirit of the matter. [Interjections.]

You people must give it to them before the election.

I do not think I am wrong when I see the hand and temperament of the State President in this whole story of this part appropriation, as well as in that of the hon the Minister of Finance, of which the Second Reading has just been completed. I get the feeling he said: “Leave these things until after the election”.

Rail tariffs are high at present. Of course it is true that high tariffs necessarily contribute to a large extent to inflation in this country. I only hope that it will not be necessary for the hon the Minister to increase tariffs in May. I must say it would be a wonderful achievement by the Railways if it is not necessary to do so, but I just have a suspicion that there is going to be a considerable increase in tariffs.

Furthermore, we have the question of salaries. Although the hon the Minister says the salary and pension increases will only be addressed in May, I want to tell him today that I am very disappointed that our people in the employ of the SATS are not being given a salary increase now. [Interjections.]

I recall a time in this House when a railwayman was expected to give his thirteenth cheque back. I recall that on the day that announcement was made—it wa shortly before a the SATS budget was introduced—I told the hon the State President he was taking the food out of the mouths of White children. From his bench he said to me: “You are talking nonsense”. That day I was aware that two kilometres from this Parliamentary Building there was a specific school where the teachers had to collect amongst themselves every day to buy the children food.

I want to tell the hon the Minister—I think he ought to know this—our people who earn lower wages are living in particularly difficult circumstances. In parts of our country one finds the heart-rending situation that clergymen and others have to empty their larders every day to keep others alive. I therefore want to ask the hon the Minister—there is still time, although it perhaps does not fit in with the machinery—to bear in mind, in case the day comes when he will be in a position to make adjustments, that in the few months until May those people have to live in extremely difficult circumstances.

I am also thinking of the penioners who always receive less than the increase in the inflation rate. I am not aware of one increase in pensions that could really beat the rise in the inflation rate. Percentagewise, the adjustment is always lower than the rise in the inflation rate. I ask the hon the Minister please to attend to this, so that we can single out the pensioners once and for all, and repay them for having to lag behind the rise in the inflation rate.

A moment ago I spoke about the matter of integration. We are also saddled with a difficult sitation on our trains today. Although the staff try to make orderly arrangements in this regard, nevertheless there are people who upset those arrangements from time to time. We are consequently dealing with an absolute situation of racial integration on our trains. I kindly request that the hon the Minister see to this situation.

I have already referred to the separation measures on our railway stations. I do not wish to go into that in detail again.

Hear, hear!

However, I must say … Yes, an hon member is saying “hear, hear!” [Interjections.] I am speaking about Whites—White women in particular— who are crowded out by people of colour on railway stations. Now the reaction to this is “hear, hear!”

They would do well to go and look at what is going on at Thornton Station!

I request that the hon the Minister set measures in operation before serious clashes occur in this field.

When we had a depression in South Africa, at the insistence of the government at the time, the Railways carried out its social function in such a way that it provided work for the unemployed. Unfortunately we are experiencing the opposite situation today. The number of workers is being reduced. The hon the Minister would probably be able to tell us what the figure was for the past nine months. I do not know. The previous year it was 8 000 workers.

Over the past two years we have experienced a situation similar to a depression. We do not know now how precisely the economy is going to recover in the future. I therefore want to ask the hon the Minister to reconsider giving the SA Transprt Services a social function so that we can see whether more vacant posts can be created somewhere in the SA Transport Services for those who are unemployed at present. For example, in the Port Elizabeth area there are many Whites who are unemployed today because factories and other businesses have closed down.

There was a time when there were not sufficient White workers. I recall that there were not enough stokers, for example. At that time Black people were employed. They were known as coalmen. Strangely enough, now that we have enough White workers, we find those coalmen, who were supposed to stoke only in the shunting yards, on the passenger trains between De Aar and Kimberley. Now these are the Black coalmen whom the White stokers were told were only being used because there were too few White stokers, and that in any case they would only be used in the shunting yards. Those Black coalmen have become stokers in the meanwhile. I do not know whether they are still called Black coalmen. However, nowadays I see those Black coalmen on passenger trains between De Aar and Kimberley.

Unfortunately my time has almost expired. In conclusion, I just want to say that I am pleased that the department has succeded in getting rid of the old locomotives that were standing around at railway stations, a sight for sore eyes, in this way in the form of scrap metal. One always gained the impression that they were going to rack and ruin. People did not realise that those locomotives’ days were numbered. I am pleased, however, that they can serve as a source of income for the Transport Services in this way.

We must get rid of the National Party in the same way! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for De Aar is a very respectable man. It is interesting to listen to him, especially when he starts his speech as he did today, with words of thanks and congratulation. While he was speaking, I wondered whether I would find a point to which I could react, and fortunately he complied with my wildest expectations.

He started off by discussing the notices. I think the hon the Minister will most certainly be able to give him a better reply than I can as far as the notices are concerned, but the important point is this: When we say that the SA Transport Services should operate as an economic enterprise, we should of course ask what the clients want. It is not for us to say whether the notices should be put up or taken down. We should simply ask what the clients want. Minister Hendrik Schoeman spelt it out very clearly during his time. To crown it all, we then had an amendment, arising out of which we discussed overcrowding. Our hon Minister will reply to that as well, but I merely want to say that you know and I know that expert attention is being given to this aspect of overcrowding, but it is not so easily solved as this spectre of inflation to which the hon member referred. He used one sentence only, and the problem of inflation was solved. In the next sentence he said that the SA Transport Services had neglected to look after the interests of the Whites in its employ.

How he reconciles these irreconcilables, I do not know. Perhaps we should operate within the concept of this hon member—he is a member of the CP—but do what the hon member for Primrose said, and then we should not have a frequency of one aircraft every hour, but one every half hour we should have a small one and then we paint the one white and the other black. That would be a perfect separation. The Blacks fly in the black aircraft. [Interjections.]

If the hon member now wants to suggest that salary increases will occur in the SATS after the election, I want to ask this hon member what on earth his criticism would have been had we increased salaries now. Immediately we would have been accused of buying votes. Let us rather now follow the golden mean. The SATS showed a loss after the previous financial year. Within a period of five years the number of workers fell by nearly 70 000. Nonetheless it showed a profit for the last financial year. Such workers, who have pulled their weight, deserve a salary increase in any case. Let us rather postpone it until after the election so that no one will accuse this Government of buying votes. My sound advice to the worker in the SATS is to hold out until after the election, because he may then be surprised. I do not know.

I shall now refer to the White Paper and I want to use that specific concept in the text “national conveyer”. I am convinced that South Africa and Southern Africa as well cannot manage without a national conveyer within the Republic of South Africa. Who else but the SATS can fulfil the task of national conveyer for our country? It is the only organisation that has a countrywide network of railway lines. In this country “countrywide” is really extensive, because measured in terms of distance, it is a big country. It is the only organisation that has this infrastructure available to it. That is why I believe that the SATS should be the national conveyer.

There are those that say that the SATS is a monopoly. By definition it is probably the case, but there is such a thing as a benevolent monopoly. I want to make the statement that within this concept, the definition of a “monopoly”, the SATS is a benevolent monopoly. I am very glad to see in the White Paper that the function of the SATS is spelt out as being a safe and reliable transport service for the country; that is for the country as a whole.

If we accept the economic concept that subsidies and cross-subsidisation should come to an end in terms of these uneconomic services and that an open and direct system of subsidisation should come into existence, one which could perhaps cause high-rated traffic not to be increasingly taxed in order to subsidise this uneconomic traffic, for example.

By way of illustration, I want to use an example of which I know something about and that is a case of wine which I want to send to you, Sir, from the Boland to Standerton. [Interjections.] The minimum railage tariff is R9,95. That means that if you order it from there, you have to order three boxes otherwise you pay too much railage. By the way, these tariffs were until recently R3,98 per case and have now been increased to R4,45. That is an increase of 11,8%.

By the way, there is a transport organisation which transports the same case of wine at R4,05. The case of wine is fetched from one and delivered to the house of the person ordering it, let us say in Johannesburg. This enterprise, however, only deals in bulk deliveries of merchandise and unfortunately it is situated only in the larger centres.

A situation has now arisen which I am very unhappy about—and only concern does it affect viticulture, but agriculture as well— because the transport tariff of this case of wine moved up on 1 February from tariff class 6 to class 5. This year on November 15 it moved up from class 5 to class 4; on 15 May the following year it moved up to class 3 and on 15 November it moved up to class 2. That means that the tariff has, within two years, in fact gone up by 51%, over and above any other railage freight increases. What applies here, applies eventually to all other agricultural products as well. Added to this the Liquor Act prohibits one from establishing a depot in Johannesburg and distributing from there. It therefore has to be sent in cases.

I believe there is a mistake somewhere. Somewhere we have to make another calculation. I want to prove what I am saying. The case has a certain size and weight and contains wine, but if one sends grape juice in the same size case, having the same weight, it does not cost R4,45, but R5,61. May I ask the hon the Minister and some of his senior staff to look into the situation, because there might be a slight mistake somewhere?

It is with much appreciation that one takes cognizance of the statements in the White Paper in terms of a new policy, and that it should be applied with the minimum disruption. I want to say “hear, hear!” because of this White Paper. Should we now do what the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central says:

Good heavens!

†I honestly believe that the implementation of these recommendations must be done with care. We must give due consideration to all the factors.

That has already happened.

I do not think we should be the proverbial “bull in a china shop”. Let us do it gradually. Let us do it properly. [Interjections.] If one were to apply these recommendations—I illustrated this using the example of the wine industry—then one would put quite a few estates and wine cellars out of business and not only would you be prejudicing the farmer, but the consumer as well.

What I said here concerning wine—to repeat—can be applied equally to other agricultural products. This afternoon I want to make an appeal for a fair dispensation for agriculture. If one reasons correctly that hidden subsidies and cross-subsidisation should be phased out, it should be done with everybody. Passenger service with their commuter traffic showed a loss of R1,1 billion last year. Let there be a direct and open subsidy for that, but then the others should receive it as well. The same argument holds for the low-rated traffic of the farmer. The farmer eventually is in a much weaker position in terms of passing his cost increases on to someone else.

When we speak of the farmer’s transport, we think in terms of bulk transport, maize, lime, fertiliser, you name it. With the removal of cross-subsidisation this freight would be lost in any case. Should this feight be lost, I do not think the SATS will be heart-broken. That brings me back to my principle point. Who is then the national conveyer for these things? A business enterprise cannot run things at a loss. The White Paper is correct. However justifiable and healthy such an argument may be, one should take a look at everything on the basis of this rendering of services and how it can be done in an economic way. What is important for me is its total application. Once again I want to make an appeal and say that one cannot allow one sector to have an advantage over another. If agriculture or commuter traffic should receive direct subsidies, that is all very well.

When all is said and done, my appeal is for the following. If we look beyond the bulk transport of goods, and we look at the conveyance of finished products across our country, and the processed export produce of agriculture, then I want to ask that we should in all seriousness look at the tariffs which might eventually cause agriculture to experience a complete financial setback.

Agriculture is, and remains dependent on a national conveyer in South Africa. I concede that the Transport Services cannot stand to attention to convey incidental freight. But we should devise a plan. We should note very carefully what happens during the implementation of these recommendations in the White Paper. If we reason that one should remove cross-subsidisation and introduce direct subsidies, then we should give consideration to agriculture. I want to make a serious plea for us to give careful consideration to agriculture.

I am only afraid that if we want to make the SATS a completely economical service, we shall proceed to deal our country a blow as result of the fact that in the long term there will not be sufficient funds to award these direct and open subsidies to agriculture. That is why I want to make a earnest plea that we consider these things I have mentioned, which seem somewhat strange to me—things which I believe cannot merely be done in another way. Let us—in the application of this White Paper’s recommendations which have been accepted by the Government—see to it that we do not harm any sector, or damage anyone financially—because I am not making an appeal for agriculture only.

Mr Chairman, I would also like to congratulate the hon the Minister on behalf of the NRP on his appointment to what is a very challenging post, and to wish him well in his stewardship of the SATS. We wish him well not only because we like him as a person but also because of the fact that the service for which he is responsible is very important to South Africa. We sincerely hope that at this challenging time when he takes over, a time of change for the SATS, he will enjoy his stewardship. I am sure he will meet the challenge and that the results will be in the interest of the country.

At the same time, I would like to say a word of thanks to the personnel of the SATS for the personal relationship I have always had with all the branches of the SATS. As this will be the last time I will be speaking about this department, I would like to say to all of them—from the General Manager right down to the most junior clerk or member of staff whom I have come across—that I have always enjoyed extremely courteous and friendly relations with them and that I have always received the greatest co-operation from all the members with whom I have had to deal over many years. I appreciate it.

Because I will not have a chance to say the same thing about the Department of Transport, although it is not pertinent to this debate I would like to direct the same remarks to the Director-General of Transport. In 1974 I became the Official Opposition spokesman on transport when I took over from Marais Steyn. In all my associations where transport matters were concerned—in the commissions on which I served, way back to 1974, for years before that on the select committee and later on the standing committee and on the Van Breda Commission—I found that the leadership has looked for the best for South Africa and co-operated in trying to achieve it. I would like to place that on record in this House on this occasion.

Turning to the speeches made this aftenoon, I do not know whether I really agree with the hon member for Wellington about the “benevolent” monopoly. I have never known a monopoly to be benevolent yet. It might look benevolent, it might even look benign, but beneath the surface there is a tumour in every form of monopoly, and one has to keep it under control. So, while the hon member for Wellington may think it is benevolent, and while people may even think it is benign, in my view any form of monopoly is a growth that has to be watched and watched very carefully. This will be one of the hon the Minister’s tasks: He will have to exercise this control during the deregulation and privatization process in which the SATS are now engaged.

Let me emphasize what the hon member for Primrose said. I congratulate the hon member on an excellent speech. He always makes an excellent speech. He gets to the point, and then makes his point well. He was absolutely correct today when he warned that, whenever we privatize any section of the SATS, we must be careful to spread the privatization so as to enhance competition, and not privatize in order to create a monopoly of existing transport organizations. It will be just as bad to have a private enterprise monopoly as it is to have a Government-controlled monopoly. While we can call the Government-controlled monopoly to order in this House, we cannot do so to a private monopoly. I think this warning of the hon member for Primrose must be taken to heart, for the worst thing that can happen— this will be counter-productive to any of the benefits of privatization—will be the growth of similar organizations or monopolies or “rings” which take over.

As far as the proposed amendments are concerned, obviously we cannot support the hon member for De Aar in the amendment he moved since it is totally in conflict with our own ideas. We will, however, be supporting the amendment moved by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central, although I would perhaps have changed the wording of it to some extent.

In his introductory speech the hon the Minister revealed that the SATS had, in fact, overcharged its clients over the ast year: It budgeted for a loss, but has in fact made a profit. Therefore, it overcharged its clientele. So be it. Nevertheless, I must in all fairness compliment those who were involved in the achievement of this result—the management and staff, and all the other people who worked hard to make it possible.

There has been modernization, there have been excellent training programmes, streamlining is taking place, and there have been staff reductions which has meant greater productivity. However, we must not forget the loyalty of the staff who, despite reduced numbers, have out of loyalty done that extra work and achieved that increased productivity. I believe there has also been better marketing.

Having said that, however, I must say at once that the SATS are in no way out of the woods. They are not out of trouble. In fact, they are in a very dangerous situation. Even though they, too, are affected by the general state of the economy, the hon the Minister is taking over at a time when there has for an extended period been declining traffic—all kinds of traffic, but particularly passenger traffic. There has been a drop in tourist traffic from overseas, and there has been a drop in mainline and city to city traffic. The result of this has been that the Government has been caught up in a vicious circle of declining traffic leading to reduced services, which in turn has led to a greater decline in traffic, leading to more reduced services. Like that notorious bird, if it goes on flying around in this circle of declining traffic and reduced services, it will eventually vanish into space. [Interjections.]

Some of the things which it has done, give cause for concern. I accept that where one has low occupancy rates on aeroplanes and trains, one has to adjust one’s services to the demand, and as far as possible improve one’s …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: It seems to me as if a quorum is not present in the House, and as if there is no interest in this Transport Sevices debate. [Interjections]

Order! I shall ask the Secretary to determine whether a quorum is present. Order! The Secretary informs me that a quorum is present. The hon member may proceed.

I want to refer firstly to one of the steps that have been taken, namely the closing of branch lines. I do not believe that proper attention or consideration has been given to the effect of the closure of some of these lines—particularly those lines which have to carry bulk products such as lime, for instance, or other bulk products for the use of farmers. The farmers then have to rely on road transportation. My colleague, the hon member for Mooi River, who is attending a meeting at the moment, is one of those affected by this, and many other farmers will have experienced the same problem. I doubt whether the SATS have taken the trouble properly to evaluate the carrying capacity of the roads which will have to carry the heavy traffic when a branch line is closed. They are forcing rail traffic onto road networks that are incapable of carrying the volume of traffic that is required of them, and which consequently deteriorate.

Neither do I think that they have investigated the effect of this on the people concerned. I am referring to small things which one would possibly not even think of. I have heard, for instance, complaints about the mail delivery service becoming irregular. Urgent parcels are delayed, for example, when a machine has broken down and spares are required. The upshot of this—and this is the point I want to make—is that we must be careful not to push up the farmers’ production costs to such an extent that it affects the price of food to the consumer either directly or indirectly. There are complaints that the effect of the withdrawal of the services in order to save money for the SATS is a direct increase in food costs to the consumer. I believe that more trouble should be taken in investigating these effects.

The hon the Minister referred to two reports this afternoon, namely the Wim de Villiers and the Wiehahn reports. Inevitably, in a time of change like this when one has major reports like these, the time is ripe for rumours, or “latrinograms” as we used to call them in the good old days. I believe that most of these are probably simply guesswork. However I think that some of them are more than just that, and for the sake of those concerned—the personnel on the one hand and the users on the other—I want to put two of these rumours specifically to the hon the Minister and ask him to clear the air and to state whether he is considering them and whether or not he intends putting them into effect.

The first rumour involves a major closedown of stations. I am talking here about closing down virtually every station except those in the major cities. The rumour has grown to such a degree that it is now believed that 1 000 stations are going to be closed and the personnel withdrawn. Those stations will simply become abandoned hulks.

Do you believe that?

I am asking the hon the Minister if it is true, and giving him a chance to clear up a rumour which started small and has now grown to such an extent that people are talking of the staff being withdrawn from 1 000 stations. This creates disquiet among the staff. They have begun to worry about their futures and the train commuters have started worrying that their stations might be closed down. I am asking the hon the Minister to use this opportunity to put the actual position on record. He can tell us how many stations are going to have their staff withdrawn and what the extent of the planning in that respect is.

Another rumour which is also creating considerable unrest among staff members is that staff contracts will be renegotiated in 1988, and that free passes and travel concessions will be replaced by an increase in wages. It is being said that all free travel and all concessions will be taken away and pensions and gratuities reduced in a new deal. One always speaks of a new broom sweeping clean, but the rumour is starting to spread that through the staff committee, the De Villiers Committee, what is now being contemplated for negotiation is a complete change of the whole system.

In the minute or two I have left, I want to refer to what I regard as fruitless expenditure. I want to ask whether the printing of a SATS calendar was budgeted for in 1986. Is it true that an artist was engaged, and that by the time he had claimed his fee, the total budget for the calendar had been used up, and so we never got a calendar? Were many thousands of rand wasted because the work had not been contracted out within cost limits and, when it came to paying the cost of preparation, there was no money left to pay for printing?

I hear that the SAA headquarters in Johannesburg is having a lot of problems with its building. I would like to ask what the SATS valuation of that building was and what they paid for it, what the condition of the lifts and air-conditioning is, and whether major amounts are going to have to be spent on those two items alone, because it seems as though something has gone wrong in this case.

I would also like to ask what the cost was of the court case against the United States in regard to our landing rights. How much did South Africa spend? How many people were sent over and how many lawyers engaged? What was the total cost to South Africa of fighting this case, and on what grounds was there ever any hope that it could be won? It seems to me that it was a hopeless cause from the start, but that we ploughed a vast sum of money into fighting it.

My last question concerns the large quantity of our rolling stock in neighbouring states. There is more and more hostility towards South Africa from some of these states. We have thousands of trucks there, and my information is that there is a large sum of money owed to South Africa by some of these so-called front-line states. I would like to know whether that is so, and what guarantees we have that we can get those trucks out and bring them back to South Africa at any time.

We shall vote against this measure because we believe that there could have been more improvements and that there are things which are still wrong.

I should like to conclude by saying how much I have enjoyed my association with this department and with the personnel as well as with the hon the Minister’s predecessor. I agree with the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central that he ducked and dived so much that one could never pin him down. However, on what was probably his last day in office he solved a problem which I had been trying to have solved for six years, and I should like to place on record that those pensioners who had initially been refused a gratuity and then received it, got it as a parting gesture from this hon Minister’s predecessor. I hope the hon the Minister will follow that good example in problem cases.

Mr Chairman, it is a great pleasure to follow the hon member for Durban Point who was possibly making his last speech, certainly on transport affairs in this House. I want to tell him that I have found him particularly pleasant, well-balanced and always worth listening to. I appreciate the very many good contributions that he has made in regard to this particular department as well as the fact that certainly throughout the time that I have been here he appears to have been well-read and well-versed in the affairs of the SATS. I wish him well.

When the hon member for Kuruman rose here this afternoon in an endeavour to embarrass the Government, there were four members of the CP in this House and three members of the Official Opposition, and their chief spokesman, the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central, was not in the House.

The HNP members were all in the House!

I most certainly was in the House.

Where was he?

I was here for his whole speech.

Whose speech?

The hon member for De Aar’s.

The hon member does not know what is going on.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central could not really get into his stride when he tried to attack the hon the Minister’s speech. He spoke about a pre-election budget, the sweet news now and possibly the bad news later and did not really get anywhere. Eventually he ended up with a report which also appeared in the Cape Times this morning in which Mr Koos Meyer indicated how the SATS aimed to become more competitive, and the hon member said that it was about time. Certainly it is—better late than never, though!

What the hon member missed, however, was the general trend which also emanated from the speech of the hon the Minister today, viz that SATS was at the turning point and that there were big changes coming as far as the whole market-related situation was concerned. I think everyone here knows what advantages that could hold for the economy in general and the considerable impact this could have on the SATS and its organisation. So I am very pleased to have read Mr Meyer’s remarks that they are trying to become more competitive.

As far as the R200 million is concerned he said “that the investment should pay for itself through cost savings but the most important benefit was that it would enable the SATS to compete with private hauliers”. I think the hon member would agree with that.

*Since a very important event is taking place on 6 May, hon members will understand that I should like to talk about my region. The Official Opposition has not yet indicated whether or not they are interested in my constituency, but they are welcome. As hon members know, the reason for the struggle to keep one’s head above water in my area is the fact that the industrial base there is not broad enough. It is general knowledge that it consists mainly of the motor industry and that the industry is having a hard time at the moment. There are a number of reasons for this. There was cause for optimism during the last few months too, however. As a result of the situation in the market for motor vehicles, rationalization has taken place in the industry and more rationalization will almost certainly take place. This expectation of further rationalization places additional pressure on our area. The Government is thoroughly aware of this underlying problem in our region and has addressed it with a whole aid package to the industrialists. The export encouragements in particular have given positive results and hold a great deal of promise for the future. This will be to the benefit of the Port Elizabeth harbour, and I also welcome the announcement made by the hon the Minister in connection with the closing of competitive transport and shipping contracts with importers and exporters as far as the Port Elizabeth harbour is concerned. That will be to our benefit, of course. These efforts of the Government are aimed at trying to prevent industries from leaving our region and being re-established in other areas, and also to encourage additional industrialists.

The SATS has subordinated its own interests in one particular case—I am referring to the case of the Willard factory. This has had the direct effect that this factory could undertake considerable expansion in our area instead of being established elsewhere. This decision of the SATS was in direct support of the Government’s general objectives regarding the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage area.

Apart from the existing gigantic capital investment the SATS has in the Cape Midlands and in particular in Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage, we have seen the establishment of a gigantic additional infrastructure at the Cuyler Manor workshop in Uitenhage. These gleaming new workshops are really a sight for sore eyes. They are equipped with the latest technology, ensuring that the high standard expected by the SATS will be maintained. These workshops house the largest wagon shop in the country at present and with regard to the load of wagon repair work, things are going well. If the upswing takes place in the economy, as we hope it will, these workshops will do well.

A decrease in the number of mainline passengers and a possible change in the market can, in time, result in other situations, however. The rationalization programme of the SATS really involves a rearrangement of priorities in view of the market situation. I should like to request the hon the Minister today, therefore, when the SATS considers rationalization in our area, to place the focus on Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage and not away from this area. In my opinion the objective should be the optimal utilization of existing infrastructures and even the extension of these infrastructures. I have already made a similar request to the hon the former Minister of Trade and Industry in this connection, with regard to rationalization in the motor industry. I think the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs will be more sympathetic to this request than his hon colleague was. The beautiful Cuyler Manor infrastructure must remain fully utilized in future. [Interjections.] This will mean that the whole Government campaign to support this area and its industrial base will also be supported in this connection by the action of the SATS.

I should also like to express my great appreciation to the hon the Deputy Minister for the fact that he has consented to visit the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage area in the immediate future, in order to acquaint himself with the position in the Cape Middlelands. The hon the Minister has also indicated his intention to visit us as soon as his programme permits him to do so. Perhaps we are not the first to congratulate the hon the Deputy Minister on his new appointment, but we must be among the first to have tried to make positive use of him as the Deputy Minister. We look forward to his visit to us.

He can use it to make his first announcement.

I hope so. I hope he will make an announcement. I shall tell him what I should like him to announce. In our area, in Uitenhage, an exceptional relationship has been established—it has lasted for more than a century—between the SATS and the community of Uitenhage. This relationship is very similar to a partnership, and like all partnerships it is a relationship of give and take. It was a partnership in development. I want to tell the hon the Minister, however, that the SATS has taken more than it has given in this particular partnership. [Interjections.] I say that because their site with workshops covered approximately 7 ha of Uitenhage’s central business sector. This led to distorted traffic patterns which resulted in the services of the municipality and of general town planning being badly disrupted.

Of course there were positive aspects in this partnership, in the sense of a large investment in staff, etcetera, which made up for this negative aspect. The former Minister of Transport Affairs kept his word to me and my constituency, however, in that the erection of the new Cuyler Manor workshops to replace the old workshops took place according to the planning schedules. The old workshops will be vacated soon. This is proof once again of how the Government has kept its word. The land occupied by the old workshops will be returned to the municipality who is the owner.

There is still the question of possible compensation for the buildings built there by the SATS. I hope the hon the Minister will let us have the buildings in the fairest possible way.

A donation!

I think a donation would be very welcome. In fact, we had accepted that we will get it very cheaply. The municipality has called in architects from the University of Port Elizabeth, and there are very interesting plans in respect of how these old, historic workshops can be converted for commercial and other social activities.

Archives for Jan Swiegers!

Yes, he will be in the archives after 6 May. [Interjections.]

Initially the municipality asked the SATS to demolish the buildings, but since than they have become aware of the demand for these buildings. They requested that the plans for the demolition be stopped, but in the meantime the SATS has been asking for tenders for the demolition. I want to ask the hon the Minister not to accept a tender for the demolition, but to negotiate with the municipality of Uitenhage for a fair price. Perhaps it can be a gift, as the hon member for Algoa suggested. The community of Uitenhage would appreciate that very much.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Uitenhage said he was very happy to hear about the major changes that lie ahead for the SATS as a result of the National on Transport Policy Study. One could just mention that time and time again one commission after the other finds that the Government’s policy in many areas is usually wrong. We could think of labour, influx control, housing, urbanisation and so on. It is clear to me that the hon NP members measure success by the number of times they realise they were wrong. However, this is what happens if one wears blinkers. [Interjections.]

Firstly, I want to tell the hon the Minister that I am going to support his undertaking the minute I have finished speaking because I have to take the 6 pm plane back to Durban. Therefore when I leave here it will not be because I do not want to listen to the debate.

Since 1981, when I started participating in debates on Transport Affairs, it has always been pleasant for me. It is what I have always done in my private life, before I came to Parliament. Transport has always been my major interest. If the hon the Minister were to look at my previous speeches he would see that I have never indulged in petty politics, but have always discussed transport policy. If I had not done so here in the House, I would have done so in any event outside the House. In 1980 I was engaged in postgraduate study at Tukkies and was on the point of starting research on phase 1 of the Transport Study Programme. However, then came the election and I had to come and discuss transport affairs here in the House.

Something that gives me great satisfaction is that the White Paper now being Tabled contains all those ideas that the Official Opposition and I had for years been begging the Government to carry out. A few important points of conflict still remain in the transport study plan but these will be discussed when we deal with the hon the Minister’s Transport Vote. One can only say that it is now chiefly a matter of the implementation rather than the substance of the new transport policy study as such, in connection with which there is in my opinion great interest and satisfaction among all engineers and professional people. However, one further point that is disturbing and discouraging me, and I am not certain whether the department itself also …

Order! Too many hon members are now talking at once. I called upon only the hon member for Greytown to speak. The hon member may proceed.

I am becoming a little discouraged and I am certain the officials feel that way, too, because they are being held up because of the Government’s lack of political direction. The one Act that was needed to be able to begin implementing the plans was the Bill dealing with the transport advisory board. In the first half of the session last year it was almost ready to be piloted through Parliament. We then had the second short session that failed. I think that ultimately the whole implementation will be delayed by almost a whole year. The delay we are experiencing at present is because despite the fact that Transport Affairs is a general affair, it now simply has to wait because the White Ministers’ Council first has to go and seek a mandate.

†In my capacity as a member of Parliament, and especially as an opposition MP, I am often approached by workers in the SATS and the Public Service. They come to me with problems they experience in their work situation. Some of these difficulties relate to personal problems and others to problems relating to efficiency or irregularities. I am not trying to create the impression that there are gross irregularities in the Public Service or the SATS, but I do want to give a number of examples to motivate the proposal I want to make to the hon the Minister now.

The proposal I want to make to the hon the Minister is that he should appoint an ombudsman to deal with delicate matters which members of staff may wish to bring to the attention of their superiors, without fear of being victimised. Often their immediate superiors are the subject of the problems these people experience and the workers get totally frustrated because they cannot break through the barriers to get to the next level of authority. The proposal will also be in line with the principle that the accused cannot be the investigating officer and the judge all at the same time.

The first example I want to mention is that of a SATS worker. He lived in Newcastle where he was a maintenance electrician. He had 20 years’ service. He was a member of the DR Church and a deeply religious person. His superior was an “ouderling” in the church too.

Then this man joined a charismatic church movement and immediately he was ostracised in that particular community. He was moved out of his house into a smaller flat. He was given duties different from those he normally undertook and, in general, this person became so dissatisfied that he finally applied for a transfer. That request was turned down and he finally became so unhappy that he made enquiries at another centre and found there were vacancies in the same category of work that he was doing. He resigned, went to the other centre and applied to be reappointed there. They told him he would only be reappointed if he went back to where he had come from, ie Newcastle, where he experienced these problems.

At this stage this person came to me. When I investigated this matter a file was immediately produced to show that this person was most irresponsible, dishonest etc. It was such an indictment that one wonders how the SATS could have put up with the person for 20 years anyway. However, be that as it may.

He was for instance accused of dishonestly claiming overtime. Certain files were produced to prove that. I spoke to other workers who confirmed that it was standard practice for someone who was called out in an emergency to actually book the full shift even if it did not take that long. Anyway, this person is now a broken man, and lives on the farm of a friend.

*The second example I want to quote is that of a railway policeman. He retired recently, a little earlier than necessary, because he also tried to expose certain facts, and experienced the same kind of problems. He was concerned about the security at goods sheds after the amalgamation of the SA Police and the SA Railway Police. He tried to raise the matter for consideration, could not manage to do so anywhere, and as I said in the end was treated in such a manner that he simply decided to accept an early retirement.

One Saturday morning he invited me to accompany him through a goods shed, to go and have a look. We went in ordinary civilian clothes in an ordinary motorcar. We were allowed to drive into the goods shed and wander around among the parcels that were lying there. We could have made off with loads of booty because not once did anyone ask us what we were doing there. This man also maintains that claims as a result of theft have increased dramatically since the amalgamation. Could the hon the Minister perhaps give us a figure in this connection?

In respect of the last example I want to mention, I should like to read hon members a letter that was addressed to me. It reads:

I am an old veteran party worker, and worked in elections, door-to-door canvassing and all the other functions that constitute an election campaign. I have variously held committee positions in party branches, including that of chairman, however, not in the PFP, and probably you and I will be fighting on opposite sides again this coming election.

†He then quotes the example of a case where a principal of a school molested little girls but where nothing was finally done about it.

He also quotes another example, saying that he could get a sworn statement about what had happened. I quote:

He goes on to say:

He ends his letter by saying:

*I do not want to quarrel with anyone, Sir. I mentioned these three examples by way of illustration. [Interjections.] I am sure every other member has also encountered examples like these at one time or another.

Why do you not … [Interjections.]

Perhaps the hon member is not listening properly. I had a few cases—I could point out the hon members in this connection—in which people approached NP members of Parliament, received no assistance, and so came to us. [Interjections.] I am sure that if we were to be honest, we would admit that such cases do exist. As I said, I am not trying to create the impression that there were gross irregularities in the Public Service, but I believe that an independent ombudsman not only as far as the Transport Services are concerned, but in every other department, too, could play an important role in dealing with this kind of situation. I am sure this could contribute to what the Government is also striving for, namely open and good government.

Mr Chairman, contrary to the normal course of events, this time I cannot find much fault with the argument the hon member for Greytown put forward in his speech regarding the ombudsman. In respect of the plans that have to be altered and the allegation that we only measure our successes by the degree to which we pursue the politics of others, I want to tell the hon member that I am afraid that he will discover after the forthcoming election that politically, he will have nothing left at all.

I am privileged to welcome the hon the Minister to his new portfolio. When I first came to this House, I noticed that this hon Minister always took the first bus from Acacia Park to here in the mornings. It did not matter if it was raining or if the wind was blowing. This hon Minister would come to work on the very first bus in the mornings. I therefore believe that, like his affable predecessor, he lacks neither dedication nor zeal. I want to point out to the hon the Minister that since he and the SA Transport Services have set out on the welcome path of reform, his path—like that of the National Party— will not always be strewn with roses.

It is a simple fact that in this life there are always those who sow thorns and who are unable to pursue their own course, but who are only too keen to bedevil the path of others.

I believe that the White Paper on Transport is one of the best policy documents I have ever read. There could be other documents from other departments that are good, too, but I have not read a single one that is better.

That is probably the only document you have read.

This document—despite what the hon member for Sasolburg is mumbling there—is an excellent document, and everyone involved with it deserves to be most heartily congratulated. According to my interpretation of this document, I understand that when the contents are implemented, the task that has hitherto befallen the SA Transport Services, viz that it has to be the national carrier, will now fall away. It is therefore probably fitting that we avail ourselves of this opportunity today to thank the SA Transport Services most sincerely for the indispensable service they have rendered—not only to South Africa, but also to Southern Africa. I am sure it is impossible fully to appreciate the true value of the role the SA Transport Services has played in extending the Republic’s leadership status in Southern Africa. That is not all, of course. I am also sure that the role the SA Transport Services has played has made our neighbouring states increasingly aware that their destinies are very closely linked to ours, and that we are an absolute leader on this subcontinent.

Sir, I should like to use the time at my disposal to discuss certain aspects of the phasing out of certain services in the rural areas in particular by the SA Transport Services. I want to make a few remarks with reference to paragraphs 2.3.1, 2.3.4, and 2.3.15 of the policy document—the White Paper. The objectives of the SA Transport Services stated in these are ensuring a safe and reliable transport service for our country which encourages regional development and which is based on an economic principle. These are the points of departure I should like to emphasise in regard to the development and phasing out of services in the rural areas.

Providing a regular and reliable service in the rural areas has become extremely important today. It seems to me that these services have been scaled down by almost 50% in my constituency over the past six years. I accept that there are valid economic reasons for this, which can be proved by the cost accounting method of the SATS. The effect of these steps on the constituency was far-reaching, however, and they have had a negative effect on the development of this rural area. This is not reconcilable with the fundamental principle stated in the White Paper that SATS should encourage regional development. At first, goods and passenger trains used to pass through the constituency from two directions on a daily basis, but we have now reached a stage where passenger trains only pass through the constituency once a day, twice a week, from the one direction, and three times a week from the other direction. One would think that one would only have to wait a day longer for post and parcels, but I want to assure you that we now have the strange phenomenon of post not only being a day or two late, but easily a whole week. What this strange phenomenon can be ascribed to, I do not know. Most probably something goes wrong with the storage and rescheduling of this of this post and parcels.

From the abovementioned particulars it should be very clear that the impact of the scaling down of rail traffic goes much further that the mere transportation of goods. It even has a dramatic effect on other systems of communication, such as the delivery of post in our area. Businessmen and entrepreneurs are simply not in favour of settling in places where the communication routes are long and tedious—no matter how wonderful the other advantages enjoyed by a region—and where they see that in any case these services are either in the process of being phased out, or are being scaled down.

If these “uneconomic” services are phased out, then eventually the mass transportation of coal and the oil pipeline will be all that will remain for the SATS to deal with. Most people want to see these two services privatised in any case. This would mean the end of the Railways, since the more services are phased out, the further behind the rural areas will become, and the more services will have to be further phased out.

Despite the fact that SATS are scaling down their services, there are still restrictive measures applicable to the road transportation of goods, because the goods could be conveyed by rail. I now want to make a plea that in cases where the SATS are scaling down services for economic reasons, all restrictions should first be lifted so that the community can obtain replacement services in the place of those they are going to lose. As matters stand at present, services have been curtailed without there having been an opportunity to protect interests and obtain replacement services.

The reconciliation between the principle of rendering more economic services and moving towards a more market-oriented transport dispensation will therefore have to take place in such a way that the restrictive measures are first removed. The SATS can then be relieved of its duty as national carrier.

One could question whether it is possible in our economy, where there are elements of both the First World and the Third World, to move towards a totally open-market situation as regards our transport services.

The principle of scaling down services as a result of economic considerations poses certain questions. Firstly one could ask whether the SATS is functionally effective to the optimum extent, or whether there are methods whereby effectiveness can be increased further. Here reference is not only being made to economising as a result of scaling down services and a reduction in staff. The reference here is rather to a total replanning in which all the new circumstances of the present environment are taken into account. For example, the mighty think-tank of the SATS—they are truly formidable, and not only on the tennis courts—came together and said that they would not merely try to improve the existing system. They weregoing to see whether they could develop an entirely new operational system. This may, for example, mean that the SATS should make use of facilities already available among its clients, or that clients be permitted to make use of their facilities. Quite probably these matters have already been dealt with in detail in the new White Paper of the SATS.

When I speak about the facilities that already exist among clients I want to mention the following example. On a section of line on which the traffic consists entirely of the bulk transportation of grain and where there is a grain silo at every town, the need for railway staff falls away almost entirely since the cargo as a whole is made up on the client’s sideline and the staff of the client is therefore also able to handle the scheduling, monitoring and documentation of the cargo.

The second question which at present is probably of far greater importance but is at the same time far more complex is the question whether the cost calculation philosophy underlying the cost calculation of the SATS is really fair towards the consumer in the sense that the result of this calculation will entail minimum costs to the client. I broach this matter with considerable diffidence since I appreciate that the members of the SATS who are sitting there and who are really authorities in this sphere can run rings around me as far as this matter is concerned. Nevertheless I feel that it is my duty to touch on this matter today.

There are two angles from which the cost are providing a specific service may be ap-proàched. Firstly there is the method whereby the standpoint is adopted that the service must contribute fully towards defraying both the fixed cost and the variable cost components. The second method is that only the full amount of the variable cost and only part of the fixed cost should be defrayed.

I want to illustrate this point by referring to the unused cattle trucks stockpiled for kilometers on end at Charlestown. How are the transport costs of these trucks calculated? What cost components must be taken into account? In the first instance one must ask what is the variable cost to be taken into account. I contend that in the present surplus rail and official situation only the additional traction energy costs of drawing the trucks and the physical wear and tear of the line should be taken into account since those trucks are in any event not being used at present. The fixed cost component in the operations of the SATS is an extremely important component. Indeed, I venture to say that if we regard salaries, within certain limits, as a fixed cost, then the fixed costcomponent is the single most important component in the total cost of a transport operation for the SATS.

Why are you being so bombastic today?

Sir, the hon member asks why I am being so bombastic today, but it is not I who am being bombastic; it is he who is unable to follow what I am saying at this elevated level. [Interjections.]

Dropping this fixed cost or a substantial part of it would therefore have a dramatic effect on the cost of transport. Therefore the question whether fixed cost should also be recovered in the case where the facility is already idle, or only the variable cost component, is decisive. I am convinced that in the case where we are dealing with the scaling down of services in the rural areas only the latter method should be used. In this specific instance, then, only the variable cost should be recovered. With a distribution of cost like that, if we take only the variable cost component, there is no institution that could compete with the SATS in the transportation of livestock. They could therefore regain the livestock transportation market if they wanted to.

The second question that has to be answered in respect of fixed costs is whether provision must still be made for a replacement cost element in the form of devaluation on all assets of the SATS, or whether on some of them provision must be made only for maintainance costs. The difference between these two methods is the following: If the SATS foresees extensive expansion, as well as improvements in facilities in the future, provision must be made for replacement, but if they do not foresee extensive improvements or expansion in the future, provision must be made only for maintainance costs in the fixed cost component.

Surely the fact of the situation is that huge capital works have been finalised recently. Station buildings, harbours, terminals, improvements to lines and the electrification of lines have been finalised; so much so that at present we are saddled with a huge surplus of all facilities. I am therefore of the opinion that there are no fair grounds for taking all replacements into account in the cost accounting method.

The question to the SATS, for which I have only the highest regard, is this: Which course is it taking? Is it taking the course of claiming devaluation on all assets, or is it adopting the approach that, since we are never going to replace certain asset harbour buildings, for example; I understand they are being let— the SATS would be prepared to allow devaluation on those assets not to be written off? The question as to how the SATS is going to approach this matter, is going to become increasingly relevant in future. The extent to which the SATS is going to succeed in providing services in the future will depend on this.

If the SATS does not provide further services, hundreds of thousands of workers of this great employer will end up in the streets. That will be a sad day for them, for us and for the SATS.

Mr Chairman, I want to link up with the very important questions the hon member for Heilbron posed at the end of his speech. He referred to the large capital works of the SATS and to a large surplus in facilities. He asked the important question about the course being adopted by the SATS. That is the very point I want to take up by asking the hon the Minister this afternoon whether it was not the intention for toll-roads to be a success from the very outset. Were the voters of South Africa not told: Look, this is a new enterprise we are tackling, and the idea is that those travelling on the roads should pay for them. It was actually as if the SATS came along with its disinvestment in advance. In advance it prepared the way: Toll roads are going to be a great success, and if there is one thing that can simply be disinvested in quick order, it is toll-roads.

[Inaudible.]

Toll roads are a failure. Toll roads are a failure at the very outset! According to my information Dr Joop de Loor, the Auditor General, said: “Tol-paaie kan hulleself nie finansier nie.” They cannot pay the interest on the capital. They cannot even do that.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Do toll-roads have anything to do with this debate?

Order! I am listening to the hon member. We will see how his argument develops. I think the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central has a point. I will listen carefully to the hon member.

The hon the Minister must tell us this afternoon whether a thorough study was made of this whole matter. Is our information correct that only the situation in Japan was studied, and not the situation in a place such as West Germany? It is such action on the part of the Government—the hon member also referred to this— that shocks us. When it comes to railways, roads, transport or whatever, illusions are conjured up and a great fuss is made of “great successes”, whilst from the very outset they do not meet the requirements. So when we speak of these great capital works in the sphere of transport in general in South Africa—the railways and so on—let me ask the hon the Minister if he would not, at the very outset, use his influence—he has a new broom with which he can sweep clean—to ensure that instead of large new capital works such as railways and toll-roads being tackled, existing roads should rather be improved. They must acknowledge that they should not have made the mistake of spending these enormous sums on this undertaking which is nothing more than a dream.

I now come to another point I want to make. I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether he, as the new Minister holding this office, cannot tell us how the subsidies on Black bus transport are comprised. According to my information this subsidy amounts to …

Order! The hon member should really come back to the Bill now. I have allowed him to refer to the toll-roads by way of an example, but he really must come back to the measure under discussion. The hon member may continue.

I am making this appeal, Sir, because this hon Minister is a new Minister, who could perhaps make his influence felt in this sphere. Surely these are related matters. The two are very closely related, and we are eager to gain information on how these subsidies are determined. It is true that a White Paper on the National Transport Policy was submitted to Parliament, but in this connection it contained only a few platitudes and nothing more.

Order! The hon member must please heed my ruling. I have allowed him to speak in general terms, by way of an example, but he cannot devote his entire speech to matters that do not fall within the ambit of this measure. The hon member may continue.

Sir, I conclude by asking this hon Minister to use his influence to tell us how the subsidies are comprised— ie what the component parts are—particularly as regards the profits relating to subsidies on Black transport in South Africa—the buses and the trains. I hope the hon the Minister will use his influence in this regard to give us information, because we cannot obtain that information. I am therefore asking the hon the Minister to put his cards on the table and tell us how that subsidy is comprised.

Mr Chairman, it is very clear to me now that the hon member for Sasolburg knows very little about how the Railways really works. [Interjections.] Apparently he is under the erroneous impression that toll roads and locomotives and trains are all the same kind of thing. It is very clear to me, therefore, that he is quite confused and that he is dreaming and seeing illusions which eventually spread even to Sasolburg. [Interjections.] I know the hon member will not be present tomorrow night when we take leave of the former Minister of Transport Affairs, Mr Hendrik Schoeman—apparently he is going to some place in his constituency—but despite that I invite him to come, because then he will be able to hear much more about what is involved in Transport Affairs.

Today, 12 February, is a meaningful day. In fact, it is an exceptional day for me. The cornerstone of the interesting building next to us was laid today, and it is with a measur of nostalgia that one realises that one will have no part in the inauguration of that larger Parliamentary building. One will probably also think back on this House with a measure of nostalgia.

This day in February is also an exceptional day for me because it was on 21 February 1978 that I sat in this historical House for the first time. Today, after a period of nine years, I want to say that it is an immensely interesting place, as well as an immensely dignified place, and a place of great decisions.

Why have I grown to love this place so much? I shall tell hon members why: It has been my university. Because I never had the opportunity to attend a higher educational institution, I ended up here and received my “university education” here—both in the Other Place from which I had come, and in this place. We always spoke about the Other Place. When we were in the Senate, we referred to this House as the Other Place, and when we were in this House, we referred to the Senate as the Other Place. [Interjections.]

This is an institution, with its helpful staff, its Secretariat and those who maintain law and order. We have wonderful people here, such as Mr Speaker and the Chairman who sits in the Chair, the helpful members of staff in the library, as well as those of the Post Office and the catering services, and those who arrange the reservations. These are all people who have served us with great diligence.

I also pay tribute to the former hon Minister of the SATS, Mr Hendrik Schoeman, today. He has a fine sense of humour, but he is also a very profound person. He often made fun of me. I remember the time when we went to Walvis Bay by train and went to catch all the fish there. I have never caught as many fish in my life. One could draw big heaps of them out onto the beach. There was a large party in Walvis Bay that night, and he then told the audience: “There was Mr Sporie van Rensburg. He asked me on the train last night: ‘Mr Minister, is there at least a nice young thing we can take out here tonight?” [Interjections.] Well, that was his sense of humour and I appreciated it.

Perhaps I should tell hon members this story as well. I nearly forgot to tell this one. My wife is sitting over there. She witnessed this particular incident that took place on the Trans-Karoo, on the way from Johannesburg.

The whistle had been blown and the train was about to leave when a porter came panting up with about 24 pieces of luggage. He carted bowls, shelves and a hundred and one other things, even—if I may use an English word—a “Pink Panther”. He put everything in our compartment; all 24 of those packages. Eventually a little ballet teacher came along and joined us in the compartment. The hon the Deputy Minister of National Health witnessed this. [Interjections.] He saw what was going on.

Eventually she jumped onto the suitcases and sat there. My wife asked her: “Are you in the right compartment, my dear?” She said yes, she was in the right compartment. To my relief I then ascertained that she was travelling with us only to Potchefstroom, because otherwise I should have had to leave that compartment.

Either you or your wife! [Interjections.]

Yes, one of us would have had to sleep somewhere else that night! [Interjections.]

I am very sorry that Mr Speaker is not here today.

I then asked her where she came from, and she told me that she had already spent two days travelling with her luggage from George. I do not know whether or not the hon member for George is here. Oh, there he is. Now, after having been in George for a week, she was returning to Potchefstroom. I said that she was travelling from one place to the other very quickly, and she replied: “You know, the most lifeless place in the world is George.” [Interjections.] She added: “But now I am going to the jolliest place, and that is Potchefstroom.” [Interjections.] That was not the end of the story, however.

Oom Sporie, so then you gave her 24 hours to vacate your compartment!

Yes. Eventually, when I wanted to help her, and tell her … [Interjections.] No, I told her nicely that I would help her to offload all her luggage at Potchefstroom.

I got ready to offload all that luggage, but do you know what happened, Sir? When the train stopped, she had jumped through the window like a flash. I have never seen such an agile girl. [Interjections.]

That is the kind of drama that takes place on the Trans-Karoo, and which I hope will encourage hon members to make more use of trains, because it seems they are longer earth-dwellers.

Oom Sporie, was her name Sheila?

I also want to ask the people who are sitting there in the officials’ bay—the top management of the SATS—when last they travelled by train. Most of the time they travel by aeroplane. It is high time that we travelled by train again. My wife and I enjoyed the luxury of coming to the Cape on the Blue Train recently. The hon member for Kempton Park was on that train as well. We were playing at being rich.

At present there are people from abroad who return and seek tour guides on these trains. A woman from England who was a journalist asked me whether Blacks could travel on that train as well. I suggested that she ask the controller. He said that only the previous week they had had 46 Blacks from Soweto on the train. We must make information available to people on this kind of train.

There is a book on that Blue Train in which the passengers can write their names, addresses and remarks, and I read the following in it: “You have got the diamonds and you have got the gold in the Republic of South Africa, but what a precious jewel the Blue Train is.” When one reads that, one feels it is something to be proud of.

I should like to convey my very sincere congratulations to the hon the Minister on his appointment. I am the chairman of the Club 77, of which he has been a member since it was established, this year. We still have a lot to talk about, therefore. The hon the Minister has really made rapid progress, and I know that with his insight and discernment he will make a great success of Transport Affairs.

I also want to tell the wife of the hon the Minister, who was involved in the welfare department of the SATS, that she is going to achieve much in this department. I also congratulate the hon the Deputy Minister who is going to assist the Minister.

It is not pleasant to have to take leave of hon members today. Although I have no railway people in my constituency, some of my supporters decided to give me a gift. I brought it along to the House today. They had a painting of a locomotive made for me— the 15F-locomotive—and I think this is an exceptional painting, which everyone will appreciate.

I merely want to tell the people who wrote such a lot in the newspapers—I have good friends in the newspaper world—of whom many wrote well and others not so well. They said I have derailed, but—if I look like this painting—do I look as if I can derail? The locomotive is polished and shining. She is going to move again any moment. I can see her whistling, the steam is visible. She has plenty of coal and water. I have not derailed. I shall be on a new track when the time comes, and the future will show which track it will be. Then this locomotive will move on again.

In one’s life, one eventually comes to a point at which one has to make important decisions, and when one makes an important decision, one has to follow it through. One must not go halfway after making a decision. I made a decision to show until the end that I was not afraid to enter into a political battle, because politics is my life. I have established branches of the Junior NP with the present hon State President since I was 12 years old. I am quite prepared to do again what I have done, and to go even further.

I want to convey my thanks today to all the hon members of all parties, also those on the Standing Committee on Transport Affairs. I also want to thank the hon members in the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives. I have reached a better understanding of human dignity, and of the fact that South Africa can be developed, also with people from other races. During our last tour the certificate I have here in my hand was granted to me as it was to other members. I thank hon members for thinking of me. It reads:

It was signed by Mr Braam le Roux (Regional Manager).

Hon members see, therefore, that one can go far with one’s knowledge of roads. This has nothing to do with toll roads! [Interjections.]

I am very grateful for all the opportunities hon members have given me. I do not want to say much more today, because in the past, when I told hon members stories, they said that they were fabrications. I once showed hon members the baboon in this book which operated the lever of the signal at Uitenhage station. Hon members did not want to believe me. [Interjections.]

There were other cases in which hon members did not want to believe me, but I did not have a photographer everywhere. There was the case in the Lowveld of the station-master who had to run all along the track as fast as he could, because a lion was chasing him. Just when the lion wanted to catch him, the station foreman switched the points, and the lion was sidetracked. [Interjections.] The station-master’s life was saved! There was no photographer when this happened, otherwise I could have proved it to hon members. [Interjections.]

I am pleased that I could change a constituency like Rosettenville into a National one. When people had to vote about a Republic, more than 8 000 people voted for the monarchy and only 2 000 for the Republic. I am pleased, however, that I was privileged to be able to win the seat with a majority of 2 988 votes in 1977. The seat was a Labour seat once, and then a UP seat before we made it National.

I am sorry that I shall not be able to open the new post office which is to be built in Rosettenville, in July 1988. I fought for it for nine years. There will be 3 100 post-boxes and the building will probably cost almost R1 million. It is something Rosettenville can be proud of in my opinion.

In the second place I am sorry that we could not provide sufficient housing there, because there is not enough land. I know the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works is very sympathetic towards us and that he will help Rosettenville to establish something to be proud of there.

In addition I hope that the South Rand Hospital can be developed further, and will not disappear. The people there are in desperate need of a hospital, particularly for the care of our aged and infirm people.

In the fourth place I have committed myself irrevocably—and I make no secret of that—to maintaining the Group Areas Act in Rosettenville under all circumstances. I know that will happen, because the people who live there are poor and they want the Group Areas Act to be maintained.

In conclusion I want to say that I enjoyed representing those people here very much. I enjoyed it very much when someone telephoned me on a Sunday, for example, and said: “Oom Sporie, the neighbours’ dog has just stolen my chicken from the table.” [Interjections.] A man once telephoned me at three o’clock in the morning and said: “Oom Sporie, that tree that you could not manage to have removed, has just been blown over by the wind.” [Interjections.]

I leave here without any bitterness towards any political party. I have never tried to offend people. My own people have supported me, the Opposition has tolerated me, and I thank them for that. Most of all I thank the Heavenly Father, for whatever talents I may have, as well as good health, and who has brought me to where I am today. I am a cheerful person, and I am cheerful as I leave this place today. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Rosettenville will not take it amiss of me if I do not react to his speech this afternoon.

It is an exceptional privilege to represent the constituency of Claremont in this House. I am sincerely grateful for the confidence shown in me by the voters of Claremont. I am profoundly aware that I, as the new member for Claremont, represent a constituency in which I shall have to follow in the footsteps of other members who have done an exceptional of representing that constituency here, to the extent that their standpoints and vision of our country and its people coincide with mine I shall attempt to follow in their footsteps, with the qualification that I do not envisage following, in the literal sense, in the footsteps of my immediate predecessor!

In my first contribution in this House I should like to dwell briefly on one of the most rapidly growing problems confronting our modern society. I refer to the fact that our society is increasingly becoming an unsafe place to live in. Here I am not referring to any possible threats to our security or safety in the broader international sphere; I am referring to the lack of security experienced to an increasing degree by our ordinary citizens in their residential areas.

The fact is that the problem is not going to go away, but will indeed continue to grow in intensity. In a society such as ours in which unemployment is on the increase we shall have to accept the reality that crimes such as theft, assault with intent to rob, and other crimes that go hand and hand with unemployment and a lack of income, will be on the increase. A steadily increasing number of commuters is using our suburban train services to get to work every day. I believe that this is a trend to be encouraged. Although the increase in the number of commuters making use of the train services has had a positive effect on the traffic situation, it has unfortunately—it has been quite impossible to prevent this—resulted in considerable crowding at our stations. These people are, in the nature of the matter, ideal targets for the criminal elements in that area. This, in conjunction with the fact that a large percentage of commuters are from the poorest section of our population, means that we can expect an increase in the crime rate in the areas to which I have referred.

†When, until the middle of last year, I represented the Groote Schuur constituency in the now defunct provincial council, and now that I represent Claremont in this House, I have come face to face with the problem caused by the fact that the Cape Town to Simon’s Town railway line runs straight through the middle of the southern suburbs of the peninsula. This has obviously resulted in a large number of people continuously having to cross the railway line. Most of those who are forced to cross the railway line on foot are the elderly who do not have transport of their own or who are scared to drive a vehicle on our over-congested roads, or the young. Both the elderly and the young are people who have no choice but to cross the line in order to go shopping, visit a bank or a building society, or to go to school or to church. Virtually without exception all these people—the young and the elderly—have to cross the line by means of one of the few hundred subways that exist in greater Cape Town.

As regards these subways it is my experience that most of them are dark, dirty, dingy deathtraps where those who dare to use them are sitting ducks for criminal elements. Over the past 6 years I have spoken to and have received letters from hundreds of residents who have been mugged, whose bags have been snatched and who have been assaulted or molested in different ways.

What is so very disturbing is the fact that it is especially the elderly who are affected most severely by this increase in crime. I am sure hon members will agree with me that it is a totally unacceptable situation that our senior citizens—people who have given a lifetime of labour to our society—should on a daily basis be exposed to such dangers. Surely they deserve a better deal than this sort of terrorism.

However, it is not only the elderly who form an easy target for criminal elements. Our youth, our school-going boys and girls— more specifically our girls—are regularly accosted in subways by individuals who resort to various kinds of deviant behaviour.

This general decrease in safety in our sub ways has automatically resulted in a decrease in the number of people using these subways. This again has detrimentally affected our already seriously congested roads with more and more commuters reverting to the use of their cars.

I trust hon members will allow me to illustrate this problem by singling out one specific subway in my own constituency where the problem I believe is truly severe. That is the subway that is situated at the northern end of the Claremont station platform.

Since the recent introduction of a new ticket system by the SATS at Claremont station and since changes were made to the access points to the subway, muggings, bag snatchings and other criminal acts in the subway have increased at an alarming rate. Muggings have become virtually daily occurrences in this specific area.

After having studied the problems at this and other subways carefully over a number of years I do believe there are alternatives available to eliminate the dangers of the subways. I would like to touch briefly on some of these.

*In the first place I believe that it will be possible to make an exceptionally good start by ensuring that the stations, the immediate surroundings of the stations and the nearby subways are rendered safer by way of police patrols. That is a first proposal.

In this regard I should like to place on record the fact that in all the cases in which I have approached the SA Police to provide more protection, the reaction has always been exceptionally helpful and positive. Also as regards the situation at this specific subway in Claremont, police patrols were dramatically increased after I had made representations in this regard to the station commander in Claremont. I should be neglecting my duty were I not to convey my thanks to him and his staff today for this positive reaction.

†However, the problem will not really be solved by having more and more police patrols. I believe that would be merely treating the symptom. Subways are after all by their very nature unsafe and will always remain so. I believe the only solution lies in looking for alternative ways of crossing the railway line.

Although pedestrian bridges, and specifically ramp-style pedestrian bridges, are the obvious alternative, the cost is astronomical—approximately R300 000 per bridge. I believe in these difficult economic times it is not feasible to expect subways to be replaced by pedestrian bridges.

This dilemma of on the one hand wanting to eliminate dangerous subways and on the other hand not having the finance to replace them with pedestrian bridges is forcing more and more people to take another look at the frequently scorned pedestrian level crossings. Although for obvious reasons not completely safe, such pedestrian level crossings—I stress “pedestrian”—are much cheaper to erect. The approximate cost of such a pedestrian level crossing with electronically operated booms is estimated to be R50 000. Besides costing less such a level crossing will, in view of the greater visibility factor, virtually eliminate the crimes which are a plague in the subways.

* As regards the specific situation at the subway at the Claremont Station, I want to make an urgent appeal to the SATS to close the subway and replace it with a railway crossing for pedestrians. My request today is that the SATS review the problem and that they decide that the subway should no longer remain there and that alternatives be investigated. It must be done now, before someone is killed there.

Finally I want to state clearly that I believe that we have a duty to ensure that the elderly in our community in particular, people who have served the entire community throughout their best years, are able to spend their last years in a relatively safe environment. The present situation at our railway stations, and particularly in the many subways in our suburbs, certainly do not constitute circumstances that we can recommend or permit to continue any further.

I can only express the heartfelt wish that this situation will be tackled by the SATS as a matter of urgency.

Mr Chairman, I should like to congratulate the hon member for Claremont on his speech. I realise that he spent most of it discussing his constituency. The matters he raised here are very important and I believe the hon the Minister will provide him with an answer. In any event I want to wish him all the best for his period of service in this House.

In these extremely difficult times the Sats has been able to keep its head above water and achieve success, as we have heard here today in the Budget speech, something that in my opinion can really be ascribed, inter alia, to four very important factors. Firstly, the SATS has at its disposal a very capable management team and staff which have given of their best and continue to do so. The staff's great contribution lies secondly in the fact that this could lead to greater productivity. One could add to that the cost reduction programme. Fourthly, there was an aggressive marketing action to achieve everything they wanted to achieve, and to regain everything they had lost.

These four factors make up a winning formula that is being applied by the SATS. It is also what is behind their success. I believe the private sector could make very good use of this winning formula and could apply it in the private sector, too. I believe there would then also be far fewer bankruptcies such as those we have heard about recently. [Interjections.]

When I had to choose a topic for my address this afternoon, and also because I would ultimately have to come to the farewell, I thought it appropriate to emphasise in this speech the key role that transport plays in a country, particularly, inter alia, in its economic life.

The history of South Africa is really the history of transport. It was the discovery of diamonds and the mining of gold on the Witwatersrand that gave rise to the need for a transport system, and it essential. The railway lines that have from time to time been laid down from our various harbours to the gold and diamond fields have contributed to the development of the interior. Without them our agriculture and industries would have been left far behind. It is in this area that the railway lines, which cut across our country, play a major role.

After these railway lines came road transport, and after 1934, Union Airways was taken over. This meant a further addition to inland traffic. The first oil pipeline was also laid. All these modes contributed to the development of the country. Today the SATS is the largest company in South Africa and it plays an extremely important role in maintaining the economy of this country. To try to prove this one has to be very selective in one’s approach because there is so much to which one could refer. I want to point out certain statistics only.

There are 36 000 km of railway line, 5 000 locomotives, 180 000 goods trucks and 10 000 railway passenger coaches. We have an airline that boasts 40 of the best aeroplanes in the world, represents more than 4 million passenger journeys, and transports 432 000 tons of cargo. Close on 13 000 ships call at our developed harbours every year. There are approximately 23 000 vehicles cutting across our country from east to west and from north to south. We transport approximately 256 million tons of goods annually, and provide transport for approximately 690 million passengers.

For example, in one day Johannesburg station deals with an average of 694 trains, and Cape Town station deals with 807. As I said, our harbours deal with about 13 000 ships and 95,1 million tons of cargo per year. Our coal exports via Richards Bay amount to 40 million tons per year. Durban deals with 61% of our country’s export cargo. Sir, if we add to this the pipelines as well, we should have an idea of what the SATS, seen only in the light of these statistics, means to the country.

I have mentioned this merely to give an indication of what an extensive organisation the SA Transport Services is. Furthermore, I want to point out that the Railways has 221 730 staff members in its service. These people must be paid. Every month they receive their salaries or wages. This comes to an enormous amount—R2 622,7 million. These almost 250 000 people have to be housed; they have to eat. There is a home ownership scheme that offers a 100% subsidy, in terms of which 41 201 properties have already been purchased at a cost of R991,8 million. During the past year alone, R94,3 million was made available to the staff. Accommodation was provided for 1 840 Brown staff members, 543 properties for Indians, and 1 561 properties for Blacks since 1984. I shall let this suffice in my attempt just to give hon members an indication of what significance the SA Transport Services has for people in our country’s economy. Altogether 7 417 apprentices are being trained in 39 trades. During last year alone R4,8 million was spent on timber, of which 70,6% was of South African origin. Coal to the value of R15 million was purchased. R45 million was spent on the purchase of srock, while contracts for railway building materials totalling R68 million were concluded. The total value of the materials provided and produced amounts to R1 658 million.

Add to this all the industries that have to manufacture these products used by the SA Transport Services—the rails, electric cables, electric motors, leather for the cushions on trains and aeroplanes, factories that build railway coaches, trucks and buses, vegetables and meat which are used by the refreshment services, and so on—and I hope I have succeeded in giving as concisely as possible an idea of the significance of the SA Transport Services for the economy of South Africa.

In conclusion—as far as this matter is concerned—I should also like to pause for a moment at the role the SA Transport Services plays in our relations with our neighbouring countries. Unfortunately time is catching up with me and I shall not be able to do justice to this aspect. The SA Transport Services still has good liaison and still maintains good business relations with the railway administrations of other South African states.

Last year we extended the railway line between Komatipoort and Mpaka, in Swaziland. This in turn provided a welcome link with the harbour at Richards Bay.

The SA Transport Services plays a very important role in our relations with our neighbouring states. It causes our neighbouring states to realise that we need each other. Whereas the countries in Southern and Central Africa moved further away from one another after their independence as a result of ideological differences, the railway network remained a symbol of enduring unity. I should just like to read to the House a short extract from a document written by a former general manager of the SA Transport Services. He says:

I could carry on in this vein, Sir. However, I shall let that tribute to the role played by the SA Transport Services suffice—the SA Transport Services with which over the years I have had very important links, particularly also as far as the Airways is concerned, because it figures very prominently in my constituency. It has always been a great honour for me to be able to maintain a very close relationship with the Transport Services.

However, when one says farewell there are, as Oom Sporie said, a whole lot of things that come to mind. I am not going to try to imitate hon Oom Sporie. In any event he can do it much better than I can. He had me very worried when he said he wanted to help her, and then she jumped through the window. Probably, one could not blame her! [Interjections.]

I think with pride of the good friends I have made in the ranks of the SATS, and particularly in SAA. The ground staff, the flight staff and the cabin crew; I want to thank them all for the opportunity I had to get to know them and to work with them because I know that they are in the front line when it comes to selling South Africa.

Together with my old friend I think with pride of the occasions I travelled on the Blue Train. All the credit for this wonderful experience goes to the SATS. The value of this train cannot be measured in money because this pride of South Africa is far more important than merely the revenue it earns. I do not mean to say that it should run at a loss. It is, however, my plea that we do not underestimate the achievements of the Blue Train. I have been to Canada occasionally and a man there asked me whether I could not help him to reserve a place on the Blue Train. He had been here the previous year and had the opportunity to travel on the Blue Train. However, he then wanted to book places for a group of golfers, but when he tried to book there were no seats available. At that stage the Blue Train was full. He said to me: “You can name your price, but those twelve people that are coming to play golf with me in South Africa must have a chance to travel on your wonderful Blue Train.”

To be able to travel on that train was one of my greatest experiences. Keep it that way, and improve it if it is in any way possible.

There are other things, too, that one thinks back on, such as the opportunities all the parties present in this House and outside had to go on tours with the SATS. These are opportunities I would not have wanted to miss, and they were highlights in my life. There was the journey between Sishen and Saldanha, and the time at Walvis Bay. I still remember that at one particular stage the hon member Dr Frans van Staden stood on the table, if I still remember correctly. We had a wonderful party. I could carry on mentioning examples like these.

There were visits to Esselen Park College and the Central Rand marshalling yard. That reminds me. I wonder how many people in South Africa know of that tremendous development and that wonderful achievement.

I think it would be good for South Africa and our people if the SATS were to make a video recording of this marshalling yard and show it to our people on television. I saw the other day that in Germany—I think it was there—something similar was shown. We have overtaken them in that respect and I believe there is still much we can do in this respect.

In conclusion I should like to express my appreciation for the sincere co-operation I have received in this House over the years. I thank the commissioners, the General Manager, Dr Grové, his deputy general managers and the assistant general managers. I see the Director-General of the Department of Transport Affairs, Mr Eksteen, here and I also want to thank him, as well as the staff of the office of the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister. I also thank the staff of the office of the General Manager, the private secretaries and the parliamentary officials. Oh, Sir, I shall need far more time to do justice to the thanks I want to convey to everyone I had anything to do with during this time—and it was a long time. My thanks to the hon the Minister, the hon the Deputy Minister and all hon members of the select committee and the standing committee with whom we were able to work together in a pleasant atmosphere over a long period. Thank you very much for that co-operation. I shall always think back with pride to my links with the SATS. My best wishes accompany the SATS in the future.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of this side of the House I should like to begin by congratulating the hon the Deputy Minister on his appointment. We wish him everything of the best for his period of service. We do not want to say anything how long or about how short the period is going to be …

About three months or so.

We should like to wish him everything of the best. [Interjections.] My colleague, the hon member for Nigel, has been the secretary of our party’s transport group since the inception of this party, and he is one of the hon members of the House who thought has fit not to return to the House after the next election. We just want to thank him very sincerely for the way in which he has done his work and has held his own as secretary of our group. He is one of those who, when asked to do something, does it promptly and conscientiously. We shall always remember him as someone who, as far as we are concerned, made a contribution here. We all know that he was the successor to the late Mr John Vorster in Nigel. Nigel is, of course, a place that has a great deal to do with transport since it is the place where the rolling stock for the Railways is manufactured.

The railway Une that begins down here in Cape Town, and runs the whole length of South Africa, ends at Beit Bridge, on the banks of the Limpopo. [Interjections.] Does the hon Chief Whip of Parliament have something to say?

No, I am not talking to you. [Interjections.]

That railway line ends at Beit Bridge. Many years ago I asked my grandmother when that railway line was built, and she told me—in the vernacular of the older people—that it was in ’12. I do not know whether the railway line stretched all the way to the Limpopo even then, but for more than 70 years, except when floods, rockfalls or something of that nature occurred, a passenger train traversed that line every day. That passenger train went to the very northernmost border of South Africa. On 3 November, however, that train service was stopped. It was stopped because it was a so-called inter-city train service and formed part of the 42% curtailment of services to which the hon the Minister referred in his speech.

I, and several in the North, made representations to the hon the Minister’s predecessor to retain that passenger service. The hon the Minister, however, did not see his way clear to doing so, and he wrote me a letter in which he divulged the reason for the termination of that train service. In the letter mention was made of the decreasing numbers of passengers and of the unutilised intercity train. He then said that because of the poor support for the train service in question, he had no other choice but to terminate the service on that date.

Listening to the Government, it would seem as if there is only one aspect that applies as far as the Government is concerned, and that is that a Government service should be profitable. It seems as if the Government has forgotten that the State furnishes certain services to the community which do not necessarily have to be profitable. If the South African Railways only discovered last year that that passenger service was not a paying proposition, it probably had its eyes shut throughout the preceding 70 years, because I do not think that service was ever really a paying proposition.

Other governments furnished such services—as a service to the community; as a source of prestige for one’s country in the fact that one has a passenger service that reaches to the very furthest border of the country. Now I am sent a letter, however— and it is not the hon the Minister himself who wrote this letter—to the effect that that was an inter-city train. The letter is written as if this train were marshalled at Louis Trichardt, went to Messina, turned around at Messina and went back to Louis Trichardt. That train, however, was the mainline train that left Johannesburg for the North each evening, stopping inter alia at Louis Trichardt and always going through to Messina.

It is a train that has sleeping cars.

That is correct. It is a train that has sleeping cars. It is the most convenient train in the whole country for anyone to travel on.

And this hon Minister’s predecessor writes me such absolute nonsense about the fact that if this train were to run to Louis Trichardt, they would have to bring empty coaches from Pretoria when those coaches standing at Messina have to be repaired. In the light of the submission made by this hon the Minister’s predecessor—which contains so many incorrect suppositions—I want to ask this hon Minister to take a proper look at the matter.

In the letter mention is made of an intercity train. I do not know whether mainline trains are regarded as inter-city trains, but it would appear to me as if this is indeed the case.

In the letter I was also told that national servicemen do not make use of the trains on weekends. That is perhaps true, but they forget that there is a large military base at Messina and that there are national servicemen who go home to their people on weekends, and also during the week—although they are not transported as a unit. Those national servicemen, from commanding officers to privates, make use of that train service. The times I have travelled on that train—and there have been many—there have always been national servicemen on the train.

In the letter I was also informed that the train was, in fact, supported by people of colour and that arrangements had been made to furnish them with a service from 3 November. Those Blacks make great use of the line between Waterpoort and Mara. They go there for their pensions, medical services and so on. The train journey from Waterpoort to Mara is approximately 12 to 15 minutes in length. The 11 kilometres costs them R1,00. Now they have to travel approximately 100 kilometres from Mara, via Vivo to Waterpoort. This would then cost them R4 to R5 to get to the same spot, and it takes half a day.

An old lady telephoned me in desperation from Messina. “Sir,” she asked me, “could they not please hook on a passenger coach to the goods train, because we cannot travel on that third-class bus. The Blacks do not get up so that we can sit down. ” An old friend of mine living in an old-age home in Messina tells me that one of these trips tired her to such an extent that she was eventually brought to her knees and spent the rest of the trip kneeling. The Black men laughed at her, but not one of them stood up to offer her a seat. Well, that is probably the way things are these days. That is, after all, what these hon members recommend. [Interjections.] Yes, that is what happens. [Interjections.]

I have been informed in writing that as far as possible they try not to hook passenger coaches onto goods trains, but surely this is a case that justifies doing so. I am also told stories of goods trains and shunting yards. Really, Sir, this letter containes the greatest nonsense imaginable. Surely it is a single line that runs right through. When the trains stop at Louis Tnchardt, a passenger coach or two could be hooked on whilst the goods vans were being loaded. The train could then travel straight through Mara, through Waterpoort and stop next to the platform. It would take the express goods through to Messina. It could still travel on schedule. I am told that guard’s vans are not coupled to goods trains, but what I am saying is that in such cases a guard’s van could, in fact, be coupled to a goods train.

Do hon members know what the staff do who do not go through to Messina? They must spend the whole fivelong day waiting at Louis Trichardt until a train leaves again that evening. They lie there waiting in the heat, in time-worn surroundings, instead of having their services utilised up to Messina, as has been done for 70 years. That is why I am asking, for the sake of the public, for the prestige of the SATS and also for the sake of the infrastructure of that area, that this service be reintroduced, if even only on three days of the week, and even if the train is half passenger train and half goods train. I am asking the hon the Minister to give it very serious thought, particularly in the light of the erroneous suppositions contained in this letter.

Mr Chairman,…

Tom, you are so sour; you are wrecking a good case.

Go and …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order : I should like the hon member for Soutpansberg to repeat what he has just said. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member cannot make a speech now, and I do not want to know what he has to say.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: Is an hon member entitled to swear at another hon member in this House? I cannot repeat what he said.

Mr Chairman, I did not swear at the hon member. I simply told him to go and fly a kite. I said nothing else to him. [Interjections.]

That is not true!

Order! The hon member for Soutpansberg has told me what he said to the hon member for Turffontein, and I accept that. The hon member for Germiston District may proceed.

He is a disgrace.

He is a fiar!

Mr Chairman, when we talk about the Railways, we are talking about the conveyance of goods and people. We are not getting into a dispute on this matter…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member for Turf fontein allowed to say, in the hearing of other hon members, that the hon member for Sout-pansberg is a liar?

Did the hon member for Turffontein say that?

Mr Chairman, I said the hon member was a liar. I withdraw it and apologise for what I said. The hon member swore at me in this House, however, and he …

Order! That matter has been disposed of.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Can the hon member for Soutpansberg tell the hon member for Turffontein he is a “fieta”?

Order! Did the hon member for Soutpansberg say that to the hon member for Turffontein?

Yes, I did, Mr Chairman, after the hon member had told me I was a liar. I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member has also withdrawn his words now, and the hon member for Germiston District may proceed.

Bye-bye, Tom. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I repeat, when we speak about the SATS today, we are talking about the transport of goods and people in a very effective, economic and quick way. To be able to say that, we must say that it is becoming a more demanding and involved task every day. [Interjections.]

Order! That is enough! The hon member for Germiston District must be afforded a chance to make her speech. The hon member for Kuruman must please not turn his back to the Chair and speak. The hon member for Germiston District may proceed.

Mobility is a basic necessity for us today. This includes the transport of workers to and from their residences by means of commuter services, often covering long distances; children who have to be transported to and from the schools; products that have to go from the producers to the market and the consumer; and machinery, fuel and cars that have to be transported. With our rapid development, all these requirements lead to a growing amount of road traffic, railway traffic and even air traffic, and the workload and the responsibility for the control over this traffic is increasing.

The Transport Services has a colourful and dynamic history. We all know that, and hon members have heard this afternoon how dynamic and colourful it could be for some people. The Transport Services grew from a small organisation to the giant it is today, thanks to all the workers who served this noble enterprise through the years. I should like to compare the Transport Services to a jigsaw puzzle. If one small piece is missing, that whole jigsaw puzzle is incomplete, and that is also the case with the Transport Services. Regardless of whether it is an important or an unimportant person, if someone is missing that jigsaw puzzle cannot be perfect.

Through the years every person, irrespective of his importance, as I said, has contributed to building up this mighty giant which has thousands of people throughout our country in its service. The figures were given here today. When one thinks of all the facilities and luxuries the Transport Services provides, one realises that this undertaking performs a great and important service, not only in South Africa, but also way across our borders, as was said here this afternoon.

I have hundreds of SATS officials and railway workers in my constituency. That is why I should like to pay tribute to them today, and to all the other thousands of men and women who contributed to building up the Transport Services in this country. These workers have performed their task faithfully and diligently, and we want to plead for the Minister to think of them, particularly of those whose pensions are insufficient for them to lead a reasonable existence in these times we are living in.

The constantly increasing cost of living consumes the little bit of money that many of these people get, and with the present increases in prices the older people in particular cannot manage any more. Most of them do get a little windfall sometimes by getting a temporary job. We have a number of them in the Parliamentary building who, as service officers, are of great assistance to us in our offices.

I want to pay tribute to the SATS who perform a valuable service, but I also want to pay tribute to the railway workers who can be found in every other sphere in my constituency as well and who perform a community service there in many respects. One finds them in all spheres of life, of which I want to mention only a few. In the church one sees them in the pews of the church council. They are the faithful deacons, the elders and the church members. One also finds them in the cultural sphere. One need only think of the ATKV and the Vrou-en-Moederbeweging which perform such a great social service to underprivileged people in our country.

If the hon the Minister were ever to consider—I think he should do so—erecting a statue for the railway worker, to my mind there is no other place for such a monument than Germiston. The heartbeat of the SATS can be felt and heard very clearly in the shunting yards of this city. To erect this kind of statue would be a gesture of acknowledgement to these people and their families who have to forgo a great deal sometimes because the father of the house works night-shift and they are worried about him. The railways is not only essential, but also contains a great deal of romance. It captures people’s imagination. One thinks of the many poems and songs which are so truly Afrikaans, such as Kimberley se Trein and Sonja Herholdt’s Trein na Matjiesfontein, and then one has not even mentioned all the nursery rhymes about the railways. What about the films and plays and what about Trans-Karoo? The Railways is truly embedded in the Afrikaner culture. The Railways is the hub around which the activities and development of this country revolve. I ask for it to remain in our possession.

In conclusion we want to convey our thanks to everyone who deals with our travelling facilities and reservations. They do so perfectly and make life very much easier for us.

Mr Chairman, the hon member who has just resumed his seat, pleaded for the position of the Railways pensioner to be considered. I am sure the hon member’s plea will not fall on deaf ears. The hon member is correct in saying there are people in our country who are suffering. We are not unaware of that. We also know, however, that people in service of the SATS have received exceptional privileges during the past years and that their conditions of service have been improved considerably. I hope to point out to the hon member on a later occasion—perhaps on Monday—that many of these people do lead an exceptionally good existence. To make the generalisation that only pensioners of the SATS are suffering, is creating the wrong impression, in my opinion. One can indicate just as easily that there are many of them who are not having a hard time in the present circumstances. I told the hon member the plea she had made for the pensioners would not fall on deaf ears. The hon the Minister’s speech also indicates that this matter will be addressed.

In the time at my disposal, before the House adjourns tonight, I should like to say I appreciate the congratulations and good wishes addressed to me by some hon members on the opposite side and on this side on my appointment as Deputy Minister. We listened today to a number of hon members who were making their farewell speeches, hon members who, with us, have had an association with the SATS through the years and have served on the standing committee. I am referring in particular to the hon members for Rosettenville, Kempton Park and Nigel, who all made speeches here about the SATS in the past. I want to pay tribute to all of them and I want to tell them that one was enriched by one’s association with them in this House through the years. In addition to hon members to whom I have referred, I want to make special mention of someone like the hon member for Durban Point.

With the standing committees we had to start something new, an innovation. Every hon member who served on the standing committee played a special part there. I should like to pay tribute to the indulgence, tolerance and the good spirit—above and beyond the common sense—displayed by hon members during discussions. They proved indisputably that the system of standing committees can succeed. They took part in the process of consensus. I can say, without fear of contradiction, that not one hon member of the other Houses who served on the standing committee with us will say that he would rather not be a member of that committee. Hon members of the other two Houses who were members of the standing committee told me personally, again and again, that this had nothing to do with the leadership of the committee, but with the attitude displayed by the members in the committee.

I should like to refer to the hon member for Durban Point in particular. He and I have had a very long association in this House of Assembly. The hon member made his farewell speech here today, and I want to tell him without any doubt that we are going to miss him as one of the hon members of the Opposition in that committee. He made a good contribution, as I know he did in many other standing committees as well.

The hon member for Durban Point always made a study of his subject. In the second lace he was never unfair. In the third place e was sensible in that committee. I have always regarded the hon member as a “ver-ligte”. If one is sensible, one is verlig, but I know a whole number of verligtes who are not sensible. The hon member for Durban Point always looked forward, however, and he was sensible in what he said and in what he wanted to do.

The hon member for Durban Point always added a touch of humour to everything, just like the hon member for Rosettenville did. I must say the hon member for Durban Point added a touch of humour again today when he concluded his speech, because he said: “It is rumoured that over a thousand stations will be closed.” I went and made a few enquiries.

†I found that we have approximately a thousand stations in South Africa. [Interjections.] Perhaps the hon member was referring to all the sidings. I know we have closed a number of stations and a number of sidings over the years. I know that because I farmed in the Karoo for quite a long time and it is quite true that we have closed many sidings.

*If it should be true that we are going to close all the thousand stations in South Africa, I hope that at least the Johannesburg and Cape Town stations will remain open. [Interjections.]

Approximately a hundred will remain open.

Oh! The hon member says approximately a hundred will remain open.

This is the kind of story that is doing the rounds, that dozens of stations are supposedly to close. I have heard those stories too, but I have not run to the SATS with them yet. I have asked people to find out for me where the stories come from. Without doubt there are stories doing the rounds which are creating the impression that the SATS is narrowing its network to such an extent that nothing will remain in the end.

Surely it is not right to create the impression that we are going to close so many hundreds of stations in South Africa. If If stations have to be closed, this is done purely for economic reasons. To my knowledge no station has been closed in South Africa unless there was proper consultation about the matter, particularly with the local authority and the local bodies who would be affected, such as the farming societies etcetera.

If the management and the administration are at all capable of keeping a station or a line open, and there are proper guarantees that someone will be responsible for them, I shall certainly do my very best—I am sure the hon the Minister will do so too—to accommodate those who are involved and to prevent such a station or line from being closed. Of course provision will have to be made in a proper way then. It must be clear who is going to bear the cost, and one should be able to explain why that situation has become uneconomical. If we have that assurance, we shall certainly fight for the rural areas not to become depopulated, and for the facilities there to be extended.

I listened particularly well to the speech made by the hon member for Heilbron. He pleaded for consideration to be given to the infrastructure the transport services provide in the rural areas. This links up with the point I want to make in connection with privatisation. It is so easy to say we must privatise. I am not criticising that idea, but the SATS has approximately 46% of the transport market in South Africa. I should like to know who has the other 54%. Surely the private sector controls it already. If there are facets that can be privatised, that will be done. We are committed to doing so.

I want to come back to the hon member for Heilbron and I also want to speak to the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central, the main speaker on the side of the opposition. What did the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central tell us today, Sir? What has he done in every debate thus far? He is the Official Opposition’s main speaker on transport affairs, but all he did was to vilify the SATS.