Mr. Speaker, allow me to address a brief word of congratulation to the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East). It was only as a result of hard work and thorough study and a sense of duty that he was given this well-deserved promotion, and we want to wish him every further success in his career.

The hon. member for Houghton expressed concern about the accident figure on the Railways. We are all very concerned about the train disasters, but if we look at the Annual Report for 1964-5, on page 25, we find that it is very clear that the number of train accidents has decreased considerably over the past number of years. The years 1954-5 and 1958-9 were the bad years, and 1963-4 was the best year, when only one person was killed and two were injured in train accidents, especially if we think in terms of the tremendous increase in the number of passenger journeys in recent years. In 1949-50 that figure was merely 255,000,000 and in 1964-5 it exceeded 425,000,000. The allegation that the accidents result from a man-power shortage and are caused by over-taxing the staff is not quite correct, because it was precisely in the years when there was a surplus of labour that the number of accidents was much higher than in the past two years of labour shortages. Consequently that argument does not hold water, and if we think of the alarming slaughter on our roads we realize that to travel by train still remains the safest way of getting from one place to another.

After the victory of the National Party and the verdict of the World Court, we expect a tremendous revival in the Republic and an efficient transport system is surely one of the most important factors in the rate of development of a country. The efficiency of one’s entire system is very closely linked up with advance planning and for that reason it is necessary to look back on the record of this Government over the past number of years. Let us look back and consider what happened a few years ago at the time of the Suez Canal crisis when the canal was closed overnight and thousands of ships called at our harbours. At that time the only sea-route between the East and the West was round the Cape and our harbours were simply cluttered up with traffic. It was only as a result of farsightedness, efficiency and ample facilities that it was possible to cope with the extra traffic in our harbours. That was indeed a major achievement on the part of the Railways, but I think that it will be a good thing to bear in mind that that was and remains a warning for the entire Western World. Our strategic situation at the southern point of Africa and the necessity of having a well-disposed Government here are important factors to the West, because our harbours form the link between the East and the West. The importance of our harbours and our airports will increase as relations deteriorate between the West and the African countries, especially if it is borne in mind that control over the Suez Canal is virtually in the hands of Russia.

Further evidence of the efficiency of our Railways is to be found in the fact that the Railways were able to cope with the extra traffic when thousands of tons of iron ore were sold and were suddenly presented to the Railways for conveyance. That was also the case in connection with millions of bags of grain. That is evidence of the Railways’ efficiency.

But rapidly-growing industries and the development of natural resources, the conveyance of raw materials and the manufacture of articles make severe demands on the transport service indeed, and those demands could only be met with the co-operation of the Railway staff, from the highest to the lowest. They have shown over the years that they were prepared to work hard in the interests of the country as a whole, and that was the case because the railwaymen knew that they formed part of the whole and that the Railways’ gain would revert to them eventually. The efficiency of the entire transport system is very closely bound up with the attitude of the railwayman and the relationship existing between the Minister and his staff. Because railwaymen know that the Minister is just and very sympathetic, they are prepared to give that support. The railwayman knows that this Government is the friend of the railway worker and that it knows the needs of those people. It was the Nationalist Government that strengthened the auxiliary funds of railwaymen, that granted salary increases, that provided houses and improved pensions over the years. If we think how the Nationalist Government has counteracted the process of integration on the Railways, we are not surprised that the railwaymen are satisfied. We think of the increased pensions. The figures have been given here, but I want to stress another point. In 1947 there were railway pensioners who retired on a meagre pension of R8.70. I can mention examples. The man who retired in 1947 received R8.70 but to-day he receives R92. I think that speaks volumes. We know that concessions amounting to more than R50,000,000 have been made to pensioners. Take the housing position. If we think back to the days when the United Party was in power, what was the position? Our people were simply living in hovels. The railwaymen were deprived of the few available houses there were and these were given to immigrants and returned soldiers. But what is the achievement of the Nationalist Government over the past years? More than 12,137 departmental houses have been built. More than 7,579 houses have been erected under the house ownership scheme in the last ten years. Under the 10 per cent assistance scheme 10,830 houses have been erected. That gives one a total of more than 30,000 houses erected for these people at a cost of R138,000,000. That is indeed an achievement, and then I am not even referring to all the hostels in which young men are accommodated. As regards salary improvements, the figures are tremendous. The figure has already been mentioned by hon. members, but I want to repeat two figures. The salary improvements over the past 18 years exceeded R192,000,000, and the total—because it is repeated each year—came to an amount of R1,350,000,000, indeed an achievement. This salary increase of R33f million is the direct cause of this contentious increase in tariffs—we are sorry that the increase had to come, but it has been no surprise to us, because we on this side knew that it had to come sooner or later. We realized that we were not allowed to withhold a salary increase from the railwaymen because we were afraid of tariff increases. We realized that those people were doing their utmost, and that the efficiency of the Railways was closely bound up with a happy staff.

At the beginning I spoke about the strengthening of the auxiliary funds. On a previous occasion I mentioned the various auxiliary funds, but I just want to say that these auxiliary funds were virtually depleted in 1948 and that it was this Nationalist Government that paid millions into the funds in order to strengthen them for the protection of the Railways and its officials. The amount with which we strengthened those funds came to a total of more than R500,000,000. I want to emphasize here that even the money in the Rates Equalization Fund, which stood at more than R55,000,000, is money which was made available from surpluses and which was paid into them by this Government for the protection of the railway workers. We realize that it will be a grave error to drain those funds completely as the United Party did in its day—in many instances contrary to the provisions of the funds themselves.

I want to mention a final matter. I have undertaken to finish my speech within a certain time, but allow me, Sir, to mention this final matter. It is the question of integration on the Railways. We realize that segregation is very often discussed here. In this debate reference has been made to discrimination against non-Whites. Mr. Speaker, over the years it has always been the Nationalist Government that maintained the traditional colour bar. In 1924 already this question was a moot point, and the defeat which the then South African Party suffered in 1924 was a direct result of its process of integration. In those days Minister Jagger dismissed Whites and employed non-Whites. In 1948 we experienced a repetition of this process on our Railways. In the eight years immediately preceding 1948 the number of non-Whites in the service of the S.A.R. increased by as much as 67 per cent. It was the United Party with its policy of integration which was making our Railways black. It was continually dismissing Whites and employing non-Whites. Yes, hon. members opposite may shake their heads. The official figures prove my statements. On the other hand, Sir, the number of non-White workers has decreased by 8.3 per cent over the past eight years, while the number of White employees has increased by 11.1 per cent. If we look at the White Paper for the past year, we see that the number of White employees has increased by 2,471 while the number of non-Whites has decreased by 615. Mr. Speaker, in 1948 the Nationalist Government saved the Railways. We know that the growth and development of our country will not be obstructed by the Railways because it has been proved conclusively that there can be no question about the Railways’ efficiency. We know that the railwayman will work even harder to increase the Administration’s efficiency even more to the benefit of our Republic.

Mr. Speaker, I trust that the hon. member who has just sat down will forgive me if I do not comment upon the speech he has just made, because I want to deal with a speech made here yesterday by the hon. member for Bethlehem. One of the features of this debate has been the remarkable change—one might almost call it a transformation—which seems to have come over the hon. member for Bethlehem since his promotion to the Chairmanship of the Nationalist Parliamentary Railway Study Group. I say this, Sir, because about 17 months ago, on the 8th March of last year to be exact, the hon. member delivered an impassioned speech in this House, comprising about three columns of Hansard, which proved to the hon. the Minister most convincingly that he should not carry out the drastic recommendations of the Schumann Commission regarding rates on agricultural produce. His words on that occasion are worth quoting. He said the following—

Yesterday, however, the hon. member for Bethlehem sang a very different tune indeed.

That is the privilege of a Nat.

I think his heart was really in it when he made that plea to the hon. the Minister. But all the hon. member could do this year was to attack the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville and make a somewhat halting apology for the dearer—not cheaper, mind you—transport which the Minister, armed with monopoly powers, has forced upon the citizens of this country with this Railway Budget.

A railway engine went through his heart.

Yesterday the hon. member said—and I do not allege these to be his exact words, but they are the trend of his thoughts—the following regarding this Budget—

Last year the hon. member also said the following—

The hon. member went even further than that, and I quote—

He has forgotten about it now.

Yesterday, however, the hon. member was no longer to be seen in the role of a champion of agriculture. In fact, Sir, he said hardly a word about agriculture, and that at a time when the drought and the credit squeeze have added immeasurably to the difficulties of our farmers. It was quite obvious that the hon. member’s heart was not in his speech which he made yesterday. As a matter of fact, he seemed to be in a somewhat mournful mood because he talked about how it was sometimes necessary to perform an operation to save a patient’s life.

And now he cannot hear.

One wonders, Mr. Speaker, whether it is because the hon. member’s Party now has this huge parliamentary majority that he has forgotten about the distressing condition of our farmers.

The election is over.

Mr. Speaker, admittedly the hon. the Minister has not implemented the recommendations of the Schumann commission as regards agriculture to the full. But he has nevertheless imposed a burden of as much as R2,400,000 on the agricultural industry in the form of increased rail charges. And what did the hon. the Minister say on this point? He said “certain agricultural products and export goods which were excluded from the 10 per cent tariff increase in 1962 are not included in the foregoing”. He was talking about the elimination of uneconomic goods rates. He said further on—

Yesterday the Deputy Minister of Transport quoted in the House a long list of figures, in relation to the increased rail charges, of a whole range of food products expressed as a percentage of the retail price. He tried to show that no one would be badly affected by these increases. He said—

But the hon. the Deputy Minister told us only half the story yesterday.

He is only half a Minister.

Let us now examine his statement and see whether he is correct when he says “(dit) sal die omvang van land-bouproduksie geensins nadelig tref nie”. Let us now look a little closer at how these rates are being increased on certain commodities. I am going to quote figures supplied to me by the Minister’s own Department, and therefore I hope that he will not query their accuracy. These figures are based on the rail distance between De Aar and Port Elizabeth, a distance of approximately 300 miles, which I think can be taken as an average distance for railed goods traffic in South Africa. The railage on wool and mohair between these two points used to be 69c per 100 lbs. From 1st September it is going to be 76c per 100 lbs. This is an increase of 7c per 100 lbs., or rather more than 10 per cent. If we allow for the fact that the distance has been shortened by about 12 miles—namely, from 339 to 327 miles because of regrading of the line—it probably works out at almost exactly 10 per cent. Mohair may be able to bear such increase, but wool most certainly cannot. The wool tariff was fixed during the years of good wool prices when wool was fetching on an average round about 50 pence per lb. on the principle that the traffic could bear it. But since then wool prices have gone fown to their former pre-boom levels, while production costs have risen year by year and the value of money has diminished. The prices I have selected to illustrate my examples are 40.9 pence per lb. The weighted average price, in 1948 for seven main types of wool at Port Elizabeth, whereas in 1964 the price was 39.1 pence per lb. In other words, in 1964 the price was slightly less than what it was in 1948. Last year there was admittedly a slight gain in price, but the increase only brought the price back to what it was in 1948. In the meanwhile we have had a constant rise in production costs, plus the drought, plus a credit squeeze. What the hon. member for Bethlehem said in this regard last year is even more true this year. The only difference is that this year the hon. gentleman has omitted to say it at all. Is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that in these times wool brokers are being besieged by their producer clients for advances on their wool cheques to an extent unheard of before? I know of a case, Sir, and it is not an isolated instance, of a man who shears more than 200 bales of wool—quite a sizable clip—who has never in his 25 years of farming had to ask for an advance on his wool cheque and who last year had to go, cap in hand, to his broker for a very considerable sum indeed. I might mention in passing, Mr. Speaker, that this position is going to be aggravated by the fact that the industry is switching over to paper packs, which are heavier than the old jute packs, resulting in more railage having to be paid by the producer.

But, Sir, not content with burdening the wool producer with higher rail charges, the hon. the Minister has actually added insult to injury, because he has also increased the cleaning charges per truck from 25c per short truck to 30c, and from 50c to 60c for bogies. Wool bales have to be displayed to the buyer on the broker’s floor in a lean and attractive condition. But it often happens that the Railways deliver a dirty truck for the grower’s use, and they then charge him a fee for cleaning it! And sometimes it is necessary for the producer to take his staff and clean the truck after it has been ostensibly cleaned by the Railways.

Mr. Speaker, wool is one of our greatest earners of foreign exchange. In 1963, for example, we exported R126.9 million worth of wool out of total exports—excluding gold and re-exports—of about R915.8 million. In 1964 the corresponding figures were R132.3 million and R953.6 million. Mr. Speaker, the wool producer cannot pass on his increased cost to anybody at random, because he is selling his product by auction on an international market. And instead of laying these extra burdens on his shoulders, the hon. the Minister should rather assist the wool producer.

I also wish to refer to our butter and cheese exports, Mr. Speaker. These are also sold on highly competitive overseas markets. It very often happens that when we have a surplus for export, other countries are in the same position. As a result the overseas market becomes glutted. In the years 1960-1, for example, when we had a surplus of these commodities, 22,700,000 lbs. of butter were exported to the London market. But because the whole world was experiencing a butter surplus, the market became flooded, and prices dropped precipitately from 405s. per 112 lbs. to 212s. per 112 lbs. We might experience this sort of thing again should we have several consecutive good seasons, Mr. Speaker. I have made certain calculations based on the distance between Port Elizabeth and De Aar again, not because De Aar is a noted milk-producing area but because of the reasonably average distance involved. The railage paid on these commodities is going to be increased from 36c per 100 lbs. to 42c per 100 lbs., an increase of 6c or almost 17 per cent. But not a single hon. member on that side representing a rural constituency has stood up and defended the farmers in this connection.

Now they pretend not to be listening.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to quote another example to illustrate the point I am trying to make. This example is not an agricultural commodity, but it also appears in the list under agriculture and exports on page 18 of the explanatory memorandum. It is, I may say, an item which plays an all-important role in the cost structure of every agricultural crop. I refer namely to diesel oil and power paraffin. The railage between Port Elizabeth and De Aar has been raised from 20c to 28c per 100 lbs. which is a rise of 8c and a percentage rise of no less than 40 per cent. Mr. Speaker, this is a penal rise. It will cause a rise in production costs and a consequent increase in price for the consumer in all those cases where cost increases can be passed on to the consumer, such as, for example, maize. This comes at a time when the consumer can ill afford to pay more. In the case of those products where the increase cannot be passed on, the producer’s already meagre and inadequate profit margin will be squeezed even further.

I should also like to refer to the fact that the prices of some agricultural products which are controlled are determined on a cost-plus basis. What happens is that in the first place discussions take place between the South African Agricultural Union and the control board concerned. Thereafter further discussions are held between the control board and the hon. the Minister, and then, after the matter has been referred to the Marketing Council, a price is fixed. As I said, Sir, the price is fixed on the basis of production costs plus an allowance for the profit. We may find that prices are fixed in, say, March, and then the hon. the Minister comes along with railage rates proposals resulting in an increase of the cost structure, which increase will not be taken into consideration as far as the price is concerned for at least another six months.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to go right through the list of products listed on page 18 of the explanatory memorandum. There have also been steep increases in regard to other commodities as well. Reference was made here to the increase in the petrol rates. Mr. Speaker, we have left the age of the horse on the farm behind us and we are now in the age of the “bakkie”. As a result, petrol also plays a very important role in the overall picture of our agricultural cost structure. As I see the situation, the hon. the Minister—flushed with this election success—is wringing at least a further R2,400,000 from agriculture at a time when that industry is in a bad economic condition. And hon. members on that side must not deny that the industry is in a bad way, because the hon. the Deputy Minister himself referred yesterday to the “swak toestande in die landboubedryf”. Moreover, Sir, the hon. the Minister has not even listened to the plea made by the leader of the agricultural group on the other side—the hon. member for Christiana—in the concluding sentence of his private member’s motion, requesting the Government to consider further measures to counter increases in the costs of requirements for agricultural production which contribute towards the continually rising cost of living. He is ignoring this plea at a time when—as has been pointed out by one speaker after another on this side of the House—his rates equalization fund is far from exhausted. Like other speakers on this side, I, too, ask what this fund is for if it is not to be used to keep down rates increases at a time when Railway profits have been cut by temporary factors, such as drought.

In the few minutes still at my disposal, Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal with the question of the special rebate which used to be granted in respect of livestock sent for exhibition to agricultural shows. Following the recommendation contained in the Schumann Commission report, the hon. the Minister now proposes abolishing this concession. According to information on page 121 of that report, this concession costs the Railways but R20,000 per year. But it seems as though the Minister does not realize that the long-term harm he is going to do to the livestock industry in South Africa by withdrawing this concession is going to be out of all proportion to the present cost of the concession to the Railways. Because our agricultural shows constitute one of the greatest stimuli to the improvement of our livestock industry in this country. There the best animals are brought together for comparison, and it encourages one breeder of stock to compete with another and to try to breed better stock. It is also worth bearing in mind that the big shows such as the Rand Easter Show—and it is the big shows which draw entries from far afield—are the ones which are going to be hit by the withdrawal of this concession. It is worth bearing in mind that these big shows draw visitors and buyers not merely from all over the Republic but from other countries as well, countries such as Rhodesia, Portuguese East Africa and even farther afield, and besides the money that these people spend in our own country, they contribute materially towards the success of the livestock sales at the shows, and our sales of pedigree livestock to them are very valuable sources of foreign exchange indeed. I trust, Sir, that the hon. the Minister is really going to think very seriously before proceeding to withdraw this concession.

There are still other matters which I have not touched on. There are going to be cost increases, for example, in the case of cement, but the big fact remains that the Minister, with this large Rates Equalization Fund still at his disposal, has seen fit to impose increases in rates on the agricultural industry as well as other industries, increases which are going to have a chain reaction throughout the country. There is no doubt about it that this is going to lead to hardship to agricultural producers or to hardship to consumers.

Like all previous speakers on that side, the hon. member who has just sat down launched attacks on the proposed new rates in particular, and made no positive contribution. I want to submit that hon. members on that side got up one after the other in this debate and attacked the increased rates, and in actual fact made no positive contribution. They approached this Railway debate injudiciously and made irresponsible statements in respect of the revised rates. All of us acknowledge that transport plays an important part in a country’s economy. In fact, it is an integral part of a country’s economy and transport facilities have to keep pace with the demands made on the transport system by the development of the country. Not one member on that side approached this aspect from that angle. No, all they do is to break down and wrest certain aspects of this rate provision completely out of their context. Transport plays a dominant role in the development of a country, and in South Africa in particular, because here we have to cope with vast distances and a tremendously rapid expansion in the other sectors of our economy over the past few years, as a result of the very sound policy of this Government. A country’s policy is determined by its government, and the railway policy is an integral part of a country’s policy. Where the railways and its network of lines can be seen as the main artery of a country, and where the heart that supplies that artery is the government, I want to say that this country is exceptionally sound and has an exceptionally strong heart, and is supplied with very fine, pure blood. We have to view the Railways which in South Africa is the most important factor in the entire transport system, in the light of how it complies with the requirements imposed on it by law. The Railway service is an inexpensive, efficient, financially independent transport service which is operated on trade principles in such a way that the general domestic policy is served and the economic development stimulated, among other things by judicious rate differentiation within certain limits. If hon. members on the Opposition had approached this debate from that angle, they would have made constructive contributions. Let us approach the matter from this angle: To have an inexpensive and efficient transport service in the general interests of the country one needs a certain long-term policy, and what is the primary requirement? The primary requirement is that the staff should be efficient and productive. The second requirement imposed on such a policy is that adequate provision should be made for the development of the country, and the third is that it should be ensured that the Railways has adequate funds available. There should therefore be an equalization or stabilization fund, or a rates equalization fund, as it is called here, to cope with all unforeseen contingencies and thus effect stability. According to members of the Opposition, this is not a popular Budget. The Minister would most certainly have liked to introduce a popular Budget, but he is a responsible Minister and a member of a responsible Cabinet and a responsible Government. For that reason this Budget need not necessarily be popular at present, but this Budget will be popular in future. All this hon. Minister’s Budgets of the past were popular. Why should this one not be popular in the long run? The popularity of previous budgets from this side of the House is proved by the manpower shortage on the opposite side of the House. The salary increases granted to the South African Railways staff, were granted to them to reward them for what they have done for this country, and for what they mean to this country. To obtain high productivity and efficiency on the part of the staff, there has to be a sound relationship between employer and employee, but a sound relationship between employer and employee is not the only requirement. A further requirement is that if problems arose, the employee should have the necessary channels to be able to take his problems to the highest authority, and the Railways employee has that.

Through the hon. member who has just spoken, the Party on that side of the House pretends to be the friend of the farmers, but that friendship changes from one session to another, and not only from one session to another, but also from day to day; it depends on how it suits them. Last year the hon. member for Yeoville was very much concerned about the Railwayman and his salary. I do not know whether there were any ulterior motives, but this debate has shown that they have forgotten the Railwayman. To-day they want to be the farmer’s friend because the rate increases affect him to a greater of lesser extent. Today they want to be the industrialist’s friend, because it suits them to be his friend to-day. In 1965, however, it suited that Party to pretend to be the Railwayman’s friend. The hon. member for Yeoville suggested that the productivity of the Railwaymen should be investigated; that is what he suggested in this Session. What was the hon. member’s approach in 1965? Then it was the following (Hansard, Vol. 13, col. 2127)—

Then the Railwayman was praised; the hon. member pointed out that the Railwayman had done everything in his ability to give good service; he was spoken of with admiration. What do we find to-day? We find the hon. member for Yeoville telling the Minister that the productivity of the staff should be investigated, because to-day it no longer suits them to protect the Railwayman’s interests. But this Government saw to it that the Railwayman received a salary increase, and that salary increase is one of the reasons why rates have to be increased to-day, but now it does not suit hon. members on the opposite side of the House to agree to that increase. No, one should be consistent. One’s approach should be a long-term approach, not a short-sighted approach. It seems to me as though the Opposition’s approach borders much more closely on myopia.

The Government’s next responsibility is to see to it that provision is made for the increasing needs. Rolling stock has to be provided, and all the necessary facilities have to be created in order to be able to meet the ever-growing needs of this country, and in order to be able to maintain its economy at the present level. That requires money, and where must that money be found? It has to be collected by means of rates. Every sector of our economy—agriculture and industry—desires good transport to-day; their demands are increasing, and if we want a more efficient transport system, and if our own demands are increasing, we should also be prepared to pay for it to some extent.

It is the poor man who has to pay.

I wonder whether the hon. member has calculated what the poor man is in actual fact going to pay as a result of the increased rates, and what the man who is in fact in a position to pay is going to pay as a result of those increased rates, since the increased rates are being applied selectively. I think the hon. member should make this small calculation properly before he “chips” in, and once he has made that calculation, he will find that he has had his “chips”.

Another aspect is that it is a sound economic principle that a fund should be available to meet short-term fluctuations in order to achieve stability in the long term, and it is for that very reason that there is a Rates Equalization Fund. If it is taken into consideration that this Budget amounts to more or less R700,000,000, then a Rates Equalization Fund of R50,000,000 is in actual fact insignificant. This Rates Equalization Fund should be increased to R100,000,000, so that we can provide for unforeseen contingencies. Yesterday it was argued, by way of an interjection from the other side of the House, that we should provide for unforeseen contingencies while we are able to do so. Have hon. members on the opposite side really so little faith in the economy of this country that they think things are going badly at present? They have introduced a motion of no-confidence in the prosperity of the country, but that is the attitude adopted by hon. members on that side of the House: if things are going well, they think they are going badly, and vice versa. They cannot differentiate between good and bad times. I maintain that it is absolutely essential that the Rates Equalization Fund should be built up, and as long as the economy of this country can cone with an increase in rates, we should maintain the strength of the Rates Equalization Fund. That is only sound policy.

Mr. Speaker, before I conclude, you will grant me an opportunity to thank the hon. the Minister for the services being rendered to South West Africa. Unfortunately, hon. members on that side include no representative of South West Africa, with the result that they do not know what is happening there. I want to thank the Minister for what is being done as regards transport in South West Africa, which is a very big country, and also for the contribution made by the Central Government in accepting responsibility for any annual deficits incurred there. I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the fact that the Central Government assists us in this respect, and also specifically for the air transportation services which take us to any of the major cities of the Republic within a few hours.

Under the circumstances the hon. member who has just resumed his seat will, of course, forgive me if I do not reply to his speech.

I accordingly ask for permission, Mr. Speaker, to diverge from the discussion for one brief moment and, as other speakers have done, to pay tribute to my own predecessor, Mr. Miles Warren, who represented the electoral division of King William’s Town in this House for a period of no less than 25 years. His contribution was a major one, particularly in the field of agriculture, and it will be my endeavour to serve my country and my people, and more particularly my constituency and my voters, with the same dedication. To suit the action to the word, I should like to address a few words this afternoon to the hon. Minister whose Budget we are discussing now.

Mr. Speaker, to us living in the outlying areas of the country it often seems as though we are not receiving our fair share in the development of the country. It sometimes seems, rightly or wrongly, as though most attention is paid to the more highly developed areas or, at any rate, areas within easy reach of the developed areas. It has, of course, for many years been the policy of governments to decentralize industry, and my constituency, which is situated in that almost forgotten part of the country extending westwards and northwards from East London, is one of those areas in which industries can be established to give effect to that policy. It goes without saying that if any success is to be achieved in carrying out that policy, not only the lines of communication within my constituency itself, but also those connecting us with the rest of the country, the other large towns and markets, must be developed to maximum efficiency. One of the most important facets in this respect is of course the Railways. The hon. the Minister will of course reply, and rightly, that that is in fact what he is working on. But there are nevertheless a few aspects of the development in that area that I want to bring to his notice.

In his Annual Report for 1964-5 the General Manager envisaged that the railway line from Blaney to East London would be doubled last year, but that has not gone according to plan. The work has in fact been commenced, but I want to point out that, whereas an amount of R1,366,081 was appropriated for that purpose by this House in the past financial year, only R46,000 of that amount was spent. There are, of course, reasons for that. We are naturally very glad to see that in these Estimates provision is again being made for this purpose in the form of an amount of R1,451,088 to be spent in the course of the year. I therefore want to ask the Minister that, irrespective of where the reductions and savings he referred to in his Budget Speech may be made, this amount should nevertheless be spent on the work so that we may get that railway line as soon as possible, and I trust that that will be done. The same applies to the construction of the new avoiding line between Chiselhurst and the harbour. Although it does not fall in my constituency, it bears a direct connection with the system of communications of that area. Traffic on the present section of line has doubled in the past 14 years, and now that the grain elevator has for all practical purposes been completed, and the Bantu township of Mdantsane is developing rapidly, I believe that it will be difficult to handle the traffic with the existing facilities. The opportunity presented by the pause in grain traffic, perhaps the only beneficial effect of the drought, should therefore be used for seeing to it that the line is built. The hon. the Minister also mentioned this in his speech, but we hope that upon the conclusion of the present year the progress made will be much higher than the progress of 2 per cent made up to now.

As far as the harbour is concerned, I also want to point out that, compared with other harbours, where the incoming and the outgoing freight more or less balance one another, there is a tremendous difference between the quantity of freight shipped from and that offloaded in the East London harbour. So we find, for example, that during the year 1964-5 899,914 tons were off-loaded, while 337,841 tons were shipped, a difference of 562,073; and similarly there was a large difference in the year 1965-6. Whereas 1,127,611 tons were offloaded, only 278,149 tons were shipped, a difference of nearly 850,000 tons. I realize, of course, that the difference is largely due to the shortage of grain owing to the drought, but I would suggest that not even the normal supply of grain could wipe out that difference. I think the fact that, for making effective use of its shipping capacity, the harbour is dependent to such an extent upon an agricultural product which is subject to the elements, means that there is a serious flaw in the organization. It also affects the Railways, of course. As we have already heard this afternoon, it is necessary for Railway efficiency that Railway wagons should carry a full load in both directions, on both the inward and the outward journey. I believe that attention can profitably be given to canalization, over and above that already existing.

It will also help us a great deal if the hon. the Minister will bring to finality his planning in connection with the shunting area at Cambridge and the other Railway development and expansion at Reeston. As you know, Mr. Speaker, there is always some uncertainty amongst the inhabitants of areas so affected. No one knows precisely what is happening or what is being contemplated. Land surveyors are seen, stones are laid out and painted white, and the people conjecture and talk, and stories are spread which in course of time affect the entire area, usually in a detrimental way. Further development plans in connection with suburbs, industries, roads, etc., are. of course, all affected by the planning. Although I know that planning cannot be carried out overnight and that surveys have to be made, I ask the Minister to take his decisions in this connection as soon as possible so that the people and other concerns may know what their position is.

There are many further aspects to this matter which may be discussed, but in this my maiden speech I should like to adhere to the old tradition of this House in connection with maiden speeches, and I therefore want to conclude with this important point, the point with which I began my speech. The Permanent Committee for the Location of Industries placed the Ciskei (which is for all practical purposes my constituency) high on their list as an area for the location of industries. I notice, too, that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs said in East London last Thursday that the Government regarded East London as the principal centre for industrial development. We are, of course, very glad to hear that, and we trust that these words will soon be translated into reality. Without going into details, but merely stating the position in general terms, we know that the requirements for industrial development are either markets or raw materials and coupled with that, of course, suitable land for the erection of the industries, and certain services such as water, power, labour and so forth. Now, we have suitable land; we have it at King William’s Town. We have a particularly fine large piece of land around Berlin, where, according to reports, an industrial complex of R50,000,000 can be developed; and we also have suitable land down towards East London at Wilsonia, which is being developed at the moment. We have power and we have water, although the latter has not yet been harnessed, but steps are already being taken to conserve it. We have an abundance of labour, but limited raw materials and markets. Sir, you know how strong the competition is in the business world to-day, and how strong an attraction is exerted by the magnet of the developed areas. Under the circumstances it therefore goes without saying that our system of communications is of the utmost importance. It must not only be there, it must not only be in operation, but it must be absolutely efficient. My plea to the hon. the Minister is therefore that the aspects to which I have referred and the problem as a whole should receive his favourable consideration at an early date.

Mr. Speaker, allow me in the first place to congratulate the hon. member for King William’s Town most sincerely on his maiden speech here. I think I speak on behalf of all the members present here when I say that he put up such a good first performance that both sides of the House will listen to him with interest in the future.

In his speech the other day the hon. main speaker of the Opposition on Railway matters used words to this effect: Because the Minister is in charge of a monopoly he need not fear anybody; he also has the power in another capacity to strangle competitors. These allegations are made to look rather ridiculous by certain findings of the Schumann Commission and by certain facts included in the Report of that commission. I want to mention one or two of them.

In paragraph 599 of the Report it is pointed out that private road transport receives a subsidy in respect of non-White passenger transport, the subsidy being derived from contributions by employees. In this way Putco received a subsidy of R387,000 in 1961-2 in respect of its services in Johannesburg. The Railways, which have to compete, do not receive any such subsidy. Now I want to ask this. Cannot the provisions of the Native Transport Services Act, 1957, be extended to apply to and to benefit the Railways as well? Paragraph 601 states that low passenger fares and the resultant losses arise mainly from a social obligation which rests upon the Railways to provide cheap transport to workers and other passengers, and then this Report suggests that the Central Government should re-imburse the Railways for losses suffered on such traffic, as is done in France and Canada.

While the main speaker of the Opposition tried to represent the Minister as a heartless dictator, just the opposite is true. He is the conscientious head of an organization which has to dole out a great deal of charity for which it does not receive adequate recognition. For that reason the Financial Mail of 12th August, a newspaper which is not generally kindly disposed towards this Government, stated the following under the heading: “Schoeman’s Schu-shine”—

Mr. Speaker, permit me to say something in connection with the recommendations of the Schumann Commission on tariffs. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what has happened to the recommendations embodied in paragraph 662 (ii), in which it was recommended that a body of appeal on tariffs should be instituted, the body to consist of three senior officials, one of whom should not be a Rates official, and that there should be constant consultation between this body and Government Departments? I also want to ask the Minister what has happened to the recommendation in paragraph 662 (iii), in which it was recommended that the research personnel of the Rates Section be increased in order that justice may be done to research in view of the importance of research with regard to the constant adaptation of the tariff policy to altered national conditions and the influence of rates on the national economy? And if the Minister does consider introducing such an increase as well as carrying out intensive research, I want to ask him whether such an enlarged research personnel will not be able to carry out the specific instructions contained in paragraph 639 of the Report; in other words, institute an intensive inquiry as to whether tariff adjustments cannot be made with a view to decentralization of industries?

The Opposition tried to make out a strong case here that this side, or rather the Minister, did not try to combat inflation. Nobody on their side expressed his appreciation for one important aspect where the Minister really tried to do his best to combat inflation and to combat it successfully, by limiting expenses to a minimum. I am referring to Head No. 3, Rolling Stock, in the Brown Book. Just over 10 per cent of the estimated total amount of the expenditure during the coming financial year is to be spent under this Head and there are important items which are being held back, for example just over R2,000,000 for a new Blue Train. As a result of that the Opposition will, of course, come along in a year or so and say that not enough was spent under this Head, that it was a “lack of foresight”.

In conclusion I want to deal with farming, and I want to tell the hon. member for Albany, who is unfortunately not here at the moment, that nobody was impressed by the crocodile-tears which he shed here to-day about farming. This side of the House consists mainly of representatives of farmers, and we also notice with concern that certain tariffs have been imposed on the farming industry, but we realize that the farmers are also affected by certain things which have to be done, and they are grateful to the Minister that the farming industry has been let off so lightly. For example, paragraph 574 of the Report of the Schumann Commission recommends an increase in the tariffs for livestock, which would have meant an extra R3.2 million to the Railways for the conveyance of large and small animals. The Minister saw fit not to take one single cent of this amount which the Commission held out to him. This industry, which is a severely stricken one, will undoubtedly be grateful to the Minister for this great concession to the livestock industry.

But, Sir, and with that I am going to resume my seat, while we feel grateful towards the Minister for the concession in respect of artificial fertilisers, I want to ask him kindly that great care should be exercized when dealing with two particular sections of the farming industry as far as increases in tariffs in future are concerned, because these two sections of the industry are in a position where they will find it difficult to withstand further setbacks of any nature. They are the mealie industry and the poultry industry. As you yourself know, Sir, the poultry farmers are to-day in a particularly difficult position as far as passing on costs to the consumer is concerned, and a future concession will be highly appreciated, particularly as far as they are concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I also find it a particular privilege to be able to get up in this House to-day to make my maiden contribution. In this connection I want to say that I am convinced that what I am going to say here this afternoon has the approval of my voters, who sent me to this House with a big majority. I also want to express my gratitude to them for doing me the honour of sending me here to take up the cudgels on their behalf and to look after their interests.

Then I want to do something else, not because other new members have done so, but because to me it is a heart-felt need, and that is to pay tribute to my predecessor, Oom Koos Coetzee, this afternoon. I am not going to be long in doing so. If I said everything I wanted to say it would take a long time. I shall content myself with saying that I pay tribute to him as a politician, as a member of the House of Assembly and as a man.

I said that I was convinced that the voters I represent here would approve of what I was going to say here. The voters I represent belong to the middle and lower income groups. Those are the people who are affected by this Budget, and I want to say in passing that if I had not been restrained by tradition it would have been a great pleasure to me to throw off the gloves and make a real attack this afternoon. Those are the people who are affected by this Budget, those of them who are consumers and a great number of them who are on the Railways and who owe their livelihood to the S.A. Railways. I want to confine myself to them this afternoon, because they are people of whom I am particularly proud. They are hardworking, conscientious and dedicated people and they are also the people who keep the cradle going in our country. I find that of particularly great importance. Now I want to say that we are grateful that the hon. the Minister has always paid attention to the representations made to him by these Railway employees from time to time. We are grateful that he has always adopted a sympathetic attitude as far as their problems are concerned. If these increases in tariffs have been introduced with the object of letting the Railways function on a sound economic basis and to see to it that the employees of the Railways are properly looked after, it does not behove anyone in the Republic to raise any objections to these increases in tariffs. Then it is our duty to defend these increases in tariffs in all spheres of the community and to give our support to the Minister.

Now, there are only two little matters in respect of which I want to advance a plea. Apart from the remuneration of the Railway workers there are two other matters which are of cardinal importance to me, and one of them is the housing of those people. Notwithstanding the fact that a very great deal indeed has been done in the past to provide these people with proper housing, there is still a great shortage of houses. I want to urge strongly that the most earnest attention be given to this matter. It is particularly the low-paid Railway worker that I have in my constituency, and they are the people who have no other means of obtaining a house than through the Railways. For that reason I plead that the Minister should continue to adopt a sympathetic attitude as far as this matter is concerned.

The other matter in respect of which I want to make a plea is the training facilities on the Railways, for which we are particularly grateful. In this connection we should like to ask that, if possible, these facilities be expanded so that it may be possible to have every Railway worker subjected to a test on joining the Railways, if this is not being done already. If it is proved by that test that that person can be trained for a better position on the Railways, I ask that that be done as quickly as possible, not only in the interests of the employee himself, but also in the interests of the Railways. I believe that when an employee has been provided with proper housing and when he feels happy and content in his work, he renders good service of which all of us can be proud. I am convinced that the Railway workers will render even better service in the interests of the Railways and of our country if improvements can be brought about in these few respects.

In conclusion I just want to plead that wherever we go we should view and defend this Budget as responsible people, because we should realize that the increases in tariffs are necessary to maintain the sound economic position of the Railways and to see to it that those people are properly cared for. What gives me confidence in the future of South Africa is the fact that the Minister and all the Railway officials are still doing what is best in the interests of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to congratulate the hon. member for Langlaagte on his maiden speech, which he delivered with confidence and clarity. I am certain that his contributions to the debates of this House will live up to the high promise he has shown. I should like to congratulate him, too, on the interest he has shown in the welfare of his constituents. In that spirit I am certain that he will have a contribution to make to the deliberations of this House.

I should now like to turn to the other hon. members who have spoken on the Government side and to say what a different picture that is. What a sorry spectacle to listen to Government members trying to defend this indefensible Budget which this House is being asked to approve! What have we heard from the Government? One would think that the Railways were the private property of the Minister, that it belonged to the Minister and that it was by his kindness and grace that South Africa was allowed to use it. Surely the Government members must realize that the Railways belong to the people of South Africa and not to this Minister or to those hon. members sitting opposite. It is in effect a socialist undertaking and it is not for the Minister to determine, almost as though it was his private property, that he will be granting a favour to people by not hammering them too hard. The hon. member for Kroon-stad said that the farmers were glad they had been let off so lightly. What was he expecting? Has he no confidence in the recognition of the essential part agriculture plays in the economy of the country? But that hon. member was obviously expecting something pretty serious, because he thanked the Minister for letting agriculture off so lightly. Not one member on the Government side has acknowledged the responsibility this Government has for having put the Railways into the position in which the Minister now has to come to South Africa and demand R46,000,000 more in increased tariffs in a full year. What the Government has tried to escape is its own responsibility for having created the circumstances in which this became necessary. I want to place it on record here and now, and loudly and clearly, that we on this side lay the blame for the circumstances which have forced the Minister to impose increased tariffs on the country at the feet of the Government, and the Government cannot escape that responsibility.

Firstly, the Government is responsible for this situation, but secondly, we claim that the steps the Government has taken were unnecessary and dangerous for South Africa at the present time. [Interjections.] My hon. friends do not even know what steps the Minister has taken. That is the extent of their interest in this debate. They do not know, nor do they care, that R46,000,000 per annum extra in rail tariffs and passenger fares is being taken from the people. They do not realize that these steps have been taken and they do not care what harm those steps do to the people. We charge the Government with first of all creating the circumstances which have placed the Railways in the position where they require more money and, secondly, we charge this Minister with taking more money than necessary out of the pockets of the people in order to solve the mess the Government has made, and I am going to deal with that argument.

Before doing so, I want to refer to one or two of the arguments advanced in an attempt to defend this Budget. I think the clearest summing up on the Government’s point of view came from the hon. member for Bethlehem, who helplessly waved his hands and said: “Ons moet bereid wees om te offer sodat ons sal lewe en nie sal sterwe nie”. That was the sum total of his contributions towards solving the problems of the Railways. We must be prepared to sacrifice. But surely hon. members opposite realize what these increases are going to do to the economy of the country’ at a time when the Ministers of Finance and Economic Affairs are introducing measure after measure to try to fight inflation. But here the Minister takes, unnecessarily, far more money than he requires, and he goes directly against the appeals of his own Minister of Finance and his Minister of Economic Affairs. The people of South Africa, the consumer and the ordinary man, will have to pay. When I made that remark by way of interjection, the Government said it was nonsense. But who uses the suburban transport? Is it not the poor man, the worker, and the middle income groups? It is not the Ministers with their two great Packards or Cadillacs, and the Deputy Ministers. They are not the people who are dependent on rail transport and who have to count the pennies to pay for their train fares. It is the worker who will have to meet that burden. Those members can sit here smugly and shrug their shoulders because they do not worry. They can drive around in their motor-cars, but what about the people who have no motor-cars? Government members with their status symbols, their Mercedes motor-cars, are satisfied, but what about the people who have no cars and have to travel by train to get to work every day? They will have to pay in order to meet what we accuse the Government of having done, namely to impose completely unnecessary taxation.

What is the position? The Minister has admitted by way of interjection that he has over-increased tariffs to the extent of R9.75 million.

Where did I admit that?

When the hon. member for Yeoville accused the Minister of trying to hide from the House the fact that he was over-taxing the railway-users, the Minister said: I am not trying to hide it; it should be obvious.

You must be dreaming.

No, it stands in Hansard. The hon. member for Yeoville charged the Minister with trying to conceal his over-taxation, and the Minister said: “That should be obvious”. But whether he was trying to conceal it or not, the fact is that the Minister must accept that he has over-taxed the railway-users to the extent of R9.75 million. [Interjection.] Sir, the Minister does not accept it. Well, let me put it to him this way. The Minister has budgeted for a tariff increase of R46.3 million over a full year, but only seven-twelfths of that year’s additional tariff, R26.9 million, will affect the Railway finances this year. In other words, an amount of R19.35 million, had it been a full year, will not be earned by the Railways in this year.

No, you have also been reading the Rand Daily Mail.

No, I have been looking at the Budget. I have the Minister’s speech here and he has stated that from all the tariff adjustments the net revenue will amount to R46.3 million per annum. Now only seven-twelfths of that will come into force this year and yet, despite having only seven-twelfths, despite not receiving R19.35 million, he will only have a shortfall or deficit of R9.6 million. In other words, if you take the R9.6 deficit off the R19.35 million which he is not going to earn this year, it leaves R9.75 million difference, and that is a deliberate over-taxation. I submit that the Minister should, in view of the inflationary state of our economy at the moment, have taken the absolute minimum amount that was necessary. Otherwise he is accepting now that he is over-taxing for next year. He has one or other choice. Either he is budgeting for a greater deficit next year, or he assumes that next year, taking it that revenue and expenditure remain level, with an increase of R46,000,000 he will be able to balance the Budget. The Minister cannot escape that fact. If revenue and expenditure remain balanced next year in the same ratio, then the R46,000,000 increase in tariffs is what the Minister requires to make his Budget balance. Yet this year he is only budgeting for a deficit of R9.6 million. In other words, he is either over-budgeting for this year, or he is assuming that the situation will be worse next year. If the Minister had calculated on the basis of what the increased tariffs would have brought him over the whole year, instead of merely over seven months of the year, then we submit that he could have absorbed the total increase for this year out of the Rates Equalization Fund without endangering the stability or the strength of that fund.

Let me deal immediately with the argument of the hon. member for Parow that we are pleading to destroy the security of the Railway worker by asking that the Rates Equalization Fund be used. What is this fund for? I ask the Minister to tell the members on his side, who have said that the Rates Equalization Fund is there for an emergency or crisis, whether this is not an emergency? It is not an emergency when South Africa faces serious inflation, when radical steps are being taken to counter that inflation by the Government, when rents are frozen and import control has been clamped down and extraordinary steps are being taken in regard to interest rates, and when money is being made more and more expensive? When all this is being done to counter inflation, surely that is a state of financial emergency. Is that not one of the circumstances where the Rates Equalization Fund should be used, or is it to be built up like the Unemployment Insurance Fund into the R100,000,000 which we would all like to see against an emergency, but which will never be touched even if there is an emergency? It is not contrary to the interests of the Railwayman to plead that inflation should not be aggravated; it is in the interest of the Railwayman to plead it, because either the Government members have confidence in South Africa, confidence in our ability to develop, or they are expecting a worse year next year; and if they have any confidence then they would be prepared to use a fund set aside by Parliament specifically to meet emergencies, to face this deficit the Minister will have this year. But no Mr. Speaker, Government members apparently expect that the drought will get worse and continue for ever and that the crises will continue and that next year conditions will be no better. If that were not so, they would join with us in criticizing the Minister for over-taxing the Railway user and for taking from the poorer section of the people additional money which they can ill afford. We have heard a great deal about the way in which the Government has looked after the Railway worker. I asked the Minister on Friday a question about the earnings of his own employees. I was shaken to find that 93,736 Railwaymen earn less than R200 per month. Out of 117,500 odd, 93,736 earn less than R200 per month. But what is worse, 23,692 earn less than a R100 per month. To add to the burden of the cost of living of those 23,000 odd Railwaymen trying to scrape a living out of a R100 per month, and to lay on them the additional burden which this Railway Budget places upon every South African, is to my mind a scandal and a disgrace to the good name of Government. There are 55,700 White Railwaymen earning less than R150 per month. To these people a few rand a month means something. It means the difference between managing to exist and getting into debt. That is why we are so concerned about the effect which this Budget will have on the man in the street in South Africa.

But there is another danger to the railwaymen. That is the danger that this Budget will kill passenger traffic and that it will drive people on to the roads. If the Minister had not overtaxed and if he had saved that R9,000,000, it would have enabled him to not raise the fares of passenger traffic at all. He is, I think, expecting R5.8 million from the increase in passenger fares. If he had not overtaxed, he need not have increased passenger fares one cent. What is more, except for a small amount of less than R1,000,000, he need not have raised the price of petrol. Instead of that, the Minister takes more than he requires, budgeting apparently for future continuing trouble and difficulties.

There is another danger. That is that the pressure which will flow from this Budget will follow the normal vicious circle and will lead to wage demands. Already we have had Press reports that the Chairman of the Railway Staff Association, Mr. Liebenberg, is warning of the danger of further wage demands. This Government will have to face those demands when they come because they will be justified demands and demands which the Government will have to meet because it is responsible for having created the circumstances which make it necessary for the worker to demand more. The hon. member for Parow made the one constructive contribution to this debate from the Government side. He just poked a finger at this problem, then retreated from it very quickly and tried to turn it back to the Opposition, but he did try to make a constructive proposal. He recognized the dangers and the problems which face the working man. But, Mr. Speaker, it is four years to the next election, so why should this Government care? It has been returned with a large majority, so why should it worry about the burden which it places on the person who has to pay? The Government is extremely sensitive to charges that it has not shown sufficient foresight. The Financial Mail has been quoted by a number of members. In fact, the Minister passed a cutting to the Deputy Minister, but he forgot to tell him what it was about and so the Deputy Minister was a bit lost. I advise the Minister that, when he helps the Deputy Minister, he should explain to him what he is trying to help him with. The Financial Mail of the 10th June of this year has a different story to tell about the Minister’s foresight. It quotes the Minister as saying—

I should like to quote one or two examples of what the people who really should be the judges, the people who use the harbours, have to say about the Minister’s claims. I am not speaking of the Minister’s supporters here, who are obviously going to pat him on the back. Let us look at Cape Town.

The Star of the 30th May, 1966, states—

The article goes on to deal with his criticism. The Natal Daily News of the 3rd June, 1966, states—

Both these Chambers of Commerce, representing the people who use these harbours, conclude that the facilities are inadequate. The Cape Argus of the 26th May, 1966, states—

These people do not think that there has been foresight. Safmarine also mentions delays in harbours in South Africa. They had 126 idle or wasted days in the year. In the whole of the United States, despite dock strikes, their loss is 101 days. In Britain the loss is 87 days, and in Louren?o Marques and Beira it is 220 days. But 126 days are wasted in South African harbours. I believe that all of us in this House want to see our merchant shipping fleet increase. It is essential to our future security. I quote from the 19th Annual Report of Safmarine—

South Africa could have a new freighter merely out of the loss as a result of idle time in harbours. When the Minister is criticized, he says that it is not his job. I call him as a witness against himself. I quote from the Sunday Times of the 17th July, 1966—

If you are keeping pace, with something which is moving, you must be behind it in order to judge its pace. When you are dealing with the Railways, that truth becomes unavoidable. You cannot just see the economy developing and plan to keep exactly up with it. It takes time to build a railway line, a pier or a wharf. It takes time to provide services. Member after member on that side of the House—members who are so keen to laugh—in this debate were quoting the Railways as one of the weapons of economic development. They were saying that it should be part of the process of development and that it should provide the development. But how are you going to provide development if you are always going to be trailing behind?

The Minister has not been prepared to try to get ahead or to keep just ahead of demands He has only been prepared to try to keep up. The result has been that in trying to keep up, he has been trailing behind all along the line. That has been proved in every single department of transport. The only department where the Minister has kept up—and I will give him credit for it—is in the Airways. We have every reason to be proud of the South African air services. But when it comes to rail transport and to harbours, the Minister may not have found himself in these difficulties if he had had a little more foresight and courage.

Now that he is facing these difficulties, it is time for him to show a little more consideration for the people whom he is burdening. We have heard ralk of 12,000 houses being provided for railwaymen. But what about the other 105,000 railwaymen and the 93,000 railwaymen earning less than R200 per month or the 23,000 earning less than R100 per month? It is cold comfort to them that in order to keep up the Minister’s façade of a well-run machine, they are going to have to carry the burden of the increased tariffs. We on this side place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the Government.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to represent almost 2,000 Railway workers in this House. During the past few days I have listened with close attention to this debate. Allow me, as a relative novice in this House, to tell you this afternoon that I am convinced that the United Party will never again be called upon to govern the country. The various arguments on the part of the Opposition and from this side of the House have almost been thrashed out, but there is one argument with which I want to deal before I come to the hon. member for Durban (Point). One after another the hon. members of the Opposition stated that they were opposed to the rate increases announced by the hon. the Minister. It is also clear to me that the Opposition is also opposed to the salary increases announced by the hon. the Minister. But not one of them had the courage of his convictions to get up and admit that that was in fact the case. I now want to appeal to the hon. member who will follow me to get up and tell the railwaymen of the Republic of South Africa one of two things. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Newton Park must not interrupt me now. Unfortunately I know too much about him. Hon. members of the Opposition must say one of two things. They must either say that they are opposed to the salary increases announced by the hon. the Minister before the election, or, if that is not so, they must say that if the United Party ever came into power again—and I do not believe they will ever come into power again, Mr. Speaker—they would also grant salary increases as long as there was a surplus in the Rates Equalization Fund. But if that surplus should also be consumed, and they still wanted to grant salary increases, they should tell us where they would find the money without announcing rate increases. During the past 18 years the National Party Government has spent R190,000,000 on increases in the salaries of Railway officials. Every Railway voter in my constituency and in the Republic of South Africa is grateful to the hon. the Minister for that. But why are the members of the Opposition making such a fuss about these rate increases? They know that a large portion of that money has been ploughed back into the Railway community. That was done before the election. In a moment I shall come back to the hon. member for Durban (Point) as regards the speech he made in this House on 3rd February.

Mr. Speaker, what also troubles me, as a member who represents Railway voters in this House, is that it is clear to me that the United Party is trifling with the security of the Railwaymen. If it is now objected that the hon. the Minister took too little from the Rates Equalization Fund and that he should have exhausted that Fund, I want to ask: If that Fund were exhausted, where would the hon. the Minister find new recruits? The recruits would say: We are young men who want to join the South African Railways; it is a big undertaking; but there is no equalization fund whatsoever on which we can rely. That is what hon. members on the opposite side want. They are not in the least concerned about the security of the Railwaymen. They get up here, attack the hon. the Minister and tell him: Spend more. Build more houses. Build more railway lines. But they will never say: The hon. the Minister should take the money from this or that source, or that is where the hon. the Minister should get the money. And if the hon. the Minister announces increased rates, they are not pleased with that.

Is there no inflation at the moment?

I should very much like to answer the hon. member for Durban (Point), but you would not allow me to do that, because you would ask me to withdraw what I should like to tell him. Mr. Speaker, since 1948 the National Party Government has spent R154,000,000 on housing. What more should we have done? We have spent R50,000,000 on Railway pensioners. What more should the National Party Government have done?

What was the position before 1948?

Yes, if I went back to before 1948, we would find a chaotic situation.

4,500 houses were built in nine years.

I accept no figures from the hon. member for Durban (Point). I know that hon. member too well. Mr. Speaker, I have told you that the United Party will never again be called upon to govern this country. I want to come back to a statement made by the hon. member for Bethlehem on 3rd February of this year. (Hansard, Vol. 16, col. 663.) I want to submit that as I know my Railway voters, that statement was decisive during the election on 30th March. The hon. member for Bethlehem levelled the following accusation at the United Party—

That is what the hon. member for Bethlehem said here. The then member for Maitland is no longer here to-day, because he represented a Railway constituency. He replied as follows to the hon. member for Bethlehem (Hansard, Vol. 16, col. 667)—

The Railwaymen voted ert bloc against the United Party because they did not believe that those trade unions would remain White. I want to come back to the debate held in this House before the election. I want to quote from a speech made by the then member for Turffontein. So many of the members of that time are no longer here, Mr. Speaker. The then member for Turffontein made a tremendous hullabaloo in this House about the salaries of Railway Commissioners, which had been increased by the hon. the Minister. Before the election he said (Hansard, Vol. 16, col. 434)—

That cost the member for Turffontein his seat. I want to return briefly to the hon. member for Durban (Point). He made two important statements here.

He said nothing that was important.

Yes, he thinks they were important. He said that the hon. the Minister had taken too much out of the pockets of the public. He also said that the Minister had over-taxed the public. Now I ask the hon. member for Durban (Point) to get up and to say that the hon. the Minister has paid out too much to the Railway officials. He said that, the hon. the Minister had overtaxed the lower income groups. But what are the facts? The facts are that the rate increases, which amount to between 15 per cent and 20 per cent, mean an increase of only 3 per cent to 5 per cent for the lower income group, because Railways officials travel on a privileged ticket, at a quarter of the rate. The hon. member for Durban (Point) failed to mention that. [Interjections.] On Wednesday the hon. member for Yeoville accused the National Party Government of being responsible for inflation, but he also went further and brought the charge against the Government that the measures it had taken to curb inflation had not had the desired effect. The allegation that the Government’s measures to curb inflation have not been effective is refuted by this very Railway Budget, because the hon. the Minister said in his Budget Speech that as a result of the measures taken by the Government to retard the country’s economic growth-rate, Railways revenue had not come up to expectations, because the retarded growth-rate necessarily had to have an adverse effect on Railway business.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to thank my voters to-day for sending me here to help govern our country in this high council. I want to promise that I shall do my best for those voters, who had the confidence in me to put me here. I think it is fitting, Sir, that I should make my maiden speech in this debate on Railways. You know that Humansdorp has been represented twice in the past by Ministers of Transport. I want to pay tribute to both those Ministers of Transport. The first one was my father, and I am proud of that. The second was Oom Paul Sauer, who was a great parliamentarian and who for 33 years represented Humansdorp most creditably. I am proud that the voters of Humansdorp have sent me to endeavour to keep up their work.

I think I would be failing in my duty as a citrus farmer if I did not mention what has been done to our export fruit in the Budget. There is an increase of R300,000 on the transport of export fruit. In addition, there are also increases on wharfage and on the handling of fruit at the ports. Exporting fruit is no longer the wonderful thing it used to be. We also have our problems. Export fruit earns us foreign exchange, and it is important that we should remember that. Export fruit enjoys no subsidies or protection overseas. It has to fend for itself there. The cost of shipment is rising continually. In the last few years the cost of shipment has risen from R13 to R20 per cubic ton. The fruit industry, and in particular the citrus industry in which I have an interest, is very well organized. We have gone so far as to appoint counsellors to handle the marketing of our fruit in the best possible way. Nevertheless, I can tell you that we are having an uphill struggle on the world markets. Rising costs are making the position even more difficult. It is feared that the production costs may exceed the revenue. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister of Transport to bear that in mind in future and not to introduce any further increases in the cost of railage that may prejudice the industry.

Mr. Speaker, to-day I want to talk about standardizing on the Railways. At present we are being guided by standards all over the world. Everything is done by weight and standard. Centuries ago in Venice people had already appreciated the necessity of standardizing. They standardized their ships to enable them to exchange spare parts. In the case of railways a 4 ft. 84 in. gauge is used throughout the world. When the building of railway lines started in South Africa in 1859, it was also decided to build lines with a 4 ft. 8f in. gauge. The first railway line from Cape Town to Wellington was built according to those measurements. Unfortunately it was found, as a result of the mountainous nature of our country, that it was unpractical and would be too expensive to adhere to those measurements. Later it was therefore decided to change to a 3 ft. 6 in. gauge railway line. In countries like Japan we also find railway lines with a gauge of 3 ft. 6 in. In Australia there are three different gauges. Those differences have resulted in tremendous difficulties with the transfer of goods and passengers.

At the turn of the century it was decided to introduce 24 in. gauge railway lines in South Africa. The object of that was the development of remote parts of our country. One of those lines was built in my constituency, namely the railway line from Port Elizabeth to Avontuur. The decision to build those narrow-gauge lines was taken with the object of developing the country. It is of interest that the Railways Administration appointed two officials to advise the farmers there. One of those officials had the task of advising the farmers as to what they should grow. He was stationed at Humansdorp. The other had the task of selling the farmers’ produce in Port Elizabeth. That was surely unique, and something the Railways Administration will never do again. That the construction of that narrow-gauge line proved a stimulant to the production of that area, is evident from the fact that within six years of its construction that railway line had become a paying concern. It goes without saying that everybody did not agree that building 24 in. gauge lines was a good thing. The General Manager of the Cape Government Railways said: “The adoption of two separate gauges for railways in this country is not to my mind an entirely good thing, and the effects on the country will be extremely far-reaching.” Even then he had therefore already realized that it was a mistake to build such narrow-gauge lines. To-day there are 400 miles of narrow-gauge lines left in our country. Of these, 194 miles are in the Port Elizabeth—Avontuur area, and 230 miles in the mountainous regions of Natal. At one stage there were also 353 miles of narrow-gauge line in South West Africa, but these were recently widened at a cost of R14,000,000, i.e. R40,000 per mile. We appreciate that the Railways Administration will not simply build new lines or make changes without having a sound reason for doing so. In South West Africa they did that under guarantee by the Administration of South West Africa. In terms of that guarantee the Administration of South West Africa had to pay R966,000 during the year 1962, R770,000 in 1963, and R538,000 in 1964. You will therefore notice that the commitments of the Administration of South West Africa are decreasing continually, and the time will therefore come when the wide-gauge line there will be self-supporting. That proves that it can be done.

Differences in the gauges of railway lines bring disadvantages to the users of those lines. Because I know the line between Port Elizabeth and Avontuur well, I want to confine my-self to that line. Loads are transferred there at great expense by 20 checkers and 200 labourers. The Schumann Commission recommended that that be abolished, a recommendation which has been accepted. The fact remains, nowever, that those expenses have to be met and represent extra expenditure. Large quantities of fresh fruit are produced in my constituency and there are frequently delays in the transfer of that fruit. In addition, the containers are damaged. Go to the Johannesburg market and see in what condition apples from the Longkloof arrive there. Compare that with the condition of apples from the Boland, and you will see that the damage to apples from the Longkloof is much greater. We cannot use refrigerator wagons on the narrow-gauge line between Port Elizabeth and Avontuur. On wide-gauge lines producers can in fact use refrigerator wagons to convey their produce to the markets. Farmers in that region have to compete with the rest of the country, despite the fact that there are long delays in the transfer of their fruit when it arrives at Port Elizabeth. In addition, the consignments are damaged. Citrus, in particular, reaches the markets in a very poor condition. Because those farmers are not getting proper and satisfactory service by means of that narrow-gauge line, you will find that more and more of them are undertaking the transportation of their produce themselves.

The region served by this narrow-gauge line is developing phenomenally. It is a region with a very favourable climate and is not subject to the severe droughts that afflict other parts of our country. The soil there is fertile, there is abundant water, there is electric power and the farmers are progressive. They are very cooperative conscious and are making rapid progress. In addition, this region is situated on the doorstep of the rapidly developing Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage complex. A large share of the production of the area is intended for export. Here I am thinking in particular of citrus and apples. Those products require quick and efficient transport. Road transport is already being used on a large scale, and during the apple season, for example, that small train is already working to its full capacity. In fact, 20 buses a day are already needed to help transport the apples to the harbour. It has been calculated that in 20 years’ time the number of those buses will increase to 120, in other words, a large Railway bus will have to move along that road every four minutes. You may imagine what the traffic along that road would be like if that came about. The Longkloof region is a long, narrow strip, and as such it is very well suited to service by trains rather than buses. Buses are suitable for transporting produce to a central point, while trains are the most suitable means of transport for a long, narrow strip such as the one I am discussing. For that purpose the ordinary wide-gauge lines have to be constructed, of course.

With its cold climate, the Longkloof is most suitable for apple farming. This region receives a regular rainfall and consequently has abundant water. At present 43 per cent of the country’s apple trees are in the Longkloof already, and more are being planted all the time. According to a conservative estimate, 5,000,000 boxes of apples will be produced there by the year 1975. The Gamtoos Valley is developing rapidly. The Government has decided to build an irrigation scheme there, namely the Kouga Dam, at a cost of R20,000,000. This dam has virtually been completed. Production in that region will therefore receive a tremendous stimulus. It is one of the few schemes in the country that can meet all the water requirements of its vicinity. In fact, there is too much water, and it is in fact intended that Port Elizabeth will receive 40,000,000 gallons per day from there. That is because there is not enough land to irrigate.

Then there is also the Tsitsikamma region, that is, the strip between the mountains and the sea. It is a region which is commonly known as the Garden Route, and is one of the most beautiful parts of our country. It is ideally suited to afforestation, and 5,500,000 cubic feet of wood is already being produced there.

A further consideration is that if the railway line from Avontuur to Kamfer were extended, the distance by train between Port Elizabeth and Cape Town would be shortened by 100 miles. In this connection it should be noted that the traffic arrangement from east to west is relatively inefficient compared with that from north to south. It is therefore essential that this link, amongst other things, should be investigated. It will also open up an alternative harbour for the fruit farmers and for those who have to transport wood from the Tsitsikamma region. The line that will have to be built through the Upper Longkloof will pass through a highly productive region. In addition, the terrain is easy and the construction of a railway line should therefore not be too expensive. As things are, it has already been necessary to buy 200 additional wagons in order to cope with the traffic. It will thus be necessary to buy new rolling stock continually. It is wrong, of course, to buy stock that will be obsolete within a year or two. Some other solution will therefore have to be found. One solution will be to switch to diesel units. These are expensive, however, and will of course also fall into disuse when that line has to be widened one day. The question I ask myself is whether the additional costs involved in operating that line are not in excess of the capital that will be required to widen the line.

For many years it has been the policy of the Railways Administration to build new lines only if such lines are guaranteed against any shortfalls on their operation, or if the production of that region proves that the construction of a railway line will be justified. As regards the narrow-gauge railway line between Port Elizabeth and Avontuur, the costs of improvements to roads with a view to increased road transport, the purchasing of rolling stock, transfer costs, and private transport which is already in use, should be offset against the expense of widening the line. It was a mistake to build a narrow-gauge railway line there, and to-day I want to make the request that that mistake should now be set right, and the sooner it is done the cheaper it will be.

On behalf of this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Humans-dorp on his maiden speech. The hon. member has done well, as he has done well to become a representative in this House of a constituency such as Humansdorp. He comes from a very well-known and well-respected family and I hope he will follow in the footsteps of his worthy ancestors.

Mr. Speaker, my speech will probably be the last in this debate before the hon. the Minister replies and as my time is limited I will not dwell on the finer details of points which have been mentioned. I have found some remarks from hon. members on the other side of the House very interesting. Time and again it has been stated by hon. members opposite that the opposition in this House will never again come into power. What puzzles me and others on this side, is that hon. members opposite spend most of their time in attacking us. Why do they if they are certain that, as they say, the Opposition will never again come into power? Besides this, hon. members apparently only came here to pay homage and to thank the Minister. It is our duty to offer constructive criticism whenever we see that such criticism is justified.

As far as this Budget is concerned, hon. Government members have offered many excuses, without having advanced any real reason or necessity, for such a bad Budget. Its effects will be felt by every householder in South Africa, a fact which has been admitted even by hon. members opposite. Especially will this be so. on account of the increased fares for travelling to and from their work. All these increases must inevitably further increase the already upward curve of the cost of living.

As regards the effects of the tariff increases on the agricultural industry, I recall one member having said that the farming community should be glad for being let off so lightly. I wish I could say the same but knowing the plight the farmers are in, the hon. member knows it is not so. In fact, there is nothing in this Railway Budget for which the farmer can be glad. Already they are carrying a tremendous burden as a result of the drought and in addition, there is concern at their costs of production which are continually increasing. Now hon. members opposite say that the farmer is happy that tariffs on agricultural produce have not been increased to any large extent. That to me is nonsense. I cannot understand how hon. members can come here, and talk like that.

Then there are catering tariffs. Let me say that the catering on the South African Railways is first class. I do not myself often travel first class but I can say that the catering is first class. I am pleased that hon. members on the opposite side have nothing to do with the catering, because then it would not be so good. However, I notice that there is going to be an increase of 10c per meal. Well, I do not mind paying the extra 10c but what is disturbing is the prospect that the Minister will be forced to withdraw dining cars from certain lines. He will have to do that because operating these cars will simply not be a payable proposition. Many people board trains for long journeys with their own picnic baskets, a tendency which I am sure will be increased by this increased tariff. Fewer and fewer people will patronize the dining saloons. They might continue to buy a cup of tea or a cup of coffee, but less meal tickets are going to be sold.

The whole trouble is that the Railways have to make up a deficit of R46,000,000 by means of these increased tariffs. In no single instance have tariffs been reduced. No hon. member on the other side has endeavoured to suggest or make out a case for a reduction of tariffs in one single instance. We have had vicious attacks only. The hon. member for Colesberg, for instance, mentioned yesterday that the United Party has always viewed the railwayman only as railwaymen and that we never wanted them to have a decent house or a motor car. The hon. member it seems to me was still under the impression that he was making an electioneering speech from a public political platform in De Aar. This is a type of speech usually made from a political platform in centres where there are many railwaymen. But what the hon. member alleged, is not true. I would like him to point out where any United Party member ever suggested or created the impression that we as a party had no time for the railwayman.

We have plenty of time for those people. They are doing a wonderful job of work, Sir. But we object to the making of political speeches by hon. members on that side in an effort to justify the unsatisfactory Railway Budget proposals.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but the eight hours allotted for this motion under Standing Order 92 have expired.

Sir, I am also sorry—I was just coming to the cream of my speech.

Business interrupted in terms of Standing Order No. 92 (1) (a).

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that he will seldom be sorry for something which he did not say, but he will very often be very sorry for something he did say!

*There is an old saying that a leopard never changes its spots. That certainly applies to the United Party. This has been my 12th Budget in this House, and over the years I have had to listen to 12 Budget debates. In addition there have been two debates on part appropriations. I sat here and listened to them in days gone by when we still had a reasonably strong Opposition—roundabout 1954. I have seen them diminish in number over the years until they have been left with the few members we now see on that side of the House. But, Sir, the attitude adopted by the Opposition, the themes of their speeches, and the type of attack which they launched during this debate are still the same as they were 12 years ago. In other words, they have learnt nothing over all those years, neither will they ever learn anything. All we heard from that side of this House yesterday and to-day, was a repetition of what had already been said by other speakers—and possibly more ably. I should like to quote one example to you, Sir. In 1963 there were also tariff increases and at that time the then shadow Minister of Transport—Mr. Russell—moved the following amendment—

1. (1) raising the cost of living, which will bear heavily on the lower and middle income groups;
2. (2) driving up cost structures and slowing down the rate of economic growth;
3. (3) threatening the precarious existence of certain marginal mines, which could lead to distress and unemployment; and
4. (4) penalizing all railway users severely.

That is what that hon. member said at that time. On the present occasion the Opposition has also moved an amendment to my motion, and it reads as follows—

The only improvement is that this amendment is considerably shorter than that of 1963. As I have said, the United Party has learnt nothing. We have been hearing the same story for the past 12 years, especially when unavoidable tariff increases have been made. On the other hand we always hear from those members that the wages and working conditions of the railwayman should be improved. Thus they are pleading for higher expenditure. They have even alleged that the latest wage increases came a year too late and should have been granted a year earlier. In other words, Sir, the Railways should have had considerable deficits one year earlier. On the one hand that side is pleading for increased expenditure, but the extra revenue to cover that expenditure presumably has to fall from heaven like manna. What is the reason for this phenomenon, Mr. Speaker? On the one hand they are trying to curry favour with the railway worker. On the other hand they cannot afford to lose favour with the railway user. One wonders what benefit the Opposition can derive from these tactics. Of what use has such a course of action been to the United Party over the years? Because at every election both the railwayman and the public have rejected that side more and more decisively. The reason for that is that the railwayman and the public simply do not believe the United Party—they do not trust it … They feel that way about the Opposition because a party whose guiding principle is political manoeuvring can never hope to enjoy general support.

As their general objection to the tariff increases hon. members on that side advanced the argument that the increases were unnecessary. They said that there was a Rates Equalization Fund with a credit balance of R55,000,000, and that this fund should be used to meet the deficits. As hon. members all know the Rates Equalization Fund is the only reserve fund which the South African Railways has. The Administration has no other reserve fund. This fund has to be used on the one hand to avoid unnecessary fluctuations in tariffs and on the other hand to prevent wage reductions. Let me make use of a few comparative figures. The Railways’ turnover is expected to be as much as R700,000,000 next year. Therefore a reserve of R55,000,000 is really a minimal one. Hon. members on that side have said repeatedly that this fund should be built up to at least R100,000,000. They have admitted that it is essential to have this fund. The fund is standing at R55,000,000 at present. Last year’s deficit was R13,900,000. Let us say R14,000,000, to use round figures. For the current year I am budgeting for a deficit of approximately R9,500,000. That means that R23,500,000 will have to be drawn from this fund. That leaves a credit balance of R31,500,000. Now I want to say that the public has enjoyed the benefit of that R23,500,000. Because, Mr. Speaker, if I had increased tariffs ten months ago the public would have paid higher tariffs ten months earlier. But because I have held the increase in abeyance for ten months, the general public has received a benefit of R23,500,000 out of the Equalization Fund.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, hon. members on that side insist that I should not have increased tariffs. Had I accepted their advice, what would the position have been? I would have had a deficit of R14,000,000 last year. In the current year, without increases, I would have had a deficit of R37,000,000. I would have had a total deficit of R51,000,000. That would have meant that at the end of the current financial year the Rates Equalization Fund would have had a credit balance of R4,000,000 only. But then no provision would have been made for next year. Those hon. members do not want me to look further ahead than to-morrow. They have not considered what the position would be in the next financial year. They do not want any provision to be made. Now, what will the position be in the next financial year? Expenditure will increase by approximately R40,000,000, which represents a percentage of 5.9. Most of these increases in expenditure are simply unavoidable. Certain aspects which I may mention are increased interest payments, greater depreciation—higher costs in all spheres. It is calculated—and this calculation is a very conservative one—that the increased expenditure will amount to approximately R40,000,000 in the next financial year. All the indications are that our revenue will not keep abreast of this increased expenditure. But if we assume that our revenue next year will increase by 6 per cent while expenditure will increase by 5.9 per cent, we shall, in the absence of increased tariffs, have a deficit of R50,000,000 for the year at the end of the next financial year. The Rates Equalization Fund would contain R4,000,000 only. And now, Mr. Speaker, can hon. members opposite tell me how that deficit should be met? Tariff increases cannot be made retrospective, of course. Does that side expect that the Consolidated Revenue Fund—in other words, the tax-payer—should meet the deficit on the Railways? It would not surprise me at all if that side did make such an absurd suggestion. After all, the hon. member has referred to a temporary measure which I could take, namely that the Consolidated Revenue Fund should meet the deficits on the Railways. Or does the Opposition want me to do what Mr. Sturrock did in the years 1945-6 and 1946-7? This former United Party Minister, who was eulogized to such an extent by the hon. member for Yeoville, set about things in a different manner. In those years he decreased contributions to the Renewals Fund by 50 per cent, with the result that the real weak financial position of the Administration was in fact concealed. This had the result that the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours had to criticize the Minister. Does the Opposition want me to follow the example of ex-Minister Sturrock? But there is also another possibility, Mr. Speaker. Do hon. members opposite want tariff increases to be postponed for, say, seven months—until the end of the financial year—and that the Equalization Fund should in the meantime bear the deficit of R37,000,000 this year? If they want that to be done, what about their concern over the poor man and the man in the street, because all that would happen would be that the increases would be postponed for seven months.

Sir, the Opposition did not tell me what they wanted me to do. And that is the type of Opposition with which I have to deal when a Budget debate is in progress. They are completely irresponsible and unashamedly opportunistic.

My colleague the Deputy Minister of Transport has shown what effect the increases would have on most foodstuffs. In fact, he proved that the effect would only be a minimal one and that there really ought to be no rise in the cost of living. He explained this aspect in detail yesterday and consequently I do not want to repeat what has already been said.

Sir, I now want to deal with the speech of my hon. friend, the hon. member for Yeoville. Mark Twain, the famous American author, once said the following: “Noise proves nothing. Often a hen who has merely laid an egg cackles as if she had laid an asteroid.” I have repeatedly tried to teach the hon. member for Yeoville a few lessons since his appointment by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as the shadow Minister of Transport—an appointment the hon. Leader surely often regrets. I have emphasized to him that I shall assist him as far as possible when he makes a speech. I am even prepared to provide him with relevant information beforehand. But then the hon. member must comply with two conditions. In the first instance, he should be absolutely sure of his facts, and in the second instance he should try to speak the truth. I have said that the hon. member should not think when he is speaking in this House that he is speaking from an ordinary political platform and that his audience will swallow everything he says. Here his speeches are subjected to a critical analysis. For that reason he should make very sure of his facts. And he should also speak the truth. I shall now give a few examples to show what I mean. Right at the beginning of his speech the hon. member said the following—

The hon. member was referring to 1962—

Now, that is not the truth. Why does the hon. member make such untrue statements? Why does he not look up the Hansard of 25th January, 1963? There he would have seen the facts and then he could have spoken the truth. Mr. Speaker, it does not become the hon. member to get up here and to tell such untruths without turning a hair. The real wage increases amounted to R21,000,000. The tariff increases amounted to R22.4 million. And the hon. member says: “It was twice the amount of the salary and wage increases.” The hon. member is welcome to make a note of the references and to look up Hansard at a later stage. The column number is 197 of 25th January, 1963.

The hon. member said that I announced tariff increases of R49.2 million in my budget speech. But he deliberately omitted to add that R2.9 million per annum has been sacrificed and that the real additional revenue will be R46.3 million. He kept silent about that.

No, I did not keep silent about that.

The hon. member can read his speech again.

I did mention that.

Yes, afterwards. At the beginning of his speech the hon. member spoke of R49.3 million.

That is the total increase. I mentioned that.

He maintains …

You are struggling now.

Oh, no. The hon. member is feeling bad, but he is still going to feel worse. The hon. member said later on—

I want to make a further quotation so that the hon. member cannot deny that he did in fact use the words to which exception is being taken. He went on to say—

Now, that is not true, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member had my Budget Speech in front of him when I was addressing this House. He was not only listening to me when I was making that speech, but he was reading the speech at the same time. If the hon. member did not listen to me, he must at least have read what I said. The following words, inter alia, appeared on page 36 of the copy of my speech. The hon. member can make a note of it and subsequently he can look up the speech. I said—

Now, Mr. Speaker, surely what I said is something quite different from what the hon. member alleged I said. Why does he make such wild allegations? Is the hon. member not ashamed of himself? He is exposed every year.

You are really struggling to-day.

No, I am not struggling at all. The hon. Leader has now made that remark in an attempt to protect the hon. member. In my speech I informed this House which of the recommendations of the Commission I do accept and which I reject. I said very clearly that irrespective of the Commission’s recommendations tariff increases simply had to come. On page 41 of my speech I said the following—

This additional revenue will follow on the application of the Commission’s recommendations. Now, how does the hon. member arrive at the conclusion that I have used the Schumann Commission’s recommendations with a view to introducing a general increase in tariffs? Surely it is absurd to make such an allegation.

It is a fact!

But it is not a fact. The hon. member still does not know what he is saying. It has been stated very clearly here what the recommendations of the Schumann Commission were. And the basic recommendations were in connection with the non-adjustment of tariffs to the level at which we are today. Surely it is absurd to take the Schumann Commission’s recommendations and to obtain R46,000,000 per annum on that basis. The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. If the hon. member had read that report properly, he would have seen that there were certain short-term as well as long-term recommendations. As regards the short-term recommendations, I have accepted certain of them and I have mentioned that here. I stated that that would result in revenue to the extent of approximately R6,000,000 being sacrificed and that it would yield more than R3,000,000 in revenue. In other words, it would result in a loss of nearly R3,000,000. One of the recommendations reads: The increase of low tariffs and the reduction of high tariffs. That is a long-term recommendation. I have said that that is accepted in principle. It has to be done on a gradual basis. The Schumann Commission mentioned a period of ten years. But if I had applied that recommendation immediately it would have meant that all the uneconomic tariffs would have had to be eliminated immediately. In this connection, Sir, I quote you the example of the conveyance of coal to Cape Town, as well as all the agricultural tariffs, which are uneconomic. And what would the repercussions then have been on commerce and industry in our country? I say that I have made all that very clear in my Budget Speech. The hon. member has listened to it and he has read it. And then he comes along here and makes such absurd and incorrect statements. I shall now deal with passenger traffic. The recommendation of the Schumann Commission is—because there is such a tremendous loss—that adjustments should be effected over a period of ten years in order to cover direct costs eventually. In 1964-5 the total loss on passenger services—after free and concessionary tickets had been taken into account—was R43.1 million. The proposed increases will yield additional revenue of R7.9 million. That means that there will still be a deficit of R35,000,000 on passenger services annually. Those deficits will increase progressively, because in the nature of things the costs are increasing, while passenger traffic is decreasing on the whole. At any rate, that has been the trend in recent years. It is therefore totally incorrect to suggest that, whereas the Schumann Commission recommended that those increases should extend over a period of ten years, I have now done it in one year. In this connection I just want to say this. As regards passenger fares there has not been a single increase over the past 12 years. Since 1954 there has been no increase in passenger fares. And, proportionately, passenger fares on the Railways are lower than fares on private transport services. Now I want to ask this question. Is there any private transport undertaking which has not introduced an increase in fares over the past 12 years? That is not the case. But in spite of that and where this is being done with a view to making passenger transport a little more economic, as recommended by the Schumann Commission, strong objections are now being raised against the increase in fares. As I have said, Bantu fares on guaranteed railway lines, about which the hon. member is so concerned, are not being increased. Then the hon. member said that I was not prepared to absorb any part of the increased expenditure. Once again that is not correct. In the course of my speech I have already pointed out that R23,500,000 of the deficits there have been, already has to be absorbed by the Rates Equalization Fund. How can the hon. member make the assertion that not a single cent of this additional expenditure is being absorbed by the Railways? The Rates Equalization Fund has in fact absorbed it. At the end of the current year it will absorb R9,500,000. In the past financial year R14,000,000 was absorbed by the Fund, a total therefore of R23,500,000 absorbed by the Rates Equalization Fund. The hon. member continued and made the astonishing assertion that I only pretended to budget for a deficit of R9,500,000 in the current year, while I was in fact budgeting for a surplus of R10,000,000 for the full year. The hon. member went further and said—and I am quoting his exact words—

In order to discover this elementary fact, the hon. member, or rather the reporter of the Rand Daily Mail, must have carried out the necessary research about which the hon. member was so glad. Because otherwise he would never have discovered that. He discovered it when reading it in the Rand Daily Mail. All that was necessary, Mr. Speaker, was a little bit of arithmetic. If I increase tariffs—as I have stated in my Budget Speech—to collect R46,000,000 over a full year, then it is obvious that the amount for seven months, i.e. from 1st September, must be less than R46,000,000. I stated in my Budget Speech what the anticipated revenue for this year would be if tariff increases were excluded. I also stated what the expenditure would be. If the hon. member had only remembered the figure of R37,000,000 when he read it and had deducted R9,500,000 from that, he would have been able to determine exactly what the tariff increases would bring me this year. Surely it was not necessary to go to the reporters of the Rand Daily Mail to discover that elementary fact. Surely it was an obvious one. For that reason I said by way of interjection: “That should have been quite obvious to you.” To that the hon. member replied: “No, but it has become obvious to me now”, i.e. only after he had read the Rand Daily Mail. Now he alleges that I have in actual fact budgeted for a surplus of R10,000,000. Mr. Speaker, that is an astonishing statement. In other words, if I had introduced the tariff increases from 1st April last year there would have been an increase of R10,000,000. But we are dealing with facts now. I have introduced the tariff increases as from 1st September, i.e. for a period of seven months. That gives me a loss or a deficit of R9,500,000. The tariff increases amounting to R46,500,000 will only be collected next year. How the hon. member can make such an astonishing statement, namely that I am in actual fact budgeting for a surplus of R10,000,000 when there is a deficit of R9,500,000 this year, leaves me stone cold. That just goes to show, Mr. Speaker, how much value one can attach to a speech of the hon. member for Yeoville. We had exactly the same state of affairs in previous years when he participated in this kind of debate. The only difference is that he did not climb to the top of a mine-dump to watch trucks at Angelo during the recess this year. But the hon. member did allege that I had not announced the tariff increases before the general election because of political considerations. He also alleged that the wage increases granted to the staff were granted with a view to the general election. For that reason they would allegedly only have been granted in the month of October. Now, Mr. Speaker, I first want to say that I said at several meetings during the election that tariff increases would be unavoidable by the end of the year. I did not try to hide the fact. However, if I had introduced these tariff increases before the general election, it would in any case have made no difference to the outcome of the election. I have said on a previous occasion that the hon. member for Yeoville was one of the major assets of the National Party. For as long as he remains the chief propagandist of the United Party and the chief adviser to the Leader of the Opposition, we can be very sure that that party will decline. That was clearly proved once again during the recent general election. And for that reason I want to use the same words in reference to his speech as those with which he ended his speech yesterday, namely: “It was ill-timed, unwise and ill-considered.”

And now, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with the matters raised by other hon. members.

The hon. member for Pinetown referred to the accounting procedure in regard to passenger fares. The position is this. Expenditure is divided between goods and passenger traffic on a pro rata basis according to the train miles, vehicle miles, etc., relating to each service. Revenue derived from mail and parcels traffic is credited to passenger services in full and in addition a proportionate share of rent and storage charges and miscellaneous revenue.

Regarding the question of concessionary and free tickets, I want to point out that when the cost was established in accordance with the recommendation of the Schumann Commission—and this has in fact been done—it was shown that should the sacrifice in revenue in respect of free and concessionary tickets be taken into account, the total loss on passenger services during 1964-5 would have been reduced from R51.4 million to R43.1 million, which still leaves a loss of such magnitude as to necessitate the general increase in fares.

The hon. member for Peninsula dealt with the non-White passenger station at Cape Town. He brought to my attention the congestion which is taking place there as well as the difficulties that arise when people have to ascend the steps to that station. I will have this matter inquired into, and see whether any improvements can be effected.

The hon. member for Salt River requested that a commission be appointed to re-examine the disciplinary code with a view to removing pin-pricks which he maintains is a present cause of frustration in many cases. There is nothing wrong with the disciplinary code. The hon. member cannot judge on the value or the effectiveness of the disciplinary code by referring to isolated instances. Unfortunately the hon. members always hear only one side of the case. Once they have heard the other side of the case, they usually find the action taken by the Administration to be completely justified.

The hon. member for Parktown wanted to know whether increased income would be derived from imports as a result of the latest relaxation of import control. When deciding upon the tariff increases, that was taken into consideration. I made allowance for a possible increase in revenue as a result of the relaxation of import control in respect of the next seven months of this year. What I actually did, was to reduce the proposed increase in tariffs of coal to the Cape and certain other commodities.

The hon. member for Colesberg asked that employees who have been discharged from Railway service as a result of disciplinary action and who apply for re-admission, should where possible be given an opportunity of resuming their careers on the Railways. The general policy followed at present is that applications for re-employment by persons who have been discharged from Railway service on account of the abuse of liquor, unsatisfactory records, dishonesty and/or theft, are considered after the expiry of 12 months, calculated from the date of their discharge from the Service. All possible relevant factors are taken into consideration. Thus it may happen that people are taken back into service in deserving cases.

The hon. member for Houghton expressed concern in connection with the rail accidents in which trains serving the resettlement areas were concerned. I want to say at the outset that I share this concern with the hon. member, and I can assure her that everything possible is being done to ensure the greatest safety for the travelling public. There is quite an elaborate organization employed full-time on promoting the idea of safety amongst the staff. These safety guidance officers are specially trained and concentrate their efforts to a large extent on the operating staff.

Specially trained in what?

In safety-first. Unfortunately, as in road accidents, 90 per cent of the accidents are due to the human factor. The mechanical factors play a very small part in train accidents as well as road accidents. The hon. member mentioned the signalling system. This system is considered to be adequate to control the number of trains operating on the various lines. However, it cannot prevent accidents due to negligence and the non-observance of relevant regulations. The hon. member objected to the fact that trains were running at intervals of two minutes from each other. However, there are some instances—in Japan for instance—where trains run with even shorter intervals between them. Except that you do your best, you can never guard against human negligence and human failure. Hon. members will be aware of the fact that in the case of the accidents at Croesus on the 22nd June, 1965, and near Randfontein on the 29th July, 1965, the drivers concerned were prosecuted criminally and punished. These accidents were caused by the human factor of negligence. The drivers involved in the accident near Dube on the 13th May, 1966, and Croesus on the 1st August, 1966, have also appeared in court on charges of negligence. Although the fact that two serious accidents occurred in the Johannesburg area within two months might create the impression that the accident rate is increasing, this is not so, as the following figures will illustrate. The number of accidents in which passenger trains were involved in the Reef area, which includes all the suburban lines serving in that area, was as follows: eight for 1961-2, three for 1962-3, seven for 1963-4, five for 1964-5 and four for 1965-6. During the same period the number of passengers conveyed in one direction daily between Johannesburg and the south-western Bantu areas, increased as follows: 136,000 in 1961 and 180.500 in 1964-5. Since 1960 a total of 187 additional coaches equivalent to 17 sets of 11 coaches have been put into service to cope with the additional passengers. Information is continually being obtained from all availably sources so as to enable timeous provision of the required facilities to be made. But the real problem is—even if there is any number of additional trains—that the Bantu want to go home with the first available train. They do not want to wait for subsequent trains, but all rush for the first train coming into the station. They crowd this train and even get on the buffers between the coaches.

Not to the homelands.

The hon. member is merely being silly now. We are now considering the possibility of having the necessary policemen at the stations so as to ensure that only a limited number of Bantu passengers will get onto the platform when the train arrives. The fact that additional trains are available, is not going to stop the overcrowding. I want to say that the overcrowding is certainly not the cause of accidents. To make such an allegation would simply be ridiculous. No accident has been caused by overcrowding. These accidents were in the most cases entirely due to negligence. We cannot do much about the human factor, except trying to make drivers safety conscious.

The hon. member for Albany was concerned about the increase in the tariff for wool. My reply is that on the average distance that wool is conveyed, the increase amounts to .07c per pound or .2 per cent of the value at 39c per pound. This is quite insignificant. The hon. member and the wool farmers cannot complain about an increase of seven hundredths of a cent per pound on an average distance of between 300 and 400 miles.

*I want to congratulate the hon. member for King William’s Town on his maiden speech. What he said was constructive. I can only hope that he will keep that up as long as he is in this House, and that he will not follow the bad example set by some of his colleagues.

The hon. member asked that there should be no delay in doubling the line from Blany to Cambridge and in building the avoiding line from Chiselhurst to East London. I can assure him that I am just as anxious as he is to have that work completed, and that there will be no delay, because this doubling and the avoiding line are essential. The hon. member spoke of East London harbour, and said that few goods were being shipped from there. The hon. member knows that I cannot give instructions to consignors as to where they should send their goods; that rests entirely with the people who send goods for shipment.

The hon. member for Kroonstad asked what had become of the recommendations of the Schumann Commission as regards the appeal committee and the expansion of the research staff in the Rates Department. I have accepted both these recommendations. At the moment the matter is receiving the necessary attention.

The hon. member for Langlaagte has also made his maiden speech, on which I want to congratulate him. He represents a very large number of Railway workers, and his predecessor was always a champion of the interests of the Railwaymen in his constituency and in general, and the hon. member has even to-day demonstrated clearly that he will follow in those footsteps and that he will also cherish the interests of the Railway workers.

The hon. member pleaded for more housing. I agree with him that more housing is needed, and I can assure him that houses will be built when the necessary funds are placed at my disposal.

As regards the training facilities, I can tell him that these are being expanded. We have now decentralized them to a certain extent. In certain centres special classrooms are being erected where the officials receive their training instead of going to Esselen Park. The hon. member also spoke about aptitude tests. These are already being applied. Aptitude tests are applied at the employment of personnel in quite a few grades, and we try to place the recruits in the fields for which they show the greatest aptitude.

I then come to the hon. member for Durban (Point). I do not want to say much about what he said; I think I have dealt with most of these matters already, but something that really struck me was this: He emphasized that the Railways belonged to the people of South Africa and not to the Minister and then he said immediately afterwards: “The Minister takes R46,500,000 out of the pockets of the people of South Africa for the Railways, which belong to them, which is their own undertaking”. I think it is rather a contradiction in terms.

I also want to congratulate the hon. member for Humansdorp on his maiden speech. He expressed his concern at the increase in tariffs on export fruit. Well, there has been a very small increase and I am sorry that I have had to introduce it, but if I had to postpone the tariff increases in the case of each commodity about which people expressed their concern, I would have introduced no tariff increases whatever, because I do not think there is a single person in the entire country who will be satisfied if the tariff on his particular commodity is increased. Unfortunately the tariff increases were unavoidable.

Then the hon. member asked that the narrow-gauge line should be widened. That matter has repeatedly been under consideration. I quite agree that it is desirable and I shall therefore not argue the merits of the case with him at all. I think that it is quite absurd that we still have a few of these narrow-gauge 2-ft. lines in South Africa; there are still about three of them left. The only difficulty is that it will require a tremendously large amount of money to widen them. The cost of widening them is estimated at R30,000,000, and that estimate does not even allow for the cost of rolling stock. The hon. member will realize that the R30,000,000 will have to be used for more urgent works first, and there are many urgent works on the Railways. My colleague who is to make his Budget Speech tomorrow does not nearly provide me with as much funds as I should like to have. Therefore I simply have to make the best use of the funds I receive and I have to give priority to those works which are the most essential. At this stage, at any rate, we cannot afford R30,000,000 for widening that railway line.

In conclusion I just want to say that I am the last person who likes to introduce tariff increases: that goes without saying, because those tariff increases are not applicable only to the Opposition or to people who are not supporters of the Government. The tariff increases affect our supporters as much as they affect theirs. Surely it goes without saying that if tariff increases can be avoided, no sensible Minister of Transport will introduce them. But, on the other hand, it is in the national interest that the Railways should be on a sound financial footing, and members of the Opposition will be the first, as they have been in the past, to express the most vehement criticism should Railway finances not be sound. There have been deficits in the past and they were the people who had most to say about them. Where the credit balances of statutory funds were decreased, they were the people who made the greatest fuss about it. Everybody realizes that it is in the national interest that the Railways should remain sound financially. The Railways cannot rely on contributions from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to meet its expenditure; we have never done that. That would be totally wrong. That does happen in other countries, and what is the position there? In the British Railways there are accumulated deficits which run into hundreds of millions, because they know that they do not have to feel concerned about that; they know that the Government will make good those deficits. They have no control over the granting of wage increases, because the railway workers simply say, “If there is a deficit on the Railways, Treasury can pay for it”. Is that the position we want here? My own Railwaymen do not want that, and when I tell them that there is no money for granting them wage increases they have enough sense of responsibility to accept that. However, that will not be the position if the Treasury has to meet those deficits. One cannot consider that for a single moment. If the hon. member for Yeoville would give that some thought, he would agree with me that it would be totally wrong. His predecessors agreed with me. The Railways must stand on its own feet; its accounts must balance and it obtains its revenue from one source only, and that is tariffs and passenger fares. There is no other source. If the revenue is not sufficient to cover the expenditure, tariff increases must inevitably be introduced. I agree that it will to a certain extent have a detrimental effect on the economy of the country. If one introduces tariff increases amounting to R46,000,000 over a full year, it must have repercussions on the economy. That is obvious, that is elementary, but what I do say is that it will not be as serious as hon. members on that side are trying to make out. As far as the cost of living is concerned, provided that undue profits are not made, provided that there is no exploitation by bodies and persons as a result of these tariff increases, the real increase in the cost of living ought to be minimal. It ought to have no effect on economic expansion and development. I just want to point out that in the past there have not only been tariff increases, but also tariff reductions. There were tariff reductions in 1955 and in 1946. I do not know whether it is the view taken by the Opposition, as my hon. friend on this side has said, that there should be no wage increases if there is not sufficient money; in other words, if it is inevitable that tariffs will have to be increased as a result of wage increases, no wage increases should be granted. I am not prepared to accept that. The hon. member on the other side complained about the low wages paid to Railwaymen. If I have to increase those wages, where should I get the money from?

Better organization.

Can one reply to such nonsensicalities? Is the hon. member of the opinion that the Railwayman is inefficient, that he is a rotten organizer and that he cannot do his work? Is that what he means?

He says so.

During the previous session the hon. member for Yeoville praised the Railwayman for his efficiency.

He does not organize the Railways.

But he is a worker and if there is rotten organization, how on earth can there be efficiency? And the hon. member says that there is in fact efficiency. That merely proves the absurdity of his assertion. At times I am rendered speechless by the absurd remarks made by the hon. member. I repeat that wage increases which have to be granted, cannot be granted unless provision is made for additional revenue. The cost of wage improvements last year was R33,000,000, over and above the more than R2,000,000 which I granted pensioners, a total expenditure of approximately R35,000,000, an amount which will increase to R39,000,000 with the delayed increases which many grades will now receive. Where must that money come from? Must it fall from heaven? Mr. Speaker, those wages have to be improved, but in order to improve wages additional revenue must be obtained. I repeat that it is not pleasant to increase tariffs, but when it is inevitable it has to be done. I just want to add that in spite of the increases which are being proposed now, the tariffs on the South African Railways are, relatively speaking, still lower than those of almost any other railway system in the world. If one considers what the tariff is for conveying cattle from South West Africa to Cape Town, a distance of more than a thousand miles, and compares it with the tariffs for conveying cattle in the United States or in European countries, it is clear that there is no comparison.

The Opposition asked whether I had no confidence in the future of South Africa. Such a question comes very strangely from them. They are the people who have always intimated that they really do not have any confidence in the future of South Africa. It is this side of the House which has always had confidence in the future of South Africa. But, apart from that confidence one must also be realistic. It is of no avail to close one’s eyes to contingencies; it is of no avail to close one’s eyes and to say, “I have so much confidence in South Africa that I think I shall receive R50,000,000 extra revenue next year and it is therefore not necessary to increase tariffs”. Surely it would be silly to have that kind of confidence. But in general we have a great deal of confidence in South Africa, as we have shown throughout the past 18 years. Finally, as far as efficiency is concerned, I just want to mention this one proof: While goods tonmileage—and that is the basis on which it is calculated—increased by 32.3 per cent during the past five years, the total staff figure only increased by 10.2 per cent. Attempts are still being made to increase efficiency still further, but added to that I have the wholehearted co operation of my staff in economizing as far as possible, and if it had not been for the economizing over the past months, I would have had to increase the tariffs by much more than R46,000,000. The staff realize their responsibility. We increase efficiency, we try to economize, and as a result the tariff increases only amount to R46,000,000. I am sure that the public in general will accept the tariff increases. I have read the editorials of newspapers which are not favourably disposed towards us; I have obtained my information from various sectors of the community. There is, of course, some disappointment, but in general it is accepted that tariff increases are inevitable, and I am convinced that if the general election were held tomorrow or next week, the Opposition would not only suffer a defeat, but a much greater defeat after the speeches they have made here.

May I request the privilege of the half hour? We have listened with great interest to the reply of the hon. the Minister to the preceding debate, but one of the most important items which we must discuss in the Committee is the salary of the hon. the Minister, and I hope you will allow me to discuss briefly the type of reply which was received from the hon. the Minister. I found it a pleasure to listen to the first portion and to the last portion of the hon. the Minister’s speech, where he furnished us politely, effectively and in an efficient way with a reply to the points which we raised, but I am afraid that the same cannot be said of the middle portion of his speech. The hon. the Minister could not help doing what he always does, and that is to try and conceal a weak case behind personal attacks. He always tries to belittle, insult and hurt his opponents. All that I can say to that is that one must treat it with the contempt which it deserves. One does not take any notice of it. One merely regrets that the hon. the Minister should in this way tarnish his own image and undermine his own dignity. I should like to consider the merits of the case which the Opposition is putting in regard to the administration of the Railways by the hon. the Minister.

We cannot accept the good advice which the hon. the Minister gave us, which was that whenever we criticize the Railways we always do so with a view to the votes we can catch. His advice to us is that we are apparently criticizing in the wrong way because we are losing votes. But it is essential for us as an Opposition to deal with the affairs of the Railways according to their merits, and as far as the effects of that on the voters outside is concerned, that is of lesser importance. The first consideration is to criticize correctly and constructively in the interests of South Africa, and we also know that such an honest approach to our duties will, in the long run, pay the dividends it ought to pay. But we cannot, with a view to an imminent election or a recent election, change our attitude or later our arguments for the sake of political gain, and I hope the hon. the Minister will understand this. The hon. the Minister or the Government cannot, for example, tell us in January that it would be unpatriotic to grant salary increases and that people do not need higher salaries, that they are only being greedy, and then, with a view to an election, come forward in October of the same year with tremendous salary increases. We think and act differently, and the hon. the Minister simply has to accept that.

Our objection in regard to this increase is that there is no consistent policy on the part of the Government. Time and again the Government allows the cost of living, the requirements of the wage earner, to become so great that he suffers hardships, and then they suddenly come forward with major increases which cause jolts and shocks in the economic life of South Africa. The increase which the hon. the Minister granted in October of last year, before the election, had the same affect. It suddenly injected tremendous buying power into the economy, which was inflationary, and at the same time it landed the Railways in a difficult position. It also resulted in these tariff increases which have just been introduced, which are not in themselves inflationary and could perhaps even be deflationary, but which have boosted the costs in the economy at a time when the nation was suffering the consequences of inflation and could even cause a increase in prices. If the hon. the Minister wanted to be sensible he would consider following a policy of adjusting the salaries on the Railways to changing circumstances regularly each year, particularly so as to be able to take into account any rise in the cost of living. I cannot go into that in details, but it is something which the hon. the Minister could consider.

I would like you to go into details.

That is something for the hon. the Minister to consider. We on this side are still studying the matter and I do not want to go into details yet. What must be considered is a definite income policy for the employees of the Railways which will make possible regular adjustments to their incomes, and which will make these jolts and shocks in our economy unnecessary. I think it is time that this was considered, because the fact that every few years, particularly before an election, we have this tremendous injection of increased income into the economy, with its attendant consequences, is unhealthy, and the hon. the Minister must admit that that is so.

Then there is the Rates Equalization Fund which we must consider a little further. We are not changing our attitude when we say that we must have as sound and strong a Rates Equalization Fund as possible. If it could total R100,000,000 or R200,000,000 nobody would be more thankful than the Opposition, because that would be an extremely sound position. But our argument remains unchanged. If there comes a time such as the present, when the nation is labouring under the consequences of inflation and the Government is taking drastic steps in order to combat that inflation, and the hon. the Minister then comes forward with a policy which can push the costs up still further, even though it may not perhaps be inflationary in the strict sense of the word, then that is after all what this fund is for. The hon. the Minister said himself in his speech this afternoon that the fund is there to avoid fluctuations in the tariffs.

Tell me plainly whether it is your point of view that there should not be any increases now, but that they should be postponed for a few months.

I wish the hon. the Minister would not make it necessary for me to repeat a speech which I have already made. I have already said so, and I shall have to repeat it now. We suggested that the hon. the Minister should utilize the fund to prevent these tremendous increases, while he gets to grips with certain other matters; and we specifically mentioned one of the matters which he must tackle, i.e. what he can do to make the Railways more effective so as to increase productivity. I read out to the hon. the Minister what an authority like Mr. De Villiers, the Government’s staff adviser, had to say about how inefficient labour in general in South Africa still was, and I also made the point that the efficiency of labour was the responsibility of the Administration. I said all this, but now the hon. the Minister builds up a tremendous personal case against me because he does not know what is written in my Hansard. I went further and said that we cannot assume that the drought was a permanent phenomenon. I said we could assume that our economy would come to prosper again. I referred to the 5.6 per cent increase in the national income which the Stellenbosch experts expected. My whole argument was that the hon. the Minister’s timing was wrong, and that at this stage steps must be taken to prevent this eventuality.

But in six months’ time it is not wrong?

Of course, because in six months’ time there could have been good rains and we would be able to see better what the effect of the anti-inflationary steps of the Government had been, and in six months’ time the hon. the Minister could perhaps have done something to increase the efficiency of the Railways, and then better planning could be possible. How can the hon. the Minister state that we have said nothing about this? Where does he get it from? I have just mentioned three things which I said. Why does the hon. the Minister not do a little homework as well, and why does he not tell the whole truth? If I were to conduct this debate on the level which the hon. the Minister wants to conduct it, we would really have fun, but I will not do so.

I want to go further, however. Look at the kind of arguments which the hon. the Minister used to disparage us on this side of the House, and to make us out to be people who told untruths, who were lazy and who were lying.

Order! The hon. the Minister did not say that the hon. members were lying.

Then I withdraw that remark. The hon. the Minister said a few times that I was not telling the truth. The hon. the Minister stated for example that I have spoken of a tariffs increase of R49,000,000. Of course I did. That is the gross increase.

I did not say it was untrue.

Why did you use it against me if it is not untrue?

You mentioned the R49,000,000, but you kept silent about the fact that R2,500,000 had been given up.

I was talking about the gross increase. But what is interesting is that when he attacked me the hon. the Minister read a short passage from my Hansard. It was the only passage he read out, and in that passage I referred on no less than two occasions to the net increase of R46,200,000. Why try and make these debating points? It does not become the hon. the Minister. But that is not all. The hon. the Minister made a great issue of the fact that I had said that he had marred the Schumann Commission’s report by bringing about general tariff increases. The hon. the Minister said it was so unfair of me to do so, but it is nevertheless true. I pointed out very emphatically that the Commission had in various places made recommendations in order to alleviate slightly the effect of the increases which it had itself proposed. I pointed out that with the adjustment of the 14 tariffs and in order to make it more progressive, the Commission definitely expected that some of the tariffs would be reduced. But the hon. the Minister applied the principle of the report, as he said he would.

I said that I had accepted the principles.

Good. Does the hon. the Minister then say that he accepted the principles but did not apply them? We cannot debate like that, surely? Sir, the Minister accepted the principles of the Schumann Commission. Is that correct now? I am putting it as he said I must put it. He accepted the principles but he did not accept one of the recommendations which would have brought about an alleviation of the tariffs for the public.

But surely that is untrue again.

Which one did the Minister accept?

What about the R6,000,000 per annum?

But that still results in a net increase of R3,000,000. Then there is the question of passenger fares. I was attacked in this connection as well. However, the Minister never took note of the fact—and I cannot understand why—that I only spoke about long-distance fares. That was my whole argument. On the basis of the latest figures, figures which I obtained from the Schumann Commission’s report, I pointed out that these services were being operated at a loss, a loss which had during the year 1962-3 amounted to R3,000,000 in comparison with R10,300,000 for first and second-class passengers. I subsequently asked why he was proposing an increase of 10 per cent in the long-distance third-class tariffs, an increase which would apparently eliminate the loss on that service completely. I then asked the hon. the Minister whether he was going to apply the ten-year principle in the case of first and second-class long-distance passengers, but not in the case of the third-class passengers? That was my argument. However, the Minister used quite a different argument against me. He accused me of things which I had not even raised. He delivered a long argument about the fact that I had allegedly said that he was not willing to absorb any of the losses. He stated that he had done so in the past. But the fact of the matter is that the consequence of these increases in tariffs which he is now going to apply, will be that the Minister, on the basis of the present calculations, will be assured of a surplus of R10,000,000 after one full year. The point is that the Minister’s increases of the tariffs are such that after one full year he can be assured of a surplus. The Minister cannot deny that. That was the point. Why could the Minister not, as he did in the first part and again in the last part of his speech, discuss the matters which we raised, on their merits? It would then have been worthwhile listening to the hon. the Minister. Perhaps he would then even have succeeded in convincing us that we had been wrong in regard to certain aspects. But we achieve nothing through insults and having what we have said misrepresented. The only thing which can still be achieved by doing that, is that the Minister undermines his own dignity. We do not want the Minister to do that. Only the other day I was discussing with a leading Nationalist a possible leader for the party on the opposite side, but when I mentioned the name of the hon. the Minister, that person’s reaction was that he was temperamentally unsuited to that position. [Laughter.] That is something we do not want.

But there is another very important matter which I would like to discuss with the hon. the Minister, a matter which, in my opinion, can be more suitably discussed in this Committee Stage. This matter goes hand in hand with the question of accidents on the Railways. I want to refer to the difficulties which have arisen in that part of South Africa which he and I have the honour of representing in this House, namely the Witwatersrand. I am thinking in particular of those train services which are supplied to the Bantu residential areas such as Soweto. Recently we have seen that accidents on these lines were followed by demonstrations and assaults on the train staff. This one can only regard as the expression of tremendously repressed racial tension in South Africa. I do not agree with what was said by someone on a previous occasion, i.e. that it was merely the nature of our South African Bantu to react in this way. I do not agree with that because we have already had hundreds of accidents in other places which were not followed by any rebelliousness or riots. However, this has been happening lately, particularly on the Soweto route. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister realizes how serious this matter is. I have taken the trouble in this connection to contact people who are closely associated with the Bantu in Soweto. They have confirmed that there is a smouldering unrest amongst the people there. I am not trying to justify it, but what I do want is that we should merely accept it as a fact. The Bantu there argue that they are being compelled to live in separate residential areas which are far away from their places of work. They cannot afford private transport and since there are no efficient bus services either, their only recourse is rail transport. Now it so happens that their own people cannot operate those trains and their own people cannot work as conductors or as ticket examiners on those trains. That is why they are asking, whenever an accident occurs, “Is it not the White man’s fault?” That is how they argue. I am not prepared to reveal across the floor of this House where I obtained that information from, but I am prepared to furnish it to the hon. the Minister privately. However, I can say that, inter alia, I received this information from Bantu leaders themselves.

It is understandable that, under the circumstances, there should be a large measure of concern on the part of the White train staff. The hon. the Minister knows of course what the Secretaries of the Running Staff Association and Von Lemas had to say in this connection, and that requests have been made to him to provide policemen on those trains as well as on the stations. Even radio communications and an improvement of the public relations between the workers and the train passengers have been requested. There is disquiet and concern over this matter. It is even being alleged that the wives of these train staff members simply cannot sleep at night. Now I know that there will be people who will abuse this state of affairs, that is why I wonder whether the time has not come for an investigation to be made of a possible alteration of the method of manning those trains. In regard to the phenomena of nervousness and fear amongst the train staff, I would like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to an article appearing in the Frankfurter Zeitung. It came to my attention in a publication sent to us by the German Embassy. In the German Tribune of the 12th March, 1966, there is a very interesting article under the heading: “Every second railway accident could be prevented.” In that article Herr Henckel of the Federal Railways of West Germany pointed out that Japan with 3 ft. 6 in. wide railway lines have the fastest trains in the world, trains which sometimes run at a speed of 200 kilometres per hour.

Allow me to correct you. It is on a new line which they have constructed from Tokio to Osaka, with a width of 4 ft. 8½ in., where such high speeds can be maintained.

That may be so. In any case this writer states that those services may be regarded to-day as being absolutely safe from the viewpoint of the human element, thanks to the psychological instruction of the staff. In 1952, for example, when the speed was increased, the number of accidents decreased by 45 per cent. Herr Henckel made the statement when addressing an audience in Munich. At the same time he referred to the methods being used by four psychologists which were being applied to the train staff of the train services in West Germany. These psychologists have succeeded in eliminating the human element, which can give rise to accidents, in 95 per cent of the train staff. Of the 500,000 workers on the Federal Railways these psychologists treated 350,000, and all of them, with the exception of 5 per cent, were free of any possible human element which could cause accidents. The remaining 5 per cent were then given other work, but it is understandable that they could have caused a very great deal of difficulty. What I found particularly interesting, was the following—

Where we at present have people, who, under the present policy, one which we all accept, have to drive these trains with the potential enmity of the passengers directed at them, something which causes them to have to work under tension and in fear of their own safety, then I wonder whether this does not give rise to tension, which, if it is at all possible, must be eliminated. Does the hon. the Minister think that the only solution to this problem is to put armed police on these trains or to have armed police at every station? Is this the only solution, or is there something else which can also be done?

In this connection I want to say the following to the hon. the Minister, and I know I am speaking on behalf of every hon. member on this side: If it is necessary, with a view to this situation, to effect changes to certain aspects of the conventional policy in South Africa with regard to the rendering of services to the various races, if it perhaps becomes necessary to obtain the consent of the trade unions in question to effect changes so that one particular race can be served by members of that race on the trains, then it will receive the support of this side of the House. I can give him the assurance that it will in no way be abused for any political ends, or with the purpose of embarrassing the hon. the Minister. We all feel very strongly that something must be done to overcome as quickly as possible the extremely dangerous state of affairs which is developing. Perhaps what I have proposed is not the solution. I do not know. But it is a matter of urgent necessity that the matter be examined right away. He is assured of the support of this side of the House. I shudder to think what could happen if there were to be a major disaster on that extremely busy railway line in the near future. Hundreds of trains operate daily. In fact, I understand that 250,000 people are transported daily along those railway lines. Anything can happen, we may meet with a disaster. The consequences of anything like that on racial relationships on the Witwaters-rand could then be quite fatal. The Witwatersrand is the melting-pot of racial relationships in South Africa and for that very reason we are particularly thankful that there is such a large measure of racial peace. That is why I am certain that the hon. the Minister will agree with me when I say that we should take certain steps in this matter, and do so with imagination, in order to eliminate unnecessary points of friction.

Mr. Chairman, I can very well understand that the hon. member for Yeoville should behave here like a boy who has been given a hiding. I think he deserved that hiding, because he made a large number of irresponsible statements here and was then reprimanded by the Minister. He complained that the Minister had accused him of having told untruths. The hon. member in his turn denies that he did so. I also drew his attention to a false statement he had made. He alleged that when the hon. the Minister increased the salaries of the Railwaymen by R21,000,000 in 1962, the Minister also increased his tariffs shortly afterwards so that the Railways would receive extra revenue to the extent of R42,000,000, in other words, twice the amount paid out as increases to Railway workers. Now that the hon. the Minister has pointed out to him that he made a false statement, the hon. member “squeals” and cries like a baby.

But I want to take up where the hon. member left off at the end of his speech. I agree with the hon. member that the conditions which have developed as a result of the enormous concentration of non-Whites on the Rand are causing concern. As a matter of fact, that is something which both the Government and the Minister are concerned about. That is one of the reasons why a new policy is being followed and why attempts are being made to draw the large number of Bantu away from the Rand to the border industries. But the Opposition opposes that. The hon. member for Yeoville opposes that, not so?

How long will it take you to remove the Bantu from the Witwatersrand?

The point is that it is the policy of the Government to encourage industrialists rather to establish their industries in border areas and thus to reduce the large concentration of Bantu on the Witwatersrand. I have every sympathy with those Bantu who have to travel long distances to and from their work. When I see the great distances the Bantu have to travel by train I often wonder what time of the night they arrive at their homes and their families. I have always wondered what time they have to get up the following morning in order to catch the train to be in time for their work. That is precisely one of the reasons why attempts are being made to remove the large numbers of Bantu from the Rand and rather to try and find some other solution. I also want to say a few words about the suggestion made by the hon. member for Yeoville that the salaries of Railway employees should be adjusted annually. The hon. member has pleaded for that, not so?

If necessary, yes.

The hon. member has pleaded for an annual adjustment. That is merely one way of saying that a cost of living allowance should be introduced again. I simply cannot understand how the hon. member, in his sound senses, can recommend that an annual adjustment should be made by the Administration. Surely that will be impossible, Mr. Chairman. I do not know whether the hon. member knows that the Administration employs approximately 108,000 Whites and an equal number of non-Whites. One can hardly imagine how many additional staff would be needed to deal with the administrative work in connection with the annual adjustment. The hon. member once again advanced the argument which has been used by hon. members opposite all along, namely that the Minister’s timing was bad, and that he should not have increased the tariffs at this stage. It was said that the deficits should have been met from the Rates Equalization Fund. This argument was repeated notwithstanding the hon. the Minister’s warning that if he had done so the Equalization Fund would have been totally exhausted. Now I want to put the same question to the hon. member. If we should find at the end of this year that the Equalization Fund was totally exhausted, where would the money come from if we should have a bad year again next year? The hon. the Minister repeatedly warned the hon. member of that, but it seems as though the hon. member has not taken much notice of that. The hon. member mentioned greater efficiency again. I want to appeal to the hon. member to make a better study of the Railways and of Railway matters. He will then find that the Administration is organized in such a way that the highest measure of efficiency is assured on the Railways. The hon. the Minister referred to the large amounts spent on Esselen Park in order to train Railway workers and to make them more efficient. The hon. the Minister explained how efficient the Railways really was. He gave a detailed explanation of how railway traffic has increased by 32 per cent, while the staff has increased by only 12 per cent. Is that not proof of efficiency? I shall not say anything more about the speech by the hon. member for Yeoville, because I do not want to waste my time.

Mr. Chairman, there is, however, one minor matter in connection with which I should like to raise a plea with the hon. the Minister. I am referring to accommodation for our young Railway employees who have moved to the towns from the rural areas to come and earn their daily bread on the Railways. I need to emphasize that the young, inexperienced Railway employee starts on the Railways with a fairly small salary. He may start as a trainee fireman and may be promoted to fireman later. As I am saying, his salary is a fairly small one, yet he has to try and get proper board and lodging in the city or in the town. At certain centres, for example Kroonstad and Bloemfontein, such accommodation has already been provided. I am thinking particularly of the young man, for example the fireman, who has to leave his place of residence regularly as part of his duties. He takes along a tin with food to eat during his absence from his boarding place. But because we find ourselves in such a difficult position as far as accommodation is concerned, the young man cannot obtain proper board and lodging in our smaller towns. I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the promise made a number of years ago that a Railway hostel would be provided at Bethlehem. This matter was accepted in principle four years ago, and a certain amount of money was appropriated in the Brown Book to start on the Railway hostel. But, Mr. Chairman, because I realize that credit restrictions and the shortage of capital have to be taken into account, I can well understand that the erection of the hostel has been delayed. For that reason I am very glad to notice in the Brown Book that a substantial amount has now been appropriated for the erection of the hostel at Bethlehem. The hostel will be able to accommodate 80 men. As far as I can gather, there are about 130 young men who cannot obtain board and lodging. I want to thank the hon. the Minister very much for his active interest in this matter. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I was wondering whether that side would make a plea on behalf of railway officials, and now at last the hon. member for Bethlehem has said something in that regard. But in the same breath he cannot help “bedanking” the hon. the Minister. The hon. member cannot help making his plea without thanking the Minister for something or other. I do not know how far this is going to get the hon. member.

Don’t you think I deserve it?

No, I do not. But I hope I will be able to “bedank” the hon. the Minister before the end of this debate. And that can happen quite easily, Sir—all the Minister has to do is to play the game with railway officials. I am not talking about the newcomers in the railways. I am referring to the old-timers, who have worked all their lives for the Railway Administration. Those are the men for whom I am now going to plead, Mr Chairman.

Two years ago I asked the hon. the Minister whether representations had been made to him by railwaymen’s organizations for allowances to be paid to railwaymen working in the Transkei. He replied to me that representations had indeed been made, but the allowances were not to be paid—allowances which were paid to civil servants in the Transkei—because railway employees are not seconded to the Transkei Government, whereas civil servants are. That was the reason why railwaymen could not get the allowance being paid to civil servants. And I think that is still the reason. I notice the hon. the Minister nods his head. It was not a good reason Sir, but at least it was a reason. But now I discover that the premises of the Minister’s argument are false. Last week, Sir, I put a question to the hon. the Minister of Finance on officials in the Audit Department working in the Transkei. Those officials do auditing for the Transkei Government. They work in the Transkei. And they are paid the appropriate allowances, for instance a housing allowance and also a territorial allowance. Yet they are not seconded to the Transkei Government. Now I cannot understand why certain officials working for the Transkei Government are paid those allowances, whilst railwaymen—who play just as important a part in the running of the Transkei—do not receive such allowances. And these allowances are not niggardly, Mr. Chairman. For instance, the rent allowance varies from R33.50 to R45 per month. The territorial allowance varies from R15 to R40 per month. The total allowance thus fluctuates between R48 and R80.50 per month. Of course, these allowances are paid in addition to salaries. These allowances paid to some civil servants in the Transkei are more than 80 per cent of the salaries paid to approximately 24,000 railwaymen. And some of these 24,000 railwaymen must be working in the Transkei. It thus appears that the total of these allowances paid to civil servants nearly equal the total salaries paid to railwaymen. What is more, Sir, the allowances paid to the lowest ranks in the civil service equal 50 per cent of salaries paid to railwaymen.

Now, Mr. Chairman, our railwaymen are, of course, performing almost important service. I grant the hon. the Minister that the Audit Department is an essential service. But surely, Sir, it is not more essential—if I may use this phrase—than the railways? The railways are absolutely essential in the Transkei. Moreover, the staff employed in the Audit Department are housed and employed in a town. They thus have at their disposal schools, hospitals, medical services, entertainment facilities, sports facilities, cultural organizations, etcetera. They have all these amenities to make their lives more interesting and happy. But what is the position of the railwaymen? Some of the railwaymen are stationed in Umtata. But many of them are stationed at isolated spots, for instance sidings, where they are many miles away from schools, hospitals, medical services, social life, etcetera. They do not have the advantage of the amenities available to the officials of the Audit Department, who are in addition paid the allowances referred to. I repeat, Sir, that the officials of the Audit Department are also not seconded to the Transkei Government. Moreover, railwaymen come into more direct contact with the Bantu than officials of the Audit Department. They are in daily contact with the Bantu. And the image of the White man’s Government is reflected in the conduct of these railwaymen. We are in fact dependent on them for the maintenance of the good relations which do exist between the Government and the Transkeian Bantu. But these men cannot give of their best if they work with a grievance. And they are indeed labouring under grievances. They are resentful. They are resentful—they and other officials—against those officials who do get paid extra allowances. Such a situation is not conducive to harmony in the administration of the Transkei. And being dependent upon the goodwill which these railwaymen can engender amongst the African population, we should see to it that they are given the same facilities as other officials. Because of the exodus of the trader and the White villager, we will have to give more and more attention to compensating those White people who have to work in the Transkei in order to keep the administration and the economic life of the territory going. As it is, Sir, social life is fast disappearing in the villages. Recreational facilities are disappearing. Small communities with dwindling numbers cannot keep tennis courts, bowling greens, and golf courses going. Cricket and football clubs have already disappeared in all the villages because of the exodus of young men. In th? larger towns the White man is also leaving. Somebody will have to provide facilities for those White officials who have to remain in the territory.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.