laid upon the Table:

1. (1) Eskom Bill [B 68—87 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Manpower and Mineral and Energy Affairs).
2. (2) Electricity Bill [B 69—87 (GA)]— (Standing Committee on Manpower and Mineral and Energy Affairs).

Mr Speaker, I move:

I have pleasure in submitting this Transport Services Appropriation Bill for the 1987-88 financial year to Parliament.

Economic Review 1986-87

The South African Transport Services based its budget for 1986-87 on a growth rate of 2,5%.

A growth rate of only 1% was realised, and this lower level is also reflected in the revenue of Transport Services.

REVIEW OF ACTIVITIES AND TRAFFIC TENDENCIES

Mr Speaker, I shall now give a brief review of the activities of Transport Services during 1986-87.

Except where otherwise stated, the percentage change is always in respect of the 1986-87 financial year as compared with the 1985-86 financial year.

Passenger Services

The economic position and freer competition in the passenger transport market resulted in inter-city and commuter passenger journeys decreasing by 32% and 6% respectively.

In order to meet the demand during high-peak periods in the April and December holidays some 1 300 inter-city coaches, which are being utilised only a few days per year, have to be kept in service. This matter is receiving urgent attention.

Goods—rail

The total tonnage of revenue-earning traffic reflects a decline of less than 1%. The prime considerations of transport users are price and quality.

If the quality of service is better than that rendered by competitors, users are prepared to pay a higher price.

With these considerations in mind, Transport Services is concentrating more and more on the provision of market-oriented services which can compete on the basis of quality and price.

Since their introduction, the popularity of min-containers is still increasing among clients. Eight per cent of all traffic previously handled in goods sheds is now being packed into mini-containers and despatched directly by consignors.

Airways

The number of both domestic and international passengers decreased by approximately 4%. As a result of this, various campaigns were introduced to ensure the profitability of the Airways. For instance, flights were curtailed with a view to bringing supply more into line with demand.

In the interests of our passengers, and in a positive effort to satisfy their needs, the catering is being improved and the cabins refurbished. Further improvements in the domestic service will soon be introduced to the public.

Road Transport

The number of passengers declined by almost 12% and goods tonnage by 6%.

Harbours

The total tonnage of cargo handled decreased by approximately 2%. Imports were approximately 5% lower, whilst exports decreased by 1,8%.

Since the inception of the containerisation concept almost ten years ago, the popularity of this method of cargo-handling has increased considerably. Quicker handling and turn-round times of ships are two of the advantages, and in this regard our harbours compare very favourably with the best in the world.

Pipelines

The volume of products handled decreased by less than 2%.

Mr Chairman, it is a privilege for me to introduce the debate on behalf of my party. When I look back upon my involvement with Parliament over many years, let me say that in my lifetime I have had a great deal to do with the SA Railways component of the SATS. I have been involved with it a great deal, but I do not think that I ever foresaw having to speak in this capacity today.

I have made use of the SA Railways’ services from my very earliest days. To tell the truth, I am told that I was ten days old when I travelled with my mother from a maternity home in Pretoria to our home in the Northern Transvaal. I am almost inclined to say that it is with nostalgia that I look back on my experiences in South African trains. As a child we made use of rail transport to go to high school, and in this connection I have very pleasant memories of the weekends when I visited one of my two grandmothers. We made use of all forms of rail transport— passenger trains, goods trains and special trains—at all times of the day and night, when we visited our great-grandparents over weekends.

What about all the girls on the trains?

Yes, the hon member for Langlaagte was there, too, and apparently he also has memories from his train-travelling days. [Interjections.]

Order! I do not think this is the occasion for confessions. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, you apparently speak from experience, too, but I shall leave the matter at that. [Interjections.]

As a student—perhaps the hon member for Langlaagte also has memories of those days— the trains provided one of the few sources of holiday jobs for students, because we could work as waiters on the trains. Even today I know whether a waiter, in the language they use, is “rough shunting” me or not. I also remember the names of people who subsequently became important figures in the SATS. Up to the present day I still make use of the SATS, both as a passenger and as a client.

At one stage trains were the main form of transportation in South Africa. From an infrastructural point of view trains contributed a great deal to the development of this country. In times when jobs were scarce the SATS, in particular, was a major force in providing relief as far as the unemployment problem was concerned.

So today I can tell the personnel of the SA Railways, the men on the footplates, the busdrivers and the conductors, that I have come to admire them for the work they do in difficult circumstances, both as far as time and general conditions are concerned. One has come to appreciate their goodwill and helpfulness, at times in very difficult circumstances.

I am also extremely grateful for their tremendous support during the recent election. They are the workers who were mentioned, who voted for my party to a very large extent and of whom we gratefully say that they are our people, and we are proud to say it.

When I evaluate a budget, I look for specific elements in it. I look for specific planning that has been done, either as a component of a larger whole or an undertaking in itself, and I also look for a specific vision of the future in such a budget. In this budget I look at how the Government is employing this specific component and at whether this budget fits into the broader planning of the Government.

In the present situation I look for anti-inflationary measures in the budget, and also for stimulation of consumption, contributions which the SATS could make in the broader, yet national, context to promote more uniform development, and what contribution it is going to make towards stimulating industry and effectively promoting industrial decentralisation.

I must say that I am sorry that I have not found what I was looking for in this Budget. What is commendable—let me say this at once—is the effort made by the officials to improve productivity and the way in which, in particular, the non-striking personnel, specifically the Whites, got down to limiting to a minimum the disruption caused by the strike. We want to thank and congratulate them sincerely for doing so.

The first thing that struck us when we listened to the hon the Minister’s Budget speech, and again when we read it, was the decreasing amount of goods and passenger traffic the SATS has handled in recent years. I wish to accept that on the one hand this is a reflection of poor economic conditions, but on the other hand I must say—on previous occasions I have said this to one of the hon Minister’s predecessors—that one cannot get away from the fact that there is something wrong with SATS tariffs.

It could be that transport users, for some or other reason, want to make use of other forms of transport, and I do not want to argue about that. This is true, particularly in the case of perishable products that deteriorate rapidly or in the case of a consumer who wants to get something to its destination quickly. It is self-evident that the SATS has problems in that regard. The fact remains that if something is wrong and the hon the Minister increases his tariffs, he will keep on losing clients.

Firstly, therefore, we must ask ourselves why the SATS is losing goods freight and passengers. On the other hand we must ask whether it is doing anything to counteract the tendency. In that connection the most important person to consider is its client, the user of its services. The hon the Minister must see in what way he can satisfy his client, and he must not think he can do so by way of tariff increases. He must get to know what the clients’ needs are and he must satisfy them; he must not try to meet what he thinks are needs.

In this regard I want to suggest—the other day we were assured that no one could do it better than the SATS—that the SATS should obtain the services of a firm of private consultants to tell it what the needs of its clients are and how they should deal with the situation.

If the SATS tells us that its transport is declining at present and that it is increasing prices, the hon the Minister is moving even closer to pricing himself out of the transport market in South Africa. In this regard I regret having to say that there is a kind of cynicism evident in the Government’s attitude, as reflected in this Transport Services Budget.

The hon the Minister is budgeting for a 3% growth rate. I think he budgeted last year for a 2,5% growth rate and experienced problems as a result. For the sake of the country I hope that that 3% growth rate will be achieved, but I doubt strongly that it will. We must therefore accept that there is not going to be a very great increase in traffic this year, and in that case I foresee problems for the hon the Minister.

The hon the Minister has of course announced his tariff adjustments, but he was not very clear about what precisely the increase was going to be. In his speech he said that he estimated it to be an average of 10%, but that certain tariffs, such as those for commuter services, would be increased again on 1 October. Apart from the increases, he also spoke of changes in tariff structures. I want to accept that those tariff structure changes are not going to bring about a decrease in tariffs. [Interjections.] Is the hon the Minister saying I am right? There will consequently not be a decrease in tariffs, and there are few services for which the hon the Minister has not announced increases. What is more, further changes will come into operation after 1 October. The result is that I cannot agree with the hon the Minister when he says that his increases will only be 10%.

This brings us to a further problem. The hon the Minister is budgeting for a 10% increase, but according to him his revenue will only be 5%. Does this mean that his average tariff increases are 10%, but that he expects volumes to decrease by 5%? Is this the assumption one must make.

I also want to refer to a few specific matters. According to the hon the Minister his commuter passenger services and inter-city services have decreased by 6% and 32% respectively. Yet the hon the Minister is increasing the inter-city fares by 15%, in spite of the decrease in inter-city passenger transport. By increasing the fares he is placing the service even further out of reach of those who make use of it and is not making its use more attractive to them. Yet in his speech the hon the Minister complained that he had many coaches which were only used during holiday peak periods. He could perhaps say now that this involves other kinds of coaches, but I think that by effecting a higher turnover at lower prices the hon the Minister would perhaps ensure greater revenue for his department. Then it would not be necessary to complain about a decrease in the one and, as a result, on increase in the other.

The hon the Minister must give attention to certain aspects, examples of which I have furnished to his predecessors in the past. Excursions and other incentives could stimulate passenger traffic. If I could travel more cheaply by train than by car from Louis Trichardt to Pretoria, and the trains were frequent enough to allow me to arrive in Pretoria and depart at convenient times, I would not travel by car. However, it is no longer cheaper for me to make that trip by train than by car. One of the simplest and most obvious economic laws is that of selling a good article at a price which competes favourably with that of another similar article. I want to suggest that the question of tariff fluctuations in holiday seasons be examined so that one obtains an off-season discount. This would mean the better utilisation of coaches.

I would appreciate it if the hon the Minister could indicate when he expects to receive the De Villiers Report, so that we could take note of it and study it.

In his speech the hon the Minister mentioned his remuneration parity programme. I have no problem with parity as far as remuneration is concerned, but if a wage gap is narrowed or eliminated, this must be coupled to the precondition that the gap between the service that is furnished and productivity is also eliminated. Work of quality must be done and then there is the volume of work that must be done. The criterion in that connection must be that the same payment should apply if the same work is done. The norms should also be the same.

I think that one of the matters that most dominated the discussions on the standing committee was the strike. If we look at the damage—I am almost inclined to refer to the calculable damage—one finds a very disturbing situation. The cost of the coaches damaged up to 21 April 1987 came to R20 302 400. From 21 April to 20 May further damage amounting to R902 350 was done, giving a total of R21 204 750. The man-days lost prior to dismissal as a result of the strike totalled 315 200. The financial loss suffered by the strikers in regard to bonuses came to R10 926 709, and in regard to salaries, R1l 620 555.

If one looks at the cause of the strike one finds that it was due to an employee of the SA Railways not having paid in an amount he was supposed to have paid in. The conclusion is that he wanted to steal that money. If it was a question of stolen money, it greatly weakens the strikers’ case. It is very clear, however—I do not think we should beat about the bush here—that there were certain elements in the job sphere which sought a casus belli with the Government, a reason for war. They linked it to this insignificant event. Apart from the fact that they wanted a strike—I think we know that certain things are being planned in this country—they wanted to test the Government to see how it dealt with the situation.

And it failed the test.

And it failed the test. We shall come back to that in a moment.

On the standing committee we were assured that this strike had been the result of intimidation. There were approximately 20 000 strikers involved. No one could tell us how many intimidators were involved. All they could tell us was that one of those people, now involved in a court case, was an intimidator.

The question I am now asking myself is how many people one needs in order to intimidate 20 000 other people. [Interjections.] It sounds to me as if there is an expert in this field on that side; he could tell us at a later stage how many people he thinks are needed.

As far as I am concerned, if it is true that the strikers did not turn up for work as a result of intimidation, the Government failed in not having protected those strikers against intimidation. [Interjections.] Then the Government failed lamentably. That is perturbing when it comes to the maintenance of law and order and the protection of workers in future. The Government was tested and, as my friend here to my right has said, it failed the test. It was weighed and found wanting. I think the strike was indeed a recipe for the anarchists to see what approach to adopt with this Government and, in future, paralyse this country.

My information is that during the strike, whilst services were still in operation, there was no one to collect money and sell tickets. The damage as a result of this is probably far greater than the actual damage suffered to coaches, etc. Let me say—this is something we shall be discussing further during the committee stage—that I believe that the non-payment of fares is a matter that causes the Railways to suffer great losses.

The SA Railways is not the only component of the SATS; there are also the Pipelines, the Airways and the Road Transport Services. This service is, and has always been, the pride of South Africa. I believe, however, that the gloss, the lustre, has vanished from all these services. In everything, the furnishing of this service, the quality of the service, the condition of the coaches and the means of transport, there has been a decline. That is, of course, a consistent characteristic when one is in a phase in which a government has socialistic tendencies. It is a characteristic Of socialism everywhere in the world.

And wants to create a Third-World state.

Yes, and wants to create a Third-World state. It is a pity to have to say this, but it is so.

In his Budget speech the hon the Minister said that they were going to try to improve on this. In those transport services I was speaking about, those in which I worked, the coaches shone, from the amenities to the dining car. The people were neatly attired and alert. That lustre is no more.

I am concerned about a very important matter involving the SATS, one which has a greater effect in the broader context. I am referring to the fact that the Railways is curtailing its services in certain places, particularly passenger services in the rural areas. The reason for this is that they are not profitable. The approach is that the SATS should be self-supporting, that the SATS is being compensated by the State—it does not want to call this a subsidy—in the case of certain tariffs which it maintains at a low level.

The Government must tell us whether it is going to allow transport services to be curtailed and that it is not going to subsidise these services or pay compensation, particularly in those areas in which the Railways and the road transport service are indeed, from an infrastructural point of view, still indispensable. If the Government wants to decentralise, as it says it wants to do, if it wants to stimulate the depopulated rural areas, if it wants to increase the numbers there and wants those areas to grow, it cannot curtail those services and throw those inhabitants, those users, to the wolves.

We are looking to the Government, as I have said, for a positive course of action. In the Government we seek initiative, plans and dynamism. I am sorry, but I do not discern this in the hon the Minister’s plans. Nor do I discern it, in practical terms, in the Railways at present. On the contrary, those services being curtailed in the rural areas are like a tree slowly dying from the tips of its branches downwards, and now those withering branches are being cut off. [Interjections.]

See how empty the Cabinet benches are.

As my hon Chief Whip says, see how many Cabinet benches are empty today, when the second most important Budget debate in this country is being conducted.

It is an extra-parliamentary Cabinet! [Interjections.]

That is perhaps one of the reasons. When it comes into power the CP will …

When?

1989! [Interjections.]

… stimulate the Railways again. It will use the Railways to facilitate decentralisation. It will use the Railways to supply jobs.

The rebirth of the steam era!

Not at all; we shall do it by way of bullet trains. [Interjections.] We shall do so with the fastest and most modern trains in existence.

Who is going to pay for them?

The economic growth that there will be in the country will specifically ensure that we can afford it.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to congratulate the hon member for Soutpansberg on being appointed as the Official Opposition’s chief spokesman on transport affairs—this is a broader concept than mere transport services. I shall return to the hon member and the dreams he is dreaming about the transport services in a while.

I want to begin by saying thank you on behalf of all of us—this also includes the hon member for Soutpansberg as well as hon members in the other Houses—to the General Manager and his personnel for their service to us, involving the provision of information and the answering of questions, during the three days the standing committee sat. As chairman I should like to thank them very sincerely on our behalf; also for those occasions when they had to work during the night so that we were able to obtain of certain reports and information from them within 24 hours. I thank them very much for the sacrifices they made. [Interjections.]

I also want to convey my warmest thanks to the people who are not here, but work in the head office in Pretoria and in Johannesburg, as well as those who work in the Paul Sauer Building here, those who really had to do the work. We extend our warmest thanks to them too.

I should now like to return to the hon member for Soutpansberg. He boasted that the railway workers voted for him. I believe that. In my constituency they also voted for him, but with my much larger majority of almost 350% as opposed to that of the 1984 by-election, it was the railway workers and the factory workers of Isando who increased my majority to 2 400. [Interjections.] I just want to give him a little reminder of that. It is ever so pleasant to stand up here and to boast. We could all boast.

You are working in your notice time. [Interjections.]

Let me tell the hon member that I think that I will be here for much longer than he will. [Interjections.] My percentage poll should tell him that. Nor do I run away to Overvaal or Potgietersrus; I stay in Primrose. [Interjections.]

I should like to tell the hon member for Soutpansberg that I only have one question about his dreams of bullet trains. I put the same question to the hon member for Greytown in connection with his dreams about the Post Office, and that is “Who will pay?” Who will pay for all these dreams? Interjections.] Someone has to pay for them. The hon member for Soutpansberg blames the hon the Minister for certain aspects of the finances, but let me tell the hon member that every additional passenger that we convey either by suburban or inter-city train, involves an extra subsidy. I shall return to that when we consider the figures, because the hon member merely said two or three things about the Budget and then wandered off the subject again. I do not blame him for that because there is really very little criticism he can levy at this Budget.

There are certain aspects in regard to which one would very much like to see a change, but the two matters in the whole Budget that the hon member for Soutpansberg singled out in his criticism, were the very two goals the hon the Minister aimed for and achieved. Firstly it is anti-inflationary. In 18 months the average tariff increase has been 6,7% on an annualised basis. The hon member says it is not. For the benefit of the hon member I now want to quote from a newspaper that is not— the hon member will agree with this—one of the Government’s or the hon the Minister’s biggest friends. I quote from the Cape Times, one of the newspapers for which the hon Leader of the Official Opposition is writing these days. I want to quote from the Cape Times of Wednesday, 27 May. In summing up his leading article for that day the editor said:

I agree with that. There are certain increases. He continues:

The editor concluded his comment as follows:

This is written in a newspaper that is certainly not the Government’s biggest fan. This also deals with the criticism of the hon member for Soutpansberg, and to a lesser extent—I want to say this now as well—the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central’s criticism, because he is going to come up with the same criticism. This is what his own newspaper wrote.

Editors have never been known for their financial expertise.

I can say that about the two opposition spokesmen as well.

That kind of criticism does not wash, because what is in fact being criticised here does not exist. They are just scoring a few political points to have something to say about the Budget. The hon member then discussed things that were of lesser importance. I think that in the discussion of the Budget we should confine ourselves to the Budget. It is important that we pay attention to this Budget.

The hon member spoke about socialism. He accused the Government, and therefore the hon member as well, of socialism. In defence of the hon the Minister, because he is not going to defend himself, I want to state here that the present hon Minister of Transport Affairs is the last person one can accuse of socialism. He was responsible for a great deal of the deregulation and privatisation that was taken place. Now my question is this: If we do in fact have a socialist Government, why have commissions been appointed to try to privatise and deregulate the transport market in South Africa? I shall return to this point in a moment. However, I think that it is at least justified to say this on behalf of the hon the Minister: I think this criticism, which is specifically aimed at the present hon Minister of Transport Affairs, is unfair.

I see that the hon member for Randfontein is not here. I hope that he will soon recover from his illness. I wanted to discuss one or two points he raised in a speech. I just want to put one question to the hon member who will speak on behalf of the CP after this. The CP makes a great fuss of its partition policy. One important question about that policy, which the hon members of the CP never reply to, is the following: What do they foresee in regard to their transport costs? I am specifically interested in this element; other hon members will be asking them about other elements. If they are going to move people, they have two alternatives. The first is that the job opportunities will have to be moved with those people. But what will remain in South Africa? The second one is that people have to move, and to Southland and back.

Using a bullet train!

Using a bullet train. Who can afford that? At the moment, according to the information I have, coverage of costs is approximately 42% for third-class commuter services and 24% for first-class. Who is going to pay for this? Someone has to pay to carry out this Southland policy.

The hon CP members are not being honest when they rise in this House and speak of “our” workers and “our” general management. Something quite different has put in an appearance in their newspaper. They should educate their great new economist, Dr Berghout, who writes for their newspaper Die Patriot, so that their standpoints are identical, for at the moment they do not hold the same standpoints.

The Official Opposition’s chief spokesman on transport affairs praised of the general management of the SATS highly, and I share his tribute of thanks and do not differ with it. The hon member should just tell the financial editor—I shall call him that—of Die Patriot to be a little more careful in future. This financial editor wrote the following in Die Patriot of 15 May 1987, and I shall quote it for the hon member. I notice that the hon member for Overvaal is not here at the moment, otherwise he would have asked me where my evidence was. However, I have brought my evidence along, and I quote:

Where has one ever heard such nonsense? The technique that is used to work out cost distribution was tested and discussed with railway companies from overseas, South African auditors and accountants, and Dr Wim de Villiers. I have not seen his report, but as far as I know no criticism was levelled at the present system of cost distribution.

Let me repeat, and I will say this again later, what the Official Opposition has to say inside the House does not always tally with what it says outside the House; the truth is being violated in one of these two places. The piousness one sees in the House one does not see outside when, for example, they are fighting an election campaign. I am going to broach this topic again in a moment. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs always says that if one throws a stone into the bushes and one hears screams, one knows it has found its mark. Here it is the same. [Interjections.]

Give examples!

I shall mention examples, but as soon as I quote one, they ask for another.

I merely ask them, when they approach the railway workers, to be as sanctimonious as they are in this House. Otherwise, when in the House, they should show the same—I do not know what words would be acceptable to use, Mr Chairman. “Hypocrisy” will not be acceptable.

What about “malice”?

Yes, “malice” is a good word. I think that we should expect the same malice from the CP members inside and outside the House.

The hon member went further and said that the hon the Minister should please try to increase his passenger service clients. I, on the other hand, think that under certain circumstances we should try to reduce them. I now want to refer to certain figures that are available to all the members of the standing committee; they are not secret figures that I am going to quote here.

The estimate for the 1987-88 financial year indicates that the intercity service is going to suffer a loss of R435 million. The suburban commuter service is going to suffer a loss of R682 million. This is therefore a total loss of R1 117 million. If one extra passenger boards a train, this subsidy is increased. I shall return in a while to the problems experienced with these subsidies. I am not going to dwell on this topic now, but we can examine it a little later.

I have another problem when we discuss these figures. What concerns me is that these figures show that the SATS cannot be deregulated. I and every SATS spokesmen we asked on the standing committee and the entire industry are all in favour of deregulating the South African transport market. One should not unfairly handicap one participant in a race. The SATS is not in a position to participate in it on the same basis as other competitors. What is of great concern to me is that the hon the Minister of Finance, for good reasons on his part, has this year reduced the contribution of the State to the SATS for these socio-economic services by R119 000 000. In my view this is a step backwards at a time when a move is being made in South Africa towards a deregulated market.

The hon the Minister should be ashamed of himself!

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central should say which Minister, he should not merely say that the Minister should be ashamed of himself. We really should not throw stones at everyone in this way.

The Minister is sitting over there.

No, he has nothing to do with it. The hon the Minister does not manage finances.

I should like to ask that the Budget be examined. Then we shall see that there are a few aspects which in my view should receive further attention from the hon the Minister. The problem is how, in view of the figures I mentioned, we are going to manage to strive purposefully for quality service based on costs.

It is apparent from financial newspapers and other daily papers that all editors agree in principle that cross-subsidisation is monstrous. I have here four different publications indicating this. Cross-subsidisation is something we have inherited, and it will take a long time to reduce it and phase it out. Someone is going to get hurt, and someone is going to benefit when we phase it out. I think it is good for those people who are going to benefit, but someone has to pay for those who are going to get hurt. However, a solution will have to be found for the problem of cross-subsidisation in South Africa, not only in the case of the SATS but also in the case of the Post Office.

As I have said, the Budget is only 6,7% higher. This 6,7% on an annual basis is not going to contribute much to the inflation rate if everyone who makes use of the SATS, also makes their contribution.

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

Is the hon member prepared to reply to a question?

Mr Chairman, I shall allow the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central to put a question to me at the end of my speech.

This opportunity that is being created to make a contribution to the reduction of inflation can only be successful if everyone who makes use of the SATS—commerce, industry and so on—also makes their contribution by adjusting their tariffs in accordance with the tariff increases. After all it is essential that we make a serious appeal—with this I support the hon the Minister—to everyone to try to restrict their price increases to the level of 10%, which in reality represents 6,7%. Then—and in no other way—we shall be fighting inflation in this country.

The structural adjustments are in my view an essential exercise. Let me say this at least: The negativity of the structural adjustments are of such a nature that it only increases tariffs or brings about an additional income of 1,4%. In regard to these structural adjustments, however, there are also people who benefit from their tariffs being lowered. This is one of the few private or public sectors, of which I am aware, in which the consumer also has the privilege of benefiting in regard to certain adjustments, because some of these tariffs are being decreased in the structural adjustments.

I want to dwell on the cost principle for a moment. In earlier days I studied Dr Wim de Villiers’ books. I used them as text books at the university. I have not yet seen Dr Wim de Villiers’ report, but I hope that we will get to see it one of these days when the hon the Minister has had time to go through it. However, I want to tell the hon the Minister that he can count on my support for not allowing himself to be intimidated into replying to the Wim de Villiers Report this afternoon. This is a complex report on a complex problem. I ask the hon the Minister to take his time, because the decisions that he is going to take are going to have a tremendous effect on the entire transport market. He can make that report available to us, along with his decisions, when the time is ripe.

As I know Dr Wim de Villiers, his approach would be chiefly that one should see what one earns on one’s capital. This has been his main premise throughout his life and I do not think he would deviate from it now. The capital yield remains the single most important facet of financial analysis and decision-making.

On the standing committee I was grateful to learn from the general management of the SATS that services are going to be increasingly divided up. The road transportation service, for example, is now going to stand on its own feet. That is the only way in which we shall be able to determine precisely what cross-subsidisation involves, which services are unprofitable, which services could be privatised and which services have to be terminated. The SATS will not be able to compete in a deregulated market if this is not made possible. For the sake of the 200 000 workers who are still employed by the SATS, for their future and their pension and other benefits, we have to create that opportunity for the SATS. It appears that at the end of March 200 000 workers were employed by the SATS and I want to emphasise that not one was dismissed. I think that we should make this known because in the election campaign this figure was constantly being quoted in an effort to show how the SATS personnel was being reduced. All kinds of insinuations were made. To date not a single person has been dismissed.

In my constituency, where there are easily about 5 000 voters who are dependent on the SATS, I heard the insinuation being made on a number of occasions that the Minister and the general management had decided to reduce or abolish travel concessions for pensioners. Only the CP could have spread this rumour. I was confronted with this rumour at one meeting after another. I took the trouble to ask the General Manager of the SATS—because the hon the Minister was involved in an election campaign in Namaqualand at the time—what the position was. Let me read the answers I received to hon members:

I think we should have this placed on record in Hansard for once. Then the CP who so readily makes use of Hansard—like the former member for Rissik who always turned up at meetings with Hansard dangling from his hand, like bunches of bananas—can also make use of this when they hold meetings. I ask the hon the Minister or the hon the Deputy Minister to enlarge on this matter if possible.

In conclusion I should like to say something about the personnel. My hon colleague for South Coast will deal fully with the strikes. We decided that he would speak about that subject in this debate on behalf of our side of the House. I therefore do not want to enlarge on this any further except to say that in my view that it was alarming to read again in Die Burger this morning that intimidation was once again occurring. It is easy for the hon member for Soutpansberg to talk, but four burnt corpses are the best form of intimidation I know of. I cannot see how the personnel of the SATS and/or the SA Police and/or the army can safeguard every person in South Africa. The debate that took place here yesterday afternoon—I do not know where the hon member was when we discussed the hon member for Krugersdorp’s private motion yesterday—made it very clear how complex this situation is. If the hon member had been here yesterday and had been listening, he would not have levelled the senseless criticism at the Government that it was not prepared to look after everyone.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member has had his turn and will simply have to accept this criticism of the senseless expectation that the Government has to look after everyone in South Africa.

I think the Government has performed miracles, as the hon the Deputy Minister indicated yesterday, by reducing the statistics for extreme violence to their present level. I also want to ask that we go further and will clamp down even harder than we have done up to now on the intimidators and arsonists. Amongst other things, I want to ask certain trade-unions what they now hope to achieve with this intimidation and furnishing of false information, because R80 has not been the issue for a long time. We shall have to receive a reply to that answer at one time or another in South Africa.

We know that labour is the sphere that has been selected as the battleground on which they want to tackle the Government. However, I think that we shall have to take even firmer action than we have until now to protect all peace-loving people.

I am very pleased that in the recent Budget specific reference was made to pensioners and to people who retired at an early age or who have been pensioners for a long time. I want to point out that the additional cost, over and above the 10% that everyone will receive, to the SATS will be a further R7 million. I want to thank the hon the Minister sincerely for making special provision for that.

Criticism of the tariff increases was expressed by the opposition. I want to dwell on that for a moment and say that 80% of that tariff increase, which will bring in R530 million in additional revenue, is being used to adjust salaries and to achieve parity. The additional amount which the SATS is therefore receiving to cover its higher costs is very small.

If we look at page 23, the last page of the memorandum tabled by the hon the Minister, it is interesting to see on the basis of those figures and graphs what the SATS tariff structure is in comparison to fuel, steel, the consumer price index and electricity. The SATS is one of the biggest consumers of three of these four items, ie fuel, steel and electricity. I want to ask hon members to look at the figures to see by how little the SATS has increased its tariffs recently. Of this increase 80% is needed to adjust staff salaries. I now want to ask the hon member for Soutpansberg: How should we reward these loyal workers—we both thanked them for their loyalty—if we do not get that money from somewhere? Is the hon member perhaps bluffing or does he not want to give them an increase?

We shall tell you.

Where does the hon member want to get it from? He made a full half-hour speech but did not tell us how to reconcile those two aspects. [Interjections.] We shall have to obtain clarity some time or another on how we have to find additional money if we want to use so much money to improve these people’s position. That is direct expenditure.

I just want to focus on what indirect expenditure is. Let us examine only one item of indirect expenditure, ie Transmed, the medical aid fund. In the 1986-87 financial year members contributed R20,6 million to Transmed, and that was 9,2% of Transmed’s total revenue and expenditure. Against this the SATS contributed R203,6 million, which was almost 91% of the total expenditure of Transmed. That is an indirect expenditure that I have not yet added to the 80% mentioned. This still has to be increased as well and therefore the personnel are receiving more than 80% of the total revenue from additional tariff increases and adjustments and the correction of certain tariffs. I think it is a healthy policy that the personnel is being taken care of because they are the people who, in the final analysis, will be responsible for SATS either functioning or not functioning. We agree that no tariff increases are a good thing, but more than 80% of that is going into the pocket of the workers—all the workers—of the SATS and is being used to their advantage and for their welfare.

At this stage I want to ask the hon the Minister to examine in particular—I have asked for this before and I think attention is being paid to it—how we can accommodate Transmed and whether it is possible to privatise Transmed. There were certain requests for it to be privatised, and I should like the hon the Minister to make an announcement in that regard at some stage. We just want him to tell us what the possibility is of either keeping Transmed—with good reasons of course—or, if it is possible, of privatising it so that it could be placed back in the hands of the pharmacist in every town. In conclusion I just want to say something more about the problem of deregulation. It is a tremendous problem in our country. We received the White Paper on National Transport Policy which sets two very important conditions for the SATS. It is important that we first have to deregulate before we privatise. We cannot do it the other way round, because we would then be putting the horse behind the cart. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to congratulate in the first place the hon member for Primrose on his appointment as chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, which used to be the Standing Committee on Transport. I think that it is a good appointment. I believe he is knowledgeable on transport and transport matters. The other thing that I like about him is that if he feels there is a point of criticism against the Government or the hon the Minister he will stand up and spell it out, as he in fact has done in this debate today. He handled it very gently but the R119 million that the hon the Minister has taken away from the SATS in this Budget is a point of criticism. I was glad that the hon member had the courage to point to it. I do think he has the courage to stand up for what he believes is the correct opinion and not just simply go along with what the mass of opinion within that party or the Cabinet is. I therefore congratulate him on his appointment.

Like him, I would also like to thank the top officials of the SATS for the help they gave us in the standing committee. They answered our questions fully and pertinently, with the odd exception notably when I asked them what the increase on 1 October was likely to be for commuters. They said that I should rather ask the hon the Minister at this stage, because while they had made a recommendation they had no idea whether it was going to be accepted or not. Perhaps the hon the Minister can therefore tell us how much the poor commuters will have to pay extra on 1 October. What percentage is the increase going to be?

I think the hon member for Primrose did go a little astray in that he pointed to the fact that the SATS were actually lowering some prices. That of course is true but he had just spoken previously on cross-subsidisation and said that that was being phased out. That is the reason for that lowering in prices. The prices for certain commodities were too high in the first place because they were being used to cross-subsidise uneconomic services. The lowering in price has therefore to do purely with the fact that the price was too high in the first place.

Finally, I am sorry that he did not have time at the end of his speech to take the question I wished to ask him. My question related to the fact that he had said that the increase in SATS tariffs was 6,7% if one took it back over the period of time concerned. However, I shall be surprised if that is correct, because I do not believe that the hon member has, for instance, taken into account the increases in the domestic and external services of the SA Airways. If one includes all those increases, one would come to considerably more than 6,7%.

I want to welcome the hon member for Soutpansberg to the transport debate and congratulate him on his appointment as the shadow Minister for the Transport Affairs portfolio. I think the fact that that party has put a senior frontbencher in this position is an indication of the importance that party gives to this portfolio. I want to agree with the hon member that there are a lot of things that one had hoped to find in this Budget but which one did not find.

The one point where I would perhaps disagree with the hon member is in regard to tariff restructuring where he did seem to have a complaint. I want to back the SATS and the hon the Minister fully on this matter. It is absolutely essential that there should be a restructuring of tariffs in order to do away with cross-subsidisation. The hon member for Primrose has mentioned this and I believe that the sooner we can get the tariffs of the SATS onto a cost-related basis we will be able to proceed just that much sooner with a proper free enterprise transport sector in South Africa.

I want to thank the staff of the SATS at the outset for their services in the past year and also congratulate them. I think that the results for the 1986 year were excellent, particularly the results of the South African Airways, which I think were very good indeed, and I shall return to that later.

The fact that a considerably smaller staff was involved in the operations of the SATS indicates that there has been an improvement in productivity; I believe that that is excellent and that the staff should be thanked. If I may, I would like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister please to note that I have in fact thanked the staff, because the hon the Deputy Minister always stands up after I have spoken and asks why I never thank the staff, when in fact I have done so. I therefore want to point out to him while I am speaking that I have in fact done so. He tries to put up his own targets and then shoot them down.

There are none so deaf as those who will not hear.

While I am on the topic of the staff, I want to say I think that they deserve the 12,5% increase that they are about to receive, because of this greater productivity and because of the improved results that they have brought about. I wish one could say the same of the public service in general. One must also bear in mind that the SATS staff will be getting more than 12,5% because there are the normal notch increases which come to some R60 million and which therefore raise their total increase to 15,2%.

I believe there is a certain amount of dissatisfaction—one reads in the Press that there is dissatisfaction—in regard to the 12,5% increase and that the staff are wanting more. I believe that this is justified as far as the bottom 50% of the staff are concerned. There are no less than 82 000 SATS employees who earn less than R7 000 per annum; there are a further 42 000 who earn between R7 000 and R12 999. With inflation at the high rate that it has been over the past few years, it is going to be exceptionally difficult for those lower paid staff members to make ends meet.

They are at the sharp end of the inflation wedge, and they are the people who have to spend their total income simply on living, that is the provision of food, clothing and shelter. Without doubt when there is an inflation rate of 16% and, from a tax point of view, bracket creep, a 12,5% increase is not going to cover one’s increased living expenses. One is therefore actually going to end up worse off.

I would like the hon the Minister to consider that because I believe there is a case to be made out for a differentiated salary increase. I do not think the senior officials are going to like my thoughts in this regard very much, but I think there is a case to be made out for a salary increase of 15% rather than 12,5% for all of those who earn less than R12 999, while the middle income group in the SATS should get a 10% increase, and the top third a 7,5% increase. If one did this, one would be compensating people adequately for the increase in the cost of living as a result of inflation, because quite a large portion of the income of the more senior personnel is not spent on direct living expenses; it is spent perhaps on better education for their children or better holidays or taking their wives out for dinner more often etc. They spend it on a more luxurious style of living. So, I think the hon the Minister should consider that.

I cannot, however, leave the situation of the staff without making mention of the pension fund. I do not think the staff of the SATS pay sufficient attention to the pension fund which they have and which, like that in the public service, is unbelievably good. No private sector organisation in my view can afford the sort of privileges that are given to the pensioners of the SATS and the public service generally. I do not think this is necessarily peculiar to the SATS; it applies to the public sector as a whole, but there are three things about it which are extremely unusual, and which I actually believe should be reconsidered.

The first is that an employee can buy back his service to the age of 16. If one joins the SATS at the age of forty, one can buy back 24 years of service so that one’s ultimate pension at the age of 65 will be based on 49 years of service rather than on 25. That, I believe, is extraordinary.

Secondly, the public service and the SATS have the privilege of being able to obtain a much larger tax-free, lump-sum payment than is available to the private sector. This is an absurdity in the tax situation which should be looked at.

Thirdly, in the private sector generally, the pension of anybody who retires is based upon his average salary over his last five years of service, but in the public service and the SATS, it is based upon his salary on retirement. This again creates a situation where the pension is much larger than it would be in the private sector for the equivalent amount of service. I believe the cost of this is enormous, and indeed I wonder if we can afford it.

I would like to refer the hon the Minister to a paper on the subject, which was published by Dr Wassenaar about six months ago, and which was extremely critical of the situation. In fact, he likened the situation to that in New York. As the hon the Minister might remember, the city of New York went virtually bankrupt about five or six years ago, and one of the reasons was the tremendous pension advantages their staff received. I would like to sound a word of warning on this particular subject.

We welcome the fact that they are putting into effect the final three phases of the staff equality programme simultaneously this year. I am sure the officials—if not the hon the Minister—will remember that I have pleaded with them over several years to speed up this process and, in fact, to bring about equality in the period of one year. I welcome the fact that they have now done so as very good news. Naturally, I regret that it has not gone the whole hog, in that travel perks and medical aid are not being equated at this stage. I find that unfortunate, but we are informed that it is likely that they will be equated within three years. Perhaps the hon the Minister could tell us something more about that in due course. My colleague, the hon member for Parktown, will also be discussing the medical aid situation in greater depth.

While on the subject of travel perks and privileges, I understand through the grapevine that there has been some abuse of travel perks by certain members of the SATS staff. I would like the hon the Minister to react to these allegations which, I understand, have something to do with air tickets being used on international flights to deliver documents for courier firms. I would like the hon the Minister to tell us whether in fact this is so, what he is doing about it and whether any investigation is being carried out in this regard.

One leg of the amendment relates to discrimination in staff practices and in the service provided by SATS. The discrimination in staff practices has been overcome to a large extent although not totally. I welcome that, but to the best of my knowledge, we have not started to overcome the discrimination in the service provided by the SATS. We still find that on commuter trains in the Western Cape the first four carriages are reserved for Whites only and there are still toilet facilities on our stations which are segregated on the basis of colour. I am not accusing the SATS of this. It is a Government edict that we are talking about and I am tackling the Minister about it. While this discrimination still happens, nobody can say apartheid, or even the outmoded concept of apartheid, is dead in South Africa. I would appreciate response to that.

The 1986-87 results were excellent, particularly those of SA Airways. To a large degree this was as a result of better management— particularly top management—and I would like to congratulate Mr Van der Veer on his efforts in this regard. His influence at the top probably had a great deal to do with the improved performance of SA Airways.

This improvement was, however, not without problems, particularly for the business traveller. There have been stages when it has been extremely difficult for the businessman to get on a flight and come back again in timing that suited him. If he could get a forward booking, more often than not he could not get one back. We seem to have overcome that particular problem, but during the year concerned the infrequency of flights was a problem and I believe that SA Airways should pay attention to this matter.

The biggest problem one has in regard to SA Airways today, is the price of overseas flights. I want to quote a couple of excerpts from the Financial Mail. A quote from this publication of 29 May reads:

I do not think this is particularly good.

I want to read another quote from the Financial Mail of 24 April. This is Kirby offstage, and he says the following:

I do not believe we can afford this sort of anomaly in the SATS.

While on this subject I also want to bring to the fore the direct flight from Cape Town to London. It used to be. It is no longer. It was the one and only direct flight from Cape Town. Now they go instead to Abidjan, which means that the whole trip lasts two hours longer. There are no passenger rights at Abidjan at all. I understand the reason for this change is that the refuelling means they can take an extra eight tons of freight on this trip. When one sets off the profit on eight tons of freight and the cost of flying for one extra hour against the cost of an extra hour’s delay, one wonders whether this is a fair and equitable situation. Then there is also the fact that the flight from Cape Town to London costs R310 more than the flight from Johannesburg to London, despite being 80 kilometers shorter. We have brought this fact up regularly and it is still crazy. In fact, it costs R310 more if one is going to London, but if one is going to the USA, it is R460 more, which does not really seem to make any sense. I know the Cape Town Chamber of Commerce has complained, as have many people, but nothing seems to get done.

I cannot leave the SATS without saying something about the strike, which will mainly be handled by my colleague, the hon member for Bryanston. I think the reality of the strike was the fact that it was a political strike. We have seen in the private sector, particularly in Port Elizabeth, over a number of years that because the Black people of this country are denied any political say, they try to exercise their political say through the workplace. It is the only avenue they have to express their political opinion. Therefore the reality is that while the strike might have been said to have been as a result of one person being paid off, I actually believe that one of the prime reasons was the lack of an avenue for the expression of opinion on the part of the Black people of this country in regard to their political rights. I believe we are going to see more of it, and I believe it will be seen particularly in the public sector, because I have heard that that is what the target is going to be of this type of strike. That means that the SATS must gear themselves up to become a more efficient and better organisation to cope with this kind of problem. I am afraid this is simply a sign of the sickness in our society brought about by apartheid.

I believe there were actually three reasons for that strike. The first one related to the political aspect.

The second, I believe—this is my own personal view—related to staff practices, is that there is discrimination in the SATS staff practices. It is a pity that the three phases that they implemented in one this year, were not four phases implemented in one last year. It might have done something to prevent the strike.

The third reason, I believe, is a real contributor. In my view the SATS do not have trade unions, they have staff associations. In their trade unions membership is restricted to employees of the SATS. That type of inhouse union does not have proper freedom of association which is one of the basic tenets of the trade union movement. As we have heard from the hon member for Soutpansberg, there has been tremendous damage as a result.

In the Budget this year, the tariff increases have been deplorable. I say this again, despite my hon friend the member for Primrose. The first thing I want to ask about it is: How accurate is it? I believe very often we are setting budgets at an abnormally low or high figure for the sake of profitability and, at the end of the day, we exceed those figures very well and we show a big profit, as in fact we have done for the year that has just ended. Those budgeted figures are used to justify tariff increases. These increases in tariffs are estimated to bring in R530 million. The need for this was caused by the 15,2% increase in salaries. Secondly, it was caused by an increase in the economic activity. Thirdly, however, it was caused by the hon the Minister and his Cabinet not doing their job properly. There is one aspect of the Budget of the SATS which I find highly unsatisfactory, which is not their fault, but is the fault of the hon the Minister and the Cabinet. I find it remarkable that the hon the Minister in his Second Reading speech did not refer to this aspect at all and I am sure that he would rather it were swept under the carpet.

The facts are as follows. During the previous financial year the State compensated the SATS to the tune of R758 million for providing unprofitable socio-economic services. In the year under consideration they reduced that compensation by no less than R119 million. They should, of course, have increased it to account for inflation. They should have increased it by R119 million, not reduced it. Furthermore, they made the SATS responsible for paying that pie-in-the-sky levy that has now been introduced—the regional services council levy—which means an additional expense to the SATS of R20 million. This means that R139 million of the budgeted deficit was as a direct result of the State not compensating the SATS for the services which they provide.

I believe that this runs contrary to the recommendations of the National Transport Policy Study and also contrary to the White Paper recently issued by the Government. I believe, in fact, that there should have been a greater amount of compensation paid, and the fact that this has not happened must have the inevitable effect of delaying the implementation of the recommendations as set out in the White Paper. It is a retrogade step. It also, of course, means that the SATS in order to get close to planning their Budget have had to increase their tariffs. I would suggest that had the State paid the proper compensation the tariff increase should have been no more than 7,5% or perhaps even 5%. The commuters of South Africa must therefore note that they have been let down by the Government and, when they pay their increased fares, which are to be increased again in October, they must know that this is the direct result of the political decisions made by the Cabinet rather than realistic rises in the cost structure.

I think it is apt to quote the following from the National Transport Policy Study at this stage:

I believe that the hon the Minister is now himself guilty on that score in that his decisions and the decisions of his Cabinet are not in line with those goals and policies, and I am very much afraid that they are going to delay the implementation of those recommendations.

Therefore, in closing, I wish to move the following amendment:

1. (1) the South African Transport Services are properly compensated from State revenue for socio-economic services provided;
2. (2) racial discrimination has been fully phased out of the services offered by and the staff practices of the Transport Services; and
3. (3) the Transport Services have implemented plans to privatize certain of its operations.”.

I regret that I have not had the time to speak on the third leg to any extent, but I hope the hon the Minister will accept that I have run out of time.

Mr Chairman, this is the first time the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs has an opportunity to introduce a Main Budget in this new House of Assembly after the election. He did have an opportunity, though, of introducing his little budget earlier this year. I should like to make use of this opportunity to congratulate the hon the Minister on this first Main Budget for Transport Services which he is introducing here today, and on the success he has been able to achieve with this first Budget.

I also want to make use of the opportunity to pay a measure of tribute to those hon members who were also with us in this House on the previous occasion, and who displayed such a special interest in the SATS. I think they rendered a very important service here. Simultaneously I want to express a very sincere welcome on this occasion to the many new hon members who are now in this House for the first time and who, we hope, are going to participate in our debates and in our transport study group.

There are also a number of new spokesmen here for the respective parties, whom I should like to congratulate on their appointment as main speakers. I am thinking in particular of the hon member for Soutpansberg, who underwent his baptism of fire today, and I want to congratulate him on that new position he will occupy here in this House.

And on his brilliant speech! [Interjections.]

Yes, I shall come to the hon member’s speech later, but I think I shall first avail myself of this opportunity by saying to him that I am pleased that he received that promotion.

I also want to convey my sincere congratulations to the hon member for Primrose, the new chairman of the standing committee, on the new position he is now occupying. He usually makes excellent contributions to the debates here, as he also did today. I think the hon member has acquired exceptionally good experience over the past few years, apart from the fact that he is well equipped academically in this particular subject. We on this side of the House entertain great expectations of the hon member for Primrose, and I am convinced that he will not disappoint us.

Naturally I also want to congratulate the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central, who has just been speaking, on having returned to this House by the skin of his teeth. [Interjections.]

†I must say that one could have predicted that in his speech today the hon member would have been a little more aggressive and a little more bitter, but of course the hon member was eating humble pie today. [Interjections.] The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central used to be the official spokesman on Transport Affairs for the Official Opposition. He no longer has that honour. [Interjections.]

I expected the hon member to raise a number of his pet subjects, and he has in fact done so again.

I wish to thank him for thanking the staff this time for what they have done. Normally the hon member refers to apartheid on trains; he did so again today. Of course, he referred to the increase in tariffs and fares and told us that these knocked the poor, and increased inflation; this is more or less what he usually says.

Thirdly, he normally says that the parity programme is progressing too slowly. He said it again today, although he expressed his appreciation for the progress that has been made. There is, however, one thing he did not mention today. He normally says that in our bookkeeping we allow too much for higher replacement value…

I could not get to it in the time allowed.

… and too much for depreciation. Of course, he brought in the strike as a new issue.

One would have expected, as I have said, that the hon member would be very, very aggressive—as he has been in the past. However, that was not the case today. I must tell the hon member that this is understandable. After all, when this House was dissolved in February that hon member had very high hopes, as did all his other colleagues, of returning to Parliament with something like 40 or even 50 members on the PFP side. Of course, that did not materialise, and perhaps that is the reason for the hon member’s disappointment. Perhaps I should just remind the hon member of what The Argus said some time ago about the hon member and his colleagues. On 7 May, The Argus reported:

Quite obviously, therefore, the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central is griefstricken. With their turbo-charged programme they had very high hopes that the NP would be kept in check. Perhaps I should also remind the hon member of what they said in that regard. I am quoting from a report on 27 April 1987 entitled “Turbo-charge tactics could pay off’:

It backfired!

The report states further:

This, of course, was the fly in the ointment—

This was a sort of souped-up turbo-charge.

*I also want to quote Robin Carlisle in this connection:

To disseminate the idea of “turbo charge”, the PFP did what Edgars, OK Bazaars and all the others do.

When are you going to talk about the SATS?

Don’t worry, I am getting to it. I am just explaining why the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central is eating a bit of humble pie today. After such a humiliating defeat one would have expected a slight change in strategy and tactics. [Interjections.]

Often in the past the hon member has used extravagant language to belittle all the efforts made to improve employment conditions for all in the SATS. The PFP has the unfortunate inclination—and the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central makes the same mistake— never to use the very valuable information that they have at their disposal.

*The hon member said one of the reasons for the problems the SATS had was that there was too much apartheid. He said the practices we were following did not offer people sufficient opportunities.

Where did I say that?

I want to quote to the hon member what the latest SATS report—the hon member had it at his disposal—has to say on page 56:

That is almost 20 000!

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central is now trying to imply that one of the reasons we had the strike was that these people did not really know what future there was for them.

I did not say that.

Of course the hon member said that. It seems as if he is not following what I am saying in Afrikaans. Of course he said it. He said that we had apartheid in staff practices.

That is right. I did say that.

The hon member says we have apartheid in staff practices but as at the end of March 1986 there were close on 20 000 Coloured, Indian and Black employees employed on a permanent basis in the SATS.

*That is the progress that has been made. I can quote the evidence to the hon member.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister a question?

No, I am not going to reply now. I did not put any questions to the hon member during his turn to speak. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon member that a start was made in the recent past in training coloured people as train drivers. This information is all available to the hon member. I want to quote to him as follows:

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central gives the impression however that the strikes we have had were the result of so-called apartheid in the SATS, and that justice was not being done to the employees of the SATS.

Ask the officials whether the discriminatory staff practices were mentioned by the strikers.

Of course, in the private sector today there are still forms of discrimination. The whole point is that the SATS are moving away from that. That is the whole point.

*However, one cannot accomplish all these things overnight, just as in the case of the introduction of the five-phase scheme. However the hon member uses it, instead of being positive and saying that great progress is being made on this level. I can also furnish the example of the training centre in Wentworth, where the same is being done. Non-Whites are being trained to fill posts they have never occupied before. But I think the hon member does these things, as he did in the past, not in order to get the non-Whites onto the scale and the ladder of promotion, but merely to keep on creating the impression that we are continuing with a process of discrimination. The hon member is completely wrong.

†Mr Chairman, I want to appeal to the hon member—he is eating humble pie—to change his strategy and his tactics because that will assist us not only to build a better spirit in South Africa but also to get closer to the factual situation. Then we will not dream about how things used to be in South Africa.

The hon member has raised the issue of the strike. We have not yet heard any condemnation from the quarters of the radical left in South Africa of the role played by Cosatu or SARHWU, of fanning an issue which developed into civil unrest. They have caused loss of life and destruction of property.

Because the SATS provides an essential service, we can neither afford nor tolerate illegal strikes in this country. We admit that labour unrest could well increase as the economy improves. Obviously the objective is to maintain labour peace by negotiation and by dialogue. Only recently we heard …

You do not know what dialogue is. [Interjections.]

The visit of the hon the State President only yesterday to certain Black areas, is another example of negotiation and dialogue.

Only recently we heard that Mr Joe Slovo is no longer the officer commanding of Umkhonto we Sizwe, but has now taken charge of labour unions in South Africa from outside our borders. Mr Oliver Tambo has stated that greater priority will be given to labour issues in order to encourage unrest. I think that one should see the unrest and the trouble that we have had among a certain section of the workers of the SATS against that background. There is the continuous formation of new groups within trade unions. This also creates new divisions and new tensions within Black groups. All this is aimed at moderate and established Black trade unions, and we all know that these new groups are radical in their outlook. This is a situation that we may well have to live with in South Africa, and particularly in the SATS, because of our large work-force.

*The management of the SATS and the hon the Minister dealt with a sensitive situation with great patience and I also think with great courage. It was a difficult decision to dismiss employees who had rendered good service. Their convenience and the welfare of their families are matters of deep concern to the general management and the hon the Minister. They were all granted time to apply for re-employment. I do not think one would easily have found this among private enterprise in South Africa. The SATS, however, displayed its empathy and its goodwill to these people and their families in a way seldom emulated in the past.

It goes without saying that intimidators and those responsible for civil unrest will be thoroughly questioned, and that one should screen them carefully. Ringleaders who cause others to suffer harm simply cannot be re-employed. In addition they make impossible promises and threaten innocent people. This situation in South Africa is just too much. The tolerance of the hon the Minister and of the general management was tried to the utmost.

I am pleased the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central referred to proper compensation for those uneconomic services the SATS has to render. Our passengers are mostly people of colour, however, and the percentage will grow with the population increase. Their welfare as passengers is very important to us. They made reasonable requests which were all related to their safety and convenience. We do not want to lose them as passengers, because our trains may not run any emptier than they do.

As regards the increased tariffs, the hon spokesman of the Official Opposition said that it was actually far cheaper to drive in one’s car from Louis Trichardt to Pretoria and Johannesburg than it was to go by train. I now want to mention a few figures to hon members. Let us examine the first-class commuter services after the increases. From Cape Town to Mitchells Plain is a distance of 30 km, and the first-class fare is being increased from R2 to R2,30—that is 15%. This amounts to approximate eight cents per kilometre which that passenger will have to pay.

You make them live so far away.

Just listen to that now!

†We have had that argument over and over again in this place. The hon member seems to forget that there are also White people in South Africa who live very far away.

By choice.

No. We cannot all live close to Cape Town.

*The hon member worked in East London, but preferred to live in Stutterheim. Did the hon member not at one stage live in Stutterheim?

He owned land there.

He owned land a long way out of town, and lived there. One cannot squeeze all the people into one place. Urban development must inevitably take place. The point is, however, that amenities are being created for those people. But I am not going to allow that hon member to distract me from my point.

I just want to tell the hon member that one must take into consideration—the hon member for Soutpansberg should also listen to this—that it costs 8 cents per kilometer in the case of first-class travel. Let us also look at the third-class position. Fares are increasing from 90 cents to R1, again for 30 km. This is an 11% increase. It amounts to just over 3 cents per kilometer the commuter has to pay. Who can travel more cheaply than that in South Africa, when it comes to the third-class? These are the people who can afford it the least. When one works it out in this way, I think this increase is very small.

Let us take the case of the hon member for Soutpansberg. I do not have the figures in front of me, but I would say that the distance he travels is approximately the same as the distance from Pietersburg, namely 356 km.

It is just about a hundred more.

Very well, add a hundred if you like, but I am taking it from Pietersburg, and that is 356 km. The price of the first-class single ticket was raised by R7 from R51 to R58. That is an increase of approximately 24%.

It is cheaper than walking. [Interjections.]

I do not think one could prefer to go by car if one compares it with this price.

Is that for a first-class single ticket?

Yes, for a second-class ticket the fare is at present R36 and it is going up by R5—that is 14%—to R41. That is to say, one pays R41 to travel 356 km.

One uses R25 worth of petrol over that distance.

And what about wear and tear?

A train does not use petrol! [Interjections.]

Surely it cannot be calculated on that basis. If we take the AA figures we see that they include depreciation and all kinds of things like that. We are not concerned only with the fuel that is used. I want to suggest, in spite of the increases announced in this Budget, that transportation by train for passengers is still among the cheapest forms of transportation in South Africa.

You are being cynical!

I am truly not being cynical. I think the hon member must bear that in mind. I also think that the position of the urban commuter is still far better.

There is no doubt that if we can be properly compensated by the State, the SATS will not have any problems. In 1983-84 the loss of rail passenger services was R777 million, and the State compensation was R588 million. The amount the SATS had to apply by means of cross-subsidization to cover that difference was not less than R189 million. For 1986-87 it is calculated that we will have to pay R342 million by way of cross-subsidization to make up for the deficit on the part of the State.

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central most certainly has a point when he says the State ought to compensate us properly. However, the situation can only be rectified when the SATS can be properly compensated on a market-related basis for its actual expenses. Then the SATS must not be forced to provide a service of that nature, however, which has to render a socio-economic service. Consequently I do not want to differ with the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central on this argument of his. In fact I think it was the best and only really good point in his entire speech.

He attacked the wrong Minister!

Yes, he is quarrelling with the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs, who is doing his best to ensure that we receive that proper compensation. He should rather take up the matter with the hon the Minister of Finance when he has an opportunity to do so. Then he can make the same plea he has now made to this hon Minister.

I say that the Budget for the past financial year is a reflection of a factual situation. For the year which lies ahead, it is an estimate. I must say that the reaction of the general public to the Budget so far has been extremely good and positive. It is definitely not an error on our part to expect that there will be an increase in our growth rate during the coming year. Surely this must also have a good effect on the success and profitability of the SA Transport Services.

Mr Chairman, there is an old English adage which says “why prolong the agony?” I therefore thank you for the opportunity to put an end to it now.

Mr Chairman, allow me firstly, on behalf of my party to congratulate the hon the Deputy Minister of Transport Affairs on his first performance in this House in his new capacity as Deputy Minister. We trust that he will have a fruitful term in this capacity.

As long as it does not last too long!

At the same time I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate the hon member for Primrose on his appointment as the new chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport Affairs—a task in which I believe he will achieve great success. In fact I believe he is well-equipped for it.

Furthermore, Mr Chairman, I ask you to allow me to say that it is a particular privilege for me to rise in this House today and make my maiden speech on behalf of my constituency, Nigel. The Nigel constituency consists mainly of working communities distributed throughout the municipal areas of Nigel, Heidelberg, and parts of Springs and Brakpan. In that constiuency there are also a small number of agriculturalists established on their own land—approximately 50. The land they own consists mainly of the best agricultural land in South Africa. Unfortunately the surface area of that land area is dwindling fast due to the process of urbanisation. In addition there are large groups of smallholdings owners in that constituency. Those are people who are dependent for a living on the industrial undertakings in the area, where they are employed.

Mr Chairman, please allow me also to refer briefly to the recent election. It was a very tough election, an election in which the National Party made a massive onslaught in an effort to demonstrate that Nigel was still the traditional NP seat that had been able to boast of a large NP majority in the past, as in the days of the late Mr John Vorster, former Prime Minister and State President. Even the fact that the National Party put the Deputy Secretary of that party in the Transvaal in the field as a candidate, did not prevent Nigel from remaining CP territory. Needless to say, therefore, the National Party gave the HNP candidate a great deal of administrative assistance to try to prejudice the Conservative Party’s cause. This they did without any success, of course.

My thanks therefore go to the voters of Nigel, Mr Chairman. I promise them that if they need any assistance in the time that I will be representing them here, I shall assist them irrespective of their political convictions. The Nigel constituency, which also includes the town of Heidelberg and a part of that district, has been represented by great personalities in this House in the past, including the late Dr H F Verwoerd and the late Mr B J Vorster, to whom I have just referred. When one considers that those two men were representatives of that constituency, one realises that a tremendous responsibility rests on the shoulders of a representative of the Nigel constituency.

Sir, allow me, however, to avail myself of this opportunity to thank my predecessor, Mr J H Visagie, most sincerely for the many years of faithful service he rendered the Nigel constituency. He served on the city council for many years, mainly as mayor and chairman of the management committee. He was also a member of the Provincial Council of the Transvaal for 17 years and a member of this House for almost nine years. He is a person who gave his all to his community and he is a good friend to everyone. The monuments to service throughout that constituency bear witness to his sense of duty. We wish him a long and prosperous retirement.

I now want to concentrate on the debate on the Transport Services Appropriation Bill. The SATS is probably one of the largest employers in our country, not only by way of direct employment, but also by providing employment opportunities that are associated with contracts awarded to the private sector. This is the case to the extent that various communities are largely dependent on the number and size of these contracts, and on how often they are awarded to specific firms.

In the case of Nigel, the situation arose that Union Carriage, a firm concentrating solely on building electrical units, passenger coaches, and railway trucks, to a large extent determined the development of Nigel for many years. During the successful years—the ’sixties and early ’seventies when they tendered successfully—this firm provided employment opportunities for approximately 2 250 to 2 500 workers, to the great benefit of that community. Those favourable circumstances were responsible for the biggest boom in the history of Nigel.

Unfortunately these conditions did not continue indefinitely. The reduction in possibilities for tender, as well as the fact that there were more competitors in this field, had disastrous results for Nigel. The loss of tenders has meant that this once prosperous firm at present provides the various communities with fewer than 250 employment opportunities. This is therefore a loss of more than 2 000 employment opportunities.

This critical situation certainly cannot be attributed to the actions of the transport administration, since other firms and competitors were successful tenderers, thereby contributing to the decline of Union Carriage. To a large extent the loss of tenders is causing tremendous disruption in the composition of the firm mentioned and is causing employees to develop major problems as a result of unemployment. This also contains economic implications for the community because of a general levelling off in economic activity caused by the reduction in buying power. This kind of disruption could have far-reaching consequences for smaller towns and communities which could drastically affect their infrastructure or its maintainance.

Undertakings that concentrate on manufacturing specific equipment, like Union Carriage, and that are dependent mainly on institutions like the SATS, must in my opinion be treated with the utmost discretion when contracts are awarded.

In the case where contracts obtained in co-operation with overseas companies have recently been awarded to certain firms, one must ask whether a better distribution of contracts is not possible, thereby benefitting other local tenderers, particularly in view of the present economic circumstances.

The question I should like to ask is whether it is possible, particularly in times of economic problems, to look more specifically at the basis on which tenders are awarded—I am referring specifically to firms concentrating on the manufacture of certain equipment. Is it not possible that they, too, can share in contracts and the provision of employment opportunities in the different areas? The fact that Nigel is not situated near a strong growth-point or an extensive infrastructure, makes it extremely difficult for the unemployed to be accomodated elsewhere.

I did not mean to quote a controversial example to put forward my standpoint, but rather to confine myself to the working community I represent.

As I have already said, I realise that the local problem cannot be blamed entirely on the SATS, but I am concerned about those more than 2 000 employment opportunities that no longer exist, and which essentially affect workers and employment opportunities in my constituency, particularly at a time when the economic climate is less than favourable. I am therefore compelled to address a request to the Government of the day on their behalf.

Sir, I want to thank you once again for the opportunity to have been able to say a few words here.

Mr Chairman, to begin with I want to congratulate the hon member for Nigel on his maiden speech. It was an exceptionally able and striking contribution which also left us with many interesting and well-considered opinions. I just want to tell him that the hon the Deputy Minister was appointed last year and is therefore not entirely a newcomer. He also advocated a matter here about which his predecessor in this House held other views, and it so happens that I shall be referring to this in a moment.

I should like to join other hon members, particularly the hon member for Primrose, in all the congratulations and praise conveyed to the Ministers, the top personnel, top management and also the personnel of the SATS for their achievements this year. In view of the economic climate in which they had to do business, what was achieved by increased productivity and other economy measures, as far as the officials are concerned, was a feather in their cap. This enabled us to announce only a moderate and differentiated tariff increase, the first since January 1986.

Congratulations from this side of the House are normally dismissed as being predictable, and my eye just happened to fall on the editorial in the Cape Times to which the hon member for Primrose referred. He did not quote it in full; the editorial also stated:

It is seldom that this newspaper speaks in those terms of a Budget Speech of the hon the Minister, and I think it is significant that this has, in fact, been done.

I represent a very large Railway centre with a proud history of furnishing service of quality in the local workshops and also in other spheres of transport. In Uitenhage, of course, we have the closest of links with Port Elizabeth’s harbour complex, which represents a tremendously large capital investment on the part of the SATS in the Cape Midlands. Further large capital investments have also been made at the Cuyler Manor workshops in Uitenhage and the Port Elizabeth harbour.

The Official Opposition made a great fuss about their support amongst the personnel of the SATS, and in the election, of course, their hopes were very sadly dashed. We need only think of the Koedoespoort result and of that of De Aar—their chief spokesman on transport matters bit the dust there—and even Uitenhage, which they arrogated to themselves.

The Government gained large-scale support from the Railways personnel—and for a very good reason. The personnel realised that sound management would best protect and represent their own interests in the rapidly changing transport situation.

Like any large organisation, the SATS also has to make certain changes and adapt from time to time, in the light of certain situations and market-related changes. In his budget speech the hon the Minister indicated that he was giving careful consideration to the De Villiers Report. This report, of course, reflects a complete re-evaluation of all facets of the transport industry in the light of the changed cirucmstances in this industry. The next few years will be critical as far as the transport industry is concerned. The personnel have realised this and that is why they supported the Government.

It is essential, as the hon member for Primrose said, that deregulation and privatisation should, with great circumspection, be considered and, last but not least, introduced. That is precisely what the Government is doing, as the hon the Minister indicated it intended doing. Other hon members have, from time to time, indicated in debates that these aspects of deregulation should be considered and introduced systematically, and I am in full agreement with that.

I now want to put a question to the CP’s new spokesman on transport affairs. I want to know what his party’s specific standpoint on deregulation is, because that is necessary for the purposes of conducting this debate and for a proper evaluation of their overall economic policy. My argument is that the officials of the transport services have specifically rejected the party to which those hon members belong because they did not support a future-orientated transport policy. In that connection I now want to refer to the hon member for Nigel’s predecessor who expressed the following sentiments on these matters in the House (Hansard: House of Assembly, 1986, col 1262):

Did you ever! He also said:

In that debate that hon member went on to adopt an even stronger standpoint in opposition to deregulation and privatisation. That is why I say it is no wonder that that view, that policy, was rejected by the voters. I should like the hon member …

Oh, you know that is not true.

What is not true? [Interjections.] It is one of their spokesmen who said it, and the hon member must now counter it. [interjections.] However, they do not think about those things. It is very nice to say certain things and then whip out the Hansards on some platform …

So where did the CP’s 550 000 votes come from?

They came from the HNP which was swallowed up by the CP; that is all. [Interjections.]

The South African harbours, the pipelines, the domestic airways and high-rated traffic are the SATS’ profit-makers and up to now of course, under the present transport policy of cross-subsidisation, these services have propped up the other non-profitable services such as rail passenger services and low-rated traffic. Not all the harbours, of course, are equally profitable, and there are several reasons for this. We know, for example, that Durban harbour is by far the most profitable, because large profits are made on imported goods, in other words high-tariff goods, which are offloaded. Very great losses are suffered on low-mass traffic mainly aimed at export. A harbour which therefore handles mixed cargo is in a much better position, when it comes to making profits, than one aiming solely at the export market, such as Richards Bay.

Our harbours, as I have said, represent tremendously large capital investments which are largely unutilised at present. So there is a great deal of spare capacity available. As early as February the hon the Minister made a very welcome announcement in this regard, and I again want to place it on record, because it is extremely important. He said:

I think that was the right thing to do, but the hon the Minister has again made a very important announcement about harbours here, and that relates to the abolition of the ad valorem principle in regard to the wharfage on coast-wise cargo. I welcome this announcement, because it ought to stimulate coastal traffic. The practical implications of what was put forward in the Budget Speech means a saving of R4,4 million for those making use of that mode of transport, and of course that is very important.

He also made a further very important and informative change as far as coastal traffic is concerned, and that is that the recovery of wharfage will not in future be based on the costs of the goods, but in fact on their tonnage. This announcement represents a very great change as far as the collection of wharfage is concerned, and is actually deregulation. I welcome it, because it will lead to stimulation of coastal traffic, and that was the correct thing to do.

Wharfage revenue is, of course, an important source of profits for the harbours, and in the present dispensation our wharfage is unfortunately excessively high. Those making use of harbours therefore have to subsidise other services, although they derive no direct benefit from this. That is actually where deregulation is now, to a certain extent, showing its effect.

In reality the wharfage on high-value goods which are imported is more than twice that on low-value goods which are exported. I recommend that the Minister extend this principle to all cargo. It is perhaps not possible or desirable at the moment, but it is nevertheless a very good start.

The underlying principle embodied in this altered standpoint relates to an effort to utilise the under-utilised spare capacity and extensive capital investment to the best possible effect. It is my opinion that although the principle involved here may be a good one, the whole matter should be re-examined and further concessions made so that what the hon the Minister said in February can be properly implemented.

If it is accepted that railways and harbours should be regarded as a single unit, a solution will have to be sought in both these sectors. Tariff packages will have to be worked out and presented in order to achieve better utilisation of harbours by making the package an attractive one for those making use of that service. Harbour profits are largely the result of wharfage tariffs, and since the export of low-value goods comprises the major portion of the activities, in the long run harbour profits would slowly increase. It is essential for us to institute an investigation into ways and means of increasing our spare capacity at the harbours, and I believe that this is only possible if we take a fresh look at an overall package in this connection.

The Burggraaff Committee was appointed to investigate the multi-purpose use of our harbours. This report has not yet been made public, although one does have some indication of the findings. I should like the hon the Minister to make this report available as quickly as possible, because although it would not essentially influence the profitability of the harbours, it is definitely a step forward to have every aspect of our harbours and their utilisation subjected to a thorough investigation with a view to determining whether we do not have optimum utilisation and profittaking. No stone should be left unturned in deriving the utmost benefit from our harbours.

In the new, altered circumstances in transport services we ought to have a proper re-evaluation made of the auxiliary and support services internally provided by the SATS itself at present and to determine whether acceptable reasons do not exist for having these services furnished in co-operation with the private sector or solely by the private sector.

In previous debates I have referred to the property division of the SATS in which, in my view, there are great possibilities for contributions and job performance by the private sector. I suppose that this aspect will be given attention, in due course, after consideration of Dr Wim de Villiers’s report. It is gratifying that the SATS is now co-operating with the private sector in the field of property development. I am referring, in particular, to the planned development for Cape Town. In that connection let me refer to the Cape Times of 21 February in which, under the heading “Dramatic plans for city” it is stated:

I think this is a very important change. It is a new trend and a new development, and I very strongly support it. I think that the property development aspect of the SATS is one of the specific aspects that we could, in fact, essentially encourage in co-operation with the private sector. I think that in this regard we could achieve spectacular results.

Having said all that, let me conclude by just thanking the Ministry again for the very good work it has done for us and congratulate it on this Budget.

Mr Chairman, it is something over six years since I last had the opportunity of taking part in a debate on transport affairs in this House. I must say, listening to the quality of what is being said, that not much has changed. The Minister was at that stage not the present hon Minister, and I think I can probably say that he is a little prettier than the last Minister. Unfortunately I cannot say that for the rest of the hon members in those benches. The hon the Deputy Minister, for example, is his old, sweet self!

I hope the hon member for Uitenhage will excuse me if I do not follow him on the question of harbours. I have a particular matter that I want to raise with the hon the Minister and that is the matter of the strike which began among vehicle drivers and other Black staff at City Deep in Johannesburg.

The General Manager was good enough to provide the standing committee with a considerable amount of information, for which I am very grateful indeed. I think that at this stage, though, it is necessary to stand back and to look very objectively at what has happened, what the results were and are at this stage, and what the results are likely to hold for us in the future.

The facts of the start of the strike action are common cause in that the suspension from duty of a Black driver on 12 March for an infringement of regulations seems to have precipitated a growing sympathy strike which finally resulted in considerable disruption of services and costly damage to property. Whether or not this was the basic reason behind the total strike is arguable. I think it should be noted at this stage that signs of unrest had already been observed four or five months before this, concerning kitchens and the quality of food in some of the hostels. It appears that the major strike action was only partly caused by the suspension of the driver concerned and that it is quite possible that other areas of dissatisfaction existed.

In the final analysis, what were the results? Over R21 million worth of damages to property in terms of damaged coaches occurred; the financial loss to the strikers themselves was in excess of R22 million; and of the nearly 20 000 workers who participated in the strike action the vast majority have not been re-employed, many of them having had a work record of many years of service with that administration. Many workers who actually owned homes through the home ownership scheme are quite likely to lose those homes. To all this must be added the incalculable loss occasioned by time wasted and late deliveries to railway customers. I think it can be seen that the cost to the country as a whole, to the administration and to the workers concerned is enormous. I think also that it will be common cause that South Africa cannot afford a recurrence of this sort of thing. We have to do something about it for the future.

Looking at this in broader terms, I think we would all agree that in a system of government which denies elementary rights to many of its citizens pressures in fields other than strictly political fields are likely to build up. Black people who are denied political power—this matter was discussed by my colleague, the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central—are beginning to realise that they have power of another sort; that is, economic power in the withdrawal of their labour and the power of their labour.

Their frustration in political terms has tended to result in industrial action directed towards employers when the redress that the strikers want is often not within the scope of the employers to provide. One sees this often in private enterprise industrial action too. It is not within the compass of the employer to provide the necessary redress of workers’ grievances because they are usually political demands. Dissatisfaction with the Government results in demands from within which cannot be met by the employers, in this case the SATS, but only by the Government. There I must address the hon the Minister personally and say: Your Government, your Cabinet have got to do something about that sort of situation if we are going to get away from this sort of thing happening in the future. As I say, so many organisations in private enterprise have been faced by this manifestation of frustration and, of course, this is unfair to the employers themselves, because there is absolutely nothing that they can do about it. Many employers have had to go through extremely tremendous costly industrial action which has nothing at all to do with their failure as employers to meet worker dissatisfaction at the scene of employment.

When we come to a State-controlled organisation like the SATS the situation is likely to be made worse because of the close connection of the SATS with Government. Inevitably workers are likely to take industrial action looking beyond the administration itself to the Government for redress of their more broadly based dissatisfaction. I suppose one could term this sort of action by workers to be political action rather than industrial action. I want to stress to hon members that it is almost inevitable that this sort of industrial strife is going to come about because of the system which operates in South Africa. Many private enterprise employers have had to come to terms with this somewhat unfortunate situation and have had to bear the cost of strike actions which have had very little to do with their own employment practices. Because of their Government connection this is likely to be aggravated in the case of the SATS.

The hon the Minister in his Budget Speech claimed that the strike had occurred “notwithstanding efforts to uphold and extend sound labour relations in Transport Services”. I think those were his actual words. The administration itself appears to have regarded its handling of the whole matter with a fair degree of satisfaction in that the strike was broken and the strikers beaten in one way or another. I regret to say that I cannot go along with these sentiments because having had experience of this sort of thing in private enterprise I would regard the handling of this industrial action as inept. I was insensitive and incompetent and the results are likely to have damaged labour relations in Transport Services for a long time to come.

It was arrogant.

Very arrogant indeed, as this hon member says too. The approach to the whole field of industrial relations is old-fashioned, it is inefficient, and it is completely obvious that communications and communication systems with workers are not adequate at this time. I am the first to admit that this particular strike escalated into a major political struggle with results far more serious than could have been envisaged in a more normal society. The facts of life are that we do not live in a normal society and in the field of industrial relations the Transport Services are going to have to live with reality. Many private enterprise employers have had to learn to live with reality. The learning process has been long and hard. Because of political pressures of one sort or another employers have had to compensate by being particularly sensitive and particularly efficient in establishing sound, comprehensive lines of communication with their workers. It is no good complaining to the moon that the Transport Services strike escalated into major political action which fell way beyond the sphere of normal labour relations. This is undoubtedly so. I have no quarrel with that sentiment. However, just as private enterprise has had to learn that this is part of life, so the Transport Services will have to adjust their ideas to cope with reality.

I think we should take a look at the whole approach of the administration to communication with workers and worker representatives.

In evidence before the standing committee the administration recognised that they were in a relatively stronger bargaining position than employers in the private sector because Transport Services are part of the State. I think this is very true. One would have thought that this would have entailed a particular sensitivity to communications, but these do not appear to exist. They do not appear to exist satisfactorily at all.

Firstly, a refusal to recognise and to negotiate with the SA Railways and Harbours Workers Union, which is an affiliate of Cosatu, obviously had an effect on the way in which the strike escalated. I hold no particular brief for this union but it obviously has a substantial membership, and we on these benches believe in freedom of association in labour matters.

How many?

It has a very substantial membership.

How many members?

Well, Sir, I do not know. The hon the Minister should know better than I do. If he had been following sound labour practices he would have created the machinery whereby he would have had some knowledge of exactly how many members it does have. Even if it has very few, however, I am sure the hon the Minister will not be able to refute the fact that non-recognition of that union had an effect on the strike. I am not saying that it is a good union or a bad union; I am not passing comment on that at all. I am saying that one has to come to terms with the fact that that union represents a substantial number of workers. Certainly, the administration did not seem to go out of its way to establish just how many members it did have. It obviously preferred to recognise only the in-house union Blatu which, as my hon colleague has said, is really a staff association rather than a trade union.

If sound employer-employee relationships are to be established, employees must be allowed to operate through a union or unions of their choice. It does not do a bit of good for employers to select a sweetheart union and to decide that this is the only body with which they will negotiate. There are ways and means of establishing the size of a union’s membership—possibly by means of a referendum among the workers—in order to find out what sort of support it really has. If it has no support, then the hon the Minister would be able to prove conclusively that it has no support, and that could only be to his advantage under these circumstances.

The whole question of recognition is a very difficult one and it is obviously reasonable to lay down a certain level of membership that should be attained before recognition is given. This level should, however, be negotiated with the workers and should be generally known so that a union knows where it stands if it wants recognition.

[Inaudible.]

The hon the Minister indicates that he is going to reply to that point in particular. Even if the philosophies and beliefs of that union are an absolute anathema, if it really represents a substantial section of the workforce, it must be recognised. That applies to any union; I am not just talking about Sarhwu. Employers simply cannot negotiate only with those unions whose opinions are in sympathy with their own. Inevitably in South Africa negotiations have to take place with representatives of opinion which is totally at odds with employer opinion.

The secret of good industrial relations lies in good communications, and I think the hon the Minister will agree with me on that point. The establishment of efficient lines of communication is vitally important and, when industrial unrest manifests itself, employers have to know immediately where the problem areas are. It is patently obvious to me that these lines of communication do not exist in a satisfactory manner in the SATS. It is obvious that the climate does not exist in which workers’ representatives feel that they can operate completely freely. It all starts with attitudes on the part not only of senior management but also management all down the line to the lowest levels of authority.

More and more private enterprise organisations are instituting training courses on how to deal with grievances and how to handle worker relations. The old days of having foremen who could hire and fire at will, are gone, and I am not aware of whether or not the administration does carry out courses of this nature for line management and, if it does, down to what level it does so. If they are not already in operation, then they are an urgent necessity.

A station master who arbitrarily fires workers who participate in a work stoppage, be it legal or illegal, has probably failed to keep open adequate lines of communication. It is my experience that when the stage is reached at which strike action takes place, there has been a failure on the part of management to provide adequate machinery through which discontent can be channelled. I am not convinced that adequate machinery exists in the SATS to provide the necessary communication for management to keep its finger on the pulse of worker attitudes. I would also like to be convinced that adequate grievance procedures exist. I know that grievance procedures do exist, but the notion that they are adequate appears to be belied by the facts of the strike.

It is of course vitally important that employees are completely familiar with these grievance procedures. It would be interesting to know whether the administration does conduct familiarisation courses for employees so that they understand exactly what their rights are. I can go on at considerable length, but time does not allow me to do so, on what I regard as the basis for sound industrial relations.

I feel it necessary, however, to address the hon the Minister on his personal conduct during the strike. Obviously senior management would have taken their lead from the attitude of the hon the Minister and his public statements. There is no doubt at all in my mind that the hon the Minister attempted to make political capital for the election out of this whole strike situation. Instead of making use of words calculated to defuse the whole situation, to calm things down, he blustered and threatened to fire workers involved in the strike. He fanned the flames instead of attempting to calm emotions. It is his responsibility in those circumstances to calm emotions. I believe he did the future of labour relations in the SATS a great deal of harm.

As the strike escalated and spread to other areas, arrests of strikers took place, obviously in many instances quite justified because of incidents of violence and damage to property. In some instances, however, it appeared that incidents should have been more sensitively handled. Emotions tend to run high in situations like these and, of course, incidents of intimidation were rife. The whole attitude of the hon the Minister and his administration appeared to be, however, that this worker action had to be put down with a show of strength, and very little attention was paid to what might have been legitimate grievances from the worker body. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that one should differentiate between the political intimidation, political violence and political attitudes of certain people behind many of the strikers on the one hand, and genuine grievances on the other hand. I want to be assured that those grievances are being looked at.

My question to the hon the Minister is: What now? Are the reasons which were behind the dissatisfaction of thousands of workers being investigated? I am not prepared to believe that the whole affair was the result of political intimidation. Of course there was intimidation. I do not have any quarrel with that viewpoint, but my point is that the hon the Minister and his administration fuelled the flames by using the maximum amount of force without matching this with the maximum possible understanding of why communication had gone wrong. They had no real plan of action to re-establish communication. It is going to take a long time to overcome the harm which has been done to workermanagement relationships. I would like to know what plans there are for the future.

I have here a copy of a notice signed by one of the Deputy General Managers, dated 31 March and which is headed “Notice to Employees”. I would like to quote paragraph 3.2 of this notice, and I will do so quickly because my time is running short:

Sir, I dislike intensely one aspect of this paragraph. The implied threat to Black employees that they will be replaced by Whites is not conducive to good industrial relations, or for that matter good race relations. I hope that this does not indicate the future course of action of the SATS.

Perhaps equally disquieting is the fact that certain centres had been found to be overstaffed, as stated in the final sentence of this paragraph. Does it take strike action for the administration to discover that they are overstaffed, or was this just threatening language used in a strike situation? It could even be that the administration is generally unaware of areas where it is overstaffed. I would like an answer from the hon the Minister in this regard, because indications gleaned from this particular paragraph have very serious implications indeed.

The Wiehahn Commission has reported to the hon the Minister that lots of the industrial relations machinery is obsolete. I hope the hon the Minister is taking that to heart and is really going to do a good job in producing very much better machinery than the SATS have at the present time.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr Chairman, at the outset I would like to congratulate the hon member for Soutpansberg—he is not here at the moment—on his nomination to office as the chief speaker on transport matters for the Official Opposition. I would like to take issue with him on one or two matters. He made the statement that the Government had been put to the test and had failed.

I want to say that I do not agree altogether with his assumption—not that I agree with much that he says. However, I have a healthy respect for his mind because notwithstanding the fact that they call him “slapende Tom” I do not believe that he is always as fast asleep as he appears to be.

The hon member was speaking about moving commuters from one place to the other and he mentioned the term “bullet trains”. When one considers the outdated policies of the Official Opposition one wonders what type of bullets he was referring to. I would say that they are probably bullets from a “voorlaaier”.

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central touched on the topic of the strike. I think his basic premise was—as was that of the hon member for Bryanston—that in his opinion negotiation did not take place to the full extent that it might have. I do not agree with that either.

I now come to the hon member for Bryanston. May I say at the outset that we on this side of the House welcome him back to Parliament and we hope that he will have a happy and a fruitful stay here. He said that he would like to look at the situation objectively but I want to put it to him that when one is in politics and in an opposition party it is very difficult to look at a matter objectively. I have been in an opposition party and I know how completely irresponsible one can be without any problem. [Interjections.]

What a confession to make!

The hon member used the words “insensitive and incompetent”. I would say that is a very sweeping statement to make and I would like to suggest to the hon member that he is not fully aware of what has taken place. This confirms what I said just now, namely that one can afford to be irresponsible when one is in an opposition party.

The hon member said that the department fuelled the flames to the maximum amount. I believe that this is a completely untrue statement and I must contradict it. Much has been said by the opposition parties on the recent strike action that led to the dismissal of some 17 000 SATS workers. Certain perceptions are evident and in my opinion they are not correct when one looks at the realities of the situation.

Firstly one must look at the parties concerned in a dispute. On the one hand we have the management of the SATS—a dedicated, highly motivated and very efficient team. Their expertise individually is unquestionable and I believe is collectively outstanding. This team manages a very large undertaking that is on par with any other similar organisation in the world. This is a team that would rather negotiate and compromise on genuine grievances in the interests of running an efficient service for the benefit of South Africa’s economy and well-being.

On the other hand one has a group of workers who find themselves between a Third World status and a First World Western culture which is industrialised and to which they have not yet altogether adapted. This is summed-up very succinctly by David Coplan in his essay “The Emergence of an African Working-class Culture” in the book Industrialisation and Social Change in South Africa. I would like to quote the first paragraph of his essay, as follows:

I think that is very important to remember. Basically Mr Coplan is saying that notwithstanding urbanisation, to a large degree the culture of the traditional way of life still exists, and within that culture is a natural acceptance of intimidation as a way of life. To compound the situation there is a gullibility which many of us fail to recognise because of a disparity in education and which, in fact, is exploited by the voluble and very expressive minority, the same minority that will stop at nothing to achieve its ends. That is the scenario as I see it.

Let us now look at the facts of the situation in view of the accusations that have been levelled at the SATS management, viz, that action against strikers was weak and that the escalation of strike action was allowed to get out of hand.

What triggered off this strike? The hon member for Bryanston touched on this aspect very briefly but I think that we should go into it in greater depth and look at all the facts.

A vehicle driver of City Deep was suspended from duty as a result of a cash irregularity on 12 March 1987. He had received the money on behalf of the SATS and failed to pay in on that particular day. The money was only paid in three days later. He appealed to the regional manager and his suspension was lifted. The accused’s sentence was changed to a fine of R80 and he retained his previous position. His colleagues at City Deep were of the opinion that he was unjustly treated and started to strike out of sympathy with his sentence of R80.

In spite of negotiations between the regional manager and grade stewards, the vehicle drivers and other Black staff at City Deep went on strike and the entrances to the container terminal were obstructed. The workers demanded that the accused be unconditionally reinstated in his position and further demanded payment for the days they had been on strike. The demands of the strikers could not be met and they refused to clear the entrances.

The management of the SATS negotiated throughout with the grade stewards, but to no avail. A court order was obtained which prohibited the strikers from obstructing the entrances to the container terminal. The court order was delivered on 18 March 1987. A sympathy strike with the workers at City Deep had in the meantime spread to Kaserne.

The grade stewards at City Deep compiled a document which was submitted to management on 23 March 1987. Management accepted the document on condition that the strikers would resume work the following day. The grade stewards rejected the same document the next day. After the document had been rejected, information sessions with the grade stewards from other depots were held to inform them of the true state of affairs. It soon became clear that the grade stewards realised that they had been misled by the strikers and they wanted to resume work. The intimidation campaign against those workers who wished to continue their work commenced immediately thereafter. Passengers were intimidated and trains were set alight.

I want the hon member for Bryanston to listen carefully. Several negotiating sessions were arranged at the request of the grade stewards, only to find out later that they failed to turn up. The management on several occasions tried to resume negotiations, but failed to do so. I therefore have to reject the hon member for Bryanston’s allegations.

One must also accept that there was no legal way in which the SATS could have fired the strikers. In fact, there was a laid down procedure for dismissal which would have taken a maximum of 15 days to execute. One must bear in mind that staff regulations were drawn up to safeguard the employee and were designed for a peaceful and not a war situation in regard to labour relations. Management negotiated with shop stewards throughout, and within the first week got tacit approval to return to work. This was later withdrawn. Throughout the whole saga management were and still are under a valid impression that the large majority of workers were unwilling to proceed with the strike. The situation of an unwilling but intimidated workforce led management at that stage to refrain from firing workers without an ultimatum for two basic reasons. The first one was to try to retain the staff who had already been trained and who were for the most part experienced. The second reason was that the strike action was mainly confined to the Southern Transvaal region which only involved approximately 20 000 workers out of a total workforce of 90 000.

Here I want to tell the hon member for Soutpansberg that his assumptions were completely incorrect. If management had succumbed to what the hon member for Soutpansberg wanted them to do, ie to take drastic action, it would have led, in my opinion, to a more general strike throughout the country and a large-scale breakdown of services. The position at that stage was that the SATS, by improvisation, were able to contain any detrimental effect on the provision of services, which they are still doing to this minute.

However, after six weeks when the position had deteriorated into a situation where it was no longer a labour relations improvement exercise but an unrest related situation into which the SA Police had to be brought to protect life and property, ultimatums had to be delivered. The result was that 17 000 people were laid off. I want to ask the hon member for Bryanston what he would have done in the same position. What would he have done if, after six weeks of negotiation, unrest broke out? Would he have continued negotiating? [Interjections.] He would not have. After six weeks of many negotiation sessions ultimately a special Gazette was issued giving the SATS additional powers to act in their own interests.

I believe the union movement in this instance has lost the sympathy of other trade unions and of the public with its actions of intimidation and violent reaction. The criticism that management was soft is therefore disproved and I want to sum the situation up with the following quotation by Anne Bradstreet:

I address those words directly to the Official Opposition.

On the other side of the coin the criticism is levelled that more negotiation should have taken place. Here again, what is the historical and the legal position under which the SATS operate? Management can only negotiate with in-house unions. That is a point which the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central made. There is one union for each category of workers giving a total of 10 in the SATS situation. Blatu which has a membership of plus-minus 61 000 out of a total of 90 000 of the effective workforce—representative of two thirds of them—is the recognised union for any discussion with management. Notwithstanding Blatu’s official standing, Sarhwu, the opposition union which boasts, they say, 15 000 members—it could be far less; let us say 10 000 members—took up the cudgels throughout the whole saga. It is impossible to deal with two different unions in one structure. Management can only talk to the union which represents the majority of workers so negotiations were never entered into with Sarhwu. Nevertheless, it is an accepted fact that workers belong to both unions. It is also accepted, however, that Sarhwu took the initiative and ultimately resorted to violence and intimidation.

One must ask the question here whether the strike was for the benefit of the worker or whether it was a strike for recognition of another union. I believe the latter was the case. It was not a legitimate labour related exercise. To this moment some workers are still under the false impression, propagated by certain individuals in Sarhwu, that the reasons for the strike are legitimate. Some of the reasons advanced are that salaries should be doubled to a minimum of R800 per month, and racial discrimination. Further disinformation is that all workers will receive full pay for the time that they were on strike and, furthermore, that a sum of R21 000 will be paid in cash to workers for damages.

Many workers want to return to work, but what would one do if you were told: “Go back to work and we will chop off your hands”? Or what would one do if one were told: “Go back to work and we will give you the necklace” or “We will burn down your home and kill your family”? We have already had four murders and we have to do something to prevent more—it is all very well for those hon members to talk.

The SATS’s door is still open for discussion. Assurances have been given that although workers will have to bear their short-term losses, those workers returning to work will retain their long-term interests. To those who say insufficient negotiation took place and more allowances should have been made, I want to say to them what, Austin O’Malley said, namely:

In the final analysis, what has been the result of this particular strike action? A vociferous, barbaric minority has caused extensive damage to railway property and murdered and maimed innocent people and, to boot, its actions will result in at least 4 000 people losing their positions. I say this because at the time of the violence breaking out, the SATS management had to improvise to provide the services, and that is still the case today. At that time, ways and means had to be found to maintain the services with fewer staff …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is an hon member allowed to read his speech?

Order! The hon member can leave the enforcement of that rule to the Chair. The hon member for South Coast may continue.

In fact, there are losses on both sides of the situation, but on the SATS management side, I firmly believe they have shown empathy for the position of those workers who wanted to return to work but who were stopped from doing so because of intimidation. Let us not condemn the majority of those people in these circumstances because, if we do, we must condemn that silent majority that allows a vociferous minority to do what they do on our university campuses today.

The SATS management have shown both patience and tolerance, which are very necessary ingredients in today’s times, and the door is still open for an equitable acceptance of a return to the normal work situation.

I want to close by quoting what the hon the Minister said in his Budget Speech, in an advanced copy made available to the House of Assembly:

What I am saying, is that the SATS are living in changing times and circumstances. The SATS management, with respect, is the first to accept, and in my opinion, to be prepared to move with the changing times and circumstances. That is more than we can say for the PFP. The election results showed what happened to them because they cannot move with the times.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Uitenhage asked how the CP had fared in constituencies such as De Aar and Germiston District. Let me assure the hon member, to mention just one example, that in the constituency of De Aar, where most of the voters are railway workers, the CP won. However, if the hon member really wants to know how the CP performed in this election, I want to reply by telling him, if he still does not know, that the CP has become the Official Opposition with a very large number of railway workers as their voters. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I should like to discuss two facets of the Transport Services Budget debate which the CP considers to be important. Before doing so, however, I want to thank the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister, as well as all the officials, for the service they render with regard to the Railways and the Airways. We are aware of that and we want to give credit for it. However, this does not mean that one should rest on one’s laurels; on the contrary, one should keep trying to improve one’s service. In raising these two facets, I request the hon the Minister to find out what room for improvement still remains in the Airways—I am confining my remarks to the Airways in this connection.

It is our standpoint on this side of the House that the Airways does not do justice to Afrikaans.

†When I say this, Sir, I should like to point out that the approach of the CP right from the very beginning has been one of complete bilingualism. English speakers were founder members of the CP, and more than 30% of our Transvaal members of the party are English-speaking. This is in stark contrast to the media’s label of the CP being only an Afrikaans-speaking party.

What about the AWB?

Our party’s constitution and …

*Mr Chairman, I am interrupting myself to say the following in my capacity as a new member. Although I could not participate in the Censure Debate, I was struck by the fact that the NP could only attack the CP by way of the AWB. This is because the NP has no policy of its own to expound. [Interjections.]

†Mr Chairman, the constitution of the CP, our programme of principles and our public relations material have always been bilingual. We feel that this approach should be carried through into the sphere of governmental departments and other semi-official bodies. Due attention should carefully be paid to bilingualism, also in our Transport Services. In this respect I want to refer to the Airways in particular. [Interjections.]

*In view of this I want to mention a number of examples—I base my remarks in this connection on the Constitution, to which I shall come back later—of the neglect of Afrikaans in the service provided by the SA Airways to its clients. When they fly back home tonight, hon members will notice that the anonymous young lady who puts one’s boarding pass into the slot machine, in order to compare it with the particulars stored in the computer, invariably says: “Thank you.”

Now, what is wrong with that?

Yes, what is wrong with that? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I shall tell hon members what is wrong with that. English is used without exception. We Afrikaans-speaking people should like to hear the words “Baie dankie”, even if it should happen only now and then. [Interjections.]

*Mr Chairman, regarding the in-flight service …

I suppose you simply look English to them! [Interjections.]

Regarding the in-flight service it is merely taken for granted that all passengers are English-speaking. We Afrikaans-speaking people should also like to be addressed in our own language. We want to see Afrikaans being treated on an equal basis with English. [Interjections.]

Order! [Interjections.] Order! When the Chair calls hon members to order, it is not just another interjection which has been made. When the Chair calls for order, the Chair means that there should be order in this House.

Mr Chairman, I cannot express my standpoint more clearly. Naturally, I could mention many more examples of the neglect of Afrikaans within the framework of the SA Airways’ activities. However, I do not think I could furnish better proof to this House than the ticket we have each received to travel to our respective constituencies or homes tonight. There is not a single word of Afrikaans on either the front or the back cover of this airline ticket.

Your name is in Afrikaans, I suppose. [Interjections.]

I am more than willing to reply to good interjections, but poor ones do not merit a reply.

Looking at the ticket itself, one sees that this ticket—the text printed out by the computer—is all in English. We wonder what has become of the provisions of the Constitution in this connection, because it is not only policy in South Africa that Government documents should be bilingual; it is a provision contained in the Constitution. This Constitution was fought tooth and nail by the CP and was drafted by the NP. Now I ask whether the NP really means what it says in section 89 (1) and (2) of the Constitution. I do not think I need to read it to hon members. In subsection (1) it says quite clearly:

Subsection (2) provides:

I should like to believe that these include an air ticket—

and all other documents—

I want to submit today that if ever there was a human right in South Africa—one of those very rights which hon members opposite are so keen to invoke—it is the right to speak one’s own language, to have one’s own language recognised and to receive replies in one’s own language when using an official service such as the one provided by the SAA. After all, the SAA is also an advertisement for us, and I request the hon the Minister to give attention to this matter.

I just want to make another remark in passing. In the course of my preparations I came across something which is not connected with bilingualism, but which does have a bearing on another aspect of national policy. I ask why this airline ticket—I did not find out the exact figure, but millions of them must be issued every year—is printed in Germany. Have hon members ever examined it? If not, I should like to read to them what it says: “Printed in the Federal Republic of Germany, Verlag, München …” I wondered whether the other side of the House should not have this ticket printed by Perskor or by Nasionale Pers so as to get hold of even more money to fight the CP even more fiercely through the public media.

What about Strydpers?

Because my time is so limited, I just want to refer hon members to the article by Professor J C Steyn about the survival of Afrikaans within the framework of a constitutional dispensation. It appeared in Acta Academica.

I have two minutes left and I should like to discuss one last facet. I was born in the Boland. [Interjections.] I got to know the wine culture in my own home. Now I want to ask the hon the Minister whether it is really necessary to pour the good wine we produce in South Africa into little plastic glasses when we are travelling in the SAA’s economy class. I told the waiter last week that it was infra dignitatem to drink wine from a plastic glass. He then told me that as a result of the service which is now being offered by the SAA, proper glasses are no longer available in the economy class. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, my words really seem to be hurting hon members on the other side, or else they know nothing of the culture of wine. I wonder whether in this way, by presenting wine in a plastic glass, we are also being reduced to a Third World state. [Interjections.] In the best books on wine in South Africa and in the world, it is emphasised that good wine—I want to express my appreciation for the good wine we are able to enjoy during flights—should be presented in glasses and not in plastic cups, which allow the flavour of the wine to penetrate the small cracks in the plastic, giving one a whiff of the wine drunk by the previous passenger. I request the hon the Minister to let us use proper glasses during flights to enable us to enjoy South Africa’s good wines.

Mr Chairman, there is no one in this country who has not, in some or other way, been served by the SATS. The Transport Services are like the arteries in one’s body, providing it with oxygen and nourishment. That is why, on this occasion, we sincerely want to thank the Ministry, the department and all the officials for the valuable service they furnish in keeping the wheels turning in this country.

As far as the hon member for Losberg is concerned—I have here an airline ticket; the cover is printed in Germany for all the countries in the world, all the international lata members; the inside portion of the ticket is printed in South Africa and is completely bilingual. On the first page one has: “Departure Information/Inligting oor vertrek”, and on page 2 one has: “Kennisgewing van kontrakvoorwaardes”, and facing that “Conditions of Contract”. On page 3 there is “Kennisgewing aan alle internasionale passasiers”, and this is also printed in English. Every page is completely bilingual. As far as the lady at the airport is concerned—this afternoon the hon member spoke such beautiful English here that I am not surprised that she said “Thank you” to him.

As far as the wine glasses are concerned, if one cannot drink wine from a plastic glass, one must simply drink tea or coffee from a cup. Perhaps one could also drink the wine straight out of the bottle, or perhaps the hon member could buy himself a little glass and take it along in his briefcase.

It is not difficult to identify hon members of the CP. They are people who are always complaining who and who are always dissatisfied. The hon member again gave a beautiful illustration of that here.

I now want to turn my attention to the hon the Minister. I want to speak about the transport of sugar and wood, particularly in Natal, and of course in my constituency. A trend which has recently developed in regard to sugar and wood is that there has been a shift from rail to road transport. I want to furnish an example of the consequences of this in my constituency, the Richards Bay-Empangeni growth-point.

In the first place the shift is taking place because, in the handling of these mass loads the SATS cannot compete with road transport. We are in favour of privatization, but I just want to draw the hon the Minister’s attention to a few problems in this regard. Firstly the roads have not been built to carry this type of heavy traffic, and the result of this is that the roads would have to be upgraded at tremendous cost. Secondly, where once long train loads of 30, to 40 wagons moved along our railways, these loads are now shifting over to road transport and there are a large number of 30-ton or 40-ton lorries and even tractors and trailers increasingly in evidence on our roads. In many cases this traffic also flows through towns, creating a danger on the roads. In Empangeni, for example, a 30-ton lorry passes every 30 seconds, causing great problems.

The construction of bypasses and the upgrading of the roads are going to take place at tremendous cost. We accept that these costs would probably have to be recovered from the hauliers. This will result in the producer’s transport costs ultimately increasing again. In these circumstances it could possibly happen that certain little used branch lines falling into disrepair, and if costs ultimately increased as a result of a lack of competition, producers would be forced to pay the higher transport costs. We should like to bring this problem to the hon the Minister’s attention and ask him to keep a very watchful eye on it.

This brings me to coastwise cargo, and I want to link up with the hon member for Uitenhage by emphasizing that the transportation of coastwise cargo represents a very important mode of transport. It would also contribute towards relieving the traffic on the roads.

In recent years the wharfage tariffs along the coastal routes have systematically been scaled down. In the South African harbours wharfage is levied for the provision and maintenance of infrastructure. Wharfage on imports and exports has been levied on the basis of the ad valorem principle since the advent of Union, whilst the value of cargo has played a subservient role in the determination of road and rail tariffs. These tariffs are based on the mass of the transported loads. As a result of the fact that wharfage has been collected on the basis of the ad valorem principle, the coastal routes have been placed in a very unfavourable competitive position, particularly in regard to high-value cargo. Statistics indicate that between 1969 and 1986 transport decreased by 500 000 tons. We now want to thank the hon the Minister for the announcement that from 1 July wharfage would be collected on a tonnage basis. At present the tariff is R4,50 per ton per harbour—ie it costs R9 for the shipment and discharge of cargo. This is a cost-orientated tariff and there is consequently no reason why the coastal route cannot compete on an equal footing with other modes of transport.

As regards the mass transport of coal, we want to ask that the tariffs be handled very carefully and circumspectly. This has a major influence on our ability to compete with the chief suppliers of coal in the world.

The South African harbours occupy a special position on the subcontinent. They give us very much of a headstart as far as our trade with the rest of the world is concerned. In looking at this Appropriation, and also at events in recent years, it is apparent that our harbours are continually being improved in an effort to furnish the best possible facilities and services at reasonable tariffs to world shipping. As a result of their reliability and the regularity of their service, the South African Harbours have already made their name internationally—chiefly because the railways and harbours are run by one organization. This results in uniform tariffs and regulations at all harbours, and also an efficient service and a high standard of performance.

Ships calling at our harbours have a wide variety of services offered to them, including navigation aids along our coast. The large tugs at all our harbours are fully equipped and ships finding themselves in difficulties are quickly assisted. Thus both friend and foe have frequently been assisted in an emergency. It is ironic that the Republic of South Africa, with its strategically important geographic position, resources and valuable minerals, has such a struggle to have the USA and the West in general open its eyes and realise that our survival here is also in their interest. With a view to political and economic reform and the improvement of the standard of living of everyone in our country, it is necessary for our growth rate to increase. The provision of jobs is essential, because if unemployment became an everyday occurrence and our trade were restricted, it would largely be our Black inhabitants who would suffer. The standard of living and the survival of the Blacks in the RSA, the TBVC countries, the BLS countries and the Black states to the north of us depends on trade with countries abroad. Our country is pre-eminently equipped and has the potential to develop.

We should like to express our thanks and appreciation here to responsible Black leaders who have come out against sanctions and have pointed out, to the world, the consequences of such sanctions for the growing Black population. The co-operation of all reasonable people in our country is necessary to take a firm stand against the forces that want to bring about our downfall. Black leaders must react positively to the hon the State President’s invitation to enter into discussions.

If all reasonable people co-operate in the interests of our country, a very great future awaits us. The whole world expects us to bring about reform and to provide for the needs of everyone in our country. We can only do so if law and order are maintained and if everyone co-operates to make this possible.

As far as sanctions are concerned, countries abroad must continually bear in mind that South Africa has the food, the consumer goods, the heavy equipment and the technical expertise. Our neighbours in Africa to the north of us need us to keep their economies going. What is more, almost all roads and railway lines in Southern Africa lead to South Africa with its better harbour facilities. The Black states are handicapped to such an extent by their own inadequate transport services that they frequently find it easier and cheaper to do business with South Africa. We have the most modern harbours in the world, with modern import and export facilities to trade with the rest of the world.

South Africa has extensive natural resources which have not yet been exploited and which embody exceptionally attractive and favourable possibilities for foreign investors. Countries abroad should remember that the prosperity of the divergent population groups in our country would be promoted by increasingly investing in our country and trading with us. So much is expected of us and so much has already been done in our country, by so few, for so many people.

I appeal to the Official Opposition and to the PFP to be more circumspect in their statements about what is happening in this country. This afternoon the hon member for Soutpansberg spoke about the recent strikes and criticized the Government for supposedly having been too feeble to deal with them. He did not say a word against the ANC who intimidated these people, and that is what we have come to expect of them.

You are talking nonsense!

That hon member criticized the Government and accused it of being feeble. We do not expect a responsible opposition to act in that way in this Chamber.

You will not prescribe to me what my responsibility is!

Nor will I ask the hon member for Soutpansberg to prescribe to me how I should act towards him in this House.

I am talking to the Government, not to you!

When we speak about the future of our country, the onslaught against the RSA and survival in this country, we expect responsible conduct. I am now asking the hon member for Soutpansberg, who was a member of the defence group in this party and who ought to know what the circumstances in this country are, whether he thinks it is justified and responsible to place the blame at this Government’s door when strikes take place and people are intimidated.

The laxity of the Government!

The laxity of the Government? I am now asking the hon member whether he thinks it is possible to track down every terrorist and intimidator in this country.

You should have listened to what I said!

If that hon member were to walk out of this House this afternoon and someone attacked him in the street, would he blame the Government for that? [Interjections.]

On this occasion I want to thank the hon the Minister most sincerely for the salary increases that have materialised. We want to thank him for the assistance granted to pensioners. We have, however, had the CP attacking us, in this debate, about the tariff increases. Surely it is specifically with a view to making it possible to give these employees better remuneration that the introduction of the tariff increases was necessary.

The hon member for Losberg made a great fuss here about the support the CP gets from SATS employees. I just want to tell the hon member that in my constituency, in the polling districts of Empangeni, Richards Bay, Matubatuba and Kwambonambi, where there are many SATS employees, we obtained the most support against the two parties which opposed me. [Interjections.] I also want to tell the hon member that amongst my most enthusiastic supporters in my constituency, including the secretary of my constituency council and some of my branch executive members, there are SATS employees. It is the democratic right of everyone in this country to decide which political party he wishes to belong to. [Interjections.] I think it is unfair to peddle that around in this House.

On this occasion I just want to thank the CP for the information brochures they distributed during the election. [Interjections.] There were, amongst others, SATS employees who had planned to support the CP, but when they received the literature from the CP, some of them telephoned me and said that these CP individuals were really taking emotive politics too far. They felt that their intelligence was being underestimated, and consequently they rejected the CP’s cheap rubbish with contempt. So the CP does, from time to time, do us a favour, as far as that is concerned, by sinking to such a low level with the cheap rubbish they dish up to people. They underestimate people’s intelligence There are people in the employ of the SATS who would feel insulted if they were to hear how the CP peddled their wares and how they generally accepted that they were supposedly all supporters of the CP’s political convictions.

In conclusion we want to thank the hon the Minister and his personnel for the friendly way in which they have always responded when we have approached them with problems on behalf of the electorate. We also want to thank the general manager and his personnel for the way in which they dealt with those problems. We are always afforded the very best service. On this occasion I want to call attention to the fact that employees sometimes feel that if they have recourse to their representative their immediate superiors will feel that they have been bypassed. When an employee comes to us, we do not want it to be held against him. People sometimes feel hesitant, but I think it is any member of the public’s right, wherever he happens to be employed, to turn to his representative with a problem from time to time. Sometimes it is justified, sometimes not. I think that a member of Parliament can use his sound judgement and not take every problem that comes to his attention to the hon the Minister or the General Manager, because some matters can be dealt with locally. When it does sometimes happen, we want to ask the hon the Minister to do everything possible to ensure that this is not held against such a person, that he is not discriminated against and even that it does not have an adverse effect on his future career. One has sometimes heard, when someone has come to one, that it is said: We are going to get this chap, we are going to show him, because he has blazoned this matter abroad and gone over our heads to the Minister. That is why we are now arguing that this should not happen.

We should like to wish the SATS everything of the best in the year ahead.

Mr Chairman, it is a great honour for me to be able to address this House as the Member of Parliament for Rosettenville. It is also a great pleasure for me—and my father particularly—in this case. Although there are men who have followed in their fathers’ footsteps into this House, and even their grandfathers’—I can think of the hon the Leader of this House, the hon member for Roodeplaat, as well as the hon member for Wynberg—I believe I am the first woman to follow her father into this Chamber. I certainly hope that I have set a precedent and that in the future, indeed even daughters will follow their mothers into this Chamber and accept the challenge and responsibility of being a member of Parliament.

Not only have I followed in my father’s footsteps, but I also represent a part of what was his constituency for over 16 years in the 50s and 60s. In fact, what was our home, when my father was the member for Turffontein, is now in my constituency. I am therefore happy to say that my connection with the Rosettenville constituency goes back some three dozen years. I went to primary school there and it was my home base until I got married. Many of the older residents of Rosettenville remember me as a girl. I am very proud to be able to represent them. Over the 20 or so years that my father was a member here I got to know Parliament very well as a visitor. I got to know the upper reaches of this Chamber and the Gallery very well. Of course it is a very different matter being down here in the arena.

As my contribution to this debate, I would like to throw a bouquet in the direction of the SA Airways for the invaluable role that they play in bringing visitors to this country, both those visitors who pay for the privilege and also invited guests. Having been the chairman of the Johannesburg Publicity Association for the past five years, I am aware of the extent of the SAA’s co-operation in bringing, both on its own and with the SA Tourism Board, large numbers of journalists, travel agents and tour operators and other influential people to South Africa at reduced rates and sometimes for free. In fact, I have some statistics here to show that during the 1987-88 financial year more than 150 groups of journalists will be visiting South Africa under the auspices of the SAA and the SATS. Another 169 individual journalists will be visiting the country on tours arranged by the SAA. In fact, during the past two years the SAA has also started what is called a reassurance campaign which is very necessary among international travel agents and journalists. So far they have brought approximately 500 travel agents and 100 journalists to this country under this scheme. This campaign was initiated very wisely to re-establish the confidence of the international travel industry in South Africa.

Especially at this time this is of the utmost importance because of the damaging publicity this country had during 1985 and 1986 in the foreign media. The foreign tourist trade has taken a knock. I understand from the Association of South African Travel Agents that the estimated loss of revenue from Germany alone in the past year was approximately R30 million. For instance, all the large tour operators in Germany have issued instructions that South Africa is not to be promoted among the general public. The emphasis is apparently now on specialist tours and tours by clubs and associations.

In my view, this new ballgame requires a new approach and we need to create many more specialists on South Africa; in fact, we need to create teams of them. I feel that we should have a more extensive and widely co-ordinated programme of invited visitors to South Africa.

Even for our most talented communicators it is difficult to put South Africa’s case to the outside world on the narrow focus of the TV screen and in the vacuum of the TV studio. Many of the independent commentators on South Africa are not particularly sympathetic to South Africa’s case.

When I say South Africa’s case, I mean the case against sanctions and for investment; the case against terrorism and for dialogue; and the case against confrontation and for political reform. Our case is unique and very complex and it is therefore easier to put our case across at first hand. South Africa is far more easily understood when people have encountered for themselves the bustle of multiracial Johannesburg on a Saturday morning, a campfire in the bush, and the magic of Stellenbosch’s winelands. I am sure we all have had the experience of foreign visitors saying that what they have experienced here is not remotely related to the South Africa portrayed on their TV screens.

Last year was Johannesburg’s centenary, and the Johannesburg City Council, of which I was a member, took a decision to invite mayors and civic dignitaries from around the world to be guests of our city. In spite of sanctions and boycotts we had over 50 dignitaries visiting Johannesburg and South Africa as a whole for up to two weeks at a time. These dignitaries included very eminent mayors such as the mayor of Sydney and other influential people such as the mayors of Lisbon, Nice, Mainz and Innsbruck, as well as mayors, councillors and top civic officials from towns in England, the United States, Canada, Argentina, Taiwan and even Africa. All the feedback from these visits was extremely positive and the visits were so successful that although the centenary has now passed, Johannesburg has decided to maintain an ongoing VIP visitors’ programme.

The point is that if Johannesburg had not invited these people, they would never have come to South Africa. I can only say that throughout this effort we received tremendous co-operation from the SAA and the hotel groups. A voluntary committee was formed by the wives of city councillors and members of the Centenary Festival Committee to help entertain our guests. This was also extremely successful. At one stage these women hosted over a hundred Taiwanese schoolgirls.

When I was in the United States, I found that every major city I visited did have such an overseas visitors’ committee, offering local hospitality and run entirely by volunteers— who were mostly women as usual. I would like to see the same thing happen in South Africa. I would like to see every major city here operating an overseas visitors’ programme.

I am of course aware that the Department of Foreign Affairs invites many VIP guests— particularly journalists and politicians—to this country, and I know that the South Africa Foundation also does some very good work in this field. I submit that South Africa cannot really lose by such visits. Of course, there are a few people who come here with pre-written scripts merely to make political capital in order to further their own political aims at home. However, the overwhelming majority of visitors to South Africa receive an extremely positive message and a really good image of South Africa that they could never have gleaned from their TV screens and from the media at home.

The point I am making, is that we should invite more guests to the country on a broader front. We should invite not only the people at the top but also the opinion makers and leaders from the lower echelons, working through local authorities and institutions, the private sector—possibly for sponsorship as well—and community and youth groups in every sphere.

In conclusion, I accept that even if lata rules were to allow this, the SAA could certainly not afford to foot the travel bill for these people on its own. However, I do believe that there is certainly room for a new approach on the part of all of us to find a way to invite a broader spectrum of guests to our country.

Mr Chairman, it is quite appropriate that the NP Whips should have chosen me to speak just after the hon member for Rosettenville. [Interjections.] I shall tell you why. Firstly, it is clear that the hon member attended a very good university, for like myself, she studied at the University of Cape Town. Secondly, that hon member has the best member of Parliament in South Africa as her representative in Parliament. She lives in Parktown, of course. Thirdly, the hon member’s husband was my formidable opponent in the 1981 election, and I got to know her and her husband as fair-minded and charming people during that election. I have an idea that she did not vote for me at the time, but in the last election she did. Finally, and this is more important, the NP Whips knew, of course, that we Barnards have a soft spot for women. [Interjections.] We have such a soft spot for women that at one stage, although I had only three brothers, I had seven sisters-in-law. [Interjections.] I understand from the magazines that there will soon be an eighth.

In all seriousness, I want to congratulate the hon member on her maiden speech. I think the subject she chose was an appropriate one. I agree with her that it is important that overseas visitors should get to know our country. I think we have a wonderful and beautiful country. We could impress any person we invited to this country. When she accompanies them, I should like to tour the country with her.

†I should now like to return, unfortunately, to the Transport Services debate. I want to refer the hon the Minister to one of the documents that I was given, entitled “South African Transport Services: Personnel Information, 1987/88”. I would like to quote from the paragraph entitled “General Information”:

In the short time available to me I would first of all like to talk about the health and the welfare of the employees of Transport Services. First, however, I want to refer to page 2 of this document where they talk about salaries and parity among the various groups. This is very important:

Parity has therefore been effected at all these phases, except in regard to medical and travel benefits.

I would also like to refer to pages 25 and 26 of this document where the medical benefits of the SATS are set out. Paragraph 16, which is entitled “Medical Benefits”, consists of two columns. In the one column the medical benefits of White employees are set out, and in the other column the medical benefits of Coloured, Indian and Black employees. I would like to discuss this very briefly.

We all know what the situation was before 1982 as far as medical services for transport workers before 1982 were concerned. They had a panel of railway doctors and pharmacies and they had no free choice as far as doctors were concerned. Although it was a good service, there was always the problem of gossip. Although one may be the best doctor in the world, some people will always refute that, even though it cannot be proved. To have a free choice as far as doctors are concerned does help to solve the problem.

In 1982 this Parliament changed the situation so that Transmed became an established organisation which looked after the medical services of the White employees of the SATS. Transmed is compulsory, it has no membership fees and for the nominal fee of R4 for an employee with dependants and R2 for an employee without dependants the SATS gives him a free choice of doctor, pharmacist—they pay his chemist bills—specialist, hospital etc. In other words the medical services of the SATS became privatised.

Together with this very low membership fee the member has to pay part of the cost of each service—I think it is 10%—himself. An employee retains membership on retirement and his dependants retain membership after the employee’s death. That in short is the medical service offered to the White employees of the SATS.

Transmed had initial teething troubles. They never expected the scheme to cost so much and a special fund had to be formed. In the initial stages I complained to the then Minister of Transport Affairs about the great delay in payments. I think this was due to the teething troubles and the computer system. At that stage the doctors came to me to complain but I must say that I have had no complaints lately. As a practising doctor I think Transmed is actually one of the best medical schemes at present available in South Africa.

The members of this scheme are also all very satisfied. They have a free choice of doctors and specialists, they can go to private clinics and they have the medical treatment of their choice. The scheme as a whole is functioning well.

Let us now look at the medical benefits of the non-White employees. A distinction is drawn between White employees and Coloured, Indian and Black employees. When one reads page 25 of the document carefully one sees that a distinction is even drawn between the various racial groups insofar as medical benefits are concerned. I will summarise what is written here and if I make a mistake the hon the Minister must please correct me.

First of all a non-White employee of the SATS receives limited medical benefits. For a contribution of R1,50 per month he will have access to a general practitioner appointed by Transmed, he can have medicines prescribed and he can get hospital treatment. I think by “hospital treatment” treatment in a provincial hospital is meant, not private treatment. This is acceptable.

After two years of service and an additional contribution of 25 cents per month such a Coloured, Indian or Black employee will have the additional benefit that his wife and children under 18 years of age can also obtain medical treatment by a general practitioner appointed by Transmed, as well as prescribed medicines. It would appear, however, that they have to pay for their hospitalization themselves. The dependants of an employee have also to live on the property of the SATS. If they do not live on property of the SATS they do not qualify for these benefits.

After having completed five years’ service the dependants of only Coloured employees— this is for an additional contribution of 65 cents per month—qualify for medical treatment and prescribed medicines—hospitalization is still excluded—even if they do not live on property of the SATS.

There is therefore clearly a differentiation and furthermore these benefits are not available to Blacks. Insofar as Indian employees living in Natal are concerned, they have yet another medical scheme. After a certain period of employment they are entitled not only to treatment by a GP and prescribed medicine but also hospital treatment for their dependants.

Therefore there is differentiation between Whites, Coloureds, Asians and Blacks.

I believe that if apartheid is dead and outdated, we can no longer allow racial differentiation with regard to medical services to the SATS personnel.

I think it is obvious that Transmed facilities should apply to all the SATS workers. I am told, and this is very important, that it will cost R212 million if this is implemented immediately. This is a lot of money. However, I would like the hon the Minister to think about this very carefully and to see the advantages of having all their personnel on Transmed. First of all the medical treatment that the non-White workers of the SATS receive is subsidised by the taxpayer. Somebody still has to pay for it. They receive treatment and medicines from a general practitioner, but we know that the SATS does not pay the provincial hospitals the required amount of money for each treatment. This is heavily subsidised by the taxpayers.

Secondly, the R212 million will not be thrown away. It will be earned first of all by private suppliers of medical service such as general practitioners, dentists, specialists, pharmacists, private hospitals and manufacturers of pharmaceutical goods. Therefore it will have other benefits. Money recovered by taxation will go back to the Government. Secondly I think it will immediately create a much bigger pool of patients for private practice, especially in the platteland where we have big railway towns. I can think of De Aar and Beaufort West, which I know particularly well.

We know that the pressure on personnel in the platteland is a source of great concern to us in the medical field, because the medical personnel are leaving the platteland due to a lack of stimulus, facilities and income. Therefore I think that this will create a pool of new medical personnel, doctors and dentists to help on the platteland.

Thirdly it is the Government’s and the Minister of Health’s stated intention to privatise medicine. I think the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs can take the lead in this field by privatising all the health services of the SATS. I am sure the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central will applaud that. That is the first form of privatisation.

If apartheid is outdated it should also be outdated in the health services. Differentiated health care for different racial groups should never be tolerated, especially in a Government department. If one race group is allowed a free choice of doctors, hospitals and chemists, this should be allowed to all other employees of whatever race, colour or creed.

I would like to address the problem of the advertising of smoking by the SATS and the SAA. First of all I would like to ask the hon the Minister to stop the advertising of cigarettes and smoking generally on SATS property. The hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development and his department spend thousands of rand in order to try to discourage smoking. The hon the Minister’s department gains a few hundred thousand rand from these advertisements and it costs the country R3 million per day in health expenses. Secondly, it seems that the air hostesses are trained to tell people when, where and what to smoke, because that is all one hears when flying. One is told when one can smoke and when not, and one is not allowed to smoke in the aisles or in the toilets, but only when one is seated. She also tells passengers that they are only allowed to smoke cigarettes; that is all one hears. She should also be trained to tell non-smokers to stop breathing while they are on the ’plane, because the non-smoker is also forced to smoke. This question of non-smoking areas means nothing, because there is no limitation to the smoke in the aeroplane.

*Upon leaving the aircraft, people suffering from chronic bronchitis in particular experience shortness of breath, a burning sensation in the chest and watery eyes. I really cannot see why we in South Africa cannot spend two hours in the air without smoking, especially on domestic flights. Smoking is not allowed in our cinemas nor in our city halls. Why are people allowed to smoke during flights? The man who is not smoking but only sitting there also has to inhale the smoke, with all its detrimental effects. I really cannot see why smokers should bother us with their filthy habit during flights.

In reply to a question by a passenger concerning the food, the previous hon Minister of Transport Affairs once asked: “Do you want to fly or feed?” I want the hon the Minister to ask his passengers: “Do you want to fly or smoke?”

You did not think so when you were smoking.

That is quite right, but the Bible also says that one should not approve of something which is wrong because one has done it oneself. It is a dreadful habit which causes disease and nothing can be said in favour of it. We cannot prevent people from smoking, and that is not what I am asking for.

One does get a lot of pleasure from it, though.

One may even get pleasure from it—I do too, because I make money from it. [Interjections.]

Since we have a new Minister now, and since the previous hon members for Durban Point and Brits are no longer here, I want to ask hon members to help me in this battle. Let us stop die advertisements and eradicate the smoking habit on aircraft as well.

It has been a very great privilege to speak after the hon member for Rosettenville. I hope that she will derive benefit from my speech and that it will make her feel positive about her career in Parliament. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to endorse the sentiments expressed by the hon member for Parktown in thanking the hon member for Rosettenville. The previous hon member for Rosettenville had a kind of eccentric appeal, but I want to tell the new hon member that she is much prettier than Oom Sporie. [Interjections.] I hope we shall often see her beautiful smile. I like a “kleinmeid” who laughs. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Parktown has lost a lot of his bitterness over the years. It seems to me that the years have brought him maturity and wisdom, and I wish the hon member could impart those qualities to his colleagues around him. As far as smoking is concerned, I have stopped smoking, but I wonder whether that was a good idea. Confound it, I am feeling more miserable than before. [Interjections.] I am strongly considering taking it up again. [Interjections.] The hon member for Parktown and I were smokers together, and he too was a better person in those days.

The SATS is operated on business principles and its aim is to provide a safe and efficient service. As in other spheres of life, if one does not look after one’s organisation, one is doomed to failure. The SATS is a unique organisation because it is concerned with all forms of transport. It provides for virtually every profession. Because the organisation is regarded as the biggest single employer in the Republic, it offers a wide range of job opportunities. I think that anyone in this House could apply for a job in the SATS, and as long as he had some brains and was willing to work, he would get it. A 24-hour service is provided and employees are stationed throughout the country and abroad. We find the railwayman everywhere: Here in this beautiful Cape of ours, in Johannesburg, in Durban, in our neighbouring states and even in Morgenzon, I believe. If one wants to get anything done, one must have the SATS.

I was born next to a railway line and I am still living there. Some of my fondest memories are connected with trains—being lulled to sleep by their rhythmic sound or kept awake by them when the babies were crying at night. Sitting on my stoep while the train was passing by, I loved gazing into the brightly lit dining salon and seeing the people eating and drinking there. In those days we did not have electricity, and it seemed so splendid that I thought that heaven must be more or less like a dining salon. When I started travelling by train myself, I found that the dining salon was indeed a pleasant place to be. Whether this is what heaven is like, I shall have to find out when I get there one day, perhaps.

My closest neighbours work at the railway station, and I have always had the highest regard for them. Railway people are often referred to in a derogatory way, but those who live near me are excellent people, very much like me.

The station closest to my home is called Nuy. I know many hon members who not even know where it is, because many of us are too pretentious these days to travel by train. That is a mistake. Far fewer railway passengers are involved in accidents or killed. If the hon members want to live to pensionable age, they have only to travel by train more frequently. While we are on the subject of Nuy, I want to ask the hon the Minister whether it is not possible to advertise Nuy wines on trains. Our wines need no bush, but the carriages would look much more attractive if they contained a few pictures featuring bottles of Nuy wine. After all, wine is very nutritious.

The hon member for Losberg also comes from the Boland. He was a promising lad in his Worcester days. Where did things go wrong? [Interjections.]

Management regards the employees of the SATS as one of its greatest assets and is therefore concerned about their safety, health and welfare. Management constantly endeavours to devise and maintain a salary structure which will embody the principle of a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work. In this connection, a system of job evaluation has been adopted, which serves as a guideline for determining the value of a specific post. Depending on the availability of money, salaries are adjusted from time to time, in an attempt to keep pace with the rise in the inflation rate. If a system of job evaluation were to be implemented in this House of Assembly, I am afraid that some hon members would get very little pay unless they pulled up their socks.

The SATS has adopted a policy in terms of which the salaries and conditions of service of the various population groups are being improved in five phases until they will be on a par with those of Whites. I regard this as a major step forward. The first of these phases was implemented in 1984, and the second one in 1986. The final three phases of this programme, excluding medical and travel benefits, as has already been said, will be implemented at the same time as the general salary adjustment in July 1987. That is just around the corner, Sir. This is called the parity programme. I do not know whether hon members all know what that means. After all, not all hon members have attained the same level of education as I. [Interjections.] I shall have to explain it to them, Sir. It is when people with the same training do the same work, are equally productive and consequently deserve the same salary. That is parity. Do hon members understand that? Interjections.] It is as simple as that, Sir. Interjections.]

Now I want to mention a few figures. Hon members forget all the figures one quotes here anyway. [Interjections.] I have often heard hon members refer to Hansard and say that they want to “go on record” there. That sounds very interesting to me. I also want to “go on record”. [Interjections.]

The SA Transport Services is subdivided into five separate services. Firstly, there is the Railways. They deal with trains. Secondly, there is Harbours. They deal with the ships. Then there is Road Transport. They deal with the big lorries that hold up the traffic in Du Toit’s Kloof. [Interjections.] Then there are the pipelines. They carry the petrol. There are 91 000 Whites, 16 000 Coloureds, 1 500 Indians and 93 000 Blacks working for the Transport Services today. The total number of employees is 202 000. Mr Chairman, those people really work. You wil not find them loafing around these days.

There are many levels of employment. These 202 000 employees of the SA Transport Services are employed in 2 400 different grades in approximately 330 salary groups. As the need arises, organisational structures are created at various centres. The grades and levels of employees appointed to maintain such structures are determined in accordance with the needs that have to be met. It would be unwise, for example, to create a post for a chief clerk if the work concerned could be done efficiently by a lower-graded employee such as a clerk or a senior clerk.

It is clear from this that the levels of employment may differ from one place to another. However, where the training and qualifications required for jobs are the same, the grading is also the same. The following programme has been drawn up for achieving parity in salaries and other conditions of service. Just let me have a sip of water first. This glass of water is really refreshing, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.] With the concurrence of the various trade unions, the SATS decided in 1983 on a five-phase programme for salaries and all other conditions of service to be brought into line with those of the Whites. Phases 1 and 2 were implemented in January 1984 and April 1986 respectively, and phases 3, 4 and 5—with the exception of the two benefits mentioned above—are to be implemented as from July 1987.

The total cost incurred in connection with the implementation of phase 1 was approximately R63 million. This includes upgrading and pension benefits. Phase 2 was put into operation in 1986 and involved an additional expenditure of approximately R71 million. Phases 3, 4 and 5 are being put into operation in July this year. When these phases are implemented, all disparity in conditions of service will have been removed, except for those relating to medical and travel benefits. As far as salaries are concerned, all disparities have been removed in cases where job content, training and prescribed qualifications are the same. Pensions have also been brought into line with those of White employees, and the contribution made by Coloured, Indian and Black employees now also amounts to 7,5% of their basic salary. Any other conditions of service in which there used to be disparity, except for medical and travel benefits, have also been put on the same level. Coloured, Indian and Black employees now enjoy the same security of tenure.

New employees are appointed on a temporary basis, and after a qualifying period of two years they are appointed to the permanent staff if they comply with the standard requirements. In terms of this, the employees concerned qualify for the same right of appeal as far as discipline, appointments and general affairs are concerned. This means that except for the two items already mentioned, a single set of conditions of service applies to all employees of the SATS. The cost of phases 3, 4 and 5 will be approximately R95 million a year. The SATS has therefore accepted one salary structure for all population groups. The salary structure has three cornerstones, ie the traditional grouping of grades, job evaluation and market-orientated tendencies. Moreover, salaries are revised from time to time and adjusted so as to keep pace as far as possible with the rise in the cost of living.

Although it has been the policy up to now not to appoint Coloured, Indian and Black employees to positions normally occupied by Whites, the shortage of White employees in certain branches of the SATS has become so severe that it has been necessary to appoint Coloured, Indian and Black employees to graded posts after consultation with and with the approval of the trade union concerned. It is not being done unilaterally, therefore. In order to relieve the shortages of White workers, schemes have been introduced for sorters and shunters. Approximately 3 700 Coloured, Indian and Black workers are employed in these grades, and we have survived it. All in all, 35 000 Coloured, Indian and Black workers are employed in graded posts, and I want to tell hon members that it is working very well. It has been possible up to now to satisfy the aspirations of employees and population groups other than the Whites by creating opportunities for advancement in areas where they are able to serve their own people.

The new dispensation which is being introduced in July 1987 will offer equal opportunities to all employees. It will be possible to fill posts strictly according to merit and not on a racial basis. I want to know where the people are who say that we are not making progress. When a vacancy has to be filled by way of promotion and there are several candidates, regard will be had to the relative qualifications of the candidates capable of filling the vacancy. If they are equally well qualified, their relative priority will be taken into account.

Because of the scope of its activities, the SATS is to a large extent a unique organisation. In view of this, employees have to undergo formal and functional training in order to equip them for their specific tasks. Training in managerial and supervisory skills is being undertaken on an in-service basis, and as training modules develop, they are being introduced. I must say that the days are past when every Tom Dick and Harry could get a job with the SATS. I want to congratulate the hon the Minister and the Deputy Minister and to thank the top management of the SATS for the wonderful work they are doing. South Africa is not ashamed of them; on the contrary, they have reason to be proud of themselves, because they set an example to many of us.

Mr Chairman, I should like to begin by expressing my sincere gratitude for having been granted the great honour and privilege of representing the Middelburg constituency in the highest legislative body in our country. No honour or privilege is granted one, however, without the concomitant duties and responsibilities. I should like to assure hon members that I shall be equal to those duties and responsibilities. Although this applies to my constituency in particular, I shall also strive to promote the best interests of our beloved country as a whole. I should like to acknowledge at the outset that I shall be powerless to do so without the help and guidance of my Creator; for these I shall pray continually.

This afternoon I should like to deviate somewhat from what I have heard so far. At this stage I wish, from these opposition benches, to thank my predecessor, who has represented the Middelburg constituency for the past 12 years. I should like it placed on record that his constituency—and I too— have said to him: Many thanks, Mr Nico Ligthelm, for what you have done for your constituency over the past 12 years. It will not be forgotten.

I do not think there can be a single hon member in this House who does not know where the Middelburg constituency is situated, but if there is any doubt about Middelburg’s position on the map, I should advise hon members simply to recall what they have been reading in the newspapers in the past week or two. This morning we heard so much about the word “turbo-charged”, and I should just like to remind hon members that it is the place where the infrastructure has been set up in such a way that one can drive one’s Porsche at 244 kilometres per hour and be trapped. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

When we switch on the lights in our houses or flats tonight, we can assume that some of that electricity might have been generated in Middelburg and transmitted to Cape Town.

I hope I may be allowed the opportunity of introducing my constituency in greater detail, however, since hon members will be hearing much more about this particular region of our country in the next few years—from me and from others.

If I were asked to describe the constituency very briefly, I should do so by saying that it is the energy storehouse of South Africa and the home of the Republic’s stainless steel.

The economic activities of the Middelburg constituency rest very firmly on four pillars. May I be permitted the opportunity of referring briefly to the main economic activities? I should like to begin by referring to mining in the Middelburg constituency. The Eastern Transvaal Highveld, of which Middelburg is the hub, is very richly endowed with mineral resources and its coal, iron, vanadium and chrome deposits in particular are mined in great quantities. The region’s coal reserves, as well as the mining and utilisation thereof, have led to the area’s becoming known as the energy storehouse of South Africa. In 1979 a total of 98 million tons of coal was produced, and it is estimated that this will increase to 826 million tons in the year 2020. Of this amount, 510 million tons will be used for the generation of power. In 1980, 77 million tons of coal, or 75% of the total output, was produced in the Eastern Transvaal Highveld. It is estimated that this total will increase to 227 million tons in 2000 and that 124 million tons—54,7%—will be used by Escom for the generation of power. Seventy-two million tons—31%—will be exported while 21,2 million tons—13,7%—is destined for the domestic market.

These few statistics provide us with a clear indication of the extent and value of the coal energy source in the Eastern Transvaal. In the Middelburg constituency there are no fewer than 16 coal mines. Consequently it is no surprise that the Broodsnyersplaas—Richards Bay railway line, which is the main artery of our coal export programme, begins within the borders of my constituency, just south of Middelburg.

The iron-ore deposits encountered on the southern point of the Bushveld igneous complex are also mined on a large scale and processed or partly processed in factories in Middelburg and Witbank. The Chamber of Mines estimates that 45 White and 350 Black workers are required for every million tons of coal mined annually. It is therefore estimated that approximately 140 000 employment opportunities will be created for the mining of coal alone in regions 27 and 28. This is the so-called BMW region, but I shall refer to that again later. It is estimated that a further 60 000 employment opportunities will be created in the manufacturing industry. There can therefore be no doubt about the region’s mineral wealth and the value of this for the country.

Agriculture is the other primary sector in the area, and Middelburg is probably one of the most affluent agricultural regions. No less a person than the hon the Minister of Agriculture, who also lives in the area, renamed the area the BMW region, that is the Bethal/ Middelburg/Witbank region. This region competes keenly with the PWV region, and the hon the Minister gave it that name because maize, sorghum, potatoes and meat are fanned there. The aforementioned are the most important products but, besides all the other agricultural activities, there is also a large stock feed business which caters for 70 000 head of cattle per year.

Naturally the Loskop Dam irrigation area plays an extremely important role in the agricultural activities of my constituency, but it is experiencing certain problems as a result of the drought, and I gather that organised agriculture have made representations to the hon the Minister in this regard.

As a result of the abundance of coal deposits in the area, it is quite logical for Eskom to have established the majority of its thermal power stations there. There are at present 10 power stations, with a capacity of 22 million megawatts, operating in these regions, while three new power stations, namely Tukuka, Majuba and Kendall, are under construction. In the Middelburg constituency alone there are five power stations of which Duvha, with a capacity of 36 000 megawatts, is the largest thermal power station in the world. This demonstrates once again why the region is so aptly called the energy storehouse of South Africa.

Because of the rich mineral resources, sufficient electricity, the availability of water and land and an outstanding infrastructure, large-scale industrial development has taken place in the region. In Middelburg itself there are many industries served by the mines and power stations, but the large steel industries established there are exceptionally important. I should like to refer to one in particular which is of fundamental importance to our country, namely Middelburg Steel and Alloys which is the only manufacturer of stainless steel in Africa as well as the biggest manufacturer of chrome. Chrome is exported from Middelburg to all parts of the world. This company also achieved a breakthrough recently with the manufacture of the world-famous steel 3-CR-12 which has the rustresistant properties of stainless steel but is much cheaper and easier to process. It is marketed world-wide.

I should like to close—I see that hon members are sending me notes and those opposite are gesturing—with a few requests to the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs. The rebuilding of Middelburg station, undertaken chiefly in order to improve the goods section, was begun in 1985. The groundwork has been done, but it seems that work has come to a halt. I should like to make an earnest request for the completion as soon as possible of work which has already been approved. On behalf of the Middelburg community I should also like to express my gratitude and appreciation to the hon the Minister for the upgrading of the historic station building. The SATS’s action in preserving that beautiful old building of the past century was timely. We should like to thank them most sincerely for that.

Mr Chairman, I should like to speak to you about the safety of commuters on our suburban trains, but I first want to congratulate the hon member for Middelburg on his maiden speech in this House. I appreciated the fact that he also referred to the work of his predecessor, Mr Nico Ligthelm, and I regard this as a fine gesture.

In my constituency the CP had a poster which read: “Die NP weer glo? Nooit!” I assume he did not use such posters, since he still acknowledges the credibility of the Nationalist who was his predecessor.

The train service on the West Rand, to which I mainly want to confine myself, has undergone tremendous and visible changes and has improved remarkably over the past few years. The changes that have been made to the stations are also remarkable. The number of trains, the length of the trains and the number of carriages have all been improved and extended to make it easier and more convenient for the commuter to reach his destination. In general, commuters have been very appreciative of these changes, and despite the criticism of tariff increases, it is still the most economic way for the commuter on the West Rand to get to his place of employment in Johannesburg.

Unfortunately, commuters have recently come to feel that they are no longer safe on these suburban trains. Of course there have been factors that have contributed to this. The single major contribution to this problem was probably the strike and the ensuing violence and the unrest situation which resulted in the destruction of many suburban trains. I can well imagine what a commuter sitting in a suburban carriage must feel like when he thinks of the possibility of arson being committed on the train.

It is unfortunate that on a train there is very little communication between the train personnel and the commuters. To tell the truth, on the main-line trains there is a way of forcing the train to stop, but there is no communication whatsoever on the local suburban trains. It is very often the case that a person is sitting alone in a carriage and when that carriage is moving—nowadays they move at a relatively high speed—it is going to be practically impossible for that person to escape from that problematic situation, particularly if fires have been started on both sides of the carriage.

One is inclined to think that if one sees where the fire is being started, there will be sufficient time for one to recognise the possibilities of escaping from the carriage. This is not possible in practice, however. There are so many ways in which a person could start such a fire almost spontaneously, that it is highly improbable that one could escape from a moving carriage with ease. All these factors have made commuters afraid, but perhaps we should also look at the reasons for these underlying fears. For many of these commuters it is the only way—we have spoken about the most economic way, but in many cases it is the only way—of getting to work. They are therefore completely dependent on the train to get to work.

Many commuters have over a period of time incurred great expense to acquire accomodation near to the station, or in the parking area, for their motor cars. Others have acquired additional vehicles. Some commuters have taken a great deal of trouble to arrange for assistance with transport. The result is that if there is a disruption of this pattern, it not only disrupts a single commuter, but the whole household. Of course this has also caused the commuter to fear that he will be deprived of his livelihood if this unrest continues.

Unfortunately it has not remained restricted to one area, but has been so widespread that it seemed as though the situation had really gone out of control. For many years the Railways Police protected the property of the SATS, as well as the commuters, and saw to it that commuters were able to make use of the train service safely. At the end of last year the Railways Police were incorporated in the SA Police Force, and in many cases the commuter no longer saw the Railway policeman on his daily journey and could not accept that there was no policeman in sight. Eventually the commuter will of course realise that instead of the Railways Police, the SA Police will give him and the property of the State just as much protection as the Railways Police did. I personally think the take-over came at the right time. I think it would have been a pity if the Railways Police could not have been involved in the unrest situation to assist the other security forces.

In the private member’s motion of the hon member for Krugersdorp, which we discussed yesterday afternoon, reference was made to the task and the extent of the task of the security forces, as well as the way in which they carry it out in this country. I associate myself with that, and I should like to add that we should recognise the work of the SA Railways Police. I should like to thank those who have retired, or who have been incorporated in the SA Police Force, for the selfless service they have rendered the commuters on the Rand in particular over the years. I believe that the same service has been rendered countrywide, but I want to confine myself mainly to the commuters on the West Rand.

At this stage it is extremely difficult to give the commuter visible proof of his safety. The only way in which he can be convinced of his safety, is by the presence of a policeman in uniform, but it is not possible to have a policeman in every carriage. Nor would it be any use having only one policeman in a carriage during peak periods. One must therefore accept that it will be necessary mainly to have a policeman on the station where he can be visible so that the commuter can at least realise that protection is close at hand.

There are ways in which the means of the SA Police Force can be effectively implemented to combat and prevent crime and, of course to maintain law and order on the trains. If we look at the practical situation at the moment, we find that the SA Police Force is responsible for the railway line, the property and the commuter. This means that if, for example, a train is running from Johannesburg to the West Rand, the railway line in each of the police districts is also the responsibility of the police chief, officer commanding or district commandant concerned. If one looks at the means of patrolling these areas, I want to tell you that there is a good possibility that there will eventually be a far better protection service than before.

Perhaps we could also think of ways of improving it. I should like to ask the hon the Minister to possibly consider suggesting that some of the police reservists be used in this process. There are tremendous possibilities for a police reservist with a two-way radio on a suburban train who is in contact with the local police, be it a patrol van or a local police station. He could then be performing a policing task in that carriage whilst on his way to work every day. One could even offer him some sort of incentive, a free pass perhaps, when he performs certain of his duties.

In most of the cities of the world the station is the place where criminals gather. The train is the pickpocket’s favourite haunt. A few years ago an incident took place on the New York underground which had serious consequences. The commuter attacked the pickpockets out of frustration and also used a firearm. If I remember correctly, he shot one of them dead in the process.

Four.

I believe four died. That kind of situation need not arise. There is no need to wait for a frustrating situation to arise for the commuter. Personally, I would think that the knowlege that there is a means of communication in the carriage, that a reservist is at hand, would discourage most criminals from using the carriage as a place to rob a victim of his wallet.

There is another matter I am concerned about. I should like to ask the hon the Minister to ask the SA Police to take a look at the way commuters board the train to Soweto, particularly in the late afternoons. It is shocking to see how women and children are trampled by men who are in a hurry to get into the train. Those doors are literally kicked and broken down. I want to tell you that I think it is a pity that Rev Sullivan has drawn up a code of conduct and presented it to the employees of American companies here in South Africa. Why can Rev Sullivan not be given the opportunity one afternoon to see how these people get onto the train, so that he can present a code of conduct which Bishop Tutu could perhaps proclaim in his peace efforts and convince people of how barbaric it is to use force to board a train? It would make me very happy. I think Rev Sullivan would also be satisfied if he could see the change at a later stage. I personally believe that this is the source of many of the problems which arise later on that same train. If that degree of violence cannot be combatted before those people board that train, and people are not even a little courteous, I fail to see how it will be possible to accomplish this on that train at a later stage.

I want to request that if it is at all possible, a real effort be made to look into the position on stations, and in the subways in particular, when women have to walk alone late in the afternoons and at night. I think women become very concerned when they have to walk through such places under those circumstances—hon members can believe me that there is no place on earth more deserted than a station in the late afternoon or at night— when there is no way of obtaining help. Perhaps the hon the Minister could consult with the newly-established Transport Policing Branch of the SA Police in this regard.

I want to thank the staff of the SATS, which makes it possible for the commuter to travel economically, as well as the hon the Minister and his staff, for what they have done in this regard, and for this Budget, which in my opinion does not entail an excessive increase. The hon the Deputy Minister referred to the cost of travelling by car, as well as the AA’s tariff in this regard. I cannot see how a person can travel for less than between 30 and 35 cents per kilometer with any vehicle nowadays. If one takes this into consideration, the train fare is a very economical tariff for the commuter.

I should like to congratulate the hon member for Primrose on his appointment as chairman of the standing committee, as well as on the way in which he presented the Budget here this afternoon.

Mr Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity of speaking in this House today. I am aware of the fact that history has been made in this house. I also want to express my gratitude to my predecessor, Mr Steve van Eeden, who served his city for many years.

He became a city councillor twenty years ago. Subsequently he became a member of our management committee and afterwards, mayor. He served in this House for seven and a half years and was always helpful to his voters in Germiston.

†It is a pleasure for me to address this House on the subject of the Transport Services Appropriation Bill because I come from a town that is a railway town through and through. I do not think Germiston would ever have become a city had it not been for the Railways.

Many hon members will know Germiston as the place that refines two thirds of the world’s gold. However, very few people realize that Germiston has the largest railway junction in the Transvaal and, if I am not mistaken, probably the largest in South Africa. Germiston was built by the Railways. The Railways brought us the raw materials—the cloth— from the rest of the country, and we built up both a very great engineering industry, which serviced the Railways, and the largest clothing industry in this country. It was the Railways that brought those things to us.

We are also very conscious of the fact that the father of the South African Railways come from Germiston. I do not know whether the name William Hoy is known to hon members of this House but William Hoy was the man from Germiston who first brought the three separate railway systems together and combined them into one. William Hoy was the first man to electrify the Railways. He was also the first man to open a depot for tourism on the Railways. He was given a knighthood for the work he did for the Railways. He did all this in 1910.

While I have the attention of this House and while the hon the Deputy Minister is here, I should like to do one thing that I am afraid I shall not be able to do for the next few years, and that is to address some of the special pleas from Germiston to the hon the Deputy Minister.

We are a metal-bashing city. We built our city upon the Railways and upon metal production. All over the world, the Pittsburghs, the Germistons and the other metal-bashing societies have fallen upon hard times. I read the hon the Minister’s address. In it he promised us that privatisation would take place as fast as possible. We from Germiston would plead that he do it even faster than that, because we have huge industries that build the SATS’s rolling stock and those industries are experiencing hard times. The privatisation of the Railways would give those factories of ours more work to do with the repairing and manufacturing of rolling stock. I think if the work of those departments were taken away from the SATS and given to the private sector the work would still be done very efficiently and it would keep many more people in Germiston in work.

There is another plea that I would like to make to the hon the Deputy Minister, as he is here this afternoon. Four years ago we were promised by the then Deputy Manager of the Railways that steam shunting would stop in Germiston. We have a city of 400 000 inhabitants. The eastern and western entries to that city have shunting points that go across our main roads. It is one of the weirdest and most old fashioned sights in the whole country to see a train crossing a road in the morning and holding up traffic for two or three miles. I sincerely hope that the department will adhere to its decision and do something about stopping the steam shunting in Germiston. I do not have to mention that steam shunting is still a great source of pollution, in regard to both soot and sound. It keeps us awake at night too.

The third thing I would like to mention at this stage concerns our railway village called Pirowville. I really do think that it is time that the department had a look at this village again and upgraded the whole place because it is falling into disrepair. These are the things we would like to complain about.

In Germiston, however, we are very much aware of the very fine things that the SATS do. At the moment we are trying to revitalise our city and are building what we call the Georgetown development, or the market site. We have taken a huge part of Germiston which is near the station and broken down a slum, and we are building up Germiston. The SATS have promised to help us to restore our historic station and to develop the site in front of the station so that it can handle the people we hope will come to our shopping centre. The co-operation up till now has been tremendously good and we in Germiston would like to thank the Government for what it has done there.

As a railway person from a railway town I think I am aware of the history of and the fine things that are happening in the SATS, more than most people in this House this afternoon. I read the Budget and I was very impressed to see that although we did not reach our gross national product, we still made a very fine profit. It was said that we had increased our productivity and our efficiency. Those are fine words, but when one sees what actually has been done, one is amazed. I read in the library what the SATS said three years ago. It had 279 000 employees, and thought that the only way that it could improve its productivity was to bring down that number to 200 000. We heard from the hon member for Primrose this morning that they did bring down the number of employees to 200 000. There are very few industries or commercial projects in this country that have been so efficient.

I was also told by the general manager we had in Germiston that some of our trains are 2 kilometers long; that is one very, very long train. That, too, has brought about productivity in this land. I think that is a magnificent human concept. When this was suggested, because of our narrow gauges everybody said it was an impossibility and that a train of half that length would break up the entire rail system in this country. That did not come about. I think we have to compliment the SATS on its privatisation initiative and the electrification and the diesel units which now take the place of the old steam units.

I think the most dramatic part of this productivity drive which everybody has talked about—nobody has however realised the actuality of it—is the computerised system that has done away with all the thousands of people who used to stand next to the railway lines throughout this country and change the points manually. Nowadays, I believe, everything is done centrally; it is being done by computer and those points are changed to the extent that if there is any delay or fault with the line, the computer redirects the train without any problem. One of the things that the computer does which amazes me is to operate inside a cabin when they send an engine carrying a computer on rails which they suspect to be too old. I believe the computer tells them immediately when the rails have to be replaced or how they are to be repaired. If that is not way into the future, I would like to know what is.

Something that is good for me as a retailer and for all the industries in this country is the policy of containerisation that the SATS have brought about over the past seven years. We talk very glibly about this matter in the documents before us but nowadays one can have something delivered from England to Durban, and from the time that it leaves the harbour it takes only 14 hours by container to reach Johannesburg. I think this has revitalised trade and industry throughout the country and I think we have unfortunately accepted it without the necessary gratitude.

I am afraid to say where we will find ourselves in the future. I heard all the comments about the bullet train this morning. I do know that there is a gas turbine engine in operation between Paris and Cherbourg in France. With the population that is building up in my part of the world I know that we will have to resort not to monorail but to overhead rails to deal with the huge number of people we will have to move. These days a good car costs R100 000. At such prices the car will become obsolete because the average man will not be able to afford a car as readily as he does today. I think it will be the SATS that will have to transport him from one place to another. [Interjections.]

I read the criticism of the hon the Minister’s Budget in the newspapers. It was amazing to see that particularly among my own newspapers, the English-language newspapers, the greatest criticism levelled at this Budget was levelled at the hon the Minister’s audacity to hide what they called “a possible profit” in the year to come. They find it evil that the hon the Minister is increasing tariffs and that he will actually make a profit next year.

I also heard more about the strike from the opposition parties. Anybody in this House who imagines that there will be no trouble in the SATS in the years ahead is not thinking clearly.

I have read a lot about communism and I know there are three steps by means of which they want to take over this country. The first one is to identify a flaw. This they have. They have apartheid to play with. The second step is to isolate this country from the Western World. In this they have succeeded admirably. The third step is to consolidate the proletariat, and I can see Cosatu and all the other trade unions not letting up on that third step. We will have to face on the SATS in the year to come the consolidation of the proletariat. They will find other excuses to strike and to show their muscle. I think if the hon the Minister does not hide a profit somewhere in his Budget we will make a very great loss at the end of the year. I therefore think that the main criticism of the Budget that we find in the newspapers should be set aside.

*At this stage I want to mention that during my election campaign, I always approached the hon member for Edenvale when I had to make a speech. She always wrote my speeches for me, and I in turn did house-to-house campaigning in her constituency. I wish I had been doing more streetwork this afternoon instead of speech-making! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, it is indeed a great privilege and a pleasure for me to congratulate the hon member for Germiston on his maiden speech which he delivered in the House this afternoon. I want to tell him that I think it was well thought out and that we hope to get more such good contributions from the hon member in this House in future.

In his fine address during this debate this morning, the hon member for Soutpansberg referred briefly to the tragic Railway strike that took place recently. This Railway strike was a tragic one, not only for the SATS and its image, but indeed also for South Africa as a whole. When one reads in the Press about the more prominent aspects of this Railway strike, one comes across a number of very interesting points. The most important aspect of this strike was that it was essentially an illegal one. It was illegal because the SATS renders an essential service to the country, and so it stands to reason that there can be no legal strikes by Railway personnel.

The second aspect of this Railway strike was the intimate involvement of organisations like the UDF and the RMC—the Release Mandela Campaign. Naturally they had ulterior political motives, as the hon the Deputy Minister explained very clearly earlier in this debate. Thirdly, the involvement of Black trade unions like Cosatu, Sarhwu and others, with their ulterior political motives, became very clear during this strike. Fourthly, any genuine reason for the strike by the Railway workers was clearly absent during this strike. In fact, the strike originated when Mr Ndzamba was dismissed because of alleged dishonesty or irregularities. Fifthly, this strike did the State tremendous harm. The Press reports are virtually unanimous that the immediate damages amount to approximately R30 million. Moreover, lives were lost during this strike.

Another important aspect of this strike was that the Government’s handling of the situation and that of the hon the Minister and the SATS, was based on the Government’s predominant political philosophy in South Africa, viz that disputes should be settled only by way of negotiation. This strike has finally taught us that it is indeed impossible to negotiate with radicals.

In the ninth place, this Railway strike has very clearly highlighted the method the Government has been using recently, of putting its case through the medium of advertisements. One feels inclined to say that the Government is governing through the medium of advertisements. In the tenth place, intimidation, that present-day cancer in South African society, figured very strongly in this Railway strike. I shall come back to that later.

The fact remains that in the end 17 000 Railway workers had to be dismissed, after South Africa had suffered six weeks of enormous damages, not only in respect of its image, but also financially.

The Government’s handling of this Railway strike corresponds to a large degree with its handling of the general state of unrest, the threatening state of revolution currently prevailing in South Africa.

I said that one of the prominent characteristics of this Railway strike was the involvement of the UDF. I should like to read to hon members from The Star of 3 April 1987:

We fully agree with the hon the Minister that this is indeed the case. What I actually want to say to hon members on that side of the House is that we could never ignore the involvement, the initiating involvement, of the UDF in this Railway strike. After all, the UDF—I think this is almost general knowledge in this House—is the public arm of the African National Congress. The ANC announced on Radio Freedom that the UDF speaks on its behalf in South Africa.

Bearing in mind that the ANC is an illegal and banned organisation in this country, and in the light of the known facts regarding the UDF’s involvement in the whole unrest situation in South Africa, we on this side of the House should like to know from the Government and the hon the Minister why they have not acted more strongly against the UDF and declared the UDF to be an illegal organisation. I should like the hon the Minister to tell us in the meantime why the Government continues to recognise the UDF and does not ban it. Why is the ANC an illegal organisation in this country wherease the UDF, which is pursuing precisely the same objectives and which the ANC has declared to be its public arm in South Africa, is allowed to continue its operations? Dr Allan Boesak is given free reign to malign South Africa abroad. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Bryanston said in his address that the strike had escalated, in other words that in due course it had taken on the proportions of a political action. In that respect I disagree completely with the hon member for Bryanston. It is precisely the political actions of the UDF that initiated this strike. That is why we are asking the SA Security Forces to act against the UDF with their full might and the greatest force at their disposal so that these nests of subversion in our fatherland can be eradicated once and for all.

I should like to say something about the involvement of the Black trade unions which figured very prominently in this Railway strike. The Government had set the machinery in motion for the legalising of Black trade unions. When the strike broke out, however, they refused to negotiate with Sarhwu. Sarhwu challenged the hon the Minister to put the matter to a vote among the Railway workers so that they could indicate who really represented the Railway workers, Blatu or Sarhwu. We say this Government, which legalised the Black trade unions in our fatherland, must now operate that machinery. We know, however, that as soon as they have to negotiate with a militant, radical trade union such as Sarhwu, they will realise that negotiation will get South Africa nowhere as far as the unrest and violence is concerned.

What are you going to do? Shoot them?

The CP has warned repeatedly that Black trade unions will bring about South Africa’s destruction. This tragic strike may be the first in the history of the SATS, but I foresee that it will not be the last unless the NP Government takes drastic action against trade unions like these.

This Railway strike has demonstrated very clearly that the governing party on the opposite side has lost the will to govern. [Interjections.] That Government showed itself to be clearly incapable of taking purposeful, decisive and forceful action when the strike began. On the first day only a few workers went on strike. Those hon members who are farmers like I am, know that in farming we also have to contend with strikes from time to time. If, however, one metes out discipline as quickly as possible and clamps down on the instigator of the strike, the strike is quickly ended and the innocent workers simply carry on with their work. [Interjections.]

Clamp down on him!

Yes, the hon member says we must clamp down on him. [Interjections.]

What we need in South Africa is a CP government that will take action against these activists of subversion the way action should be taken against them. Just as the late Advocate Vorster eradicated the communists in this fatherland of ours during the ’sixties, so the CP, when it takes over the reins of office in 1989, will harness the full strength of South Africa’s security forces and its public to destroy these powers of subversion once and for all. As long as there are powers of subversion and radicalism in the Black communities, no negotiation has any chance of succeeding in South Africa.

We want to say very clearly to the hon the Minister, the Government and the hon members on that side of the House that they are handling the Railway strike in terms of their broad political philosophy, viz to follow the golden mean as closely as possible in each instance. Initially they threatened dismissal, but the threat of dismissal is not effective enough. Dismissals must actually take place if the threat is going to be effective.

This is why we say that in this case a CP government would have hastened to tell that group of strikers, on the very first day on which they began striking—for a reason that was basically dishonest—that they had to be sure to be back at work the following day or they would be summarily dismissed from the SATS. Threats of dismissal are ineffective if they are not carried out, and the South African public had to hear ad nauseam day after day that the ultimatum had been postponed for yet another day. Each time it was said that the workers had to be back at work the following day, and each time it was a case of “tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow”!

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

No, Sir. Unfortunately, I have no time for questions.

In the end, having threatened dismissal, they did not in fact dismiss anyone; and although they wanted to negotiate, they did not want to negotiate with the real instigators of the unrest. Because of this soft, middle-course policy that it adopted throughout the strike, the Government allowed the Railway strike to escalate until it assumed huge proportions and 17 000 people eventually had to be dismissed. Why did the Government not rather get rid of those first 60 people on the very day that the problems began? This would have eradicated the problem.

In its handling of this situation, the Government merely proved to us again, once and for all, that it is basically unable to negotiate effectively with Blacks. The Government’s predominant policy is, of course, to reach a settlement with the Blacks through negotiation—indeed, this is the mandate the NP asked for—and to bring about a new constitutional dispensation in our Republic. I want to tell the NP across the floor of this House today that if they do not meet all the demands, or all the important demands, of the UDF and the ANC, negotiation is an illusion to which they will have to pay serious attention in future. Negotiation will get us nowhere in South Africa. What is needed is the CP’s policy of partition and an own fatherland for each people, so that each people can enjoy sovereign rule over itself in its own country. [Interjections.]

My time has expired, Sir. I want to conclude by moving as a further amendment:

1. (1) is unable to curb excessive tariff increases;
2. (2) was unable to make a significant contribution towards stimulating the flagging national economy; and
3. (3) has failed to keep inflationary and socialistic tendencies out of his budget,

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke has caused my blood pressure to rise to such an extent that I certainly will not be able to deliver a very good maiden speech. I am not sure whether that is in order or not. However, I should just like to tell the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke that the Government does indeed have the will to govern, and he will see that very clearly in future.

Hear, hear!

Mr Chairman, when a newcomer first makes his acquaintance with this House, it is with a feeling of trepidation. That was the sensation with which other newcomers and I entered this House. As chilling as our fears may have been, however, was the warmth of the friendliness with which we were greeted in this Chamber. For this, Mr Chairman, we thank you and the other hon members of this House very sincerely.

I should also like to thank the voters of Beaufort West who placed their trust in me and sent me to this magnificent Chamber. I should also like to thank the officers inside and outside this Chamber for all their helpfulness and friendliness.

Beaufort West is one of the largest constituencies in our country. It stretches from the Hex River Mountains near Touws River in the south to Vosburg, the terrain of Oom Koos le Roux, in the north, spanning a distance of 500 kilometres. There are many scenic treasures within the constituency. These include Die Hel—perhaps Gamkaskloof is a nicer word—C J Langenhoven’s magnificent Seweweekspoort, neat, clean towns awaiting development, and many other things. The constituency is inhabited by wonderful people who have had to endure many droughts. I am proud to be representing such voters.

Then there were my predecessors, men like Dr Eric Louw and Dr Hilgard Muller. Since I used to be a constituent of Ceres, I also remember people like Dr Stals and Mr S L Muller, who later became Minister of Transport. Mr Muller was a very good friend of mine, although later on he seemed to lose his bearings somewhat. It is with trepidation, therefore, that I venture upon this course. As a Christian I believe and know that my Heavenly Father will give me the strength and the wisdom to accomplish my day’s work.

The main traffic routes, viz the main road and the railway line from civilization here in the south to the Transvaal and beyond, runs through this constituency from north to south. I should like to express a few thoughts on the railway connection. As a matter of interest I want to mention that the Hex River Tunnel, which runs for nearly 13,4 kilometres—it is the longest tunnel in Africa— and which will come into operation soon, will form the gateway through which civilization will move from Table Mountain to the North. I hope the Currie Cup does not move along with it! The tunnel also connects two constituencies, viz Beaufort West and Ceres, and it connects the Boland with the Karoo. Later on I shall divulge my personal connection with this magnificent piece of work to the Commissioners of the SATS. I should also like to believe that this tunnel will be used to carry life and prosperity into the interior once more.

If I may, I want to make this appeal to the hon the Minister: Wherever it is possible— and it is possible in this case—we should keep the rural areas going by moving the unnecessary employment opportunities from the cities to the rural areas. What I am actually requesting is that we decentralise and move the employment opportunities to those towns that are ready for them, and of which the infrastructure is ready.

The SATS plays an important part in respect of the church, the school and, in fact, in the continued existence of this constituency. I should like to mention the names of two towns in this constituency, viz Touws River and Beaufort West, which are absolutely dependent upon the SATS. The highway, the N1, also contributes: To Beaufort West it means plus-minus R30 million per year, plus employment opportunities for nearly 200 people. In this address of mine, therefore, I should like to pay tribute to an organisation that has been contributing tremendously for many years to the development of our country, viz the South African Railways and Harbours.

There have been frequent reports in newspapers and magazines recently about the current transport policy, especially in respect of the position of the SATS and the private hauliers in the transport market. These reports are sometimes characterised by onesided announcements, often at the expense of the SATS. Many people and even the media are still of the opinion that the object of the Road Transportation Act is to protect rail services. The real object, however, is the orderly regulation of transport to the greatest benefit of the country as a whole.

The policy of managing and operating the SATS purely as a State undertaking is a step in the direction of freer competition, and in this regard consideration has already been given to the question of the regulation and the deregulation of transport. Before 1930 transport was restricted mainly to rail transport because of the lack of good roads and the unsuitability of vehicles. Passenger and cargo transport in particular were affected by this. The SAR and H, the South African Railways and Harbours, as it was called in those days— it was customary just to talk about the Railways—initiated large-scale development at that time. This was stimulated by the Constitution of the Union of South Africa which provided inter alia that the Railways had to be run on business principles and was to accomplish agricultural and industrial progress. The idea was that cheap transport would encourage the establishment of agricultural and industrial communities in all the provinces.

Since competition in road transport was limited to animal-drawn vehicles, the Railways carried out these development instructions at its own expense. By the ’thirties road transport was beginning to compete to an increasing extent. The next 40 years brought great changes. The surplus of cargo and military vehicles available after the Second World War, and the building of roads, literally paved the way for South Africa.

Between 1950 and 1960 rail transport suffered because the Railways was the national haulier and, unlike the private hauliers, had no choice in respect of what to transport. By the seventies road transport had developed to such an extent that the market share of the Railways had declined from approximately 60% in 1952 to approximately 40% in 1972. A commission of inquiry in 1977 led to the passing of the Road Transportation Act of 1977, which laid down clearer principles for free competition.

During 1986 the Minister of Transport submitted a White Paper to Parliament in which he recommended methods of diminishing the State’s involvement in the SATS and also of reducing cross-subsidisation in order to ensure that everyone involved with the conveyance of goods would incur the same real costs related to the provision and maintenance of his infrastructure. The implementation of the principle of equal competition will lead to freer competition in the freight transport trade.

With regard to the future, one can ask whether the SATS have the right to continue to exist, in view of the historical developments. The answer to this, Sir, is “yes”. At present R17,3 billion is invested in rail assets. It would definitely not be acceptable to utilise this investment resource ineffectively. The building of adequate road facilities to replace the rail network would exert too much pressure on the scarce financial and natural resources of South Africa.

South Africa is chiefly an exporter of primary mineral products. The role that the SATS has played in conveying our mineral products to the export markets efficiently and at the lowest cost means that the South African exporter is in a strong position to compete in the world market.

In a country like South Africa, with its vast distances between industrial centres, it is important to keep transport costs as low as possible. Because of these vast distances, it is generally accepted that transport by rail offers cost benefits because the tractive effort costs are so low. A reduction in rail traffic can lead to higher transport tariffs and, therefore, higher consumer prices.

The SATS is a large provider of employment opportunities. It has nearly 200 000 employees in its employ. In view of the high unemployment rate at present, it would be totally unacceptable to take away these employment opportunities and, in so doing, create further social problems. Through the years the SATS has excelled in the technological sphere, and it would be to the detriment of the country if possible future technological advancement were lost because of a lack of capital for investment. In the engineering industry especially, many companies depend on the support of the SATS, and they will have difficulty in finding new markets that will ensure their continued existence if the SATS were to cut down on its operations.

The railway network extends across the entire country. It serves not only the more profitable large centers, but also the smaller centres which are more dependent on good lines of communication. The branch lines, which branch out from the main lines, can be regarded as vital for the continued economic existence of the rural areas in future.

If the SATS were forced to eliminate all its cross-subsidisation, the private sector would have to take over these services. The question, however, is whether they will do so, and if they do, at what price. Rail transport requires a smaller area of land than road transport for the transportation of the same cargo. This can be regarded as a critical factor in our agriculture-intensive areas and also in our fast-growing urban areas where the capacity of the roads is being utilised to the extreme and in respect of which enormous capital costs have to be incurred to extend the capacity of the roads, while there is adequate reserve capacity on our rail routes.

As far as pollution is concerned, rail transport is regarded as being much cleaner than road transport. Therefore, if rail traffic is favoured, the ecology will benefit as well.

As a nation-wide organisation, the SATS has as its object to serve the country and all its needs. With greater deregulation and privatisation the SATS will have to adapt in order to exist in a free market. For the existing reasons, one cannot talk about future growth of the South African transport market without the continued existence and support of the SATS. The SATS would also like to compete within the framework of a free market, but only if it is allowed to deregulate and to compete in the transport market according to pure business principles.

In conclusion, one may say that if the SATS can compete on an equal basis with other transport operators, and if a more even distribution of low-value traffic is brought about, the continued existence and support of the SATS’ services will not be threatened. As responsible people we must defend this Transport Affairs Budget wherever we go. We should realise that the tariff increases are essential to ensure inter alia that the SATS’ employees are properly taken care of.

Mr Chairman, permit me to congratulate the hon member for Germiston on his maiden speech. I think he will continue to make fine contributions in this House.

It is also my privilege to congratulate the hon member for Beaufort West. [Interjections.] I am speaking now. I have known him for quite a number of years. I know his constituency very well. I should like extend to him my cordial congratulations on a well-considered speech.

Furthermore, I should like to set hon members’ minds at ease. They need not fear that the Beaufort West constituency will ever fall into the hands of the CP, because there are no firebrands living there. [Interjections.]

I had prepared myself to a degree to fry to enter into a relaxed discussion of the SATS and their history, as well as my experience of the SATS—that is of all the services they provide and how they look after people. I did not expect that I would ever experience problems with my blood pressure. [Interjections.] When we sat with the PFP in the old provincial council of the Cape Province, I thought they would drive me out of my mind. They did not succeed, but I must say that after listening to the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke I became scared. [Interjections.] One gets scared of these people— not because one thinks they will ever be able to take power and rule this country. I believe this is impossible; there are too many right-thinking, well-balanced people among whom this if-you-don’t-like-me-I’ll-hit-you-until-you-love-me attitude does not hold water. [Interjections.]

It is alarming. I wonder what foreign visitors to this country must think. I hope there are no overseas visitors in the gallery today. What must they think of the Afikaners when they listen to someone like the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke? [Interjections.] There is a saying: “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread”. Believe me, some of these hon members are more like “a bull in a china shop”.

Sensitive matters cannot be rectified by means of brute force. People who are intimidated and whose lives are threatened, a person who knows that if he goes to work today the possibility exists that an unidentifiable element will rape his wife and daughters, set fire to his house and murder his children must simply be dismissed! I think that is absolutely irresponsible. I do not know how to express myself on this subject. [Interjections.]

If one listens to the arguments of the hon members of the Official Opposition and does not think for oneself and listen carefully to what they say, one can easily be deceived. They begin their arguments with assumptions which they present as facts. The hon member for Schweizer-Reneke stated as a fact here that the ANC had declared on Radio Freedom that the UDF was its internal arm. If the hon member for Overvaal had been sitting on this side today, he would quite probably have jumped up and asked, “Where is your proof?” but I do not think he would have asked the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke where his proof was.

Do you deny it?

I ask the hon member if there is any proof of what he said, because we on this side of the House realise who the ANC are; we suspect that the UDF has very strong links with the ANC. I cannot, however, deny something about which I know nothing. There are competent people in our security services who investigate these matters in order to provide us with evidence to substantiate such information. The method of the ANC and, in reality, of the people from the Kremlin who initiate these actions against our country and are in full-time control of them is, however, in fact to stimulate organisations without allowing the connection to be identified.

Like the UDF.

If the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke can give us proof that the UDF is indeed the internal wing of the ANC, I believe we shall all be very glad. The hon member should not, however, begin his argument with a statement which he wants to present to us as a fact. He might well have done so in Schweizer-Reneke.

I grew up in Vryburg. I was born there and lived there for 18 years until I had finished school, and I know that area.

You have been away too long!

I think that hon member should rather not talk to me about where I come from and how long it is since I last set foot there. I still keep in touch with Vryburg and I still spend holidays there.

I know Vryburg just as well as you do!

That hon member can ask the hon member for Vryburg about that. I still keep in touch with the place and I know how the people there think. Two years ago I had the privilege of being involved in the by-election which that hon member thought he was going to win. That was when I got to know the hon member’s methods. [Interjections.]

I do not have much time left. [Interjections.] The hon member spoke about the illegal trade union Sarhwu. It is illegal in the sense that it does not comply with the statutory requirements for recognition as a trade union. The Government does not negotiate with illegal trade unions and no private body is obliged to do so either. It seems to me that the hon member does not know the law.

I should also like to inform the hon member that his hon leader, the hon member for Soutpansberg, the hon member for Lichtenburg, the hon member for Overvaal and the hon member for Pietersburg were members of this side of the House when the recommendations of the Wiehahn Commission were implemented. At that stage I was not a member of the NP caucus in this House but those hon members were members of the NP until February 1982. Did they object to that legislation? I do not think so. [Interjections.] They should not quarrel with their forefathers about that sort of thing now.

I should like to return to East London where my constituency is situated.

Talk about Vryburg instead.

Sir, I represent East London North here.

I should just like to refer briefly to East London and my voters, and then I should like to discuss the closing of the mechanical workshop in East London with the hon the Minister. Initially the other prophets of doom in my area, the PFP’s big indunas and spokesmen, made a great fuss about the closure. They tried to imply that this step showed that the Government did not have confidence in East London. These are the same people who, every year when a budget is introduced by the Minister of this department, ask why the books do not balance. This department started a rationalisation program years ago to make its services more profitable. The closure of this mechanical workshop was part of that process, however painful it may have been. I should therefore like to thank the hon member for East London City for the responsible manner in which he, as a political representative, acted in the interests of our people in East London.

I should also like to thank the department for the compassion they displayed in dealing with individual cases of people who had either to be transferred or to remain in East London and be employed in other capacities. Now I should like to request the hon the Minister also to treat those people with compassion.

I should also like to avail myself of this opportunity to thank the SA Police for the wonderful way in which they received and assimilated the SA RAilways Police. Former SA Railways Policemen feared that they would be discriminated against in the SA Police. That was not the case, however, and I know what I am talking about because, of my 17 800 voters, 7 000 households are involved with the SATS. I should like to thank the hon the Minister sincerely.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon member for East London North. Please allow me at this juncture to convey my cordial congratulations to the hon members for Beaufort West, Rosettenville and Germiston on their maiden speeches this afternoon.

I am apparently the last spokesman in this debate, one in which a considerable number of admissions were made. I listened attentively to the speeches made by the hon member for Soutpansberg and the hon member for Losberg in which they openly admitted that Railway people were among their greatest supporters. I find it strange that the CP always singles out groups of people. It is also true to say that there is a world of difference between what they say inside and outside this House. Here they are the sanctimonious champions of the Railway workers, but once they get outside, they confuse those same people and sow dissatisfaction among them in order to obtain their votes.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member refer to hon members on this side of the House as being sanctimonious?

Order! The hon member must withdraw the word “sanctimonious”.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Other hon members in this House who also have Railway workers in their constituencies, will know how special votes are used almost recklessly as far as Railway workers are concerned. I want to give hon members the assurance that on election day, there was hardly a Railway worker in the constituency who had not yet voted. Once these people have made a man unhappy and dissatisfied, they load him into a motor car and take him to cast his vote because, after all, he is from the Transport Services and cannot be there on the day in question. [Interjections.]

Order!

I find it strange how these people contradict each other. The hon member for Randfontein, who is unfortunately indisposed and cannot be here—I hope he will soon recover—held a meeting in my constituency, and on that occasion he laid the blame for the Railway strike squarely at the door of the NP. He said that the NP was the cause of the strike. This afternoon the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke stood up here and said that neither the NP nor Cosatu was responsible for it, but in fact the UDF. He said it was the Government’s handling of the matter that had now made such a great mess of the whole affair.

Of course! It is true!

I want to tell the hon the Minister that I think the next time there is a strike, he should simply phone the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke and ask him where the instigators are, so that we can lock them up. That hon member apparently knows where they are. According to him it is very easy. One simply locks up the instigators and the whole strike is a thing of the past.

That is the unfortunate part about what is happening in this House. People make statements that hang in mid-air. These are recorded in Hansard and tomorrow they are quoted from various platforms. I now want to ask that hon member what the difference is between a case in which Cosatu causes a strike as a result of unhappiness and dissatisfaction, and one in which the CP approaches the White workers and makes them unhappy and dissatisfied. An unhappy and dissatisfied worker is the unwilling worker of tomorrow. Is there any difference between these two ways of doing things? Surely there is no difference between making unhappy and unwilling workers of people, and inducing them to strike. The hon member for Primrose has already referred to the fact that the CP approached the Railway people …

That is a smoke-screen. [Interjections.]

Order! I cannot allow a constant stream of comments to be made. The hon member may proceed.

The CP approached those people and told them that their travel facilities were to be curtailed. That is not completely untrue, but it is only half the truth. At that stage there was a certain amount of dissatisfaction, not about travel facilities that were being curtailed, but due to the fact that suburban services had been curtailed and that travel facilities had consequently been reduced. However, those people still had the same travel facilities. The CP read the headline, so to speak, but did not get the full story, and they seized upon this opportunity to make those people dissatisfied. I want to assure the hon member that they did a very good job of it.

The second thing the CP did was to go from one worker to another, telling them that they were to be dismissed and that Blacks were to be appointed in their place. Apparently this would happen just like that; very easily. It is true that a number of Blacks have been appointed. The hon the Deputy Minister referred to the fact this morning that a number of Blacks and people of colour had already been appointed and were being trained as train drivers and assistants. Today I not only want to congratulate the SATS, but also to express my gratitude to Mr Henn, the president of the footplate staff association, and all his people, for the wonderful way in which they are accepting these people, training them and working with them. [Interjections.] If ever a breakthrough was made in the SATS, it was done by the employment of these Black assistants, whom we formerly knew as stokers. In my constituency some of the staunchest AWB supporters are train drivers. Hon members should just go and tell them that their Black stokers are to be taken away from them, and hear what they have to say.

Oh, so you are friendly with the AWB, are you?

That is what is happening. The CP is using the Railway workers as they see fit. I hope that Mr Henn and his people will succeed in engendering the same pride in these people as that which exists among the footplate personnel of the SATS. [Interjections.] What I find strange is that the hon member for Soutpansberg stood up here this morning and told the hon the Minister that the SATS had now lost its lustre, its gloss. Who other than the worker has done this? I wonder when last that hon member was in an engine-shed, where trains are worked on, to see the pride with which the engine-drivers treat those machines of theirs. If that is not lustre and gloss, then I do not know what is. Moreover, those people are not only proud of the way in which they treat their machines; they are also very proud of the way in which they maintain the safety of all rail traffic. Social functions are held regularly—I was fortunate enough to attend such a function recently—at which medals and awards for faithful service are presented to these people, and hon members would do well to go and see the pride and gratitude with which they receive those medals.

Those hon members boast about their tremendously wonderful progress, as if all Railway people had voted for them, but I want to tell them today … [Interjections.] Let us put them to the test. Eighteen months ago there was a by-election in Bethlehem, and the same candidate who has just stood against me, stood there at that time. These people then decided that all they had to do during the recent election was to go to work on the Railway people, but despite that my majority increased by nearly a thousand. Those thousand votes came largely from the Railway workers. One of the best organized NP branches in my constituency is that branch which has the most Railway workers. [Interjections.]

I want to tell hon members that the SATS personnel in my town are some of my favourite people. I am very proud of them, and I shall not allow the CP to make voting cattle out of them.

Mr Chairman, during this debate quite a number of references were made to the SATS strike and the way it was handled. I must say, it is clear that the old, well-known adage that “the best horseman is always on his feet” is also true in this case.

In this regard, there is a formal announcement that I should like to make. Hon members will perhaps be aware of the fact that a court case has been brought against the SATS as a result of the dismissal of striking workers. The court case has been reported in the media, and hon members will therefore be aware of it.

Because the SATS, as I indicated in my budget speech, would like to re-employ the vast majority of the dismissed workers, I indicated that I was prepared to allow those dismissed staff members who had been re-employed, to retain their service benefits by way of an uninterrupted period of service. I am pleased that I am now able to announce, for the information of hon members of the House, that a settlement has been reached in respect of the aforementioned court case on the basis of this standpoint, and that the applicants are to withdraw their case. [Interjections.] I trust that it will now be possible for the dismissed employees to work for the SATS again without fear of intimidaton.

How much further are you going to crawl?

There is another good horseman who is always on his feet and knows nothing about the whole matter. [Interjections.] He does not have the faintest idea of what is going on here. However, I shall talk to him a little later.

There are two conditions to which I should like to refer in particular. Firstly, those employees who were guilty of intimidation will not be re-employed.

What do you say now, Cas? [Interjections.]

They must apply and accept employment on or before 15 June 1987. The principle of “no work, no pay” remains in force.

I actually found it extraordinary that the Official Opposition’s chief spokesman on transport affairs left it to a junior backbencher to move the amendments upon which his argument was founded. I find it strange that their chief spokesman did not take the House into his confidence and move the amendments himself. [Interjections.]

I should like to refer to what the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke said about the strikes—and he did have a great deal to say about them. The hon member for East London North pointed out to him that the senior members of the Official Opposition apparently do not agree with him, because all of them joined us in the NP in approving the legislation relating to unions. What does the hon member think about those senior members now? The hon member for Schweizer-Reneke said: “Negotiation will get us nowhere”. He then went on to say: “Partition is the solution”. I now want to ask him: Does this mean partition without negotiation? [Interjections.]

Yes!

We do not need to negotiate. [Interjections.]

I was pleased that five hon members delivered their maiden speeches in the House today. It is a revealing fact that the whips of all the parties have pushed the new hon members into this debate. Why was this done? It is because this Budget is so uncontentious. No substantive criticism has therefore been levelled at this Budget. [Interjections.] The general criticism of those who have some knowledge of this field—and let me tell the hon member for Barberton that I am now speaking about people who have some knowledge of it—has revealed that this Budget is a very positive one under the circumstances. Therefore, I should like to refer briefly to those hon members on this side of the House who made speeches in this regard. The hon member for Nigel asked in his maiden speech for an improvement in the distribution of contracts and the basis on which they are awarded. I want to thank him for participating in this debate. I shall certainly investigate these matters and I may be able to give him some relevant information in my reply on Monday.

†The hon member for Rosettenville made history here today as a woman following in the footsteps of her father. I came here with her father in 1978 and I can give the hon member the assurance that he was a parliamentarian of formidable stature.

*I think it would meet with everyone’s approval if I were to say that she is a chip off the old block. As the Afrikaans saying goes: “Die appel het nie ver van die boom geval nie”, and it looks to me like a golden delicious! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Middelburg displayed a positive attitude by referring to the good work which his predecessor had done. He also supplied us with some interesting facts about his constituency. He went on to refer to the building of a station there, and I shall furnish him with further information in that regard at a later stage. I also thank him for his contribution.