Order! I have to announce that I have received a message from the State President calling a joint sitting, as follows:

laid upon the Table:

1. (1)
   1. (a) Appropriation Bill (House of Assembly) [B 79—87 (HA)]—(Minister of the Budget and Welfare).
   2. (b) Certificate by the State President in terms of section 31 of the Constitution, 1983, that the Bill deals with matters which are own affairs of the House of Assembly.
2. (2) Tertiary Education Bill [B 80—87 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Education).
3. (3) Quantity Surveyors’ Amendment Bill [B 81—87 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Environment Affairs).
4. (4) Land Affairs Bill [B 82—87 (GA)]— (Standing Committee on Environment Affairs).
5. (5) Deeds Registries Amendment Bill [B 83—87 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Environment Affairs).
6. (6) Land Titles Adjustment Amendment Bill [B 84—87 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Environment Affairs).

Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, actually I am rising to broach a matter which is not directly related to this debate. This budget is the last one in which Dr Grové, who is sitting here to my left, will participate with us in his official capacity. He is retiring at the end of January 1988, after a distinguished career of more than 40 years of loyal and dedicated service.

Hear, hear!

He was transferred from the then Department of Trade and Industry to the SATS on 1 July 1955. Over the years he has distinguished himself in the work situation. He took over the reins in his present capacity as General Manager on 1 February 1983. This means that he has had a full five years in that very hot seat.

Under his proficient guidance the SATS achieved considerable success as the largest business undertaking in South Africa, particularly during the past year. It is actually a pity that the passing of time makes it necessary for us to take leave of a person with the wealth of experience and outstanding qualities which Dr Grové possesses. This will be a severe loss to our organisation. Personally I must frankly confess that in the short time I was associated with him in the work situation I learned a great deal from him. I thank him for this.

May he and his wife, Monica, who has supported him with distinction all these years, enjoy a well-earned rest. Often when we are in the thick of things here I shall, envy him for being able to relax and take things easy on his Bushveld farm.

I think I am speaking on behalf of us all when I congratulate Dr Grové sincerely on this milestone, his last in his professional capacity, and thank him again for what he has meant, not only to the SATS but, in a more general sense, to the country as well.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the Official Opposition I should like to associate myself with the hon the Minister’s words of farewell to Dr Grové. To Dr Grové we can say that we have observed him, either at close hand or at a distance, and that we have always seen him as a dignified encumbent of a very senior post, the most senior post in the SATS. He was always available to one and was always a man of dignity and competence in the position he held in probably one of the most difficult periods the SATS has experienced in many decades. Conditions could never have been more difficult than they are at present.

We also associate ourselves with the hon the Minister’s wish that Dr Grové should have a very pleasant retirement, a very enjoyable period of rest. I have only just heard that he is retiring to a Bushveld farm. As Dr Grové knows, the Bushveld is an area of very wide horizons. It has more than one representative in this House—my hon leader and I, for example, represent two large portions of the Bushveld. We do not know in what part of the Bushveld Dr Grové will find himself, but I want to tell him that we trust that if he comes to live in our area he will see to it, before his retirement, that the SATS provides services there which would also be useful and of value to him.

Schedules 1 and 2:

Mr Chairman, in the Third Reading debate I shall be coming back to certain aspects of the debate. I shall then be speaking about restructuring and about the hon the Minister’s calculation of the real tariff increase which I think he said was 6,5%.

At this stage I just first want to mention a few specific instances to the hon the Minister. In my opinion the first is a very serious matter, and I initially mentioned it to his predecessor in a Committee Stage speech. It concerns the loss of passenger fares, particularly on non-White suburban trains, but also on mainline or inter-city trains. As far as my information goes, the losses in this connection are astronomical. I do not even want to repeat the amount that was mentioned to me, but it runs into millions. If that is really the case, I want to insist that the hon the Minister appoint an extra-departmental committee so that we can, once and for all, institute an in-depth investigation into this matter in an effort to see whether the situation cannot be saved. If the loss runs into millions, in regard to the Budget it could prove of value to the Railways if this matter were resolved.

Another question I want to put to the hon the Minister concerns the rolling stock such as wagons used by our neighbouring states. I understand that they are being used in all the neighbouring states to the north of our borders, and of course in Mozambique, with whom the SATS has dealings. I should like to know from the hon the Minister whether there is a specific lease-lend agreement for making this material available, whether the goods are being hired out and, if so, what the conditions of the agreement are, particularly as far as the maintenance of the material is concerned. Would that material be recoverable by South Africa in the event of a crisis? I also want to know whether the SATS ascertains, on an on-going basis, in what condition that material is being kept.

After the appeal by the hon the Minister’s predecessor that certain SATS employees should retire at an earlier age in order to help combat over-employment, those who retired voluntarily did so under the normal conditions for premature retirement. The norm is 60—I have been informed of this—and every year of early retirement is doubled and added to the 60, thus determining the remuneration after retirement. There were personnel who retired voluntarily, but at the request of the Minister, and they did so under the normal conditions for retirement. There are, however, certain individuals who are only going to retire at a later stage, and they have heard that the conditions are going to be improved so that every year of early retirement is regarded as one and not two. Is that true and, if so, could the situation not be looked into with a view to accommodating those who retired at an earlier stage?

We held a discussion on privatisation. I think privatisation is really a South African word. I think that in other countries of the world it is more familiarly known as denationalisation. I find it quite understandable that the Government uses the word privatisation rather than denationalisation. The reason is that that concept has a connotation which causes the Government some problems. We would, for example, have to start talking—perhaps correctly, too—of a “Private Party” instead of the National Party. I think that the NP has also been denationalised since we left it. [Interjections.] The hon member may well say that I am talking nonsense, but it is probably his high blood pressure pills doing the talking now. Anyway, let us leave it at that.

The hon the Minister wants to know from me what our standpoint about privatisation is. South Africa is a country with a free economy and, as far as my party is concerned, we advocate a free economy. In South Africa, however, there are traditionally certain services which have always been furnished by the State, services which in other countries are denationalised or private services. In the USA this is the case as far as telegrams are concerned, and in the United Kingdom as far as railways are concerned.

If some of those services were to be furnished by the private sector in South Africa, the private sector would not be able to furnish the same level of service as that furnished by the State.

When one comes to an organisation like the SATS, let me tell the hon the Minister at the outset that I think he mentioned a White Paper that would be issued about this matter at some time or other. Is that so?

Yes, about privatisation.

He must then tell me what aspects of the SATS he wants to denationalise. Is he thinking of the SAA, the road transport services, the pipelines, or what aspects of the SATS does he have in mind? If he is to privatise, he must also tell me to whom he is going to transfer what component of the SATS. I take it that there will only be an interest in taking over services that are profitable.

Secondly we shall have to look at whom they are transferred to. Would it simply be a transfer from a State to a private sector monopoly?

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member?

Order! I am sorry, but the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise to afford the hon member an opportunity of completing his speech.

Order! The hon member for Soutpansberg may continue.

Mr Chairman, unfortunately I have very little time and cannot reply to a question by the hon the Deputy Minister. Perhaps he could put his question in the Third Reading debate.

Order! Before the hon member continues with his speech, I want to tell hon members that I am not prepared to allow the kind of background noise one hears in a bazaar to continue in this committee. I did not want to interrupt the hon member for Soutpansberg to give this ruling, but I am appealing to hon members to co-operate. The hon member for Soutpansberg may proceed.

And I see my time ticking away too!

The hon the Minister must tell us what he wants to privatise, because as far as I am concerned, South Africa is still a developing country. Other hon members of my party will refer to the role the former SA Railways played in opening up South Africa. If the hon the Minister is going to denationalise, he must tell me what consequences he foresees for those parts of the country in which the SATS performs an absolutely infrastructural function which is probably non-profitable. He will have to tell me, particularly in regard to the area in which I live, whether he foresees a private entrepreneur being interested in that aspect of the SATS, and if not—if he cannot take that over—what he is going to do about that. How does this accord with the Government’s intention to decentralise in South Africa? Those are the questions about privatisation that we on this side of the House are posing.

Our standpoint is that in South Africa, which is a country with a free economy, the State has always furnished certain services. This has also traditionally been the case. We believe that the State, for the sake of the development of the country and for the sake of the inhabitants of specific widely scattered and sparesely populated areas, must continue to ensure that proper infrastructural facilities remain. In the sparesely populated areas of the Northern Transvaal, where other factors have contributed to the situation, we have found increasingly more people packing up and leaving. This has happened in areas in regard to which the Government has passed legislation to encourage population growth in those areas. If we do not see our way clear, with State support, to providing services to those areas, this is also going to have an adverse effect on those aspects which the State professes that it wants to promote, ie decentralisation and an increase in the density of the population in those areas.

Those are the aspects I now want to mention to the hon the Minister. I think I shall leave it at that for the moment.

Mr Chairman, to start off I want to congratulate Dr Grové, on behalf of this side of the House, and express our thanks to him for the 40 years of service he has furnished to the SATS. On a day such as this the thoughts of those of us on this side of the House dwell on Oom Sporie. Oom Sporie would probably have said that he would have got his baboon to change the signals to divert Dr Grové on to a branch-line, and we want to wish Dr Grové every success for the future.

It is a pleasure for me to participate in this debate once again after a long absence from Transport Services’ debates. It is particularly pleasing because many years ago, as a young engineer, I was one of the first people in South Africa who had the privilege of testing the 5E1 locomotive’s drive systems in South Africa after we had started manufacturing them locally.

In the 10 minutes at my disposal, I should like to raise a very serious matter which, in my view, the strikes have again highlighted, and emphasize my standpoint. I want to advocate that the hon the Minister take the initiative in moving South Africa out of the migratory labour phase. The private sector cannot be addressed on this system of migratory labour if we do not, in South Africa’s public service set-up, also phase out the migratory labour system.

The hon members of the CP, under the leadership of the hon member for Soutpansberg, said that they could not understand how thousands upon thousands of people could be intimidated into going on strike. Let me tell them that it is very easy, because during the strike period about 6 500 of the strikers were apparently accommodated in hostels. When one looks at the newspaper reports of the past week concerning what took place at the Western Holdings mine where people lost their lives owing to a group of strikers who had, for the space of a year, been involved in irregularities there, one realises that that is how intimidation could easily take place on a large scale.

This also applies to a single hostel on a university campus or a hostel at a railway yard or near a mineshaft, because a small group of people in such a hostel can set the whole area alight when they start their riots. It is therefore fairly easy to understand how so many people could be intimidated, particularly when mention is made of necklace murders.

That, however, is not the only reason why I am lodging a plea for the hon the Minister to give serious consideration to the phasing-out of migratory labour as far as the SATS is concerned. I believe that some of the reasons why Black workers participate in strikes are to be found in the empty lives some people are forced to lead in this type of labour system, a system we unfortunately inherited from the previous colonial period.

It is an acknowledged and well-known fact that the poor Whites of the ’thirties could overcome that situation because they could get homes and jobs. It was the SATS, in particular, which solved the poor White question at the time.

If urban Blacks are unemployed, their families are also homeless. One feels very unhappy if, coming from a metropolitan area, such as the one from which I myself come, one sees how many other people from other parts of the country get jobs because they are accommodated in hostels. On the East Rand, in my constituency, there is a hostel which accommodates 3 500 such people. One asks oneself whether it is still necessary, after the SATS has been in existence for 75 years in South Africa, to have such a hostel situated in the Germiston-Boksburg area.

And hon members of the CP must not say, as was said during the recent election, that I am advocating at this stage that Black workers and their families should move to the cities. That is not what I am advocating. I am arguing that a different way should be found for making provision for those people already settled and working there, and that we should, over a period of time, see whether we cannot phase out hostel labour. I believe that where such communities are established one is ultimately carrying out a task of upliftment when one employs the people of such a community.

Let me refer, for example, to the community of Koedoespoort, that of Kempton Park in the vicinity of Jan Smuts Airport, or even to our region. People there have worked for the SAA or the SATS for many years. When such large numbers of people are integrated into such an institution, one finds them remaining with it for generations.

One cannot keep urbanised communities going without transport services. The more prosperous a community becomes, the more dependent it becomes on transport, whether in regard to refuse, products or passengers that have to be transported. The examples are there if one looks at cities like London, New York, Amsterdam, Nottingham or Birmingham. There one sees proof of what I am saying.

Not one of these cities could escape the fact that Black people form the lower income groups in such a occupational set-up. Provision therefore had to be made to help them obtain better housing.

Just as the CP would never be able to transport Morgenzon’s refuse or products without the help of Black people, in the PWV area or other metropolitan areas we could not get along without the lower income group in the SATS either. [Interjections.] We are therefore telling them that partition is not a solution in the metropolitan areas where 87% of the White population is already established.

Because normal population growth provides the labour force for such a metropole, it is senseless building new hostels at a cost of about R35 000 per bed. In my view one could, for the same price, rather start providing people with housing. In any event, one cannot get away from the running costs involved in such a hostel. Documents presented to the standing committee indicate that the Management is no longer in favour of large hostel complexes and that in this regard they are even thinking in terms of privatisation.

I want to ask the hon the Minister to give immediate attention to the Delmore Hostel and to find some other basis for that portion of the reform. The building which has been set up here for these people dates from the previous century and was built for Chinese mineworkers who had come to work on the worked-out mines in that region. I think that is one of the reasons why we are moving it or have to find some other solution to their problem. I hope the hon the Minister will give attention to it.

Another matter I want to raise concerns the railway lines on the East Rand. I really think that we should have fewer stations on the East Rand on such an old section of line which dates from the old Zuid-Afrikaanse Spoorweë period. That section of line was built in the steam locomotive era when it took a fairly long time for a train to build up speed and then come to a halt again. Nor were there any other properly developed transport systems such as road transport systems. I think there are rather too many stations along that section of line for this modern day and age. It would be to the advantage of the SATS to see whether it could not decrease the number.

The last matter concerning the East Rand which I should like to raise relates to the problem of low platforms. I have been broaching this matter for several years now, but I again want to lodge a serious plea with the hon the Minister to see whether the platforms of East Rand stations cannot be rebuilt. Those platforms are about the same height as these seats of ours here in Parliament and the aged find it difficult to get from the platforms into the trains.

Mr Chairman, may I have the privilege of the half-hour?

I would like to respond to the hon member who has just sat down by saying that I do not really intend to follow his speech because I have my own speech to make. However, he did tempt me to say something when he blamed practices in the SATS on the old colonial era. I want to point out to that hon member that we ceased being a colony in 1910.

We then became a self-governing dominion and from 1910 to 1987 we have been a completely self-governing country. Every Prime Minister in the course of those 77 years has come from the “Afrikanervolk”. Therefore, to blame things that are currently happening on the colonial era is in my opinion somewhat simplistic. [Interjections.]

Order!

I also wish to congratulate Dr Grové on what I consider to be a distinguished career in the SATS and a particularly distinguished spell as General Manager. I believe this gentleman has been able to put the SATS on a proper business footing to a far greater extent than it ever was before. That is no mean achievement. I believe he will go down in history as the General Manager who was able to get rid of very excessive overstaffing in the SATS in the best possible way and that he has laid a sound foundation for whoever might succeed him. I, like other hon members who spoke before me, wish him a great deal of happiness in his retirement. I understand he has a bushveld farm. That sounds very attractive and I hope he will have many years in which to enjoy it.

It is my intention basically to talk about local rather than national issues during this Committee Stage. I want to kick off by referring to the level crossing situation in South Africa. As the House is aware, the SATS annually puts aside R2,5 million for, and other bodies also contribute towards, the elimination of level crossings in South Africa. That R2,5 million has been the figure since 1974.

For 13 years, during which time the value of money has decreased considerably, we have only put aside R2,5 million. I believe that that amount needs to be considerably increased in order to overcome the ravages of inflation. I believe it is totally inadequate, and I believe that what we are talking about here is not simply facilities but the saving of lives. Every year there are nasty level-crossing accidents, and the sooner there are no level crossings left in South Africa the better for everybody.

While on that subject, Sir, I should like to point out to the hon the Minister that in the suburb of Walmer in Port Elizabeth there are a number of level crossings, most of which have now been provided with warning lights which give warning of the approach of a train. There is, however, one road, the extension of Tenth Avenue, Walmer, which cuts across towards a small residential area, Lovemore Park and Schoenees and also leads to a drive-in cinema and a country club, and is therefore very extensively used by patrons of the cinema and members of the country club. I believe that as a matter of urgency the hon the Minister should see to it that warning lights, at the very least, are erected at that level crossing.

Secondly, Sir, I want to speak about the possibility of a commuter rail service in Port Elizabeth. We are all well aware that millions are spent annually to compensate the SATS for the uneconomic socio-economic services which they provide, particularly in relation to commuter passenger services. This amount of money is so great that in 1987 it amounts to no less than R758 million. This amount represents the compensation received by the SATS in respect of the provision of uneconomic socio-economic services. Unfortunately, Sir, precious little of that very large sum of taxpayers’ money is expended on commuter services in Port Elizabeth. When one looks at the loss that was suffered in respect of the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage complex on commuter services one notices it amounted to only R11 million whereas for example in the Peninsula area it was R157 million—fourteen times more than in Port Elizabeth—and in the Durban-Pinetown area it was R153 million. In the Vaal Triangle it was R314 million. I do not know what the loss in respect of the Johannesburg area was but it must have been an enormous sum of money.

Why, Sir, is so little of this money spent in Port Elizabeth? It is because basically there are no commuter train services in Port Elizabeth worth mentioning. Suburban services for Blacks are virtually non-existent. Only one small area of one township is able to use a commuter service, and that is the New Brighton southern area. They do use the service, Sir. They use it fairly extensively.

I want to compare the situation in Port Elizabeth with the situation in Cape Town because we are aware that over the past couple of years a tremendous sum of money has been expended on providing a commuter train service to Khayelitsha. We welcome that. We have nothing against that. What is more, that is to be a guaranteed line. In other words the Government will make up to the SATS any shortfall that might occur as a result of losses suffered on that line. For 30 years various bodies in Port Elizabeth have been pressing for Port Elizabeth commuter services and yet they go ahead with Khayelitsha, while Port Elizabeth is once again neglected.

Let us look now at the population statistics in respect of the two areas. I have obtained the figures from the latest Year Book which the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs has just sent every member of Parliament. For the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage-Kirkwood area the population figure in respect of Blacks is 355 000 according to the 1980 figures whereas the Black population of Cape Town is 210 000.

I have no doubt that both of those figures are considerably understated. However, I think they do show that the Black population in the Port Elizabeth areas that I mentioned is 80% greater than the Black population in Cape Town. These people live in four townships: In New Brighton, where the northern areas have no commuter service; in KwaZakhele; in Zwide; and there is now a new township which started a couple of years ago called Motherwell. This is on the northern side of the Swartkops River and there is a railway line that goes right past that new suburb of Motherwell. In fact, the main line goes right past that suburb so it would require very little expenditure—compared, for example, with the cost of the line to Khayelitsha—to build a branch line to provide a commuter service to Motherwell. This would be nowhere near the distance that has had to be covered by the railway line to Khayelitsha and yet as far as we can gather nothing is being done about it.

I am aware that in desperation the Port Elizabeth Municipality is looking at a light rail project that will not fall under the auspices of the SATS. I do not believe that whether that project goes ahead or not is relevant to this debate. What I do think is relevant, however, is that I believe it is the responsibility of the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs to ensure that the population of Port Elizabeth is given a fair deal and that they are able to have an adequate commuter service. We are, after all, classified as one of the four metropolitan areas of the Republic of South Africa. The other three have excellent commuter rail services, yet we have nothing. I believe…

Order! I regret to inform the hon member that it has been pointed out to me that I have no authority to allow him to speak for half an hour. The hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon member the opportunity to complete his speech.

The hon member may continue.

I thank the hon Whip.

When one looks at the unrest in Port Elizabeth, one must ask oneself whether part of the unrest there is not due to the great dissatisfaction at the lack of adequate transport facilities for Blacks to be able to get to work. We know that the buses have been a target for these intimidators. They have stoned the buses and burnt them.

I think that the northern areas of Port Elizabeth have been neglected—this applies to all population groups—and I want to ask the Government, specifically the hon the Minister, what plans they have to provide adequate transport for the Blacks in Port Elizabeth and for the people living in the northern areas of Port Elizabeth, to enable them to get to their places of work easily, conveniently and with some form of Government compensation. All the other areas get Government compensation, but our area does not.

Although I requested the half-hour, Sir, the time in fact allowed to me was 12 minutes, which have almost expired. In the last half-minute I have available I wish briefly to raise the situation in regard to the instrument landing system—ILS—at the airport in Port Elizabeth. There was a Press report—I think it was in February—which indicated that the South African Airways was going ahead with an ILS. I am aware that this matter probably falls under the Department of Transport but this ILS is going to be used by the SAA and I assume that for planning purposes they must know when they are going to use that ILS. I want to ask the hon the Minister, therefore, when it is intended that our SAA pilots are going to be able to have the advantage of this second ILS system in Port Elizabeth.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central will appreciate that I do not intend to follow him in his line of argument. In any case, I am not able to give him any answers and I believe the hon the Minister is quite capable of dealing with that matter.

*Over the years so many speakers have said so much about the SATS as the national transporter of South Africa that there is very little left to say. As recently as February of this year we referred to this during a discussion arising from the White Paper on the National Transport Policy.

In view of the fact that we probably all agree today that the SATS is the national transporter of South Africa because no other organisation or body can be, I feel we must take another close look at this concept of national transporter.

For many years we believed that the expression “national transporter” meant that it should transport everything that no other person or body could or wanted to transport. This may link up with the argument of the hon member for Soutpansberg. The goods had to be transported irrespective of whether it was profitable or resulted in a loss, irrespective of whether it was transported from a large centre to a remote area, or vice versa. The SATS could do this because of cross-subsidisation. Over many decades these services could be rendered to the country on the basis of this cross-subsidisation.

With the improvement in road transportation as a result of more and better roads, to an increasing extent the profitable high-tariff transport shifted away from rail transportation; this we know. Eventually the SATS was basically left with the uneconomic services. Now, with the advent of this school of thought of increasing privatisation, this situation has become far worse. I would even go so far as to say that the implementation of the said White Paper would be the final nail in the coffin.

Logically enough this all has a major effect not only on the country’s economy, but also and particularly on agriculture. I concede that agriculture itself is to a great extent to blame for this scaling down of services. Posibly the best example of this is the closure of branch lines.

It is a fact that increasingly farmers are transporting their goods themselves or making use of hired transport. This means quicker and in many cases cheaper transport for them, particularly after a number of substantial tariff increases on agricultural products, which were proportionally higher than other increases.

In the more remote communities the disadvantages of their own transport, such as a poorer postal delivery, fewer passenger opportunities and even less and poorer high rated traffic deliveries are so easily forgotten. These are only a few of the disadvantages, but as a whole this can easily mean that the total transport account of the entire community will be higher in the long run because of this poorer service because all they will have in the long run is a faster service.

The point I actually want to make is that it would be unwise to put all the blame on the farmer or on that smaller community. One can argue for a long time on which came first, the chicken or the egg. Nevertheless, I maintain that the tariff increases on this agricultural transport is actually to blame. The fact remains this matter has taken its course, the spiral is continuing and if will probably get even worse in future.

There is another aspect which affects agriculture very intensely and intimately. To the best of my knowledge the SATS makes use of inflation bookkeeping in its cost calculation of capital goods. I would like to apply this system in agriculture, because I would then fare better. It is clear that the gap was caused by two totally different types of bookkeeping or cost calculation. This leads to two big disadvantages. As a result the SATS is losing an ever-increasing amount of freight, and in the long run agriculture must pay more than it can afford. In his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister said that freight was increasing, but one gets “lies, damn lies and statistics”. One must therefore be wary of statistics.

One would like to argue that a closer look must be taken inter alia at the 100% recovery of variable costs, because in cost calculation this makes everything much more expensive. If one were to take a very close look—let us call it this—at a minimum recovery of variable costs, this could easily attract freight. Perhaps one should ascertain where the actual cut-off point is in the long run—rolling stock which, let us say, is standing there rusting or equipment which is being used. For that reason one can ask that we give attention to this kind of cost calculation, but after all is said and done such arithmetic or tariff determinations are not going to compensate adequately for the difference which will still exist in the long term.

As a business undertaking the SATS must recover its costs, and for that reason we agree that cross-subsidisation must be eliminated. Nevertheless it is a fact that subsidisation in some form or other will have to be retained. For that reason I feel that the SATS and the Department of Agriculture must, for example, agree to see what must be subsidised and by how much.

In conclusion I want to ask for four things. In the first place the SATS must take another close look at the tariff policy resulting from its cost calculation—in this regard I have mentioned fixed costs and the other costs. In the second place the phasing out of cross-subsidisation must please take place gradually and over a longer period of time, because it remains unacceptable for the transport costs of an agricultural product virtually to double within two years. In the third place, this phasing out, specifically on agricultural transport, must be undertaken in close co-operation with the Department of Agriculture. In the fourth place the SATS must always remain the Republic’s national transporter. This implies that it must render socio-economic services; it must serve the outlying areas of our country; and it must look after commuter transportation. These losses must be eliminated by means of subsidies from the Treasury. It is a good thing that the hon the Minister of Finance is here so that he can hear how much he is still going to pay.

Mr Chairman, I am sure the hon member for Wellington will forgive me if I do not react to his speech.

It is a great honour and a privilege to be in this House under the inspiring leadership of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and on the strength of the cause of the CP as the democratically elected representative of the White voters of the Potgietersrus constituency.

For four years I served in two Ministries as a private secretary, and therefore I should like to pay tribute to those private secretaries who have to try to satisfy everyone amid the flood of Ministers’ orders, voters’ representations and departmental files and submissions. May they experience job satisfaction and enrichment of their lives, knowing that there are former colleagues who appreciate what they do.

I am philosophical about the fact that I have to make my maiden speech amid all that is being said about the SATS. In the first place my grandfather, whose names I have, was a ganger on the SA Railways in a small place called Lowlands near Estcourt in Northern Natal, until, during the storm and stress of the war years, he was deprived of his post.

I want to pay tribute to the SATS officials for what they have meant to their employer, and to our country and people for so many years. At the same time I want to pay tribute to the SATS and to those who have guided, managed and controlled the SATS through the years, for the way in which the SATS has actually become a national heritage—a Reddingsdaadbond in miniature which provided our people with job opportunities during troubled times in their history, as well as providing them with opportunities to uplift themselves economically and to develop our fatherland.

In the second place it is fitting that I follow the figurative track and the literal railway line of the SATS as it takes us through the constituency of Potgietersrus. It is remarkable how the railway line opened up the Northern Transvaal and specifically the Potgietersrus constituency for development, as well as providing a means of transport for people, animals, products, machinery and raw materials.

The farmers, the hardened Bosvelders, are the people who tamed this beautiful part of our country and made it their home, but the railway line was the essential component of the infrastructure which stimulated the development process here.

It is significant that, with the exception of Roedtan and Marble Hall, the towns in the Potgietersrus constituency are situated all along the railway line to the north. Just north of Pretoria the railway line takes us to Pienaar’s River, where the Potgietersrus constituency begins. Then it goes to Warm Baths which became famous for its mineral spring and its climate which is so healthy that approximately two thirds of the population of Warm Baths are more than 60 years old, because they have gone to retire in that lovely climate.

There is also the beautiful pleasure resort of Overvaal, which is inundated by thousands of pleasure-seekers during holidays and over weekends. It would be a mistake to stop here, however, because if we follow Warm Baths’s railway line, it takes us to Nylstroom in the Waterberg constituency which is inter alia the headquarters of the Northern Transvaal agricultural co-operative. [Interjections.] Of course, it is also the heartland of the late Adv Strijdom, General Beyers and now of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

From there the railway line runs back to the Potgietersrus constituency, to Naboomspruit, which serves the northern part of the Springbokvlakte.

I did not even turn off on the track that takes one to Roedtan and Zebediela, the part of the line that serves large sections of the Springbokvlakte.

From there the railway line runs north from Naboomspruit to Potgietersrus and from there over the Ysterberg to Pietersburg, the constituency of the hon member for Pietersburg, and then to Louis Trichardt, Messina and Beit Bridge, right up to the banks of the Limpopo which is situated in the constituency of the hon member for Soutpansberg. Truly, a Conservative line! [Interjections.]

Potgietersrus is the chief town in the constituency, a beautiful, flourishing Bushveld town with typically Bushveld trees and vegetation, wide streets and a growing industrial area. May I make so bold as to say that this is where the Piet Potgieter High School will hold the Administrator’s Cup one of these days.

The importance of this area as a cattle region is emphasized on the one hand by the street names in the industrial section of the town, names such as Simmental, Bonsmara, Brahman and Afrikaner Streets, and on the other by the bull testing station to which newly weaned bull calves from the whole of the Northern Transvaal are brought to test their growth.

Unfortunately the railway line does not take us to the sprawling rural area, the Koedoesrand area of Marken, Baltimore, Swartwater, Tugela and Mietjiesfontein, Tom Bourke, Tolwe and Maasstroom. I saw the most beautiful scenery on the slopes of the Waterberg in the Marken district.

We have great appreciation for what the SATS has meant to this region, but we must issue a warning that rationalisation, privatisation and the reduction of services may never mean that the SATS will diminish its role in this area. No, the part our people play in trying to remain on their land even in the present unsettled economic conditions, in order to produce food for all South Africa’s people, to secure our northern boundary and sprawling rural areas against revolutionary infiltration, and to maintain a stable and happy White population, is much too great a priority for that to happen. Our forefathers developed these regions, and history will pass cruel sentence on any person or body which destabilises this community through its action or lack thereof and transfers, or permits the transfer of land ownership to alien elements.

I want to refer briefly to cattle loading pens. We notice a tendency to remove existing loading pens because of underutilisation in the present poor economic conditions. We suggest that the expense of the removal of these loading pens does not weigh up against the low, if any, cost of their maintenance and that the farming societies should in any case be consulted about this beforehand. The drought will pass and normal transport will be resumed. It is not necessary for existing structures to be broken down because of abnormal circumstances.

The curtailment of services sometimes results in a much greater disruption than one realises. As an example I can mention that in one case the suspension of a certain road motor service also caused the suspension of provincial library services. The information that the mobile library would be at a specific place at a specific time did not reach the community because the railway bus had been withdrawn from that particular route. As a result people did not turn up to make use of the library, and the library service was suspended.

I should also like to request that the N1 highway urgently be rebuilt as a dual highway from Middelfontein to Potgietersrus, but I shall address this request to the hon the Minister at a more suitable time.

In the last place, I want to pay tribute to my late father, the former member for Zululand, at whose knee I was educated in the spirit of the Afrikaner people and in the politics of our people. May I be worthy of his teaching and example in my conduct as a representative of the people in this House. It is my endeavour to take a principle-directed approach, not to subordinate principles to unfavourable realities, not to negotiate about principles, but to change and improve unfavourable realities, thereby creating new conditions for the full self-realisation of the people I have been called to serve, and in this way to help in creating a future which we, and not our enemies, desire. I should like to dedicate myself to the ideal of maintaining and developing the freedom, independence and identity of the Afrikaner people and the White people who associate themselves with the Afrikaners, on a Christian national basis in every sphere of life, because an existence without conflict requires no character.

May I conclude with a very famous quotation which is as applicable to the railway worker as to any other compatriot:

Mr Chairman, I wish to start by congratulating the hon member for Potgietersrus on the fine start he has made in this House. He made a very good speech and also presented it very well. The only thing I cannot understand is how such a smart fellow could have gone off the rails so quickly and found himself on that side of the House. Nevertheless we wish him everything of the best. It is clear from what he said that he has a grasp of matters pertaining to the SATS.

I should like to discuss a few local matters with the hon Minister because I made certain presentations to the hon the Minister and the Deputy Minister during the February session concerning the transfer of railway workshops to the municipality of Uitenhage. Today it is a great pleasure to be able to convey my gratitude to both the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister who paid a personal visit to Uitenhage. The conclusion of this matter is a source of great joy and is of great benefit to the town from a planning point of view because now the council can proceed to utilize nearly nine hectares of land to the best advantage of the inhabitants of Uitenhage.

Without becoming over-optimistic, it would appear that the metropolitan area of Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage is showing tentative signs of an economic revival. I say this on the bassis of a report in the Sunday Times of 7 June, in which it was reported:

Coupled to the general expectation that the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage area will also benefit considerably from the Mossel Bay gas project it is possible that in the immediate future we shall have a strong demand for skilled and semi-skilled labour. The economic base of this region will be expanded by this and the nucleus of this expansion will be situated in the Port Elizabeth harbour complex. The SATS is in a very good position to derive direct benefit from this new development as well because the training of their personnel has always been a very important facet of their entire approach, and personnel matters have always been accorded a high priority.

The artisans and technical personnel who have passed through the hands of the SATS’s training centres are very much sought after in the private sector and are easily absorbed by it as well, all as a result of the good and thorough training.

In the Cape Midlands area the SATS has excellent training facilities which are at present completely underutilized. In his Second Reading speech the hon member for Primrose referred to the very important fact that it is essential that proper benefits be derived from the large capital investments. Here in the Eastern Cape the SATS have at their disposal a large reserve of thoroughly trained technical trainers who are experts in their own field as well as well-equipped training schools with modern equipment that were established by the SATS. These facilities can easily be made available to the private sector.

This training is offered to all races and is available on an apprenticeship basis as well as on an adult level. At present 194 apprentices are being trained in a variety of trades. These include motorcar mechanics, boiler makers, fitters, welders and sheetmetal workers, to mention only a few. In order to get an idea of how underutilized the facilities are at present I ascertained that there was available capacity for the training of an additional 465 apprentices. That is an indication of the complete underutilization at the moment of these expensive facilities.

I should therefore like to ask the hon the Minister to ensure that a far more aggressive attempt be made to sell these facilities to the private sector or to make them available to them because the training centres can be adapted to the specific needs which the private sector is going to have in that area in the immediate future. We are therefore in a very favourable position of being able to sell this sought after and expensive service.

†The SATS must either sell their services to the public sector or privatise the centres. Training is big business, and it has always been avoided as far as possible by the private sector due to the very large capital expenditure required as well as the long wait for a return on such an investment.

In view of the Mosgas project, time is of the essence, and far from being a long-term investment this is indeed a short-term advantage of which the SATS could avail itself. We should not let this opportunity pass us by.

One such training centre is the electrical apprentice training centre in North End, Port Elizabeth. I have here their brochure. They provide an excellent training facility at R150 per week in a great variety of electrical training courses. However, because of its underutilization, it is being mooted that this facility will be closed down in the near future. I believe that an aggressive marketing policy should be adopted, and that if this is unsuccessful, we should consider privatizing this particular very valuable asset which would have a real value at the present moment.

*I want to go further. During the Second Reading debate I mentioned the enquiry by the Burggraaf Committee into the multipurpose utilisation of our harbours and in particular the Port Elizabeth harbour. They have now instituted an investigation there and it appears that only a very small part of the harbour is in fact available for private development. I have no difficulty with these findings because the security of this national keypoint as a whole is of course of great importance.

Attempts have been made over the years by the private sector without any success to persuade the SATS to make a piece of land available. Now, since this Burggraaff Committee investigation, a recommendation to this effect has been made in any case, because I read in the Eastern Province Herald that the SATS is presently considering establishing a luxury restaurant there and I quote:

I want to tell the hon the Minister that once again the cart is being put before the horse. Apparently the local authorities decided what kind of development should take place there. I think that is the wrong attitude to adopt. We are dealing here with a choice site. For years there have been applicants who have made other proposals than this one of having a luxury restaurant on this site. I believe the SATS should adopt the standpoint that this development be left to the private entrepeneurs. They and not the SATS would then decide whether there is to be a luxury or an ordinary restaurant complex or whatever on this site. I think it is a very important point in property development, namely that entrepeneurs hire the land from us. The SATS will of course only have to ensure that the final development meets with their approval.

I hope the hon the Minister will consider this and that the site which has been allocated for development be developed in the way in which the private sector and not necessarily the management of the SATS, deem best.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Uitenhage has discussed certain local issues. I did say that I agreed with him totally when he spoke about training centres and the necessity for the retention of that training centre, because inevitably the time will come when more skills are needed in South Africa. In fact, that time has already come. We simply cannot afford to lose any educational or training facility at all.

I want to come back to the question of the strike. I want to say at this stage that I believe that, in his reply to the Second Reading debate, the hon the Minister came a long way. He sounded much more reasonable in his approach to the difficult question of recognition and I was pleasantly surprised at much of what he said. His major announcement to the effect that the strike had been settled and that workers had been invited back into the SATS was indeed good news. I understand that the number returning to work yesterday was disappointing and I would be interested to hear from the hon the Minister whether or not the turnout today was more encouraging and whether there was really a flood back to the SATS.

I may say that the hon the Minister expressed grave doubts as to my knowledge on strike matters and the whole question of industrial relations. I would like to tell him that I have successfully handled and consulted on various industrial disputes in private enterprise over a number of years. I say “successfully” and I believe that I probably have much more knowledge on the subject than the hon the Minister himself. [Interjections.]

However, the hon the Minister has now stated categorically that he has no problems with the question of the freedom of association of workers. This is a step in the right direction. He went on to say that if a union seeks recognition it should do so “using the proper channels”—I use his own words.

I would be very interested to know what these “proper channels” are and, more importantly, what yardstick will be used in assessing whether a union should be recognized or not. Will it be a question of size of membership and, if so, how many members will a union have to have before it qualifies? I would like the hon the Minister to be specific in his reply because it is necessary that the details of qualification should be public knowledge. What exactly are the details of qualification required for recognition? A union seeking recognition needs to know to enable it to make approaches through the recognized channels. I believe it is only fair that the policy of the SATS in this respect should be known.

I would like to stress again that I am not arguing in favour of any particular union— this may set the hon the Minister’s mind at rest—but the principle involved is very important indeed. As a State-controlled organization a very special responsibility rests on the SATS to be beyond reproach in their handling of matters of this nature.

I want now to come to another matter and this is the question of the operation of the Sishen-Saldanha line. I am sure this question is exercising the minds of both the hon the Minister and the administration. This line has been a constant source of loss to the SATS over a period of years. I would like to ask the hon the Minister what action he is taking in his efforts to improve the situation. I realize that the unprofitability is largely the result of world trading conditions and not the responsibility of the administration but, of course, everything possible must be done to cut losses.

I am not at this stage exactly clear what the situation is with regard to the relationship between the SATS and Iscor, and I would be grateful if the hon the Minister could tell me whether or not Iscor still carries the responsibility for all or some of the deficits.

Many years ago I questioned the viability of this line in view of the distances involved. I have always believed that a line directly to the coast—perhaps from Sishen to Boegoe Bay— will cut down transport costs enormously and enable our iron ore sales to be much more competitive on world markets. The long haul to Saldanha must have cost us a lot of potential business over the years.

I want to ask the hon the Minister whether the SATS can really afford the luxury of a regional office in Saldanha when it might be possible to have the line controlled by the two systems through which the line passes—I think they are Cape Western and Kimberley. This would cut overhead costs. In addition I think the time has come to reconsider the question of obtaining other traffic for the line in both directions to try to make the line more viable. Otherwise I believe that we are going to be faced with ever-increasing losses. I really believe that one has to plan for the future and not just face inevitable losses over an extended period if we continue to export iron ore over that line.

I realize that the traffic of other minerals from the Saldanha area is increasing in some instances but I do not think that this is a final answer. I would appreciate the hon the Minister’s comments as to how he sees the future in regard to this line.

In the final portion of my speech I also want to raise the question of profits pertaining to pipelines. It is to my mind absolutely disgraceful that what amounts to selective taxation of inland motorists should continue. I know full well that the SATS have to bear certain costs that should actually be the responsibility of the Treasury in that they relate to social services rendered which are not normal to the running of a railway line. I am also aware that there is a commitment to phase out this situation. Tariffs will become cost-related, or so we are led to believe. In the meantime, however, because of the excessive pipeline tariff, inland motorists pay much more for their petrol and diesel than they should be paying, and this is grossly unfair. For the transport of petrol by pipeline, petrol users inland are paying over four times what it actually costs the administration for this service.

The hon the Minister who is raising the pipeline tariff for diesel by 12% and for petrol by 7,4% is insulting our intelligence when he says that this structural change is in preparation for a deregulated traffic market where tariffs must reflect a truer picture of costs. He says this when the profits are excessive, and he has actually raised the tariffs by 12% and 7,4% respectively! He might be bringing them into logical line, but those profits are still excessive. What he should have done is to have lowered the pipeline rates and passed the benefit on to inland motorists and diesel users. I do not see why we who live on the Witwatersrand and elsewhere in the Transvaal should be punished by carrying the costs of services which should be paid for by all taxpayers and not just a selected section of the taxpaying public.

If I have any time remaining I would like to add my congratulations to those of other hon members to the retiring General Manager, Dr Grové. I have been associated with him since 1974 when he was still the number two man and financial genius behind the throne. Since then he has become the man on the throne. I wish him well in his retirement. I hope it is going to be a very happy and long retirement and I do envy him that Bushveld farm!

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bryanston must pardon me if I do not follow his line of argument but I would like to pursue another matter pertaining to my constituency.

*I want to draw the attention of the Committee and the hon the Minister to the physical facilities at Bellville Station. When one drives past this station nowadays, one notices the date 1937 on the beautiful gables of the station building. That was 50 years ago and today is a good ocassion to review the events and the circumstances surrounding Bellville Station during the past 50 years.

However, to get perspective on this matter we must go back further in history. I should like to make use of the documentation of Dr Scheepers in his thesis on Bellville in which he described the events at Bellville Station when the first railway line between Cape Town and Stellenbosch was opened, as follows:

A total of 41 prospective passengers arrived to make use of this vehicle—as it is described here. The Cape Argus of 13 February of the same year wrote the following about this event:

I am relating this event in order to inform the hon the Minister that in the years when the railways were starting out suburban train services were already causing a problem. The financing of suburban train services was a problem then as it still is today.

To get closer to my point, we must move from the 19th century to the 20th century. In the fifties Bellville Station was in the news when the two platforms were expanded to 11 platforms. Today there are still 11 platforms. We read in the newspapers that in 1954 a subway was also built and “the subway is to be 420 foot long”. The same subway still exists today.

It is also very interesting to read the following excerpt from Die Burger of May 1954. It reads:

I want to tell the hon the Minister that this station is still standing there unchanged. For many years now I have corresponded with the administration and have addressed representations to the divisional manager who received my representations very sympathetically. However, I want to state here this afternoon that the public and other facilities at Bellville Station are in a dreadful state. When we consider the increase in the volume of traffic, it is clear that it is no longer possible to handle that number of passengers with the physical facilities available there now. So when I say …

Are those facilities segregated?

I am getting to that. In the meanwhile however I can assure the hon member that those facilities are integrated. They are not segregated.

When I therefore say that 350 trains travel through and stop at Bellville Station, I do not mean 350 per month or per week. It is 350 trains per day. Every day 350 trains travel between the eleven platforms of Bellville Station. The ticket sales in March of this year totalled 128 000 daily tickets, 10 000 season tickets, 19 000 excess-fare tickets and 4 300 main line tickets. This gives a total of 161 000 tickets. This is the number of tickets sold in March this year at the ticket office at Bellville Station.

If I can try to give hon members and the hon the Minister an idea of what the actual position at Bellville Station is, I shall do so briefly as follows. The subway I referred to, which was built in 1954, today serves as the thoroughfare for a daily peak period pedestrian traffic of 20 000 people. There are no shelters on the station’s platforms. The platforms are open. In this inclement winter weather the passengers must stand on those open platforms. In order to get out of the wind and rain the passengers move back into the subway. Now hon members can imagine the state of affairs there. Hon members can imagine what conditions are created when 20 000 people have to move through that subway in the peak period. Some passengers are coming while others are going. In the meanwhile, too many passengers are standing still. It is simply an unprecedented state of affairs. I would really be neglecting my duty to the constituency of Belville and to my voters if I did not bring this matter to the attention of the hon the Minister and ask him that this matter be accorded the highest priority in future capital planning.

I am aware of plans which were drawn up in the ’seventies—plans for the building of a new station for Bellville and for the total renovation of the existing station. I am asking that very serious attention be given to this matter.

If I still have a few moments at my disposal I should like to conclude by referring again to the history of this matter. In this highly esteemed historic document we also read that Die Burger reported as follows in 1954:

This was a request of the Bellville NP branches in 1954. This was rather a long time ago. I feel that the hon the Minister can give very sympathetic consideration to my request of 1987.

Mr Chairman, I am speaking after the hon member for Bellville, and just as he did, I want to deal with a problem with reference to a station. In my case it is a station in my constituency of Klip River.

Ladysmith’s business centre is surrounded by, caught up in and eventually stifled by a ridge to the west, a river to the south, and the railway line with the station to the east. These physical and man-made boundaries which surround the business centre cause such problems as to make town planning almost impossible. Very little can be done about the ridge or river, but perhaps one should take a good look at the advantages of moving the railway line.

I appeal to the hon the Minister to consider the situation not only from the point of view of the SATS, but also from that of the businessmen and the Ladysmith municipality. I am asking him to do so because it must be a joint effort to consider the usefulness and the advantage, or lack thereof, involved in moving the station and the railway line. If this were to take place, a turn in the railway line would be eliminated, but what is also very important is that the railway line crosses a bridge, and the bridge, which is exceptionally low, crosses the Klip River. When the river is in flood, as is often the case, the railway bridge is an important factor which dams up the river and then causes Ladysmith to be flooded. I am not saying that is the only factor, but it is one of the contributory factors.

That is why I request that the SATS take the lead in having discussions with the Ladysmith municipality to make a study of the advantages and the financial implications involved. I am sure there will be more advantages than disadvantages in moving this railway line and building the station elsewhere, where it can serve as good a purpose as it does where it is situated at present.

I also want to draw the attention of the hon the Minister to the fact that Ladysmith, and Northern Natal in particular, are developing very quickly. The district engineer and the store are still in Pietermaritzburg, however. It would be much better for us if the district engineer could reside in Ladysmith or in Northern Natal and could work there. This would mean that he could take decisions much more quickly, he would be available for consultation, and it would no longer be necessary to have constant communications between Ladysmith and Pietermaritzburg before decisions could be taken. That is why I request the hon the Minister to take an in-depth look at the decentralisation of the staff on the upper level.

I should also like the store to be moved to Ladysmith because at present goods are being purchased in Pietermaritzburg, whereas they could be purchased on tender as easily in Ladysmith. This would stimulate the businesses in Ladysmith, but these products are not purchased from us to be used by us, and this means extra railage or cartage costs. I request, therefore, that the decentralisation of staff and the store should be considered to the benefit of both the SATS and our community.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to associate myself with the hon member for Klip River, because it is a pity he did not take the railway line to the Northern Transvaal. He must solve his own problems.

I should like to come back to what the hon member for Boksburg said. He appealed to the hon the Minister to do away with hostels and migrant workers. He blamed migrant workers for the unrest at the SATS. This was typical of the other side of the House; they always want to look for a way out where they have none.

Let us take a look at what happened. For years there have been hostels. Incidentally, the hon member also referred to the problems at the mine at which two members of the security staff were murdered. He referred to the hostel system there as well. This hostel system has existed since the mining industry began, however, and since the SA Railways came into existence. What the hon member was not addressing was the cause. The cause is the militant trade unions which were approved by that side of the House; they agreed to their being established. [Interjections.] Since militant Black trade unions have come into being, we have been experiencing this problem; and those hon members do not want to admit it. [Interjections.]

I do not want to get excited, as the hon member for Bryanston did, about the handling of the strike. Let me say right at the outset that I am not opposed to legal strikes. I feel that they are the only weapon an employee has for taking action against an employer. I repeat, however, that the strikes must be legal. The hon the Minister was asked a number of times whether this was a legal or an illegal strike. The hon the Minister has not yet admitted that it was an illegal strike. [Interjections.]

I want to go further to make it clear that the SATS provides an essential service, and that certain procedures must be followed in solving any dispute. Those procedures were not followed. Instead an illegal strike took place—the first in the history of the SATS!

A few years ago the White railway workers threatened a strike when an agreement about their salary increases could not be reached. When these people made it known that they were going to strike, there were big headlines in the newspapers, for example “They are going to have problems if they strike, because this is an illegal strike”. The hon the Minister told us with a radiant face on Friday that an agreement on the SATS strike had been reached with the trade unions. He also said that the people who had committed criminal offences would not be employed. I want to make it clear that a person who has gone on strike illegally has committed a criminal offence. Consequently none of those strikers could have been re-employed if the hon the Minister had adhered to what he had said. [Interjections.]

I want to quote what we read in the newspapers:

[Interjections.] In addition there was a large advertisement in the newspaper which read: “Victory for railway workers.” One of the reports was in Monday’s newspaper and the other in yesterday’s. Then the hon the Minister told us this morning that that was not true, that no agreement had been reached with those trade unions. When one reaches an agreement with a trade union, however, a statement is issued and the terms of that agreement are made known. Besides, it is usually a written agreement.

I am quite convinced that if an agreement had been concluded, an agreement which refuted that the Black railway workers had gained a victory over the SATS, the Government would have made that known in this House on Friday afternoon, and would have denied on Monday or Tuesday morning that these railway workers had gained a victory over the SATS.

There were so many insinuations from the opposite side of the House to the effect that we did not believe in negotiation. I want to make it very clear to the opposite side of the House that we believe only in just negotiations. In addition we believe one should ensure that one negotiates on the same level as the other party. One must ensure that one is not in a worse position and that one chooses the battlefield before one negotiates with the other party. We heard ad nauseam: “The people will be given until tomorrow. If they do not return tomorrow, they will be dismissed.” This was repeated ad nauseam, but I do not know when they were dismissed. I assume they were dismissed only after 14 days.

As someone who was in the labour field for years, I am convinced that the hon the Minister or his negotiators, whoever they were, should have given the people who were striking illegally the ultimatum that they had to return to work before negotiations with their trade union or representatives would take place. I therefore accept that these people did gain a moral victory over the SATS.

The hon the Minister has experience in this field, because the company sent people to speak to him about dismissing White workers who were participating in a legal strike. He flew to Namaqualand and held a meeting there. He knows that one must go back to work before negotiations can take place. In the case of one legal strike, he supported the dismissals wholeheartedly. After this illegal strike, however, he told South Africa that he did not want to be so inhuman as to dismiss the Blacks immediately. [Interjections.]

I also want to talk about the White workers in the SATS and in other companies in South Africa. The employers called for Black trade unions from 1977 to 1979, but now that the Blacks are on strike, they always rely on the Whites to get them out of their mess. [Interjections.] They use the White workers in South Africa as a spare wheel, but once the strike has passed, they ignore the Whites until the next strike. I appeal to the hon the Minister to remember those Whites who did the work of the strikers, and not merely to say they received a small bonus. They deserved far more than that.

I should like to talk about the word “privatisation”. Just like the word “discrimination” it is used ad nauseam. We are not opposed to privatisation, but it should be implemented selectively and judiciously. [Interjections.] I am pleased that when the hon member for Primrose asked the hon the Minister when the SATS’ pharmacies would be privatised, the hon the Minister replied that he would at least have an in-depth enquiry made into the implications involved before taking a decision.

I want to mention the figures of medical schemes of which I have experience. The average prescription at the medical scheme of Iscor at Vanderbijlpark is R8,85 per member, that of the Mines Benefit Society is R55,93 per month and that of the Klerksdorp Medical Scheme is R37,27 per month. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I am very sorry I am unable to reply to the speech by the hon member for Carletonville but I do not know all that much about trade unions. In the few minutes at my disposal I want to make a speech that is more concerned with goodwill, in contrast to what he had to say.

I should like to begin by associating myself with the many congratulatory wishes conveyed to the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister on their appointment to the SATS. We all had the utmost respect for their predecessor and at this stage I should like to pay tribute to him. However, I really do not think we need have any doubt that the reins are now in hands just as capable, as this Budget has already proved. On behalf of the large number of my voters who are, or were, employees of the SATS I want to express my gratitude for the adjustments to salaries and pension benefits. I should also like to thank Dr Grové and the top management for the outstanding service they rendered to this large organisation. I want to refer here once again specifically to the way the SATS strike in April was dealt with.

It was very clear to me that the strike formed part of the Marxist onslaught on our country and, more specifically, also formed part of the radicals’ plan to disrupt the election of 6 May. We admire the tact and patience of the top management in this crisis. It is easy to say that those involved in the strike should be dismissed or even that they should be shot, but has no one ever thought of the effect it would have on a community if 20 000 unemployed people were wandering about in a specific area, or if there were streets full of bodies lying around after we had shot them? It is easy to say now that the people should have been protected from intimidation, but it does not take much to intimidate the masses today. One does not have to show them bodies because a tyre, five litres of petrol and a box of matches are quite enough.

In my opinion the way the SATS dealt with the matter was superb, and Dr Grove’s actions on television were equally superb. [Interjections.] It is wonderful to sit on the grandstand and criticise the scrum if you yourself have never been part of one. The offer and conditions of re-employment are also praiseworthy steps, and our local as well as our overseas critics would do well to take note of that.

Furthermore, I should like to register the appreciation of this House for the White employees who, without a second thought, joined the fray to deal with the crisis. This is the only point on which I can agree with the hon member for Carletonville. I hear there were people that worked day and night and did not see their families for days. Each department head of the SATS will undoubtedly have a record of who these people were and what they did.

I humbly request the hon the Minister to find out whether it would be possible to make provision in his Budget for thanking these people in a tangible way. If a man could take his wife and children out for dinner just once, and they were to know it was the SATS that was thanking them in this way for their sacrifice, it would keep the way open for help in any future crisis which could possibly make the same demands. [Interjections.]

To sum up I simply want to say we are grateful for such a moderate and balanced Budget and we are also happy to support the measure in the Committee Stage.

Mr Chairman, I think this is a suitable time to reply to some of the hon speakers who have participated in the debate. The hon member for Soutpansberg asked a question about the use of rolling stock, the hiring out of rolling stock, the conditions under which this was done and how we ensured that we would not be adversely affected by this.

I can tell the hon member that the SATS has a great deal of experience when it comes to this. We regard it as a business transaction and deal with it as such.

Although personnel and locomotives turn back at the country’s borders, the wagons and passenger coaches travel further, and this is done on the basis of business agreements which include aspects such as rental, turnaround times, maintenance and relevant conditions. Rental on wagons covers the full cost plus profit. Since the overall majority of these wagons are continually in motion, they regularly return to the Republic so that the proper maintenance can be done.

In the case of some wagons in regard to which no such condition has been laid down—they are in the minority, for example in Zaïre where we hire out wagons which do not regularly return to us—the agreement is such that any losses are borne by Zaire. Again this is done on the basis of a proper business transaction which affords us a profit.

The hon member also asked if the formula for early retirement was going to be improved, in regard to a weighting factor, from two for every year to one for every year prior to normal retirement. The answer is that we do not envisage reducing this factor. If there was any such presumption, I can only clarify the matter by saying that that is not the position.

The hon member also referred to the extent of passenger losses and asked that an outside body be called in to help with planning in regard to that matter. Again let me tell the hon member that I do not think there are more competent experts in that sphere than specifically those of the SATS. I think we have the most experience in that regard. It is a very real problem that the hon member referred to. If the hon member were to accompany me and have a look at the peak-hour traffic, he would gain a very good grasp of the extent of that problem. He would also, however, come to understand what is, in effect, being done to combat that problem. When a suitable opportunity presents itself, other hon members may also accompany me to view the situation, because what the hon member referred to is really a problem.

Is there also such traffic in Namaqualand?

Yes, when we discover a great many diamonds there or if there is a solar eclipse, there is also peak traffic.

The hon member referred to privatisation. He asked me to indicate what steps we would take when it came to privatisation. He also said that his party stood for free enterprise. I am glad that he has placed it on record here. As far as privatisation is concerned, let me tell the hon member that there is a simple rule. Those activities which the private sector can carry out better than the public sector, or just as well as the public sector can, are the activities that are taken into consideration.

There are also numerous other matters which are taken into consideration, for example strategic interests. There must be direct or indirect, short-term or long-term benefits for the public in the privatisation of any of those activities—one cannot privatise simply for the sake of privatisation. The hon member will find it all in the White Paper to which I referred.

When do we get that White Paper?

Unfortunately I do not deal with that.

Nor must hon members think of privatisation as involving something one is merely trying to sell. Privatisation in South Africa is not as simple, for example, as it is in Britain. There it was a question of the nationalisation of undertakings which were simply resold to the public. That is quite simple. Our whole set-up and development, however, has been different.

The hon member again referred to decentralisation and said that we could not decentralise if we intended to curtail those services. I want to tell the hon member that that is quite a valid argument. The central Government is looking into that matter and has decided that there must be benefits for people furnishing services to decentralised industries. Provision must be made for that, of course, whether for the SATS or for the private sector, as far as transport is concerned. It does not actually matter, because we already furnish services to transporters in the private sector who operate in the decentralised areas.

The hon member for Boksburg asked the SATS to assist in the phasing-out of the migratory labour system, and also asked that Delmore should either be moved or upgraded. It is the policy of the SATS to move away increasingly from single-quarter accommodation to family accommodation. That is our policy. Single-quarter accommodation will, however, still be necessary for many years to come. I have to say that here. It is the intention to upgrade some of the older hostels. Delmore Hostel is going to be upgraded, the result being that the number of residents will be drastically reduced.

The hon member for Boksburg referred to the low platforms at stations on the East Rand. These platforms are built according to a certain standard, but owing to maintenance to the railway line the height of the lines has increased slightly over the years. Platforms cannot now be rebuilt, but when work is again undertaken at the relevant stations— ballast-packing machines do the work—an attempt will be made to lower the rails so that the platforms again more nearly approximate to the standard height.

†The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central referred to the contribution of R2,5 million per annum made by the SATS and others towards the elimination of level crossings, and called for a considerable increase in the contributions. I can tell the hon member that negotiations are under way to increase the contribution to R3,5 million, which will represent an increase of 40%.

As far as the elimination of level-crossings is concerned, I may point out to the hon member that various means of protection, for example barriers, traffic signals etcetera are provided where justified, and the hon member’s request in this respect will receive our proper attention. I can give him that assurance.

The hon member also asked for a suburban line and service at Motherwell in the Port Elizabeth area. This matter, together with various other schemes, is presently being investigated by the interdepartmental committee concerned, and the conclusions and recommendations of the committee will be made known as soon as possible.

The hon member also enquired when the instrument landing system, ILS, would be introduced at Port Elizabeth. The answer is that this is a matter for the Department of Civil Aviation and it is not certain when this system will be installed. He may refer that question to me again in the debate on the Transport Vote. Perhaps we can deal with it then.

*The hon member for Potgietersrus delivered his maiden speech here. It is very clear that he is a very talented young man. I want to wish him everything of the best and also express the wish that he will use his talents to make a positive contribution in the interests of the position he occupies here. Heartiest congratulations to him on his first contribution.

The hon member for Wellington referred to the question of the SATS as a national transporter. He also referred to dead-end branch-lines, specifically acknowledging that the local communities had a great deal to do with that. I think that in agriculture, perhaps specifically in agriculture, a great deal of use is made of very uneconomic private transport, transport which could actually have been undertaken by the SATS. That is one of the important reasons why branch-lines are falling away. Here today I want to tell every responsible leader that the SATS really does not want to get rid of those branch lines. If, however, we have a 7% or 8% coverage of costs, for example, it is not possible to keep those lines open to transport for an unlimited time. We are doing so for a certain length of time, however, to give the community an opportunity to perhaps make adjustments as far as transport is concerned.

The hon member also referred to the cost-tariff ratio and to inflation-bookkeeping. It is not correct that additional depreciation in value necessarily increases costs. In the long term it furnishes lower costs than interest on loan funds, which would otherwise be necessary. If the SATS did not impose additional depreciation in value, and had to use loan funds, today the cost structure would have been approximately R300 million per annum higher.

There is another very important point I want to raise. If they look at the capital investment we are presenting in this Appropriation, which is an amount of R750 million—and let me say at once that we are only covering approximately 10% of our capital programme on the local capital market—hon members will realise how important it is rather to make long-term provision for capital expenditure. If it had been necessary for me to obtain the whole amount on the capital market, the hon the Minister of Finance would definitely not have been very favourably disposed towards me. It would also greatly have influenced the pressure on the interest structure in agriculture and numerous other industries.

Cross-subsidisation is gradually being phased out, but must keep pace with the envisaged programme for the deregulation of the transport market. There is a close link between the other matters the hon member mentioned and the investigation being conducted by Dr Wim de Villiers. At the moment we are giving urgent attention to that, and at a suitable time I shall again refer to it.

The hon member for Uitenhage asked that the unutilised training facilities of the SATS should, by means of an aggressive marketing campaign, be placed at the disposal of the private sector. The SATS is in favour of having its spare training capacity made available to the private sector and, in several areas, does indeed do so. In future we shall do a better job of marketing these facilities. That ought to answer the hon member’s question.

The hon member also referred to the role of the private sector in property development in Port Elizabeth. I agree with the hon member that the precise nature of such development should be determined by the private sector. I have no problem with that; I think the hon member is right. The SATS must just ensure that its interests are not adversely affected. I want to express my satisfaction about the hon member’s contention that what we did there was something of value to his community, and I want to thank him for having come along here to express his appreciation. I thank him for that.

The hon member for Carletonville said that the problems at the hostels were chiefly caused by the militant trade unions we had allowed to operate. The hon member is a person with a great deal of experience in the labour field, and I want to ask him: Does he not think that unlawful trade unions could have done the same? What is the answer? Say “yes” or “no”. That is specifically the reason why the trade unions are allowed to operate, and his senior colleagues in that party were jointly responsible for that happening. They joined us in arguing that it did not help to bury one’s head in the sand and pretend that such organisations did not exist. Then they would just exist illegally, and it is much better to deal with a lawful trade union than an unlawful one, an underground trade union. [Interjections.]

The hon member asked whether it was a legal strike. He said that I never said whether it was a legal or an illegal strike. Of course it was an illegal strike! The hon member surely knows very well that Transport Services’ legislation provides that they are not allowed to strike. It was surely unnecessary to ask such a question, because in terms of the law the strike was illegal. [Interjections.]

It did not look as if Pietie du Plessis knew that. [Interjections.]

The hon member alleged here that I had reached an agreement with certain trade unions. I did not. I stated clearly here that I had reached an agreement with three of my employees who had gone on strike. I have never negotiated with any of those trade unions. The action involved three of the employees, the negotiations took place and a settlement was reached with those three employees.

I briefly indicated here, very clearly, the terms of that settlement. I said that the principle of no work, no pay still held. That is the fundamental question in every strike: Are the people going to be paid for the period during which they were on strike, or not? I made it, clear here, from the very outset, that we were not wanting in forebearance, because, that is what one does feel for people who are forced into a strike against their will. So that hon member can use as many strong-arm tactics as he wants to, but as long as this Government is in power, in regard to the SATS we shall continue to be sympathetic and patient where it comes to people who are forced, by intimidation and murder, to take part in a strike. That is all we did in this case. We nevertheless said that we could not relinquish the principle that those who did not work would not be paid. And we have carried it out, too. We also said that those who were found guilty of offences such as intimidation and damage to business property would not be permitted to return to work. Moreover, I said that they should return to work before 15 June.

As I have said, the hon member has a great deal of experience of labour disputes, and I really hope he will be making a positive contribution in this House and not attempt to confuse the issues.

†The hon member for Bryanston stated that I now sound more reasonable. However, I have not said a single word here that I have not said before. That is a fact.

What I said here about free association I have said on television, using the very same words. That is why I asked the hon member to come forward with proof when he said I had inflamed the situation more than anything else. I think he was simply making a statement without having any substantial proof for doing so.

The hon member asked certain questions in regard to the Saldanha Bay project. Although the volume of iron ore exported is on a lower level, we are happy to say that some of the other traffic is on the increase. Since the investment in the project was written off, the line has been operating on a profitable basis. The North-Western Cape area does not have a fully-fledged regional office, but only a limited administrative set-up under an area manager.

Mr Chairman, on the subject of recognition of unions, I asked what the yardstick was that was applied by the SATS.

I shall come to that in my reply.

The hon member also asked me how many people we have re-employed. The number of people re-employed during the past three days amounts to nearly 1 000. Not as many are coming forward as we had hoped, but perhaps the message has not got through to everyone yet.

He also asked about the union recognition requirements for the SATS. The SATS is still in a process of drawing up prerequisites for recognising a trade union. When this has been completed and the labour relations structure provides for the recognition of multiple trade unions, these prerequisites will be made available. We are working on that precisely.

*In the course of the Second Reading debate certain hom members also posed questions which should actually be dealt with during the Committee Stage and which I have not had a chance to react to. The hon member for Losberg referred to airline tickets. He asked why they could not be printed here in South Africa. The reason is that tenders are called for internationally—hon members know that we are members of lata. This relates to our overseas services—and allocations are made in terms of very strict technical provisions. The required specifications cannot be met in South Africa. That is why the tickets are not printed here. The hon member for Umfolozi replied to the other questions that were put.

Another hon member also asked whether we could not do away with the plastic glasses. I do not think that was an unreasonable question. The SAA will investigate the matter, and when the hon member drinks out of a clear, hollow container he can toast the retired General Manager and drink to him out of a proper glass.

Hear, hear!

The hon member for East London North also asked us to refer to the closing down of the mechanical workshops in East London. He asked that the remaining, redundant personnel be treated with compassion. I want to thank the hon member for having raised that matter. An attempt will be made, as far as is possible, to accommodate the employees in vacancies in East London. Where that is not possible, arrangements for their placement will be made with those involved and their trade union. I can give the hon member that assurance and he may convey that to his voters, too.

†The hon member for Germiston, also in a maiden speech, asked about the elimination of steam traction in the Germiston area. That is envisaged for 1993 but if capital funds are available earlier, we shall consider the matter.

The hon member referred to Pirowville and asked that the SATS upgrade this village. In the housing programme for 1987-88 provision has been made for 32 of the 134 houses to be upgraded as a start. We will attend to the remainder as soon as possible.

*The hon member therefore had great success with his maiden speech. He must not imagine that every day is Christmas day and that things will always go that smoothly for him. I thank the Committee and shall, on a later occasion, deal further with hon members’ questions.

Mr Chairman, in earlier years we used the SATS bus services a great deal. I was once at Johannesburg station waiting for the bus and standing nearby was a man with his little boy. When the bus arrived we were all preparing to climb aboard when the little boy said to his father: “Daddy, where is the railway bus?” The father replied: “This is the railway bus.” The little boy then said: “But Daddy, why is it not on the rails?”

Today I want to discuss freight that is transported, but not by rail. This is freight that is transported by road and then mainly by private carriers, not by the SATS bus services. I want to address those private carriers today about certain things they do that are creating problems.

We have a fine transport system in this country, with an infrastructure that covers the whole country. There is an extensive rail network capable of serving the whole country, and serving it well. We find that railway lines criss-cross our cities. This is to meet the requirements of industries that need sidings and that want to have wagons on their property. For this reason railway lines have been laid everywhere in our cities.

It was mentioned here earlier this afternoon that there is an extensive rail network in the rural areas and that every small place is linked to a railway line. Stations have been constructed everywhere to check and regulate trains and the freight they transport. All those stations are staffed by people that have to see to the welfare of passengers. They also have to ensure that the freight dealt with by the SATS reaches its destination.

The need for railway lines was realised long ago. As long ago the previous century— shortly after 1890—the north was linked to the south by a railway line which ran from the Cape to Pretoria. From there a railway line was constructed through what was then known as the Republic of Transvaal to Delagoa Bay in the east. This was better known as Lourenco Marques and is now called Maputo.

Since the beginning of this century great strides have been made in railway development and many railway lines have been constructed. If we were to calculate the cost today of the railway lines that have been laid, I wonder whether we could work out an amount. I do not believe this is possible.

In addition, there is all the property owned by the SATS. There are station buildings everywhere for the use of passengers and for goods. There is the SATS headquarters and also the expensive buildings accommodating the people that work there.

It is impossible to calculate the cost of these things in monetary terms. This has all been done in order to render good service to our country, to transport passengers and goods and to meet all the requirements. I want to claim that much success is being achieved in that regard. This is thanks to the dedication of the SATS employees. They are people who earn their daily bread with dedication, and on whom we can depend. I also want to say here that they did not all vote for the hon members who earlier in this House claimed that they did. There are good people who also voted for me in my area, and the same goes for other NP representatives.

It is also well known, unfortunately, that the SATS is working at half throttle. There is simply not enough work to keep everyone busy full time. The railway lines have been laid and the offices are staffed, but we know that they could easily deal with double the capacity they convey today and we hope this will soon be the case.

The unfair competition that has arisen, particularly in respect of short distance freight that had to be transported, has allowed everything to go to the private carriers. This is increasing at a very alarming rate. Today they are no longer simply being used over short distances, but are also taking a great deal of work from the SATS, and this is causing us great unhappiness.

It is, after all, generally believed that one cannot take something that does not belong to one from the authorities or, rather, the State without being afraid of being prosecuted. Surely we know this is like not paying the correct amount to the Receiver of Revenue, and getting away with it. Unfortunately this kind of thing is increasing in the SATS, too. Some of the work of the SATS is being taken away and entrusted to private carriers as long as they simply render the service, for our economy has unfortunately developed in such a way that in many cities manufacturers no longer want to carry stock. They wait till the last minute before they need the materials and then they call the suppliers, and goods have to be delivered at very short notice. Carriers, then, do this kind of work because the SATS is simply not geared to dealing with it as quickly as necessary. This work then goes to private carriers.

If these people simply conveyed that freight, rendered good service, and continued to do so, one could possibly still turn a blind eye to it and simply allow it to happen. However, the way these people are operating is terribly wrong in two respects. Firstly, they convey freight without the necessary permits. I know what happens. I myself am a carrier and I know what happens in those circles. They convey freight without the necessary permits.

In the second place, they overload their vehicles to an enormous extent. I can mention several examples. Unfortunately, however, we see these vehicles on the roads during the day, but they are then empty because the freight is usually conveyed at night. There are no traffic policemen on the roads at night, nor any scales on which they can be tested.

The most alarming aspect is that if they are indeed caught, it makes little difference. Some of these transport contractors employ full-time advocates simply to fight cases when their vehicles are stopped. The drivers of the vehicles simply say nothing and take the ticket. They then go to court and the advocate is called in to defend them. They contest the case and get away with overloading or not having a permit. Many of them have permits but they bend the rules to suit themselves, and they get away with this in court. This means they are taking more and more freight, which they are not permitted to convey, away from the SATS. Besides the fact that they are doing this illegally, our roads were not built for such heavy loads. We know that near the Transvaal coalfields, there are roads which although built to last a long time because badly damaged within a year or two. The roads have to be rebuilt simply because heavy loads, for which the roads were not built, are transported on them.

Because of the extremely high price of lorries today, carriers think twice before replacing their fleets when vehicles wear out. In my opinion should now take the opportunity to win back that lost business so that it will once again be possible for many goods to be conveyed by rail. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I shall not reply to what the hon member for Meyerton had to say because it seems to me my contribution is going to be interrupted.

I like the sound of new diesel engines. At night I listen to them roaring along the main line to Durban, which runs past my house. It sounds very good but one still feels nostalgic for the steam engines.

I should therefore like to know from the hon the Minister what his policy is in respect of the steam locomotives that are still in use and the possibility of making them available to steam enthusiasts. There are people that gather and form clubs, and they look for items such as these. There are also enthusiasts, who try to obtain, for example, parts of old railway lines and old stations to use in parks etc. We should like to know what the policy of the SATS is regarding such matters.

Order!

I also want to know what the policy is in respect of preserving old equipment and even old implements. I once walked around a steam workshop in Pietermaritzburg and it was really like visiting a workshop of a century ago. It had the most interesting pieces of equipment and implements. If one were to close down a workshop such as this, those articles would be lost to future generations. If no people or institutions such as museums are trying to obtain these things now, what is the SATS itself doing by way of preserving such items for future generations?

There are a few other matters I raise every year simply to hear whether any progress has been made. One of the these matters is the Botshabelo-Bloemfontein railway line. Initially an express line was supposed to run from Botshabelo to Bloemfontein but of course it has not yet been constructed. In the mornings the buses travelling from Botshabelo to Bloemfontein look like a train on the road.

Order! Proceedings will be interrupted in a few minutes, so hon members may as well wait until then to continue their conversations.

Thank you, Sir. I understand from Free State committee members that each time the number of passengers at present being transported by bus is mentioned as motivation for building the railway line, the goal posts are shifted a little. The figure is then supposedly not yet high enough. What, therefore, is being planned in connection with this railway line, if anything?

Last year I also raised the question of an ombudsman.

Business suspended at 18h00.

PROCEEDINGS AT JOINT SITTING

Order! This joint sitting has been convened by the hon the State President. I now call upon the hon the State President to speak.

Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to make a brief statement to hon members.

On 12 June 1986 I declared the existence of a country-wide state of emergency in terms of the Public Safety Act, 1953. In terms of the Act in question such a proclamation shall not remain in force longer than 12 months, and a new proclamation may be issued at or before the expiry of this period.

On 12 June last year I referred in this Parliament to the background against which acts of violence and unrest are being planned and committed. On the basis of information supplied to me I am of the opinion that this background still exists. There is considerable information in this regard and I shall confine myself to mentioning that certain identified ANC-South African Communist Party representatives in Mozambique are playing a cardinal role as members of a so-called Regional Political Military Committee in the underground terrorism network in South and Southern Africa. This Regional Committee is the main channel for the provision of explosives and military equipment to ANC-SACP elements in Swaziland, from where these murderous weapons are covertly supplied to terrorists in the Republic. The Regional Committee also supplies these arms directly to terrorists in the Republic. It is unscrupulous planning of this nature which leads to atrocities such as the recent bomb explosion in front of the magistrates’ court in Johannesburg and other acts of violence in South Africa.

The Government also has other information at its disposal relating to planned acts of terror and subversion, concerning which preventive steps will have to be taken.

†I refer to the Johannesburg bomb incident too because from many quarters we are being told to talk with the ANC. Even hon members of Parliament tell us to do so. One cannot talk with the ANC without talking with its present leaders. We reject them for their philosophy of violence and terror. We reject them for living in luxury in foreign capitals while, as a deliberate strategy, ensuring the continued incarceration in Cape Town of former and now aged leaders by refusing them permission to abandon violence. We reject them for appeasing governments and groups, also from South Africa, with voices of sweet reason while planning and instigating strife, dissent and disorder that were and remain the direct cause of misery, death and destruction in the townships of their brothers and sisters in South Africa.

We reject them for intimidating companies to disinvest from our country, causing Black fathers to lose their jobs and Black children to go hungry in the townships, while they themselves attend dinners in hotels. Together with the rest of the civilised world we reject them for elevating terrorism to morality; for rationalising the horrors of neck lacing; and for claiming responsibility for the atrocities of land-mining and car-bombing.

We will not talk to these people; we will fight them—for the simple reason that they are part and parcel of the terrorist curse besetting the world of today.

*Although the extraordinary measures adopted during the past year have resulted in a decline in the visible incidence of violence, on the basis of information supplied to me by the security services I am of the opinion that if such measures could no longer be utilised, there would be a serious and real danger of another escalation of internal violence. This information refers not only to people’s intentions to cause violence to escalate but also to positive efforts to achieve this. Information also indicates that the entire Republic is still a target area in this regard and that the security of the State is at stake. In view of this I am convinced that the security of the public and the maintenance of public order is under threat to such an extent that the ordinary laws of the Republic are still insufficient to counteract the threat. With a view to the security of the public and the maintenance of public order I have therefore decided to re-proclaim the existence of a state of emergency in the whole of the Republic, including the self-governing national states. I have already signed documents in this regard.

†A step such as the declaration of a state of emergency is, of course, undertaken only after careful consultation and consideration. It represents an infringement of the rights which people normally enjoy, and requires the consideration of various weighty interests. In the midst of continuous and determined attempts to fan yet further the flames of violence and to sow chaos and disorder, it is at the same time still the Government’s duty and responsibility to ensure security, order and stability in this country.

There are those who accept the Government’s policy and others who reject it. The Government accepts that all law abiding citizens have the right to exercise this choice. There are, however, also those who, in the exercising of this choice, give approval to intimidation and murder. While they do not accept the legitimate and constitutional institutions and processes in South Africa, these terrorists and their fellow-travelers use violence, terror and intimidation as instruments. These violent activities are not acceptable to the Government. They would also not be acceptable to the government of any other self-respecting country, and will not be tolerated by a responsible government in South Africa.

The Government has repeatedly committed itself to the principle of the broadening of democracy on constitutional lines. Recent developments bear witness to the Government’s serious intentions in this regard. Strict security action does not detract from this; indeed, it strengthens the basis on which the search for a peaceful political solution can take place. Stability, law and order are essential prerequisites for social, economic and political development.

The Joint Sitting rose at 18h24.

Business resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr Chairman, I was just talking about certain railway matters when I was rudely interrupted by confession time. It was a confession of failure by the hon the State President who told us that reform demanded stability, but I think that it is the other way round, namely that stability demands reform. [Interjections.]

Order! I do not find that in the Bill under consideration. The hon member may continue.

I shall do so, Mr Chairman.

Just before we went to supper, I told the hon the Minister that last year I had spoken about an ombudsman to whom officials could go to plead their case if they felt that they could not readily put their case to their superiors without being victimised. Last year the hon the Minister’s predecessor said it was not necessary, since there were certain official channels that could be used by such people. After a report about this had appeared in the Press, I received a number of letters from SATS employees and the Public Service in general, in which they said the idea of such an ombudsman was an extremely good one. I shall read a few extracts from one of those letters. The writer says he is a SATS pensioner with 42 years of service. In addition he says:

[Interjections.] He then expresses his gratitude. He adds that there is no point in going to the NP MP because he merely makes promises, but once he has one’s vote, he is no longer interested. [Interjections.] He then goes on to explain his own position as a pensioner and says that his son-in-law …

[Inaudible.]

What is the hon the Minister’s problem?

The letter-writer then refers to certain problems he is experiencing with reference to his pension which are not specifically relevant now, but then he says—

He says that kind of thing is a general occurrence. He also says that when he broached the matter, this was the reaction he got:

I am reading only certain phrases out to the hon members to indicate …

Did you show that letter to the hon the Minister?

We shall come to that in a moment. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must give the hon member a chance to make his speech. [Interjections.]

I am reading only a few phrases to indicate that in reality a number of SATS officials, and officials in the Public Service in general, feel they cannot put their case to their superiors without being victimised.

I therefore repeat my request to the hon the Minister, who is a progressive Minister, to see whether it is not possible for him to appoint such an ombudsman. This man says in his letter:

He adds:

This example is for that hon member, because there is an NP MP over there …

Did you verify your facts with the Minister?

I want to inform the hon member that we in the opposition benches receive many letters of this nature from officials, saying that they do not get the necessary assistance from their NP MPs. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, with your permission I should like to make use of this opportunity to express my gratitude and appreciation to the voters of Durban Point for the trust which they placed in me and in the NP at the last election. It is the first time since 1910 that Durban Point has been represented by the NP in this House.

Let us take a look at the interesting history of the Durban Point constituency. Since 1910 Durban Point was represented by one Solbern of the Unionist Party. In 1915 he was re-elected as an independent. Thereafter the constituency was represented for one year by the Labour Party. From 1921 to 1938 the constituency was represented by the South African Party. Afterwards, in 1938, quite a flamboyant politician by the name of Vernon Shearer won the seat for the Dominion Party. In 1943 he was elected as an independent and in 1948 as a member of the United Party. The United Party represented the constituency from 1948 to 1977 and from 1977 to 1987 it was represented by the NRP.

†I should like to express my sincere gratitude to the Director-General and to the General Manager and his staff for this very well-written report which I have in my hand. I want to say that the presentation and content, in particular the detail, of this report is surely an inspiration for a new member. I would like to thank the people involved very much for that.

Coming closer to my own constituency, Durban Point, one of its main feeder lines is the Victoria Embankment, commonly referred to as the Esplanade. It is a beautiful double highway avenue lined with palm trees. As one travels east there are a large number of blocks of flats on one’s left. Some 6 000 residents occupy these flats. On the right hand side, on the side of the bay, is a feeder line of the SATS that transports goods from Maydon Wharf to the harbour. In fact, that is the only line on that side of the harbour along which goods can be transported in and out of the harbour. As a result of this, my constituents sometimes have sleepless nights when these trains travel up and down conveying goods.

I appeal to the hon the Minister to see whether any consideration can be given to transporting goods during the daytime up to possibly the early hours of the evening. I know that one cannot make demands but I believe that I have made a very cordial request of the hon the Minister to give due consideration to my constituents who are sometimes greatly inconvenienced by the volume of noise made by the trains hooting as they travel up and down.

Turning to a financial matter, it is customary for the SATS to pay a grant to the provinces every year in lieu of licence fees for their vehicles. I should like to speak about Natal in particular.

In the 1986-87 budget, an amount of R198 000 was allocated in lieu of licence fees. I have an accurate figure here provided by the Provincial Secretary. It is calculated that if we were to collect licence fees for the vehicles used by the SATS, these would amount to R2 410 710. That is a considerable sum. In fact, when one looks at the year 1987-88, the estimated figure is R2 784 370. One can see that there is tremendous discrepancy there.

In addition to the grant which we receive from the SATS, what I want to call a special rate is allowed in that we receive a discount on goods transported by train for the provincial services. That sum amounts to R566 693. Therefore, when one considers both the grant and the discount which we receive in respect of the transport of provincial goods by train and by road, one sees that the combined total amounts to R764 693. When we also look at the projected figure for the 1987-88 financial year, we arrive at the large total of R841 162. However, that still means that the Province of Natal will lose almost R2 million during the coming financial year.

I sincerely hope that the department will give serious consideration to increasing the grant in the next financial year. Obviously, this cannot be done in the current financial year, but consideration should certainly be given to doing so in the 1988-89 financial year.

Mr Chairman, it is a great privilege for me to congratulate the hon member for Durban Point on his maiden speech. It showed insight and a definite capacity for a problematical situation. His style of presentation was very pleasant and he displayed a particular expertise, which gives us the confidence that he will continue his political career in the future with great success. I wish the hon member the best of luck.

A little while ago—I think it was last week— smoking on aircraft was discussed in this debate with great success, and I want to raise the same aspect, the only difference being that I want to discuss trains. However, I do not want to discuss smoking on trains as such; it is, rather, a question of the smoke emitted by the trains themselves. It is a relatively common problem in areas that border on certain railway areas. In his maiden speech the hon member for Germiston mentioned, the atmosphere pollution caused by shunting yards. As far as Bloemfontein North is concerned, the shunting yard is situated in the Smithfield constituency, and whereas the inhabitants of the Smithfield constituency listen nostalgically—the way hon members on the opposition side discuss trains—to the whistling of the trains and the clattering of their wheels, a certain section of the inhabitants of Bloemfontein North has to put up with the smoke and the grime. I think this is rather unfair. Eighty per cent of the air pollution originates from the shunting yards in Bloemfontein. It is now the case that over the past 10 years there has been a 40—50% reduction in atmosphere pollution in Bloemfontein, and one is very grateful for this. This atmosphere pollution is ascribable largely to the presence of something of the order of 54 steam locomotives, of which 40 are kept continuously under steam in the shunting yard in Bloemfontein. This then causes the pollution in Bloemfontein North. I just want to mention that Bloemfontein is situated in a hollow. Especially in winter, when a light easterly wind blows the smoke past Bloemfontein’s only mountain, the smoke settles in the hollow.

There are regulations to which stokers have to comply in the making and stoking of fires. If these regulations are not adhered to, disciplinary action is taken and fines are imposed. One is also aware of the fact that since 1969 the number of steam locomotives has dwindled from 200 to 58. This was the figure two years ago. On these sections of the line the number has dwindled from 450 to 120. This is a significant drop, for which one is very grateful. This was the figure two years ago and it is still practically constant. One is also aware of the fact that many of the people were trained on steam locomotives and it is difficult to accommodate them on diesel locomotives. Another problem is that there are not enough facilities to service the diesels. Nevertheless, it would be appreciated if attention could possibly be given to the latter.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to participate in this evening’s debate. I should like to begin with a few observations prompted by remarks made by previous speakers during the debates on the Transport Services Appropriation Bill.

Firstly, I should like to refer to what was said in this regard by the hon the Minister on 8 June. Among other things, he prided himself on the fact that the transport strike had been brought to an end with the minimum of violence and damage. I presume other hon members might also have received a memorandum in their letterboxes containing information for use by members of the Standing Committee on Transport Affairs. One of the matters dealt with and commented on was the strike. It appears from the details provided that during this particular strike R21 million damage was caused to vehicles alone. One asks oneself on what basis the hon the Minister can then claim that this strike was brought to an end with the minimum of damage.

A second remark the hon the Minister made was that a poor reason for the strike—namely an R80 fine—should not be transformed into a good reason, by which, the hon the Minister then indicated, he meant dismissals. His argument was that the strikers should not be given a moral basis on which they could then say that their being on strike was justified.

In my opinion, this is an indication of the Government’s inability and unwillingness to take purposeful action against people who instigate strikes by means of intimidation and violence.

They are soft on intimidation.

That is correct. An hon member has just remarked that they are soft on intimidation. I should like to associate myself with that remark, because we have fallen on evil days if the dismissal of ringleaders has become the “giving of a good reason” to strikers. It shows that the Government no longer has the will to oppose these aggressors.

The hon the Minister also indicated to the House that there had been a negotiated settlement of the strike. I should like to dwell on this for a moment. There were also reports in the Press and on television according to which the hon the Minister had allegedly said that all people who had taken part in the strike were entitled to return to their previous jobs and that only people guilty of criminal offences would not be re-employed.

I should like to say at once that this statement by the hon the Minister is highly confusing. If one looks at the provisions of the Conditions of Employment (South African Transport Services) Act, No 16 of 1983, and more particularly at section 26(1) and 26(4), it is very clear that a strike by workers of the SATS is in itself a criminal offence. I quote section 26(1):

Section 26(4) reads:

By making statements of this kind, the hon the Minister is creating terrible confusion, and one does not always know what the situation is. If this sort of confusion is created among the general public, the same confusion is going to be created among the strikers. There has already been abuse of the various interpretations of what the settlement actually contains, and this provides a breeding ground for further abuses by the illegal trade unions. They can say that the hon the Minister created confusion and that they interpret it in one particular way.

It would be better if the hon the Minister said very clearly that all the strikers were prima facie guilty of criminal offences until the contrary was proved. The following question would then inevitably arise. How many of the people who participated in the strike have approached the administration of the SATS since the ending of the aggression and violence and indicated that there were grounds for the justification of their actions? How many of them indicated, with the requisite evidence, that they had been intimidated and that they had not participated in the strike of their own free will?

If one looks again at the information which was kindly provided, it seems that on 29 May there were only 1 798 applications for re-employment. I should like to know from the hon the Minister if this is the number of people who now claim grounds for justification regarding their prima facie criminal offence, namely a strike. We should like to have the answer to this.

I should like to touch upon another aspect of the strikes. Why was the ultimatum set as late as 24 April 1987? That was more than a month after the beginning of the strike. Why was the ultimatum for dismissal set only at that stage? Why was it necessary for a form of legislation to be introduced before these strikers were dismissed? Could it have been that, in terms of the Act to which I referred earlier, namely the Conditions of Employment (South African Transport Services) Act, 1983, it is almost impossible for the administration of the SATS to act promptly and summarily against striking workers?

In this regard I refer inter alia to sections 1 and 17 as well as section 19(5)(a) of this Act in which a specific procedure is prescribed. May I say immediately that it is a long-drawn-out procedure according to which action may be taken against a striker only after he has been informed of the alleged offence? He has to admit to his offence, otherwise an investigation has to be undertaken. Only after the investigation has been completed—with the reservation that there is also a right of appeal—may the administration take action against him. Is that why legislation first had to be introduced? I say all this against the background of the hon the Minister’s statements that this strike was dealt with in such an outstanding manner.

There is another aspect which, in my opinion, justifies attention. I refer to the people who replaced the striking workers. I think too little has been said in the debates about those people. I should like to address a few quick questions to the hon the Minister because I think this matter is extremely important. First of all, I should like to know if the people who filled the posts vacated by striking workers will be paid at the same tariff for the period for which they manned those posts. How many of the workers who filled these posts as an emergency measure are going to be kept on in the place of strikers who are now applying for re-employment? That was my second question. The third question is in connection with compensation for injuries suffered by members of the public who filled the posts deserted by the striking workers. What provision is to be made for them? I know of one case, for example, in which a schoolboy broke his arm very badly while he was acting in a temporary capacity. What provision is being made for this?

Mr Chairman, I do not want to elaborate on what the hon member for Roodepoort said because I think the question of strikes was very thoroughly dealt with during the Second Reading debate in this House. I am simply astounded at how far the Official Opposition still wants to go to score a few political points from this most unfortunate matter, which in my opinion was very well handled. We are very grateful it is over. I should like to leave it at that.

I should like to discuss a matter that was referred to in the House earlier this evening. The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central referred to level crossings and the hon the Minister reacted. I made a few enquiries and did a little research on the safety situation regarding level crossings. To my dismay I received the following information from the National Road Safety Council. Over the past five years there were no fewer than 3 046 accidents or collisions at level crossings. Moreover, 98 of these 3 046 accidents were fatal and 159 people lost their lives. Of these accidents 143 were serious and 335 people were seriously injured. Those with less serious injuries numbered 420, and 894 people suffered relatively minor injuries. If we look at the figures for 1986, however, we find the following shocking information. During last year alone there were 1 189 accidents at level crossings, of which 23 were fatal and in which 27 people lost their lives. Of these accidents, 55 were serious and 82 people lost their lives. There were 157 less serious accidents in which 263 people were injured.

I do not want to spell out this evening the costs resulting from accidents. However, if we look at the costs resulting from a motor accident, I have to conclude that it could come to the same amount as in the case of an accident at a level crossing. The costs resulting from these accidents must therefore amount to enormous sums. As early as in 1960 a fund was established by law to finance the elimination of these level crossings. This fund is generally referred to as the LCEF, which stands for the Level Crossings Elimination Fund. At that stage 588 level crossings had been identified and placed on the elimination list, and certain norms were established according to which priorities were determined for the elimination of those crossings.

Fortunately it was also decided at that stage that all new crossings, in other words those constructed after 1960, had to be eliminated by the institution that had constructed them, for example the SATS or the Roads Department. By the end of 1986, 352 crossings had been eliminated at a total cost of R113 million. The average cost per elimination was only R321 000. During 1986 only one crossing was completely eliminated and this was fortunately the one in the Free State, at Steynsrus. Although this crossing had been eliminated previously, the funds were made available only at that stage. At the moment there are still seven under construction.

According to the list of priorities drawn up by this committee, there are still 79 level crossings—of which four are in the Free State—which in terms of their five-year programme have to be eliminated. Two of the 79, both in the Free State, have actually already been eliminated because, since only a limited amount of money is available each year, the province or whoever is responsible will have to wait for funds and will therefore also have to wait to build that road. As a result, the provinces are going ahead with the elimination of crossings and are then simply waiting until the funds for that elimination become available in terms of the list of priorities.

According to the five-year programme of the fund, five level crossings have to be eliminated every year. The average cost per elimination at the moment is almost R3 million. In terms of the funds available—I believe these amount to R10,5 million per year—at most three level crossings can be eliminated every year. One third of the fund is provided by the Exchequer, another third by the SATS, and the remaining third by the National Transport Commission.

We shall have to have toll crossings.

The hon member is correct. As the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central has already mentioned, this rule of R2,5 million per year from each of these institutions has applied since 1974. I wonder why the SATS has not yet increased this amount to R3,5 million. If one looks at the Budget, it seems as though the fund has been completely eliminated, but this is purely an adjustment because it falls under the utilisation of net revenue, whereas it is in fact a statutory obligation. It has therefore been transferred to miscellaneous expenditure and an amount of R2,5 million is provided there.

An amount of R3,5 million has already been made available in the Budget presented by the hon the Minister of Finance. It appears in the Budget. I have been informed that the National Transport Commission has also decided in principle to increase the amount to R3,5 million.

Despite the fact that this amount is being increased by R1 million per institution, in other words, by R3 million per year, it is going to be very difficult to eliminate the backlog. There are 79 level crossings to be eliminated and if we are able to do only four per year, this means it is going to take 20 years to eliminate only those at present on the priority list. Therefore in my opinion it is now time for another enquiry to be instituted into the elimination of level crossings. Where a level crossing affects only the local community, it must be the responsibility of that local community, or of whoever caused it to be constructed. If not, the fund will have to be increased considerably.

At the moment 236 of the original 588 level crossings initially identified have still not been dealt with. As far as the determination of priorities is concerned, I find this a little strange because these priorities are determined according to a certain norm that takes only the terrain into account. It is therefore based on the volume of rail and road traffic, and visibility. The number of accidents—the real problem—is not taken into account as part of this norm. I believe the time has come for us to ensure that the norm according to which level crossings are eliminated is also changed so that the safety factor—the number of accidents that have already occurred at a specific level crossing—carries far more weight than is at present the case when decisions are made regarding the elimination of the crossing concerned.

Before I resume my seat I should also like to take this opportunity, as a member of the standing committee, to convey my sincere thanks and appreciation to Dr Bart Grové, who is retiring shortly. I want to assure you, Mr Chairman, that in the short time during which I had the privilege of working with him on the standing committee, I was extremely pleased to notice how well-prepared he was when attending standing committee meetings, and performing his task. We want to wish him a very pleasant retirement.

Mr Chairman, I should like to mention two matters of a local nature regarding my constituency. The first point I want to raise with the hon the Minister relates to the bus service from Durban via Margate to Mzamba. This matter is somewhat of a sore point to people in my constituency because the SATS, I believe, have only taken note of one side of the picture. In this respect I want to refer to a letter written by the Regional Manager of the SATS in Durban and addressed to the town clerk of Uvongo. It is dated 15 April 1987. I quote:

Mr Chairman, I should, however, like to challenge that statement because I believe the main reason for changing the service is to be found in the volume of traffic that is being generated down to Mzamba. I should just like to read a letter from one of my constituents. She is a very dear friend of mine. She is a widow and she always addresses her letters to me “My dear friend”. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, I must tell hon members she is a little bit old for me. Nevertheless, she is a very lovely person. [Interjections.] Sir, the following is the letter I want to quote:

… Gee! (American expression) you have a tough task ahead of you, representing all those who voted and those who did not bother, in the ‘Reform Election’. Shall I give a list of reforms?? Ask the SATS why they think people only want to leave Durban and come this way. They have—or have they changed their minds again—taken off the only trains whereby one could go to Durban and back by daylight.

This is a very important point, Sir, because I have over 7 000 retired people living in my constituency.

This raises a second point. The town council of Uvongo, which is the second largest borough, has addressed petitions to the Regional Manager requesting a stop in Uvongo. I am the first to accept that a service must pay, but I should like to ask the SATS whether they would not consider putting on a smaller bus to cater for those older people who like to go from the Margate-Port Shepstone area into Durban for a day and back again. I think this is a very important part of their lives because they often have to visit Addington Hospital. Now that four daylight trains have been removed from the timetable it is very difficult for these people to get into Durban.

The third point I would like to raise concerns land usage in the area owned by the SATS in the Port Shepstone vicinity. The SATS has South Wharf which as we know is divorced from the main station. I had some officials down about 18 months ago to look at the South Wharf situation with a view to moving South Wharf into the main complex. The motivation for this move was that South Wharf is subject to flooding; it is inefficient for SATS to operate there because there is a line separating the South Wharf junction from the main complex; and thirdly there are four or five ha of land ideally suited to recreational purposes. This land is situated right alongside the Umzimkulu River and would make a very good recreational area.

There is room to move that complex up to the main complex on the eastern side of the existing complex. If that could be done, the South Wharf area could then be released. I believe some leases are involved there—with the Umzimkulu Lime Company and the coal company—which have almost expired, and I believe these two leases are the only things holding the SATS back. I therefore ask the hon the Minister to expedite if possible the removal of the SATS complex from South Wharf and to locate it in the main complex on the eastern side of the existing complex.

In the Oslo Beach area the SATS owns a very large tract of land adjacent to the beachfront. We looked at this land when the officials were down and it is possible to subdivide it into four to five 1 000 metre plots. The SATS will never use this land because it is adjacent to the narrow gauge. If this property were subdivided it would fetch a high price on the open market today. Beachfront property of 1 000 to 1 500 sq metres ranges in price from R100 000 to R150 000 per site. That is vacant land. I believe, with respect, that the SATS are sitting on an asset they could realise. I believe that if they put their minds to it, it could be subdivided, put up for auction and developed.

Mr Chairman, I am pleased that the hon member for South Coast has at least one friend. We share that joy with him.

As far as the hon member for Bethlehem is concerned, I should like to agree with him and to congratulate the hon the Minister on the way in which he brought that strike, which could have assumed very serious proportions, to an end.

In my contribution to this debate today, I should like to dwell on the tariff increases in respect of our suburban train services. It must be said immediately that the poorest section of our population, irrespective of race, is going to suffer most from these increases. One must remember, after all, that the increase of 10% is going to apply to everyone alike, irrespective of individual income. The effect of an increase of 10% on a monthly income of R1 500, for example, is quite different from the effect on an income of R400.

The 10% tariff increase not only disregards individual income, but also disregards the distance people have to cover to get to work from their homes. The effect of a 10% tariff increase on someone who lives 10 km from his place of work is considerably less than the effect of the same 10% increase on someone who lives 33 km from his place of work. The effect of an increase of 10% can be catastrophic if the one with the lower income lives furthest from his place of work.

It is because of this reality, viz that the further one lives from one’s place of work, the higher one’s transport costs are, that, throughout the world, the poorest sections of a country’s population live as close as possible to the city centre, whereas the more affluent people live on the outskirts. This pattern is discernible in most cities in the USA in particular, where urban development, in many respects, is very similar to that in South Africa.

This pattern does not apply in South African cities as far as most Blacks, Coloureds and Indians are concerned, however, even though they definitely make up the poorest sections of our population. In fact, the opposite seems to be true in South Africa.

I want to illustrate this with reference to the situation in Cape Town, and then want to look more specifically at how the tariff increases will affect the various race groups in Cape Town.

As hon members well know, the Group Areas Act has driven the poorest people out of such areas as District Six, Claremont, Mowbray, etc—places where many people lived so close to their jobs that they could even walk to work! One should keep that in mind. The Group Areas Act drove these people, irrespective of their abilities, out of these areas and went and dropped them on the Cape Flats—kilometres away from their workplace!

It is the direct result of this immoral policy— I say this in great earnest, Sir, …

Order! I do not want to interrupt the hon member unnecessarily, but I think he should confine himself more specifically to the consequences for the travelling expenses of the people concerned rather than evaluate the legislation in question. The merit of the legislation is not under consideration at the moment. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I am merely trying to indicate why the tariff increase is going to have the greatest effect on the people who live furthest away.

As a result of this immoral policy, a policy which was enthusiastically applied by our present hon State President, the majority of Cape Town’ s poorest residents—Blacks and Coloureds—live very far away from their places of work, and therefore they are going to be most adversely affected by another 10% tariff increase.

I should like to illustrate this by referring to the situation in Mitchell’s Plain. We must remember that the people who live in Mitchell’s Plain really had no choice other than to go and live there. It was Government policy to freeze Coloured housing projects closer to Cape Town and to develop new developments as far from the city as possible. That is why we have Mitchell’s Plain, Atlantis and now Khayelitsha. That is why Mitchell’s Plain is where it is—approximately 30 km from Cape Town.

If hon members take into account that the majority of the estimated 200 000 residents of Mitchell’s Plain fall in the middle or lower income groups, and that thousands of people in that area are unemployed, perhaps they can form an idea of the shocking effect a further increase of 10% will have on this community.

As far as rail tariffs on suburban trains in Cape Town are concerned, I should like to make certain comparisons to illustrate the problem caused by an across-the-board increase of 10%. Let us take the example of a White professional person who travels from Claremont to Cape Town. He has a wide choice of residential area, and at present he pays R26,50 per month for his first-class ticket. A Coloured professional person, on the other hand, who travels to Cape Town from Mitchell’s Plain, pays R64 per month for his first-class ticket, and he has very little choice as far as his residential area is concerned. He therefore pays more than twice what the White person from Claremont pays.

Even if the resident of Mitchell’s Plain were to exchange his first-class ticket for a third-class ticket, which would place him in the chaos of the third-class coaches, he would pay only R8 less than the White person pays for his first-class ticket from Claremont.

When we look at the effect the 10% tariff increase will have on the various people’s transport costs, the following emerges: Whereas a White professional commuter from Claremont is going to pay only an additional R2,60 per month for a first-class ticket, the most poorly remunerated labourer from Mitchell’s Plain is going to pay an additional R1,80 for a third-class ticket. That is almost the same additional amount as the commuter from Claremont is going to pay for his first-class ticket. A shocking picture emerges when those amounts are expressed as a percentage of these people’s different incomes.

†Mr Chairman, I trust that hon members will agree with me that this is a totally unacceptable situation.

Because of the Government’s housing policy, the policy illustrated by the Mitchell’s Plain, Atlantis and Khayelitsha developments, pockets of housing were created far away from the city and the existing transport systems. The result has been that the SATS at great cost has had to link up these isolated housing pockets to the existing transport system.

This has been done at tremendous cost, not only to the taxpayer who has had to subsidise these totally unprofitable lines but also at tremendous cost to the thousands of commuters who, having been forcibly resettled in these townships, have no choice but to pay the high train fares. I believe that this is pure and simple theft. To make the poor who because of this Government’s policy of apartheid and group areas have been forced to live miles away from work …

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

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it.

I believe it is totally unjustifiable to make the poor who have been forced through Government policy to live furthest away from their workplace, pay most. It is totally and utterly immoral.

In view of these facts that I have mentioned it is completely indefensible to add a 10% increase to these people’s already very considerable transport bills. If the hon the Minister and his Government want to shunt people of colour around to suit ideology it is they and not the victims of their ideology who should carry the financial burden. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, forgive this little story but, seeing that this is my maiden speech and as I am one of the very few women in this House, I cannot resist telling it.

A reporter who was interviewing Sir Winston Churchill asked: “What do you say, Sir, to the prediction that in the year 2000 women will be ruling the world?” Churchill smiled his old cherubic smile and said: “They still will, huh?”

*It is a privilege for me to participate in this debate. It is a special privilege in view of the fact that my predecessor, Mr G C du Plessis, according to what I have read in Hansard, participated in a considerable number of these debates. Oom Gerrie, as he was known in Kempton Park, was at one stage also chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport Affairs and he ended his term of 17 years in this House as chairman of the caucus. I gladly pay tribute to him.

Coming back to the debate, I read somewhere that there were two ways to travel: The one was first class and the second was with children!

As far as the SATS is concerned, I believe that there is more than one way of travelling especially if one listens to what has already been said in this debate.

I represent a constituency—Kempton Park in the Transvaal—in which the town’s coat of arms displays both a train and an aeroplane. Air, rail and road networks converge on the East Rand and Kempton Park forms an integral part. Despite the customary aircraft announcements that an aeroplane is about to land in Johannesburg, Jan Smuts Airport is in fact situated within the municipal area of Kempton Park and therefore in my constituency as well.

†Training is a very important facet of an organisation such as the SATS. One of the greatest problems in South Africa is a shortage of skilled manpower. The obvious answer is training, and I quote the words of Kwang-Tsu in the third century before Christ:

In the South African scenario with its heterogeneous population at various levels of development, the challenge is that much greater. As the White population will only constitute about 11% of the total population at the end of this century, and the vast majority of the other population groups are unskilled and underdeveloped, the need for training among all groups becomes the more important in order to keep the economy growing. The potential for economic growth in any country is totally dependent on the supply of sufficient, trained manpower. In order to achieve this, education through the formal system can only help up to a certain point. In a highly differentiated economy such as that of South Africa further training or in service training is essential so as to develop the skills of the individual within the formal work situation.

*I should like to refer to what Minister Horwood said in 1980 in this House. He repeatedly pointed out that—

Continual or continued training has already become an accomplished fact in the contemporary field of labour, technological development occurs at a tremendous pace, and the labourer must keep abreast of developments. Knowledge and skills which were sufficient 10 years ago are today often obsolete. One can ask any woman who has not been working for a number of years about this and she will tell one to what extent she feels herself to be a Stanger in a field which once she was familiar with, when she returns to the labour market.

While I am on this topic, I want to say that it might be a good idea if this department were to make a real endeavour to create opportunities to accommodate such people when they want to return; because many of them hesitate because of the unfamiliarity of the situation, which is new to them as a result of rapid development. In a country in which losing this kind of brain-power and skills can least be afforded, it seems to me to be a very good alternative, namely to help these people to become established more easily so that employment opportunities could eventually be created for those who are semi-skilled and unskilled.

My aim in expressing the abovementioned thoughts was to focus attention on the importance of training within the overall economy of our country of which Transport certainly forms a very important component. Therefore this applies very clearly to the SATS as well, with its very extensive variety of possibilities and opportunities. For this reason I very gratefully acknowledge the enormous effort which is being made by the SATS in this connection.

Although Esselen Park is not really situated within the Kempton Park constituency—most people are mistaken about the size of Kempton Park—but is situated within another constituency, Esselen Park, the Railway College of the SATS does form part of the greater whole of Kempton Park. It is a model example of the seriousness with which the SATS treats the question of training. This beautiful building which can truly compete with the most beautiful buildings in our country and which is located in a very tranquil environment, is to a very large extent the pride of Kempton Park as well. This college, with its satellite campuses which are distributed throughout the country—as well as the training centres for people of colour—is in my opinion to a large extent responsible for the very favourable Budget which has recently been presented to us here. This is as a result of the fact that the employees of these services are very well trained.

Mr Chairman, I therefore conclude with a few words of great appreciation in that we can take cognisance of the fact that the SATS is also playing its role to the full in a large-scale training programme which is ultimately to the benefit of the entire Republic of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I find it a particularly pleasant task to congratulate the hon member for Kempton Park on her “new boy’s” speech. Could one call it that? [Interjections.] Whatever it might be, it is my pleasure to congratulate her on her first speech in this House. [Interjections.] For the hon member—if the hon Transvaal leader would give me the chance, I could say a lot in the little time at my disposal—today is an exceptional red-letter day, not only because she has introduced herself to us in a most competent and thoughtfully worded speech but also because today, for the first time, she has become the grandmother of a very beautiful little Soutpansberg girl. [Interjections.]

Order!

I could go on in this vein for some time but my time is limited. We in Soutpansberg will take care that that little Soutpansberger is brought up properly and that she treads the right, firm path.

National!

In the short session at the beginning of the year I spoke to the hon the Minister about the fact that the passenger trains stopped running at Louis Trichardt and did not go further to Messina. I thought that the hon the Minister would reply to me at some stage. I should like to request the hon the Minister now, however, as a matter of urgency to re-introduce that passenger service even if it is only in the form of a passenger coach hooked onto the scheduled goods train.

Those people are imploring me for this service. They are admittedly just a small group of people but I wish to implore the hon the Minister for it on their behalf. I should like to tell him that a large part of the Black population there also needs that transport.

I should also like to put another question to the hon the Minister and request him to provide me with an answer. It has a bearing on the point which the hon member for Losberg raised regarding the manner in which Afrikaans is being neglected by the SA Airways. I can endorse the hon member’s complaint in this respect. One is simply never spoken to in Afrikaans by a member of the SA Airways unless one identifies oneself as an Afrikaans-speaking person. Only then is one spoken to in Afrikaans. Even if those hon members no longer care about their language, there are still those who do. [Interjections.] I do not mention this for any obscure reason, but simply for the sake of ensuring equal treatment of Afrikaans in terms of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Gerrit, where is your homeland?

Another point I should like to bring to the attention of the hon the Minister is the crowding out of Whites on certain suburban trains. I have a letter here from someone writing from Florida. She mentions the number of the train, 0051, which arrives at Florida at 06h55. It is a long letter from which I should like to quote just a few sentences. She says that when the train arrives at Florida, the three coaches for Whites are already half-full of Blacks. She writes:

The fact of the matter is that she is complaining about the crowding out of Whites by Blacks in the White coaches. Then she adds that the police have apparently received instructions in this regard, but they really cannot deal with the situation.

In all honesty I have to tell the hon the Minister that these situations can become explosive. This lady says that sooner or later she is going to take a can of “Doom” and spray it in those people’s faces. She says that people have already come to blows because of the situation. I think it is something which the hon the Minister and his department should look into and deal with seriously.

Regarding the strike problem, an hon member said that we should not say any more about it but, if he says the strike was dealt with well, we shall continue to question that statement. All that we want to know from the hon the Minister is with whom he reached the settlement. Did he do so with the intimidators or the strikers? If he says the people went on strike as a result of intimidation, it means just one thing, namely that he reached a settlement with the intimidators, and so the intimidators got their way, and that is a cause of grave concern to us for the future.

Mr Chairman, there are two matters which I should like to bring to the hon the Minister’s attention. As my time is limited, I hope the hon member for Soutpansberg will excuse me for not reacting to what he mentioned in his speech.

The matters I wish to mention concern the congestion on one of the main routes from the north to Pretoria and back, namely Paul Kruger Street in Pretoria. I have referred to this problem on previous occasions. The container yard and the goods shed at Capital Park were erected on either side of Paul Kruger Street. The access road to and from the container yard has recently been completed and, of course, the heavy vehicles which it caters for aggravate the congestion in Paul Kruger Street. Meanwhile, the post office workshop is disgorging its own quota of heavy vehicles into Paul Kruger Street.

The solution to this problem can, however, be found if a connecting road over the Apies River to Apies River Road can be built through a combined effort by both the SATS and the Post Office. I have no doubt that if we approach the hon the Minister in this regard—we are going to do so soon—he will lend a sympathetic and understanding ear to our problems.

Paul Kruger Street is already overloaded as a result of the high volume of heavy vehicles and taxis. In peak periods the street borders on total congestion and traffic comes to a complete standstill. The situation is so serious that the city council has already approved the conversion of Paul Kruger Street into a one-way street from the city to the north and that of Mansfield Avenue, the adjacent street, into a one-way street into the city.

It will, however, be years before this is completed. Now I hope that rumours of the suspension of certain train services to and from the north are not true, because commuters will then have to make use of buses to get to work. I sincerely hope that rumours of the withdrawal of the train service to and from Hammanskraal are not true, because the replacement of that service by bus transport will mean that those buses will have to make use of Paul Kruger Street. This would obviously happen at peak hours and would of necessity lead to the total congestion of Paul Kruger Street.

I sincerely hope that the hon the Minister will be able to confirm that these rumours are not true. If they are true, I should like to appeal to the hon the Minister to reflect very carefully on this whole matter. I also request that discussions in this regard be resumed.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to try to reply to all the representations made by hon members.

The hon member for Queenstown referred, amongst other things, to the clerical and other personnel who, during the strike, had to work many long hours to keep the traffic flowing. He expressed his thanks to them. I want to thank the hon member for Queenstown for the appreciative words he expressed here. I agree with him that these workers ought to receive tangible recognition and the Management is already giving attention to that matter. We are giving it special attention. I can assure the hon member of that.

The hon member for Klip River asked for an investigation into moving the railway line and station in his constituency. I shall ask the Management to carry out a thorough investigation into the possibility of doing so. He also argued for the maximum decentralisation of activities, including purchases by the SATS. I can assure the hon member that all activities are decentralised if this is economically justifiable. If the hon member thinks that there are any special circumstances necessitating further special attention on our part, he is very welcome to bring the matter to my attention.

I thank the hon member for Bellville for the little bit of history he gave us in this debate. I recommend that hon members do that. The undertaking we run is rich in tradition and culture. I am grateful to the hon member for also having done so here. In this Appropriation, as the hon member has probably seen, no provision has been made for any capital expansion at the Bellville station. I shall ask the Management, however, to take another urgent look at the aspects which the hon member mentioned here and about which he is unhappy. I shall ask the Management to look into this and to report back to me. I can tell the hon member, however, that large sums of money are, in fact, being spent on goods container facilities at Belcon which is near Bellville. I know that is not the point the hon member raised, but it is, at least, in his area.

The hon member for Durban Point delivered his maiden speech. I want to congratulate him on it. He has succeeded an hon member who was not a member of the governing party, but who was nevertheless a friendly, genial and patriotic individual. The hon member for Durban Point makes a similar impression. In a good speech he stated his case well, and I should like to wish him everything of the best in his Parliamentary career.

†The hon member referred to preferential rates for the SATS in respect of licence fees and similar concessions. All matters of this kind were investigated by the National Transport Policy Study Group. They recommended that all such concessions be discontinued.

I think that was, in essence what the hon member wanted me to say.

*Last year the hon member for Greytown asked for an ombudsman. We told him at the time that there were many similar facilities within the SATS and that not a single official of the SATS need fear discrimination for bringing any lawful matters to our attention. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Greytown quoted here, from a letter, a number of examples of corruption—a serious matter—and preferential treatment, but particularly corruption. If that hon member has written information of that nature in his possession, and merely keeps it to himself, he must not blame me for questioning his bona fides. If he has direct evidence in his possession, as he claims he has, at the very least he has an obligation to bring it to my attention, or else I hold him jointly responsible. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Greytown requested clarification in regard to the preservation policy of the SATS. The SATS is fully aware of its responsibility to preserve, for future generations, whatever has contributed to the development of this country. The hon member may rest assured in the knowledge that the SATS will not neglect this responsibility in the future. The SATS is selectively prepared to make surplus items, which are of value to collectors, available to bona fide collectors, bodies which are not out to make a profit. There are practical examples of rural museums in evidence virtually everywhere. All other surplus items throughout the service are very carefully collected by friends of the museums and disposed of at the Transport Services museum at the value they would have to collectors. In the case of larger items, such as locomotives, coaches, etc, from time to time auctions are held at which such items are sold on open tender.

The hon member for Greytown asked when the passenger service between Bloemfontein and Botshabelo was going to be provided. This matter, together with others I have mentioned, is also being investigated by the inter-departmental committee, after which the recommendations will be made known. Provisionally I can tell the hon member that indications are that the 80 000 commuters per day needed to make this a profitable service will not be realised for quite a long time yet. These are the provisional indications now at my disposal.

The hon member for Meyerton contends that the SATS suffers great losses as a result of unlawful road transport and the overloading of vehicles. That is indeed the case. It is unfortunately true that owing to a shortage of inspectors, unlawful road transport cannot be combated. I have every confidence, however, that these matters can be dealt with in the deregulated transport market we envisage.

The hon member for Roodepoort enquired about workers who performed the duties of the striking workers during the strike. The work of the strikers was done by the following workers: Firstly by people in the same grade whom we transferred from other depots, secondly by people in other grades in the same or in other depots and, thirdly, by temporary workers. Throughout these individuals were compensated on the basis of the scales applicable to them or overtime scales. Provision for injury to these people is the same as for any others in the same job categories.

The hon member criticised me for having said that we were grateful that the strike had been ended with what we considered to be the minimum amount of violence and damage. That is indeed the case. Damage amounting to more than R20 million means a great deal of money, but if one takes into account the scope of the strike, and the manner in which that hon member wanted us to break the strike, the damage is minimal. That hon member probably wanted us to start shooting intimidated people left, right and centre.

No, that is not true.

Yes. I do not think I could have explained, more clearly than I did on Friday, what the reasons were and why we were so patient with those people. The hon member could understand it very well, and if he thinks we should have done things differently, my only conclusion is that he wanted more violence to be used. I can give hon members the assurance that in that case we would have had ten times more damage done. [Interjections.]

So who is the guilty party?

The hon member asks who the guilty party is. That is a simple question, is it not, and it has a simple answer. Someone is guilty when the courts find him to be guilty.

Now tell us who the courts have found to be guilty.

The court itself will decide, and then the hon member can see who the guilty parties are. [Interjections.] People will be charged. I said here, did I not, that people who were guilty of intimidation, damage to business property and that sort of thing would be charged.

How many are going to be charged?

The police will decide about that. The police will decide which people they have enough evidence against. Those people will be charged, and those who are found guilty will not be re-employed. The regulations I have made were specifically designed with the purpose of having people dismissed in terms of that law. I think the hon member already knew all the answers, because I furnished him with those answers. He just wanted to see whether he could not steal a political march or two.

The hon member for Claremont referred to the increase of 10% in the case of commuters and to the financial burden this would impose upon them. As an example—he tried to make a fairly emotional political argument out of it—he took people living in Mitchells Plain, complaining that the White commuters of Claremont paid too little, if I understood him correctly.

No.

If I understood him correctly, he wants me to have people in Mitchells Plain paying less and those in Claremont paying more, because I have to get the money from somewhere. I can surely draw that conclusion. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is—since the hon member has now been talking politics—that in terms of the policy of this Government Mitchells Plain also has a representative who is quite capable of arguing the case for his own people. We sympathize with poor people who have to get to their places of employment. Of course we do.

Mr Chairman, would the hon the Minister perhaps like to tell me how a person who is a commuter from Khayelitsha can have political representation in this Parliament? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, in terms of this Government’s policy they would have representation much more quickly than they would in terms of that hon member’s policy. The voters of this country will never even give them a chance to implement any plan. [Interjections.]

It is not only people who travel by train who are poor; there are also poor people who do not travel by train.

That is wonderful logic!

The logic lies in the fact that the transport tariff for goods must also be increased for other poor people. Surely the unemployed also eat and wear clothes, and the SATS has to balance its books as far as expenditure and revenue are concerned. So it is no use making emotional speeches about that, because when all is said and done the SATS has to balance its books.

The hon member expects me to make use of cross-subsidisation, because even at this stage the Government is making as much of a financial contribution as it can. This means, therefore, that I have to increase the tariffs for high-rated goods for other poor people so as to be able to meet these costs. Although there are many poor people amongst them, commuters are, for the most part, people who are employed, and the coverage of costs is altogether too low,

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

No, Mr Chairman, I cannot answer any questions; my time has almost expired.

The hon member for Bethlehem referred to collisions at railway crossings.

It was a good speech.

Yes, he made a good speech. I want to tell the hon member that we are doing our level best to prevent such accidents and to eliminate those crossings, but it costs an enormous amount of money, as the hon member himself said. The hon member mentioned certain amounts. This also goes hand in hand with educating the public about road safety, because many of those accidents—I think the majority—are caused by people who have not heeded certain traffic signs. It is a process of educating people, but I have taken note of the plea lodged by the hon member, because it is an important matter that is involved here. I thank him for that.

†The hon member for South Coast made a plea for his constituency and asked for an improved bus service between Durban and South Coast as well as an improvement of the train timetable. Although I am told that the present services are in accord with the present demands I am prepared to ask the SATS management to have another look at the situation and, if justified, to make the necessary changes.

The hon member for South Coast also put several questions regarding the re-allocation of property use in Port Shepstone. I shall ask the management to look into the various suggestions that the hon member made in this respect. I thank him.

*The hon member for Kempton Park made her maiden speech here. She started off by speaking about two practical matters that we all have a fairly thorough knowledge of, ie government by women and travelling with children. It was very pleasant listening to the hon member; she delivered a very well-considered speech.

I am glad the hon member said she grew up in a home in which her father was a staff member of the SATS. She therefore has a knowledge of the culture and the atmosphere surrounding the Transport Services. I hope we shall have further contributions from the hon member in our debates.

The hon member referred to the importance of training. The SATS does a great deal in this sphere, and in many a sphere we do, in fact, play a leading role. The hon member made a good speech and we are glad to have her in the House.

The hon member for Soutpansberg referred to people being crowded out. That is a very popular subject, because one can easily find letters from various persons stating how they have been confronted with this problem. For example, on the strength of many such letters that I have received, here from the Western Cape too, I have had an investigation carried out on suburban trains. I found that on first-class suburban trains on a certain section of the line here in Cape Town there was a 76% White occupancy and a 55% occupancy in the first-class open coaches. I received the same arguments and the same representations about people being crowded out. So in many cases it is merely a question of exploitation for political gain. The hon member can, however, submit that letter to me and I shall furnish a reply.

The hon member also lodged a plea for a matter he has previously put to me. I shall again look into that. He asked with whom I had reached a settlement. I have repeatedly said that it was with three former employees of the SATS, and I hope the hon member has now registered that fact.

As far as Bloemfontein North is concerned, the hon member referred to smoke pollution. Let me tell the hon member that in terms of our programme to eliminate steam, Bloemfontein North is scheduled for 1995. That is the only remaining maintenance depot for steam locomotives and can therefore not be closed down now. The hon member has my assurance, however, that everything possible is being done to limit pollution by steam locomotives to an absolute minimum.

The last hon member who participated in this debate was the hon member for Gezina. He put certain matters of a local nature to me, referring amongst other things to the Hammanskraal-Pretoria commuter train service. I can give the hon member the assurance that I am prepared to talk to them about this again. The hon member may get in touch with my office and I will gladly conduct interviews with him and also with other MPs who are involved in this.

Schedules, clauses and title agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported.

Third Reading

Mr Chairman, I move, subject to Standing Order No 52:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr Chairman, before I proceed I should just like to tell the hon the Minister that I shall perhaps not be here tomorrow when he replies to the Third Reading debate. I just want to tender my apologies in advance for my absence.

I do not want to come back to the strike again, but I think there is something we have to tell each other because the hon the Minister said the hon member for Roodepoort wanted more violence to be used. That is one of the messages the NP is disseminating in an effort to get at the CP. When I was in Piketberg during the election, I heard the old people talking about all the bloodbaths there would be in South Africa if the CP came into power. [Interjections.]

If one listens to the language people use, one realises that it is exactly the same as the language used before Nixon, and subsequently Reagan, came into power in the USA. At that time there were also predictions about bloodbaths that would take place if another Conservative government were to come into power in the USA. Those are the same noises directed against Mrs Thatcher by members of the Labour Party. [Interjections.] Those are the same stories told by the old UP against Dr Malan’s NP prior to the 1948 election. They said that blood would flow, that the banks would close their doors, that factories would be empty and that money would be streaming out of the country. That is the old leftist politics which is such a well-known refrain to us that we shall not even deign to respond to it.

Let me tell the hon the Minister what the point is that the hon member for Roodepoort made, in case the hon the Minister did not hear him properly. If the Government had had the guts to put those strikers in their place on the first or second day, as it threatened to do, in line with the kinds of threats made to Zimbabwe and the states around us …

Order! The hon member may not insinuate that the hon the Minister did not have the “guts”.

Sir, I am not referring to the hon the Minister, but to the Government. It is not the hon the Minister or the top management of the SATS who took the decisions, but the NP Government. Nor did they have the guts to put school children in their place. If they had had the guts to put the Black railway workers in their place, we would not have suffered losses of R21 204 750 on damaged coaches alone. That is what it is all about.

The Government knows it all. They know the patterns of revolution that have developed throughout the world through their various stages. That Government knows that the people it is dealing with are putting it to the test at every turn and each time finding the Government wanting. [Interjections.]

†The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central, in his speech during the Second Reading debate, apparently misunderstood me in saying that I was opposed to the restructuring of tariffs. I simply expressed concern about the fact that if that restructuring took place together with an increase in tariffs the restructuring, in certain cases, could have the effect of a further increase in tariffs. That was why I questioned the hon the Minister’s 10% increase on average.

*As far as that is concerned, we are quite satisfied with and, in fact, altogether in favour of a restructuring of tariffs. In a country such as South Africa, which is a developed country, industrialists, businessmen and entrepreneurs plan their undertakings in accordance with the existing tariff structures of the SATS. If there is a too rapid adjustment in the tariff structure, it could lead to a major disruption in the activities of those individuals, particularly as far as their budgets and expenditure are concerned.

That is why I want to suggest to the hon the Minister that he issue a declaration of intent, as soon as possible, in which he clearly indicates the extent to which he intends to restructure tariffs. I want to suggest that he tells us what he is going to do over the next five, ten or twenty years. I accept the fact that his party will not be in power that long, but he should nevertheless give us an indication of how he wants to restructure tariffs. Then I think he should, when it comes to the adjustment of tariffs, bear certain aspects in mind. If decentralisation is the Government’ s objective, and the Government is really serious about achieving that objective, and if the SA Transport Services is also party to that decentralisation campaign, the hon the Minister must bear in mind that he is also going to promote decentralisation—that is my assumption—by the restructuring of tariffs. I think he also said so himself. I then think there are very important aspects that he must bear in mind. His low tariffs are relevant when raw materials are transported from the source of exploitation to the processing point. If, by way of his tariff structures, he can have the processing of raw materials done at the source of exploitation, and there is consequently a decreased burden placed on the rolling stock, he can also achieve better utilisation of coaches, containers and other similar items. This would result in a greater clarification of certain issues for industry so that they can also do better future planning.

Mr Chairman, there is another matter I want to broach with the hon the Minister. I do not want to make a political issue out of this. I do not understand him, however, when he says that his tariff increases are now 10%, but that when one takes his previous tariff increases into account, the increase is in reality, according to him, only 6,7%. Did the hon the Minister not increase his tariffs 18 months ago? Surely this tariff increase is not retroactive. He cannot therefore contend that because 18 months have elapsed since he last increased tariffs, the increase is now only 6,7%. After all, his new tariffs come into effect on 1 July.

Eli, you are a juggler! [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister’s new tariffs come into effect on 1 July, Sir. Surely he fixed them in advance. There is an increase of 10%. Why is he trying to dodge that now? If he possibly wanted to take the matter further—on a financial year basis or whatever—and only calculate this on a nine-month basis, I think it would probably be closer to the inflation rate than the hon the Minister wants to make out. I shall, however, leave the matter at that. And he does not have to furnish me with a reply either. I just want him to know that we do not understand where he gets his 6,7%. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister and several hon members of his party have made it their job to attack us on our policy of partition, etc. The hon member for Primrose, in particular, intimated that he had a major problem as far as that was concerned. He wanted to know where we would get the money to implement our policy of partition. He also wanted to know where we would get the money for the transport necessary in terms of our policy. Mr Chairman, in the coming Appropriation debate we shall speak about the costs involved in implementing this Government’s policy. [Interjections.] We shall be highlighting those items in the individual votes which relate to this Government’s policy. [Interjections.] Having done that, in the Third Reading debate on the Main Appropriation we can conduct comprehensive discussions with the hon member for Primrose on the costs of implementing the one party’s policy as against that of the other. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, it is a tragic situation in South Africa …

Your time is up!

No, my time is not up. In any event, the hon member for False Bay does not unnerve me. As far as I know, I may speak here for as long as I want to to. Nor will the hon member succeed in trying to unsettle me. [Interjections.] When one talks to the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance, Dr Marais, about the inflation rate, his attitude is—that is the NP’s attitude to virtually all the problems of this country—that one cannot do anything about inflation. Inflation is there, it has come to stay and we must live with it.

The truth is that at this stage, and in this situation in South Africa, the Government comes along and says it has these plans for those aspects of society, plans with which it is going to address this or that problem. One does not, however, find this happening. It is simply a hands-in-the-air, hopeless attitude. I think it is the same mentality one discerned in the hon member for Primrose when he asked us where we were going to obtain the money to establish that dynamic transport system.

When the hon M C Botha was still Minister of Bantu Affairs—as it was called at the time— I made a speech which was acclaimed by the NP at the time. When I projected how the Black states would develop we foresaw, at the time, that we would help them to develop so that they could help themselves. We also foresaw that in their process of development, in which the most important export commodity, for a very long time, would be their labour, as is still the case at the moment with Mozambique, Lesotho and the other Black independent neighbouring states, we would be able to have the inhabitants and citizens of those independent states commute on a daily basis, by means of express transport, from their state to the areas making use of their labour.

At this stage in South Africa—I am now coming back to the hon the Minister for a moment—we have in our tariff structure the compensatory element, as they call it, which we have always known as a transport subsidy. It is true that in the process we have promoted decentralisation, but that we are still, in fact, promoting further centralisation, because the State compensates the SATS when it comes to inter-city transport, in regard to which it is almost impossible to make a proper go of things. Those are the types of problems that the Government does not address.

I now want to come back to the hon member for Boksburg, who displayed the same attitude when he lodged a plea for housing in his constituency.

The people are already there.

He advocated moving away from one kind of housing, advocating a system of housing for married couples. That is what he did. That was his argument. Then the NP Government should tell South Africa—not in little speeches such as the hon member’s speech—that it has not made a quarter-turn or even a half-turn, but a complete about turn in regard to its race policy. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to continue my discussion with the hon member for Soutpansberg. I think the hon the Minister will have more time tomorrow to explain carefully to the hon member what that increase of 6,7% actually involves. I think the hon the Minister should explain to him in writing how that calculation is made. Perhaps that would be the easiest.

I want to get back to the hon member’s statement that they will tell us how they—that is the CP—will handle the transport policy according to their policy of partition. I have a serious problem, because the CP speaks with two tongues. The one says this and the other says that. In contrast with what we heard here, I am now going to quote what the former member for Koedoespoort, Dr Frans van Staden, said:

[Interjections.] I ask you, Sir, what is the CP’s policy? I am continuing to quote:

This speech was made on 11 March 1987 during the recent election campaign. Now I am asking: What is the CP going to do? [Interjections.] They want partition. On the one hand they say they are going to do this and they are going to reply to the many questions I put to them. Now we are hearing—I have the proof here—a different version, a version in which the CP says that everything is being given to the Black people and they are going to put a stop to this. That was after all the CP’s slogan in the election: “The NP is giving everything to the Black people. When we come into power, we will put a stop to this.” [Interjections.] Now I no longer know what to believe of that party. [Interjections.]

I would be very glad if the hon member could tell me this during the Third Reading debate—I shall not be speaking during the Second Reading debate but will wait for the Third Reading debate of the main Budget of the hon the Minister of Finance—so that we can see whether we can ascertain the sum total of the costs of the CP’s policy. They know what our policy costs. Now I want to know what their policy costs.

We must first find out what their policy is. One section of the party says: “Let us put a stop to the subsidies.” The other section of the party says: “We are going to move them all and introduce ’bullet trains’.” [Interjections.] Now I do not know how to continue with the debate, because I do not know which section of the party I am talking to. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, if you know, you must please tell me what section of the party I must talk to.

Piet, ask Andries.

I do not even want to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, because he never answers a question. [Interjections.] He is one of the two main speakers, but the hon the Leader will not answer anyone. [Interjections.]

I should like to continue, because my time is limited. The strike was turned into a political issue here. I am glad the strike has come to an end, and I should like to digress for a moment before I speak to the hon member for Soutpansberg again. I want to ask everyone to take a look at the advertisement placed by Cosatu and the Sarwhu as a trade union.

A young new Nat!

I am very proud if I am the Nationalist about whom that hon member thinks so much and says so out loud. But where do you stand in that two-legged party of yours? Are you in the group that wants partition or are you the hon member …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: … [Interjections.]

Order!

May the hon member address another hon member … [Interjections.] Sir. I am addressing you on a point of order!

The hon member is wasting my time. Let him sit down.

Order!

Can you afford me an opportunity to address you?

Order! I listened to the hon member’s point of order and he is not wasting the hon member’s time. To tell the truth he has a good point of order. The hon member for Primrose must refer to other hon member as “hon members” and not as “you” and “your”. At the same time I also want to say that the shouting across the floor of the House from the backbenches will not be allowed either, and I am speaking to an hon member who is not looking at me now. The hon member for Primrose may proceed.

Mr Chairman, forget about the hon member of the CP who has so much to say to us. We shall get back to him in a moment.

We must look at these advertisements, because they are the best example of misinformation and disinformation I have seen in a long time. Unfortunately there is no time in this Budget debate to discuss these advertisements any further, but hopefully there will be time to do so in future. I hope that the hon the Minister will deal with the forms of misinformation in them in detail tomorrow. [Interjections.]

Seeing that the hon member over there has so much to shout about I want to know from him whether he has the answers which the hon the Leader of the CP does not have for us. Does that hon member know what their objectives are with their policy of partition?

On the one hand the hon member for Soutpansberg criticises the increase and says that it is a waste of money while on the other he is asking for the additional convenience of a passenger train which must travel as far as Messina on behalf of his constituency. We have proved time and again that a passenger train or even passenger coaches do not pay.

I have the greatest sympathy for the hon member if we want to decentralise industries to his area. It will be a good thing to give Whites and other people work in his constituency, particularly because of the drought. But decentralisation costs money, and even though I know that the hon member for Soutpansberg is not going to answer me I still want to know from him who must pay to transport those goods cheaply. This remains the question which is always sidestepped in this debate. We have the problem that this question is never answered for us. We put this question first to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, but he never answered. Now we are putting it to the rest of the CP, but we are not getting a reply from them either. If at the end of the day the hon member for Soutpansberg were to calculate the extra expense of all the things he asked for the question is: Who should pay for them?

The SATS cannot continue with cross-subsidization, because the many years during which it was applied, caused their present dilemma. There is therefore only one alternative and that is that someone must bear the costs. I should like to know from the hon member for Soutpansberg if we should get the money from the central Treasury.

Where do you get money from for the other places and who pays? [Interjections.]

Where must we get it from? We are going to remove it from cross-subsidization …

Oh, you are going to remove it? Are you going to close all the places that do not make a profit?

Who must pay for it? [Interjections.] Is the hon member satisfied that we must take more money when the hon the Minister of Finance … [Interjections.]

Order! If the hon member for Soutpansberg wants to ask a question, there is a procedure that can be followed.

The hon member had many opportunities to speak, but he did not answer any of the questions. He must not come here and steal a march on someone. We must use that “Doom” to kill the flies; we must not use it for anything else. We must not simply come here and make a political issue of crowding out. Crowding out must be addressed when it takes place, but then we must not make sweeping statements about “bullets” that we are going to send flying through the veld, while we cannot even afford the present services. [Interjections.] The hon member must keep quiet. He had his chance, and now he must take what he gets, because he did not reply to us.

I get nothing from you.

The hon member is getting enough to go and think about. He must sit down and think about what I have said to him today.

I want to ask the hon member to bring us the figures in the Third Reading debate; then we can take a good look at what the costs of his policy are. The hon member need only do this part; he need not do the rest. He need only bring his figures on the SATS, because they will be good enough to see that partition cannot work in this country.

Mr Chairman, after that speech I feel a little like a spectator at a tennis match, because I kept looking from the hon member for Primrose to the hon member for Soutpansberg, and back again. My neck is feeling a bit sore. [Interjections.]

*I must say that I am a little concerned about the speech of the the hon member for Soutpansberg, because he said that he would tackle (vasvat) the people. The CP will tackle the strikers, the schoolchildren and everyone. I just want to know what he means by this “tackling”.

†It is very easy to say we are going to “vat hierdie mense vas”, but when I think of the people who support that party and particularly when I think of the AWB, I am filled with foreboding as to what the hon members on my right …

On your far right.

… on my far right mean when they say this. I am filled with foreboding.

In his Second Reading speech the hon member for Primrose quoted from an editorial in the Cape Times, in which they indicated that they thought the Budget was a good one. He must have been very happy to have found that particular quote because I think it was the only one he could find. Since he made that speech, I have taken the trouble to see what the general comment has been.

At the Third Reading it is usual to say what one believes the effect of a particular Bill is going to be. I looked at The Citizen, which is hardly a newspaper which supports my side of the House. [Interjections.] In their report, they quoted the Transport Consultative Committee as follows:

Now, the TCC represents 19 major employee bodies, including Assocom, the FCI and the AHI.

A spokesman for Checkers said of the Budget:

Pick ’n Pay were somewhat more direct in their statement. They said that the shelf prices could go up to and perhaps exceed an increase of 5%.

The Consumer Council accused the Minister of the impoverishment of consumers and of causing the degeneration of our unstable economy. We can continue in this vein.

Business Day said:

Safta have said, and I quote:

Finally the AA, which represents a vast number of people has expressed grave concern at the increases in the pipeline as well as rail tariffs of petrol and diesel.

These are just some of the adverse comments which I have lifted from the Press in relation to this Budget.

Therefore, the hon member for Primrose certainly cannot say that only the opposition parties in Parliament have said that this Budget is not a good one. It is a cry that has come from the heart of people throughout South Africa, and I believe that it is a justified cry.

In my Second Reading speech I disappointed the hon the Deputy Minister of Transport Affairs because at that stage I did not have enough time at my disposal to talk about depreciation. I am, however, going to talk about this subject every year because it is a very important subject and I believe it needs to be highlighted annually.

I want to tell this House that the SATS in its Budget for the year ending 1988, is reckoning to set aside for capital formation purposes no less than R1 214 million for depreciation out of the revenue it receives. Of this amount R470 million is to account for normal depreciation as would be applied by any private sector business and an amount of R744 million is depreciation to account for inflation.

The private sector is unable to claim this kind of depreciation as an allowable expense. Yet, in 1986-87, SATS depreciated their assets to the tune of R1 010 million and this is increasing by no less than 20%, reaching a figure in this coming year of R1 214 million. I would also like to point out that that amounts to an increase greater than the current inflation rate which is approximately 16%. That does not seem to me to be justified. It is used in order to justify large tariff increases, and when the SATS say they are budgeting for a loss of R40 million this year, they are actually budgeting, in normal private sector terms, for a profit of R704 million, because they are putting R744 million aside for these reserves. I believe that this type of practice should be investigated by a body which could look at it from a private sector and a consumer viewpoint, because it has a very bad effect on tariff increases generally.

I now want to discuss deregulation, which I think is the most important subject in the whole transport field in South Africa today. We had the National Transport Policy Study which took a long time to complete and which cost a lot of money, but which made recommendations. We have also had a White Paper on the subject. What they have made us aware of—we knew it beforehand—is that the SATS and the Department of Transport have had a stranglehold on the South African transport system for years, and that has not been in the best interests of South Africa. It has cost us a tremendous amount of money in terms of inefficient transport practices and in trying to utilise the system correctly. Thirty percent of all applications for permits from the local road transportation boards were opposed by the SATS. It must have cost them a lot of money in legal fees to do this, and it certainly cost the poor private sector transport operators a lot of money to defend those opposition motions put by the SATS. The regulations and the Railway Police, now the SA Police, have been used against the private sector transport operators to the advantage of the SATS. This has now gone so far that the hon the Minister himself is acting as a tout for the SATS.

I want to quote from a telex we received. The hon the Minister of Transport Affairs sent a telex, and I have a copy of it here, to an individual or company, and it reads:

“Unfortunate circumstances”, he says. Those unfortunate circumstances are the evil regulations that are in force. He goes on to say:

Mr Chairman, before I come to the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central, I want to make use of this opportunity to wish Dr Bart Grové, who is going to be resigning as General Manager one of these days, everything of the best. At the same time I want to say that I have come to know him as an official of the highest calibre and of very high integrity who displayed absolute integrity and honesty when he appeared before those standing committees on which I had the privilege of serving. I mentioned on a previous occasion that when one takes the calibre of the General Manager into consideration, one has no doubt that if he had been in the private sector he would have attained the highest position there as well. We therefore wish him everything of the best for the future. It was a pleasant and a particularly instructive experience working with him.

Apparently the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central always finds it difficult to maintain a balance between the role of the private haulier in South Africa and that of the national haulier or rather the SATS. Due to the hon member’s attitude I often wonder whether he has anything good to say about the SATS.

Oh, come on!

A moment ago the hon member again said in his speech that the SATS was using the police.

†In past debates, Mr Chairman, the hon member used to say that we were using the police to harass the private transport people in South Africa.

Yes, you were.

What is the actual state of affairs? The actual state of affairs is that the private haulier also has to apply to the road transport boards. It is done in the same way as it is done by the SATS. It is a question of the case which has to be presented by the various organizations.

Now the hon gentleman says that we should deregulate entirely and make transport in South Africa open to everyone. At the same time I am of the opinion that he accepted the White Paper on the National Transport Policy. Must we keep on reminding the hon member that there are eight very important prerequisites which have to be complied with? Until such time as that happens we cannot deregulate in South Africa, nor can we privatise absolutely. Unless this happens the competition between the SATS on the one hand and the private haulier on the other becomes completely unbalanced or unequally distributed. I want to remind the hon member once again of the prerequisites:

When the SATS, however, tries to cover costs fully that hon member objects. I continue:

We in South Africa have never been in a position to do anything about these prerequisites or to implement them. As far as I know, that hon member endorses the White Paper. The hon member is looking for an argument in order to create embarrasment. I think I should leave the hon member at that. I could rather make my own contribution in respect of this debate. [Interjections.]

In connection with the strikes I want to say that the hon member for Primrose referred to this advertisement. Hon members of the Official Opposition are now putting the questions they have asked here. I do not blame them for doing so; it seems to me that they were merely under the influence of this advertisement. Apparently it made a strong impression on them. I want to quote a few things from the advertisement which the hon the Minister has already dealt with:

The hon Minister has already dealt with this but the hon members are putting further questions. I want to quote further from the advertisement to point out to the House the nonsense written here:

In this statement they first say that all of them are already members of Sarhwu, but the very next moment they say the SATS workers should join them. It is therefore absolutely misleading and I am very sorry that the Official Opposition is putting questions which amount to these people having ostensibly gained a victory. [Interjections.]

†I want to say that any strike that achieves nothing means nothing. The people who decided to strike in South Africa achieved absolutely nothing except to create a great deal of misery for their own people.

I believe the people who came out of this the best are Blatu because they proved that they were prepared to help workers in an orderly and reasonable way. That is all that I want to say about the strike.

I believe the increase in tariffs is below the inflation rate; there is no doubt about that. I also think the tariff increases have been justified and that the hon the Minister has shown a great deal of restraint in this regard. The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central suggested that we were deliberately overcharging. He made this point again this evening—because we are allowing such a large amount for depreciation.

If we had had no increase in tariffs then we would have shown a terrific deficit in 1987-88. Now the hon the Minister has advised us that he is asking the SATS to go out of their way to try to show a surplus instead of a shortfall.

However, the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central clearly forgets that we have an accumulated deficit of close on R500 million. Now I do not believe that because of the increase in tariffs we are pricing ourselves out of the market.

You have no competition in a number of spheres!

No.

Who competes with the SAA?

Well, perhaps the hon member has a point when it comes to the SAA, but the SAA has only now been able to show a surplus. They have been working for quite a long time with a deficit, as the hon member will know.

I believe that we are not pricing ourselves out of the market. We are certainly trying, because we are a business, to help ourselves and to transport passengers and goods. We have done this for a long time and we are still doing it below cost. We are not adequately compensated for this, but we ourselves have to deal with an increase in input costs. The hon member knows that.

I would like to make the point to the hon member that we are simultaneously competing in an economy which has been in a very low phase of development over the past few years. If the hon member looks at the report he will see that the volume of passengers and goods transported was less than in the previous year. We could not solve the problem by increasing the volumes of passengers and goods, therefore we had no other option but to increase our tariffs. I think we have done this with a great deal of restraint.

*Some hon members also indicated in this debate that there was a lack of confidence among them about the desired growth of the economy. Therefore they did not believe that traffic would increase as desired. These advocates of doom are the very people who want to kill the economy with words and I think they are wrong.

Every reputable economist says that the Government’s policy of moderately stimulating the economy is correct. There is no doubt that consumer spending is on the increase. I believe that the level of interest rates can promote present development in South Africa considerably. Even those in the construction industry and in the civil engineering industry say that the demand for their specific activities is on the increase. Another example is that tourism is increasing. South Africa has a wonderful trade balance. Factories and industries that have been operating at half-pace and with a spare capacity report that they are faring much better and that orders for goods are increasing. Even the motor vehicle market is showing signs of a revival. Sales of luxury articles such as furniture are also improving. In this regard we are not even speaking of the export market which is being stimulated and is earning more.

Against this background we are justified in thinking that there will be a growth rate of approximately 3% in the coming year. The SATS will not benefit fully from this revival but we are now able to compete against a much-improved background. The SATS’s share of the total transport market is approximately 40%. In a regulated market its share is also subject to many factors, but what is important however, is that the SATS’s chances are better in a revived market than would be the case in a depressed market.

†The accusation has been made that we have let the commuters down by increasing fares. I have tried to compare our cost situation with that of the private sector. I went to a great deal of trouble to obtain the figures of the Automobile Association as well as those pertaining to the Public Service.

*The hon member for Claremont had a great deal to say about the costs of a journey from Mitchell’s Plain to Cape Town. I want to tell him that one cannot travel for less than those people are doing in the third-class today, who travel for just over three cents per kilometre. He should see what it costs per kilometre travelling by car. Even in a small car of 12 cubic centimetres the running costs alone would cost a person 11,6 cents per kilometre if he had to travel 12 000 kilometres per year in order to get to work. To this he would still have to add the costs of the car, even if it were perhaps a second-hand car valued at approximately R9 000. It would then cost him roughly 26,8 cents per kilometre. [Time expired.]