Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned last Wednesday, I had expressed the viewpoint that this was a “good news” budget, specifically because the hon. the Minister had not announced tariff increases. When I listened to the hon. the Minister’s budget speech, I must say that I did so with a feeling of considerable relief. The fact that the hon. the Minister did not announce tariff increases certainly surprised me, especially when I looked at his track record. That caused me to react favourably. I am most grateful that the hon. the Minister appears to have realized that the inflationary effect of tariff increases would have been disastrous at a time when our highly sensitive economy is attempting to pull itself out of a recessionary period. I admit my surprise because it is most unusual for the hon. the Minister to restrain himself in this way. In the recent past he has not hesitated to slap on increases that were well in excess of the inflation rate. On 1 April 1976 we had an increase of 11,2%. Five months after that, on 1 September 1976, we had a further increase of 9,4%, and seven months after that, on 1 April 1977, tariffs went up by another 14,6%. Last year, rather than budgeting for a deficit of R241,6 million, we had a further lift of 8,6%. Summarized, this means that in three years we have had an increase on the 1976 figure of over 50%.

You said that last year.

In the past the inflationary spiral resulted in rates being lifted, contributing to further inflation. So we never seem to get anywhere.

Now, the mere fact that the hon. the Minister has taken his courage in his hands and not raised rates to cover escalating costs, is so unusual that I venture to suggest that if the Railways were a horse and the hon. the Minister was its trainer, he would be up before the stewards to explain the unexpectedly improved performance of his charge. I must give the hon. the Minister his due by saying that I believe he has done the correct thing.

However, when one examines the background of his decision, I believe there is room for considerable disquiet, also in view of some of the things the hon. the Minister and members of the Railway Administration have said on television and elsewhere since the presentation of his Railway budget.

The budget shows an estimated shortfall of R201,3 million plus an additional amount of approximately R70 million for increased fuel costs, making a total deficit of approximately R270 million. Faced with an estimated shortfall of R241 million last year, the hon. the Minister immediately increased tariffs, saying (Hansard, 1978, col. 2095)—

That is what the hon. the Minister said on 1 March 1978. Why is the hon. the Minister reacting differently this year when last year, faced with a smaller deficit, he claimed he was compelled by law to take action? Why does the law not compel him to do the same thing this year? In all fairness, I think that some of the reasons given by the hon. the Minister in his speech are valid. However, I think it is necessary that hon. members should scrutinize closely the trends which have made the hon. the Minister react so unexpectedly.

He has said that it is his intention to take certain positive measures during the course of this year, measures aimed at reducing the deficit as far as possible. Well, it would perhaps be somewhat ungenerous of me to ask him why he did not take these positive measures last year or the year before, because I think we can all agree that, as a result of certain factors, there is cause for greater optimism for working profitability. Massive capital investments to improve efficiency— containerization is a good example—is now beginning to bear fruit. Massive capital investments to build additional infrastructure, like the Richards Bay line, are beginning to pay off, and it looks as though, in the coming year, this line will carry even more traffic. Increased efficiency in the administration on the whole, as a result of improved management techniques, is making it possible to weed out areas of operation where there are wastages and inefficiency.

I think it is fair to say that perhaps the hon. the Minister has a certain amount of justification in budgeting for a deficit. I must say that I disapprove in principle of the whole idea of deficit-budgeting except in exceptional circumstances. However, because of the hon. the Minister’s optimism, we are at this stage not going to have increased rates and fares. For this South Africa can be very thankful. Nevertheless, uncertainty exists because the hon. the Minister is very tentative about it. He has become even more tentative since delivering his budget speech, for instance when he appeared on television. It is, firstly, quite apparent that the budget was drawn up before the increase in fuel prices was announced, an increase which has added R70 million to the estimated deficit. As a result of this the hon. the Minister is giving no guarantees. He makes no promises, and as a result a considerable degree of uncertainty exists. In fact, I go so far as to say that there is not only uncertainty as to whether or not tariffs will be raised. There is, in fact, absolute confidence that a jump in tariffs will occur before the next budget. This is surely going to happen unless the hon. the Minister is prepared to do something about it.

I believe that the time has come that the hon. the Minister should attempt to induce a little long-term stability to enable industry and commerce to plan ahead with confidence. No increases at this stage will certainly give the ailing economy a little much-needed stimulation, but in the interests of making this real stimulation we would like to hear the hon. the Minister dispensing with all his “ifs” and all his “buts” and commit himself for the next 12 months. I can well understand that fuel prices are very uncertain, but I believe that the hon. the Minister should work on the basis that if he is forced to spend more money on fuel, he must make savings in other directions which would compensate. It is the normal thing that any private enterprise operation would have to do, an operation which does not have the Government purse behind it or does not have the ability to put up tariffs to try to compensate for any losses it might suffer. I intend referring a little later in my speech to the areas in which I consider savings can be brought by.

Having called this the “good news” budget, I regret to inform the hon. the Minister that this is one of the “good news, bad news” stories. The good news is that there are no tariff increases. That is very good news indeed. The bad news part of this budget is the rationale behind this, which gives us reason for disquiet. Firstly, we must not bluff ourselves. Deficit budgeting is all very well, but if the Railways run at a loss, we will have to pay in the end. We cannot get away from the fact that if there are going to be losses, tariffs will have to be raised, unless profitability can be increased.

The hon. the Minister has said that he hopes he would be able to do this and he has indicated certain ways in which he hopes to take action. He says, that as a result of the expected improvement in the activities of especially the commercial and industrial sectors, high-rated traffic should increase by approximately 4,2%. Low-rated traffic is estimated to advance by approximately 8,1%. Let us look at this.

I would certainly agree that if the economy performs better, traffic will increase. However, I am not certain that the hon. the Minister has told the House the whole story about how he hopes to increase the volume of traffic. In this respect I have to rely on various news reports about some very disquieting statements that have emanated from the Administration. It appears that the Railways are going to use the fuel shortage as an excuse to capture a greater percentage of total traffic by taking it from private enterprise. My authority on this is the Financial Mail, and I refer to an article on 9 March 1979. This is subsequent to the hon. the Minister’s presentation of the budget. In another report in The Citizen of 6 March 1979 some startling comments are made, of which the hon. the Minister has told us nothing at all. I would like to try and summarize these comments. Firstly, we are told—this came to me for the first time—that the Road Transport Act will be amended soon in order to make it more difficult to get permits. Secondly, the Road Transportation Board will issue fewer temporary exemption permits to land goods outside free delivery areas.

I find it most extraordinary that these statements should come from the Railways. I would like to know who the Railway Administration is to dictate to a Road Transportation Board as to how many temporary permits should be granted. Is it not strange that the Railways should tell us that the Road Transportation Act is going to be amended when Parliament itself knows nothing about it at all? Why did the hon. the Minister say nothing about this in his budget speech? That is a specific question to which I would like a specific answer. It seems that we have reached the stage in South Africa where the Railway Administration dictates to the hon. the Minister, to Parliament and to the transport industry what the transport policies should be. I do not believe that they should be the arbiters about what should be done and should not be done in the field of road transport legislation. So, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether or not such amending legislation will appear before us. If so, why did he not tell us that this was one of the ways in which he was going to get increased traffic for the Railways and thereby increase his profitability? I must inform hon. members that I am horrified to think that we should be in a situation where the Administration rather than the hon. the Minister informs us that in order to get them out of trouble, they are going to kick private enterprise in the teeth, long before Parliament, which is supposed to be the policy-making body in this country, discusses the matter.

I do not believe that the Railways’ viewpoint on this matter can possibly be objective enough to come up with balanced decisions. The Railway Administration has to do its best to operate profitably in the face of competition, not to restrict the competition by monopolistic legislation. The fuel crisis is to be used as an excuse to bring traffic back to the Railways, because I am not convinced that some of the background justification provided by Railway spokesman, is valid. I shall quote just one statement to illustrate my point. Every litre of fuel per ton kilometer that is given to the Railways’ transport system, private transport has to be given 26 litres to achieve the same results. I would certainly like to see how these nonsensical and misleading statistics came into existence. I do not believe it is provable. Even if it is provable in certain circumstances, for the greater part I think it is quite unprovable. I can only presume that this must be a misquotation, as it sounds so extraordinary to me. If it is not, it is quite clear that many of the statements made obviously come from somebody with an axe to grind. I am not blaming them for this at all, because the Administration is only doing its job when they fight the cause of the Railways. Yet somebody has to be in a position objectively to examine the interests of the total transport industry, the total fuel situation and the energy crisis. In evitably Railway thinking must be subjective on this matter. If the hon. the Minister himself has made these decisions, why did he not tell us so during his budget speech? As a member of the Cabinet, it is the hon. the Minister’s right to make major policy decisions of this nature when they are necessary. It is also his right to come to the House and say that he intends introducing legislation. But he did not do so, and this is what I find extraordinary. Nobody is suggesting that there should be no control over road transportation, but we have been moving—with approval from the Railways— towards a situation of freer competition. In 1974 the General Manager of the Railways advocated a system of free competition under which the transport user is allowed the freedom to choose between all the transport media made available to him. He went on to say the following in relation to the transport of goods—

I agree entirely with this viewpoint expressed by the General Manager in 1974. Admittedly, the energy crisis is going to affect the situation, and the public interest will best be served by using modes of transport where electricity is used rather than diesel fuel. One must not forget, however, that one of the largest users of diesel fuel in South Africa, is the Railways. Capital budget spending on diesel locomotives for this year amounts to more than R49 million, with an estimated expenditure during subsequent years of more than R73 million. I believe that before deciding on the most effective use of fuel resources, a great deal more work will have to be done in order to co-ordinate and rationalize the operation of the Railways and that of the private transport operator who, I must point out to the hon. the Minister, also has a considerable capital investment to protect. But we heard nothing about this from the hon. the Minister when he presented his budget speech. Perhaps he can tell us directly, rather than through the Administration, exactly what his intentions are.

Looking at the budget, I see another “good news, bad news” situation that should be debated. In this regard I am thinking of the appointment of the Franzsen Committee, which is to investigate aspects of the present financial position of rail passenger services, particularly in relation to the costs of the socio-economic components of these services. As the hon. the Minister knows, ever since I came to this House, I have urged that something of this nature was necessary. I have described the cost of these socio-economic components of the services as a hidden subsidy. I have also said that I do not believe that it is the function of the Railways to subsidize costs that result from Government ideology. I believe that this sort of subsidy should be subjected to parliamentary scrutiny and it should be judged on its merits to be paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. In this regard the hon. the Minister has come around to my way of thinking at last. He is following the recommendations of the Schumann Committee of some years ago, and he is moving towards a cost-orientated rate structure. I am glad that, by appointing this committee, the hon. the Minister is at last doing something in this regard. That is the good news.

The bad news is that neither in respect of passenger services nor in the case of hidden subsidies in respect of certain classes of goods, are the terms of reference of the Franzsen Committee nearly wide enough. There is no doubt at all that certain goods are carried uneconomically—for very good reasons in certain instances, to encourage exports for example. Again I regard this as a hidden subsidy. I do not believe that it is the function of the Railways to subsidize exports.

As far as passenger services are concerned, I have said in the past, and I want to stress it again, that it is vitally necessary that a major rethink on policy should take place. Last year I urged the hon. the Minister to give consideration to following trends which have manifested themselves in many parts of the world. Uneconomic, long and middle-distance rail passenger services have been replaced by motor-coaches which can be run much more economically and therefore it is possible to make fares much more reasonable. I must admit that on routes which are served by electrified lines, it would obviously not be in the public interest to use motor-coaches because of the fuel situation. But for the areas which are at present served by diesel services, I believe that rationalization in the direction of road vehicles is overdue. The Railways lose a tremendous amount of money on long and middle-distance rail passenger services. It is estimated that we will lose R350 million on these services in the coming year. I believe that it would not be beyond the capabilities of a committee such as the Franzsen Committee, in consultation with the Railway Administration, to come up with imaginative answers which would herald a new and more modern approach. It is absolutely useless to continue backing a loser and although the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act does state that one has to supply this infrastructure, I think we have to look very closely at alternative ways of providing this infrastructure. There are alternative ways, ways which have been followed with success elsewhere in the world. From the way the terms of reference of the Franzsen Committee are phrased, it appears to me that all the hon. the Minister is hoping for is to get paid for his losses out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and that no real attempt is being made to cut these losses. I know that everything is being done within the Administration itself to cut losses on a day- to-day basis, but it is being done within a system which has been established for years and years.

I believe that it is necessary to take another look at that system. It is not good enough that the hon. the Minister should have a committee that is just going to look at the situation and then recommend that the Consolidated Revenue Fund pays for losses incurred on passenger services because they constitute a socio-economic charge. The committee should go to the root causes of the problem and try to eradicate those losses. It appears to me that the hon. the Minister could, at this stage, widen the terms of reference of the Franzsen Committee to include such an investigation. I would like to hear the hon. the Minister’s reaction to this.

I want to raise another aspect of Railway financing, an aspect which I find difficult to support at the present time. This concerns the policy of inflation-accounting which is currently being followed by the Administration.

There it is.

Judging from his remark, I see that the hon. member for Tygervallei appears to have expected this. I want to say at the outset that I am neither for nor against a policy of inflation-accounting. I am sure that the hon. the Minister is well aware of the fact that the accounting profession is very much divided on the whole question of inflation-accounting. I think he must accept that for any undertaking that is as large as the Railways, on whose services so much of the economy is dependent, to follow a policy of inflation-accounting is in itself inflationary, because every time the rates are put up in anticipation of inflation, it causes further inflation. With the approval of the Select Committee on Railway Accounts, contributions to the Renewal Fund was increased by 20% on 1 April 1977. A further increase of 20% was approved on 1 April 1978, and the Select Committee was then informed that a further increase of 10% was necessary for the 1979-’80 financial year— giving an additional expenditure of approximately R45 million for this year.

I went along with these increases for the first two years, but this year I voted against it. This decision to increase contributions was taken as an interim measure in that the Select Committee was informed that an investigation of the procedure to be followed in regard to the reassessment of assets was a task of considerable magnitude and that it was anticipated that this would take some time to complete. The Administration was unable, at that stage, to give us the results of an investigation that had been going on for something like two years, nor would it be able to give us the results in the near future. Having gone along with the 20% increase in the last two years, I refuse to go along with the 10% increase because I am tired of working in the dark. I believe that the Administration must, at this stage, justify its standpoint. I accept that it is a very complex task, but I believe that more can be done to speed up this process. What is, in fact, happening at the moment is that by way of this device a greater percentage of financing from revenue is taking place.

Are you against it?

Obviously this is necessary because it is very difficult to get capital at any reasonable rate of interest. So on the face of it, all that is happening is that the Administration is adopting a prudent policy to keep its reserves at a safe level in an inflationary situation. I must make it clear, however, that experts in the field disagree strongly on this matter. The Receiver of Revenue, for example, allows no private enterprise operation, which adopts inflation accounting methods, to get tax relief as a result. So one finds that it is not regarded as acceptable if carried out by private enterprise, but is acceptable for the Government-controlled Railways Administration.

But they do not get tax relief.

I believe that there is a lot of substance in the arguments against inflation-accounting. Should one appropriate for renewals expenditure, as and when the expenditure occurs, or should one anticipate inflation and compensate accordingly? Private enterprise organizations that do not adopt inflation-accounting methods tend to have a more conservative approach to capital spending, knowing that they have to keep something in reserve, and I think this is highly desirable. I also believe that by adopting these methods, a degree of parliamentary scrutiny is lost, something that is not in the interests of good government.

I believe that capital spending tends to get lost because one has relied so much on the Renewals Fund to finance capital expenditure. I am quite willing to be convinced either way, provided the facts are before me. Until then, however, I must oppose this because the inevitable result is the raising of tariffs to enlarge the reserves, and I am not sure that the country can afford this.

I must give a little credit to the hon. the Minister for some of his concessions. I believe that the containerization concessions are not only in the interests of consumers, but are also in the interests of the Railways Administration itself since they take the heat off peak periods. I am also interested in the transportation concession for small livestock. Obviously the hon. the Minister has grown tired of the hundreds of trucks throughout the country which, although they are supposed to be transporting livestock, are in fact standing idle. I am reminded, for example, of some standing in the old Tzaneen yard, trucks that have been there for so long that the weeds have covered them to such an extent that they are scarcely visible. The hon. the Minister, having raised livestock tariffs by over 400% in a very short period, has now suddenly realized that he has done damage to the farmers and has decided that he has to do something about that. I think that we must appreciate, however, that this applies only to small livestock. To larger animals it simply does not apply.

Obviously the hon. the Minister is here playing political games. Even when one looks at the overall budget, one wonders whether, the hon. the Minister is not playing political games as well. I say this because last year, with a deficit of R241 million pending, he was forced by law to increase his tariffs, whilst this year, with a deficit of R270 million pending, he does not do so. This seems to indicate something, but I am not quite sure what it does indicate. Perhaps it indicates that we might be approaching an election. I would not be at all surprised if, at this stage, the Government is doing everything it possibly can to increase its popularity. The hon. the Minister, of course, knows that if he were to increase tariffs at this stage, he would not increase his popularity with the business sector. There is, of course, another possibility involved. Perhaps the hon. the Minister has got to the stage, in his own political career, of wanting to be the good guy instead of the bad guy.

About time, too!

My colleague here says “about time, too”!

It is about time we saw a good guy!

As I have said, I call this the “good news, bad news” budget I think we must congratulate the hon. the Minister on not increasing tariffs, but for the reasons I have enumerated in my speech, I move the following amendment—

1. (1) has refused to give an undertaking that there will be no tariff increases later in this financial year;
2. (2) has failed, to the detriment of the public interest, to effect the essential close co-operation in the field of public transport between the State and free enterprise; and
3. (3) has failed to take steps to bring about the essential rationalization of services, especially in respect of passenger services,
   and therefore declines to pass the Second Reading of the Railways and Harbours Appropriation Bill.”.

Mr. Speaker, before addressing the hon. member for Orange Grove I feel that in the circumstances, and due to a number of factors, I must in the first instance address myself to the hon. the Minister. I want to put a question to the hon. the Minister—hope he is listening. I want to ask him what he has been up to now. [Interjections.] I have been a supporter of the hon. the Minister for some time now …

Why do you not write him a letter?

… and the man who bowls after him in this debate. I want to say that I have seldom been so frustrated as I am this afternoon. What has the hon. the Minister been up to? He has entered the field and bowled everyone out. He expects me to follow him, but there are no batters left, there is no wicket and there are no fielders. All that is left is a ring with, inside the ring, the words “thank you”. I now have to bowl out the “thank yous”.

Sit down!

Secondly, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he expects me only to say “thank you for all the thank yous” and then to sit down? I am not quite happy about this. I must make a complaint to him.

The hon. the Minister has come up with this budget at a time when the public and the people as a whole have been exhorted, often by way of stringent measures, to make sacrifices on various fronts. Over the past year and longer, we have had a period of price increases on almost all fronts. Analysing this, we have come to the conclusion that these have been sacrifices we had to make in the interests of the capitalization of the majority of the national projects and enterprises because foreign loan capital was difficult to obtain and the interest rates were disproportionately high. This is the psychosis that was created.

Therefore, whereas we all expected that we should have to make a sacrifice and a contribution in this regard as well, the hon. the Minister has come up with a budget which, in the first place, entails no tariff increases. Secondly, the budget includes a salary increase for the staff, and provision is made for payment of additional pension benefits—even after bonuses to the value of approximately R25 million have been paid to the staff. Quite apart from this, the hon. the Minister has also given the agricultural sector an undertaking, contrary to all expectation, that as far as the conveyance of sheep is concerned, he will make a concession as soon as the three-deck truck service is introduced, which will entail the present cost being reduced by as much as one-third. There is yet another concession which will result in the expenses of those who wish to make use of the container services after hours dropping by 15%, whereas the expenses of those who wish to unload containers after hours will drop by 25%. I want to ask the hon. the Minister in all sincerity what is going on here. [Interjections.]

Having studied this budget I gave very serious consideration to offering to tell the hon. member for Orange Grove and other hon. members without hesitation that the hon. the Minister deserves a statue; or whether they do not wish to co-operate in this regard? However, I am reconsidering this decision of mine. I want to set the hon. the Minister of Transport a condition. If he can persuade the hon. the Minister of Finance to follow this unique example he has set in his main budget, then I promise him that I shall be as good as my word because in that case it would be one of the greatest national contributions ever made in this House. I wish to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Transport on this budget.

However, I want to put another question to him. I want to ask him what he intends doing. Does he want to run this show, this debate, by way of Press statements? In The Cape Times of 8 March 1979 I read, inter alia, that—

I take it that I am acting in accordance with the rules of this House when I ask in all fairness whether it is reasonable that something of the kind can be said when this report has not even been discussed by the Select Committee and/or this House. However, there are more Press reports. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he wants to run the show in accordance with regulations or by way of Press statements.

I have all along, until today, assumed that it was the function of this House to discuss the interests of the private sector, the transport industry and the individual at the highest level in debate, and, by way of question and answer, to discuss and iron out matters, in order by so doing to reach positive conclusions. As a result of this I feel a little frustrated. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he owes a statement in this regard, if not to me, then to the House.

This feeling is strengthened when I recall the days when the then hon. member for Turffontein, now the hon. the Minister for Community Development, sat on that side of the House. In the Railway Budget debate we crossed swords about our philosophic points of view with regard to the budget and the issue of planning. Time without number we crossed swords in this regard. I remember well how he spoke until he foamed at the gills. For 68 years I faithfully supported my Minister. Here he sits now—happy, convinced and contented with a healthy colour in his face, which looks like a full moon in September. I won him over to our side. He was not the only one; on my right there is another hon. member, the former member for Turffontein and at present the hon. member for Von Brandis, who had a way of pointing that big hand of his like a toy pistol, the thumb up and the index finger pointing. He fired right and left here. [Interjections.] He, too, is sitting here on my right, and the other day I heard him put this significant question to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti: But when are you going to come up with a single constructive proposal? I then read the bitterness in his heart which he experienced while he was sitting there, to conduct a debate with a toy pistol against his better judgment and without constructive proposals.

Now I come to the hon. member for Orange Grove. In a previous debate, and I refer to columns 2362 of Hansard of 6 May 1978, he made a prophetic statement similar to that which he made today. In his high and mighty fashion—just as he did today—he said—

Then he puts the question—

It is the same old story; old hat. Today he only displayed a different form of haughtiness by saying that he did not accept the finding and the comparison drawn between consumption of fuel on the road and use of the Railways. He speaks in a high and mighty fashion and calls it “a nonsensical argument”. I want to refer the hon. member to a report which no-one sucked out of their thumb, but which was carried out on the instructions of the hon. the Prime Minister by the Department of Environmental planning and energy, a scientific investigation in cooperation with the CSIR, and use was made of statistics collected over the years by the Railways. In his conceitedness the hon. member comes along and excitedly makes the statement that this is not acceptable to him. How far can one get with such a debate and such debaters. There is no starting-point and no finishing point. Their only argument—and on top of it they adopt a false premise—is that that is untrue and because it is untrue the hon. the Minister is holding a sword over our heads. I know many other politicians in this country who are no longer in this House and have suffered from the same disease. They rely on false points of departure and then try to argue logically and reach a conclusion which happens to suit them.

We are dealing here with a budget which is the result of the budget of a previous year that was intended to serve planning. Planning is the stable back on which the jockey of the budget has to get that winning horse past the winning post. Budgets may vary, but planning is consistent and without planning a budget can never pass the winning post. Last year’s budget was intended to serve planning, and the planning has projected itself and proved itself in this year’s budget. This advance planning was intended to give the Government a boost and was based on the point of departure that since we were unable to obtain capital we should have to create it by labour organization, technology, preparation and staff, savings, etc. The budget paid the dividends of planning of the kind which did not start when that hon. member came to this House for the first time, but which extends over the past 18 years— two decades. That is what we are dealing with here today. It is this planning, too, which will be reflected in the budgets that lie ahead. Apart from that, however, it is surely indisputable that the Railways and Harbours budgets fall within the bounds of correctness year after year in the sense that they have seldom or never been more than 5% either way. Hon. members cannot show me examples from the private business world which can compete with this, particularly over a period. However, that is because hon. members opposite are on a pay roll; they have a tickey mentality. They only think in terms of a pay roll. All they are interested in is what they can put in their pockets. To them the question of what they can give is of no importance. What their contribution could be is not important either.

However, before I am accused by hon. members opposite of again affording the hon. the Minister well-deserved recognition in the form of a routine tribute, I should like to draw attention to an editorial in the August 1978 edition of the International Railway Journal. This time it does not come from me. It comes from an influential editor with a very sound knowledge of railways throughout the world. To confirm that what I am now saying is correct, viz. that the Railways Administration, this great State business enterprise which we know as the Railways, should be given credit for its sound, thorough and rational planning, I quote what this editor has to say—

Now hon. members would do well to listen—

Who said that?

An expert you will not appreciate.

*I quote further—

That is the standpoint of a professional man who has objectively investigated the matter of transport, particularly Railways, in South Africa and commented on it.

Is it Dr. Jan S. Marais?

No, it is the editor of an international Railway journal. I hope the hon. member for East London North understands this now. I hope his windmill has a little oil now. On the basis of what I have quoted I want to show further that this editor is also correct when one considers certain statistics and other data relating to the S.A. Railways. Whereas the gross tonnage of goods per kilometre has increased by 30,4%, the number of kilometres per train has dropped by 4,4% over the past five years. This attests to professional, scientific management. It attests to the results of a sustained effort to effect sound planning. Over the same period the average cargo per train increased by 37,2%, the train lengths by 23,2% and the average speed by 13,6%. Growth and still more growth is the watchword, with a view to a reduction in the unit cost and an increase in the input and the turnover of this enterprise. As far as the S.A. Railways is concerned, there is no doubt that there is very little if any criticism at the moment in the sense that it cannot handle the traffic tendered in this country. If it is also borne in mind that the S.A. Railways is not merely searching for a market in regard to our national product but is also offering additional services to states such as Zambia, then this is an exceptional distinction. It cannot therefore be allowed to pass unnoticed. On the one hand we are saddled with the problem that provision must be made for more traffic but on the other hand, as a result of the increases in the price level, restrictions must be imposed on the potential of the Railways to provide services so that that traffic can be handled. Moreover, as the hon. member for Orange Grove also said, the prospects for increased revenue are not too rosy. In spite of everything, a wise hon. Minister displayed insight and realism by saying: If I do not wish to further restrict the economy in South Africa or act in a way that will paralyse it, but rather give it a boost, and if I do not wish to harm my own enterprise in the sense of losing traffic which I could get, then under the circumstances I cannot increase tariffs. It takes courage, faith and confidence if the specific circumstances under which the decision was taken, are taken into account. I can only say to the hon. the Minister that this side of the House appreciates it, not only for the sake of the argument in the debate, but also because the people of this country sincerely appreciate this and will continue for a long time to express their recognition of what he has done.

I want to single out a few other aspects of the budget. I have said that we want to create capital from labour, thrift and the effective utilization of staff. It is impressive to read in the report that the accident rate of the S.A. Railways dropped by 17% in 1978. Collisions between trains dropped by 22% and derailments by 16%—the best figures ever. These achievements represent the fruits of planning and efforts to effect savings. Which of the hon. members know how much a train collision or derailment costs the Railways and the State? The number of passengers killed in train accidents has dropped from one victim for every 15,5 million passenger journeys to one for every 33,9 million passenger journeys. The safety factor has more than doubled and deserves mention. This gives hon. members something to be grateful for so that they can speak for and about such a service organization.

Planning and the ridiculous insinuations of the hon. member for Orange Grove concerning fuel conservation now come into the picture. We read in the report that according to the department, 80% of our railway lines are to be electrified within the next four to five years. This does not have reference to this budget but will perhaps be of importance with regard to difficult circumstances which may be experienced in four to five years’ time when we may be saddled with far more serious petrol rationing than we have today. The Railways will then be prepared to render a strategic service as regards both passenger and goods services. This will also benefit the private sector which the hon. member for Orange Grove is so concerned about. It is due to planning of this nature that I do not see future budgets as ominous. I do not see spectres because I have acquainted myself with what underlies any normal, responsible budget. Last year the hon. member for Amanzimtoti conjured up the same spectres. That hon. member had a new slogan, viz.—

[Interjections.] That is a so-called engineer speaking about his colleagues in those terms.

That man did not know what he was talking about. He went on to say—

Does the hon. member still say that after a budget like this one? [Interjections.] No. That was “daamaast”, the hon. member is running away now. I reacted positively and told him: “Yes, they will accept the challenge.”

If one sees what the engineers of the Railways have done with regard to the conversion of trucks, the conveyance of timber and cement and the replacement of braking systems in order to ensure an increased load capacity, one changes one’s mind. 600 bolster wagons of the DZ11 type are being equipped with composition brake blocks. 420 of these trucks have already been completed. In this way the load capacity of a truck is increased by 15 tons and in this way we achieve an increased turnover. Targets such as reduced unit costs and saving of time, energy and staff have also been achieved by welding closed the doors of BAD trucks and increasing the load capacity of 7 600 grain trucks from 39 to 42 tons per truck. Here it must also be borne in mind that the load capacity of bolster wagons, etc. are increased. This is the work of the “engineers empire” to which the hon. member referred. That is their contribution to their country and to the development of the enterprise.

The above improvements effected by the “engineers empire” mean that they have converted altogether 21 735 trucks to enable them to carry an increased load of 2 443 tons, entailing a capital saving of R61 million. Therefore the hon. member made a sweeping statement without taking a professional look at the true function of these professional people in the employ of the Railways. He therefore tried to throw dust in the eyes of this House and the public at large.

Speaking of staff, training centres have been established for Indians, Coloureds and Blacks. The first of these centres was established as much as 18 years ago and a total of 10 178 non-Whites have been trained at Braamfontein alone. 55 584 of them have been trained at Germiston. In South West, at Oshikati, 102 have been trained, giving a total of more than 65 000. The result is that no fewer than 34 854 non-Whites already occupy graded posts. In his budget speech the hon. the Minister announced a further narrowing of the wage gap. Is there a better anti-inflation measure than to ensure—and take responsibility for it—that the narrowing of the wage gap is accompanied by an increase in productivity? There is nothing that will promote inflation in this country more than to narrow the wage gap without increasing the merit basis of the employee. When we speak about an inflation bug, then it is such a bug, and hon. members in the Opposition benches pray for this day and night, that that glorified multicoloured phoenix arises out of its own ashes to praise itself for its own colourfulness.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize by having to continue with this kindergarten lesson to a group of kindergarten students on the other side of the House. I long for the days when bull stood against bull here, when I debated with people like the present hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and the hon. members for Von Brandis. They were still people whom one felt one could bring over to this side of the House. I comfort myself by thinking that I was able to succeed with at least two of them. As far as the kindergarten class on the other side of the House is concerned I can only continue to have faith that in perhaps another 10 years I shall be able to succeed with a few more of them, although I doubt it because looking at them, I do not believe that there is one of them that I should like to bring over to this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to follow the hon. member for Witwatersberg because he provides one with so many opportunities. He seems to have forgotten that over the last few years we on these benches have been talking about the tremendous amount of capital which has been spent by the Railway Administration on development and what this was costing the country. Just because the hon. the Minister presented a budget, which the hon. member for Orange Grove, in a way regrettably, called the “good news” budget, this House has now had to put up with nearly 30 minutes of the hon. member for Witwatersberg waxing eloquent about it and once again singing the praises of the Railways. Certainly there is some good news contained in this budget. I am sure that the pensioners who have gone on pension since 1973 are pleased that they are to receive an effective increase of 8%, but what about those pensioners who went on pension before 1973? One of my hon. colleagues will speak on this aspect later in the debate and the hon. member for Witwatersberg will then hear just how good or how bad this particular budget is. Certainly Railway employees have now received an increase. But this is not good news for them as it certainly does not keep abreast of the rate of inflation. The hon. the Minister has therefore not given the Railway employees anything which is not their due.

Basically I am a conservative when it comes to financial policy, and therefore I want to reserve my judgement as to whether this is such a “good news” budget after all. After examining this budget in depth, which I do not believe the hon. member for Witwatersberg has done, and after reading the hon. the Minister’s speech once or twice, I have come to the conclusion that this budget looks more like a gambler’s budget than a “good news” budget. I say this because the hon. the Minister is taking a gamble. [Interjections.] Hon. members must allow me a few minutes to explain this. I am sure they will thereafter agree with me. Deficit-budgeting is a gamble at the best of times, but it is especially the case in this particular budget where one finds that the bulk of budgeted deficit of R201 million, plus the R70 million for fuel increases, will be met as the result of action taken by persons other than those directly responsible for the economic wellbeing of the Railways.

This is, of course, what the hon. the Minister is now proposing to do. The policy of deficit budgeting, unless accompanied by a planned programme of increased revenue generation, can be extremely dangerous and can often lead to financial disaster, because eventually, no matter what hon. members on that side say, the deficit is going to have to be paid by someone. Experience has proven this over and over again. Governments, such as our own, which have practised the system of deficit budgeting, plunge their people into periods of inflation. Individuals and businesses that fail when taking this risk, or gamble, go bankrupt, but Government corporations or institutions, such as the Railways, which fail when taking this gamble, simply put up tariffs or run to the Government for subsidies. Then eventually the people, the taxpayers, have to pay. I therefore tell the peoples of South Africa today that they should be warned! The tariffs could still be increased before this year is out.

To my mind a major contributing factor to financial stability, whether the Railways, an individual, a business or, for that matter, a Government, is involved, is productivity. Increasing productivity is the key to financial security, whilst increasing profitability is the key to financial prosperity. I believe that these concepts apply just as much to the Railways as they do to any privately owned business, or for that matter even an individual in his private life. In fact, the very size of the Railways budget, which is now approaching R5 000 million per annum, a budget for an institution which has some 260 000 people on its pay-roll, surely emphasizes that the very financial security and prosperity of South Africa is greatly affected by the productivity and the profitable utilization of the Railways’ financial and human resources. For that reason I move the following further amendment—

1. (1) despite considerable capital investment in modernization programmes since 1973-’74, efficient and productive use of capital assets has not been achieved;
2. (2) the marketing policy of the Administration has resulted in earnings rising at a slower rate than expenditure per employee; and
3. (3) the unfair hardships suffered by pre-1973 pensioners have not been adequately ameliorated.”.

Of course, I could say that this budget is an election budget. [Interjections.] Hon. members may laugh, but he who laughs last, laughs best. This budget, along with that of the hon. the Minister of Finance, which we are expecting in a few weeks’ time, could be the process of softening up the voters, softening them up for a coming election. [Interjections.] Just listen to all the cackling. I must warn the voters to beware. They are now getting a few breaks here and there, but let them watch out after the election!

They may be in for a rude shock!

For a number of reasons, I say that the hon. the Minister is taking a gamble. Firstly, the hon. the Minister is prepared to take the risk of sacrificing the Rates Equalization Fund, which at present stands at R115 million, using it to cushion the deficit. Secondly, as a result of the recommendations of the committee under the chairmanship of Prof. Franzsen, the hon. the Minister hopes to cushion much of the estimated R350 million loss that he is now incurring on passenger services by obtaining increased subsidies from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. This only means that the taxpayer is going to have to pay.

You made a plea for that a year ago.

Thirdly, the hon. the Minister is gambling on a greater upturn in the economy, in the hope that this will generate more revenue. In fact, because the hon. the Minister is not absolutely sure that the economy is going to improve, he is prepared to gamble by budgeting for a deficit in the hope that this objective will be achieved. Fourthly, the hon. the Minister is hoping to generate more revenue by reducing surcharges and making concessions to certain customers, something with which we agree. Fifthly, the hon. the Minister is hoping that internal economy measures within the Railways will result in savings which will again offset the anticipated deficit.

Returning to the first gamble of the hon. the Minister, I should like to say that we in the NRP believe it is a good policy to build up a Rates Equalization Fund. I agree with the hon. the Minister when he says that the present Fund, which now has only R150 million which represents about 3,2% of total revenue, is barely sufficient to meet contingencies should they arise. The Rates Equalization Fund was established in terms of section 104 of the Constitution Act for maintaining, as far as possible, uniformity of rates notwithstanding fluctuations in traffic. I would have imagined that the Fund would be used during periods of temporary economic down turn to prevent the necessity of raising tariffs in order to break even and that during periods of economic upswing when increased revenue would result in surpluses the Fund would be added to by drawing from these surpluses. However, the hon. the Minister is now doing exactly the opposite. In my opinion it just shows how desperate the hon. the Minister and the Government are to try to create a good impression with the public at the present time. It shows that, while they admit that the economy is picking up, the hon. the Minister is preparing to rob the bank, he is preparing to rob the Rates Equalization Fund instead of using the upswing, which he says is coming, to add to his reserves which, as he himself said in his budget speech, are meagre at this stage. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what will happen if the upswing does not materialize, if there is a fall off in traffic below the level he has anticipated. If this is not a gamble, I should really like to know what is.

The second gamble is the gamble that the Franzsen Committee will recommend that, where it is clearly in the national interest, passenger services should be subsidized and that this should be done out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and not out of Railway earnings. We in the NRP hope this gamble is going to pay off. If it does, it will mean that the Government has reversed its policy in this regard. This is something we in these benches have been asking for for years. I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to Hansard of 23 September 1974, col. 3547, when the hon. member for Durban Point moved an amendment asking for exactly this. I do not have the time to go into it, but there he clearly debated the need for this type of change in Government policy. I should like to say that we very much welcome this change. I want to say to the hon. member for Witwatersberg that a lot of the things we say here we find the Government implementing four to five years later, all too late.

Yes, five years later.

However, we do not believe that what is happening is enough. It is just not good enough for the hon. the Minister to ask for compensation for socio-economic passenger services which are uneconomical. We believe that the Railways— this is one of the legs of our amendment— must adopt a far more dynamic approach to study the market potential and to create more incentives to attract people to the passenger services, especially in the light of the fuel crisis we all hear of these days. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what in-depth studies the Railways have conducted into the commuter services in South Africa in order to find out exactly what the commuter wants and whether the time schedules and the speeds of trips are adequate. I have had discussions with the Systems Manager of Natal and he has said he will carry out such a study in my constituency. I very much hope he will go ahead with this because I know that people in my constituency living as far south of Durban as Scottburgh would love to travel by train provided the Railways service is a bit better than it is now and a half hour could be knocked off the travelling time from Scottburgh. [Interjections.]

What is wrong there?

The third gamble the hon. the Minister has taken is the gamble that the economy will pick up and that by deficit financing he will be able to prevent tariff increases, thereby stimulating the economy. I should like to point out to him that, if any uneconomic passenger services are subsidized through the Consolidated Revenue Fund, this money must eventually come from the taxpayer.

While the subsidizing of uneconomic socio-economic services is desirable for obvious reasons—and we agree with it—to do so does not completely eliminate the burden of carrying these services. It only distributes the burden more equitably. The money must come from somewhere. In this case it will come from the taxpayer in general via the hon. the Minister of Finance. Therefore, if the hon. the Minister of Transport is lucky enough to obtain a R200 million subsidy, it will mean that R200 million will be taken out of the consumers’ pockets, for which the economy is going to suffer.

The fourth gamble the hon. the Minister has taken, is to generate more revenue by granting greater concessions to rail users. This is a positive gamble, one which we in these benches have advocated for years. We should like to accept that this move is an indication that the Railways have now positively reversed their role of claiming to be a business orientated concern and then running behind the skirts of the Government to ask for protection whenever they encounter tough competition. If it is agreed that uneconomic socio-economic services must and will be subsidized from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, it must also follow that the Railways must now become more market orientated. The S.A. Railways must become competitive. If certain of its services cannot compete with other services—in this respect I agree with the hon. member for Orange Grove—those services must be dispensed with and allowed to be undertaken by people who can compete and undertake them at a decent price. These are the hard and cold facts in respect of the open market place. It is this principle which makes the free enterprise system so dynamic and which, in the West, has reduced the cost of production of goods to what it is today. We have heard the hon. the Minister and spokesmen for the Administration say that the Railways must become more commercially orientated. I must say that we in these benches welcome this. I also welcome the statement made by the hon. the Minister in his budget speech that the Railways are now following this management technique—which, incidentally, the private sector has been using for many years—of management by objective. This being the case, I should like to present a challenge to the hon. the Minister. On 1 January 1978 the new Road Transportation Act became effective. Under section 1(2)(1) the Act allows the conveyance of any goods on 1 000 kg. capacity vehicle without the need for a permit. The hon. the Minister knows what has happened since then. Entrepreneurs have climbed in and have used this legislation for their own purposes. They have introduced a 1 ton express delivery service operating between major centres throughout the country, e.g. between Johannesburg and Durban and between Johannesburg and Cape Town. The hon. the Minister is fully aware of it I have been told that it is estimated that about 500 vehicles are at present operating and providing this service. In the process it has been so efficient that it has drawn business away from the S.A. Airways and the S.A. Railways to such an extent that I believe the hon. the Minister—maybe the hon. the Minister will confirm this—is planning to introduce amending legislation to put a stop to this type of business. The point I should like to put to the hon. the Minister is that despite the fact that these people are using 3 ton lorries, derated to 1 ton by altering the tyres and so on, and that they are travelling these long distances by road, they still beat the S.A. Airways in respect of this type of service. The question is, why this is so. One could say that the tariffs of this service are low. I have been led to believe that they are not necessarily lower than that of the S.A. Airways. I doubt it.

They are more efficient.

The hon. member is absolutely correct. The private sector is far more efficient. It provides a service people are prepared to pay for, even if in some cases it is dearer. I believe that this is what the customer and the consumer want. I want to say to the hon. the Minister let him by all means introduce amending legislation to prevent any more vehicles providing this type of service, but at the same time I should like to challenge the Railways to take on this competition from the existing operators and to drive them into the ground, commercially and competitively speaking, by providing a more efficient and more economic service. After all, the S.A. Railways have everything in their favour. They have wonderful communications; they have air transport, they have a railway and a motor vehicle transport system. They should be able to provide this service. I should just like to say that if the S.A. Railways win this competition battle with private enterprise, I believe that a whole new era will have started in the operation of the Railways as a transport system.

I should now like to deal with the fifth gamble taken by the hon. the Minister, namely that the Railways’ efficiency and economy campaign will generate savings which will offset part of the deficit. Here again, we in these benches wish him luck with this. We believe that this type of thing should be an on-going programme anyway, a normal part of everyday business.

I should now like to turn to the budget itself. I have studied the budget and for the benefit of the hon. member for Witwatersberg I should like to say that I have studied the percentage deviation from the original estimates of all the heads, not only in this budget, but in all the budgets back to 1973-’74, and I am happy to say that it is most gratifying, as the hon. member has said, to see that this is by far the best controlled budget as far as the amount of money budgeted for is concerned. Therefore I shall refrain from discussing the need for tight budgetary control which—as the Hansards will reveal I have done for years—other than to say that the hon. the Minister and the Railway Administration have now set a high standard, and we are going to expect them to keep up this standard in future years. However, as I have already said, the first essential ingredient for financial success in any business operation, especially when vast sums of capital are employed such as in the Railways, is productivity. The Railways have just come through a period of vast capital expenditure. We have had containerization, modernization, mechanization, computerization, block loads and long trains. All this is in the report of the Railway Administration. Therefore one would have expected a marked pay-back, and this is where the hon. member for Witwatersberg must do his homework. He should look into the figures. We would have expected a marked pay-back in revenue earned, especially in revenue earned per employee. However, a study of the budgets going right back to 1974, shows, firstly, that the capital investment per employee has increased by 98%, from R15 530 in 1973-’74 to an estimated R30 785 in the coming financial year. The cost of this capital borne by revenue in terms of, let us say, depreciation, of interest and also the Net Revenue Appropriation Account, has risen by 191,4%, from R1 504 per employee in 1973-’74 to R4 383 per employee in the coming budget. The share of total revenue taken by these items has increased from 25,7% to 33,8%, an increase of 8% of the total revenue earned by the Railways. Such are the implications of the vast capital expenditure programme which the Railways have been committed to since 1973-’74. However, there is a second fact, and this is where the punchline lies. The figures show that while the total expenditure has risen by 166,3% since 1974, total revenue has increased by only 148,9%. While the expenditure per employee rose by 137,3%, revenue per employee rose by only 122,2%. I would have expected a far greater pay-back in revenue per employee. In these reports we see that the productivity curves show that there has been a great improvement in productivity and efficiency. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to look into these facts. Surely, in business the crunch comes when one looks at the increase in revenue earned per capital invested or revenue earned per employee over a period of capital expansion such as we have had. Therefore, as I have said in our amendment, there is a great need on the part of the Administration to look into these matters, to make the Railways a far more productive and a far more commercially orientated organization for the benefit of all in South Africa.

In conclusion, I should just like to say that we all hear so much about the effect that the rising cost of fuel is going to have on the economy of the Railways. I have here a page which, let me say, fell out of this year’s report. I did not tear it out. On this page, page 26, Railways expenditure is shown under main heads. One finds that for 1976-’77 compared with 1977-’78 motive power operating expenses increased by 13,61%, but depreciation increased by 53,86%—a wacking increase of R68 million. We have been told that this year it is going to cost an additional R70 million for fuel. But here we see an increase in depreciation of 53,86% in one year. If one looks at interest on capital, during this particular period there has been an increase of 24,97%—another R68,7 million. These two items alone add up to R137 million. That is the cost of capital. So I just put it to the hon. the Minister that maybe that is the side of his operations that he should look at, because, in my opinion, if he can get that capital to work more efficiently and more productively, the Railways would be of far greater value to South Africa than they are at the present time.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti will forgive me if I do not reply at once to what he said. He made a brave effort, but did not achieve much. [Interjections.]

He achieved a great deal.

I first want to make a remark about the hon. the Minister of Transport. I do not think anyone can deny that it was in fact during the term of office of the present hon. Minister of Transport that the financial foundations of the Railways were soundly laid. During his term the Railways became financially more self-sufficient, began to make more provision for its own capital. The attainment of this goal has of course been an ongoing process. It was linked to various measures about which I do not want to go into detail now. What I want to say, is that all these measures have not always been particularly popular. However, the hon. the Minister was prepared to proceed with tariff increases in order to establish those sound financial foundations, rather than to strive for personal popularity.

His handling of trade unions and their wage demands, too, has always been firm but reasonable. Over the past few years he has often been exposed to abuse from the ranks of his own Railway staff, motions of no confidence in him were passed by various workshops and he alone had to carry the responsibility for unpopular action which sought to place the Railways on a sound footing. However, the hon. the Minister has never complained about that, because, fine person that he is, he will give credit to everyone, even the lowliest workman, who contributed towards making this budget, the good news budget, as the hon. member for Orange Grove referred to it, possible. I believe that he, too, will now receive his rightful share of the credit since he was prepared to bear that buffeting alone in order to place the Railways on the golden line in future.

If this hon. Minister can serve as an example to us in public life—and here I want to include the Opposition, too,—we can learn from his example that greatness is not achieved by pursuing personal popularity. For that reason this appropriation today is a crowning achievement and I want to pay tribute to him for it. I have also been instructed to convey to him a message from a representative group of Railway pensioners, consisting of a single sentence: “Die Here seen u.” Notwithstanding the fact that the hon. member for Amanzimtoti has said that the pre-1973 models will not now receive the same treatment, this 10% naturally applies to all pensioners. For convenience’ sake the hon. member states 8%, but it is certainly 10% since the 2% granted to Railway pensioners annually, is similarly an increase in their pension. The hon. member and his colleagues plead the possibility of an election. However, when we are dealing with a budget such as this, I get the impression that he is dead scared, if I may say so, and very careful that this appropriation in its full impact could, perhaps, indicate an election.

I want to return to the hon. member for Orange Grove’s speech. Today he had a maxi problem. In the past I have good-naturedly referred to him as a “bitterbek”, but you, Sir, in your wisdom, ruled that I withdraw it. The hon. member’s biggest problem today was that…

Order! The hon. member must just not call the hon. member for Orange Grove a “bitterbek” again.

I did not say it again, Sir. [Interjections.]

Call him “soetbekkie” today.

… when he had to reply at once after the budget had been introduced, he referred to it in favourable terms by saying that it was a “good news budget”. Today he had to add a tailpiece and spoke of the “good news and the bad news budget”. However, the hon. member is not a bad fellow, except when he has to advance an argument for a weak case as he tried to do today. The hon. member could find nothing wrong with the latest budget, and had no alternative but to depend on the previous three budgets and deliver a speech about them. The hon. member fought on the basis of the budgets of three years ago. Since the hon. member still had some time left, he assumed that the Road Transport Act would now be changed to afford unfair advantage to the Railways and he used the rest of his time to build an argument around that. He therefore tried to hold a transport debate instead of confining himself to the Railway budget. The hon. member went on to oppose the increases in contributions to the Renewal Fund as an interum measure to prevent the difference in level between the existing system of depreciation contributions and the proposed system of inflation accounting—which, as he himself knows, has not been possible to implement fully—from being further enlarged. According to him even the Select Committee voted against that.

I want to dwell on this aspect a little. The system of inflation accounting, as applied by the Railways, is limited only to making provision for the replacement of assets. It is not the intention to extend the system to other financial and accounting parameters. When it comes to the question of private initiative, I want to ask the hon. member who wrote his speech. He may rest assured that I have enough insight to write my own speech about inflation accounting. [Interjections.] Depreciation levies represent the amount the consumer has to pay for the use of assets. In the good old days when inflation was not yet such an important factor, the price the consumer had to pay, was based on the original purchase price of the asset. When that asset could no longer be used at the end of that period, the amount was equal to the original purchase price available either to repay that loan or to purchase another asset.

From what I have said thus far it is clear that depreciation levies, based on the original purchase price of the asset are only equal to the monetary capital recovered from the user in the course of the life of the asset. Although the enterprise is, therefore, able to repay the loan, this method of levying of depreciation has not necessarily ensured that sufficient funds will be available to replace the asset. Nor has it ensured that the user of the asset pays the current market price for that portion of the asset which is used up in a particular year. I am advancing this argument against the hon. member’s statement that we are using inflation accounting to encourage inflation indirectly. If this had not been the position, the consumer would not pay the market price for that portion of the asset which he uses in the process. The effect of inflation has made us realize that depreciation as a means of recovering costs cannot be based on the historic prices, but, in fact, on the current market prices at the time of the levy of depreciation of this nature.

Tell it to the Receiver of Revenue!

If the hon. member gives me the chance to finish speaking, he might begin to understand something about the matter. The inevitable conclusion is that depreciation from year to year must be estimated on the basis of the replacement price and not the historical purchase price of that asset. This ensures that the user of the asset pays the current market price for the use of that asset. By levying depreciation on the basis of the replacement cost of assets, or inflation accounting, one ensures that the users of an asset put a replacing asset in its place. The real capital and the continuity of the enterprise is ensured in this way. In this regard I cannot understand the hon. member for Orange Grove. As far back as 1977 he agreed with the principle of increasing the depreciation contribution to 20%.

It was an interim measure.

In 1978 the hon. member agreed with a further increase of 20%.

Still as an interim measure.

In the meantime, the economic life of the assets of the Railways have been determined, and this is one of the factors which gave rise to that. Since this is a comprehensive and time consuming process, the revaluation of the assets, according to their current values, has not yet been completed. We have often explained to hon. members that this will still take quite a while.

He understands very poorly.

The real backlog in the level of depreciation contributions can only be determined after the revaluation of these assets have been completed. To effect a real narrowing of the difference in level, depreciation contributions must, increase by at least the inflation rate in accordance with a formula. Whereas the inflation rate is at present in the vicinity of 10% and the current contributions are not sufficient to cover the higher replacement cost, a further increase of 10% is being proposed for this year. After the hon. member for Orange Grove accepted this principle three years ago, he now finds it necessary to oppose it.

Three years of interim measures.

The hon. member says that he does not want to walk in the dark. The poor man! The hon. member put his objections in the Select Committee as follows, and I quote him—(Select Committee 2A—’79)—

In other words, the hon. member is now performing an about face and changing his standpoint concerning a matter of principle after three years.

Now it is 50% more.

He himself explains this matter in paragraph 19 of the report as follows—

The hon. member’s boss spoke loudly, so loudly that the hon. member had to experience the humiliation here today of having to surrender his standpoint on principle of three years ago. Surely he knows that the Road Transportation Act made competition with the Railways considerably freer.

It is indeed true that inflation accounting has not yet been officially accepted for tax purposes, and the basic reason for that is undoubtedly the initial loss in tax revenue which would arise from such a step. However, it is already general practice that enterprises draw up two sets of accounts, one of which includes inflation accounting. The 1970 report of the Franzsen Commission specifically recommended that the prices of government enterprises be adjusted to make provision for depreciation on the basis of replacement instead of on the basis of the original cost of the assets. The hon. member only wants to accept those paragraphs of the Franzsen Commission report which suit him and ignore the other paragraphs. On determining the return for enterprises subject to the prices policy, the Government already allows the writing off of assets at replacement prices. As in the case of coal, this principle has applied as far back as 1971. Although the system of inflation accounting could result in relatively higher rail tariffs in the initial stage, and probably will, it will certainly lead to a relatively lower cost structure in the long-term. This is the very aspect to which the hon. member for Witwatersberg referred, viz. that this budget is the result of good planning in the past. In addition, it ensures that the present consumer pays for the utilization of assets at the current market prices and that this, as the Franzsen Commission puts it, “unjustified shift of the burden of higher prices onto future generations”. The effect of this is exactly the opposite of what the hon. member for Orange Grove is trying to maintain, i.e. that the present consumer is being taxed for the future.

I want to turn to the question of passenger services, because hon. members of the Opposition claim that the favourable budget can be ascribed to a large extent to the expected contribution of the central Government in respect of the loss on passenger services. The hon. member for Orange Grove pretends that this is his brainchild. However, now the hon. member for Amanzimtoti comes along with what according to him is a brand-new idea, viz. whether regular investigations or random tests, etc., could not be carried out.

Surely the hon. member should know that random tests are regularly carried out in this regard and that the Railways carries out scientific research in this sphere. However, can the hon. member indicate where, in a Western country or in any Railway enterprise, they have succeeded in operating passenger services profitably? If there is a subsidy on passenger services, it is but one of the elements mentioned by the hon. the Minister in his budget speech on which he bases his budget for the future. I want to approach the question of losses on passenger services from another angle. I want to proceed from the standpoint that there is a noticeable change in the pattern of transport in South Africa today. In the past South Africa predominantly imported goods. However, the situation is now being reached where imports and exports are beginning to draw even. As hon. members know, imported goods are subject to high tariffs. Revenue obtained from this is distributed over all sectors by way of cross-subsidizing and was consequently used to subsidize the tremendous losses incurred on passenger services in the past. Today the emphasis is specifically on the export of more goods. Therefore, it is in the country’s interests that the tariffs be kept as low as possible in order to stimulate export and to make the product more competitive on the overseas market. However, the question now arises as to whether it is in the interests of the Railways or in the national interest that export be stimulated further. I think that only the Government can decide on this. I now want to apply this changed pattern of transport to passenger services. Over the whole world today there is a movement to reassess the way in which passengers are transported. I want to acknowledge that the Opposition has advocated over the years that the Exchequer should subsidize the losses of the Railways, although on a different basis. If I may put this very simply, it was of importance to the Government in the past that a person should be able to get to his place of employment. However, in the phase we are now entering, the phase created by the energy crisis, the way in which that person reaches his work is becoming of cardinal importance. It is a world trend, not limited to us, that there is not optimal utilization of public transport At the same time, I think the hon. the Minister said in his budget speech that the travelling public are still reluctant to change the travelling pattern they are used to, and that in spite of the oil crisis and the higher fuel price they still prefer to drive in their private motor-cars.

This is of importance to the Government, and for that reason it has to decide to stimulate a new pattern. In other words, it must decide about the principle of passenger subsidizing, to the extent that the public can be persuaded to utilize public transport. If the Government should succeed in that purpose, it would in the nature of the matter have a tremendous influence on other sectors which have not been of great importance in the past, and here I am thinking in particular of the consumption of fuel. Therefore, a new concept comes to the fore here, that of passenger subsidization instead of the obsolete concept of the subsidizing of the Railways. Against the background of the serious fuel position, the Government must now examine the types of passenger transportation with new urgency. The terms of reference of the commission which has to investigate this position, is so comprehensive, as indicated in the budget speech, that a thorough investigation can take place so that losses will not simply be converted into subsidies. This is also in accordance with what the hon. Opposition has advocated over the years.

In the short time at my disposal, Mr. Speaker, you will, I am sure give me leave to discuss a Western Cape matter. I am referring to a speech I delivered during the Railways budget of 1974 with reference to Iscor’s operation of the Sishen-Saldanha line at that stage. I advocated that certain work be transferred to the Salt River workshops. I just want to sketch the situation briefly. What it amounted to was that the workload in Salt River had dropped by between 26% and 30%, and I foresaw that there would be further changes in the working pattern and that this percentage would increase even further with the phasing out of steam. This, as I said at that stage, was cause for concern to Railway staff. However, I do not want to boast today that my predictions of five years ago were correct. On the contrary, I would have been much happier if time had proved me incorrect.

The railwayman’s feeling of oppression in 1974 is considerably greater today, and perhaps with more reason than at that stage. For that reason I want to convey that fear today to a former artisan from Salt River, a man who is our greatly-appreciated Minister today. The lathe behind which the hon. the Minister stood, is standing idle today in Salt River, and not due to obsolescence, because so many others that came after it are also standing idle, simply because there is not enough work in that workshop. In the course of a recent visit by a few of our Peninsula colleagues to Salt River, it struck us in the machine shop that a mere five machines out of a total of 30 were in use. I therefore want to make a very serious plea for Salt River today. This workshop is the result of more than 100 years of development. To be precise, it dates back to the year 1865, when the repair of Cape Town’s steam locomotives was begun on a small and simple scale for the first time at Salt River. From that small beginning the workshop at Salt River had developed to the largest workshop with a staff of approximately 3 500 with a proportion of White employment to non-White staff of two to one. However, Salt River is labouring under the disadvantage which has made the Western Cape the industrial Cinderella of South Africa, viz. the distance from the north and its concentration of industries. For example, in the first place, the transportation of steel over a long distance makes Salt River less advantageous. This and other factors also contribute to Salt River’s having the largest and just about the only heavy industry of its kind here in the south. In view of its strategic importance it is axiomatic that the systematic paralysis of Salt River should not be allowed to gain further momentum.

Till 1972-’73 Salt River was kept at full capacity. The phasing out of steam, which is occurring at an accelerated rate here, has also resulted in a dramatic reduction in employment opportunities at Salt River. One need only walk into the locomotive shop which has a capacity of 30 locomotives, to see that they have only one locomotive for repair, to realize the extent to which the work has diminished. The change in staff is as dramatic. The total reduction in the number of technicians in this workshop since 1972 is no less than 62%, whereas all other staff of these workshops have decreased by 55%. Similarly in the case of truck repair (timber) the reduction is 35% and 34% respectively, whereas in the case of production work it varies between 40% and 70% in respect of technicians and between 37% and 45% in respect of other staff.

I do not want to go into too much detail, nor do I want to weary this House with statistics, but one shudders to think that the repair of locomotives here will be suspended totally by 1981 when the class 25 locomotives are transferred to Bloemfontein since they are serviceable only in Bloemfontein and vicinity. Similarly, the sanction construction of trucks for the transportation of timber will be completed by the end of this year. In 1980 we will still at least be able to build 600 ore trucks there. According to all available indications the sanction building of trucks will then be suspended as well. At that stage there will inevitably be further staff and facility problems in the truck building and welding shops. Therefore, the activities with a high work content are gradually diminishing in Salt River and the workers at Salt River see this every month in their wage cheques. At all other depots the number of White staff has decreased and vacancies have not been filled. However, at Salt River the number of White staff has remained disproportionately high compared with other depots. There is a lot of uncertainty among these Whites today. They cannot simply be transferred since they are settled family men with properties which they have purchased over the years. Their wives are also employed and they can hardly afford to resettle in other places. For that reason Salt River must get more work. There are qualified artisans here and the facilities are available or will become available as a result of the phasing out of other activities.

Let me just quote one example in this regard. At present, Salt River has the facilities and manpower for a point and crossing shop, an activity with a high work content. Previously, on the programme for Salt River, provision was made for the building of this type of workshop for an amount of R5,6 million, but this point and crossing shop will now be constructed at Uitenhage where—and I say this with due respect to my colleague—the facilities for this are non-existent and excess artisan staff are not available, whereas the contrary is the case here in Salt River. The MPs for the Peninsula want to make the very earnest request that this matter be considered once again as a matter of great urgency. The Western Cape cannot meet the growing needs of the workseekers. Therefore, we certainly cannot afford to forfeit further employment opportunities. What is primarily at issue in this regard is qualified people who have served the Railways well and faithfully. We must simply create more employment opportunities to allay the unrest among our people. We trust the hon. the Minister, who worked at Salt River himself, to create those further employment opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, it is very pleasant to speak after the positive speech made by the hon. Chief Whip on this side of the House. I appreciate the way in which he pointed out the equilibrium in this budget.

One of the aspects which the hon. member for Amanzimtoti raised in his speech and which I cannot allow to go unanswered is that, if I understood him correctly, he suggested that the S.A. Railways should if necessary, force the private haulier to his knees by rendering a better service and making faster express deliveries. I think the hon. member for Amanzimtoti lost sight of a few factors. The S.A. Railways gladly accepts equal competition. At this stage, however, we must accept that the private haulier has already appropriated approximately 55% of the total ton/kilometre traffic to himself. That share which the private cartage contractor is handling today consists of precisely that profitable traffic, i.e. the high-rated traffic, which the S.A. Railways would like to have. I think the most important fact which the hon. member is overlooking, however, is that the S.A. Railways finds itself in the situation that it cannot refuse capacity. In other words, the S.A. Railways cannot refuse any traffic offered to it and has to utilize capacity which it could otherwise utilize for high-rated goods for the low-rated goods offered to it. A further disadvantage in this connection is that unlike the private haulier the S.A. Railways publishes its rates, while the private haulier may quote lower rates and even go so far as to eliminate another haulier or attract cartage contracts away from the S.A. Railways by means of out-throat rate maintenance or rate cutting. In addition the private haulier does not have the same responsibility in connection with his contribution to the infrastructure as the S.A. Railways has had in the past, still has at present and unfortunately must continue to have in future. There is a wide field in which the private haulier has an advantage over the S.A. Railways. In spite of what the hon. member said, I believe that the S.A. Railways will nevertheless, in its natural, characteristic and dynamic way, give the necessary attention to this field as well.

There is another aspect I wish to react to. I apologize for not having warned the hon. member who made the interjection during this debate that I was going to react to it, although I gave the hon. member for Mooi River the impression that I would react to it. I want to admit at once that I am not quite certain whether it was the hon. member for Berea who made the interjection. It may have been another hon. member. But it makes no difference, for the fact remains that while the hon. member for Witwatersberg was speaking, an hon. member on that side of the House made an insinuation which I do not think was a fitting one to make in this debate in this House. When the efficiency of the S.A. Railways and the efficient way in which the hon. the Minister had motivated this budget was being discussed, an hon. member on that side of the House made the caustic remark that Rhoodie had also been efficient.

It was Lorimer!

It makes no difference which hon. member it was. I just want to say that if an hon. member on that side of the House wishes to make the insinuation that the hon. the Minister and his department were also implicated in anomalies, I challenge them to throw open the S.A. Railways’s entire system of bookkeeping to scrutiny in order to prove their statement.

We on this side of the House want to repeat with appreciation what the hon. member for Witwatersberg said, viz. that we have appreciation for the efficiency of the hon. the Minister, we have appreciation for the efficiency of the top structure of the S.A. Railways, and we hold in contempt insinuations of that nature in a debate on the S.A. Railways that has got nothing to do with that particular unpleasantness. I want to associate myself with those on both sides of the House who expressed their appreciation for the budget which is at this particular juncture, taking into consideration our economic position, a positive budget. We also appreciate the fact that organizations outside this House have accorded recognition to this budget. Therefore we can thank the hon. the Minister and the top structure of the S.A. Railways.

To any careful observer and to any person who has analysed this budget carefully, there are certain inherent warnings and certain reservations which one cannot ignore. I shall dwell later on a few of these danger signs and spell them out more clearly, but I think that the reservations which the hon. the Minister spelled out to us in his budget speech may be summed up in a simple, short question, a question which is going to force itself upon every consumer in South Africa during the next financial year: What is the South African consumer going to do with the S.A. Railways? I think it is going to depend to a very large extent on the question of what we are going to do with the S.A. Railways whether it is subsequently going to be necessary again to make adjustments during the present financial year. The hon. the Minister also referred to that during the course of his speech. Inter alia, he said—

The judicious utilization of our imported fuel by the various forms of transport is of the utmost importance in determining priorities for the allocation of such fuel in the interests of our country. If we wish to set about this in real earnest, then we do not have much time left to choose our priorities in the field of energy consumption. But what is even more important is that when we have chosen our priorities, we should apply those priorities fearlessly. If we examine certain branches of the S.A. Railways honestly and fearlessly we must accept that even though it may cause a certain amount of inconvenience, we shall not be able to continue to afford unutilized luxury services and services that are not appreciated. I want to mention a few of these services which might have to be looked at very carefully in order to determine whether it will be possible to continue with them.

Has the time not arrived to compel the return to the S.A. Railways of all goods of which the destination is more than 500 km from the starting point, even if this has to be done by means of legislation? The private motor transport industry is and remains necessary, and I also think that it is effective and could perhaps be made more effective. But when we take energy saving into consideration, this transport system must be limited to a smaller radius, perhaps a radius of 200 km or a total distance of 400 km and when it comes to distances in excess of that figure, we should perhaps make more effective use of the S.A. Railways.

In the second place I want to refer to a sphere in which we might not always be able to afford luxuries. Can we expect even such an entrepreneur as the S.A. Railways to continue to render a service which shows a loss? Can the S.A. Railways continue to operate long-distance passenger trains with an exceptionally low utilization? These long-distance passenger services have recently shown that, during the present financial year alone, more than 32 long-distance trains had to be cancelled owing to a lack of passengers. Forty-seven suburban trains had to be cancelled, and 15 mixed trains which passengers could normally have made use of had to be cancelled. I think that South Africa has made a name for itself internationally with its passenger train services. Consequently I think it is also fitting that we should retain the services of the Drakensberg, the Blue Train and the Orange Express. Perhaps the travelling public of South Africa will have to concentrate on making use of these services only so that the less economic long-distance passenger services may consequently be withdrawn completely. It is in the interests of the S.A. Railways and of South Africa.

In the third sphere South Africa, frequently in the face of much criticism, has spent millions of rands on the introduction of container freight facilities in our harbours, as well as on our goods train services. One wonders whether South Africa can afford to allow the handling of freight other than container freight in South Africa for much longer.

Consequently I think it is just as well that the new Franzsen Commission will probe deeply into this question too. Considered solely from the point of view of fuel saving the railway, as the hon. the Minister also indicated in his budget speech, is the most suitable means and method of transportation in the present situation of restrictions on our crude oil supplies. While the normal diesel fuel consumption ratio between rail and the road transportation is approximately 9:1, a ratio which in the South African situation is already increasing to a ratio of almost 26:1, this ratio could in the foreseeable future, as the result of further electrification, be increased to a level of approximately 80% of the total route-kilometres which have already been electrified, hence a ratio of approximately 60:1.

It therefore goes without saying that the Railways uses its fuel more efficiently than any other transport service. Steel on steel has the ability to increase the distance that can be covered with a certain quantity of diesel fuel approximately ninefold. Consequently the fact remains that the fuel consumption of steel on steel is nine times more economical than road transport. In other words the same goods can be conveyed over the same distance with only one-ninth of the fuel required to convey the same goods over the same distance by road.

In 1985-’86, when we have completed the present electrification programme, the consumption of petroleum fuel will comprise only about 20% of the energy requirements of the S.A. Railways. Then we could use between 26 and 30 times less fuel than is the case at present.

But I think that one of the most important facets of this budget is the announcement by the hon. the Minister that a commission is being appointed under the chairmanship of Dr. Franzsen and vice-chairmanship of Dr. Brand to institute an investigation into the socio-economic services of the S.A. Railways.

I think it would serve a good purpose to dwell for a moment on the background and history of the socio-economic services of the S.A. Railways. The objective of this commission is, inter alia, to investigate methods which will lead to the reimbursement of the S.A. Railways in regard to any socio-economic services that are rendered.

The General Manager of the Railways recently delivered a series of talks. One of the subjects was the socio-economic role of the S.A. Railways. In this published version he referred, inter alia, to the term “reimbursement” instead of the term “subsidy”, which has already been mentioned a few times today. I shall quote what he had to say about this—

I think it is necessary to make it very clear that the S.A. Railways is not on its knees, but that in the interests of our country and of our transportation system the contribution of the whole of South Africa for services which the Railways renders to certain sectors will have to be examined.

The task and responsibility of the S.A. Railways is to ensure that, whatever the future may hold for South Africa, the country will have an essentially sound national transport system which will comply with the requirements of the day. And in this way this responsibility has so far been borne by the S.A. Railways. The circumstances must be created within which the national transport organization, i.e. the S.A. Railways, is able to fulfil its primary task and function properly. It is important that it should be economical transport which complies with the needs of the country. That must remain the primary task of the Railways.

In the present economic situation in South Africa, where economic progress depends to a large extent on the country’s ability to export, it is important that transportation should not be an obstacle to sound development. Transportation costs must therefore be kept as low as possible in the interests of the country. This is also strategically imperative.

As far as the political role of the S.A. Railways is concerned, it may be accepted that this greater responsibility must be carried out by the Railways in keeping with business principles. It may not detract from the primary function of transport, as the Railways has been charged to fulfil.

In regard to the third function of transportation, viz. the socio-economic role, it will not be possible simply to state that it is in keeping with business principles. Consequently the danger always exists that the primary economic transport function of the S.A. Railways can suffer as a result of this. Therefore, for the sake of the future of the S.A. Railways and of South Africa, it is essential that the socio-economic role of transport should not turn into a factor which inhibits development. Not all services rendered by suppliers at uneconomic tariffs can be placed in the cadre of socio-economic services. This applies only to those services that have to be rendered for the benefit of the community in general. In an economic sense socio-economic services therefore serve to promote the needs of the community and to the interests of the country. Consequently these are services which raise the standard of living of the community, which may be politically orientated and which provide essential services cheaply. It goes without saying that owing to the fact that any undertaking has to cover its total costs in the long term, socio-economic services can only be rendered by a transport undertaking if it is financially capable of covering the expenses out of its own resources, or if reimbursement can be applied from other sources for services rendered. It is therefore clear that no business undertaking, of its own accord, will render socio-economic services, and particularly not transportation services, if these are not economically profitable.

When one takes a closer look at the background, one sees that as long ago as 1910, at the National Convention, when the South African Constitution Act was formulated, the problems burdening the several railway systems at the time were identified and it was specifically laid down that the S.A. Railways should be managed on the basis of business principles, taking into consideration the development of agriculture and mining in those areas in the interior which were underdeveloped at that stage. As a result the Railways began with a differentiated rate structure based primarily on the “value of service” principle. It was then possible for the Railways to apply cross subsidization as a result of the fact that the S.A. Railways had no effective competitor in the field of transport.

Apart from the fact that the S.A. Railways began with this rate structure it also, in carrying out its charge to levy preferential rates for South African products, began to render its socio-economic services at that early stage. It is not only from today that there has been concern at the costs involved in socio-economic services. When one glances through previous annual reports of the S.A. Railways one finds that as long ago as 1911 the then General Manager of the Railways had the following to say—

As long ago as the ’twenties a book written by a certain Frankel entitled The Railway Policy of South Africa was published. The greatest portion of this book was devoted to the burden which the State had placed on the Railways by means of various directives and requests, a burden which was not in keeping with business principles. As long ago as 1927 Frankel estimated this economic burden at a total of £2,2 million. That is approximately R5 million.

As a result of the development of road transport in the late ’twenties it was realized that certain arrangements should be made for the sake of the S.A. Railways and for the sake of road transport. These arrangements consequently followed in 1930. It is very interesting to note that the then Minister of Transport, the late Mr. C. W. Malan, described this new development pattern in 1930 as follows—

This is a problem which is repeating itself today and cropping up to an increasing extent. The producer or manufacturer requests that the finished product or semi-processed material be conveyed by himself at normal rates and then they want the empty container, which takes up a great deal of space, to be conveyed back by the Railways. Consequently the cream is again being skimmed off by the private conveyor who conveys the full load, while the conveyance of the space-consuming container is channelled to the S.A. Railways.

As far as passenger services are concerned, the hon. member for Tygervallei has already indicated in an effective way that the time has arrived to reconsider this aspect, as it was also necessary in 1930 to examine the problems the Railways was experiencing at the time.

When transportation costs are being considered, it must be borne in mind that these include direct as well as indirect costs. It is important that these costs be classified into the most important components, i.e. the costs which the transport undertaking has to incur to be able to render its service and the costs which the user of transportation has to incur in order to make use of the transport service. Here considerations of quality such as speed, the possibility of damage, reliability and social costs play an important part. The object of establishing an orderly transport system in a country is to arrange transport among the various transport systems in such a way that the total costs, i.e. the cost of rendering the service, the utilization costs and the social costs, are in aggregate on the lowest possible levels.

It is a healthy state of affairs that there should be a choice of transportation media in South Africa, but the time has arrived for everyone in the transport service to accept co-responsibility. The responsibility should not be laid at the door of the S.A. Railways only. If there should be a change-over to completely free competition in the sphere of transportation and to complete freedom as far as transportation is concerned, it could have the result that in certain areas an over-supply and in others an under-supply could arise. This would lead to cut-throat rate competition which would cause the problem of price cutting to rear its head. It would lead to a monopolistic situation which could in the long run be harmful to South Africa. The time has therefore arrived for everyone in South Africa to accept co-responsibility and to accept that it is not only the S.A. Railways that has to bear the socio-economic responsibility.

I think it is as well that the Franzsen Commission should take cognizance of the fact that it is not only South Africa that is experiencing this problem of socio-economic services. The USA, Australia and the EEC countries have all experienced this problem already. In the USA an article appeared in which the role of the Railways was, inter alia, sketched as follows—

In respect of the “the right to compete” the article reads as follows—

Consequently I think the time has arrived for the competition which the S.A. Railways is experiencing to be dealt with in a fair and responsible way. The article also contains the statement that—

As far as the European countries are concerned, an obligation to provide transportation is being imposed, and the point of departure in respect of the rate obligations which are being imposed is that the transport undertaking only undertakes a service when it can be carried out solely according to business principles.

Truly, the user in South Africa enjoys some of the best transportation rights in the world.

The image of the S.A. Railways is fine and healthy. The image of the Ministry of Transport is fine and healthy. It has caused the Railway officials and the consumer to have a high regard for the hon. the Minister of Transport. It has also entailed that great expectations are entertained of the hon. the Minister. It is well that the hon. the Minister should make use of the media and Parliament to make announcements which may systematically be applied to the salary earner, the consumer and to the general development of South Africa and that those announcements are not inevitably channelled to the Press, but conveyed to the consumer and the officials from the House itself.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bethlehem has made some strange propositions about the place of free enterprise in the South African industrial-commercial transport scene, propositions on which I am sure very few economists would agree with him. I grant him the fact, however, that the S.A. Railways occupies a fairly unique place in our transport system. The hon. member also referred to certain aspects of the budget and budgetary policy, but I should have thought that one would have to suspend judgment on those aspects, because the more I look at this budget, the more I think that it will prove to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I am, in fact, apprehensive about the next few months. I think that we shall find that the pill has been sugar-coated and will taste bitter when we get down to the medicine itself.

I now want to raise three policy matters. The first relates to the tanker discharge terminal in Cape Town. I think that hon. members who have seen, from De Waal Drive or other elevated points, the set-up in the Duncan Dock, cannot but be extremely fearful of the calculated risk that the Administration is running. As far as I know this is the only major port in the world, certainly the only equivalent port, that has a tanker discharge and loading facility right in the middle of the port whose only entrance could be blocked and could therefore immobilize the port for months. Let me say at once that I believe that Cape Town is, in fact, sitting on a time bomb and that the oil facilities are not only inadequate but also dangerous. I think that everybody here realizes exactly what the position is. One only has to take a very simple aerial photograph, in fact even a photograph from a tall building in Cape Town or from Table Mountain, to see precisely what the problem is.

Let me, however, explain exactly what the problem is. Instead of having an off-shore buoy and pipeline system, as at Isipingo off Durban—I shall deal with that later—what we have in Cape Town is that a tanker has to come in from Table Bay, pass through the only entrance to the major basin which is Duncan Dock, veer to port and, as if that is not enough, then squeeze through a narrow entrance into a small tanker discharge and loading terminal basin. I can assure hon. members that the photographs I have here have not, in any way, been tampered with, and if one looks at them, one sees that there is a tanker basin right in the centre of the commercial operations of a major port.

What is the actual scope of this problem? If there were no significant tanker traffic, I could understand the calculated risk possibly being acceptable. However, the hon. the Minister will know that for various reasons our tanker traffic has, in fact, increased. In fact, because a tanker does not have off-shore facilities, and has to come into the Duncan Basin, it has to come in half full because otherwise its draught would be too deep. This means that one has double the amount of traffic in terms of ships. As a result something like four, five or six big tankers come into the terminal every month. In fact, as a result of the oil crisis the facilities are so stretched and inadequate that tankers now have to use a makeshift site on the eastern mole, which is right outside the entrance to the Duncan Dock.

What is the difficulty as regards this particular terminal? The difficulty is that these tankers discharge and load right in the centre of the harbour complex, close to other ships tied up, close to the Sturrock dry-dock, close to the repair yards, very close to another wharf and fairly close to the main wharves on the Table Mountain side. I say that a disaster would not only involve virtually every ship in Table Bay harbour, but the repair yards, the dry-dock and the yacht basin as well. If a tanker were to be involved in an explosion, whether self-initiated and accidental or caused by a collision, that tanker would have to be towed out of the Duncan dock as soon as possible, because if she were to founder anywhere near the entrance to the Duncan dock the consequences could be beyond our imagination. The whole port could be destroyed or, at least, immobilized. Can you imagine, Sir, a tanker of 250 000 tons going down across the entrance to the Duncan dock—and it is possible! If the hon. the Minister can tell me that that is impossible, I will say nothing further about the subject. However, if it is possible, if it is not just theoretically possible but distinctly possible, I believe we are sitting on a time bomb.

What risk is there of an explosion? Well, Sir, there was a tanker lying happily off Bantry in Ireland two months ago and look what happened. We all know about this tanker, the Betelgeuse. It went up like a Roman candle—nobody will ever know what happened—and 42 crew members and seven dock workers were killed instantly. A general disaster to shipping and the civilian population was averted because the tanker was lying offshore. If that had happened in Bantry itself, the consequences just do not bear thinking about.

Sir, I have talked about the possibility of a collision. The difficulty here is that these tankers have to come into our major commercial basin. The matter would have been different if the hon. the Minister’s department had supplied a tanker basin somehow separated from our main commercial shipping if not offshore. It is, however, right in the very centre. I invite hon. members to have a look next time they drive over De Waal Drive or along the national road to Paarl. If they do so, they will see that that basin is right in the centre. Apart from the prospect of a collision, the fact is that the tankers off-load crude oil and then load refined products, and I am not sure which of the two is the more inflammable. They both sound pretty bad to me. If one goes along of an afternoon and looks at the loading procedure of the refined products, one can actually see, let alone smell—they smell all right!—the fumes. It is like a shimmering mirage. Those are all highly inflammable gases. I think we are faced literally with an explosive situation.

I have referred to the makeshift site at the eastern mole where by luck there was a pipe that could convey oil over that distance. I very much hope, however, that that is very much a temporary measure because a tanker there is even worse than a tanker in Duncan dock.

I do not think hon. members should be led to understand that I have suddenly discovered a new problem, because that is not so. The hon. the Minister is at risk because 12 years ago he was told by a commission that this danger existed. The matter has been raised on several occasions elsewhere. What is the alternative? If what is good enough for Durban, is not good enough for Cape Town, I should like to know why. Can one imagine hon. members from Natal allowing enormous tankers to enter Durban harbour? No, Mr. Speaker. The only alternative is to provide a buoy and pipelines. [Interjections.] Of course it will cost money, but the hon. the Minister well knows that he is not providing facilities at Isipingo for nothing. He receives revenue from that buoy and those pipelines. He knows that. What is happening? Is this situation due to a lack of planning, of imagination or due to not turning the screw on the oil companies? I want to know what the reason is, because there is a perfectly adequate site north-west of Robben Island for a buoy and for pipelines to be laid to Killarney. I want to know exactly why after all these years we have seen nothing to this effect. There is an argument that some weather days would be lost. It is not so; the weather in Table Bay is not worse than the weather off Isipingo, and if five, six or 10 operating days are lost per year, you are not losing a lot. The Administration has said before that there are harbours like Le Havre, which has a tanker basin. That is not so. No sooner had the Administration said that, then an off-shore facility was built at Antifer, right off-shore from Le Havre. The problem is now becoming worse because tankers are becoming bigger and bigger. So, if hon. members are not prepared to see this kind of disaster repeated in the Cape Town docks, we expect some kind of action to be taken by the hon. the Minister.

The second matter of policy I should like to raise, is the operation of the Administration’s collier, the Johann Hugo. This collier carries locomotive and power station coal from Maputo to Cape Town. As far as I know it is the only commercial vessel operated by the Railways. So, can hon. members believe that a total management set-up, with offices in Johannesburg and Cape Town, is provided to run only one collier? This just does not make sense. It is in fact empire-building. There is nothing in commerce or in the transport discipline to justify the operation of one vessel by a total management set-up. Of course we know what the situation led to some years ago. I do not want to discuss the Faros disaster. I do not want to take up those old embers. However, that was a symptom.

The harbours administration, the tug service and the Johann Hugo operate so independently that a crew member of the Johann Hugo may not automatically be transferred to a tug or to the harbour administration; he has to resign and then re-apply. The effect of this separation on the crew of the Johann Hugo is demoralizing. I understand—if I am wrong, the hon. the Minister can correct me—there is no pension scheme. There is certainly no variety of ports of call for the crew members of the Johann Hugo. These crew members are shunted up and down on the long haul between Maputo and Cape Town all the days of their lives. There is no practice in cargo stowage and they are always handling a dirty cargo. I do not want to cast aspersions, but in a situation like that there is no way that the Administration can get the best possible people for the job, because they know that the only prospect for promotion is through death or resignation. What about the repair facilities? The hon. the Minister cannot make use of major facilities on the open market as the bigger companies can do. I understand—perhaps I am wrong again—that of all things he has to use the locomotive workshop at Salt River. The hon. the Minister has often said in this House that the Railways provide services. However, in this respect the Administration is not providing services. The Administration has entered the commercial field. This is totally inconsistent with what the hon. the Minister has said before, because the Railways are not sea managers. They may have been in the 1920’s when they ran vessels. In those years there were no other South African ships. But nowadays, with the expansion of South African merchant marine services, there is no reason whatsoever why the hon. the Minister should not hand over the operation or management—I am not talking about the ownership—of this vessel to Safmarine, to Unicorn or some other private operator. What would happen then? The crew would be integrated into a large maritime company, they would be subject to proper service conditions, they would gain experience in other stowage operations and they would be much happier. I believe there is no reason why the hon. the Minister should not transfer this management to the private sector.

Thirdly, I should like to raise the question of the Administration’s policy in regard to the air freighting of fruit and vegetables from South Africa to overseas destinations and in particular to Europe. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction, both in the transport sector and in the exporting sector, in regard to the S.A. Airways monopoly and also in regard to its policies in propping up that monopoly. The position is that in our peak harvesting months between November and March we have a vast tonnage of perishables, fruit and vegetables, for export, and we have a potentially very valuable market in Europe. But there is a bottleneck and, whereas the producers could have 12 000 tons of fruit and vegetables available for Europe, at the present time we are exporting under 5 000 tons in that peak period. Why are we losing a sum of more than R10 million in foreign exchange? What is the problem? The problem is the monopolistic attitude that exists, and what makes it even worse is that the S.A. Airways pretend that they are doing the right thing. In practice, they insist that they have a first refusal on cargoes out of South Africa, and only if they refuse an offer, do they permit other airlines to carry the perishables to Europe. In practice this deters foreign airlines or possible charterers from even considering taking fruit and vegetables out of South Africa. These operators would be encouraged if they could carry a south-bound freight of imported goods. Obviously, if they came with empty aircraft and then left with perishables, their profit margins would be minimal. However, if they could be encouraged to bring goods to South Africa as well as taking others out again, they would be on to a profitable operation. Here again, the S.A. Airways thwarts them. It attempts to comer the market. The rule is that, if the S.A. Airways and their pool-partners advise that scheduled airlines can accommodate incoming cargo, landing rights will be refused others by the Department of Civil Aviation. No charter operator can then come in. There is something wrong somewhere. I believe that, if the people producing fruit and vegetables in this country can make money in the European market, if there are buyers in Europe who want our perishables over there and if our products are worth advertising and selling, then far from applying a monopoly, the S.A. Airways should attempt to encourage this trade even if it involves an element of competition. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to take a long and hard look at the Airways’ protective policies. The air operators are waiting and meanwhile there is a real prejudice to South African trade.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Groote Schuur will forgive me if I do not react to his speech. He concentrated on local affairs, and I am sure that the hon. the Minister will give him a satisfactory reply. I must say that I am somewhat disappointed in his contribution. I was actually waiting for the hon. member to discuss the budget at greater length, but he saw fit not to do so.

The debate has hitherto been characterized by one outstanding fact, and that is the allegation that was made, or rather, the suspicion which was aroused in this House by the hon. member for Orange Grove, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti and also the hon. member for Groote Schuur in his introductory remarks. The allegation which was made here was intended to cast suspicion upon the hon. the Minister with regard to the contents of the budget. I find this in the remark by the hon. member for Orange Grove, “It is a good news budget and it is a bad news budget.” The hon. member for Amanzimtoti said that it was “a gambler’s budget”. The hon. member for Groote Schuur said it was a “a wolf in sheep’s clothing”. That was the first allegation that was made. We shall test it against the facts this afternoon. The second allegation which was made, by the hon. member for Orange Grove as well as the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, was calculated to create the impression, so it seems to me, that there is an election in the offing. [Interjections.] If there is in fact an election in the offing, why are they afraid of it? [Interjections.]

No, we want it.

If they are not at all afraid of an election, why do they associate the fact that there have been no tariff increases with the possibility of an election? [Interjections.] However, I do not want to debate the possibilities of an election this afternoon. I just find it strange that they are so sensitive about the word “election”.

Who is being sensitive about it now, Jannie?

The arguments which have been advanced here this afternoon to discredit this budget have failed. They have failed in every respect. I want to begin by addressing a few words to the hon. member for Orange Grove. The hon. member for Orange Grove said it in so many words here this afternoon. He wants to know from the hon. the Minister why he increased the tariffs last year, while he has not done so this year, although he is budgeting for a deficit once again. On the one hand, he says that he is glad the tariffs have not been increased. On the other hand, though, it is noticeable that he feels a little disappointed at the fact that the tariffs have not been increased.

The second statement made by the hon. member for Orange Grove was that if the hon. the Minister has to pay more for fuel, he should eliminate that expenditure by economizing in other respects. However, the hon. member for Orange Grove did not mention a single aspect in his speech on which the Railways should economize.

That is not true. I spoke about passenger services.

No, that is true.

Thank you!

Mr. Speaker, if this is a good news budget, I must assume that the man responsible for this good news budget is the hon. the Minister. How the hon. the Minister has been able to change from an inefficient Minister into an efficient one so rapidly, hon. members will have to decide for themselves this afternoon.

The hon. member for Orange Grove said the following about the hon. the Minister two years ago, only the other day (Hansard, 1977, col. 3515)—

Now comes the important sentence—

The same argument—

The hon. member for Orange Grove said this afternoon, too, that the contents of the budget did not quite ring true to him, that there was something which bothered him. That is because he cannot believe that the hon. the Minister has submitted this budget to the House, and under difficult circumstances at that Nor can he believe that in spite of everything, the hon. the Minister has not increased tariffs. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti referred to the budget as “the best controlled budget”. If this is so, I must assume that there was a great deal of planning in the budget which turned out to be correct. This budget is not the product of a situation which arose a few months ago, but of one which has been building up over the past two or three years. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti said in this House on 14 March 1977 (Hansard, 1977, col. 3527)—

If there had been bad planning and bad management in 1977, I cannot see how we could have managed to introduce the budget which is before the House this afternoon. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti also said (Hansard, 1977, col. 3528)—

These are words which the hon. member used three years ago. The hon. member went on to say the following in col. 3534—

It is clear to hon. members this afternoon what that planning department has in fact achieved. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti asked the hon. the Minister “to give instructions to all these planning departments to take out their sharp pencils and to ruthlessly cut out every bit of non-essential capital spending in the Railway budget”. The fat should be removed, he said, in order to streamline our transport services. He added—

We have heard nothing in that connection from the hon. member this afternoon. Nor have we heard anything from the hon. member in connection with the question of why the tariffs have not been increased. This is because hon. members on that side of the House concentrate on tariffs to the exclusion of all else. They just wait for tariffs to be increased before making a tremendous fuss. As soon as the hon. the Minister catches them on the wrong foot and fails to increase the tariffs, they have a hard time, as has been clear again this afternoon. I have heard absolutely no constructive criticism of the budget. This is because the budget cannot be criticized in any way. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister must be complimented on the fact that he has not increased the tariffs. Personally I think it is a miracle … [Interjections.]

Superman!

… because in spite of the fact that tariffs have not been increased, the hon. the Minister nevertheless succeeds in keeping operating expenditure constant and in transporting everything which is offered. No essential and economic services have been curtailed, there have been no retrenchments of staff and there are no immediate signs of a general drastic drop in the Railway revenue. Funds set aside for depreciation remain constant, and the survival of the Railways is assured.

Because of the energy crisis, it is obvious that the public is going to make more use of the Railways as a means of transport. This is bound to increase the revenue of the Railways. If I understood it correctly, hon. members asked here this afternoon whether, although tariffs have not been increased at this stage, it will not be done in the future. They are already afraid of that. This has also aroused the suspicion that they do not want to accept the hon. the Minister’s word.

Did he say so?

The hon. the Minister explained it clearly in his speech.

What I find illuminating about this budget is the fact that the hon. the Minister has not concealed anything. If the tariffs have to be increased later this year, I shall be the first to say: “Increase the tariffs if it is necessary.” When we increase tariffs, it is because it is essential, and usually it is an inevitable consequence of certain situations within the S.A. Railways. The hon. the Minister explained it very clearly and unequivocally in his speech, so that the country may know what the position is. He said (Hansard, 1979, col. 1971)—

The hon. the Minister went further and made it very clear that the possibility that tariffs may have to be increased in the future was not being concealed. He made it clear. He went on to say in col. 1972—

It could not be put more clearly.

Reference has also been made this afternoon to the Transport (Co-ordination) Act. This is a matter I should like to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention, because I believe that we shall have to watch this matter very carefully. It appears to me that the tendency is for this private road transportation to be allowed without regard for the interests of the Railways. I want to quote a passage from Volkshandel, the official magazine of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut. The report appeared in February 1971, on page 9—

This is a matter which merits our attention, I believe, because I am convinced that the Railways should receive the necessary protection in every respect as far as this is concerned.

Why have I said that this is a brilliant budget? This budget proves in various respects that where financial matters may have gone wrong, they have been rectified immediately during this financial year, so that this budget could be introduced. Management went out of its way to make the Railways as efficient as possible. When one considers the passenger services, one finds that there has been a big drop in first-class main-line journeys. The Railways immediately intervened and brought about an equalization. During the financial year, a further 32 long-distance and 47 suburban trains were cancelled, while passenger facilities on 15 mixed trains were curtailed. This is further proof of the fact that management not only plans, but knows what is going on every day.

As far as the Airways is concerned, the surplus amounted to R31,9 million, as against the expected surplus of R1,1 million. In order to meet the needs of the public, additional overseas flights have been introduced, and two additional aircraft have been ordered for delivery in October 1980 and in January 1981. All this is being done to meet the requirements.

As far as staff is concerned, we can only pay tribute to them, for had it not been for their undivided loyalty and sacrifice in the interests of this country, the hon. the Minister would not have been able to submit such a fine budget. The wheels were kept rolling by a smaller, but more efficient labour force. Labour methods and procedures were improved. Excellent results were obtained with the reduction of labour costs, without any loss of productivity. The average annual increase in productivity for the period from 1971 to 1978 is 2,9%. Now that we have a budget here which meets all the country’s requirements, it should be pointed out that this side of the House has always been able to depend on the loyalty of the railway worker. The Government has always been able to depend on the willingness of every railway worker to do his best for the Administration under the most difficult circumstances. The reason is that the Government looks after the interests of the railway workers, and statistics prove this, but they will not be quoted by hon. members of the Opposition because they are only interested in tariff statistics. They are not interested in the staff. In 1948, the total wage account of the Railways was R109 million. Today, the figure in respect of wages and salaries is R998 million. This is a phenomenal increase and it is attributable to the growth of the S.A. Railways. When it comes to the salary increases which have been granted from time to time, we cannot compare the record of the NP with that of any other Government in the past. We cannot even compare it with that of the United Party, because they no longer exist. This makes it difficult. There is no party against which the record of the NP may be measured. What has the hon. the Minister achieved over the past year or two in respect of the staff of the Railways? Firstly, there have been the revised salary scales which became applicable with effect from 1 January 1978. These cost the country R81 million. In September 1978 and subsequently there was the elimination of certain anomalies which cost the country R25 million. In January 1979, the staff saving bonus came into operation, costing a further R25 million, and in April 1979, revised salary scales are coming into operation which will cost R125 million. During the period between 1977 and 1979, therefore, an amount of R256 million has been ploughed back into the staff of the S.A. Railways. It is important to note that as far as the staff saving bonus is concerned, the lower-income groups received the highest percentage.

As regards the staff tendency in the S.A. Railways, it will be found that the Railways remains the best employer in the Republic of South Africa. This is proved by the statistics. Since 1970, the number of resignations has dropped, and in addition, the number of persons who resigned and were subsequently re-employed has increased. This proves that when someone is employed by the S.A. Railways and resigns because he thinks the grass is greener on the other side of the fence, he very quickly returns to the service of the Railways. The reason is that the Railways looks after its employees and does everything in its power to keep its employees, to attract other employees and to provide in the needs of every person in its service.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Uitenhage has dealt very effectively with the arguments of the Opposition. It is clear to me that the Opposition cannot get its teeth into this budget. Its criticism is ineffectual and superficial. However, one can understand that, because this is a good budget, a brilliant budget! The reasons for this are obvious, of course. The determined efforts of the Railways to discipline itself, to increase productivity and to improve techniques are bound to produce results, after all. Hence this splendid budget, without any tariff increases, a budget for which the hon. the Minister has received praise from so many quarters.

I now want to come to what the hon. member for Amanzimtoti said, namely “This budget is an election budget.” I can understand, of course, that his fear is already growing, because it was touch and go for him in his constituency last time! He is afraid that his little party, a relic of the former great party of Gen. Smuts, will be completely wiped out during the next election. [Interjections.]

Stick to the Railway budget!

He is afraid that he himself will not return to this House.

Put your money where your mouth is!

We do not fear an election. [Interjections.] We shall come back to this House as strong as ever, no matter when an election is called.

I want to discuss another important and very positive matter today, and that is the remarkable role played by the S.A. Railways in Southern Africa. I want to talk about the role of the Railways with regard to peace, about its diplomatic role, its economic role, its strategic role and its role as a Samaritan. Railway construction in Africa began in South Africa when work commenced in 1859 on the first railway line in Africa, here in the south between Cape Town and Wellington. [Interjections.] If hon. members would only listen, they would get the facts. Because of delays, this railway line of 92 km was only completed in 1863, however.

When the station at Delmas was built.

That enabled Natal to take the lead. [Interjections.] In June 1860, the first railway line in Natal was opened. It was a short line, only 3,2 km long, between Durban and Durban Point. I understand, however, that the hon. member for Durban Point had no share in it With the construction of the Cape Town-Wellington line, however, the Railways ran into great difficulties from the outset I should like to tell the House the very interesting story. Hundreds of people from Paarl, Wellington and Stellenbosch signed petitions because the train was to run on Sundays as well.

Disgraceful!

When that attempt did not succeed, a private company was formed under the leadership of the Rev. Van der Lingen to convey passengers with a horse-drawn carriage, in competition with the Railways. However, this attempt also failed.

They were boycotters, too.

If the hon. members would only be quiet, they could also learn something. The local authority there cooperated and refused to make land available for a station. One Mr. Malan of Wellington then made a piece of land available free of charge and his condition was that all the trains to the north should stop there. That is why all the trains to the north, even the Blue Train, still stop at Wellington.

Later, the compromise was reached that the trains would not transport goods on Sundays, but that passengers would be transported, and that they could also pick up the people on their way to church. Because the revenue from that Sunday service was only £20/10/- per Sunday, and the profit was a meagre £2, the Sunday train was discontinued and the people had their way after all the petitions they had drawn up.

I now want to discuss the great railway expansion in Southern Africa and the part played by our Railways in this connection. The great railway expansion was triggered by the discovery of diamonds at Kimberley in 1870 and of gold at the Witwatersrand in 1886. The wheels began to roll to the north. It is very interesting that the pattern of colonial economic development in Southern Africa was to be determined by the Cape Railways for decades. No wonder that Cecil Rhodes’s ideal was a railway line from the Cape to Cairo. However, this dream of Rhodes, like many of his other dreams, was never realized. Pres. Kruger was more realistic. He wanted a means of communication with Mozambique, and on 2 November 1894, the railway line from the Transvaal to the old Lourenco Marques was completed. In 1897, the Kimberley line reached Bulawayo in Rhodesia through Bechuanaland.

Our outward movement began with the forging of closer links with the countries of Southern Africa. Subsequently, the S.A. Railways has opened doors and built bridges of economic co-operation that cut across ideological divisions and extend deep into the heart of Africa. We probably realize by this time that we are inextricably bound up with the lives of the nations of this subcontinent. We need them, but they need us even more, for the outstanding characteristic of economic life in Southern Africa is South Africa’s economic wealth and power. South Africa’s economy has not only become a stabilizing factor in this subcontinent, but South Africa can in fact become the cornerstone of a dynamic development scheme which can strengthen immeasurably the economies of neighbouring States if they would only realize that their salvation lies with us and not with strange ideologies. However, there are all kinds of obstructions in the way of cooperation between States in Southern Africa today. There are political obstructions and there are ideological obstructions. In spite of this, co-operation can still be planned on the basis of industrial relations, commerce and the flow of money between countries. This emphasizes the overriding importance of effective and efficient communications such as railways, roads and harbours. An interesting fact is that 14 countries in this subcontinent of Africa are landlocked, i.e. they are cut off from the sea. Fourteen of the 28 countries of the world who share that fate are situated in Africa. Among them are many of South Africa’s neighbouring States such as Zambia, Malawi, Rhodesia, Botswana and Lesotho. In recent years, political disputes have led to the closing of borders and military action has led to the destruction of railway lines in Southern Africa. This has placed those landlocked countries in the difficult position of being cut off from their transport arteries. Of course, this has not happened to the countries which were directly or indirectly linked to the South African railway system. This has offered the S.A. Railways the opportunity of playing a meaningful role in the relations with our neighbouring States, a role which the Railways has fulfilled magnificently.

I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and the General Manager of the Railways, Dr. Kobus Loubser, on their conduct as ambassadors and on the way in which they have extended a hand of friendship, cooperation and assistance to neighbouring States. The whole country thanks Dr. Loubser and his men for their tireless efforts to negotiate, to use their good offices, to render assistance where necessary and to get wheels rolling again where revolution has brought them to a standstill. I should like to say that Dr. Loubser, an able General Manager, has also emerged as one of our country’s ablest diplomats. South Africa is deeply grateful to him for the way in which he has helped to open doors and to keep them open. It has led to better relations, good neighbourship and the expansion of traffic and commerce in the Southern African complex.

Common interests, especially transport interests, bind countries together. This applies particularly in Southern Africa, where railway systems are able to link up as a result of uniform rail gauges and certain equipment South Africa’s special expertise in the field of transport and the high level of development of our internal transport infrastructure are constantly opening doors to us among people who simply want to learn from us.

A country’s level of development is often measured by its infrastructure, especially its transport infrastructure. The Republic’s infrastructure is almost eight times as large as that of the rest of Southern Africa. It is calculated that the economic power of our transport economy is seven times bigger than that of the rest of the whole subcontinent. Therefore South Africa is the undisputed leader in the field of transport in Southern Africa. How valuable this is to our country! It projects an image of our country as one which is taking the initiative and which is prepared to share its knowledge and expertise with other people.

I should like to say something about Mozambique and the role played there by our Railway men. The Railways has played a special role there. The Railways acted wisely by not throwing in the towel after the takeover by the Frelimo regime in 1975 and withdrawing its staff from Mozambique, but doing everything in its power to enable the railway line and the harbour to start functioning again after that catastrophic collapse. This has had the effect of making Mozambique very dependent on South Africa. Although Mozambique has severed diplomatic relations with us, it has not dared, therefore, to act aggressively towards us. This has greatly benefited South Africa, because considerable amounts of our ore and citrus exports are handled by Maputo. We have lent them locomotives and we have given them advice. Not to have done so would have been to our disadvantage. It is obvious that we did so out of purely economic considerations. It has also been necessary to try to maintain trade with Mozambique. Mozambique used to buy a great deal of food, clothes, fertilizer, machinery, coal and so forth from South Africa before that take-over, and because we had kept the railway line open, the opportunity was created for this trade to continue. The signing a few weeks ago of a co-operation agreement between the S.A. Railways and the railways of Mozambique was a great victory. It was a triumph for the S.A. Railways. By doing that, Mozambique publicly admitted its dependence on South Africa, in the presence of all the media.

Let us look at the position of Zambia. Zambia was dependent on the Tanzam line and the Benguella line. Because of operating problems, traffic on the Tanzam Chinese line to Dar-es-Salaam has ground to a halt and the line lying useless. The Benguella line through Angola is not operating either, because of guerilla action. This placed Zambia in a great predicament. Its arteries had been cut off. Pres. Kaunda could not even import fertilizer in order to ward off famine in his country. Pres. Kaunda’s lifeline had been cut off, and he had to swallow his pride and turn to South Africa. The only solution was for South Africa to help Zambia through Rhodesia to export copper and to import fertilizer. Overtures were made, and the S.A. Railways decided to help. Within 2½ months, Pres. Kaunda’s fertilizer problem had been solved. This was a rescue operation on our part which we hope will be remembered.

The shortage of basic necessities in the shops of Zambia was also great, so great that they asked us to let them have some of these products as well. This was done, and the goods they are buying from us now include food and general consumer goods. We understand that the Railways is transporting approximately 100 000 tons of goods in either direction for Zambia within the space of three months. For several reasons, the capacity of the line to Zambia is still limited. What is important, however, is that the economic lifeline to Zambia has been opened. This opens markets to the South African economy. We thank the Railways for that. Now we also ask the private sector to utilize this opportunity which has been created for it and to exploit this new African market. It offers them a golden opportunity for trade, trade which can only be beneficial to South Africa.

Let us look at the picture of Swaziland. Swaziland has been co-operating with Mozambique in railway matters for many years. When Mozambique almost came to a standstill, they also had great problems. They imported several foreign experts to come and help them, especially Canadians, but it was not successful. Very soon they found out that it was best to turn to South Africa for assistance. What was the result? The result was the opening of the line between Phuysamoya and Gollel, the first direct railway line between the Republic and Swaziland. It connects Swaziland with Durban and Richards Bay and once again creates great trade possibilities for South Africa.

Let us look at Botswana. Botswana also plans to operate its own railways now. Botswana intends to take over in an orderly fashion the Rhodesian railway which runs through its territory and to operate the line itself. Botswana has begun by buying railway trucks from South Africa. There is now a large group of British experts in Botswana, a group which also negotiates continuously with the S.A. Railways. So Botswana, too, relies heavily on South Africa for help and advice. There are others to which the same applies.

As far as Rhodesia is concerned, the Railways has probably made the greatest single contribution in recent years towards saving that country from economic collapse. This, too, was a rescue operation performed by the S.A. Railways. The Minister of Transport and his men are helpful, but we must remember that they are good businessmen. The assistance and the cooperation which they offer so freely across the borders of the country are founded on strict economic and business principles. From South Africa’s side, therefore, there is no attempt to buy the favour of politically hostile countries with such acts. South Africa is too familiar with the realities of Africa to do that.

We know that there are risks attached to agreements between States. However, who would let pass, out of fear for risks, the challenges he ought to accept in the interests of his country?

I want to conclude. It is undoubtedly a remarkable fact that the Railways has been playing a political and a strategic role in South Africa for decades. That is why writers have begun to talk about “railways and revolutions”. This has given the railways of Southern Africa an importance out of all proportion to their economic use as routes of trade. However, it is fortunate for us that this should be so, because the S.A. Railways forms the artery of this railway network, and is still able to play a growing role in Africa as far as this aspect is concerned. Another reason for this is that for many countries in this subcontinent, the S.A. Railways has become the vital means of communication with the rest of the world.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bloemfontein North gave us a very, very interesting history lesson. There were many very interesting facts in it. However, I really felt it would have been more in place at a school or a Rapportryers’ meeting or a gathering of that nature, rather than in this House. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Uitenhage mentioned the fact that it was a wonderful budget, that it could hardly be better, that it was “skitterend”, and all sorts of superlatives. I would, however, like to ask him a question. If the hon. the Minister had tabled a budget without tariff increases, and at the same time showed a profit on the Railways, would that not be a better budget? Obviously, it would be a better budget. This, of course, is one of the problems that we on this side of the House have with this particular budget. It is all very well not to raise tariffs, and we are very happy that tariffs are not being raised. However, if we could arrive at a situation in which efficiency and productivity were such that we did not increase tariffs, but made a profit at the same time, we in this country would be in a far better position. The hon. member for Uitenhage also mentioned how well the Railways looked after its staff and how well it handled everything regarding staff matters, how people kept coming back to the Railways after they had left because something on the other side of the hill had looked better. However, I should like to know what the hon. member has to say about the leg of our amendment which says—

This is perfectly true, because one of the important things about looking after one’s staff is to look after them after they have left, and not only while they are working for one. [Interjections.] There is no doubt that the plight of the 1973 pensioners is in fact a very, very unpleasant one, and that the 1973 pensioner is badly in need of having his position looked at with sympathy. He is also badly in need of an increase in his pensionable allowance.

If one takes an off-hand look at all this mass of information that we get from the Railways Administration—information which is very interesting—one would think that one is perhaps dealing with a very good budget. Last year the profit was increased to R53 million. We are having no rate increases at this stage, but one must wonder how long it will take before those rate increases do come. Obviously, they are going to come some time. If they come within the next three to four months one would think that some sort of a confidence trick had been pulled. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will give us at least a minimum of six months’ grace on this tariff structure in order to enable the Railways Administration to show whether they are getting the extra goods through their train services and through their air services which they need to bring down this deficit of R201 million.

We heard stories from the hon. the Minister about greater efficiency, greater productivity, and the like. However, one wonders how efficient the Railways are. In this regard I should just like to quote from the Daily Dispatch of 6 March this year. This relates to a sporting team from East London going to Pretoria on a S.A. Railway bus. This is what happened. They left on Wednesday. By Sunday night the bus had broken down three times. The next morning they were flown to Pretoria on a regular flight. We should note that this happened only the next morning, not the same day. As a result of that they arrived at Pretoria just in time for the gymnastrada gathering which was taking place there. Afterwards they were flown more than half the way home on a Boeing which was specially chartered for them. Now, I wonder what that would have cost the Railways Administration. Remember they were flown on a specially chartered Boeing. There were 51 people in the group and they were flown from Bloemfontein because the bus they had chartered had broken down three times. I would suggest that the Railways Administration could perhaps look at the possibility of improving that bus service or improving the quality of the buses they use. [Interjections.]

So, as I have said, we heard stories of greater productivity and of greater efficiency. However, when one looks at the budget, what does one in fact find? One finds that in the budget tabled by the hon. the Minister he is spending money like a drunken Indian. When one looks at some of the details of this budget one can produce these facts.

Railway transportation services are increasing their expenditure by 16,06%. That is a tremendously high percentage. Staff increases, on the other hand, are only 10%. Harbours are increasing their expenditure by 15,2%. Airways are increasing their expenditure by 15,92% and pipelines—I think this is the worst of them all—are increasing their expenditure by 20%. Transportation services for pipelines are increasing their working and maintenance expenditure by 20%, when there is in fact an actual decline of 3,14% in the amount of revenue they expect to receive. This is a very good way for an organization to go broke by increasing their expenditure by 20% while knowing they are budgeting for a decline in revenue of 3,14%. So one can go on through this particular budget. The amount required for “Maintenance of Permanent Way under Contract”, Account No. 212, is being increased by 54,53%. Perhaps hon. members will now understand why I make these allegations. The amount for telecommunication installations and equipment is being increased by 31%. I see another increase here of 15,12% and in respect of electric power expenditure is being increased by 29,03%. This is a tremendous sum of money. I do not know whether one should blame the Railways or Escom for this, because we also know that Escom can increase its tariffs at an incredible rate, thus harming to a very large extent not only the Railways but also private enterprise.

When one gets to “Traffic and Vehicle Running Expenses”, one sees that the expenditure on “Traffic Handling Equipment: Goods” is being increased by 52,5% and on cartage services in total by 48,57%. Throughout this book one finds tremendous increases in expenditure. I am sorry, but if I were the man responsible for putting this budget together and for correlating and authorizing it—and I have some experience in this field—I would certainly send these figures back to the various heads of departments and tell them that the expenditure would have to be reduced because the Railways Administration could not afford increases of this nature in its expenditure for the coming year. I believe the expenditure is of a scandalously high rate.

If one looks at the capital budget, one finds exactly the same thing. In terms of the capital budget, the expenditure has been increased by 24%. However, if one takes out of the picture the expenditure for this year and last year on the Saldanha railway line and Saldanha Bay Harbour, an amount of R33 million, one finds that the capital expenditure of the S.A. Railways is being increased by 29,22%. To me this is once again indicative of the fact that they are spending money at a rate at which I do not believe they should be spending money. Where are they getting the money from? They are going to borrow from external sources, Treasury loans to the amount of R752 million and foreign and other loans to the amount of R200 million. This gives a total of R952 million being borrowed by the Administration for their capital budget. This money comes from sources which would perhaps otherwise be lending funds to private industry, funds which would be of direct value for South Africa in terms of employment and a number of other matters.

I have very little time left. However, there are one or two small thoughts which I want to mention, although I have not got time to expand on them. I would like to leave these thoughts with the hon. the Minister. I would like to know why he is expanding our overseas services and why he has given permission for two Boeing 747 aircraft to be bought when I have a feeling—and I am not sure whether my information is correct—that our overseas airways services are to quite a large extent unprofitable. We have to fly around the bulge, we have a tremendous additional distance to cover, particularly to Europe. I would like to know whether our overseas airways services are in fact profitable and whether we should be expanding them at the rate we are.

Mr. Speaker, there is one matter about which I feel very strongly, and that is the ineffectiveness and negative criticism of hon. members of the Opposition in this House. They are causing damage by their utterances in respect of which they do not set a watch before their mouth, but say in the House: “I do not know whether what I am saying here now, is the truth.”

†Is it impossible for the hon. members to try to find out whether their statements are true or false? Nobody is stopping the hon. members from going to the department to find out whether it is fact or fiction. I think the time has come for people in this House to realize their responsibilities. The hon. member for Orange Grove, for example, started crying here like a petunia in an onion patch, for more than half an hour, making allegations about the Railway’s inefficiency, etc. Then afterwards he wanted to know whether what he had said was true. What kind of a situation are we in in this country? [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

I should like to advise the hon. member for Houghton not to interject while I am speaking. I shall deal with the hon. member for Houghton next week, and not during this budget. The time has come for people in this country to know their responsibilities.

Tell the Cabinet that.

Hon. members on that side of the House should definitely realize that they also have a responsibility in this House.

The hon. member for Groote Schuur made the statement that Cape Town is sitting on a live bomb.

A time bomb.

What kind of talk is that? He has known about this problem for 12 years, but he only reports it today.

Scare stories.

According to him he could see the fumes from Table Mountain, but he has never reported the matter before. Why not? Was the hon. member secretly hoping and praying that some explosion would block the harbour entrance, as he had predicted? I think the time has come for every one of the hon. members in this House, particularly the members of the Opposition, to weigh their words and to make sure that their statements are not ruining the country to a much greater extent than any inefficiency in any department.

*The hon. member for East London North said that the Railways was going to borrow R900 million. This indicates that foreign countries have confidence in the Railways, for no bank will lend money to an institution in which it has no confidence. Why can private enterprise not lend the money?

†Do we stop them from going to other banks? Is the Railways blocking them in any way? No. The credibility of the Railways is such that overseas countries want to lend the money. They want to invest money in an organization like the Railways. If hon. members want to talk of irresponsible people, they should first read what Stephen Mulholland of the Sunday Times has to say. Have hon. members read this article? He referred to Keynes’ idea that one cannot manufacture something out of nothing. The hon. Opposition can, however, manufacture something out of nothing, but I am not allowed to say what it is they are doing in this House.

*What did the hon. member say? He started, as the Opposition usually does, by referring to one good aspect, and then to 50 negative aspects. He said, inter alia, that the present General Manager was the best since the days of Marshall Clark. Hon. members probably still remember Marshall Clark. It was a sore point when he was removed in 1948-’49, and they are still fighting about it. The hon. Opposition, however, claims that the present General Manager is the best General Manager since the days of Marshall Clark. What, then, is their problem? They say: “Now you will know what we pay for apartheid”.

†Now hon. members will realize that the poor man and those who must advise him are unable to read the budget properly. They perhaps forget, however, that train services for the Bantu people are already subsidized by R57 million. Let us look at the amount of money that is spent on first-class and second-class train services for the White population.

*Why did he not refer to this as well? It is because those hon. members are all racists. The hon. member for East London North spoke about a “drunken Indian”.

†I think that is a disgrace.

I referred to Red Indians! Have you never heard of that expression?

Whether he is red, white or blue, I do not care. As usual the hon. member is running away because the Indians may at some stage or other get the vote and they may then point out that those hon. members are more racist than anybody else in this country. I do not like the remark “You spend money like a drunken Indian”. The hon. member could just as well have said “You spend money like a drunk”.

He should have said “You spend money like the Department of Information”.

I do not think anyone with common sense would react to an interjection made by the hon. member for Bryanston.

The work done by the Railways is not rated at its true value. The hon. the Minister and the management do not receive the gratitude they deserve. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti spoke of “budgeting for a deficit”. What does this mean? Should the budget be drawn up in such a manner that the Railways officials can see that there will be a profit which we have not yet shown? If the tariffs are not increased for a period of six months, this means that the whole country will benefit for six months. Do you have any objections to the application of a lower tariff for these six months? Do you object to that?

They will not answer.

Order! The hon. member for Langlaagte should not address other hon. members directly.

The major and important point is that we do not wish to increase the tariff. Everyone knows that there is an inflation rate of 10%, but an effort is being made to do something about this over a period of six months or longer by way of an increase in traffic. Hon. members of the Opposition do not wish the country to benefit. I wish to express my gratitude to people in my constituency whom I visit on three or four occasions every year. During my visits the man was either working overtime, or completing his shift, or sleeping. This means that his social life suffers. These people sacrifice a great deal. The wife also makes her contribution by having to keep the children quiet during the day while the husband is sleeping. This shows that these people are prepared to do something positive for South Africa. When it comes to expressing gratitude for the increases in salaries and the increases in pensions, I wish to ask the hon. the Minister to give serious consideration to the possibility of perhaps granting an urban allowance to the pensioner in the urban areas at some stage. When we visit these people, it is clear that they are struggling to make ends meet due to increases in rates and taxes, the cost of electricity etc. There should be an in-depth investigation into this aspect. We are grateful to take cognizance of what has already been done, but we nevertheless wish to ask that this aspect be re-investigated.

The success story of the Railways in recent times is due to good management. When one looks as the management of the Railways, one clearly sees that the Administration is aware of cost control. Even at an ordinary railway station it is evident that the staff is aware of costs. Even revenue is constantly being evaluated. Regular attention is being paid to the question of how revenue can be obtained and how this will influence other revenue. It is clear that this process of evaluation is largely successful. The marketing processes initiated during the past two years, are better than one would expect in an organization of this nature. With reference to road transport and other free transport undertakings, it has already been proved that these bodies are becoming concerned about the legal protection enjoyed by the Railways. They are even expressing the fear that as a result of the legal protection it enjoys, the Railways will in due course be able to eliminate competition by the private undertakings. This, however, is negative talk, talk which is also sometimes heard in this House. As far as I am concerned, these are hollow cries. The most important aspect is the sound financial policy followed by the Railways. It is not an attempt to create their own financing by way of constant tariff increases, but also an attempt to balance loan financing. Herein lies the success of this budget.

If, for instance, we see the extent to which the Railways has inspired its employees in recent times, and the way in which the ordinary Railway worker accepted his task, one realizes and sees that that inspiration has permeated from the hon. the Minister, throughout the top structure down to the ordinary worker. Thrift is evident. People are determined to build up this undertaking in which each of them has a stake. The worker no longer has complaints as in earlier years. There is no time for complaints. There is only time to build up and develop the structure of the Railways, in accordance with the example set at the top. The labourer is not cast into darkness; he is not pushed into a field or sphere which he does not know, but fills a post he is suited to. They receive training. This applies to White and non-White. Everyone is motivated and trained for his task. A man who knows his task, an artisan who knows what he has to do, is a happy man. He is productive. It did not take long before target management became part of the Railways. Why? When target management— in fact, every other form of management—is applied in a large project, it takes two to three years for people to understand it and this results in a process of delay. This is not the case here. Because people are consistently management-orientated and receive training they are ready to accept the challenge and they understand what is going on. They know how to apply what they have learnt.

When one looks at the question of cost control, one sees that substantial savings have been effected; Not only at the highest level, but also at other levels. One should not be obsessed by expenditure. The hon. member claimed that 50% of the total expenditure need not have been spent. However, I wish to tell him that if one spends 50% of the total expenditure on something showing a net profit of 20%, that is sound expenditure. One should not only look at the negative aspect of that expenditure. A saving can also be very detrimental. A saving for the sake of saving could cause problems. For that reason one should see to it that a saving is always positive and aimed at economy.

Something which struck me in particular, are the innovations brought about by the Railways. “Innovation” means a new method of doing the same thing, but doing it better and more productively. Innovations take a very important place in the activities of the Railways.

I now wish to deal with the choice of projects. The Railways has to decide which projects should be initiated and which projects should enjoy priority. They also have to establish what revenue will be derived from a project, what the relationship is between one project and another and why certain projects should receive priority. This is extremely important. This is something which has been studied to good effect and in depth in recent times. For example, the increase in costs has been investigated. As far as road transport and rail transport are concerned, it must be established whether the costs have increased to such an extent that those services have become unprofitable. The Railways have paid attention to this aspect to see whether new transport services should not perhaps be established. There should be a method of checking and tabulating the cost of private transport. The results of such an investigation should, however, be publicized, and this should be done by us in this House as well.

To my mind the methods adopted as regards the marketing of the Railways are among the best. I have looked into this matter a little. Marketing entails not only publicity for an item, but also a calculated cost investigation. The people who do the marketing must know exactly what is being offered and at what price. The marketer is acquainted with the existing competition. He knows exactly where he can cut costs, because he is acquainted with the cost structure. Therefore marketing entails a total knowledge of the marketed article. The aggressive marketing method of the Railways is something of which one can really be proud.

When one looks at the financial policy followed by the Railways and one sees the balance between loan capital and self-financing, one cannot but note this with appreciation. Hon. members in this House have been attacking us for a long time, telling us that the loans raised by state corporations are too large, but if the Railways applies self-financing to the same extent that they raise loans, criticism is also expressed.

How many times has mention not been made of equipment written off, and how many times have public corporations not been criticized for not writing their equipment off in time and not establishing which equipment had to be written off? One should look at the economic effectiveness of equipment. A machine may perhaps still be in good condition, but this does not necessarily mean that it is functioning economically. One should make provision for this, but one should not do so when it is too late. One should establish when one is going to write equipment off. Sometimes it is sound financial policy to write equipment off. This should be investigated.

The greatest problem we are experiencing in this country, is that the Opposition—I do not quite wish to include the NRP here—is no longer prepared to look at the administration of the country. I wish to address them seriously, but calmly. They are not an alternative Government. The administration of the country is not a deep and serious matter for them. In July, just before the election, the hon. member for Musgrave said that the Opposition was not interested in a large White Opposition which would be able to achieve something with a large number of votes. Hon. members can go and read this. Why did he say this? The reason is that the Opposition’s view on South Africa and her political situation is completely different and they do not wish to look at the administration of the country. Because they are a small group, they concern themselves entirely with trifles and they try to make ideological statements.

Last month, for instance, the hon. member for Orange Grove spoke about the passenger coaches for Blacks which are linked to the back of the train at Touws River so that the White passenger coaches are at the front of the train when it enters Cape Town station. This is essential due to the position of the exits and facilities for Blacks at the Cape Town station, but the hon. member does not see it in this light. For him it is something terrible, something which he has now discovered for the first time. According to him we apply apartheid to such an extent that we first place the passenger coaches for non-Whites at the front of the train so that the dust will fly into the eyes of the non-Whites and then place the coaches at the back of the train so that the non-Whites have to alight further away in the station. Surely such statements are not what one expects from the chief spokesman of the Railway group in the official Opposition. The negative attacks made by the hon. member in recent times, have contributed nothing to promoting a better railway system or better ideas.

What about your speech?

I know the hon. member does not understand my speech. I have taken many IQ tests in my life, and therefore I know an unintelligent child. [Interjections.]

It is important to note that an hon. member, who serves in a Select Committee, can really tell one that he is not voting for or against something! What he says is that “I am neither here nor there”. At some stage in one’s life one has to take a stand. However, when one knows nothing about something, it is easiest to gain time by saying that one is not voting for or against it. The hon. member therefore wishes to retain the right to express an opinion only after everything has been discussed and proved. The hon. member does not wish to institute an investigation to see what is wrong. Neither do you wish to vote on it or say whether it is positive or negative. You want to sit back and criticize. You want to be sitting on the side where the bubble lands. I ask the Opposition not to do this.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members of the Opposition parties are disappointed people, and when we listen to their arguments, we have to come to the conclusion that the hon. members are not only disappointed, but frustrated as well. They believed, in fact they were convinced, that tariffs would be increased. What happened, however? The hon. the Minister introduced his budget without any tariff increase. What did the Opposition newspapers say, however, on the morning the budget speech was to be made? I quote from the Daily News, one of their newspapers, and they should listen to what the newspapers say—

Who said that?

Your paper.

Those poor hon. members are asleep. I am talking to the official Opposition. It is so easy to judge another by oneself. The newspaper report further states—

This is the way in which they drew their own conclusions, and that is why I say that the Opposition members are disappointed and frustrated people today. The newspaper report further states—

Can hon. members see, therefore, what gave rise to their disappointment? They had already accepted the fact that there would definitely be an increase and the newspaper reporters were already speaking of a 4,5% increase. The newspaper report goes on to say—

Hon. members have also discussed that this afternoon. Can we therefore blame the Opposition for being disappointed and frustrated? That is why the hon. member for Orange Grove made a reprehensible—I cannot think of another word—attack on the hon. the Minister. And what did he say? What were the words he used? He suggested that the Railways Administration was laying down the law to the hon. the Minister. I cannot think of a more reprehensible insinuation that could be made in this House. It was the hon. member for Orange Grove who said that…

Yes, that is how we know him.

That is what those people use to discredit the hon. the Minister. That is what they are doing, in spite of the fact that the hon. the Minister introduced a budget here which contains no tariff increase, and he gave his reasons for it. Furthermore, the hon. member for Orange Grove blamed the hon. the Minister by saying that the hon. the Minister would use the present fuel problems to force back to the Railways the goods which are now being transported by road. One does not say things like that in this House. On whose behalf was the hon. member for Orange Grove speaking? He is not speaking in the interests of the country and the nation. He is not speaking in the interests of South Africa. It is very easy and expedient—I want to put it like that—to try to attack the points on which problems are being experienced, where things are difficult, and to ignore the points where all is well.

I wish to concentrate on one aspect of the budget as presented to the House by the Minister, viz. the S.A. Airways. Not one of the hon. members of the Opposition has referred today to what has been achieved by the S.A. Airways. The S.A. Airways forms part of the S.A. Railways and Harbours. It is one of the legs, but they do not refer to that because they cannot get past it. I should like to quote from Hansard of 1 March 1978, col. 2084, where the hon. the Minister said—

The hon. member for Orange Grove then spoke. I quote what he said in Hansard of 1 March 1978, in col. 2099—

I should like the hon. member to listen to these words—

He also said—

They are indeed naïve people. The hon. member also said—

The hon. the Minister then said that the hon. member was talking about a period of three years.