Mr. Speaker, with your leave, I should just like to announce that there will not be an evening sitting of the House tomorrow.

I also wish to announce that dining-room facilities for supper will be available as usual.

Mr. Speaker, at this stage the Railway budget has probably been so thoroughly analysed, particularly by hon. members on this side of the House who are members of the Select Committee on Railway Accounts that it is not necessary for us to react to it any further.

At the outset I wish to confess that when I accepted the position in which I now find myself, I naturally had to forgo quite a few things. But what I found the most difficult to give up was my membership of the Select Committee on Railway Accounts. I still think back to those years with longing. Ordinary hon. members, including myself, must depend largely on the annual report and the other additional documents which the Management of the S.A. Railways make available for tabling during the Railway budget That is why I now appreciate more than ever before the value of those documents and of the annual report.

I therefore wish to avail myself of this opportunity of conveying my sincere thanks to the Management of the S.A. Railways and of complimenting them on the thorough preparation of these documents. Consulting these documents in fact enables us to feel the heart-throb of the Railways and its associated services.

We have a new hon. Minister, a person about whom a great deal has already been said during this debate. May I be permitted, as a former member of the Select Committee on Railway Accounts, to add my congratulations to those of others. For the first time in more than two decades we have an hon. Minister of Transport Affairs who cannot boast of a Railway background. In spite of that, however, he has already, in the short time since he took over the portfolio, shunted himself into the hearts of Railway men of all ranks and colours. His attachment to and appreciation for his staff ran like a golden thread through his entire Budget speech. I do not wish to tire hon. members now by quoting from the Budget speech. I merely wish to refer to the last aspect thereof, which probably set the crown on his speech. It reads—

On behalf of the Railway servants in my constituency in particular—and there are many of them—I wish to thank the hon. the Minister very sincerely for this attitude and for the spirit of gratitude which he is displaying. The railwaymen of South Africa will not let him down. We therefore pray that his association with the S.A. Railways will be a very long and happy one.

To come now to the budget, I wish to try and test it against three aspects, as it affects me as the representative of Tygervallei. In the first place I wish to put the question what the hon. the Minister has done for my people, for the voters of Tygervallei—of whom the greatest percentage are Railway servants and their dependants. The second question I wish to put is what has he done for the Railway pensioners. In the third place, I wish to ask what he has done for the industries of the greatest industrial constituency in the Western Cape, Tygervallei.

I need not elaborate at great length today on the first question, the question of what he has done for the Railway servants. I believe that hon. members on this side of the House have already indicated in detail what has been done for the Railway staff. There are only a few things I wish to emphasize. I wish to emphasize that the packet he has offered them, has resulted in a great deal of gratitude. I can testify to the fact today that there is genuine appreciation for the fact that the hon. the Minister is looking after the interests of the lower-paid members of the Railway staff in particular, by granting them a higher percentage increase than that of the more advanced grades. In the third place, I wish to state that there is elation because recognition is being given to long and uninterrupted service. Now, the question which arises is this: What more does the hon. Opposition want for our Railway people under these circumstances.

The other question I asked myself was what the hon. the Minister did in this budget for the industries in the Western Cape. Over the years, I argued with his predecessor about the inhibiting effect of railway rates to the Rand market. Then, in 1978, the then Minister decided to introduce provisional unit rates for containers between City Deep and Cape Town. These rates were mainly applicable to six metre containers. At the time the Minister emphasized the fact—and I think he did so on more than one occasion—that this assistance could only be justified in the short term. He also reserved the right to reconsider that concession after a year had elapsed, in order to ascertain whether there had indeed been a growth in the traffic to justify this step. Consequently we are particularly grateful today that that experiment has succeeded and that industries have reacted to appeals to make it succeed. I just wish to demonstrate what is happening now. At present there is a container train running between Cape Town and City Deep on every day of the week except Sunday. My information is that recently, in terms of the equivalent of three meter containers, a monthly average of approximately 2 244 full containers are being despatched from Cape Town and that 2 206 are being received in Cape Town. In addition the scheduled transit times between these two terminals are already acceptable. It takes 50 hours and 11 minutes to City Deep, and 47 hours and 53 minutes to Cape Town. The present hon. Minister, at the time Minister of Economic Affairs, reacted to appeals by commissioning the Bureau for Economic Research at Stellenbosch to institute a thorough-going inquiry into the retarding factors on industries in the Western Cape. In view of this, hon. members will appreciate that there is elation in the Western Cape at the announcement that container rates between Cape Town and City Deep are being reduced by 20% in respect of containers conveyed by unit trains. The reduction of the special container rates should now stimulate those manufacturing industries in the Western Cape, for example the plastic, textile, clothing and other manufacturing industries, which mainly produce commodities with a low mass to volume ratio to make greater use of containerized rail transportation at these special rates.

Up to now an industrialist in the Western Cape has had to succeed in packing approximately 5,27 tons into a container in order to break even as far as rates were concerned. I heard the other day that a spokesman for the clothing industry maintained that this 20% concession was in reality of very little value to them, for with the lower mass of their products they were unable to containerize their products. Because they were unable to get 5,27 tons into a container, it used to be more profitable for them to rail their goods in the conventional way, or to make use of other means of transport.

But the situation has changed now with the drop of 20% in the container rate on the one hand, and the 13% increase in commodity rates on the other. This has brought about a dramatic change in the position. The breakeven point now drops to 3,26 tons as against the previous 5,27 tons. In other words, container packing is now within reach of the manufacturing sectors that have to handle large volumes of low mass commodities. In the past we appealed to the industrialists of the Western Cape to make use of this container traffic and to create the traffic, and I wish to make a similar appeal to them today. The hon. the Minister has now demonstrated his good faith to us. Let us in the Western Cape now go out of our way and also display a little resourcefulness to enable us to avail ourselves of these concessions to the full.

I wish to conclude my discussion of this subject by asking the hon. the Minister whether his marketing division could not render assistance to our industries with research and advice in respect of packing methods and the best utilization of containers. In the interests of the Railways and the industries, we have to ensure that the concessions that are now being announced are utilized to the full. These rate adjustments also hold out many other exciting possibilities for us here in the South. Even low-rated traffic to and from Cape Town could now be containerized on a larger scale. Although the rate per ton km between Johannesburg and Cape Town is relatively low, there is still the problem of bridging the long distance. By lowering the container rate on local traffic, the level of container rates has been adjusted to such an extent that this consideration of distance is being counteracted to a very great extent. Cape Town is now in a relatively stronger bargaining position vis-à-vis other harbours in the Rand competition area. Of course not all the problems of the Western Cape have now been eliminated with the wave of a magic wand. There are still many other inhibiting factors that have an adverse effect on the establishment of industries. But I do think the hon. the Minister has at least shown a clear understanding of those factors in his first budget. We wish to express the hope that this is only the beginning, and in the meantime we express our sincere thanks for what he has done.

I now come to the position of pensioners. The other day, while the hon. the Minister was delivering his Budget speech here and giving a summary of the increases which came into effect on 1 July 1979, the hon. member for Durban Point, knowing full well that it was a direct broadcast, knowing full well that the hon. the Minister could not react to his interjection, made the distasteful remark that it was “chicken feed”. But when the subsequent announcement was made of a 10% increase for all pensioners, he conveniently remained silent. I think it is really a great pity that the hon. member, who is the Leader of an Opposition party, has not yet been able to rise above such pettiness. It is precisely this attitude which, for political purposes, is so readily disseminated among the pensioners in an attempt to create dissatisfaction among them. In view of this I asked the Administration to give me only two practical examples of pensioners who retired from the service in 1973. I asked them to tell me what contributions the persons concerned had paid in, and what amount they had received up to February 1980. It was an interesting exercise.

Case A was in the employ of the Railways from 1937 until April 1973. He had therefore worked for the Railways for a period of 35 years and 5 months. The total contribution which this had pensioner paid in during his period of service was R5 562,02. When he retired in 1973 he received a cash amount of R9 562,49. He therefore received an amount in cash which was almost twice the amount he had paid in.

That was as a result of the interest.

We are still coming to the interest. The annuity he received at that stage, amounted to R241,53 per month. Be that as it may, his present annuity amounts to R430,50 per month. Over a period of approximately seven years, he has therefore received an increase of 78%. The total amount which this man has received since his retirement, that is over all of seven years, amounts to R38 563,73 as against the amount of R5 562 which he paid in.

I have a further example. This applies to a person who entered the service in 1932 and retired on 10 October 1973 after a period of service of 40 years and 9 months. Because he was on a lower scale salary his contribution was only R3 047. Upon retirement he received a cash amount of R6 812 and an annuity of R165 per month. That annuity has risen to an amount of R299 per month. It therefore amounts to an increase of approximately 81% over a period of six years. The total amount he has already received over these six years is R26 241,25. For the further demonstration of my argument we can take the example of a pensioner who retired on 1 March 1968 with a basic pension of R100 per month. We can then ascertain what his increments have been during this period, to see to what extent his position has improved. On 1 March 1968, he received R100 per month. On 1 March 1969, and again on 1 April 1969, increases of 2% and 10%, respectively, were announced. On 1 March 1970 an increase of 2% was announced. On 1 March and on 1 April 1971, one of 2% and one of 15%, respectively, were announced. In 1972 there was an increase of 2%, and in 1973, again in March and in April, there were two increments of 2% and 10% respectively. In 1974 there were again two increases, 2% in March and 10% in July. In March 1975 there was an increase of 2%. In 1976 there were again two increases, viz. one of 2% in March and one of 20% in October. In March 1977 there was only an increase of 2%. In 1978 there were again two increases, viz. one of 2% and one of 5% in April, subject to minimum increases of R15 per month, less the 2% previously granted. In 1979 there were again two increases. In March there was an increase of 2% and in April an increase of 10%, less the 2% increase already granted. In July 1979 the hon. the Minister—and this was what was being referred to in the budget—announced an increase of 20%. According to the latest budget the increase will become effective on 1 April 1980. It will be an increase of 10%. Apart from the improvements in scales I have now spelled out here there have in the course of time been many additional factors which improved the position of the Railway pensioner. In certain cases his position was improved even beyond that of an ordinary pensioner. During this time the special supplementary allowances paid to pensioners were consolidated with the basic pension. But the most important factor was that the means test, which had limited the extra earnings of a pensioner, was done away with in the process. In other words a pensioner may in reality have any earnings without his pension being affected in any way. I have indicated that apart from this concession, that R100 which the pensioner received as a basic pension in 1960, had increased to R334 in April 1980; in other words, there has been a percentage increase of 234,72% over the period of 12 years. If we were to compare this with the increase in the cost of living index, we would see the proportion. What is also of importance is that a very large percentage of our Railway pensioners are entrenched to a great extent against the full effect of the rising cost of living index. As hon. members know, housing, transportation, medical services and foodstuffs are the primary inputs in the determination of the cost of living index. I make so bold as to state that the Railwayman is entrenched against three of these four aspects, namely against housing, as a result of the immense housing assistance which exists today, against transportation costs that are taken care of on a concession basis, for the pensioner as well, and against medical expenses by the Sick Fund to which Railway employees belong and in respect of which pensioners no longer pay a contribution. To all these existing benefits far-reaching new benefits are now being added, as have been announced in this budget. I wish to mention only three of these. The first is that the annuity of a pensioner will in future be calculated on the basis of his income during the last year of service, instead of the last three years of his service, as was the case in the past. In the nature of things this is a far-reaching difference. Secondly, the annual bonus that is going to be paid to the employee, and which will be equivalent to a month’s salary, will also be pensionable. Thirdly, a person who retires on pension now, will be able to receive the money for one year’s leave, instead of for six months, at the salary scale applicable to him on his retirement. Apart from these income benefits, pensioners who have completed more than 30 years’ service, have also been granted flight concessions in the process.

With everything I have now said here I am not suggesting that Railway pensioners no longer have any worries at all. Without a doubt they are finding it difficult to keep pace with the present-day pressure of inflation. It is precisely for that reason that pensions are reviewed to keep pace with the rising cost of living. However, when improvements in pension benefits are granted, those persons who left the service before the date on which the new benefits become effective, cannot also share in such benefits since the legislation that regulates the introduction of such benefits cannot be made with retrospective effect without affecting the solvency of the new Superannuation Fund, which is of paramount importance to all pensioners and also to potential pensioners. In recent times it has been necessary for the Administration to effect a substantial increase in its contribution to the new Superannuation Fund in order to make provision, inter alia, for increases for pensioners. Naturally it is based on the contributions of members. The increase escalated from 160% on 1 April 1971 to 320% on 1 July 1979. Over a period of eight years the contribution of the Administration to the Superannuation Fund has increased by 100%. The Administration had to do this to ensure the solvency of the Fund. Regardless of attempts at political point-scoring on the part of the Opposition, the Government has a proud record in respect of Railway pensions, as I have categorically pointed out. I think the greatest frustration of the Opposition with the budget lies therein that generous concessions were made to the employees and the pensioners without the rates being increased out of all proportion. For that reason it is an excellent budget in all respects.

Mr. Speaker, we agree very much with the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Tygervallei this afternoon, with particular reference to the fact that the time has come when we must pay the piper his due. We, of course, welcome the additional benefits as far as increases in salaries and wages given to Railway employees are concerned. The plight of the pensioner is one very close to our hearts. We will support the hon. member for Tygervallei in his plea to assist the pensioners. The big problem that we face is the plight of those pensioners who were paid an amount of R241 in 1973. The consumer price index has actually risen by an aggregate of 101,2% since 1973, which is on average 11,2% per annum. This means that if the pensioner wants to purchase the same amount of consumer goods that he purchased for R1 in 1973, he will now virtually have to double the amount to purchase the same amount. That is where the problem lies. Perhaps a cost of living allowance could be introduced which would alleviate the plight in which the pensioner finds himself under the present circumstances.

I wish the hon. the Minister luck in his new portfolio. It is a very important portfolio and one of the largest undertakings of the Government, involving an estimate of R6 billion. The Administration controls a staff of more than 250 000 and also covers all aspects relating to the Railways, the Airways, pipelines and harbours, which affect every single aspect of the economy of South Africa and, indeed, touches every individual in South Africa. It is paid for by the taxpayer and also competes with private enterprise. It is therefore the hon. the Minister’s duty, as it is our duty in Parliament, to ensure the money is spent prudently and that the department of course operates efficiently.

If I may, I shall turn, firstly, to operating costs. According to present indications, last year—that is 1979-’80—will result in a deficit of R136,9 million, of which R64,4 million is actually below the shortfall budgeted for. That shortfall will of course be made good from the Rates Equalization Fund. However, at that stage, we will recall that there was no increase in tariffs by the previous hon. Minister in his budget, in spite of his forecast for 1979-’80 that expenditure would be R3 575 million against a revenue of R3 373,7 million, leaving a shortfall of R201,3 million. That did not increase an additional expenditure of R70 million for fuel. However, in spite of the hon. the Minister foreseeing a large deficit looming, he said it was not the appropriate time to increase tariffs. If I may quote from Hansard of 1979, he said—

Why is this year different from last year? Why are the forecasts made with regard to the effect of increased tariffs on the economy last year not equally applicable this year?

Surely you can do better than that.

So at that stage, the hon. the Minister promised certain positive measures. He said that he would reduce the tariffs by increasing productivity by applying the basic principle of management by objectives. He also submitted a memorandum to the Cabinet, the result of which was the appointment of the Franzsen Committee. Well, if hon. members will recall the figures I gave, I can only say the hon. the Minister did not do very well, because in spite of his assurances the operating costs still finished with a deficit of R136,9 million.

However, one achievement was the investigation by the Franzsen Committee. R55 million was obtained from exemption of interest on the investment on passenger services and another R50 million was obtained from loan capital which was unspent and which will be treated as a State contribution towards losses on passenger services. There is also a R70 million contribution from the Treasury to compensate for the R68,3 million loss on resettlement schemes. Interestingly enough, at that stage last year, Opposition spokesmen forecast that there was no tariff increase because there was going to be a general election. I think the Government had this in mind at the time, but of course did not proceed with the general election. However, this year, when they do not contemplate a general election, the Government increased tariffs and now find themselves in a position where, with the feud going on between the hon. the Minister of Public Works, of Statistics and of Tourism and the hon. the Prime Minister, with sables rattling everywhere, they may find themselves in the position where they are forced to hold a general election. So the Government is going to be proved wrong on both occasions.

Don’t worry. You are safe in your seat.

Thank you. May I then ask whether tariff increases are based on whether or not there is to be a general election?

Let me ask whether the position should not have been reversed, or more prudently at that stage, could the increases not have been spread out over two years if they were indeed necessary? If efficiency, increased productivity and unnecessary expenditure were given adequate attention, could the tariff increases not have been avoided? May I also ask what happened to the hon. the Minister’s promise—this is a difficult position because this hon. Minister is being faced with promises made by the previous hon. Minister—to reduce operating costs, but only managed to do so by R64,4 million? I refer too to the promised reduction in the liability for uneconomic socio-economic services. As I have said, the Franzsen Committee has led to certain reliefs, but since we have received those reliefs on socio-economic passenger services, why do we still have to come with the increase in those very services’ rail tariffs? The hon. the Minister also said and promised that he would seek ways of generating additional traffic. May I then ask: Did the private sector then let us down?

Are you still referring to my previous speech?

Yes, that is right. Furthermore, I must point out that as far as the revenue side is concerned, the 1979-’80 estimates were R3 373 million whereas the revised estimates were R3 647 million. In other words, we had an excess of R273 million. We therefore underestimated our revenue by that amount. As we did so last year, may we not have done so this year as well? If this is so, it would wipe out the deficit. Taking these factors into account, should they also not hold good for 1980-’81 and thus avoid the increases to which I have referred? Against this background, has the hon. the Minister really been convincing in coming here with these crippling tariff increases?

Revenue is now estimated at R4 028 million, which is an increase of 10,4%, or R381 million. Against this, expenditure, including appropriations, is R4 385,45 million, which is 15,9% more than the revised estimates for last year. There is therefore a shortfall of R357,45 million compared with last year’s shortfall of R201,3 million. Why, may I ask, 10,4% for revenue as against the 15,9% for expenditure? The two do not match. In other words, if the expenditure could be reduced by 5%, there would be an increase of 10% in expenditure and 10% in revenue and it would be possible to balance the two. In any event, as I have stated, the revenue was grossly underestimated last time.

Furthermore, why was it possible that in 1978-’79, based on the performance for the first nine months, the revenue was R53,4 million in excess of the amount of R3 174 million which was estimated? Expenditure—and I am now quoting from the previous hon. Minister—was expected to remain on the level estimated at the beginning of the year, but it in fact did not do so. The financial year was expected to close with a surplus of R53,2 million instead of the small deficit of R168 000, and this was transferred to the Rates Equalization Fund. We accept and welcome in the budget the additional expenditure of R285 million for the well-deserved general salary and wage increases which will be applicable from April 1980. They deserve it and they should get it. Although it was differentiated, I take it that the 12,7% increase will be an indication of what is to happen in the main budget itself. However, what does require looking into is the expected increase of R306 million in labour costs. Surely, labour costs could be further looked at to see whether the R306 million increase can be reduced. The extra amount of R85 million for fuel could also be looked at. Apart from Airways, which have to operate, there are 18 091 vehicles in this department Surely, with this large number of vehicles we could effect a saving in fuel in the department itself.

As the budget now stands, the hon. the Minister must find R357,45 million from increased rates, fares and miscellaneous charges when, in fact there were increased tariffs as recently as 1 April 1978. May I with respect suggest that as far as the capital programme of R1 600 million is concerned, we could look to slowing down where possible in order to reduce the capital and especially the additional interest of R37 million which will accrue thereon. I take it and I accept that we are committed to the R965 million, because that is for work which has previously been approved and, of course, it must go on. But there is R277 million of new works, and this I feel could be looked at in so far as priorities are concerned.

Which ones do you suggest I should not include?

I say that we should establish our priorities and look more precisely into the matter. I cannot in the space of 15 minutes go through the hon. the Minister’s capital programme of R277 million but, if the hon. the Minister would like to come to the Select Committee, I shall gladly sit down with him and perhaps we can see where we can slow it down and throw in other ideas.

In terms of section 103(2) of the Republic of S.A. Constitution we see that—

In other words, we should try to balance the budget. As far as the method of financing is concerned, I refer to the R579 million which will be financed from the Administration’s own resources. Why can we not obtain loans from outside sources at very low and reduced rates in a very favourable market when the country is awash with money? I think this might also assist in the balancing of the budget.

I also want to refer to the question of depreciation contributions. According to evidence the Select Committee went into the question of the economic life of assets and the determination of rates of depreciation. This investigation has been completed. These rates will be effective as from 1 April 1980. New depreciation scales were accepted. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will in his reply explain how that will affect the budget in future.

Another factor to consider in keeping tariffs down, is the role of private enterprise. The S.A. Railways and Harbours are a part of the State. I want to refer to an Appellate Division case in which Die Vaderland once sued the S.A. Railways and Harbours for defamation. Of course the Appellate Division upheld that the Railways are a part of the State and cannot thus be defamed. If the State runs a business enterprise, it is protected in the sense that it cannot go broke. If it is down, it increases tariffs by law, as against private enterprise which must charge what the market can bear. If the Government is short, the taxpayers simply pays up. This is obviously unfair to private competitors. In other words, what has been established, is clearly a monopoly. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether there are not areas which can be taken over by private enterprise. After all, is competition not the best way to keep tariffs down, to promote efficiency and to increase productivity?

They can take over the passenger services.

The hon. member for Bellville called for a commission of inquiry to look into the differential tariff policy. That was an admission that that policy is antiquated. In addition, there are many aspects of the Administration which could be looked at at the same time. If the hon. member for Bellville’s call is a precursor to its being appointed, this commission must also look into the questions I am raising here today.

In this regard I first of all want to refer to road transport services. In respect of road transport services the estimated expenditure is R99,7 million as against a revenue estimate of R93,775 million. In other words, the hon. the Minister is budgeting for a deficit in this department alone of nearly R6 million, in spite of a 31,6% increase in respect of the first nine months of 1978-’79, a decrease in tonnage of 1,5% and an increase of 26,3% in livestock traffic. Surely this is an area in which private enterprise can take over and at the same time save R6 million. Competition will keep the tariffs down. The public will, moreover, be spared the proposed 10% increase in the livestock transport tariffs, which in turn will push up the retail price which the consumer will have to pay accordingly. There are indications that since January 1978, when the new Road Transportation Act became effective, private enterprise, utilizing the 1 000 kg capacity provision, has become more active. There is room for it. Let us call for tenders and determine which of these services private entrepreneurs can take over in order to shed this loss. With it, of course, will flow the diminution of all other expenses attendant thereon.

I now want to refer to the Airways. The figures for April to December 1979 show that while revenue totalled R406,3 million, the expenditure totalled R442,7 million, i.e. an increase of R79,9 million over and above the anticipated amount. However, the figures show a net loss of R36,3 million against a previously estimated profit of R14,l million. In other words, there was a difference of R50,4 million. Now, in 1979-’80, the estimate of revenue is R675 491 000 against an estimate of expenditure of R675 990 000. In other words, there again we are budgeting for a deficit of just on R0,5 million. Is it not possible to call for tenders to take the loss out of the less payable journeys? The USA, Britain and countries in Europe have many different airlines. Competition is healthy, and why do we not have it here? I am proud of the S. A. Airways and praise the crews for the efficiency and the service they render. I have no criticism in that respect. All I am trying to do, is to establish why the burden of the loss, if any, has to fall on the taxpayer while the S.A. Airways is offering 64 988 seats per week on 463 flights and there is an increased demand for air travel.

The hon. the Minister must explain this loss to us. The 20% increase is iniquitous. I believe that an increase of such a nature is going to be counterproductive. We need to encourage passengers and for this purpose there should be cheaper fares. We should not chase passengers away. In view of escalating fuel prices, increased maintenance costs, increased labour costs and increased replacement costs and the need for a further large capital outlay in order to replace the fuel-thirsty Boeing 727 on less dense domestic routes and to maintain the improved Airbuses, the A300 and B4, we need more passengers. At the same time the high fuel cost is hitting the tourist trade and we ought to look at it anew.

I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider whether we can adopt the Laker type approach in our Airways. In other words, in so far as internal flights are concerned, they should be run on the basis of waiting until the aircraft is full. At the same time a much cheaper rate is offered. The passenger of course will have to take chances because he will not know at exactly what time the flight will take off. The Laker Enterprises never allow an aircraft to take off unless it is full. If this approach is adopted the Administration will be able to afford economy prices since the aircraft will always fly completely full. I think we should undertake experiments in this field. The normal flights should, of course, still be undertaken in order to get people to their destinations on time.

I believe that the gold bonanza which yielded much unexpected revenue to the Treasury could have helped the Administration sufficiently to have a portion of the deficit of R357,45 million wiped out. Such a special bonanza contribution could have balanced the budget without the necessity of having tariff increases.

Are you suggesting the fiscus should pay for the losses on the Railways?

No, I am not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting a different approach which may prevent this burden falling on the taxpayer.

Why are you then referring to the gold bonanza?

I do not have time to refer to the inflationary role the increases are bound to play, but I think that the increases will have a direct effect on the retail price Mr. John Citizen has to pay. I think that the increase in salaries of Railway personnel—I know it cannot be avoided—will lead to all members of municipal unions making demands on the municipalities for increased wages. Soon we shall have a general increase of salaries throughout our economy. I think the increase in rail fares will force workers who commute to and from work to apply for an increase in their salaries. Inflation therefore is inevitable. Demand-pull inflation will develop on top of the cost-push variety now apparent in the economy and there will be an unavoidable ripple effect through the entire economy.

In conclusion I want to say that the increases should not have taken place. The extra R250 million on depreciation alone is not strictly necessary as has been mentioned by the hon. member for Orange Grove. The balance of R107,45 million can be offset by increased productivity or direct from the Treasury’s bonanza or by means of reduced expenditure. Any deficit thereafter could have been met from the Rates Equalization Fund which stands at R163,4 million at the moment.

I therefore support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Orange Grove.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hillbrow sounded the same note as did the majority of speakers on that side of the House by stating, particularly in the introductory part of his speech, that the budget was inflationary.

But it is; do you not agree?

I think that it is largely due to certain statements in the Press that hon. members opposite reached this conclusion. We are told by the Press that certain economists predict that the rate of inflation could be increased by 0,9% to 1%. In recent statements, however, we find that the expected increase in inflation could even be as low as 0,5%. Apparently hon. members opposite have not yet penetrated to the core of the Railway budget. I shall come back to this later.

We were quite sorry for hon. members of the Opposition because the standard of their arguments in this debate has really not been very high. Why not? It is because this is a balanced budget, a budget which has been drawn up scientifically. I just want to mention in passing that last night the hon. member for Musgrave made a very balanced and neat contribution. I could not help realizing once again that Bethlehem, where he went to school, really produces good material … [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

If one studies the workings of the S.A. Railways and analyses Railway budgets over the past few years, one is impressed by the way in which the S.A. Railways and the total transport strategy in South Africa serve as an instrument whereby to realize the will and the striving of the people but also, through the people, the will of the Government The S.A. Railways serves, firstly, as an instrument whereby to stabilize the peaceful and harmonious coexistence of the various population groups. Secondly, the S.A. Railways serves as an instrument to bring about economic stability and sustained development and growth. In the third place it serves as an instrument to build up a stable and trained labour force. In the fourth place it serves as an instrument to fulfil a strategic role in the total preparedness effort of the Republic of South Africa.

Accordingly I want to approach this budget on that basis and also link it to the stated policy of the S.A Railways and the policy of the Government and of the NP. As regards the peaceful coexistence of the various peoples, we know that this falls within the framework of the policy of the central Government. However, it is also the policy of the S.A. Railways, and I believe that it is also the will and the striving of every hon. member of this House, that we in the Republic will and must continue to move in the direction of a contented society, a contented society which acts in a civilized and disciplined way not only in offering these services but also in the use and utilization of services and privileges. It is one of the basic preconditions of success for every contented community that the need for service be identified and that a service of this nature, having been identified, is offered and utilized effectively.

Incidentally, this is perhaps also one of the basic prerequisites for a successful economy. However, to begin with I shall confine myself to the welfare of the society. The hon. member for Witwatersberg and other hon. members on this side of the House referred yesterday to the passenger services operated throughout our country by the S.A. Railways. This is a service which is rendered in a process in which trains, stations and other facilities have to be shared by various population groups. However, when one analyses the passenger services of the S.A. Railways, it appears that 621 million passenger journeys are undertaken over a distance of only 52 million kilometres in only 10 582 passenger coaches. These journeys originate from Railway premises where there is tremendous crowding of people and where the danger exists that one group can be pushed aside by another. Nevertheless, one seldom if ever hears about race friction on S.A. Railways premises. I believe that in view of this we can rightly say that the service rendered comes as close to satisfying the demand as one could hope for. One can say without hesitation that the rendering of service forms one of the basic factors in the process of a harmonious coexistence.

However, the S.A. Railways has also taken into account and given effect to another precondition for the peaceful utilization of the available services. No other organization of a size comparable to the S.A. Railways has succeeded, by way of careful selection and placement of its staff, in having separate population groups served and dealt with by their own people. Perhaps this is not a precondition for peaceful coexistence, but what is true is that each population group, each person in each population group, does co-operate when he is served by his own people and, where possible, in his own language as well. There is also co-operation when the control, too, is exercised by their own people. In spite of the fact that we have long distances in South Africa and that there is a variety of population groups in South Africa, the S.A. Railways has succeeded in placing officials in the traditional historic homes of each population group who are acquainted with the people of the region in question. Whether the service be rendered by the ticket seller, the conductor, the porter or the guide on the station, there is appreciation for the fact that the Railways recognizes the identity of the people and accordingly renders service to people by employing people of the same population group. However, we must also bear in mind that a vast number of people are conveyed without incident and this could not have been the case if it had not been for courteous and tactful behaviour on the part of the Railways’ staff. We encounter this, tactful behaviour on the part of both the White and the non-White officials. However, courtesy does not come of itself. There must also be inspiration for it. I think we must convey our sincere gratitude and appreciation to the hon. the Minister, the General Manager and his top management for the example of courtesy set to us as members of Parliament but also to the businessmen and other members of the general public.

I think we all agree that an economic dispensation which attests to stability and sustained growth must be maintained. In spite of the fact that we and that side of the House apparently have the same goal in mind, I formed the impression yesterday, and even today, that that side of the House does not seem to understand fully the Railways’ financial structure. An effective financial policy must, in the first place, be determined by and relate to the basic purpose of the enterprise, and besides that, the stated policy as embodied in a central plan. The purpose of the S.A. Railways is undoubtedly the provision of an economic transport service, but its aim is also, and particularly, to meet the needs of the country.

The first step in the establishment of a central plan is, then, to determine the requirements of the country with regard to transport. The demand for transport and the share of the Railways therein is estimated on the basis of the expected course of the economy, the market potential, competition, the availability of production factors and also technological development. This advance estimate of traffic forms the basis on which is determined the additional facilities that are required to convey the goods offered for transport. This determines what capital expenditure is required and also what provision must be made for current expenditure, chiefly labour, materials, interest and depreciation. The budget is then compiled on this basis, taking into account financial and accounting policy.

This, together with the constant stream of money coming in and going out which is seldom, if ever, in equilibrium, entails that a budget is put forward which cannot always be popular in the eyes of the Opposition. This is something which the Opposition often conveniently forgets. This is the position because—and hon. members on that side of the House tend to forget this—the needs of the country, and stability, take priority above the rendering of an economic service. The stability and sustained economic growth of the Railways in South Africa is best illustrated by the growth in the capital requirements of this organization. In the year 1974-’75, for example, the capital requirements were approximately R592 million. This amount increased steadily and in 1978-’79 amounted to R1 288 million. We concede that there was a drastic increase in 1976-’77, with a relative decline in 1977-’78, but that was due to circumstances of which hon. members of this House are aware.

Another factor illustrating stability is the provision of employment and the stability which results from this. In 1974 the number of officials employed by the Railways was 231 902. This total has increased steadily and in 1979 the number was 265 536. This reflects an average growth of 2,8% per annum.

The stabilizing effect of the Railways is further illustrated by the Railways’ contribution to the gross domestic product When the gross domestic product is taken at prevailing prices, we find that in the year 1973 the total was R17 821 million. The Railways’ contribution was R1 091 million—a percentage contribution by the Railways of 6,1%. In 1978 the total was R37 106 million, of which the contribution by the Railways amounted to R2 285 million. This reflects an increase of 6,2%. Over the period of eight years the average contribution by the Railways has been 5,9% of the total.

Then, too, I also wish to refer to the contribution of the Railways to local industries. The hon. member for Witwatersberg referred to this yesterday. The hon. member for Hillbrow also referred to it in passing and advanced some criticism. When looking at the contribution of the Railways in this regard we must take into account that in the evaluation of tenders, the Railways Administration gives a 10% preference to locally manufactured goods, as long as they comply with certain requirements. When the purchases of the S.A. Railways are analysed, we find that in 1975-’76 its purchases abroad amounted to R224 million, whereas local purchases amounted to R471 million, while those goods manufactured by the Railways itself amounted to R64 million. This has gradually increased and in 1978-’79, foreign purchases amounted to R250 million, representing an increase of only 11,5% over five years. The local purchases have increased from R471 million to R670 million, an increase of 42,5%. Departmental manufacture has increased from R64 million to R90 million, an increase of 40%. One accordingly concludes that the Railways not only maintain the stability of certain industries in South Africa, but also make it possible for entrepreneurs to establish industries in South Africa.

Therefore the Railways has a clear and definite effect on and forms an integral part of our country’s economy. For this reason its operations are watched with an eagle eye by the business sector and by the Opposition, and this often gives rise to criticism. One wonders how many of the private entrepreneurs, particularly those who view it most critically, would survive investigations into their activities as thorough as those to which the Railways is subjected. The Railways is subject to investigations by Parliament, by the Auditor-General, by innumerable organized public and private bodies, by the news media, etc. If, then, our aim is stable and sustained growth, we may rest assured that the Railways works harder than the rest of us, including members of this House, to bring about that stability in South Africa.

Speak for yourself.

In the third field, too, we all strive for a stable and trained labour force and in this regard, too, the S.A. Railways has done pioneering work. The post-war situation, which had an effect on the community as a whole and on the Railways as well, resulted in a shortage of trained staff throughout the country. The Railways, as the countrywide national transporter which had to provide an uninterrupted service, had to find ways and means of achieving stability in their labour force as well. This was possible by way of staff development, evaluation of posts and employees, training and selection. I do not believe there is a single method which has had a greater impact on productivity than the staff assessment system of the S.A. Railways, in accordance with which officials are assessed on the basis of their achievements in work situations. Success is also being achieved with regard to informing the supervisor of the achievement of the worker.

In the field of the training of non-White officials the Railways has already succeeded in training 10 606 non-Whites at their training centre at Braamfontein and as many as 57 000 non-Whites at Germiston, giving a grand total of 67 606 trained non-White officials.

As regards university training as well, the Railways has awarded more than 2 000 bursaries for training and engineering and 409 bursaries for administrative training. This is a field that costs money and which hon. members on the other side of the House do not always take into account. I think that in this regard, too, we are justified in saying that the Railways has always regarded trained officials as one of their best investments.

However, the Railways also plays a role over a wide field, inter alia, in the strategic situation with regard to the preparedness effort of the Republic. It is obvious that in evaluating the S.A. Railways in relationship to the sub-continent of Southern Africa and its involvement in the neighbouring States, it is not always possible to indicate precisely what the involvement of the Railways is in this regard. However, I think that the veil can be lifted sufficiently to provide an adequate indication of what the Railways is doing, why it is being done, under what conditions it is being done and what benefits South Africa derives from this. The Railways does not play a political role, and its primary aim is of an economic nature, viz. transport on a business footing. In the Railways’ outward movement into the sub-continent, one of the basic conditions is being met because it has been done on an economic business footing.

The role of the Railways in the historical bridge conference, their stabilizing influence and presence in Maputo, their communication with African leaders on transport matters, their contact with Zaïre, which has resulted in the conveyance of their copper ore through our harbours, their service to Zambia at economic tariffs and their role as a vital artery in the survival of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia has not only projected the image of the S.A. Railways but has also indicated to Africa the power that is inherent in this southern tip of Africa. We have shown this power and we deem it of the utmost importance to be able to reflect our position in Africa to the world. Apart from that, the Railways is not only the foremost strategic conveyor of the national servicemen, but is also one of the most dependable transporters of Defence Force equipment.

As far as emergency services are concerned, we are aware of the share of the Railways officials and organizations such as the St. John’s Ambulance service. We are aware of the experience gained with regard to the combating of accidents in our workshops and we are also aware of the high priority given to an accident-free service record. Perhaps there are other spheres in which the S.A. Railways can develop its strategic role further. If we consider the mechanical engineers’ department, which can be rapidly converted for the manufacture of arms, we know that the Railways can make a contribution over a wide field. Accordingly, I wish to ask that the S.A. Railways should co-operate very closely with the Department of Defence, particularly in the future, in order to rationalize with regard to the equipment used by the Railways and the S.A. Defence Force.

In this regard I have in mind a simple item such as the S.A. Railways’ fleet of trucks. I want to ask that the department in question should see to it that there is standardization between the two departments, particularly as regards the chassis of the vehicles and also as regards the engines. In a confrontation situation, which we hope will not take place, this could result in synchronization which could be worth a great deal to us.

The S.A. Railways achieves a great deal, and when one has spelt it all out, mention must be made of the fact that this could not have been achieved had it not been for an exceptional corps of Railwaymen. Perhaps we do not afford sufficient recognition to the Railwaymen. But let us then say in this House that it is very fitting that one should raise one’s hat in recognition of the Railwaymen in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bethlehem has made some fairly good points, but of course one has to realize that hon. members in the Government benches do tend to look at the budget accounts of the Railways through rose-coloured glasses to a certain extent. I do not blame them for doing so. It is perhaps their job to do so. There was one thing which the hon. member said, however, which I found I could not agree with in any shape or form. In fact, it makes me rather wonder whether he is joining the party of the hon. the Minister of Public Works when he says that he believes that people in general want service from their own people. Thereby he almost suggests that the Railways should be compartmentalized into Coloured people providing service for Coloured Railway users, etc. I believe that what is important to the user of the Railways, is to get efficient and courteous service, regardless of what portion of the population of South Africa that service emanates from. I can perhaps give a little example of that, an example which, unfortunately, is not to the credit of the Railways in South Africa, but an example which the hon. member might nevertheless think about This took place some time ago when I travelled from Port Elizabeth to Rhodesia by train. Quite frankly, I found that the service provided by the stewards in the dining-saloon was of a very poor standard. They were White stewards. On one occasion, in fact, the White steward who was serving soup to my wife, had a Coke bottle full of water upended into his trouser pocket by another steward. I do not think that is the sort of service which is to the credit of the S.A. Railways. I subsequently travelled from Bulawayo to Victoria Falls by Rhodesian Railways. The stewards in the dining-saloon were Black and they gave extremely courteous and efficient service. That is the point which I want to make.

If you are generalizing, it is scandalous.

What I am saying, is that what one requires is efficient and courteous service, regardless of what section of the population it comes from. I do not believe that that is important What is important, however, is that we should get that kind of service, and I do not believe that the individual can be blamed necessarily for the colour of his skin, and I do not think that we should try to segregate the services to the extent that the hon. member seems to suggest. [Interjections.] Approximately one century ago there used to be a form of entertainment which was known as the melodrama It used to have two titles, for instance “Murder in the old red bam” or “If but their hearts were pure”. I should like to suggest that what I am going to say this afternoon is going to have two titles as well, viz. “How the dragon of inflation ate South Africa” or “Alone he did it”. Of course, by saying “Alone he did it”, I refer to the hon. the Minister whom my colleague and I call the hon. the Minister of Inflation, the last of the real big spenders. He is a real big spender, but he has to a certain extent been hoisted by his own petard, because when he was wearing the hat of Economic Affairs, he tremendously increased the price of fuel. Then he found he had to put on a different hat, that of the Minister of Transport Affairs and, as a result of the increases which he himself had brought about in his capacity as the Minister of Economic Affairs, he has now had to increase the Railway fares. That is what this particular Railway budget is all about. It is the fuelling which has caused the tremendous increase in the price of rail transportation and of airways services, and that primarily is the reason for the increases that we are having to pay today.

The other point I want to make relates to the increase in the fund balances which the hon. member for Amanzimtoti also brought to light. I understand that perhaps the figures were somewhat misleading in the accounts of the hon. the Minister.

There is no doubt that there has been a tremendous increase in the amount that is taken in terms of depreciation. I understand that the current figure is something like 1,74. If the original depreciation was taken as 1, the actual figure for the Railways now is 1,74. This is money which is forced from the South African Railways’ and Harbours’ users. This must be contrasted with the tremendous excess liquidity in the South African monetary system today. There is no doubt that, primarily as the result of the gold price, there is tremendous excess liquidity in the South African system, and this has led to extremely low interest rates by comparison with the rest of the world. That being the case, why should we not use this situation and borrow more money for the Railways than we are perhaps currently doing? I do not think that conditions for borrowing by the S.A. Railways are likely for some considerable time to be as favourable as they are right now. Let me contrast interest rates in this country with interest rates overseas. I learnt the other day that a large British organization is currently obtaining in excess of 16% for seven-day money, which is a tremendous amount of interest to receive on what is essentially a very, very short-term deposit. We in South Africa are fortunate in that our rates of interest are very low, and I therefore believe the Railways should utilize this and borrow from the excess liquidity which exists in the system. We must also bear in mind that the Railways are in a preferential position by comparison with private enterprise business in that private enterprise has to pay 48% in tax and loan levy and are only allowed to depreciate their goods and equipment at a specific rate. The Railways have increased their rate incredibly over a period of time and I believe that this has been overdone to a considerable extent and I believe we should call on the Railways to reduce this to come more into line with the private sector or, alternatively, and I think this is more to the point, to call on the hon. the Minister of Finance to increase the rates allowable for tax purposes of private businesses more into line with that used by the Railways. If the Government is admitting that these higher rates are necessary by doing it in the Railways, then they certainly should do it for private enterprise and one should call on the hon. the Minister of Finance, but perhaps that is another debate.

I want to have a somewhat more detailed look at the budget to try to point out what we are doing in it. For the benefit of the hon. the Minister, let me say that in all my comparisons I am comparing this year’s working estimates with last year’s working estimates as provided at this time last year, not with the revised estimates for 1979-’80. We find that there is an increase of their working expenditure of no less than R810 million, or 22,67%. That is a pretty large increase in expenditure for any organization, and the reasons for it have to be gone into. The first reason is, of course, fuel. From the calculations I have done from the accounts, I have established that of that R810 million, R252 435 000 is because of the higher fuel prices. When the budget was presented last year, the hon. the Minister had then allowed for an increase in the price of fuel in that budget. They realized the position vis-à-vis the Arab countries and that the importation of fuel could only lead to an increase in fuel prices, and they budgeted in 1979-’80 for an increase in fuel prices. Nevertheless, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, as this Minister then was, surprised them and put it up to a figure which they had never in their wildest expectations thought it could be. Thus the tremendous additional appropriation this year. As I have said, fuel amounts to R252 435 000. In addition to that, one has to look at the depreciation where it will be seen that depreciation has again been increased by 10%. The additional depreciation, in terms of the hon. the Minister’s figures in his budget speech, is R85 million. Thus, in those two items alone, fuel and depreciation, there is an additional expenditure of R337 435 000, compared with a total shortfall, if the tariff rates had remained stationary, of R357 million.

In other words, if these two items had not increased as they have done, we would not have had to increase tariff rates, despite giving the staff in excess of 12% salary increase and despite the pension and other increases. On this basis the deficit budget would have been only R20 million. So I think this is the prime reason why we in these benches refer to the hon. the Minister as the hon. the “Minister of Inflation”, because, as I have said, we see it as his responsibility that these increases have been brought about. It was his responsibility initially with the fuel increases and subsequently with the increase in depreciation. Of course there have been other spin-offs, for example the high cost of aviation fuel has led to Press reports that Argentinia Airlines are cancelling flights, thereby affecting the tourist industry and hotel industry in South Africa in general.

When one goes further into these estimates one finds that the Railways’ expenditure has increased by 22,19%. Last year it was only 15,77%. This year’s rate of expenditure increase is therefore greater than that of last year. I am speaking now only of the railways, separate from harbours, Airways and pipelines. One of the things which disturbs me when looking at these accounts, is that administration costs have risen so much. When one speaks of increased productivity, one imagines it should permeate the entire organization. Yet we find the administration costs—these are not the men who drive the trains—have increased by no less than 39%. I think this is something one should really try to prevent. In any organization one should try to prevent one’s administration costs increasing at a greater rate than the overall operational costs, because if one continues to increase such costs at a higher percentage rate than overall costs, one will eventually find that your organization becomes top-heavy and too large a proportion of your total working estimates going into administration costs and too little into actual working costs.

If one considers harbours, one also finds an expenditure increase of 30%, while in Airways it is no less than 38%. Last year, during the budget debate, I was very worried what the rate of increase in expenditure by the Railways and Harbours. Unfortunately this year we find that we hit a very much higher rate of increase overall. I have explained at length that this is of course primarily due to fuel increases, but one almost feels like saying, as Archie Bunker does in the current television series on Saturday night: “Those were the days.” Let us go back to those days when we had a lower rate of increase in the Railways’ accounts.

I think one must go a little further when one delves into these accounts. One must ask the hon. the Minister what efforts he is making in his own office to reduce the rate of expense and of inflation. Account No. 101 refers to the office of the Minister and the Railway Board. In this respect I have again estimated the increase in expenditure of this office and have found that the expenditure of the hon. the Minister’s office has increased by 32,33%, which is of course 10% more that the general rate of increase and which is not really setting an example to the rest of the Railways in terms of expenditure. I then went into Account No. 102, which is the account of the General Manager’s office, in respect of which I found that there had been an increase in expenditure of R13 415 000, or 51,67%. I really do feel that we should have some reaction from the hon. the Minister in regard to what really is happening within these apartments that the rate of the increase in expenditure could be as much as 51,67%. If there is a very good explanation for it, I shall be perfectly happy to accept it. We in this House are faced with bald figures without accompanying explanatory notes, figures we have to interpret. It is our job as Opposition to look for areas which need further explanation. I submit that this particular area certainly needs a quite considerable amount of explanation.

One of the problems in looking at an account of this nature is that there has been a change in the method of accounting in the Railways over the past few years. We used to obtain the figures of staff employed department by department and now we only obtain an overall total. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti informed me that at one stage he queried seven additional public relations offices in the General Manager’s office in terms of the figures that were furnished by the Railways. However, from then on we did not obtain those additional figures. We obtained only globular figures without any accompanying explanation of how the staff is divided amongst the various departments. I therefore believe that we need to know what goes on.

Having so far been very critical, I think I should at this stage look a little at the other side of the coin. I believe the Railways are to be congratulated on their improvement in productivity. No doubt there has been an improvement in productivity to the extent that even overseas publications have been congratulating the S.A. Railways and have been holding them up as an example. This is obviously to be welcomed. However, there is one point I should like to put forward in this regard. There are comparative figures in respect of the productivity in the Railways, tons and kilometres, etc., but these figures offer only a comparison with the performance of the S.A. Railways in previous years. I think it would be extremely interesting to the House if the hon. the Minister could perhaps give us some comparative figures in respect of other countries, perhaps American or Western European countries or Australia, in respect of which these comparative figures are likely to be more relevant because of the large distances in those countries which are comparable with South Africa. I believe that if we could have some figures—perhaps the hon. the Minister has them immediately available—they would be of interest, because in these documents we have been given at this stage there is no equivalent comparison.

These are the main points I have wanted to raise in terms of this budget. There are one or two other points I want to raise with the hon. the Minister. During his speech he indicated that—

That is higher than the 12,7% given to the White staff. I believe this is something which needs further explanation because I successfully proved, during the Police debate we had earlier this session, that one can give a Black a very much higher percentage increase without at the same time narrowing the wage gap. Despite the fact that he gets a higher percentage increase, the actual gap in terms of rands and cents can in fact get larger. I do not believe that the assurance that there is going to be a higher percentage increase is an assurance that can really satisfy hon. members in these benches that the wage gap is closing. I believe it is more important for the hon. the Minister to be able to tell us that the actual gap in terms of rands and cents is closing. If the disparity was so large in the first place that, in some cases, a 50% increase in the salary of a Black man and a simultaneous 10% increase in the salary of a White man caused the wage gap to widen even further, I believe it is important to bring it to the hon. the Minister’s attention. We in these benches should certainly like to receive the assurance that the gap is closing in terms of actual rands and cents.

Finally, I want to refer to the point made by the hon. member for Tygervallei in connection with containers. The hon. the Minister has seen fit to reduce the block train tariffs from Cape Town to City Deep by 20%. This is, I believe, a wonderful thing for the Western Cape.

What about East London?

Yes, what about East London? I appreciate the fact that the block-train rates have not been increased in East London. I believe, however, that the hon. the Minister must agree that in Cape Town we are now in a worse position than before. In Durban, of course, we are in a slightly better position. We are 3,1% better off there. In Cape Town, which is of course a competitive market, we are now less well off than we were before. There is still a difference. The export traffic and the import traffic are still more expensive between Cape Town and Johannesburg. One should not forget, however, that Cape Town itself has a large local market An industrialist can set up in Cape Town and have the knowledge that within the immediate area of his factory there are tremendous numbers of prospective buyers. He therefore knows that he has a large local market. If he then wants to send his goods inland to the PWV area, he can equalize his railage between his local market and his up-country market to quite an extent. East London does noz have that advantage, and if the hon. the Minister could see fit to do more for East London, I should certainly appreciate it.

Mr. Speaker, before I react to what the hon. member for East London North has said, I should like to associate myself with hon. members on this side of the House and I should also like to congratulate the hon. the Minister most sincerely on the introduction of his first budget. He succeeded in doing so with flying colours. In addition I should also like to place on record the fact that the hon. the Minister—and I want to emphasize this—has within a very short space of time already become a friend of all Railways’ and Airways’ staff. I therefore want to wish him everything of the best for the great task resting upon his shoulders. As he has already demonstrated, he is going to make a great success of the task entrusted to him.

As usual the hon. member for East London North again burst forth with a tremendous tirade. However, we might have expected it. The hon. member said, inter alia, that hon. members of the NP saw the budget through rose-tinted spectacles. Why did he not enlarge on what he had in mind? I should very much like that hon. member to tell us exactly what he meant. However, he went on to complain in this House, the sovereign body in this country, in the presence of the Press, about the poor conduct of one steward on a train. [Interjections.] Let me put it this way: It could be an exception, but I reject that allegation with the contempt it deserves. Has that member ever—I know that while he has been a member of this House, he has never done so—told us how well and courteously he is treated by those people in the trains and aircraft? I cannot understand that one finds people that are always out to belittle and denigrate others. There is nothing in life which makes one so petty as when one tries to use one’s position to belittle and disparage others. [Interjections.]

I leave the hon. member at that, because it is pointless to say any more about such matters. Nevertheless I shall come back later to the question of stewards, air hostesses, etc., because I have more to say about that. I would appreciate it if the hon. member would listen until I have finished.

As was the case last year, the official Opposition once again introduced an amendment this year to the effect that the Railway budget should not be approved. Last year the hon. member for Orange Grove maintained that the budget at that time was one containing good and bad news. I believe I am interpreting what he said quite correctly. The good news was that no tariff increases were announced in the budget speech. As far as the bad news is concerned, I quote from Hansard, 12 March 1979, col. 2240, where the hon. member moved as 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.”.

This year the PFP and the NRP have again requested that the Railways and Harbours Appropriation Bill should not be passed. One would be justified in asking them: “What is it that you really want?” Let us presume—it is a possibility they have never contemplated—that those two opposition parties’ amendments are accepted and that the budget is not passed. Have those hon. members really considered what would happen in that case? Do they not recall what happened with the CRC? Is that what they are seeking?

You would have to come back with a better budget.

Does that hon. member want to plunge this country of ours into chaos? Do they want to create a chaotic situation? I want to ask the hon. members who have introduced the amendments what they think would happen if they succeeded in having them passed? Surely this is an unthinkable situation.

You would have to come back with a better budget.

Oh no, Mr. Chairman, that pitiful hon. member comes up with the same thing every year. [Interjections.] Since he is making so many interjections, I may just as well say that that hon. member comes up with the same old thing in this House every year. Whether it be a good budget or a poor one makes no difference to him whatsoever. They should just sit still for a moment and consider the effect of proposals such as these which they have put forward. [Interjections.] I want to quote an extract from a newspaper which indicates the type of thing with which those hon. members come forward. I refer to the Citizen of 6 March 1980—

Then the report goes on—

Is that from a newspaper?

Just listen.

Is that from a newspaper?

I said I was quoting from the Citizen. That hon. member must not sit and sleep.

That is out of order.

Order! The hon. member may proceed. I shall rule whether he is out of order or not.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to quote from a newspaper report about this particular debate?

Order! The hon. member is allowed to quote from any newspaper report concerning Appropriation Bills.

Mr. Speaker, let them carry on as they wish. I shall continue with my speech. They cannot put me off my stroke. I quote again from the Citizen—

There it is explained clearly. In fact we expected that hon. member, who is making such a fuss now, to repeat this year that this has been a budget of good news and bad news, but he and every other hon. member opposite begrudge the Railway officials their increase.

Now you are talking tripe. That is unwashed hogwash.

This year, however, they are keeping silent because it is to their advantage to do so. They want to make political capital out of this matter again. [Interjections.] However, I leave those hon. members at that.

We on this side of the House are grateful that the hon. the Minister has announced increases for the Railway officials. We are grateful to him for that. Strangely enough the Opposition tacitly agrees with that. It was absolutely essential for those people to receive an increase. As the hon. member for Witwatersberg said, the Railway officials are doing more with fewer people.

The hon. the Minister went on to announce increased tariffs with which we are in complete agreement in the present circumstances. But here again the Opposition does not agree with him. They are fighting it with everything at their disposal. I cannot understand how the minds of those hon. members work—or are they being wilful? They are aware that when increases are granted, the necessary funds have to be found somewhere. They will certainly not fall out of the sky. Where, then, are the funds to come from? They can only be obtained by increasing the tariffs. I think the time has come for the Opposition to be asked to act in a more balanced way. We are not asking them not to criticize, but we are asking them to come forward with constructive criticism and to tell us what should be done to improve matters.

I now want to confine myself to the S.A. Airways as such. The hon. member for Green Point asked why the Airways did not abolish meals and liquor on its flights in order to make flights more inexpensive in this way. Does the poor hon. member not realize, then, that the S.A. Airways is regarded as one of the best airways in the world? Does he no longer want that service to be offered? Secondly, does the hon. member not realize that the service is the best in the world? The hon. member should also be aware that barring in first-class, liquor is paid for. The second-class passenger pays for his liquor. Does he know this or does he not know it?

Can you tell us whether they make a profit on that service?

I shall come back to that. Can the hon. member imagine the grumbling of passengers who are on an aircraft during mealtimes and who find that no meals are served? Has he ever thought of that?

[Inaudible.]

That is correct. I wonder whether the hon. member has ever considered what amount could be saved if the provision of meals and free cooldrinks was abolished.

You tell us.

Why should I tell the hon. member? It is he and his people who are making those allegations. What difference is it going to make to the price of airfares? They do not consider that.

Furthermore the hon. member for Green Point alleged that, with the increase of 20% on domestic air fares, air travel will remain the privilege of the wealthy, whereas this should not be the case. Surely this is untrue. At present one cannot get a seat on a plane. Does that hon. member want to tell me in that case that only wealthy people are flying by aeroplane? One cannot get away from it: They are again trying to drive a wedge between the wealthy and the lesser-privileged people. However, I want to leave the matter at that.

Arguments have already been advanced during this debate in respect of the achievements of the Airways, its results of working, its routes and services, pool relationships, charter flights, airfreight services and the training of staff. I want to confine myself principally to the training of the cabin staff and their efficiency. We are aware that at the end of last year the S.A. Airways had 36 aircraft in service and that the fleet is constantly being expanded. We know, too, that the cabin staff are required to staff the aircraft. We are also aware of the fact that 2 450 760 passengers were transported by air during the 1978-’79 financial year. I want to place on record this afternoon that our cabin staff are being trained very well. They are being trained very well in first-aid and emergency procedures. The emergency procedure of the cabin staff is among the best in the world. The staff knows exactly how to act under the most difficult circumstances. I want to furnish an example of this, and not one of the hon. members opposite thought of mentioning this matter. Instead the cabin staff are criticized. A while ago a bomb was placed in a large hotel in England. When the bomb exploded, who were the people who took action and saw to it that the death rate was so low? They were members of the staff of the S.A. Airways.

Hear, hear!

However, no mention was made of that in this House. The cabin staff are being trained to be able to act under the most difficult circumstances. The overseas Press and radio emphasized that if it had not been for the actions of the South African cabin staff, the death rate would have been much higher. This attests to good training which gives rise to purposeful and decisive action. The staff disregard their own safety in order to help others. Are hon. members aware that many of the cabin staff are graduates? Are hon. members aware of the fact that many of them qualify in other fields, and in this way obtain further qualifications? Despite this they still remain in the service of the S.A. Airways in spite of the fact that they derive no financial benefit from obtaining further qualifications. I do not want to go into the matter further, except to ask whether anything cannot be done about this.

I now come to a matter which is very near to my heart. The staff of the S.A. Airways work under tremendous pressure. Passengers need only write one letter complaining about treatment they received for the staff in question to be called in and transferred to ground staff and they may even lose their jobs. My time has just about expired, but I do want to ask one question to which hon. members should listen carefully. All of us, and I include every member of this House, are clients of the S.A. Airways. How many of us know those two pleasant words, “thank you” and “please”? [Interjections.] The hon. member is laughing, but it is he who comes and disparages the Airways staff in this House. I accept that the hon. member sought something about which to lodge a complaint about these people here. Do we constantly lodge complaints about the staff of the Airways, or do we at least write a letter now and then in appreciation of the good service they render? We should like to see more staff appointed in order to ensure that these people will be able to enjoy the days off they are entitled to, in order to be prepared for the next flight.

We get praise from tourists that make use of the S.A. Airways. And what do those people, who travel the length and breadth of the world and make use of all airways, say about the staff on the S.A.A. aircraft? They say that our staff are some of the best ambassadors for our country. Now my question is: Does this not speak volumes? They say that the staff are friendly, helpful and fully informed. This indicates very clearly that the training of these people is among the best in the world. I should like to convey my personal gratitude and appreciation and I also want to pay tribute to a group of young people who really deserve it.

Mr. Speaker, I share the pride of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana in the conduct of the Airways staff, not only here in South Africa, but overseas as well. I also think of the presence of our railwaymen in our neighbouring States, where they man the harbours and the trains. I think of them overseas as well, where the Airways staff in particular often find themselves in dangerous situations. In spite of this, all South Africans may be proud of their conduct.

†In the first place I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his appointment as Minister of Transport Affairs and to congratulate him on presenting his first budget to the House. He is the Minister charged with responsibility for one of the most important departments in South Africa. I am sure it is the biggest and I regard it as being one of the most important. It is important particularly I think because it is one of the departments, like the Post Office, which has the very closest personal relationships with members of the public and more particularly the members of the public who are not so affluent—in other words, if I may put it this way, the ordinary members of the public. The ordinary citizens of South Africa are affected in every way by the activities of the Railways. I think we can pay tribute in this House to the fact that while the mass of South African citizens mix at all levels in the Railways, there is remarkably little friction, and I think for this a tribute should be paid to the staff of the Railways for their conduct in ensuring that state of affairs. That is why we welcome the increase in salaries that are being paid to the staff. We welcome it not only for the reason that I have given, i.e. because of the courtesy by and large shown to the members of the public and the good public relations displayed by the railwaymen or members of the airways, but also because in the reports that we have read of the Railways there is clear evidence of greater efficiency and productivity and, if I may say so, in the last few years very clear evidence of far greater leadership potential and ability than in years gone by.

The first plea that I want to make to the hon. the Minister is that he should take a very careful look at the position of the Railway pensioner. I have listened to some of the arguments that have been raised on both sides of the House in connection with these pensioners, and a number of cases come to my attention where railwaymen with many, many years of service—30, 40 or 50 years of service—are now having to try at the age of 70, 75 or, as in a case the other day, even 78 years of age, to find temporary work because the pensions being paid to them after all those years of service are just not keeping pace with the inflation rate.

Where one has, as in the case of this budget, an increase of 10% to those pensioners, it is not enough. When those men retired from the Railway service, the salaries they were receiving were comparatively small by modern day standards. I think that some system should be evolved whereby a differential type of pension can be paid from time to time in order to raise the standard of living of those loyal Railway servants who are now in the last few years of life and who should also be enjoying the benefits that those who have recently retired are in a position to enjoy because they received higher salaries. I think that that is something which should be looked at. Many of them are undergoing real hardship, and I can bring cases to the attention of the hon. the Minister if he would like to hear of them.

Another matter that I wish to deal with is the question of the increase in fares. Commuters have been hard hit in this budget. According to the hon. the Minister there has been an increase in passenger travel of approximately 20% in the first class, 10% in the second class and a little less than 10% in third class. On average, that constitutes an increase of about 15% in the number of passengers. I think this is due to high fuel prices, as a result of which people have been forced to use the trains. I personally think that that is a very good thing for a number of reasons. Firstly, it helps to relieve urban traffic congestion and, secondly, it stimulates the use of public transport If that is the case, then the public should be further encouraged to use public transport and not be penalized for doing so. That brings me to the question of the increase in tariffs, which affects particular categories of people. I want to refer to scholars and workers. There has not been a scholars’ concession for many years. These young people too have to pay the increase of 15% in rail fares. This is a very heavy burden on parents, especially of students at college and at schools other than local schools. There are a number of people who are, for a number of reasons, unable to send their children to local schools and so they have to further their education in the cities. These people also very often have to pay high bus fares, because some of them live great distances from their nearest station, and they have to pay to private bus companies what I regard as exorbitant fares. In addition to that, they now have to face an increase of 15% in the rail fares. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not give consideration to the restoration of the scholars’ concession. I think that, at the time when it was done away with, the argument was that there were administrative problems. I cannot for the moment think that those are problems which cannot be overcome, and I think the parents of South Africa whose children use suburban lines would be eternally grateful if the scholars’ concessions could be restored at this time of inflation.

There is also the question of the workers. Let me give an example to the hon. the Minister of the severe increases in the workers weekly or monthly tickets. I often travel on the southern suburbs line. It is a good service. It is a little slow and I think that could be improved. There are delays at stations and I think that if three doors, instead of two, could be used, those delays could be minimized. On the whole, however, it is a good service. I also believe that there could be more express trains to serve the southern suburbs. Take the passengers from Fish Hoek as an example. A person who buys a monthly ticket from Fish Hoek to Cape Town, has to pay almost R20. The fare has gone up from R16,95 to R19,35, which totals some R240 per annum. That is a lot of money for a working-man.

I also want to make a very special plea to the hon. the Minister to give consideration to the restoration of something which was taken away from the people of South Africa some years ago, and that was the uniform concession. Many years ago men in uniform—I see the hon. the Prime Minister is coming in at just the right time—received a special uniform concession to use the S.A. Railways. In the case of the naval men and dockyard workers at Simonstown, with whom I am the most familiar, many of them form lift clubs and travel by car from all parts of the Peninsula to Simonstown. I think that if they are in uniform, consideration should be given to them either having a special concession or even travelling for nothing, as was the case many years ago.

That brings me to the question of national servicemen and the use of either rail facilities or air facilities over long weekends. I am not one of those people who believe that a man in the Army, Air Force or Navy should go home to his parents or his family every single weekend. I think that is nonsense and do not believe in it at all. I must tell hon. members that I am a bit sceptical about lift clubs that have been organized. There have been far too many national servicemen who have been killed on our roads, too many for us to take any comfort out of the present system. I think it can be improved. I like the idea, but there are problems which have to be overcome. I would be far happier …

There are problems in respect of picking-up places.

Yes. I would be far happier if the national servicemen were to be given some sort of concession, particularly on the Airways, so that if they for example go to an air station and the plane is not full, they should be given a reduced fare to enable them to go home, at least for long weekends. As I have said, I am not asking for them to go home every weekend at all. I think that when they do have a long weekend facility available to them, say one weekend every few months, the Airways could, instead of flying half-full late in the evening, perhaps make accommodation for those persons in uniform. I would commend that to the hon. the Minister and ask him to give it his consideration.

There is another aspect to which I want to refer. The hon. members know that parents of national servicemen are paying vast sums of money for their children to come home, say three or four times a year. There must be quite a number of young men who would like and are able to go home and spend the Easter period with their parents. However, to fly from Durban or Johannesburg costs approximately R180. The parents are having to pay that. I have had parents speak to me about this. They have told me that they are paying up to R700 a year on airfares which they can hardly deny their children when they say that they have a week’s leave, leave over a long weekend or over Easter. I commend that to the hon. the Minister.

From what the hon. the Minister has said, and from the report, I judge that there are going to be what are called two, three and four coach link-ups. I take that to mean that there are going to be smaller trains. If it means that there are going to be smaller trains, I think it is going to provide a very valuable service in what are called the valley periods, as against the peak periods. It seems to me an absolute waste of time to have a full-length train of, say, eight carriages on a suburban line travelling from Cape Town to Simonstown with only about 30 or 40 people on it. To have two or three carriages to me makes far better sense.

I want to bring another matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister, and that is the question of Railway policemen. I do not know what the strength of the Railway Police is at the moment.

Over 6 000.

I do not know whether they are short-staffed, under-staffed or fully staffed, but all I can say, from my experience of suburban lines, is that there are not enough Railway policemen on duty.

I come across a number of conductors on the suburban lines, both to the northern suburbs and to the southern suburbs, who complain about the presence of skollies on their trains. Some of these conductors on the late night trains, particularly on Friday and Saturday nights, deal with White and Coloured skollies. Many of these conductors are in fact in danger of their lives. Some of them have been robbed and some of them have been stabbed. Many of them have been assaulted. I think that in view of this, consideration should be given to the presence of more Railway policemen on railway stations and also, if possible, on trains particularly on Friday and Saturday nights.

I think the hon. the Minister must also give consideration to the conductors on these trains being armed with gas pistols. I see no reason why a conductor should not be given the means to defend himself. After all, he is serving the public, and if the public which he is having to serve cannot behave themselves and behave themselves the way some skollies on the trains do—which I have seen myself—I think the conductor should be given some means to protect himself. Therefore I would commend to the hon. the Minister the possibility of their being issued with gas pistols.

I now want to refer briefly to the question of industry. I am sure the 20% container rate discount will be welcomed by and large, especially in the Western Cape. We, particularly the hon. member for Tygervallei, have pleaded for years and years for special concessions for the Cape. I see from the public response by the secretary of the Chamber of Industries and the Chamber of Commerce that this has been well received. It was long overdue. Therefore I commend the hon. the Minister for having made provision for this. I am however disappointed with the 12,5% increased tariff for transportation of foodstuffs. Mr. Raymond Ackermann said in a recent statement that he hoped the big stores would absorb the costs so that they would not be passed on to the public. I am afraid that will be a forlorn hope. I think there will be people, like Mr. Ackermann, who will go out of their way to try to absorb the costs, but on the whole one will find that this 12,5% increase is going to be passed on to the public and it is going to add to the inflation rate.

I want to mention to the hon. the Minister the hardship suffered by the agricultural community. I refer particularly to what is a great tradition in South Africa, viz. the sending of livestock to agricultural shows. I do not have to tell the hon. the Minister that that is a very important part of our way of life in South Africa. I think consideration must be given to reducing the tariffs on the transport of livestock within agricultural communities so that farmers can indeed send animals to the various agricultural shows with pride in their achievements as they have been doing for so many years. It will be an absolute tragedy for South Africa if those agricultural shows were to suffer as a result of this increased tariff. The farmers themselves are suffering when it comes to the transport of their livestock, milk and cream to the market. I think this has been one of the worst features of the Railway budget in the last four or five years, viz. that farmers are having to pay so much more for the transport of their livestock to the market. The farmers by and large in South Africa cannot afford to absorb these increases. I ask the hon. the Minister therefore to also look at these matters. Great efforts have been made in this budget, and provision has been made over the last few years in the budget, for a better service to be available for the agricultural sectors. Goods trains have been made wider and deeper, and in the case of sheep trains, sheep are being transported on different layers. That I think is to be commended.

And effective tariffs have been reduced by 50%.

I am glad to hear that. I did not know that. I was going to say that with the improvement in the transport of livestock, there will surely be a far greater increase in livestock traffic and as a result the hon. the Minister is likely to receive a greater volume of income as was the case before.

*Finally, I should like to say something about the plea made yesterday by the hon. member for Bellville. He pleaded for the appointment of a commission of inquiry into the whole tariff structure and tariff policy of the Government. He said he believed that the structure and policy should be adjusted to modern circumstances. In this I support him wholeheartedly. I think it was an excellent plea, and I hope the hon. the Minister will give attention to it, because we are now being tied to a tariff structure which is definitely not keeping pace with the requirements of modern circumstances. I think a new tariff structure should be introduced, and I hope all this will be referred to the commission that has been called for. I wish the hon. member success with his proposal.

Mr. Speaker, for the past eight hours we have been listening to the criticism levelled by hon. members at the budget proposals as contained in the Bill under discussion. I certainly very much appreciate the fact that we are using the opportunity to subject the budget proposals to critical analysis. I think it would be a tragic day if we either did not have or did not use such opportunities. However, I must also say that it is perhaps desirable that when we formulate our standpoints or express our criticism, we should at least display elementary courtesy and self-control. I have decided not to react immediately to the speech by the hon. member for East London North. If I were to do so now, I should quite probably do violence to parliamentary practice and compel you, Mr. Speaker, to call me to order. In this regard there is another remark, too, that I want to make. It relates specifically to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti and the hon. member for East London North. It is of course a good thing to criticize. However, I also believe that such criticism should be based on facts and on the truth. I am now referring specifically to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, with particular reference to his allegations and statements with regard to fuel prices. The hon. member and his hon. colleague misled this House by the inferences they made and by the inferences they wanted this House to make.

Order! Does the hon. the Minister mean that the said hon. members gave this House the wrong impression and did not deliberately mislead it?

Mr. Speaker, I did not use the word “deliberately”.

Therefore the hon. the Minister is not maintaining that they deliberately misled the House?

No, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

The hon. member could very easily have ascertained the facts. Indeed, I myself have on occasion given the hon. member for Amanzimtoti the facts. However, what I very strongly object to is this. When South Africa was experiencing a crisis with regard to the actual physical acquisition of liquid fuel, officials of the Department of Industries and officials of Sasol flew the length and breadth of the world and conducted negotiations to obtain oil supplies for South Africa in this vulnerable period. I want to point out in all respect that up to this moment I have not yet had a word of appreciation or praise for any member opposite for the dedication of those people. However, let us take this further. I want to maintain once again that if the criticism advanced by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti and his hon. colleague was motivated by anything other than petty considerations, they would have provided the facts to hon. members in this House, so that hon. members could have drawn their own conclusions with regard to the facts and the inferences from those facts.

During 1972—and I choose that specific year for a specific purpose, because that was the year before the oil crisis—South Africa’s total account for imported oil came to R188 million. In 1979 South Africa’s total account for imported crude oil was R2 089 million for the same volume of oil. In other words, this amounts to an increase of 1 000%. Why, then, does the hon. member now accuse me of having increased the prices of oil and fuel? After all, by doing so he is doing violence to the truth.

Let us now consider what occurred over the same period. During the first quarter of 1979, oil imports were 40% less than during the last quarter of 1978. The reason for that, apart from the price, was that oil was not available for South Africa. I do not expect hon. members opposite to praise the Government, but I take the strongest exception to the fact that they do not show a basic sense of gratitude towards people who are not in the Government, but whose needs have to be looked after every day.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

No. [Interjections.] In spite of the fact that during this period between 1972 and 1979, the import account for the same volume of oil increased by 1 000%, the domestic prices of the products for the Railways increased by only 515%. Why does that hon. member not provide all the facts? I shall say why he does not do so. He does not do so because he wants to make petty political capital out of an emergency situation for South Africa. If he does so, then he must not reproach me for accusing them of not giving two pins for the country’s interests, as long as they can achieve their petty political aims. There are two remarks I want to make in this regard. I refer to the conduct of the hon. member for Durban Point while I was delivering the budget speech. We made history with the direct transmission of that speech. The request for the transmission of the budget speech did not emanate from my department or myself, nor from the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications or his department. It came from the private sector. They made their request to the hon. the Prime Minister specifically because the impact of the budget on the country’s economy is so phenomenal and important.

He knows it.

Yes, that hon. member knows it. However, what did he do when the budget speech was being delivered? He made interjections when I made certain remarks, knowing full well that I was unable to react to them since I had to uphold the dignity of this House while I was speaking and while the public could hear me. Once again he was unable to control the petty jealousy which overwhelmed him. When we debate in that spirit and treat each other in that way, I begin to have serious doubts about the quality of behaviour in this hon. House.

I now want to deal with a third point and then conclude for this afternoon. The hon. member for Bethlehem stressed what, in my opinion, is one of the finest achievements of the S.A. Railways in recent years. The Railways has to convey 690 million passengers every year and they have to do so in small and limited areas. We must concede at once that it is not always the most developed or the most well-off people that one encounters in the mass contact situation at stations and in trains. After all, there are the other strata of the population. That hon. member is a person who is constantly complaining about this, but what does he do? I can only condemn that in the strongest possible terms. In order to do so really effectively, I would have to be unparliamentary. What does that hon. member do? Instead of mentioning the fact that these activities of the Railways are virtually incident-free, often under the most difficult circumstances and quite often in the face of extreme provocation, that hon. member states that he was on a train on which one of the White stewards had a Coca-Cola bottle in his pocket. At what level does that hon. member move? I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition never to include that hon. member in his party. He is a burden to himself and the House and indeed to everyone. [Interjections.] However, he goes further. Not only does he condemn one steward and in doing so, condemn the whole system. He compares our service with that in Rhodesia and says that the Black stewards—these are his own words—are better stewards than the one he referred to. What does he do? In a society which is already so complicated, he humiliates the employees in the service of the Railways by referring to one incident which he did not report, in any event. Then he went on to do something far worse. He brought in the issue of colour in a scandalous way, and they are the people who arrogate to themselves the right to moralize as far as this party and its policy are concerned. I think that the Government should censure those hon. members in the strongest possible terms. When we talk about good relations, we must keep that spirit out of our debates. Not only must we keep it out of our debates, we must also keep it out of our political life, because it creates tension while other people devote their lives to reducing tension.

Mr. Speaker, I now move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we have before us the Third Reading of a measure that was not amended during the Committee Stage and which, in my opinion, could hardly be improved by amendment, unless the principle of the Bill is tampered with. The principle of the Bill has, therefore, already been accepted, and all that remains for us to do now, is to try to look into the future and to determine what practical effect this legislation, in its final form, will have in South Africa.

The impression that the hon. the Minister consistently tried to create in his handling of the Bill, is that we are dealing here with an essentially temporary measure, a measure that we were compelled to introduce in order to close the gap between the present stage in which the dissolution of the existing CRC is being requested, and a future stage of still uncertain date when, in the hon. the Minister’s own words, we shall have greater clarity from the Schlebusch Commission with regard to the constitutional position of the Coloured people in South Africa. A proper democratic substitute for the CRC could then be created on that basis.

The hon. the Minister has expressed the wish that prominent and leading figures in the Coloured community will come forward to serve on the proposed council. It is understandable that the hon. the Minister should express such a wish, since it is inevitably of the utmost importance to the viability of such a council that Coloured leaders of stature should make themselves available for service on this council.

It is in regard to this very aspect that I foresee obstacles for the future of the proposed new council. We could hardly expect anything more difficult for the Coloured leader with political integrity than to serve on this council.

†I can hardly think of a more difficult demand to be made of a Coloured leader with political integrity than that he should serve on this new body, because he will have to endure the scorn of thousands of the people he is supposed to represent. I should like to mention just a few reasons—which are closely tied to the principle and the history of the Bill—why I maintain that it would be extremely difficult for prominent Coloured leaders to come forward and make themselves available for service on this body. First of all I want to raise the question of the expected duration of this new body. The hon. the Minister has indicated, in reaction to certain amendments moved by the hon. member for Umbilo, that there is uncertainty about how long this new body will have to exist to serve the Coloured people. There is also uncertainty about when the Schlebusch Commission will come forward with an acceptable alternative. In order to investigate and to analyse what the prospects are in this regard, one has to look at the previous political representation that the Coloured people had in South Africa.

In this regard I just want to take a brief look at the CRC. Many things have been said during the Second Reading debate, and in other debates, about the failure of the CRC and the reasons for the failure. The central reason was that it was a body which was unacceptable to the Coloured people. Without for the moment going into the reasons why they found this body to be unacceptable, I want to say that it was a body for political representation which the Coloured people resented from the moment of its establishment. My problem in this regard is what prospect there is, at the moment, of the Schlebusch Commission, and in the final analysis the NP, accepting a new system which does not suffer from that same malaise. What prospect is there of the NP coming up with a system which is not, in the words of the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, “a subordinate body” and therefore doomed to failure? I submit that this is a factor which is going to deter a large number of prominent Coloured leaders from coming forward to serve on this body as it will be a temporary body. They will know that unless a totally acceptable alternative is found soon this body may continue to exist for years and years to come, and there will be no progress. They will know that this body may then eventually become some sort of permanent form of representation for the Coloured people.

A second reason why I feel that Coloured leaders may be unwilling to serve on this body is that this new body is a product of the misreading and misinterpretation of the wishes of the Coloured people. I say this in the sense that the Bill before the House gives effect to the wishes of the Coloured people that the CRC should be disbanded, but totally ignores the obvious corollary to that request—the obvious other request going with it—that some form of acceptable, meaningful alternative should be established, because this body can by no means be considered to be a meaningful alternative. I think the hon. the Minister has conceded that because it is not a democratic body it is no ideal form of political representation. This, once again, will deter a great number of Coloured people from serving on this body, and therefore it will make it difficult for this body to operate properly.

A third reason is that this body is not representative. The representative nature of the body is not just imperfect; it is non-existent. It does not even purport to be elected or to represent any Coloured people at all. There is no basis on which one can argue that it is supposed to or does in fact represent the Coloured people at all. So the only indication of that is that it is actually called the Coloured Persons Council and, secondly, that it should consist of Coloured people. In no other way and on no other basis can it be said that this body represents the Coloured people. And as such, once again, people who are politically minded, people in the Coloured community who have politics in their blood and who want to represent the wishes of their people and to work on behalf of their people, will be reluctant to serve on that body. To go even further, after a new system has been evolved, people who want at a later stage to serve their people and who want to be elected to some post in a new constitutional structure will be even more reluctant because they will believe that to serve on this body will be a political kiss of death. I say this after due consideration because I have no doubt that this is just the effect that it will have.

A fourth reason why Coloured people will be reluctant to serve is that this is a powerless body. If the CRC has been a body of limited power, then this new body will be infinitely worse in this respect because it does not even purport to have any power whatsoever. It is only of a representative nature and even the procedures that are to be applied by this body are dictated to a very considerable extent by the legislation and by the officials who are given powers in terms of this legislation to dictate to this body. The State President can make temporary and other appointments and therefore there is no indication whatsoever, and it cannot be said, that this body has any power in its own right.

The fifth reason is the whole, long sad constitutional history of the Coloured people. There is hardly any aspect in South African political life that has produced as many successive failures as the Government’s handling of the constitutional position of the Coloured people. I do not have to mention those different attempts again. Various forms of representation have been attempted in the last 30 odd years of Nationalist rule, and before that, I may say, and none of these attempts has succeeded in any material way whatsoever. As a result, every new step has been met with a greater degree of scepticism by the Coloured people themselves. Therefore, what do we expect will happen to a body such as this, which not even the hon. the Minister claims, which not even the NP claims, is supposed to be an improvement on previous attempts? Even they do not suggest that it is an improvement. How do we expect the Coloured people to feel about it? Will they not be more sceptical than they have ever been about any attempt that has previously been made to give political representation to their people?

Another reason, which is also related to the constitutional history of the Coloured people and in particular to the CRC, is that the CRC is being disbanded because it did not succeed. It did not succeed because it was a subordinate body—and I use that word again because I thought it was very aptly used by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens—a body which implied a second-class citizenship of those it was supposed to represent. This body is going to make it even worse.

A last factor which I thought would make it extremely difficult for people to serve on this body is the attitude that the Government has adopted towards Coloured people and the Coloured leaders up until now and the attitude which the Government still has to these people. I merely have to refer to the attitude adopted by the hon. the Prime Minister himself when he indicated to Coloured leaders that, if they were not prepared to work with the Government, the Government would find others to do that. Those words will ring in the ears of and will be remembered by every Coloured leader who is asked to come forward and to make himself available to this body, because this new body will be constituted so shortly after those words have been used that the inference is almost inescapable that, if one allows oneself to be used by this body, if one agrees to serve on this body, then one will be considered by the Coloured people, by those people whom one is supposed to represent, to be one of those others whom the Government has found to do their work for them while the real elected leaders of the Coloured people refuse to do so because they considered the body on which they sat to offer an imperfect and in fact a hopeless form of political representation.

In summarizing I want to say that this Bill, as it stands in the Third Reading, does not contain anything which suggests an improvement of those factors which caused its predecessor, the CRC, to fail. Its predecessor was subordinate, and this body is even more subordinate. The CRC had limited powers, but this body will have no powers whatsoever. Its predecessor, the CRC, was not fully representative; this body will not be representative at all and, at the same time, this Bill and the procedures prescribed by it, are obviously merely designed to establish a body which will appear to be democratic and representative.

It is designed to create a smoke screen and to go through the motions of the democratic process, while everyone who participates in it, will know fullwell that it is merely a mockery of the democratic process. For those reasons I feel that it would be extremely difficult for Coloured people to make themselves available, and I want to predict that this will probably be the single most important factor which will cause this body to be an utter failure, a greater failure than any previous attempt at political representation for the Coloured people which has been produced by this Government.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point expressed doubt this afternoon as to whether political leaders of integrity would be obtained to serve on the new council. He also advanced certain reasons for doubting this. I now wish to reply to the hon. member as follows. In the first place, not only political leaders will serve on this new council; all interest groups in the Coloured community will be represented on this council. I believe that that is our principle aim, not to make a political body of this that will serve purely as a replacement of the dissolved CRC, but to make of it a council which will devote all its attention and all its time to the interests of the community it must serve. In the course of my speech I shall reply to some of the reasons advanced by the hon. member.

I have one request this afternoon. I shall begin by putting it to myself, but I also wish to address it to that hon. member and all hon. members. Let us not prevent the Coloured leaders from serving on this council. Let us not make it impossible for them to do so. It is very easy for us to do so. We can very easily advance arguments as to why they must not make themselves available for this council. It is possible for us, as political parties represented in this House, to use our position for political gain, but I want to say this afternoon that if we do so, we are not doing the community, nor South Africa, a service. We are not going to be making a contribution to solving one of South Africa’s difficult issues. I want to ask the official Opposition to use their influence, if it is within their power to do so, to enable Coloured leaders to come forward to serve on this council. In this way we shall make progress in our endeavour to start this community moving along a road of contentment.

If we accept the principle that the CRC is abolished, it is essential to state a few other points very clearly too. The first argument I wish to advance—the hon. member for Green Point also pointed this out—is that this is an interim measure. The hon. member asked how long it would last. This is a question which was also asked during the Second Reading Debate. The length of this period will be determined by the progress made in the field of constitutional change and adaptation. No one need doubt—and no one outside this House does doubt it—that we must bring about these adaptations and changes. For that reason, every party represented in this House has a policy geared to these constitutional changes and adaptations that must be made. If we can make rapid progress in this field, the lifetime of this interim measure could be very short and we would be able to start the Brown community of South Africa moving along a path that would afford them contentment.

I am not going to differ with the hon. member for Green Point about the fact that these people have had an unfortunate political past. I said during the Second Reading debate that we could not reproach one another. In the course of our history all parties have made mistakes, but now is the time for us to rectify them.

The lifetime of this interim measure will further be determined by the preparedness of Coloured leaders to take part in these talks or negotiations. If it is not out of order to do so, I wish to place on record my gratitude towards the Coloured people of stature who have already testified before the Schlebush commission. Many of their names have appeared in the newspapers, but I shall not dwell on the content of the evidence. Hon. members serving on the Schlebush commission will agree with me that truly constructive discussions have been conducted and people have been able to state their standpoints too.

For that reason I want to appeal to Coloured leaders to take part. I want to ask once again that they get their procedure right. Parliament is the institution in South Africa which has the say as regards the laws of South Africa, and it is Parliament alone that can amend those laws. The hon. Prime Minister cannot draw up a constitution for South Africa. I again want to call upon the leaders of the Labour Party and the CRC to meet with the Schlebush commission and submit the Du Preez report so that we can look at it in depth and conduct discussions about it, because in that way we can make progress.

I also wish to appeal to all three of the Opposition parties to co-operate to enable us to create an instrument in this country which will enable interested groups to talk about this urgent matter and other urgent matters. I want to be honest. I am unhappy about the debate conducted in the Second Reading. It was an emotion-laden debate. Perhaps I, too, was emotional. However, it will be a happy day in South African history when we no longer need to conduct that kind of debate in this House about a population group in this country. Accordingly I want to ask everyone to co-operate so that in the first place we may create an instrument enabling us to sit down and discuss this political issue, and other issues as well, in great depth. I want to go further and appeal to everyone in South Africa to find a solution for the political needs of this population group by way of co-operation and goodwill. Once again I am going to be honest I am disappointed that we in South Africa have not found a solution for this. Nor is it merely an issue of a solution for the political needs of this population group. It is also an issue of finding a solution for South Africa’s difficult political problems. We cannot and may not ignore this. We cannot and may not abolish the political rights of a population group. We may not reason that a population group does not have political rights. I think it is time that we should look more closely at the principle of self-determination and develop it further.

I do not think there is anyone in this House who is not of the opinion that every population group in the country must have the right to manage its own affairs. Nor do I believe there is anyone in this House who does not fear that one group may dominate another and eventually eliminate it. Accordingly, the period for which this interim measure will be valid, depends on co-operation, goodwill, discussion and negotiation. We can all contribute towards this. The second point I want to stress is that the new council to be established—the S.A. Coloured Council—can make a very major and important contribution. In the first place they can contribute towards cooling the present unfortunate political climate between White and Brown in South Africa, because this unfortunate political climate serves no one’s interests. It does not serve South Africa’s interests. If this council can succeed in cooling this climate, in creating an atmosphere of talks, of negotiation, of peace and of an honest search for solutions, we shall be able to establish a political understanding anda political system which could be to South Africa’s benefit This council, too, will have to be geared to looking after the interests of the Brown community. That is why I said to the hon. member for Green Point that it was not merely an issue of the political interests of the Brown people. I know that is important I am not so naïve as to think that political interests and political rights are not very important However, the new council will have to look after the total interests of the Brown community. Social and economic upliftment must be priority number one. I say this afternoon that I expect of this council that it draw up a plan, in a restful atmosphere, to combat the disturbing phenomena and evils in our Coloured community and cause them to disappear. I ask that the new council draw up an all-embracing upliftment programme in a restful spirit and atmosphere and approach the Government with it I believe that if the Government is approached with a positive proposal, it will also vote the funds to accommodate this community in their social upliftment. The new council will also be able to make an important contribution in improving the relations between White and Brown in South Africa. I believe the Council will co-operate with the existing relations committees. I want to make the statement that the CRC did not make a positive contribution in this regard. The CRC did not make a positive contribution to achieving improved relations between the two population groups. There is a great deal of important work to be done in this sphere. When I move among my people, I believe that the spirit and the attitude to be found among them are good. The question that is constantly being put to me in my constituency, is: “When are you going to solve this problem?” This is the question that we are constantly confronted with. We want to solve this problem. However, I want to make the statement this afternoon that the one community cannot regard the other as including all the devils, while the other has all the angels. Unfortunately that is the spirit we find among certain Coloured leaders, particularly in the ranks of the Labour Party. What their approach amounts to is that only the Whites are the sinners in South Africa, the devils who want to create bad relations.

Accordingly, a spirit and an atmosphere can be created within this envisaged South African Coloured Persons Council which will be conducive to co-operation in achieving better relations in the interests of all of us. According I want to appeal to Coloured leaders to serve on this council, to come forward and to say: “We are doing this in the interests of our people and in the interests of South Africa; we are doing this for the sake of the future of all of us.”

Then I believe that with the right will, a new phase will develop, a new phase which will afford all of us hope, happiness and confidence.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Oudtshoorn directed various pleas to the Coloured community. He appealed to them to come forward and to declare themselves prepared to serve on this proposed Coloured Persons Council. We in these benches believe it is in the interest of all to find solutions which are acceptable to the various race groups in South Africa so that a new dispensation can become a reality in South Africa.

We must, however, view this legislation in the light of the situation as it exists at the moment. This proposed Coloured Persons Council will in fact replace the CRC, which was a partly elected and partly nominated body. It will mean that representation for 2,5 million Coloured people will disappear once the CRC has been replaced by this fully nominated body. We in these benches moved an amendment at Second Reading. We also moved amendments during the Committee Stage in order to try to improve this proposed council. All those amendments were rejected by the hon. the Minister. Therefore we have no hesitation in voting against the Third Reading of this Bill.

We can see the problems and appreciate the difficulties that have arisen as a result of the fact that the CRC has turned out to be an ineffective body. I do not intend to repeat the arguments that were used during the previous stages of this Bill. We do believe, however, that it is not in the interest of good race relations between the White and the Coloured communities to proceed with the appointment of a body which at the very outset is going to be regarded by a large number of the Coloured community as being completely unrepresentative of their points of view. The administrative side of the council has to continue, and we agree with the hon. member for Oudtshoorn when he says that there is a very wide field that still requires urgent attention by such a council, particularly in regard to the socio-economic upliftment of the Coloured community. We are faced, however, with a situation in which this appointed body will come into operation, in terms of this legislation, on 1 April 1980. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn again indicated that this measure was purely an interim arrangement and that the council was to be purely an interim body. We tried to ascertain from the hon. the Minister how he sees the life of this particular council, and he was unable to give any definite indication, saying it depended on what progress was made with the report of the Schlebusch Commission and, as we have seen in the Press from time to time, with the possible appointment of the President’s Council, as well as with other matters which require attention.

In terms of the Bill, however, it is stated quite clearly that a member of the Coloured Persons Council will hold office for such period and on such conditions as the State President may determine at the time of his nomination. Consequently the hon. the Minister will shortly have to make recommendations for the appointment of persons to serve on this council, and it is clearly indicated that at the time of that person’s nomination such period of office shall be indicated. If this council is therefore to come into operation on 1 April 1980, the hon. the Minister will have to make those appointments within the next few weeks. It would mean that at the time of the appointment of those nominees the period of office would have to be stated. It is therefore important for this House to know, from the hon. the Minister, for what period the proposed members of this council are to be nominated, because that decision will have to be made within the next few weeks. So the question of the period of appointment is a very vital one because it has been indicated, by the hon. the Minister and by other hon. members opposite, that this is to be purely an interim measure. On the basis of these nominations, up to a maximum of 30, it would be interesting to know how these nominations are to be apportioned to the four provinces. It would be interesting to know whether the hon. the Minister has given the matter any thought and can indicate to the House how the proposed members for each of the provinces will be nominated.

We believe that this measure is indeed a most unfortunate one. We believe that it closes a chapter in the very said history of the representation of the Coloured community. We know of the steps that have been taken from time to time and we know how the hopes of these people have been raised. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn quoted from the report of the Erika Theron Commission during the Second Reading debate, and I think it is worth recording in Hansard one very important recommendation that was made. I refer to recommendation 178 in part XXV of the White Paper of 1977, page 84. The date of this recommendation indicates to us how quickly time is passing by. I quote—

1. (a) with a view to the further extension of the political civil rights of Coloureds and the creation of opportunities for more constructive participation and co-operation, provision be made for satisfactory forms of direct Coloured representation and a direct say for Coloureds at the various levels of government and in the various decision-making bodies.

At present we are a long way from achieving what is asked for in that recommendation. Indeed, we are going backwards in the sense that unfortunately the Coloureds will have no direct representation whatsoever, having merely this proposed CPC. We believe that it is not in the interests of good relations to replace a body which was partly elected with a fully-appointed body. We can foresee the difficulty the members of the Coloured community are going to have in accepting these appointments. We know, from recent Press reports, that certain Coloured leaders have made an appointment to see the hon. the Minister. This would appear to be in connection with the appointments to this proposed CPC. So let us hope that the hon. the Minister will not make it impossible for some of these Coloured people to accept that position through their not realizing that the appointments are going to be for a limited period. I hope that when the hon. the Minister replies to this debate he will be able to give an indication of what that period will be.

We on these benches have no alternative, however, but to vote against the Third Reading of this Bill because we do not believe that it is in the interests of good relations in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, if I have understood the hon. member for Umbilo correctly, he conveyed his sympathy to the hon. member for Oudtshoorn and said he understood why the CRC had been unsuccessful. Accordingly I find it strange that in the same breath he advocates that a council that has been unsuccessful, should continue to exist. I can see no sense in that. I think that if a council has proved that it is not viable as a result of the actions of the members of the council, one would be doing the Coloured population of South Africa a disservice if one allowed that council to continue to exist.

Did they ask for this council, an appointed council?

If the hon. member agrees that the previous council failed and had to choose between an unsuccessful council and a new council which had not yet been tried and could most probably be a success, what would his choice be? Why does the hon. member want to continue to support a council which failed? Why does the hon. member not want to give a new council a chance, a council which has not yet shown that it is going to be a failure? On the contrary, there are a number of reasons to believe that it will not be a failure. Why, then, does the hon. member want to stay with the unsuccessful council? Why does he not want to take a chance with a replacement council? One can only really draw one conclusion and that is that the Opposition is not really interested in the welfare of the Coloureds in this country, but that it is always interested in making all the political capital it can for itself out of the Coloureds’ quandary.

The hon. member for Green Point listed seven points why he believed that the Coloureds would not accept a new council. I hold this against the hon. member. I want to go so far as to say that if the new council does not succeed, that hon. member and his party would bear a major share of the responsibility.

It is the same old story. [Interjections.]

He said: “I can hardly think of a more difficult demand to a Coloured of political integrity than that he should participate in this new council.” He is telling Coloureds who would like to serve on this council that they have no political integrity if they do so.

It is scandalous.

Therefore I maintain that if this council fails, if it fails to the satisfaction of the Opposition, the Opposition would have a share in it because it seeks to condemn the council and insult the members that will serve on it and in that way prevent such a council from surviving in future. If this is the case, I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Oudtshoorn in appealing to all Whites and all Coloureds in South Africa to ensure at all costs that South Africa’s problems are solved, even if it be at the expense of our own advantage in the matter or to our detriment.

The hon. member also stated: “Coloured people resented the CRC from the moment it was started.” It is true that the members of the Labour Party asked from the outset that the council should be abolished, but surely history proves that the council was doing its work and was growing until the Labour Party came into power. He said, inter alia: “It was a powerless body.” He still does not understand that the whole purpose of establishing that council was precisely to allow its power to develop. The people did not want to accept this. As of old, they want us to give councils, rights and powers irrespective of what happens to them and irrespective of whether the people who have to exercise such powers are capable of doing so. It is a process of growth, but there were powers. They were restricted powers, it is true, but the possibility existed that these powers could be developed into much greater powers than they are today.

The hon. member also spoke of “a long, sad constitutional history” and of “second-class citizenship”. According to him these were the reasons why the Coloureds would not accept the proposed new S.A. Coloured Persons Council. On what does he base his statement of “second-class citizenship”? It is based on one fact, viz. that the Coloureds are not on the common voters’ roll.

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens uses the term “subordinate”. It is a good word.

Surely this is the only reason why this statement is being made. A distinction is supposedly being drawn because the Coloureds are not on the common voters’ roll. However, I wonder whether the hon. member can remember when his party was drawing up the franchise rights of the Coloureds a short while ago? I wonder whether he recalls that according to his party’s dispensation, there were at least three classes of voters? What right has a person who gives a person with a Std. 8 education a greater franchise than a person with a Std. 6 training, and who gives a person with a Std. 10 training a greater franchise than a person with Std. 8, to speak of classes of “citizenship”? Surely there is no greater classification of “citizenship” than that type of vote his party wanted to allow in its dispensation. What makes matters worse is the bluff this entails, viz. the idea they give the Coloured that they are furthering his interests, whereas all they are doing is swindling him. Then they come and tell us that we are giving the Coloureds “second-class citizenship” because we do not want them on the common voters’ roll and because we give them their own voters’ roll through which they have as much right to vote as I have on the basis of my voters’ roll. Has one any choice but to reach the conclusion that the official Opposition is not really interested in the best interests and the welfare of the Coloured in South Africa?

This legislation will result in the abolition of the CRC and the establishment of a South African Coloured Persons Council in its place. So far, debating on this subject has proved beyond doubt that the CRC has not served the purpose for which it was established. There is no doubt that the governing party in the CRC has developed an obsession to wreck the purpose of the CRC at all costs. This has happened at the expense of the interests of the Coloured population and at the expense of South Africa’s interests, if we take into account that these people advocated an economic boycott against South Africa and formed alliances with the ANC and the PAC. It was also done at the cost of the opinions and convictions of moderate Coloured leaders and their followers. It was also done at the cost of some of their own former supporters who sought to adopt more moderate tactics in an effort to solve their problems. In this regard I have in mind in particular people such as Mr. Sonny Leon and Mr. Lofty Adams.

I should like to quote to hon. members the reasons listed by Mr. Sonny Leon for his resignation from the Labour Party. I shall not read the whole letter, because that would take too long—

These are the reasons why Mr. Sonny Leon resigned from the Labour Party. He says—

It should be noted in passing that this prediction was realized. It is true that once the new legislation has come into effect, the Labour Party will be irrelevant in the South African political context. It is now being deprived of the opportunity it was given to speak on behalf of its Coloured people, because it refused to make use of it. With reference to these reasons given for the resignation of Mr. Sonny Leon, one should also like to ask the Opposition a few questions. I should particularly like to ask the hon. member for Green Point a question. I believe that Mr. Sonny Leon, who was leader of the Labour Party, and who resigned for reasons he believed to be to the detriment of the Coloured population, would like to serve on this new council on behalf of the Coloured, if he is approached to do so. I should like to ask the hon. member for Green Point: “Does this man have no political integrity?” [Interjections.] I want to ask him what he means by “political integrity”. What is his definition of the word? [Interjections.] Is his definition that every Coloured not agreeing with the advice given him by his party, does not have political integrity? I believe that the Coloureds of South Africa should urgently take cognizance of the part the official Opposition is playing in Coloured politics. I believe one can see this in the contributions made by these hon. members to the debate.

The Coloured in South Africa has made a contribution in respect of every aspect of growth in this country. The South African Coloured population has played a tremendous part in the agriculture of this country, from the time it originated up to the present. The Coloured population of South Africa has played an important part on our wine farms, wheat farms, apple farms, etc. In every facet of agriculture in South Africa the Coloured has played an important part. They have also played an important part in the industrial development of this country. They have played an important part in mining, a part they are still playing today. Perhaps the most important part they have played, has been in the fishing industry, and they are still doing so today. Since 1796, if my memory serves me, when the old Cape Corps was established, they have also played a part in the defence of this country.

Thus the Coloured population of South Africa forms an integral part of this country’s population, and they are in no way second-class, third-class, or even fourth-class citizens, as the PFP wants to classify them in its franchise qualifications. For that reason this side of the House really wants the Coloured to take his rightful place in South Africa. However, this side of the House believes that the Coloured’s rightful place must not be that of ruler of the White population, and I believe this is a fair view. Because this is the Government’s view, it says to the Coloured—and it is sincere in its intentions when it says this—that the Coloureds must come and govern themselves alongside the Whites, must have their own system of Government and their own voters’ roll, and must look after their own affairs, and where there are matters of common interest, we shall deal with them together. The development process up to this point has a cruel history, and it is true that there had to be separation in order to obtain separate rights. This is true. However, surely there is something to look forward to, something other than the Utopia held up to them by the official Opposition, which is nothing more than that the Coloureds or the Blacks have to govern this country. I believe that those Coloureds of South Africa who have the interests of their own people at heart will regard this opportunity as an opportunity to do something positive in the interests of their own people. Under the old dispensation this was not possible for them in the CRC, because the majority in that council boycotted the council. It cannot be said that it was an effective majority. There was a very low percentage poll in the election, and many people who voted did not know what they were voting for. However, it was true that that Coloured of South Africa who is seeking to do something positive for the Coloured people of South Africa, will make use of this new council which is being established. I believe that in that process they will show the official Opposition in this Parliament that they have more insight and greater ideals than merely to listen to them and constantly having their cause bedevilled as a result.

Order! The hon. member for Swellendam must withdraw the word “swindling” which he used earlier on in his speech.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I wish it were possible in the affairs of this House for some members such as the hon. member for Swellendam to be asked to withdraw their entire speech.

No one would want to argue with the hon. member for Swellendam that the Coloured people in South Africa have played, are playing and will play a very vital role in every area of life, be it in agriculture, in industry, in commerce or in the defence of this country. No one would want to take exception to that However, in making that point he has merely demonstrated how this particular piece of legislation before the House compounds the problem concerning the interface between White and Coloured as far as political rights in South Africa are concerned. I believe the very fact that the Coloured community have played such a fundamental role, should be a challenge to us to understand that they too have a place in the sun in this country and should not be regarded as we believe they have been regarded and are being regarded in terms of this proposed legislation, namely as second-class citizens.

I think the hon. member for Swellendam has considerable cheek and nerve. I think so because for him to suggest for a moment that if this council does not work, it will be the responsibility of the Opposition, in particular the official Opposition, is a cheek. I think it is stupid. We have not introduced this proposed legislation in the House. It is the Government and the hon. the Minister. Immediately upon this Bill being published, there was an outcry from the elected leaders of the Coloured people who said that this was just a total reversal and totally unacceptable.

They said they were jubilant.

The fact of the matter is that before we even opened our mouths to participate in this debate, the word was already out in the Coloured community. If he wants to blame anybody or point any finger, he had better have a look at this proposed legislation, because that is where the responsibility lies. He cannot duck the issue here. He cannot sit there and point a finger at those of us sitting in these benches for his mistakes, his bad legislation and his bad race relations with the Coloured people. He indeed has a cheek.

What is your solution in respect of the Coloured people?

He asks what our solution is and I shall tell him. We have told the House again and again that the Coloured people deserve to have representation in this House.

On what basis?

On the basis of a common roll. [Interjections.] We have said this time and time again. It is the only ethical situation one can adopt.

Do you accept majority rule?

The hon. member is talking rubbish. That hon. member is unimaginatively stupid in his remarks, in his speech and then in his interjections.

Order! The hon. member cannot say that another hon. member is stupid.

Not even when it is true?

I withdraw it, Sir.

The Chief Whip must also withdraw his remark.

I do, Sir.

May I say, despite having withdrawn my comment, that that hon. member is remarkably muddle-headed and asinine in his remarks.

Are you quoting the Financial Mail about Harry?

That is right. The hon. member for Swellendam criticizes the leadership of the Labour Party. He says they have formed alliances with other groups. I want to tell the hon. member for Swellendam, however, that it is his party, his Government, which has driven the Labour Party to form these alliances. [Interjections.] The normal and natural alliance of the Coloured community is with the White community, but we have rejected them over and over again, and so they have sought other alliances. That hon. member must accept that responsibility. If he does not want to accept the responsibility he should get out of the party he represents, because that is the party which has been responsible for this over the years. [Interjections.] Some of my colleagues are suggesting the hon. member belongs to only half of the NP, but no one will know which half until the break actually comes. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Oudtshoorn is unfortunately not in the House. He did make a very serious speech and did direct one particular request to us. He said he directed it to himself first and then to all hon. members in the House. He said we must not make it difficult for Coloured leaders to serve on this council, and the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations gave, by way of support, a very loud “Hear, hear!”. The fact of the matter is that it is the nature of the “beast” itself that makes it difficult for the Coloured leaders to really want to serve on this council.

If you do not instigate them, they will serve.

I know full well that one will get Coloured people to serve on this council, and it may well be that the hon. the Minister will tell us, if he wishes to in his reply—and I hope he will—whether he has made any approaches and, indeed, whether any have accepted. Perhaps it is premature, but anyway I am quite confident that the hon. the Minister will find Coloured leaders to serve on this council. There is no doubt about it. However, by way of illustration, and again in reply to the hon. member for Swellendam, if the hon. the Minister says Mr. Sonny Leon is going to serve on the council…

The hon. the Minister did not say so.

I am saying “if” the hon. the Minister says so. If the hon. the Minister says Mr. Sonny Leon will serve on the council, and then asks, if he does, whether we can condemn Mr. Leon as a man who lacks political integrity? My only response is that if Mr. Leon does serve on the council—and of course he must make up his own mind, he has every right to do that—he will be reversing a position he has held for many years. He has consistently stated that the CRC ought to be fully representative. That has been one of the major facts of his argument It is no good the hon. member for Wonderboom shaking his head at that. That is the fact of the matter, and this council is not going to be representative, in fact just the opposite.

It is an interim council.

All I want to say is that Mr. Sonny Leon can make up his own mind, he can say “yes” or “no”, but let us be very clear on one aspect. If he says “yes” he will be turning away from a basic principle he has adopted for many years. That is the problem.

That is not true.

It is true.

It is a temporary council.

Oh, it is a “temporary council”. Let us move directly into speaking about that then.

Andries Treurnicht is doing a “temporary” thing too.

This piece of legislation does have some real historical merit, because it is the first time the Government has actually taken the requests of the CRC with the utmost seriousness. At long last the Government has acceded to the request made by the CRC. Forgive me, however, if I am a little cynical about the way this has actually been put in the Bill itself.

You are always cynical!

That side of the House gives me every cause, and that hon. member in particular. I listened to him earlier in another debate this afternoon. It was dreadful. Anyway, I think it is a moment of history that the Government has actually accepted the demands, the requests made by the elected leaders in the CRC that that body should be scrapped. This is one of the reasons for this. In the light of the fact that we do have the Schlebusch Commission looking at a new way and a new alternative, a new constitutional process which will give Coloureds as well as Whites and everyone else in South Africa a fair deal and a decent political dispensation in this country, I cannot, however, get away from the feeling—and I said this at Second Reading, although I should like to take it a little step further now—that this decision to do away with the CRC stems not so much from their request but arises out of the discussions held by the hon. the Prime Minister and the elected Coloured leaders. To that extent, I believe, this piece of legislation is punitive in its nature. I believe it is saying to them: “All right, you will not play the game, you will not do what we want you to do. Now we are going to scrap the CRC and you are going to lose all that salary and all those benefits which you have enjoyed. At the end of this month that is all over, and we will have our own group of people who will do what we want them to do, because you will not do that.” [Interjections.] Therefore I submit that this is a punitive measure, a measure that is to be regretted.

In the second place I believe that this piece of legislation is really an insult, if you like, to the Schlebusch Commission itself. If we do have a commission that is considering a new constitution—which is something we do have—why on earth was this legislation not simply placed before the Schlebusch Commission for consideration? Even if this is an interim measure we still do have a commission at work now. I believe that this legislation should be placed before the Schlebusch Commission.

I should like to say to the hon. the Minister—he is certainly aware of it, although the hon. member for Swellendam and other hon. members opposite may not be so aware of it—that this piece of legislation will actually give even greater strength to the Labour Party. We must not imagine for a moment that this is going to knock the Labour Party. I believe that this is actually going to strengthen the Labour Party.

Why do you moan then?

I am not moaning at all. I do not believe, however, that that is the intention of the Government, because they do not like the Labour Party just as they do not like the PFP. They do not want to see either grow. The fact of the matter therefore is that it just does not help …

Do you like the NP?

Which one? [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rissik wants to know whether I like the NP. Which one? I do not know. There are too many of them, too many parties. [Interjections.]

Order!

Once the hon. member for Rissik has made his … [Interjections.]

Where are you scheming now, Daan?

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member for Pinelands: Who will be responsible for the day-to-day running of the affairs of the Coloured people, the administration of the affairs of the Coloured people, if there is no such council as the one that is proposed to be appointed?

That is a very easy question to answer. The fact of the matter is that the CRC could continue its life.

But it does not want to.

The CRC could continue its life because there is the Schlebusch Commission reviewing the whole constitutional procedure in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order!

How has the CRC been able to continue to do this very thing until now? They have appointed Mrs. Jansen. [Interjections.] Has the CRC done its job? I do not say it has done it well. Of course, they did not like it. They objected, and so would I if I were in a secondary position with this House announcing the budget and with me having to put a rubber stamp on it somewhere else. That is not first-class citizenship. Not at all. I can very well understand their frustration. The fact of the matter is, however, that it was working. That is my reply to the hon. member for Simonstown. So why could it not continue? One could well ask why we continue with the Other Place, and what would happen if we just scrapped it? The fact of the matter is that it is going to go out of existence, but nobody cuts it away in the space of a couple of months.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

Yes, of course, let anybody who wants to, ask anything he likes.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pinelands says the CRC has been doing its job because of the appointment of Mrs. Jansen. Is that correct?

Yes.

Did that hon. member’s party, however, support the amending legislation at the time, or did those hon. members oppose it?

The hon. member knows full well that we opposed it and that we would do the same thing again. The fact of the matter is that the CRC is a second-class institution in terms of political rights. No one would deny that. Because the Coloured people want to speak for themselves, however, and not with the voice of the PFP, the NP or anyone else, this Government says it will simply move it out of the way and appoint a council that can do the job, but of course do it their way. That is the whole point. That is why we opposed this measure at Second Reading and did not even attempt to bring about any improvements in the Committee Stage. The reason for that is that the fundamental principle of this legislation is repugnant to us. I want to conclude by quoting again a recommendation of the Erika Theron Commission. It is a very brief quote, but I believe that it is of the utmost importance for this House to hear these words again, because I think they sum it all up for us. I quote recommendation 153 on page 77 of the White Paper of 1977—

1. (a) the idea be abandoned that the Coloured population is a community which is culturally different and culturally distinguishable from the White population groups;
2. (b) the advancement and pursuit of culture be dealt with within the same organizational framework as for Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking Whites in South Africa

That is the heart of the matter as I see it, and as my party sees it, and that is why we oppose this legislation. That is also why we could understand that the CRC would never work. It could have been phased out much more gradually, however, without this legislation, in the hope that from the deliberations of the Schlebusch Commission would come a new dispensation which would do exactly that. I hope that that is exactly what is going to happen. Until such time, however, we shall continue not to give our support to legislation of this kind.

Mr. Speaker, what we saw during the Second Reading debate, has happened here again. The hon. members of the Opposition who participated in the debate, with great prolixity, said nothing that had any real substance. During the Second Reading debate they contributed nothing to the argument. They have now come forward again, not with an attack on the Bill, not with speeches in the interests of the Coloured population of South Africa, but merely with one argument after another to score political debating points. I wish to draw the attention of the House to the contrast between the three speeches we had from the hon. Opposition, on the one hand, and the two we had from hon. members on the Government side, on the other. Both the hon. member for Oudtshoorn and the hon. member for Swellendam went out of their way to express their confidence in the quality of the people of colour in our population. They went out of their way to express confidence in the contribution these good South Africans could make to the well-being, prosperity and progress of South Africa. It was a glaring contrast, and I think it is necessary to draw attention to it.

My reply follows immediately on the speech made by the hon. member for Pinelands. Let us consider his arguments for a moment. He spoke of the integrity of people who were to serve on this new proposed council, but then he immediately intimated that any person, inter alia, Mr. Sonny Leon, who served on this Council would not be a man of integrity.

Nonsense.

No.

Oh yes, the insinuation was obvious.

That is untrue.

I am saying that the insinuation was clear. [Interjections.] Just a moment, please.

Order!

I just wish to reiterate the hon. member’s argument. Then we can see whether I am right or wrong. He said Coloured leaders would not be willing to serve on this council, since men of integrity would not do so. The first speaker also said that Then he went on—Hansard will prove this—to say that there was the case of Mr. Sonny Leon. If he served on the council, the hon. member said, he would be untrue to his entire past, because his argument throughout had been that it should be a fully elected council. In other words, he would be betraying his own past, and from that I deduce that he would not be acting as a man of moral and political integrity would. [Interjections.] The hon. member can argue if he likes but those were his words. He said it, and that is final.

You are twisting my words.

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to say that another hon. member is twisting his words.

I did not say “deliberately”.

You said: “You are twisting my words.”

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it.

Sir, I am not twisting his words. I repeated what he said. He cannot deny that. I am entitled to draw an inference from his words which any reasonable person who knows something of the nature of political controversy, would inevitably draw from them. Let that suffice.

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

The hon. member may put his question later on. The hon. member for Pinelands also said that this was “punitive legislation”, legislation by way of a punitive measure. On what grounds does he say that? He wishes to imply, not only that the Coloured people have no integrity, but also that all of them are masochists.

No.

Oh yes! The Coloureds asked for the council to be abolished. They did so unanimously and repeatedly. I sounded them out, and they did so with great emphasis. After I had introduced this legislation they said they were overjoyed because it was a victory for them. Now, how could I be punishing people when I am complying with their own strongly stated desires? Then, surely, those people must be masochists. Then, surely, they wanted to be punished. [Interjections.] So the inference is that either the hon. member does not know what the standpoint of the majority of the Coloured leaders was, or that he does not believe that they were sincere. Then, surely, he is questioning their integrity. It seems to me the hon. member thinks that all members of South African society are dishonourable people. Do you see, Sir, the kind of argument one gets here?

Then the hon. member dealt with the Schlebusch Commission and in this regard, he said two things. In the first place he said I should refer the Bill to the Schlebusch Commission.

You are the Elvis Presley of the House.

He said I should refer this Bill to the Schlebusch Commission, this Bill that is before the House today, at the request and insistence of the Labour Party, the majority party in the CRC. Now I am supposed to refer the Bill to the Schlebusch Commission, although they have already refused to appear before that commission. The Schlebusch Commission is now supposed to consider a measure, although the people at whose request it is being done, and who have the greatest interest in it, are refusing to appear before that commission. Surely I am not here to play the fool with the politics of South Africa We are dealing with serious matters here. Then, in the second place, the hon. member said the Schlebusch Commission might come forward with a solution and that the council should therefore be allowed to continue functioning. I am looking for people of repute, responsible people among the Coloureds, to assist the Schlebusch Commission. Why should the existence of the Schlebusch Commission, which is seeking a new dispensation for the whole of South Africa, be an excuse for people who do not wish to participate in the creation of that new dispensation? How could one ask such persons, contrary to their own instincts, and contrary to their own insistence, to continue because whether or not they were willing to co-operate there was going to be a new dispensation? With all due respect I wish to say that judging by the speeches of the hon. members they are not opposing the Bill as a matter of personal conviction, but in order to make a gesture, to disregard the Coloureds and to embarrass the Government. The very least desire I perceive on their part is to co-operate in finding a solution to this problem we have in South Africa.

I wish to discuss matters with the hon. member for Green Point in more detail. I assume that his speech was intended to reflect the standpoint, the sentiments and the attitude of the official Opposition. He claimed that we would not get people of integrity to serve in this council. Although the council is regarded as an interim measure, it will be the only real consultative body with which the Government, the Schlebusch Commission and other similar bodies that may still be established can negotiate on matters of principle affecting the whole future of South Africa. But now the hon. member wants us to believe that Coloured leaders will not be prepared to serve in the council. I cannot believe that, and surely the hon. member cannot believe it either. Does he have such a low regard for the quality of the Coloured leaders in South Africa? I think there are men and women among our Coloured people who have the interests of their own people at heart.

I also believe that there are men and women among the Coloured population who have the interests of South Africa, its future and its peaceful survival as a free country, at heart. I am depending on them to make this council work. The fact that the hon. member for Green Point and his party have so little confidence in our Coloured leaders that they believe that the Coloureds will not co-operate in this endeavour to achieve a new dispensation in South Africa, simply goes to prove how negatively disposed they are to everything that is South African and how unfavourably this compares with the positive conduct of people such as the hon. members for Oudtshoorn and Swellendam. The hon. member also advanced other reasons why the Coloureds would not serve on the new council. The first reason he advanced was that it would be a temporary council. Would he have supported the measure if I had proposed that the council should be a permanent one?

That was not the reason I gave. You are misquoting me.

No, Sir, I am sorry. I wrote down the hon. member’s reasons as he listed them. He said this was merely a temporary council. I wish to emphasize that it is merely a temporary council. I am hoping that the need for such an institution will be of a temporary nature and that under the new dispensation we shall come forward with a more meaningful, more valuable and more significant representation for the Coloureds in the affairs of our country and in their own affairs.

The hon. member went on to say that the Coloured leaders would not serve the council since they doubted the prospects of the NP coming forward with a better system. Here we again have the suggestion of a negative approach, a lack of faith and confidence in what could be done by all the parties serving together on the Schlebusch Commission. It is not only the NP that is serving on the commission. But the hon. member announced in advance that nothing positive would ensue from this. A person could only say that if he were unaware, or deliberately feigned an unawareness, of the climate that has been created in South Africa by the actions and the standpoint of the hon. the Prime Minister. I am content to leave the matter at that. The hon. member does not wish to take cognizance of the standpoint of the hon. the Prime Minister.

He also said that the Coloured leaders would not be willing to serve on the council because it was a product of the misconception we on this side of the House have of the aspirations of the Coloureds. For argument’s sake I wish to concede that point. Perhaps that is the case, but now the responsible Coloureds are being afforded an opportunity to serve on a council where we could help them to get rid of these misconceptions. The hon. member can therefore see for himself that that argument is really quite meaningless. However, I am not conceding that we do have a misconception of their aspirations. I said that I was accepting his argument for argument’s sake, and surely the hon. member should then be pleased that we are now creating an effective means whereby misconceptions of the Coloureds could be corrected by the Coloureds themselves. But he argued that was one reason why they would not serve on the council. He carried on in that vein. He also said the Coloureds would not be willing to serve on the council because it was not a representative council. Is that correct?

Yes.

I shall have to ask the hon. member every time to confirm his reasons, because when I advance counterarguments to his reasons, he suddenly denies that he advanced those reasons. However, he is now admitting that he did indeed say that they would not be willing to serve on the council because the council was not representative. At present they have a representative council, but they do not want it. They are rejecting it. What must one do now?

He says it is true.

Yes, he says it is true. How can he state his case by telling me they would not be willing to serve on an appointed council, while they are already refusing to do their work on a council that is representative and that was assisted by the Government with the members it appointed from the ranks of the Labour Party in 1975 in order to make it democratically effective?

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. the Minister?

I shall answer a question when I am finished. The hon. member also said that there would only be limited powers.

They will have no powers at all.

No, Sir. The hon. member did not say that. The hon. member spoke about “limited powers”. But for the sake of argument I once more accept that the argument of the hon. member is that they will have no powers at all. But they will have powers which the official Opposition will never have. They will have the power that derives from the fact that responsible people would be serving on that council and that they would respect their fellow human beings of a different colour, among others, the Whites. We shall accept one another’s reciprocal good faith and we shall act against the background that all of us desire and are seeking to achieve a solution. That would be the influence of this council, and if hon. members on the other side do not want to believe it I can appreciate that since they have no experience of such responsibility.

Finally, the hon. member said that the constitutional history of the Coloureds caused them to doubt the value of such an institution and also made them doubt the Government. Would that hon. member not rather join the ranks of the NP.

No please, not as a member!

Not as a member, for heaven’s sake please not as a member. Would that hon. member not associate himself with the standpoint of the NP that the time has come, as far as our relations with our Coloured citizens are concerned, for us to turn our backs on the past and make a new start? I must say that if I had been a Coloured, I would perhaps have been very unhappy about things that had happened in the past, in the same way as I, as an Afrikaner, could remain very unhappy about things that have happened in the past. But in these days we dare not sit in the ashes of the past, licking our wounds. Surely we have to look to the future, we have to look for a new beginning, a new unity, and we have to look for a new respect for one another. But that hon. member is still scratching about in the past, he is still picking over the dung-heaps of the past. I hope he is happy there, but history will abandon him there and he will remain behind there while the rest of us move forward.

If he looks hard enough he might find you.

The hon. member also spoke about the attitude of the Government. I am referring to all his arguments because I want hon. members to realize what we are dealing with. Then the hon. member raised the argument that they could not trust the Government because, since the Government had been unable to obtain the co-operation of the leaders, it would seek and find other leaders who would co-operate with it. What is wrong with that? Should the Government stop seeking a solution merely because certain people do not wish to co-operate with it? Should we give up? What would they do if they were to come into power? [Interjections.] That is the greatest “if” imaginable. Suppose they were to come into power and initiate their national convention and there were to be groups that were unwilling to serve on it Would they then abandon their idea of a national convention? Or would they go and look for people who could serve on it in a responsible manner and then pursue their own policy? That is the sort of argument one encounters against this Bill. Where is there a principle that means anything in their opposition to the Bill?

Let us vote now.

No, I first wish to put my question.

I hope the hon. member is going to put a good question.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he can state where and when the CRC asked for an interim or a fully appointed permanent council?

I have never once claimed that they asked for that. I therefore do not know why the hon. member is putting the question. All I have repeatedly maintained was that the majority party in the council had requested time and again that this council should be abolished. At their congress last year, after it had become known that such a measure would be introduced, they emphasized this once again and when we introduced this measure, they said they were jubilant.

To get something better.

I have now acceded to their request. They have therefore had their way and they no longer exist. Must I continue to negotiate with them even now? Must I submit the Bill to them and ask them, even though they do not wish to co-operate with me, to find something in their place? The responsibility has now become ours, and it is a responsibility we wish to discharge by means of this interim measure, but which we wish to discharge in a far greater and far more imaginative way with a new dispensation for South Africa. For that we are requesting the co-operation of that hon. member and all the parties of that side of the House. That hon. member has again put trick questions which have nothing to do with the merits of the case. Why are they fishing on dry land like that? Surely one does not fish on dry land. The hon. member for Green Point also wanted to put a question to me.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister previously intimated …

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must put a question. I do not have time to listen to a speech.

Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to refer the hon. the Minister to what he said. The hon. the Minister said that the hon. member for Pinelands had cast a reflection on the integrity of Mr. Sonny Leon by stating that if he were to serve on this council, he would be going back on his previously held political views. [Interjections.] Is the hon. the Minister—who changed his political views halfway through his political life—suggesting now that he has no integrity?

The hon. member is welcome to put that question. He is still very young and he will still have to learn that one has to give serious thought to political matters before participating in a debate. I did—thank God—change my political views but I want to know what on earth that has to do with the merits of this argument and this Bill. He has confirmed once more the standpoint I adopted at the outset, in the Second Reading debate and again in this debate, which is that the official Opposition has no real objection on the grounds of principle to advance against this Bill. They are therefore trying to score political debating points and furthermore they are looking for arguments in an attempt to justify a preconceived standpoint. Under those circumstances I really cannot attach much value to their arguments. However, I do wish to make this appeal to them: All of us in this House should deliberate to conjointly work out a new dispensation. I am also asking them, for Heaven’s sake, to abandon this pettiness and these absolutely irresponsible, wilful and negative attitudes which they are displaying. Let us deliberate together on the future of South Africa in order to find an answer to these problems. I just wish to add that they may persist in their attitude if they like. That is their business, but history will write them off as not being worth a straw when it comes to the history of South Africa.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—103: Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Blanche, J. P. I.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; De Beer, S. J.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Geldenhuys, A.; Geldenhuys, B. L.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Heine, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heyns, J. H.; Hugo, P. B. B.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jordaan, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, E.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Meyer, R. P.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Myburgh, G. B.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Rabie, J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, D. H.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scholtz, E. M.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Watt, L.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Eeden, D. S.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Niekerk, S. G. J.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mossel Bay); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. G.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Veldman, M. H.; Venter, A. A.; Visagie, J. H.; Wessels, L.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wilkens, B. H.

Tellers: J. T. Albertyn, L. J. Botha, F. J. le Roux (Hercules), H. D. K. van der Merwe, W. L. van der Merwe and P. J. van B. Viljoen.

Noes—22: Bartlett, G. S.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Jong, G.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Goodall, B. B.; Lorimer, R. J.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. F.; Miller, R. B.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A; Schwarz, H. H.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Widman, A. B.; Wood, N. B.

Tellers: B. R. Bamford and A. L. Boraine. Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.