Mr. Speaker, I must first of all apologize to the hon. member for Rustenburg who spoke last night for being unable to reply to him because although I tried very hard I could not at any stage fathom what point he was trying to make. He was driving a toy train, going around in circles, and ever coming out at the same point. So you must forgive me if I cannot answer him. I would rather return to the Budget. Perhaps the first thing I should mention—as a matter of interest—is that the introduction of this Budget was accompanied by a sign of the times. It is a tradition of hon. Ministers in introducing their Budgets that they usually wear a buttonhole, but I notice that this year the hon. the Minister of Transport was wearing no buttonhole.

I never wear one.

All his flowers have withered on the grave of Railway finances. But when this debate continued yesterday we noticed that Hopeful Herman was wearing a blushing rose—like a blushing bride. But by the end of the afternoon the rose on the hon. the Deputy Minister’s lapel had faded as Nationalist member after Nationalist member spoke and I notice today that not even he tries to wear a rose or carry a bouquet for this Budget. After listening to the Government members speaking yesterday, starting with the hon. temporary member for Randburg, right through to the hon. member for Rustenburg, my sympathy went out to the hon. the Minister and I have a special appeal to make to him today. I ask him please to look after himself for a year or two until we take over, because heaven help South Africa if any member of the Railway group to whom we listened yesterday should have to succeed the hon. the Minister.

The hon. member for Yeoville gave an undertaking yesterday. He gave it, in fact, first on Wednesday and repeated it yesterday. He gave the undertaking that we, on this side of the House, would not exploit the use of non-White labour in graded positions in the Railways. He made an unequivocal statement and gave an unequivocal assurance and at the same time he warned that we could, if we wished, throw back statements of the past. I want to refer to the hon. member for Randburg, who made a speech which now and again touched on the Budget. I also refer to some of the speeches which followed his. I want to say very clearly that if hon. members, such as the hon. member for Randburg, wish to play politics with a matter of such fundamental importance to the future of the economy of South Africa as the use of all our labour resources in South Africa, if hon. members like him carry on with the tactics which he used, trying to link us with the Herstigte Nasionale Party, and carry on with some of the uncalled for remarks that he made, we will find it very difficult not to answer in the same coin.

That threat will not get you far.

A threat? It is not a threat; it is a promise. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to restrain members on his side of the House from dragging this issue to the level to which it was dragged yesterday by hon. members on his side. [Interjections.] We shall support the hon. the Minister. It is in the interests of South Africa that we stand together on this issue. We, as the Minister did, pay tribute to the responsible attitude of the staff associations who dealt with this matter. We have no difference with the approach of the hon. the Minister. As we have said before, we welcome the responsible attitude shown by the Railway staff and by their organizations.

And the Minister?

Yes, and the Minister. We have offered him our support. However, we are not prepared to sit back and listen to the sort of nonsense spoken by the hon. member for Randburg yesterday and let it pass without reply.

But look what Douglas Mitchell did last year. [Interjections.]

While I am in a congratulating mood, I want to say a word about … [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to say a word about the annual report. [Interjections.] I wish the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation would confine himself …

Order! The hon. member must proceed.

I want to say a word about the General Manager’s annual report. For those of us whose cross it is to have to read through millions of words a year, I should like to put on record a word of appreciation of the standard of English that is used—on behalf of those of us who read it in English. So often when you read reports, you get a jarring feeling because of the language usage, but I must say that, despite the officialise, the governmentalize which you get in any official report, it is a pleasure to read a well-prepared report. I think it is only fair to place that on record as something which we appreciate.

*While I am on the subject, I also want to express a word of appreciation to the Minister for using both official languages in this House. He sets an example which we appreciate, and while I am talking about the use of languages, I also want to express our thanks to him for living up to the spirit which I believe should be the spirit of this House of Assembly in his use of both official languages, not in this debate only, but in all debates in which he participates.

That is a foxy trick.

When an hon. member on this side of the House talks about bilingualism and the use of our two languages it is a pity that hon. members on the Government side speak of foxes. That is the attitude of members of the Government towards equal treatment of the official languages in this House. [Interjections.]

They are not saying you are a fox; they are saying you are blowing your own trumpet. [Interjections.]

It is an attitude, a spirit, that I am referring to. [Interjections.]

Order!

I refer now to the General Manager’s report which shows the development on the Railways over the year 1970-’71, the latest financial year for which we have a report before us, and the development over the last year. I want to say that one can see that the personality, the stamp of the new General Manager, is starting to make itself noticeable in the Railway Administration. He is an engineer, a practical man, who looks at matters from a practical point of view. Particularly when it comes to things which are wrong, it is clear that he tries to find a way of putting them right. He does not try to cover them up; he accepts that something is wrong and then he tries to correct it. It is clear that he is exercising that influence on the hon. the Minister of Transport himself. We welcome it, and we wish that the hon. the Minister in turn would exercise the same influence on his Cabinet. This approach, the more pragmatic approach, is one which unfortunately has not filtered through to all levels of the Administration as yet.

Last year, the year before, and almost every year, the hon. the Minister appealed to members on this side of the House not to raise in debate individual cases of Railwaymen and their individual problems, but to discuss them with the department and to discuss them with officials. I have tried to follow his advice and have taken up case after case at different levels—local, System Manager and Head Office. Generally speaking, I have met with a courteous reception in most cases, with the exceptions of some coldly official and even hostile reactions occasionally but every time I got the same answer. The answer was “No”. The answer remains the same, and you do not get a reversal of the decision taken at the original level where the trouble started. You get that approach right through the service. Far be it from me to say that this hurts us, because when the hon. the Minister last advised us on this matter—that was in 1970, before the general election—he said we could talk as we liked about the grievances of the railwaymen but that would prove that we did not know what we were talking about and what would prove the confidence of the Railwaymen in himself as Minister and in the Government would be the results in three constituencies, namely Maitland, Germiston and Langlaagte. Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister can brush us off as much as he likes, hon. members opposite can take as little notice of us as they like, but the test comes back to the test which the hon. the Minister himself applied when he named the three constituencies. The hon. member for Maitland is now sitting on this side. The hon. ex-member for Benoni, the 60 million-member ex Benoni is now in Langlaagte with a reduced majority. Where is the hon. temporary member for Germiston? Ask him what is happening there!

I am not going to quote letters this year, but I am going to quote a circular issued by one of the Railway departments at the end of last year. The words “Alle aanplakborde” appear on top of this circular and the heading is “Reisgeriewe —dienaars se kinders wat militêre opleiding en opleiding in burgerlike beskerming ondergaan”. It reads as follows—

I quote this not because of the importance of this as an issue but because of the importance of the approach—the red tape, the cold and inhuman approach to human problems.

Is that your only criticism of the Railways?

The hon. the Minister of Defence will agree with me that time after time he has issued appeals, and we have supported them, for young national servicemen not to hitch-hike because of the danger to those national servicemen. I have over the years, and as late as a week or two ago, taken up with the hon. the Minister’s department positive proposals to try to persuade people to use trains instead of hitch-hiking for week-ends and short-leaves from camps. Hitch-hiking is something which we all regard as undesirable. Yet here the hon. the Minister of Transport himself takes away a minor privilege from the sons of Railway officials and, as it happens, even their daughters who go to George. I did not read that paragraph. This costs the Railways nothing really. They do not lose traffic through it. They do not lose revenue through it, but they make these boys pay or hitch-hike. As I say, I quote this to illustrate an approach to the human element by the Railways. If the hon. members want to laugh about this sort of thing, let them laugh. [Interjections.] If they want to joke about it, let them do so, because the result of this sort of circular is this sort of letter which says, inter alia—

The letter ends as follows—

His name is signed. Therefore, let them laugh.

Cheap!

Let them say “cheap”. [Interjections.] Let them make as much noise as they like. The Railwaymen in Caledon who are represented here by the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation, will not react as he is reacting when I raise this problem of “approach”. I started off by saying that the pragmatic, practical and realistic approach of the General Manager is not filtering right through. I ask that this practical approach, this realistic approach, be extended to the people who are working on the Railways. I do not have the time to deal with them now, but there are a number of outstanding engineering and mechanical advances—like new types of container-trucks, improved machines—all designed to make the Railways work better. But men are not machines and the approach to people must be different to the approach to a machine. You cannot pull a person to bits in a workshop to see whether he can be improved. Human beings need a different approach. We on this side of the House will continue, despite the jeers from members on that side of the House, to plead for the ordinary simple problems of ordinary people—like the hon. member of Umhlatuzana did, speaking as an ex-railwayman from the heart about problems close to the workers of the Railways, problems close to ordinary people. We will speak about things like not allowing their children to travel free on a train even though they are entitled to such travel because they are serving their country. This is the Railways’ approach to patriotism, to boys serving their country in the forces, boys who are prepared to offer their lives if necessary. This is the thanks they get I said that there have been improvements, and there have also been improvements in the planning, but when we look at planning, we see some things happening which disturb us. In his Budget speech last Wednesday the hon. the Minister referred, for example, to the new railway line from Vryheid to Empangeni. He said the following: “The new single electrified line from Vryheid to Empangeni is nearly 45 per cent complete.” I want to put it to him that that line is no longer going to be an electrified railway line. Last week the Minister said it was, but I have known for the last two or three weeks that it is not going to be an electrified line. About 30 miles of electrification have been erected, complete with wires, posts and so on. The cost of this probably runs into millions. I do not know what the cost for that sector would be, but it would be very high. That line has now been pulled down. Admittedly it can be used somewhere else, but before it has even been used it is demolished. The work, the effort, the time and the cost are just wasted. It may save on capital and in long-term planning, but surely if this was going to be the position the Railways knew a year ago that it would be better to dieselize rather than to electrify. But the Minister got up in this House a week ago and talked about the “electrified” line. Why did he not say that the Railways had changed their minds about this line and that they were going to use diesel on it and that, accordingly, there had been wasted expenditure?

The hon. the Minister also referred to the Richard’s Bay harbour. I want to put it to him that in their planning they failed to establish properly the foundations of the swamp land which had to be crossed. In one particular case they have been 200 per cent out in their estimate of the ballast needed to stabilize that swamp, from 330 000 to one million just on one small job. If they can be 200 per cent out on that job, what about the estimate of R121 million for the rest of the harbour where much of it is on the same foundations? Our planning must not allow this sort of thing to happen. Our planning must not just be general planning, it must look deeper than just the broad picture and deal with problems like this. How do we know now what Richard’s Bay is going to cost? I am glad that the rumours about a rock outcrop which might make the work impossible were not correct and that, in fact, there is no problem with the entrance. That harbour can play a big part in the economy of South Africa. It is important enough for the department to have taken more trouble to ensure that all the knowledge which was required, was obtained before calling for tenders and before giving estimates.

In the short time left to me, I want to come back from planning to this question of the human element. The annual report quotes the figure of productivity increase in the Railways as being 70 per cent versus a staff increase of 6 per cent over a period of some seven years. It is a magnificent effort; but when you have taken into account all the mechanical aids which have made much of this possible and the improved facilities for working, you meet the next stage where over 2 000 railway workers have been trained to do a second overtime job, over and above their ordinary jobs. When you have accounted for that, you are left with the bulk of the reason for this tied to overtime and Sunday time.

In the same annual report, we find right at the start on page 1, a reference to overtime having “increased moderately”. The words are: “Increased moderately from 10,6 per cent to 19,3 per cent.” If you look a bit further, you find on page 40 that costs have gone up, because “overtime has increased by 22,4 per cent.” It is the same year and the same report. The Minister has warned me to be careful of figures. He said : “Don’t trust figures; be careful of them.” I am not trusting figures, because here I cannot even reconcile them in one report. But I can see facts. I can see the reality of what is happening. In the same report there is a reference to the earnings. There was an 8,1 per cent increase in the earnings of the Railwaymen over ten years. Since then, two more years have passed with no increment, so that that 8,1 per cent average has dropped even lower. But I accept it at 8 per cent. I am not going to quibble over a percent or two. Yet when you look at the Railways, you find throughout a record of growth. I have not time to quote them; I have them all here. Over a period of two years, from 1970-’71 to 1971-’72 there was a growth in the number of passengers of 5,5 million, of goods 7,7 per cent, of livestock, 9,8 per cent, of ore, 16 per cent and of harbours, 12 per cent, compared to an increase in earnings of the Railwaymen of 8 per cent. Despite the increase in tariffs amounting to R58 million, an estimated R6 million loss grew to R39 million in the last year. This is the situation, despite the increase in traffic and income—increases near or above 8 per cent throughout—if we had not had the R58 million tariff rise there would have been a loss of R97 million this year. Thus we find increases in income and in traffic, but a greater loss for the Railways. Now where does the Railwayman stand? His costs are going up just as those of the Railways are going up. Their costs have gone up to create this greater loss. With an increase in their income, greater than that of the railway worker, they are showing losses. If the Railways show a loss what about the staff of the Railways? Their 8 per cent has been swallowed up and is also turned into a loss. The hon. the Minister can quote all the figures he likes, and hon. members can quote all the figures they like. The fact is that the Railwayman, except those in certain high grades, is finding it impossible to maintain his standard of living on the increases which he has had. These have not kept ahead of the increases in his cost of living. If the hon. the Minister cannot balance his Budget with increased revenue and increased turnover, how does he expect these men to do so?

But, Mr. Speaker, it is not entirely the fault of this hon. Minister. We have said that, and I agree with it. This Minister has to operate within the field of the economy as a whole. This year he has operated by using Rates Equalization Fund moneys to meet his deficit. I am sorry I have not the time to quote from his speech last year in the same debate. He then said to the hon. member for Yeoville and to me: “What businessman would think of draining his reserves? What businessman would ever consider this?” … This was nonsense. … “You have obviously had no business experience.” Yet this is exactly what he is doing this year with the R39 million and the R39 million to come. He is draining the reserves. When we asked that the Rates Equalization Fund be used, he accused us of having no business sense. I do not believe that the hon. the Minister has no business sense. He has however proved that we were right. His problem is that he has a millstone round his neck, which is dragging him deeper and deeper into the red. That millstone is not only the blushing bride of yesterday, or the problems he faces economically. It is the Government to which he belongs. For the Railwayman and for the economic welfare of the Railways there is only one solution, one way of getting rid of that millstone and that is to change the Government. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to look after himself for a year or two until we are ready to take over.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Point began his speech by giving generous praise to our new General Manager of the South African Railways. He has my full support in that. However, I want to ask the hon. member for Durban Point immediately, right at the outset of my speech, to be logical and not to vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville, for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville speaks, inter alia, of “mismanagement” of the South African Railways. The hon. member for Durban Point had a great deal to say about Railway constituencies. Now I want to challenge him: There is a vacancy at present in one of the Kroonstad provincial constituencies, in an area in which most of the railwaymen of Kroonstad live. He and his party are very welcome to put up a candidate there to prove in that way that they have, as they claim, made such wonderful progress among Railway workers.

You live in a fool’s paradise.

Come, let us see who is living in a fool’s paradise.

The hon. member for Durban Point also spoke about the grave of Railway finances. Surely it is very clear that there was a misunderstanding yesterday, one which is still prevailing today. The Opposition thinks it is attending a funeral. The Opposition thinks it is attending the funeral of the South African Railways and the National Party. Yesterday the hon. member for Yeoville, with doleful decorum, was the sexton. Today, the hon. member for Durban Point was the professional mourner. I must say, however, that as usual he overstrained his histrionic talents in this regard. They know, we know and the country knows that this is not a funeral. This is a baptismal ceremony. We are standing on the verge of a promising period of growth. It is not I who say this. It is the Press of those people on the opposite side that says this. Here I have with me the Sunday Times of last Sunday. One of the headlines in the Business Times section of the Sunday Times of last Sunday, reads—

The article then goes on to say—

But, Mr. Speaker, I go further. The Financial Mail of 10th March had the following to say—

In addition there is the following statement in the same edition of the Financial Mail on the Railway Budget, referring to the Minister of Transport—

Mr. Speaker, these are their own people who say that we are standing on the verge of growth. This growth is the result of this Government’s decision to devalue, its policy and its activities. Surely it is clear that we are, as a result of devaluation, standing on the verge of a strong period of growth. That is why this Budget is an encouraging Budget, because it was introduced with a view to growth, with growth as its basis. That is why the South African Railways will in the first place promote growth, because its Budget has been drawn up in this way. In the second place the Railways itself, its staff and employees will benefit as a result of that growth. I say that this is an encouraging Budget. The Management also ensured that only larger new works, which were included as new proposals for the 1972-’73 financial year, amount to R578 million. The staff will share in this new growth. When they are in a position, according to merit and as a result of circumstances, to lay claim to improved benefits, these will be given to them, as they have been given to them in the past under this Government, and as they have been given an increase in remuneration of R316 million over the period 1948 to 1971.

Sir, I also want to come now to a question raised here in particular by the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Parow. They discussed it on a non-political level and therefore I want to discuss it in the same spirit. Both feel that the gap between high and low-rated tariffs should be closed and that the Government should, if need be, bear the loss in certain cases. In my opinion, we must hasten slowly in regard to this whole matter. Firstly the Railways is of course committed to a specific policy owing to the provisions of sections 103 and 104 of the Constitution Act and section 40 of Act No. 70 of 1957. What it amounts to, briefly, is that the Railways must be run on business principles, which of course links up with the basic rates theory of the Railways. Although the laws I have mentioned also refer to national development, it is very clear that the Railways itself sees the reference to business principles in these laws as the essence of the statutory provisions. That is why the Railways adopts the standpoint that its revenue should be such that it will cover its expenditure, and because, for good reasons, all goods cannot be transported at the same rate, there is differentiation. As I see the problem the Schumann Commission was asked to consider the rates policy within the narrow confines of the existing legislation and suggest amendments, but because they are hard pressed by the statutory provisions in this regard, they were basically able to recommend only that the gap between high and low-rated traffic should be narrowed. For very good reasons this was accepted only in part by the hon. the Minister, and quite rightly so. Consequently I think that a commission of experts should investigate the entire matter again and that they should be free to recommend changes in the law, if necessary. Such a commission would best be able to determine whether the co-user of the Railways, the taxpayer or the consumer, should bear the burden of deficits on low-rated traffic. Something which is as clear as daylight to me is that certain goods simply have to be transported cheaply, whether by way of low rates or by way of subsidization. I want to mention only two examples. Take the case of the conveyance of ore. Ore will have to be conveyed cheaply in future, too, because we must be placed in a competitive position in order to acquire vital foreign exchange. I could mention another case, that of agricultural produce which generally is conveyed at a loss. Farming produce is not conveyed at low rates and at a loss to benefit the farmer. Farming produce is conveyed at low rates, in the first place to the benefit of the general consumer. It is for that reason that livestock has for the past 14 years now been conveyed at the same low rates.

I want to mention further two reasons why this whole matter is a delicate one. A great problem to my mind is whether it is the right thing for the discipline of a huge enterprise like the Railways if it is told that it can in future operate on a kind of cost-plus system; in other words, it can operate as it likes and if there are losses at the end of the year, these will be subsidized. In addition it is not in my opinion an adequate reply to say that other countries are subsidizing their systems generously, and that for that reason we should also do so. This depends on numerous circumstances, inter alia, of the system in question—for example, how the system is owned and controlled. I just want to mention one example the British Railways Board receives so-called grants; that is true, but this Board is responsible for so-called corporation tax in England which changes the picture considerably; and then the British Railways Board has affiliated industries and the affiliated industries have not been nationalized, which of course also gives a different picture of the position in England.

But to get away from the non-political level to the political level again—and after making these few remarks I shall resume my seat—I want to say to the Opposition that in regard to this question of the inclusion of non-White labour at an accelerated rate, they are being unnecessarily sanctimonious here. Sir, this is a political matter and they are making a political issue out of it. They are pretending that we have now conceded, on their insistence and as a result of their far-sightedness and their policy, by absorbing non-Whites at an accelerated rate into the bread and butter grades. But that is not true. Since 1961 there has been a standing committee which consists of representatives of the trade unions and the Management, and this committee was specially instituted to make recommendations from time to time as to what types of work, which is being done by graded staff, should in future be done by semi-skilled or unskilled labourers, and whether these should be White or non-White; and in general the hon. the Minister has always accepted their recommendations. This has been happening since 1961. That is also why the White worker, who has to be consulted in regard to the inclusion of these non-White workers, trusts this Government and this Minister. That is also why the change-over in certain sectors of the Railways took place without disturbances, in spite of a rather sharp increase in the amount of non-White labour. For the year ending December, 1971, the increase in non-Whites, for example, was 3 431 as against 512 Whites, but the ratio still remains sound, slightly more than one non-White for every White. But the worker cannot trust the Opposition in this connection. The White worker of South Africa cannot trust the Opposition with labour matters.

Motivate!

The hon. member for Yeoville stands on record as having said that he is in favour of having work reservation abolished.

Section 77.

Yes, section 77.

Yes, that is correct.

There the hon. member is admitting it again. It is the hon. member for Yeoville who spoke yesterday in this debate of over-protecting the White worker.

The poor Whites, as he said.

Only last year the hon. member for Port Natal—I am sorry he is not here—said that we should go to the homelands for there we would find all the labour we need.

Is that what you did do?

He stated it without qualifications. He did not qualify it, and that means that we should rush out there, find the people and bring them here. He stated no proviso, no qualification. Of course, the debacle of the hon. member for South Coast is still fresh in our memories. Consequently I act on my hon. colleague for Randburg’s rallying cry to “chase”. I mean his rallying cry to “charge”. “We shall answer to the call, beloved land.”

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kroonstad is not a person who frequently comes to this House with unmotivated statements. At the moment I have nothing to do with his chase or charge; I shall leave it at that. However, the hon. member did say that the safety of the White worker could not be trusted to the United Party.

Yes, because its record is too poor.

I then asked the hon. member to motivate his statement. He gave his reasons. He said that the hon. member for Yeoville advocated the abolition of section 77. Is that correct?

Yes.

The hon. member confirms it. I now want to ask the hon. member why the Railways does not then need section 77 to ensure the safety of the Whites. Has the hon. member ever thought of it, or did he not know, that work reservation in terms of section 77 has absolutely nothing to do with the Railways?

It has everything to do with labour.

That committee to which the hon. member referred is a committee consisting of White staff members of the Railways. That committee is quite capable of looking after its own safety, and the welfare of the non-Whites on the Railways. On what authority can the hon. member say that the United Party is a party to which the safety of the Whites cannot be trusted merely because we want to do away with work reservation as laid down in section 77? I now want to say, for the edification of the hon. member, that I agree with the hon. member for Yeoville. Section 77 is one of those ugly labels which are continually being hung about the neck of South Africa, and the sooner we do away with it, the better.

Come and say that at Kroonstad.

I shall say it anywhere, and I shall say it in Kroonstad as well. I have already said it in the Free State, and when I said it, I received applause from the people.

In what part of the Free State was that?

Let us spend some time on the labour question. I do not want to take up too much of the hon. member for Kroonstad’s time, but he said that if any credit is due in regard to this matter it should go to the Government for this action taken by the hon. the Minister of Transport. I want to tell him that he is quite wrong. If there has been any progress in this matter with regard to the employment and the training of non-Whites to do the work previously done by Whites, I say that all the credit should go to the hon. the Minister of Transport in this specific case. I shall tell you why: Because his policy is diametrically opposed to the labour policy of his entire Government. [Interjections.] What is Government policy? We know the labour policy of the Government. In short it is that the Bantu labourer should look for his training in the Bantu area. That is the first point. The second point is that he should do the work for which he has been trained in the Bantu area as well. That is the policy of the Government. But what is the policy of the hon. the Minister of Transport? He says that he is training Bantu in White South Africa and he is allowing these trained Bantu to work in White South Africa. He is getting away with it. I say that the credit goes to the Minister of Transport. I am grateful to him and South Africa ought to be grateful to him, for he is setting an example to the whole of South Africa. He is setting the greatest and most effective example to his own Government. Before an hon. member like the hon. member for Kroonstad discusses labour matters, I think he should, as far as his Government is concerned, perhaps bow his head in shame a little, because his own Government is not following the lead of the Minister of Transport. Let us look at the other matters he discussed. He asked why we were talking about the Railways as if this was a funeral. He said the Railways was not dead but that we were on the eve of a tremendous period of growth. He said that the same applied to the Railways and that as soon as this growth had taken hold, it would be like Jack and the Beanstalk. I hope the hon. member is right, for what I want and what I should like to see is the thousands of railwaymen, of whom there are hundreds in my constituency, being able to share in the prosperity of the Railways by way of salary increases.

Do you hope that they will vote for the United Party?

Yes, and I am not ashamed to say it. Why should I be? I hope that these people will be given increases for I know what a hard time they are having. I should like to be guided, but I do not want to be guided by the Sunday Times; the Sunday Times is a good newspaper but when my hon. friends on the opposite side call in its aid, I know that they have reached the bottom of the barrel. I should like to be guided by the hon. the Minister himself when it comes to the future pattern of development on the Railways. Let us see what is stated in the Budget speech of the hon. the Minister. I quote—

This for the edification of the hon. member for Kroonstad—

The current deficit, and that is what the hon. member was talking about—

I do not think the hon. the Minister would have spoken about “some time” if he had a period of a few weeks in mind. It seems to me the hon. the Minister had a period in mind in which the Railways will fall upon hard times, and I understand that very well. I want to leave the hon. member for Kroonstad at that.

On the Government side the debate was introduced by the hon. member for Randburg. He concluded by saying to his team: “Charge!” After he said that and when I was listening to how they charged, I thought of that Spanish tale of Don Quixote, as the learned say—in common parlance we simply say Don “Kwikshot.” He also charged; he charged into a windmill, and hon. members know what happened to him. He also had a squire … [Interjections.] Wait a minute, give me a chance. Don “Kwikshot” also had a squire called Sancho, who rode on a donkey. The hon. member for Randburg was referring to his Sanchos when he said “Charge!” He did not listen to their advice, and really, what a charge! It was not the Charge of the Light Brigade, it was no charge at all. If I were the hon. member for Randburg I would in future be very careful before I relied on the Sanchos on my side to charge.

Let us consider the Budget. I listened with great interest to the Budget speech. After that I read up the last few budget speeches and the speeches on them, and I then came back and said to myself that there was something wrong somewhere. I then read the Budget speech of the hon. the Minister again, and after I had read everything, I told myself that this could not be the whole story.

Did you read it well?

Yes, I read it well. I read it well and then came to the conclusion that this Budget speech of the hon. the Minister of Transport was not the whole story. For reasons of his own he did not tell us the whole story. Somewhere there is what I would call a missing link. The Budget speech of the hon. the Minister of Transport was delivered by a man whom we know as a man who is not afraid of action. After I had read this Budget speech I came to the conclusion that unless the hon. the Minister had something up his sleeve I could not understand clearly what was going on now. I shall tell the House why. Let us consider the facts.

You will never understand it.

Yes, perhaps we will understaid it later. Let us look at the facts. Let us look at the 1970-’71 financial year. Let us first marshal the catalogue of events. In 1970-71 the hon. the Minister closed his Budget with a deficit of R10 million. He said that he would make good the deficit from his Rates Equalization Fund, which then stood at R91 million. After that the balance in that fund was R81 million. I want to say at once that I was to a certain extent influenced by the attitude the hon. the Minister adopted last year with his great interest in and concern about the maintenance of a strong Equalization Fund. I am keeping that at the back of my mind. The deficit of R10 million was made good out of the Rates Equalization Fund, which then stood at R91 million, and afterwards at R81 million. So far, so good. We then came to 1971-72. The hon. the Minister closed his financial year with a deficit of R64 million. In spite of the requests of this side of the House, the hon. the Minister stood up and said: “I have a deficit of R64 million. I cannot meet it from my Rates Equalization Fund, and I am therefore going to increase the rates”. He announced a rates increase of 10 per cent excluding certain items. From that he obtained a total revenue of R58 million, which left a deficit of R6 million which was to be met from the Rates Equalization Fund, which stood at R81 million. That left a balance of R85 million.

Probably R75 million.

Yes, R75 million. Thank you very much. The year went by, and we come to the end of 1972. We find that he does not have a deficit of only R6 million, but in fact a deficit of R39 million. R39 million is a large figure. It is an enormous …

How great would it not have been if the rates had not been increased?

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell the hon. member …

Come on, tell us now.

Order!

After all, you are being so clever now.

Order! The hon. member for Parow! I have now called for order three times.

Mr. Speaker, I have not even tried to be clever yet. I am merely giving the facts, which that hon. member could have at his disposal if only he would read his Hansard. I was not trying to be clever at all. A deficit of R39 million is a grave matter. In spite of all our arguments last year, the hon. the Minister told us that he was going to meet this from the Rates Equalization Fund. He had R81 million in that fund, and if this amount is deducted, it leaves an amount of R42 million in that fund. Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Transport of all people realises more than anyone the vast importance of this fund. He knows with what interest the Railwayman watches this reserve fund.

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

No, man, wait a minute. I shall come to the hon. gentleman’s point. I know what he has in mind The hon. the Minister knows how important this fund is. He knows with what interest the Railwayman looks to this fund as a guarantee for his salary and wage security. I say that at the end of 1972 this fund amounted to R42 million, whereas 12 months previously it had amounted to R91 million. What happened then? Then we still had 1972-73 ahead of us, the ensuing financial year. The hon. the Minister says that in the next financial year he will still have a deficit of R39 million. He says that he is going to meet this from the Rates Fund as well. After that the hon. the Minister will be sitting with a meagre R3 million in the fund. When I heard that, I asked myself where the hon. the Minister was who last year in this House, when we said that the deficit should be met from the Rates Fund, told us: “How can you only want to live for 12 months at a time? What is to become of the Railways after 12 months? Why do you want to deplete the fund?” That is what he asked us. Let us assume that he was correct. Where is the hon. member for Colesberg? He stated his case in even stronger terms and said that we wanted to deplete the Rates Equalization Fund like a milch cow, that we want to milk that cow dry, and what would become of the calf then? Where is that hon. member now? The cow is dry now; there is nothing, and where is the hon. member? Where is the hon. member for Randburg, who had so much to say and who spoke in stentorian tones of the interests of the Rates Fund? They called it the safeguard and the guarantee of the railway worker. Yesterday that hon. member spoke again, but then he did not have a single word to say about it. Last year the hon. the Minister took us severely to task …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No.

You are too scared.

No. Last year the hon. the Minister took us to task about our alleged lack of business instinct; he said that we were people who only wanted to live for 12 months at a time and then “full stop”. Now the hon. the Minister, however, is depleting the Rates Equalization Fund to a meagre R3 million, and for the 12 months which lie ahead of us there are only dark clouds on the horizon. I want to repeat what I said at the beginning, namely that everything is not as it should be here. That is not the hon. the Minister I know. He will not say full stop now. That is not the whole story; he has something up his sleeve, and we should like to know what it is.

This is not the only problem I have with the hon. the Minister. Eighteen months ago the staff of the Railways was granted a considerable increase, and we were all pleased about that. That was the time which is known in political history as the Langlaagte Budget. I will not hold it against Langlaagte, because they could not help it. It was a Langlaagte Budget of R60 million. Eighteen months ago the Railwayman received an increase, and in the meantime the cost of living under the competent National Party Government has of course not stood still. It rose tremendously.

You are talking nonsense.

The hon. member does not even know what the figure is, he will get the fright of his life if he hears what it is. I am putting it conservatively when I say that during the past 18 months the cost of living has probably increased by approximately 10 per cent. Up to the end of the financial year which we are now dealing with, we see that the Railways has a deficit of R39 million and that the reserve which should stand between the Railwayman and his salary is depleted. However, the hon. the Minister told us absolutely nothing about the Railwayman. There is something wrong somewhere. Surely that is not the hon. the Minister we know. He tells us that he has the confidence of his staff, but to make, at such a stage as this where the Rates Equalization Fund is depleted and the cost of living is increasing as it is, a Budget speech and say nothing about his staff and the possible demands for justified wage increases, is not like the Minister of Transport.

Are you in favour of rates increases?

I shall still deal with rates increases. There is something wrong somewhere, and I ask myself what the hon. the Minister can do. J know that he can increase the salaries of Railwaymen without coming to this House, but if he does that the Public Service will also want increases. What will that do to the plans of the hon. the Minister of Finance to counteract inflation? I know that the hon. the Minister can also increase rates during the next nine months without consulting this House, but where does the hon. the Minister of Finance then stand in his attempts to counter the increasing cost of living? I can imagine now what happened at the end of last year with the restrictions on imports, which dealt a death-blow to the high-rated transport of the hon. the Minister. I can imagine how the hon. the Minister of Transport discussed this matter with the hon. the Minister of Finance at Cabinet meetings when the hon. the Minister of Finance said that the screw was going to be turned on as far as imports were concerned and that import control was going to be applied drastically. I wonder what the hon. the Minister of Transport said then? As I know him, he would not have done nothing. He would have said to the Minister of Finance: “Dr. Diederichs, if you do that, it will have this or that effect on my revenue. What is the quid pro quo? What do you give me in return so that I can get my books to balance? I cannot increase the rates, I would then be clashing with your policies. If my people were to ask for increased salaries, how do I say ‘no’? The costs of the Railways are increasing. Where am I going to get the money from? My funds are depleted.”

Now I want to say this to the hon. the Minister—and I am doing this very respectfully—whether there is perhaps the possibility—I am not saying more than this—that the hon. the Minister could perhaps, according to the principles as stated yesterday by the hon. member for Parow, receive assistance from the Central Government in an attempt to get his books to balance in the coming year. The hon. member for Parow was correct—unless there is a drastic change in regard to the rates position of the Railways, I foresee a sombre time ahead during the next few years. The funds are depleted. The last salary increase was 18 months ago. There is little chance of introducing rates increases. There is inflation. Unless a drastic, revolutionary Change takes place in the entire rates structure, perhaps on the basis indicated by the hon. member for Parow—I am so glad he has learnt from the United Party—I see hard times ahead for the Railways. I should like to see the hon. the Minister explaining to us what he has in mind, not only 12 months in advance. I think he had a good point there—the Railways does not stop operating at the end of 1973, it carries on. We should like to know what the hon. the Minister has in mind? What are his plans? Is the central Government going to help him? If the central Government does not help him, I want to recommend today that the hon. the Minister and the Government give very serious consideration to some or other way in which aid, central aid, can be rendered. Our suggestion is there. The fact of the matter is that the costs of the Railways is point number one. When the Railways is forced, for social, political-economic or strategic reasons, to convey goods, whether agricultural goods, coal or passengers at a rate lower than the cost, then I maintain that this becomes a national debt and then the State must contribute, and not only the Railways. The Railways is a business organization; the Railways is not Santa Claus. It is not a charity organization. The money must come from somewhere.

I want to recommend strongly that the central Government make this adjustment as far as rates are concerned. If the central Government would only do its national duty by the Railways, the Railways would not only wipe out its deficit, but what is more— this is important to me—the Railways would be able to establish a sinking fund from which they can in due course get rid of the enormous burden of debt on capital. This year, I think I have worked it out correctly—the interest, simply on capital and not on loans from the Superannuation Fund, comprises 17,4 per cent of the total revenue of Railways. I am speaking only of the Railways, not of the Airways. This is an enormous figure. The Railways must be placed in a position where it is able to build up more capital out of its own resources. At the moment it can only do this to a limited extent. The Railways will only be able to do that if the State realizes that it has an organization here which must be run on purely business principles, and that the Government of South Africa cannot see the Railways as a Santa Claus, a charity organization. As a House we can at least expect the hon. the Minister to furnish us with a little information in regard to his views on the next 12 months—I would not say 5 years—and tell us how he sees the picture for the year 1973-’74.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Maitland must excuse me; I shall come back to him in a few moments. During my seven-year term of office in this House, this is the seventh time I have had to listen to the hon. member for Yeoville.

How is Volkswagen keeping?

Volkswagen is keeping very well. If you want one for a present you need only ask. I have never heard so many compliments being given to the hon. the Minister of Transport as I have had to listen to in this debate. I also had to listen to the extremely gloomy picture that was painted by members on the opposite side of the House as far as the railway officials of the Republic of South Africa are concerned. It is my privilege to represent a reasonably large railway centre in this House.

Temporarily!

Temporarily? It might sound temporary to you. I can make a statement to you this afternoon, and what I want to say I am not afraid to say across the floor of the House. The railway men of Uitenhage are responsible people; they are people who are loyal to the National Party; they have no complaints in connection with this Budget. To date I have not yet received one single complaint. That is because they are responsible people. That is not the position in Uitenhage alone. It is the position throughout the Republic of South Africa.

Let us now deal with the attacks that have come from the opposite side of the House. I want to dwell briefly on the hon. member for Yeoville. In his speech the hon. member for Yeoville said we are making use of more non-White labour, that it has never been the policy of the National Party and that we are therefore deviating from our policy. In that he is contradicting the hon. member for Constantia and the hon. member for Durban Point. The latter said that with the best intentions he did not want to make a political matter of this. Why does he then say we have deviated from our policy? We still stand by our policy. In passing the hon. member for Kroonstad referred to the standing committee established on the Railways. I want to take that matter a little further. On 5th August, 1970, the hon. the Minister said the following in this House—

And what are the terms of reference of this committee? The Minister quoted as follows in English—

That is since 1961. The National Party Government still advocates that policy. The hon. member for Yeoville launched a tremendous attack on this side of the House in connection with the withdrawal from the Rates Equalization Fund. I want to quote the hon. member a few figures. He objected to the hon. the Minister supplementing the shortage by way of a withdrawal from the Rates Equalization Fund.

I am glad that he does not inflationistically …

Under United Party rule in 1944-’45 the amount of R576 930 was withdrawn from the Rates Equalization Fund. In 1945-’46 they withdrew an amount of R3 740 176 from it; and in 1947-’48 they withdrew an amount of R1 218 840. But what was the position of the fund during that time, i.e. 1944-’45? It contained the very meagre amount of R19,8 million; in 1945-’46, R19,2 million, and in 1947-’48 a meagre R15,5 million. That was the position under United Party rule. It is not the first time that shortages have been supplemented from the Rates Equalization Fund. But the hon. member for Yeoville cannot have his bread buttered on both sides. Now he and all the other members who spoke on that side of the House say they are very sorry that concessions are not being made to the staff. If we put these two things together, where must the money come from? We cannot get blood from a stone! We know the hon. the Minister. The hon. member for Turffontein is laughing. I do not know why he is laughing.

I am laughing at you.

We cannot get blood from a stone. We know the hon. the Minister. If the money is available the Railway personnel will get their rightful share. And then the hon. member for Yeoville says in the same breath that he is terribly glad that rates have not been increased. Sir, I ask you: Where must the money come from? In the fifth place the hon. member for Yeoville stated here— and I do not blame him—that this side of the House has been guilty of mismanagement. I do not know to whom he was referring—to the hon. the Minister, the General Manager, or his staff. The hon. member did not mention one single example here of mismanagement taking place during the past year. I am not speaking about the previous years. Sir, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg City, who is incidentally a very good friend of mine outside the House, made a damning admission here when he asked why we had not, in the 24 years we have been in power, corrected all the matters the United Party had made a mess of at the time. Sir, that is a fact; we need more than 24 years to fix up the mess we inherited from them in 1948. [Interjections.] We shall still come to Oudtshoorn and Myburgh.

Sir, I should like to come back to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, a person I like very much. He is a very good old gentleman, if you will permit me that expression. In his speech here yesterday, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said—

He did not, however, mention the relevant grade. That hon. member is an ex-Railway official. I want to ask him what the United Party would do, if they come into power, in respect of the shortage of checkers, stokers, conductors, station-foremen, lorry-drivers (departmental), some trade grades and apprentices, i.e. the bread and butter grades in which there is a great shortage. Are they going to supplement those posts that are vacant on the South African Railways with non-Whites or are they going to do it, as the hon. member for Maitland said last year, by bringing in immigrants on a large scale? The hon. member for Maitland said that when we came into power we rejected their immigration scheme and did not implement it. Sir, I do nevertheless want to come back again to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. He made a serious allegation here, and I honestly want to tell the hon. member that I did not expect it of him. He said—

I think it is insulting to say this to the hon. the Minister—

That is a motion of no confidence in the General Manager and his staff—

That is what his voters tell him. Sir, will you allow me to say that these are purely hearsay stories? I am toning it down a great deal when I say this. He said in addition—

Then the hon. member also says that the hon. the Minister congratulated the railwaymen but that he should have done more. The hon. member must tell us what more the hon. the Minister should have done in the past year. He said further—and this is of interest to me—

Sir, it is an ex-Railway man who speaks like that. I want to tell the hon. member for Umhlatuzana that one must not bite the hand that has fed one throughout the years.

And now still does.

If I may give the hon. member for Umhlatuzana a little advice, I just want to tell him that he should have raised these matters via the correct channels. Did he refer these matters, which he dealt with here across the floor of the House without mentioning a single official by name, to the General Manager? It is very easy for those of us representing railway constituencies here to stand up and make allegations that cannot be proved. He must also bear in mind that in 1948, when we came into power, there was a staff complement of a little more than 187 000. The staff complement today stands at 226 000.

Sir, in the time at my disposal I want to come back to the hon. member for Maitland. I am very glad he is here. The hon. member for Maitland also made a great fuss here about the shortage in certain key grades.

When did I do this?

The hon. member did so in his speech this afternoon. Last year in this debate I put five questions to the hon. member for Maitland. Those questions are recorded in Hansard. I must say that I expected the hon. member for Maitland would have the courage this afternoon to answer those five questions, because last year he answered only one. I want to repeat those five questions to him this afternoon. The voters I represent in this House, the railwaymen of the Republic of South Africa, want to know where they stand with the United Party. The first question is this: When the shortage on the South African Railways must be supplemented by the employment of non-Whites according to official United Party policy, will these non-Whites receive the same grading as the Whites have? That is the first question. The second question I asked the hon. member for Maitland was answered, not by him but by the hon. member for Yeoville, and that question was: If the relevant staff associations refuse to give their permission for those non-Whites to be employed in the relevant posts, what is the United Party going to do? The reply was that if those respective staff associations refused, the Opposition is so discerning in their judgment that they would guide the relevant trade unions in one direction or another towards accepting their policy. Sir, discerning judgment from that side of the House! No, I want to agree with the hon. member for Kroonstad …

May I ask a question?

No, I am sorry; my time is very limited, otherwise I would have answered the question with the greatest of pleasure. The hon. member for Kroonstad said here that the United Party, if they were to come into power, embodies a danger for the Whites in the service of the South African Railways. Sir, even if no previous debate has ever proved it, this debate has nevertheless demonstrated it —and I shall say this everywhere—that they embody a danger for the Whites on the South African Railways, not only for those receiving low wages, but also for the senior officials, because in their policy they state that if they come into power they will ensure that the Railways is administered by well-paid staff, and the persons who administer the Railways are officials in the higher grades. They make no mention of the officials in the low-paid grades. I am still waiting for a reply to the third question I put to the hon. member for Maitland. I asked him: When those posts are filled by non-Whites, will they be allowed to be members of some or other staff association, or will they be able to have separate staff associations. The fourth question I put to the hon. member …

May I ask a question?

Sir, the hon. member has finished making his speech. I cannot answer questions now; the Whip says my time is limited.

He has not yet answered last year’s questions.

As my hon. friend says, he has not yet answered last year’s questions. The fourth question was: Is the United Party going to eliminate the shortage in the key grades, such as those of checker, stoker, conductor, station-foreman, lorry-driver, and some artisan grades including apprentices, by the employment of non-Whites or by bringing in immigrants on a large scale, as the hon. member said in his speech last year? The hon. member said that if they come into power they will apply large-scale immigration in accordance with the policy of Gen. Smuts: “Open the doors of South Africa; let them come in, the good and the bad.” The United Party still advocates that policy.

My fifth question was : Is the United Party going to allow the non-Whites to be enrolled as apprentices, thereby to be trained as full-fledged artisans? Those were my questions to the hon. member for Maitland. Sir, we must know where we stand with the United Party. I have now finished with the hon. member for Maitland.

I now come to other hon. members. One of them is not here at the moment, the erstwhile member for Karoo, Mr. Graham Eden, who stood up here and lodged a vehement plea to the effect that the hon. the Minister must grant bursaries to Coloureds on the Railways so that they can be trained as engineers and be appointed in a supervisory capacity over Whites. Does the United Party still advocate that policy? It is of great importance that we know this. Sir, I can continue in this vein. I can quote the hon. member for Port Natal; I can quote the hon. member for Newton Park, who incidentally delivered a maiden speech in one of the Railway debates here. What I find informative in connection with this Budget is that nowhere did one hear any achievement of the Railways quoted in this debate, not a single achievement on the part of the Railways in the past year or the past few years.

What about the Minister’s speech?

They are only out to canvass a few votes of Railway officials. They clearly spoke here for the few railwaymen in Oudtshoorn. But I want to tell them that they will not achieve anything in an attempt to canvass those few votes.

I want to conclude with a few statistics. What has the National Party done, since we have been in power, in connection with departmental housing? The figures are interesting. Up to 1947-’48, under United Party rule, a total of 15 000 houses were made available. Some of them were hovels and underground cellars, as I myself have seen. A total of 23 000 houses were made available under the National Party Government. In the meantime we still had to raze some of those hovels to provide accommodation for our Whites. What was the expense incurred under United Party rule? When we came into power in 1948, R12,3 million was spent on departmental housing. From 1947-’48 to 1970-’71, R94,2 million was spent. Take the house ownership scheme. The number of houses purchased in 1947-’48, when we came into power, totalled 4 611. Today it is 18 444. I could continue in similar vein, mentioning one set of statistics after another to prove to you that not only can the railwaymen of the Republic of South Africa not trust the United Party, but they cannot afford to put that side of the House in power. The last person who could ever become a Minister of Transport, and who considers he is a shadow Minister of Transport, is the hon. member for Yeoville. No, if the United Party continues with the type of propaganda they tried to make in this debate by attempting to sow suspicion amongst the railwaymen, I can tell them they will not succeed. The railwaymen are sensible people. They are people who analyse the statistics. They are true to the Minister, the Management and every National member of Parliament on this side of the House.

The hon. member for Uitenhage has made great play of the fact that he enjoys the confidence of the railwaymen in Uitenhage. Just a little earlier in the debate the hon. member for Durban Point read a very interesting letter, and the reaction from hon. members on that side of the House, including the hon. member for Uitenhage, was to ask the hon. member for Durban Point whether he had written the letter himself. Now, I have very good news for the hon. member for Uitenhage. I want to tell him that this letter, which ends off by saying : “Ek sal nie weer vir hulle stem nie”, comes from a railwayman, a Nationalist railwayman, in his constituency. [Laughter.]

Give me his name, so that I may know whether he is a Nationalist.

I do not want to react to any of the other matters raised by the hon. member for Uitenhage, but I am certain that at a later stage of the debate hon. members on this side of the House will deal very adequately with what he has said here this afternoon.

Give me the name.

I want to say that we have had something very unique during this debate. I will go so far as to say that it could possibly be unique in the history of this Parliament, because here we have an hon. Minister of Transport who has had many years of great success. He budgets for a deficit of R6 million and comes along here and we find that the deficit is R39 million. Under normal circumstances members of the Opposition would be going for the hon. the Minister’s scalp, but we found here that hardly any minister in the history of this Parliament has had as many compliments, and may I say genuine compliments from an opposition as this hon. Minister has had despite the fact that he comes with a deficit of R39 million. There is of course a reason for this. One can disagree with the hon. the Minister’s politics, one can disagree with many things that he says. But one cannot disagree with the fact that he is a competent Minister with a thorough grasp of his department. For that reason I did say that the compliments given to the hon. the Minister from this side of the House were genuine and certainly not facetious.

I want to raise a matter with the hon. the Minister of Transport, a matter which I believe should receive the urgent attention, not only of the hon. the Minister and his department, but in fact of every hon. member in this House. To me the amazing thing is that not a single hon. member on that side of the House representing the area which I am going to mention has talked about this particular issue in the course of this debate. I want to start off by referring the hon. the Minister to a statement which did not appear in the English language Press, but which appeared in the Afrikaans Sunday newspaper Rapport as late as last Sunday. In this article the writer deals with the shocking transport conditions which exist because of the failure of the Railways to build a direct link between Mabopani and Pretoria. The article refers to the fact that because of the failure of the Railways to build this direct link, we have a situation where 50 000 non-White passengers are transported daily between their places of work and homes under conditions which are described in this article by the writer as “hell on earth” for the non-Whites who are forced to use this particular service. I think it is very, very enlightening to hear what this writer says. He is obviously a very humane and sincere person. I am going to quote very briefly portions of the article which he wrote. He starts off by saying—

Then he ends off this way—

Then he goes on—

He goes on to say—

It ends off this way—

Because of the fact that the Railways did not have the finance, because of the fact that the planning was not good enough, we have the position here that these non-Whites are being transported in 300 buses, making 700 trips per day, along a narrow road from Mabopane to Pretoria. This road was certainly never built to carry this kind of traffic. We are told that even the branch-line link with Mabopane will take more than two years to complete. Traffic chaos is already building up on this narrow Soutpan road and in two years’ time the number of buses will have doubled and so will the congestion, the accidents and the death toll. As far as I am concerned, the tragedy is that no provision whatsoever has been made in this particular Budget to build a direct Pretoria—Mabopane rail link. To me this seems to indicate that the matter, which is something which should have received top priority for humane reasons alone, has been indefinitely shelved. When the hon. the Minister replies to this debate, I would like him to tell me whether the project has been shelved or not. Let us look at the background of this particular Tswana township. Why was it established? It was established because Atteridgeville, Saulsville and Mamelodi have been frozen by Government decree. Mabopane is nothing more than a dormitory city to house the Black reservoir of labour which we need in our economy if the wheels of industry are to keep on turning. I hear quite a few murmurs from hon. members. The hon. member for Koedoespoort is amongst them, and believe me, Sir, if I were him I would keep quiet because he is the one who should have raised this particular matter in this House. [Interjections.] Can you imagine, Sir, what is going to happen in future? We are told by the experts that eventually 550 000, more than half a million people, will be settled in Mabopane. Even now one can imagine the chaotic conditions which will build up on the roads unless the Railways have a change of heart and provide this direct link in the shortest possible time. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that here we have another very concrete example of how the Government’s ideological policy is creating unbelievable hardship for the non-Whites of South Africa. How often have we not asked hon. members on that side of the House across the floor to tell the people of South Africa what the cost of their policy of separate development is. How often have we not heard the reply from the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development that they will do it regardless of the cost. I want to submit that here we have one example of the terrible cost that the Government’s policy will cost the people of South Africa, not only in terms of rands and cents, but also in terms of human inconvenience and suffering. I want to say here that there is not a single one of us in this House who would put up with the conditions which these people who are working in our economic sector have to put up with day after day. The report which I quoted from, as I said earlier, did not appear in an English newspaper, but has come from somebody who is humane. Believe me, I am absolutely surprised that certain members on my left can be so light-hearted about an affair of this magnitude.

I want to join the hon. member for Durban Point and compliment the management not only on issuing a really first class annual report, but also on the fact that we have received this report timeously so that we could prepare our contributions to this debate. When one reads through the report, one finds that the number of non-White passengers travelling daily by train from the various resettlement areas increased from 502 400 to 517 000 during the year under review. This is an increase of 14 600 or 2,91 per cent. Of this total of 517 000 the south-western Bantu townships of Johannesburg accounted for no less than 204 600.

Is that daily?

Yes, these are daily figures. These figures indicate very clearly that the suburban rail service with the highest intensity in the Republic, are those at present serving the non-White towns south-west of Johannesburg. The report also mentions the fact—and this is disturbing—that trains operating between Soweto and Johannesburg continue to be overcrowded during the peak periods, and this despite a decrease of 8 690 daily in the number of commuters conveyed in one direction daily. This came about because motor carrier certificates have been granted to a private company to operate 30 buses between Soweto and Johannesburg during the peak hours. When one reads this, it becomes apparent that despite all the efforts of the department—and I agree that it has made efforts—the Soweto line in particular still remains unsatisfactory. Trains operating between Johannesburg and Soweto are obviously still dangerously overcrowded. As a result, the restiveness, frustration and dissatisfaction among the non-White commuters is growing. I do not want to be alarming in this regard, but I want to say that we have been warned in the past. We know that for various reasons this particular route is very explosive. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to do whatever he can to find some way of granting even temporary relief on this particular line. I am very pleased indeed to note that the interdepartmental committee has at least accepted in principle the construction of new railway lines to meet the requirements of the Soweto commuters. But unfortunately, because of the very heavy capital outlay which is involved—I believe an estimate of between R80 million and R100 million has been made—these plans are obviously all in the long term and they do very little indeed to relieve or to bring a solution to the immediate problem of the Soweto line. Because of the number of people involved, namely more than one-quarter of a million per day, transport between Soweto and Johannesburg has become the source of a number of human problems. There is, for example, the effect on the health and productivity of the individual who finds that through no fault of his own he has to spend most of his waking hours either working or commuting, which affects his physical and mental state when he arrives to start his day’s work. Above all, the lack of leisure time has a disrupting effect on the home life of that particular individual. There is no doubt in my mind that the Railways, in the mistaken belief that the Government would really carry out their far-fetched plan of reducing the number of Bantu in the urban areas, slipped up very badly in their planning. As a result they have not kept pace with the development which has taken place in Soweto. As a result they find themselves in a real dilemma today. I find it very difficult indeed to reconcile the statement in the Annual Report with the statement which the General Manager made to the Star on 11th November, 1971. In the Annual Report he states quite clearly that the trains between Soweto and Johannesburg continue to be overcrowded during the morning and evening peaks, despite the fact that the service was supplemented by an additional 30 buses during the morning and evening peaks. In the Star he is quoted as saying, however, that : “The Railways are confident that they will be able to adequately convey all Soweto rail users.” I find it very strange too that after the hon. the Minister of Transport had given me personally a categorical assurance in this House during the last parliamentary session that he would welcome the supplementing of the Soweto service with buses, the General Manager found afterwards that he could not agree to the application made by the Johannesburg City Council to provide this much needed service. This seems very strange to me. After all, I would have thought that this would be a matter of policy. Yet we find that after the Minister had given me the assurance, he was what is tantamount to being overruled by the General Manager of Railways. I would very much like the Minister to clarify this position for me. To make it perfectly clear, I want to quote from the hon. the Minister’s Hansard. This is what he said:

Then we have the General Manager reported as follows:

This is a rather strange situation and, as I said, I would welcome an explanation from the hon. the Minister. I think the time has come when we must face up to the fact that South African cities differ from cities in other parts of the world where the trend is for the lower income groups to flow towards the central areas of the cities. In South Africa, of course, the restriction on non-White migration to our cities and the Government’s policy of maintaining separate group areas mean that non-Whites have to be transported daily into the central areas. This, in turn, has obviously created a king size urban Bantu transport problem, with which, unfortunately, the Railways do not seem to be able to cope. Third class suburban passenger travel has increased mainly as a result of resettlement schemes. As it is logical to expect that these resettlement areas will be expanded, it becomes quite obvious that not only will the present services have to be drastically remedied, but they will also have to be increased; despite the fact that lack of capacity has already become a serious problem on several railway lines on the Witwatersrand. Because of the fact that no motor vehicle ownership among the non-White groups precludes private transportation from playing any significant part in their commuting pattern for the time being, the demand for improved rail services for the non-White groups will grow. We must remember that non-White rail passengers today are virtually captive passengers, because they have no alternative mode of transport available to them. I believe sincerely that this very fact places a greater obligation on the hon. the Minister and the Government to see to it that the non-White commuters, particularly on the Soweto line, are provided as soon as possible with a comfortable and adequate rail service.

We know that non-Whites in South Africa generally comprise between a half and two-thirds of a city’s population. We know, too, that the majority of them have to be transported over fairly long distances daily between their homes and places of work. This presents public transport operators in South Africa with their biggest challenge. I want to warn that failure to meet this challenge, in the short and the long term, will prove to be disastrous to our cities in the future. We must remember that although non-Whites are captive passengers today, their values and travel demands will change as they gain in terms of real wages. But unless we meet the needs and aspirations of the urban non-White communities as regards travel, motor ownership will increase. This could bring chaos to any future road system at present invisaged by authorities in the Republic. We must remember that one would need only a very small percentage change in the travel habits of the non-Whites to bring about complete chaos to the roads of South Africa. It is obvious even to me, as a layman, that the only modes of transport which can possibly support the volume of traffic with which the Railways are faced, would be the commuter rail and the rapid transit system. It would appear, however, that all planning is towards commuter rail systems. We know that this involves the multiple use of tracks, which have a maximum capacity of between 25 000 and 30 000 passengers per hour. It would seem to me that because of the peak traffic densities on the lines to the resettlement areas to the West of Johannesburg, a rapid transit system would be fully justified and would in fact be ideal for the Soweto service. Over the last few years the daily high-peak volume on the Soweto line has increased at a rate of about 6 000 passengers each year, which means that there is a continual need for increased capacity. To provide this increased capacity means either intensification of the existing train service, the running of longer trains or the design of coaches with greater accommodation. It is obvious that if you allow for one-minute stops, acceleration and deceleration, the time-intervals between trains permit of very little improvement. Longer trains would mean platform lengthening and alterations to signalling systems, and coaches constructed to accommodate more passengers than the present sliding door type, would, of course, need to be double-decker in design. We know that problems in regard to clearance and maintaining existing platform levels would be truly formidable. I mention these facts, because it would seem to me that the Railways would eventually be forced to give very serious consideration to the introduction of a rapid transit system between Soweto and Johannesburg. I know that there are many obstacles in this regard. Such a service would require special grade separated tracks for the exclusive use of transit vehicles, enabling high speeds over relatively long distances. I appreciate that the provision of a rapid transit system would be very costly too, because we do have a guide in this respect. In Montreal, Canada, a system was built in 1967. The length of the system is 10 miles, with stations 750 yards apart. The capacity is 30 000 per hour. The system was built at a cost of R80 million. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Johannesburg North made a speech which, in my opinion, deals more with local matters around Johannesburg. Therefore I shall not follow up on what he said.

The hon. member for Maitland mentioned a few matters which I feel I want to focus attention on. In the first place, he was concerned about section 77, which has a bearing on job reservation. I think the hon. member is unaware of the fact that it is not applicable to the Railways. In addition he was very concerned about our training of Bantu in White areas. According to him the Bantu may only be trained in the homelands and work there. Sir, it seems to me all our talking does not help at all, because our friends over there do not listen. That is absolute nonsense.

The other question he raised was that concerning the Railways shortage. Then he referred to the selective rate increases. From what I gather he was dissatisfied. Two years ago they were very dissatisfied about that increase. I want to ask the hon. member this question. If there had not been that increase, what would our present-day position have been? If we had to do without that calculated R58,5 million that could be collected by these selective rate increases, our shortfall would have been an estimated R97 million. I therefore cannot at all understand his objection. If he wants to come back to his old objection to the rate increases and speak about that, I want to tell him it would be futile.

I listened attentively to the criticism of the Opposition speakers. There is one thing that struck me. When we looked at the Cape Times this morning, we saw that the hon. member for Yeoville, the mouthpiece and main speaker of the United Party did not make the front page. He was virtually hidden away. In my estimation this is one of the strongest proofs that as far as this Railway debate and the entire Railway Budget is concerned, the United Party and its newspapers do not really have any criticism to put forward. Actually, only a few such minor skirmishes take place. Thus a great deal of attention is given to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana’s gossip.

There is another matter the hon. member for Yeoville quoted, i.e. an accusation against the National Party in which he says we over-protected the White workers. “They over-protect the White worker,” he said. I have a copy of the hon. member’s Hansard speech with me, and I do not know whether my deduction is a correct one. If it is, it means that if the United Party were in power, they would not give that “over-protection” to the White workers. I consider it important that our Railway servants realize who their friends are when we are accused by that side of the House of “the over-protection of the White worker”.

It is not an accusation.

Then the hon. member made another accusation. I shall rather call it an utterance. He spoke of : “No fewer than 1250 poor White people …”, referring to the Railway servants.

Are they rich people?

We know that they are not indigent people. We know that they are a low-income group, but they are not indigent people. These people have their pride. It is a tremendous accusation and a gross insult on the part of the hon. member to speak of them as paupers.

He did not say so.

I have the copy of the hon. member’s speech here in which he referred to “no fewer than 1 250 poor White people”.

I did not say “poor Whites”, but “poor White people”.

I can quote more if the hon. member would be interested.

The Railways, as part of our mighty transport system in this country, is administered along the most modern and efficient lines that could handle the growing traffic and load offered without any congestion. The wheels go on rolling. We do not believe, like the United Party, that our Whites are not able to work efficiently and that they must be replaced. We do not believe in the United Party’s “crash training programme”. We believe in a thorough training system for the Railway servants. According to the United Party’s policy—I have their booklet here and can quote it to you—they guarantee the same salaries to the White worker for ten years, while of course they want the opportunity to train non-Whites with their “crash training” policy. It is stated clearly here in their written policy. We do also use non-Whites, and I do not want to cover all that ground again, but we only do so when an acute situation develops; only then do we place non-Whites in graded posts, with the permission of the White railwaymen and without any threat to the White railwaymen. Sir, under our training programme we give thorough training to every railway servant to make him an expert in his sphere of work so that, with improved working conditions, he can work with the utmost efficiency. We do not guarantee the same salary for ten years, as the United Party announced in its programme. A person’s deeds speak louder than their words, and in the past ten years we have granted salary and wage increases to the tune of R218,2 million. That is indeed an achievement. As far as housing is concerned, improvements were brought about at a cost of R 127,7 million. In the past ten years, therefore, improvements to the tune of R.345,9 million have been effected. That is an achievement. Compare this with the policy of the United Party, which wants to guarantee the railway servants the same salary for ten years. Sir, that is not all. We have considerably strengthened the betterment funds, which we inherited in a poor condition from the U.P. Government. One of the hon. members on that side asked why we had not corrected, over the past years, the poor conditions we inherited from them. We have done so. For example, we have built up the bankrupt protection funds of the railwaymen to R1 027 million. I regard this as an exceptional achievement. The Railways position generally was so bad when we took over from the United Party that they could not even pay the staff; money had to be borrowed from the Treasury to pay the staff. They could not make all the essential purchases at the time. During the first few years after we had taken over in 1948 we could do very little. In 1948 the funds were not only exhausted, but the Railways’ protection funds were wrongfully used.

You are talking nonsense now.

Sir, that hon. member is a very young man in this House. I want to tell him that it is not nonsense. The conditions at the time were so bad that they wrongfully used these protection funds, as the Auditor-General mentioned in his report. That is the gloomy record of the United Party. But that is not all. There were also shocking housing conditions in 1948. I want to ask the hon. the Minister if it is not possible for him to preserve one of the houses—in my constituency there are still some of these houses that were built without a bathroom—as a legacy so that our descendants can see in what our people were supposed to live in. In recent years no less than 45 000 houses were built for the railwaymen under the four housing schemes. Our endeavour is to give every married railwayman a good house. But the record of those people sitting there is such that they do not even want to refer to that, because they know that Harry the House-builder only got as far as turning up the sod and no further. That is one of the things they must keep quiet about. But time does not stand still. I want to refer to the hon. the Minister’s announced programme in which hundreds of millions are being made available for the creation of an infrastructure to properly utilize the improved position since devaluation. Since the primary producer and the export industrialist are in a much better position today, we believe that this will exert heavy pressure on the Railways. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and the General Manager, Mr. Loubser on the break-through that has been made with mechanized hump marshalling yards. It will definitely mean a great deal to the manpower position and reduce the labour problems at shunting yards. It will also bring about quicker and smoother shunting and eliminate accidents. It is indeed one of the achievements.

But I want to refer to another announcement. We know that the electrification of railway lines in general means a great deal, but the announcement in the Estimates of R27,9 million for the electrification between Bloemfontein and Kroonstad deserves particular attention, because air pollution is today such a serious threat in Bloemfontein that the C.S.I.R. places Bloemfontein third on the list. According to the experts—I do not know whether this is correct or not, because I do not always agree with them—the Railways is the biggest culprit as far as smoke pollution is concerned. Since we have received this announcement, I feel it will greatly improve the position. We all realize that this smoke pollution will improve if the railway line is electrified. We have the diesel workshop at Bloemfontein, and this will be of great benefit to us, because on the main line to the south diesel locomotives are going to be used in the future, and by those means the smoke pollution will be greatly improved. Permit me, Sir, on behalf of the City Council of Bloemfontein and the city’s inhabitants, to convey our heartfelt thanks to the Minister for that particular announcement.

I want to conclude. While we are speaking here of steam locomotives, I must point out that steam locomotives are going to disappear. We all realize that this is the direction in which we must move. I nevertheless feel that with a view to dangerous future emergencies it could perhaps be of great value to us if these steam locomotives can be withdrawn in good time, while they are still usable, thereby being preserved so that they can be used in such an emergency. The hon. the Minister would be following a policy similar to the one Joseph adopted in making provision for times we hope will never come. We again want to extend our congratulations, and we believe that the wheels are still running smoothly.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein District devoted a large part of his speech to drawing comparisons between the present and 1948. He is welcome to draw those comparisons, but I feel I really cannot take up the time of this Parliament by drawing historical comparisons with 1948 or 1938.

You are ashamed.

I would be ashamed to use the time of this House for such ancient stories. The hon. member furthermore referred to a whole variety of matters. I hope he will pardon me for not following up what he said, because there is another major matter I want to deal with in detail this afternoon.

†I want to come to the question of our ore exports. I believe that this is a most important matter which is highly relevant to the portfolio of the hon. the Minister of Railways. It is highly relevant in terms of the country’s economic situation and I think it is a matter which falls squarely within the framework of the responsibilities of the S.A. Railways and Harbours. The hon. the Minister is in fact asking Parliament for a great deal of money which will be used in part for the furtherance of our exports. There is no disagreement, I believe, between the two sides of the House that increased exports are vital to the growth and the survival of our economy. We see in the Railway Budget that there are some 3 000 ore trucks on order for a sum of R18 or R19 million. We see that money is being spent, or should have been spent, on the creation of loops between Port Elizabeth and De Aar. We see that money is being spent on the relaying of the railway line between Kamfersdam and Hotazel and we see more money being spent on straightening the railway line between Cookhouse and Swartkops. These things all directly or indirectly have great relevance to our potential as ore exporters in this country. When we speak of ore, I believe again that it is common cause in this House that ore exports are our nearest and most available potential for the rapid increase of our exports from this country and for the closing of the trade gap which now exists.

These ore exports, which have been under discussion at various times in this House, have in fact been bedevilled—I say bedevilled—by a peculiar pattern of policy. The ore exports as originally envisaged were ore exports promoted and extended by private enterprise, according to traditional patterns of industry and international trade as practised in this country. In this endeavour the Railway Administration had a definite part to play. Within their capabilities and within their own profit structure and within the economy of the Railways as envisaged, the Railways would be expected to provide transport from the mining areas to the ports, and at those ports to provide loading facilities for the ore to be exported. It is a fact that at the time when these ore exports were greatly needed and an expansion was badly needed, contracts were being negotiated with the Japanese and others for the export of iron. I have no doubt that the Railways Administration was ready and willing to be helpful in this matter. Then, however, there was a curious intervention. It suddenly became not a matter of private enterprise co-operating with the Railways, but a matter for political intervention by a mysterious kind of pressure group which began to take a different ideological view of the matter and began to disturb the priorities. They began to disturb the priorities to the extent that there was an interference; there was a blocking of the natural private development of ore resources and the transport of that ore to its destination, because of some other motives.

I believe the hon. the Minister is, was and should be the right man to talk to about these matters; that some of his colleagues who have intervened in this affair, intervened wrongly; and that it still remains in a private enterprise country the duty of private enterprise to produce, to seek overseas contracts and to come to the Minister of Transport to seek his help in the exportation of these ores.

Nevertheless, and in spite of this strongly held view, I would have hesitated to reopen this question, because not very long ago we were led to believe that the Government—that is, the Cabinet acting collectively—had taken a decision to grant priority to Saldanha Bay and thereby to close any possibility of achieving exports through the harbour at St. Croix. However, at that time the Government stated that its approval for the Saldanha development was conditional. These conditions have changed from time to time, but nevertheless it is true that the approval of Saldanha was always conditional. Originally, the conditions were that Saldanha would receive priority if the contracts, were, in fact, realized at a base load which would be sufficient to justify the viability of the port and, secondly, that loans could be obtained which would be sufficient to build the railway and the habour.

We would have resigned ourselves to this decision had it not been made quite clear very recently that the Japanese, who are, in fact, the only importers of ore in a sufficient quantity to make this kind of new scheme viable at the present time, are not interested in going ahead with the ore negotiations based on the Saldanha scheme. They also served notice that in view of the decline or cutback in steel production in Japan, they, in addition, want a postponement in the dealings with the other company—that is, the private enterprise company—which had been negotiating with them.

However, I have received, both from local and Japanese sources, some insight into what actually happened and the reasons why it happened. I want to tell the House this afternoon exactly what I think did happen. The Japanese steel companies informed Iscor that they could not contemplate major projects for the foreseeable future and could not tell when they would be able to reconsider their position. This is to say, the Japanese indicated sine die that they did not feel themselves able to talk now and had no idea when they would wish to resume negotiations. When this is translated into English, with due regard to the kind of courtesy that the Japanese employ on such an occasion, it means “we have had it and so have you”. According to my information the Japanese at no time asked Iscor, as the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs implied on 10th March —I informed him that I would speak on this subject this afternoon—for “a delay of one or two years”. To the best of my information this phrase was not used by the Japanese, and the postponement is indefinite. Consolidated African Mines, Which is a private enterprise interested in the export of ore through St. Croix, received a letter requesting a temporary postponement of negotiations owing to the present tight circumstances in the steel industry. There is in fact a tacit understanding that negotiations were suspended by Consolidated African Mines because of the Government’s opposition to the St. Croix scheme, which the Japanese considered to be essential for the practical realization of this contract starting in 1975. The Japanese did not believe that the contract was realistic or feasible on any other basis. Consolidated African Mines therefore released them from their partial obligation and now the question remains whether, in the light of the new circumstances, there is any hope of getting any negotiations for the sale of any additional ore in this country unless St. Croix is at least given a conditional approval.

What is the reality of the matter from the Japanese point of view? On Saturday morning the Cape Times published a report from its Tokyo correspondents. I would not read this report to the House were it not for the fact that the contents of this report are, to my mind, entirely accurate. I believe them to be entirely accurate because they confirm 100 per cent the information which I have received both from Japanese sources and South African sources. It is a third line of confirmation on precisely the same thing. The report reads partly as follows—

1. (1) They do not see the Saldanha project being built for only R400 million and instead tend to believe that it would require at least R700 million.

This is the figure which I mentioned in this House about two weeks ago—

1. (2) It is believed by the Japanese engineers who have inspected the site that the construction of the railway line and the port itself could not be completed by 1976 and probably not before 1980.
2. (3) Data given to Japanese marine specialists by Iscor failed to explain away the treacherous channel and the fog.

There is a good deal more and I would like members who are interested in this question to read this article which appeared in the Cape Times on Saturday. They have my assurance that to the best of my knowledge this information is entirely reliable.

May I ask a question?

Certainly.

With reference to the newspaper report quoted by the hon. member, I just want to ask whether the Railways, in announcing the Saldanha plan, at any time intimated that it would be built solely for the export of ore to Japan. I refer specifically to the word “solely”.

The question actually has no direct bearing on my argument, but I shall try to reply to it. If the Railways were involved in the negotiations with Japan—and I do not think this was the case—but if this were the case …

Or Iscor.

Yes, or Iscor. I doubt whether they ever said that the railway was intended solely for the export of ore, but that is not relevant.

To Japan?

Yes, to Japan. I doubt whether they said that, but that is not relevant in any case. What is indeed relevant as far as the Japanese are concerned, is that they wanted to enter into a contract for the importation of a certain tonnage of iron ore. They wanted to be sure that it would be possible to export that tonnage within the term of the contract. They were not satisfied that it could be done in time within the period in which they wanted it and with the capital expansion required in order to comply with the requirements of the contract. The other uses of the railway line and the eventual economic viability of Saldanha did not concern them. They were simply interested in the contract they wanted to conclude. In their view only the St. Croix scheme could meet the requirements of that contract. So much as far as the Japanese are concerned.

†I therefore do not have the slightest doubt that the St. Croix project must in fact be carried out if we are going to assist the South African economy and the revenue of the South African Railways by developing increased ore exports. This must be done because the economy cries out for it. This must be done, because as the Budget of the hon. the Minister of Transport shows, the Railways also have need of this additional revenue. I will come to that point again in a minute. In the meantime I want to say that I believe that for every minute of delay, for every minute of frustration in this ore export matter, the Government bears a heavy responsibility. The consequences of failure to execute this contract through the intransigence of the Government or through its tendency to divert its attention to other schemes which are not economically relevant at the present time—I say not economically relevant at the present time—are an economic crime towards South Africa. It is an albatross which will hang around this Government’s neck for a very long time. What can the hon. the Minister of Transport do? He is in charge of the Railways. He is in charge of the ports, and it is my contention that that hon. Minister holds the key to the situation.

We have, quite frankly in my view, been grossly misinformed in this House about this matter. I used the word advisedly or shall I say, with the reservation that whoever has given us this information, has no doubt done so in full faith. But the source of information, the manner in which it has been presented, the contradictions which have repeatedly occurred, the exaggerations on the one hand and the attempt to play down certain other facets on the other hand, has in fact been a cause of grave concern to me. I believe that this House deserves to know the facts. It deserves to know the full truth of the matter, because we are still obliged to take a decision which will have very important consequences for South Africa, not only now, but also in future years.

Will you get Wilhelmi to submit written evidence that the Japanese will be prepared to enter into contracts if St. Croix is built?

I will come to that. Before I come to the point which the hon. the Minister has raised, I should like to refer to him five specific questions; then I will come specifically to the point which he has now mentioned. I want to say that I have confidence in the hon. the Minister that he has the integrity to deal with this matter on its merits. I have confidence in the General Manager and the top advisers in the Administration that they have the honesty and efficiency to deal with this matter on its merits. I am appealing to the Railways to let us have the true facts. I want the hon. the Minister to reply to me, if he will, on five important matters which I wish to raise now; matters on which I believe we have been misinformed, on which the House has been misled and about which a true knowledge of the facts is vital if we are to act sensibly and reasonably in this matter. The first one is the question of costs. On the question of costs the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs stated in 1971 that the cost of the Saldanha Bay scheme would be R328 million. In 1972, a couple of weeks ago, he said that the cost would be R400 million. He said that the increase from R328 million to R400 million was due to recent cost increases, presumably such as devaluation. The hon. the Minister of Transport said last year that the cost would be at least R400 million. I believe it is a view currently held by the Railways Administration that the cost would be at least R600 million. I have also said in this House that I believe that the post-devaluation cost, bearing in mind the increased cost of imported material and equipment, would make the cost probably in the order of R700 million. This view is also held by the Japanese steel industry. I would like the hon. the Minister to tell me whether he thinks that R700 million is an exaggeration.

I think it will be between R600 million and R700 million.

Yes, depending on when we do it. The later we do it, the more it will cost. In regard to St. Croix, it has been estimated by Consolidated African Mines, by Union Acceptances and others who are interested in this scheme, that the cost of the off-shore loading terminal would be of the order of R47 million. To this the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs replied, basing himself on an answer supplied by that hon. Minister last year, that the cost should include R93 million for railway development, R80 million for railway stock plus the R47 million, making a total of R220 million. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister if this is a fair comparison. Is it not a fact that he in any event has order of some R60 million out for locomotives and ore trucks, and that even if the St. Croix project is to be written off entirely that he would be spending this money? Is it not a fact, even if St. Croix be written off entirely, he would still be strengthening the railway lines, still be putting in longer loops and still install centralized traffic control? Is it right to include these costs in the estimates of the St. Croix project and to use these for purposes of comparison? I ask him this second question and I hope that the Minister will answer it.

Then there is the question of capital. In the past year we have had the assurance that Iscor were finding capital and that they were seeking contracts of the order required to make the Saldanha scheme a viable proposition. The hon. the Minister said that if they could do this and if they could get the contracts to service this capital he would be ready to go along with the Saldanha Bay scheme. It is quite clear that they have not done this and that they will not be able to do it. I want to give the House an absolutely frank and comprehensive prophecy—I am prepared to stick my neck out on this one—that they will not get either the money or the contracts in the near future. It is simply not on. I believe, and so does Consolidated African Mines, that they, the latter, can get this contract. They believe, however, that in order to get this contract they must be able to assure the Japanese that St. Croix would be backed by the Government and the Railways if they sign the contract. In other words, the exporters of ore must be able to go to the Japanese with a letter in their pocket saying that if they sign, the Railways guarantee to make this ore terminal work.

Get the Japanese to sign conditionally.

They have negotiated conditionally but it was because of the blank rejection of St. Croix in this House that they had to abandon their negotiations. I think the ball is in your court. If the Minister were to say to Consolidated African Mines—he does not need to give a guarantee—that he realizes that the whole of our exports to Japan are in jeopardy and that if they think they can do this deal they may sign a contract on the same conditions that he stated for Saldanha Bay that will be sufficient: that he will back St. Croix if they can find the contracts to service that capital. I believe he can even ask private industry itself to provide the capital in order to build this port and then to negotiate terms with the Government on which the Government or the Railways Administration would run this ore terminal. I believe that Consolidated African Mines and their partners are highly flexible in this matter, and that they are eager to do business but that they need some assistance and co-operation from the Government. Unless the hon. the Minister is prepared to get away from this old nonsense that has been going on and has now ended in disaster, as we repeatedly predicted it would, and unless he is prepared to take a new look at this matter, we are going to have no ore contracts at all. If we get no ore contracts now, namely from 1975 to 1980 or to 1982, we will have no ore contracts later, because these things run in a series.

But the Japanese have even abrogated their Australian contracts.

Yes, they have reduced them, but I think the hon. the Minister knows that the Japanese operate according to a special system—I know this because I have sold other things, like uranium, to them—and they like to buy from a diversity of suppliers, provided that they can get reasonably equal terms from them. If they cannot get reasonably equal terms from them, they would then of necessity go to single suppliers. They have come to us because they do not believe in engaging in contracts involving more than 20 million tons through any single port. They do not like to put all their eggs in one basket and do not like to take risks. That is why they are talking to us. If we drive them away by setting impossible conditions and by trying to make them buy ore through Saldanha for delivery from 1975 onwards when they can see for themselves that Saldanha will never be ready by 1975 and may not be ready till 1980, we are asking them to do a stupid thing. They will not do it and will go back to Australia. That is the fact of the matter.

My time is running short and I would very much like to deal with one or two other points. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs stated categorically in this House only a few weeks ago that St. Croix could not be considered because wind and wave tests, reported to him two years ago indicated that there was no satisfaction about the safety of the St. Croix harbour project. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not a fact that in the subsequent two years these wind and wave tests have been conducted and have been completed to the satisfaction of the harbour advisory staff of the South African Railways and Harbours.

The last question I wish to raise, but I will have to leave some of it to a colleague, is the availability of space in Port Elizabeth harbour. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs said that there was still 40 per cent capacity available in Port Elizabeth harbour. My information based on a report of a leading shipping firm and on data obtained from the South African Railways and Harbours Administration, shows that the port of Port Elizabeth is being used almost to capacity, 100 per cent or nearly so.

The ore berths are not being fully used.

The ore berths are very likely being occupied by smaller vessels taking manganese. If we contemplate an additional 5 million tons or even 8 million there is no room in Port Elizabeth harbour for that kind of traffic.

There is room for an additional 2 million.

We need more than 2 million, if we contemplate a contract of the order which is is being discussed with the Japanese. They wish to see where the ore is going to flow through; at the present time they see only a bottleneck. If the Minister conceded the points I have made, or even only the majority of them, surely he must agree as Minister of Transport, as the Minister who is responsible for the conveyance of these ores which are so vital to the development of the economy and in fact to the redemption of the economy of South Africa at the present time, that he should assume these responsibilities and exercise them. I know that there were other reasons which have motivated other people to attempt to achieve other decisions, but these things are now water under the bridge and will not be achieved in the time envisaged. They must choose other priorities to do the things they wish to do. If they were motivated by other factors, and I believe that the only explanation that can be offered in respect of the urgency with which the Saldanha project was being pushed at the expense of a vital export scheme, was because of a secret wish to revive the separate Coloured homeland concept which was the only thing that can justify the strong pressure. …

There is no homeland there.

No, they have that object in view … Be that as it may, the fact is that South Africa has a very large trade balance gap which shows no sign of narrowing. That hon. Minister has a large deficit on his Railway Budget. This export scheme—if you will give me one minute Sir, to finish my speech —will generate for South Africa in extra foreign earnings R470 million approximately, and in revenue for that hon. Minister’s department in the same period, 1975 to 1980, earnings up to R100 million. These facts must be faced; they must be accepted and we put our faith in that Minister. (Time expired.)

Mr. Speaker, I find myself in the somewhat unpleasant position of agreeing practically 100 per cent with the hon. member who has just sat down. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Von Brandis on dealing with this matter on a high level and for using it as a purely economic argument, except that I think that here and there he lost his objectivity to some extent. I think it is a somewhat risky statement to say that the Japanese are not prepared to proceed with contracts because the Minister has completely shelved the St. Croix scheme, that they are not prepared to proceed with the Saldanha scheme and that this is the only reason why they cancelled the contract. We know there are many other important considerations as well.

Furthermore, the hon. member said that this matter would be an albatross which would hang around the neck of this Government. There he tried to make some political capital I am satisfied that this Government has never tried to view the matter in a political light. In the consideration of any matter, the one criterion of this Government is always that the interests of South Africa will be placed first. Therefore I believe that that criterion was applied in this matter as well and that there has been no attempt to take a decision one way or another for political reasons. Nevertheless, Sir, in the course of my speech I shall come back to some of the arguments used by the hon. member for Von Brandis.

In his Budget speech the hon. the Minister said inter alia that the Department of Transport was called upon to play an increasingly important role in stimulating the export trade in general and especially in the case of minerals, ores and coal. He said that in order to achieve this, it was necessary to create a transport infrastructure on a level in accordance with the requirements for ensuring the effective transportation and handling of these materials. In this regard it will probably not be inappropriate to address a special word of congratulation to the Minister and his Department for their exceptional pioneering work in respect of the design and taking into service of the special-purpose goods trucks for bulk transport, for the very reason that this has such an important bearing on these ore exports. The taking into service of these trucks, which are equipped with pneumatic brakes, has made possible a unique break-through on the Continent of Africa as far as bulk transport is concerned. When a test journey was undertaken recently with an ore train, it consisted of 150 trucks. The train was 1,6 kilometres long and transported a net payload of 8 850 tons. It was the longest and heaviest train which has ever run on the Continent of Africa. This is an achievement of exceptional engineering skill of which South Africa can definitely be very proud. This underlines particularly the exceptional and purposeful attempt on the part of the South African Railways to fulfil its role as regards stimulating our ore exports and, furthermore, better to equip itself to carry out its task, namely to transport great quantities of ore over long distances from the ore sites to the export harbours. This is a very important matter, because all of us are aware that under the present economic conditions exports, particularly ore exports, are of decisive importance to the South African economy and will continue to be so in future.

This brings me to the matter which has been argued a great deal in this House and which was discussed by the hon. member for Von Brandis as well, namely a suitable export harbour for our ore. Before expressing a few ideas about it, I should like to emphasize once again that this is a purely economic matter. It is a purely economic matter which has nothing at all to do with politics, and therefore I find it a pity that certain newspapers which support that side of this House are continually trying to make some political capital out of this matter, because, as I have said, this Government has applied one principle throughout, namely to place the interests of South Africa first and to take its decisions on that basis. Of course, we must also realize—the hon. member for Von Brandis, other hon. members on that side and I myself—that we are fed with information by people who want to promote the St. Croix scheme. When we argue these matters, we do not have the full picture before us as the Cabinet has from time to time, but, Sir, because I represent the interests of the people of Port Elizabeth in this House, I made a study, to the best of my ability, of both the St. Croix scheme and the Saldanha project, and after careful consideration I unfortunately cannot agree with the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs when he says that the St. Croix scheme does not have sufficient merit to receive consideration together with the Saldanha project. I can in fact agree with the Minister when he says that the Saldanha scheme has greater long-term advantages than the St. Croix scheme, especially as regards the development of a part of our country where it has not yet been possible to build up a proper infrastructure over the years. Therefore it would have extremely great advantages for that part of the country if that railway line could be built. But my personal standpoint remains that I praise the Government for its farsightedness, faith and vision in giving preference to this gigantic scheme, namely the Saldanha scheme, in the interests of the development of our country. Nevertheless I think the Saldanha scheme should be seen and treated as a long-term project, because the economy of our country is simply calling out today for a reduction in capital expenditure and it is therefore not in the interests of our economy to tackle such a gigantic project at this stage. Other large schemes, for example the Orange River scheme, also had to be postponed for several years until a suitable time arrived to make a start with them, and this may happen in the case of the Saldanha scheme as well. Furthermore, Sir, the important aspect must of course still be mentioned that it is very clear now that Iscor will at all be able to meet one of the basic requirements laid down at the time the green light was given for the Saldanha scheme, namely that long-term contracts should be obtained beforehand in order to make the scheme a paying proposition. Whether it would be sensible to proceed with such a gigantic scheme at this stage, without the assurance that it would in fact be possible to obtain the contracts, is therefore something of which I am not convinced, especially after the recent bad, disappointing news from Japan. Nevertheless it is of the utmost importance to our economy that our ore exports should be increased as quickly as possible. This, inter alia, was also emphasized in the Part Appropriation debate by the hon. the Minister of Finance, and therefore I think it would be in the national interests if the St. Croix scheme were examined very carefully once again. The supporters of this scheme also assure me, as does the hon. member for Von Brandis, that very careful scientific research has been carried out during the past number of years in regard to wind force and wave strength, and that the results have confirmed that it would be possible to moor and accommodate some of the largest ore ships in the world there.

Sir, what is the present position in respect of ore exports? As far as I could obtain the details from the Department yesterday, the position is as follows : Rail improvements and the taking into service of the new type of trucks make it possible for the South African Railways to transport 6 million tons of ore to Port Elizabeth in the present financial year, i.e. in 1972. The contracts for the export of these ores are in order. Without any additional costs—and this is very important—in respect of rolling stock or rail improvements, the South African Railways can deliver 10 million tons of ore annually in Port Elizabeth, but the capacity of the present ore harbour is such that it can accommodate only slightly more than 6 million tons annually. In other words, the Railways are able to deliver more ore in Port Elizabeth than the present ore harbour can handle. In addition it must be mentioned that there are continual complaints from persons in the vicinity of the present ore harbour about dust and air pollution. It may be desirable to consider moving the present ore harbour. Therefore it seems very logical that the green light will be given for the development of the St. Croix scheme. It may be made subject to the same conditions as were laid down in respect of the Saldanha scheme at the time, namely capital provision and long-term contracts.

The supporters of the St. Croix scheme are of the opinion that if they started now, the export harbour would be ready and could be put into operation as early as the middle of 1975 or at the latest the end of 1975. The expenditure for the completion of the harbour facilities is estimated at approximately R47 million. As has been indicated, the South African Railways can deliver 10 million tons of ore in Port Elizabeth at present without any additional cost. The R47 million for the harbour facilities is therefore the only additional expenditure to increase our ore exports to 10 million tons per year, which would be sufficient to make the St Croix scheme profitable. According to present indications, it seems very unlikely that it will be possible to sell more than 10 million tons abroad in the course of the next 15 years. If this is in fact the case, and if additional large contracts cannot be obtained from Europe or elsewhere, it will mean that if the Saldanha scheme is proceeded with, it will be possible to send only 4 million tons of ore to Sanldanha annually, since both the hon. the Minister of Transport and the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs have promised that the present ore exports through Port Elizabeth will be retained by Port Elizabeth. In other words, if only 10 million tons can be exported, Port Elizabeth will be able to retain the 6 million tons it exports at present, then only four million tons per year will be left to be transferred to the Saldanha scheme. In addition, it must be borne in mind that it is estimated that the Saldanha project will be a paying proposition only when between 15 and 20 million tons can be exported there annually. In view of the present prospects for ore exports, one can therefore accept that if the Saldanha scheme is proceeded with, this scheme will have to work at a loss for many years.

It is true, Sir, that the St. Croix scheme also has its limitations in that it cannot handle more than 15 million tons of ore per year, and even in order to export 15 million tons per year, an additional R93 million will have to be spent on rail improvements, according to the data of the Railways. Therefore there will be additional costs in order to increase the exports from 10 million tons to 15 million tons, and the amount of R93 million is mentioned in this regard. Nevertheless, in the light of the present circumstances, the St. Croix scheme does have certain indisputable short-term advantages. Firstly, there is the capital factor. The St. Croix scheme requires only the capital expenditure of R47 million as opposed to an estimated minimum of R400 million for the Saldanha scheme, which, according to experts, can easily increase to R700 million, the amount mentioned by the hon. member for Von Brandis. In the light of the present economic conditions and the uncertain export market, these two schemes therefore cannot be compared in this regard. We can ill afford to spend such a large amount in capital while we are uncertain about the exports. I am convinced that high tender prices, when the tenders are received for Saldanha, will make it impossible for both Iscor and the Government to proceed with the Saldanha scheme, and therefore I want to make a very urgent appeal at this stage already to all interested parties in respect of ore exports, i.e. Iscor as well as Consolidated African Mines, to meet as soon as possible in the interests of South Africa and to work out plans together and submit proposals as to how the St. Croix scheme may be tackled by them jointly as a short-term project and how the Saldanha scheme may be tackled by them jointly as a long-term project. Such co-operation can only be of great benefit to South Africa, and the sooner it can be achieved, the better.

Secondly, there is the time factor. The St. Croix scheme can easily be completed within 2½ to 3 years, while, in my opinion, the Saldanha scheme cannot be completed in fewer than seven or eight years, because even with an expenditure of R400 million, I find it difficult to see where we shall obtain the engineering skill to spend more than R100 million per year on the one project, a project which will consist mainly of harbour engineering works, while our harbour engineers are still engaged on the Richard’s Bay complex and will remain so engaged until 1976, and while improvements are being made to the Cape Town and Durban harbours. Our harbour engineers will be engaged there to a large extent and it will therefore be difficult to spend such a large amount and to progress so speedily with the Saldanha scheme. I doubt whether they would be able to complete that harbour within the period of four or five years which they have set. However, the time factor is of extreme importance to us, because all ore-exporting countries are at present building large deep-sea harbours for the export of ore in the large containerised ships, which are much larger than the Port Elizabeth harbour can handle at all. If, therefore, we do not get a deep-sea harbour where we can accommodate the large containerized ships and load the ore, our ore price will simply no longer be able to compete with the Australian and Brazilian prices in the foreseeable future. With the development of the St. Croix harbour, provision can be made within three years at low cost for the export of 10 million tons of ore annually at economical export prices, and a large amount in badly needed foreign exchange can be earned and, secondly, markets can be developed in the course of time. This is very important, because it appears that these ore orders cannot simply be obtained in large quantities; you must develop them gradually, and once we have our St. Croix harbour, from which we can export ore, the market can be developed and built up in the course of time so that larger orders may be obtained, which will then necessitate the Saldanha project and may lead to its development. If the green light had been given to St. Croix as far back as 1970, the necessary contracts could already have been concluded with the Japanese and we would have been able to export at least 10 million tons of ore annually from this year or next year.

In the light of the present economic conditions in South Africa as well as elsewhere in the world, we will have to pay careful attention to the other aspect of ore exports, namely the refining of our ore. Our balance of payments can be greatly improved by large-scale ore exports, but because our ore resources are situated hundreds of miles inland, the transportation of our raw ores to the coast remains a very expensive and very time-consuming process. Both in volume and in mass the refined ore is plus-minus one-third of the raw ore, while the price of refined ore is up to 13 times higher than the price of the unprocessed ore. Therefore, if we constructed refineries or blast-furnaces for the refining of our ore at the source, i.e. in the Sishen complex—and I must point out that that area also has abundant labour at its disposal; there are homelands within 30 miles from there—the transport problem could be relieved and we could earn up to 13 times more in foreign exchange. If this were brought into effect, the St. Croix project would be able to meet the ore export requirements for many years. At the time of the Part Appropriation the hon. the Minister of Finance made a plea in this regard (Hansard, 1972, col. 1485). The hon. the Minister said—

Sir, it is true that the area in which the blast-furnaces are erected for refining the ore in fact has the opportunity getting of a third or fourth Iscor. The mere development of St. Croix as a harbour would not mean a great deal for the Eastern Cape. The mere development of Saldahna as a harbour would not have been of such infinite importance to the Western Cape either if there was no prospect of the further processing of the ore. These are all possible developments, but I do think that the North Western Cape area where the ore is mined can also lay claim to these facilities, while it would also be in accordance with our decentralization policy and to a large extent with our border industry policy as well, and in this respect I should like to identify myself with the idea that initially the refining of the ore should take place at the source, in order to ease the transport problem. Therefore I should very much like to identify myself with the appeal made by the hon. the Minister of Finance and to plead that steps should be taken to erect the blast-furnaces at the source, where the ore can be refined. Then the St. Croix harbour would for many years be adequate for exporting the unrefined ore and perhaps the processed ore as well.

I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Algoa on having at last, as a result of the job of convincing done by members on this side of the House in various debates, seen the light in regard to this very important matter. I am very sorry that I have to add that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North has not yet raised his voice, and the same goes for the hon. member for Uitenhage, who spoke today but did not say a word about this St. Croix scheme. In the few minutes at my disposal I should like to say that the announced Railway deficit of approximately R39 million for 1971-’72, as well as the deficit of R39 million which has been budgeted for next year, are additional symptoms of the maladministration of our economy by the National Party Government. Other milestones on this road are devaluation, uncontrolled inflation, import control, the lack of confidence on the part of our entrepreneurs and the weakening of the economic pulse. At every session the United Party has sounded the warning that the laws of the economy are irresistible, and every time the National Party spokesmen tell us with pride that they will bend the economy to fit in with their ideology.

†Now it seems to me that the Government’s economic chickens are coming home to roost and …

Order! We are dealing with the Railway Budget.

It is my guess that “die volk daarbuite” will not like these chickens because they are fishy.

*Here we have a member of the Cabinet who is being praised by the United Party as the only competent Minister of the National Party.

He did at least not throw poison into the sea.

The General Manager of the Railways is one of the most capable officials in South Africa. His administrative staff consists of hand-picked men. All these people and the Railway workers who have been able to enhance their productivity by 70 per cent over the past decade, have all worked together as a unit, but because of the economic climate that was created by this Government, even this powerful combination could not run South Africa’s most important business organization on a sound footing. The massive devaluation, a step the Government was forced to take as a result of its own economic policy, will have a very extensive effect on our cost structure, and this is something which will, of course, be felt by the Railways as well. There was an increase from one-eighth to one-fifth in the cost structure. If we consider the past three years with the deficits of approximately R60 million, R39 million and again R39 million, one wonders what the position will be if the R39 million deficit, which is being budgeted for now, were to escalate six times, as happened in the case of the previous year’s deficit. Where would South Africa be then? The Railways are dependent on the private sector for goods to convey. How can the Railways thrive if the private sector is falling into a decline, and how can the private sector thrive if it is handicapped by a host of ideological labour, fiscal and monetary curbs?

What did those workers who rendered long hours of overtime service, get out of this Budget? Absolutely nothing. There is a distant roar of demands for higher wages, demands which have their origin in the distress of the masses, the masses who are no longer able to make both ends meet. I have the greatest sympathy with the fear of the Railway workers that difficult financial times lie ahead for them. But fortunately they have begun to realize that this is the result of direct and indirect taxes imposed by this Government, and that it is the increasing inflation that is making the position so difficult for them. It is fortunate that the voters have begun to understand this, as they have in fact indicated at the by-election in Brakpan and will again indicate in the future. I am convinced that the average Railway worker is today no longer what the hon. member for Uitenhage wanted to suggest, i.e. a person who blindly supports the National Party because he thinks that party will protect him. The labour policy of the hon. the Minister of Transport underwent quite a number of changes in the middle sixties. We were always told that this Government would protect the White man, that this Government would never allow the White man to be threatened in his employment by the Black man. Today there are thousands of non-Whites who are doing skilled and semi-skilled work on the Railways. We approve of that. That is our policy, because this was done in conjunction with the trade unions. But what are hon. members opposite saying now? What do my hon. verkrampte friends have to say about this? Are they satisfied?

Who are they?

The hon. member for Boksburg is one. The question that arises, is why should the private sector …

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 136 and debate adjourned.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister if he can tell us whether a separate amount is earmarked for the Transkei for the purposes of education. The Transkei has its own Budget, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has pointed out. It collects its own direct taxation. The hon. the Deputy Minister told us in his Second Reading speech that the Government of the Republic contributes 21 per cent of the direct taxation of R18 million. I take it that that is income tax.

That is direct income tax, an estimate of R18 million.

From what the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, I gather that the Transkei receives R3 780 000. In the Transkei Budget of last year we see that the Government of the Republic paid an amount of R22 767 000 out of the Revenue Fund towards the revenue of the Transkei. Their education account amounted to R9 million odd. I want to know, when the Government of the Republic contributes from our revenue to the revenue of the Transkei Government, whether it earmarks a certain amount for education or whether it merely budgets for the total amount contrubuted to the revenue of the Transkei. I am trying to find out, in calculating what the Transkei should get from the Government of the Republic, whether the Government of the Republic estimates what taxation is paid by the Transkeian citizens, either in direct or indirect taxation and whether that makes any difference to the amount paid by the Government of the Republic to the Transkeian Government. For instance, supposing the Transkeian Government had shown its education account to be R10 million odd instead of R9 million, would the Government of the Republic have paid an extra R1 million towards the account, or would the Transkei Government have said to the Government, “No, we are sorry, you are only paying so much in direct taxation to us and therefore we cannot allow you to spend so much on education.”?

I should also like to know something else from the hon. the Deputy Minister. He said in this Second Reading speech that if the Bantu wanted free school books, the homeland Governments could save on other items of expenditure to set aside money for books. I want to know what happens to the urban Bantu. If the urban Bantu want free books, how can they set about getting these books, because they do not budget for themselves? What is required of them because their education comes direct from our Revenue Account. I should be glad if the hon. the Deputy Minister could anser these questions.

Mr. Chairman, as regards the first question, the position is that amounts are voted for the Transkei in the Estimates of Expenditure to be defrayed from Revenue Account, which are approved by Parliament. In this regard I may refer to Subhead O, “Payment to the Transkeian Government in terms of section 52 (1) (d) of Act No. 48 of 1963” on which an amount of R12 532 000 was voted in the Estimates for 1972. This was the amount Parliament voted in respect of the Transkei.

For what?

For a variety of purposes.

But what about my question with regard to education?

I am making specific reference to that sub-head on which provision is made for payments to the Transkei in terms of section 52 (1) of Act No. 48 of 1963. I am mentioning it merely as an example of the way in which this Parliament budgets in respect of the Transkei. The position is that the Transkei submits its Estimates of Expenditure to be defrayed from its Revenue Account to the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. Each department of the Transkei has an estimate of expenditure and there is, inter alia, also a Bantu Education Department in the Transkei. The total budget of the Transkei is submitted to the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, which considers it and then submits it to the Minister after it has done so. The Minister then decides in consultation with the Minister of Finance what amount the Government of the Republic is going to vote so as to be able to meet the requirements of the total budget of the Transkei. That amount is reflected here in our Estimates of Expenditure. I have just mentioned one example, i.e. sub-head O of the Vote.

As regards the Education Vote in the Transkeian Estimates of Expenditure, the position is that the amount requested for that Vote is included in the joint Estimates of Expenditure submitted to the department. The amount requested for Bantu Education is thereupon referred to the central department of Bantu Education in Pretoria where experts make a recommendation in the light of the requirements, and thereupon the Minister, in conjunction with the Departments of Bantu Administration and Development and Bantu Education, and in consultation with the Minister of Finance, decides in the light of the economic circumstances of South Africa and with due regard to the Estimates received from the Transkeian Government what amount is to appear on the Republic’s Estimates of Expenditure to be defrayed from the Revenue Account. These Estimates are submitted to Parliament and are discussed here, and consequently this Parliament still has the final power to say, if it wishes to do so, that instead of, for example, R12 million, it is only prepared to vote R10 million, or whatever the case may be. I am giving hon. members a full explanation of this matter—and I think that is why hon. members asked this question—because a restriction can be imposed by this Government in respect of the moneys to be voted for the Bantu homeland of the Transkei or for any other Bantu homeland. If the budget in respect of direct tax, which is calculated at R18 million this year and of which the Transkei receives 21 per cent, i.e. R3,5 million, were to increase by next year, 21 per cent would, of course, come to more than R3,5 million. As I explained a moment ago, it did not necessarily follow, if the amount next year were to be R25 million, for example, that the Transkei’s pro rata share would be R4 million, that this House of Assembly would vote an exact additional pro rata amount corresponding to that direct tax. The procedure is as I have just explained here with regard to the Estimates as they are submitted by the Transkei or any other homeland government. I hope this is clear to hon. members.

What about free books?

The hon. member for Transkei asked me a further question concerning free books. I replied very fully to this during the Second Reading debate and there is actually nothing I can add to that. I should just like to explain the procedure once again in brief to the hon. member. With the abolition of the Bantu Education Account this Parliament will vote moneys in respect of the urban Bantu for Bantu education for the urban Bantu. As regards free books, the Department of Bantu Education, which remains the expert department on the education matters of the Bantu in the White areas of South Africa, will, as in the case of the procedure I have just explained to the hon. member, take into account all the factors when it has its Estimates before it. This department, like a homeland government, will make provision for free books, too, in terms of and with due regard to shortfalls in education, school requirements and all the other requirements of education. If the department could spend R500 000, for example, on free books and were to find in the new Estimates that it could spend R1 million on free books, it would do so. As regards the question of free books for Bantu in urban areas, the answer therefore is that the department will, as it did in the past, scrutinize the requirements very closely and see what amount it can find to spend on free books. As I told the hon. member during the Second Reading debate, this amount has increased considerably in recent times and at the moment more than R1 million is spent on free books. However, if one has a small blanket for covering a large body, it does happen that when one pulls the blanket over one’s head one’s feet are uncovered, and vice versa. This, more or less, is the position as regards free books. One must budget according to the most urgent requirements and determine the priorities. Only then is it possible to see how much can be found for spending on other requirements, in this case, free books.

Does the Deputy Minister mean that the way they budget for the amount which is paid to a homeland, is that the homeland first prepares its own budget and sets a certain amount aside for education. Then that budget is sent to the central Government, to the Department of Education. They then consider and assess it and sees if it is in accordance with the requirements of the homeland. So, the department and the central Government are really the final arbitrators as to how much should be spent in the homeland, which amount depends on the economic position of the country.

[Inaudible.]

So apparently, the central Government, the Department of Education, does not, in coming to a conclusion as to the amount that should be paid over or passed, take into consideration the taxes, indirect or direct, paid by the homeland citizens. I also want to ask him, how does he arrive at the figure of 21 per cent which applies to the Transkei? It seems to me it is on the population basis.

The hon. member has just brought in a new point, one which is very important. Let us understand this across the floor of this House, because it may give rise to a misunderstanding outside. After I had explained to him what the budgeting procedure was and would continue to be, the hon. member said, “The Department or the Government does not take into consideration the taxes paid, in this case, by the Transkei, in other words, the taxes paid by the Bantu.” However, this is not a completely correct deduction. It is extremely difficult to calculate exactly what the Bantu’s contribution is by way of, for example, sales duty and other indirect taxes. Furthermore, by budgeting we are able to determine the amount of direct tax, which in this case, as I have told you, is R18 million this year. Therefore the position is that we are able to determine the approximate amount paid by the Bantu in indirect and direct taxes but we are unable to say exactly how much this will be in rands and cents. We say, however, our policy is that the Bantu themselves should make their own contributions in the interests of their own education. That is why the hon. member is not quite correct. We most definitely take into account what the Bantu’s contribution is by way of indirect and direct taxes, and in considering policy on our side, it is a factor we take into account when a determination is made regarding what amount is to be voted from Revenue Account to Bantu Education. Therefore this is another very important factor which has to be taken into account, and we must not have any misunderstanding about this, because this is the fact of the matter, and it is the policy of this Government that it should be done in this way.

I want to content myself with telling the hon. member once more, just as I explained to him before, that we have the guarantee of increasing taxes being paid by the Bantu. We realize that this is not only in respect of education services, but we settled the matter in the Second Reading debate that education was an extremely delicate matter and had been an extremely delicate matter throughout the years. Now we have this guarantee of Bantu contributions on the one hand, and to the extent to which the Bantu make larger contributions, we feel free to make proper provision accordingly for his education requirements. Therefore we say that, in terms of that, we may now expect contributions from the Revenue Account as well.

The hon. member’s final question concerned the figure of 21 per cent. The position is that up to last year the appropriation to the Transkei was 15 per cent, but when the other homelands also reached the stage of self-government through the Bantu Self-Government Act of 1971 and also reached the Chapter 1 stage, we had to take another look at that situation. We did so very thoroughly. It was then decided, in conjunction with other interested bodies and persons, that the yardstick for estimating the pro rata portion of the tax to be given to the Revenue Fund of each Bantu homeland was to be more or less the number of Bantu of each homeland people. Therefore the answer is that the numbers caused us to arrive at the figure of 21 per cent in respect of the Transkei, as well as the percentages in respect of the others.

Clause put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, in replying to the Second Reading debate the hon. the Deputy Minister spent a considerable amount of time in justifying the abolition of this Bantu Education Account. We could not quite appreciate why he had to spend so much time and energy to justify something with which we agree. What he was trying to do, of course, was to give the impression that the Bantu themselves were now making a greater contribution towards Bantu education, but I submit that he could not prove that in any way, except to say that it was desirable that they should pay more. We agree with that, but I submit that he has not satisfied this House that the Bantu will in fact be paying more, proportionately, than they did when this account was introduced in 1965. Sir, the increase in expenditure on Bantu education is not keeping pace with the contributions of the Bantu through direct and indirect taxation and we do not in fact expect it to do so. The hon. the Deputy Minister’s reason for the abolition of this Account is that it serves no purpose. He says that because of constitutional developments the homelands have their own Education Account; that they budget for their own revenue and that therefore this account is no longer necessary. Sir, I submit that in 1970 the development of the homelands was well on the way. The Transkei, in fact, had started budgeting for its own account in 1964, six years before that. Sir, what was the attitude of the Minister of Finance in 1970 towards this account? If the case put up by the hon. the Deputy Minister now is a valid one, then it should have applied in 1970, because the homeland Governments were then on their way to development. What did the Minister of Finance say in discussing the Bantu Education Account in 1970? He said—

I submit, Sir, that the whole system of budgeting for Bantu education had proved a failure. When the Bantu Education Act was passed in 1955, the amount to be paid from revenue was pegged at R13 million, but the expenditure continued to rise, and the Bantu themselves could not collect sufficient in direct taxation to finance the increased expenditure. The Department of Bantu Affairs was therefore compelled to come to the Government of the Republic in order to get these amounts which they are now writing off, first of all by way of loans and then grants. As the hon. the Minister of Finance pointed out, it was a most unsatisfactory way. The system itself was unsatisfactory in that the loans could never be repaid, and therefore the amounts to be paid for Bantu education were being camouflaged by putting them down as loans and grants. Sir, it is not possible to tell from the homeland budgets when they appear—I have the Transkei Budget before me—how much is allocated to education by the Government of the Republic, because the total budget is produced for all the portfolios; the total amount required to be expended is set out and then the revenue is shown in the form of collections by the Transkei Government of general tax, local tax, stamp duties, estate duties, rents on Government property, forest revenue, transfer duty, motor vehicle tax, immovable property tax, etc. The amount that they themselves collect through taxation and by way of profits from the tea plantation and the phormium tenax plantation, for instance, amounts for this last year to R6 693 000. The Government of the Republic contributed R22 767 000 in order to balance the Budget of the Transkei Government. It is set out here that the Government of the Republic contributed R10 235 000 and R12 532 000, but it is not stated here how much they allotted specially for education, calculated on what the Bantu themselves contributed by way of direct or indirect taxation. The Government of the Republic, quite correctly, has given sufficient money to balance the Transkei Budget, but it is wrong for the hon. the Deputy Minister to come to this House and to try to tell the public that the Bantu are going to pay more for their own education out of the taxes that they pay. He made a long speech on this principle that they should pay for their own education. I submit, Sir, that they are no different from the Coloureds, the Indians or the White people. We all pay taxes to meet the costs of our education. Not every White man, however, or every Indian or Coloured pays a direct tax for education, and yet their children are educated because the revenue comes from the General Revenue Fund; that is the proper way to do it and that is why we support this measure, because the Government is now financing Bantu education in what we say is the correct way of doing it. That is why we were opposed originally to the 1955 legislation. [Interjections.] Sir, the financing of Bantu education could have gone on through the Bantu Education Account; the Government could have continued to pay in the money just as it was doing and then paid it out again to Bantu Education, but that had two disadvantages. The first, of course, was that the amount in the Bantu Education Account was pegged at R13 million, an unrealistic figure, so they had to get rid of that, and, secondly, it would have disclosed exactly how much was being paid for Bantu education. It would, have come out of this special account. Now, however, nobody knows how much is being paid for Bantu education unless one goes through the Budgets of all the homelands, as well as referring to the Bantu Education Account in our own Estimates.

I say therefore that the purpose of this Bill, of abolishing this account, is two-fold, and we suspect that one of the main reasons is that it will now no longer be disclosed how much money is being spent on Bantu education. You see, Sir, although hon. members opposite talk very glibly about spending money on education and say that everybody must have better education in keeping with the terms and that the Bantu must be better educated together with the other groups, this was not always the policy of the National Party. In 1944 Mr. De Wet Nel put out a pamphlet as secretary of the HNP in which he asked “Where are we going? Are such things possible in South Africa?” One of the things he mentioned was that in 1944 an amount of over £1 million would be devoted to Native education of which £615 000 came from the White man’s pocket. That was the attitude of the National Party towards Native education. They criticized the amount that was being spent.

That is not the full story.

The Minister says that although Dr. Verwoerd was responsible for pegging this amount at R13 million, he did not intend that to be final, and he quoted from Handsard to prove it. Dr. Verwoerd complained that the Government was not getting the full amount that it should from Bantu taxation, because the Bantu were not paying the taxes that they should pay. He said that if the correct amount had been paid annually, it would not have been necessary for the contribution from the Government to be £6½ million. He went on to say—

Which he intended setting aside for Native education—

Then he went on to say that this account would bear the cost for five years. He said—

If the hon. the Deputy Minister is right in saying that Dr. Verwoerd himself envisaged increasing the amount, I ask why they never did it? This account has been in force now for 17 years and they have had to resort to subterfuges; they have had to grant loans and grants for the last ten years to balance this account. I submit that if Dr. Verwoerd intended increasing the amount as they are now saying, they could have altered the Act, and it would not have been necessary to resort to these subterfuges. The Bantu Education Account has now soared to R75 million. That is what it cost us this last year. In only one year, last year, it went up over the previous year by R15 million. I say that this is to be expected because everything is going up and the only reasonable way to finance it is as is now proposed, in the way we wanted it done all along. That is why we opposed the 1955 Act and we will support the hon. the Deputy Minister now.

I want to express my thanks to the Opposition for the fact that they are supporting this measure, and on behalf of this side of the House I want to express my thanks to them for assisting us in our attempt to pilot this measure through both Houses as speedily as possible. I appreciate it, and we on this side of the House appreciate it. Although this is the case, it has nevertheless become very apparent from the discussions up to now that in regard to this matter there is a marked difference between that side of the House and this side of the House. It is no use explaining that difference away, for it does exist. The difference is that this side of the House inexorably takes the stand that, whilst it realizes how important Bantu education is in South Africa and also how important education is to everybody in South Africa, and whilst it wants to do everything in its power to assist in promoting Bantu education as and when required, the Whites cannot simply go on paying for Bantu education, but that it is imperative that the Bantu themselves should make their contribution in respect of Bantu education. They should do so through direct and indirect taxation, and to the extent to which the Bantu are making that contribution, to that extent this side of the House, and therefore the Government, is prepared to help Bantu education whenever the need arises by contributing from the Revenue Fund. This is the standpoint taken by this side of the House, and, surely, this is the right standpoint. At the Second Reading we established that Bantu education, just like any other form of education, is an extremely delicate matter. It is a matter which involves a great deal of emotion, for whenever one is dealing with the education of a child, one touches upon a matter which is very close to the heart of the parent and of the child. The same goes for a Bantu parent. As education is so very important to the Whites in this country, and as they consider it to be so extremely important, this side of the House rightly maintains that one cannot, should not or may not, irrespective of the circumstances, except the White parents to pour money into Bantu education, the result being that the Whites have to finance the education of the Bantu in this country. We say that this is not right, and if this is the standpoint that has to be maintained, it will cause a great deal of trouble in this country. I say that this is patently wrong, and that side of the House should have no illusions about the fact that we are saying it is wrong. In the course of these debates this has stood out very clearly.

In the olden days their policy was one of handing things on a platter.

Whilst that side of the House are supporting the changed procedure in respect of the Bantu Education Account, they intimated very clearly in this debate that their side of the House …

May I put a question?

Let me just finish my point and then the hon. member may ask his question. In the course of this debate it has become very apparent that the standpoint of that side of the House is that Bantu education is so important, is of such overriding importance—the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the other speakers suggested this—that the Whites may as well be asked to finance and to pay for it irrespective of what the Bantu’s contribution by way of taxation is. We say that is wrong.

That is not true.

No, it is true, and I can bring these hon. members one quotation after the other of what they said during the discussion of this matter. After all, this was in fact the point of attack used by that side of the House all the time.

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question?

No, the hon. member for Green Point has to put his question first.

The hon. the Deputy Minister talked about the revenue from direct and indirect taxation. Can he tell the House about how he intends, or what formula he will apply, to determine the contribution in indirect taxation by the Bantu to the Consolidated Revenue Account?

Mr. Speaker, may I, with further reference to that, put my question now? Would the hon. the Deputy Minister tell us whether he regards all general revenue as White revenue?

I did not hear that properly.

The question is whether he regards all revenue in the Consolidated Revenue Fund as taxes coming from the Whites alone.

From the questions put by the hon. members on that side of the House hon. members can now see how they are trying to put up a lightning-conducter here. [Interjections.] No, that is true. I shall reply properly to the questions of the hon. members. The hon. members know me as a person who does not run away. I want to reply to these questions. I want to start by saying that in this very connection the hon. member for Transkei said, “You could not prove that the Bantu is paying more taxes.” That is my point. These two hon. members have now put their questions and they are embroidering on that point. That is precisely my complaint against that side of the House. Whilst we on this side of the House say that we realize that Bantu education is important, we also say that if the Bantu do not make an increasing contribution by way of direct and indirect taxation, we are not prepared to come to this House and to say that the Whites have to pay for that education. Now those hon. members are saying, “You cannot prove that the Bantu is paying more taxes.” Now, the hon. member admitted that that was his point, and hon. members have heard the questions put by those two hon. members. Let me now show you, Sir, how truly ridiculous the question of the hon. member for Transkei is, as well as the questions put by the two gentlemen for Green Point and Bezuidenhout. Sir, what happened? In 1969 this Government, the National Government, piloted through this House of Assembly an Act entitled the Bantu Taxation Act. What does that Act provide? That Act provided that, for the first time in the history of this country, a Bantu person would in future pay tax, on the basis of a pay-as-you-earn system, on an income exceeding R30 per month. Surely, not even a child would ask one what those hon. members have asked. Their standpoint is, “I cannot prove that the Bantu are paying more.” Let me tell you this, Sir: In 1965 the revenue in respect of the Bantu’s direct taxation—I am dealing, first of all, with the direct taxation—amounted to R6 million in round figures. Those members are witnesses to that. Down to the smallest percentage I spelt out to them that the Estimates for this year in respect of the Bantu’s direct taxation were not R6 million, as it was six years ago, but R18 million. Therefore, in six years’ time the direct taxation was more than trebled. Now the hon. member says, “I could not prove that the Bantu are paying more taxes.” Surely, this is ridiculous. And then one finds frontbenchers, such as the members for Green Point and Bezuidenhout, rising and asking me the questions they did. But this is not the full story by a long chalk, Sir.

You are fencing now.

No, I am not fencing; I am speaking the truth, but what is further removed from the truth? The hon. member has levelled the charge at me “that I could not prove that the Bantu are paying more taxes”. I have now stated the position in respect of direct taxation, but in 1970 the Minister of Finance introduced purchase tax. The Bantu in this country had never before paid purchase tax. Prof. Hupkes and his associates have calculated that at the moment the purchasing power of the Bantu in this country is probably more than R3 000 million. They calculated that two years ago the purchasing power of the Bantu in this country was probably more than R2 000 million. Now you see two things at the same time, namely how mighty the purchasing power of the Bantu has in fact become, and also the extent to which it has increased within a very short time. I told hon. members that according to calculations the total revenue from purchase tax would amount to more or less R180 million or R185 million. Now they are saying that the Bantu are not paying more in direct and indirect taxation, and they want to prod me into saying precisely what amount the Bantu are paying in purchase tax. Now I am telling them this straight out: They can bring pressure to bear until they are blue in the face, but I cannot tell them precisely what it is, because it is a disputable amount. It is an amount on which it is possible to speculate. One cannot say with certainty, and for the very reason that education is such a delicate matter which touches the heart of the parent, I feel that if I have to mention an amount, I want to mention the correct amount which has been determined after many and definitive calculations. Many calculations are being made now, and surely hon. members can make their own calculations if they want to; it is easy. I am telling them now that the purchasing power of the Bantu is more than R3 000 million. Really, Sir, after all is said and done, a responsible person on that side should not rise here and say “I could not prove that the Bantu are paying more taxes”, when he knows that the amount paid by the Bantu in indirect taxation, is huge. Now those hon. members are quiet. They should not make such irresponsible statements here. Sir, I hope I have now proved to hon. members that the Bantu have by way of direct taxation paid a considerable amount more since 1969. This is so because of the steps taken by this National Government, and why? It is because it has implemented its policy. It realizes how important Bantu education is, and it says: If Bantu make more contributions, they can be provided with better education, and we can help them to get better education. That is why the Government introduced the pay-as-you-earn system of taxation, and also why it introduced the sales duty, as a result of which it is possible for the Bantu to make a much larger contribution to their own education. Therefore I hope that we have now heard the last of that kind of attitude in this House. The hon. members persisted in adopting the attitude that we on this side of the House were merely abolishing the Bantu Education Account because of the fact that the Education Account had been a so-called flop. That is most definitely not correct. The hon. member wants to know whether what Dr. Verwoerd had said, was true. I want to tell the House once again how this was phrased by Dr. Verwoerd. I am quoting from the Hansard of 1955, Volume 87, column 314—

In this regard he was referring to the pegging at R13 million.

That was the position in 1955. The period he mentioned, expired five years later. The hon. member said that if what Dr. Verwoerd had said was supposedly true—I say it is most definitely true; it has been recorded in Hansard and it cannot be disputed …

Why then was the R13 million not increased?

The hon. member’s question is that if what was said by Dr. Verwoerd is true, why then did the Government not increase the amount of R13 million long ago, after 1960, when the Education Estimates were getting larger. I am a very honest person, and I am going to give him a frank, honest answer to it. The answer is implied in the spirit that was evident in the course of this debate, namely that education is a delicate matter which one has to handle with care and which one should not allow to be flung about like a political football. If this side of the House had increased that amount arbitrarily, an important matter such as Bantu education would have been made a political football in this country, as sure as the sun rose this morning. I call to mind the speech made by the hon. member for Transkei last Wednesday evening, when the Second Reading of this Bill was dealt with, and I say that that was a political speech from A to Z. We are grateful to be able to say—may I say in all humility that I hope it was under my good influence—that comparatively the hon. members kept politics out of this arena after that, for I tried not to make any political capital out of this matter.

Was it not a political football this afternoon?

The hon. members can talk as much as they please, and in a moment I shall come back to the question of the pegged amount. Let me make this appeal now: It is most definitely in the interests of this country that this bold step has now been taken, the step which the National Party Government has taken in respect of the Bantu Education Account, which is the direct crystallization of the success of the implementation of the policy of multi-national development. Because that policy was such a success, this account is being abolished, and there is no other explanation for it. This is proven by historic facts, for in 1964 Dr. Verwoerd, along with the officials of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, personally and with his own hand wrote clause 52 into the Draft Constitution of the Transkeien Government.

That he had to give as much money as was required.

No. What does that Constitution say? I have it here; unfortunately I do not have the time to read it to the hon. members, but that hon. member ought to know it well. What happened at the time? In 1964 Dr. Verwoerd himself helped to establish the Revenue Fund for the Transkeien Government, and as far as the Transkeien Government is concerned, this Parliament decided in 1964 already to abolish the Bantu Education Account, as it had survived up to that stage. That hon. member knows this.

But what percentage of the Bantu does that affect?

Now they have doubts as to whether that was the logical consequence of the successful implementation of the policy of multi-national development. Back in 1964 Dr. Verwoerd abolished that account for the Transkei and established a Revenue Fund of its own for the Transkei. All that has happened subsequently—and these are historic facts from which hon. members opposite cannot escape —is that in 1971 the present Minister of Bantu Administration introduced the Bantu Homelands Constitution Bill as a further logical consequence of the development of the policy of multi-national development. Hon. members on this side of the House know how that legislation was fought tooth and nail by hon. members on that side of the House. We even had a Joint Sitting in this House when that Act was piloted through. What happened then? Section 6 of the Bantu Homelands Constitution Act, 1971, and section 52 of the Transkei Constitution Act, 1963, are verbally identical. Just as the Bantu Education Account was abolished by Dr. Verwoerd in 1964 in so far as it concerned the Transkei and a Revenue Fund for the Transkeian Government was established on their own budget, which is in essence the same as our own— and I have asked hon. members to look at that budget so that they might discuss this matter more sensibly—so, in 1971, the Bantu Homelands Constitution Act was introduced here, and the step was merely taken further in respect of the other seven Bantu homelands. By way of the same wording as that used in the Transkei Constitution Act, it was also provided that each of the other homelands should be granted its own Revenue Fund, and therefore it is logical to abolish, just as was done in the case of the Transkei, the Bantu Education Accounts of the other Bantu homelands as well. That is what is happening here. Because we anticipated this in 1969, and even before that, and because it is the policy of this Government that the educational needs of the Bantu will be met to the extent to which they make their contribution by way of direct and indirect taxation, this Government made the necessary provision in good time by introducing in 1969 the Bantu Taxation Act and, subsequent to that, purchase tax, by way of which the Bantu are contributing a great deal more in respect of taxes than was the case before. Hon. members opposite are welcome to try and throw up a smokescreen by saying that this account is being abolished as a result of the fact that it was a flop, as the hon. member for Transkei said, but that is not true. Apart from the logical development, which I have indicated now, there is still the additional fact that we could, after all, have made other plans, if we had wanted to do so, for either taking away or increasing the pegged amount in respect of Bantu education. After all, for years we made other plans by way of the Loan Account and by way of advances from the Revenue Fund. If the Bantu Education Account had therefore been a flop, surely we could also have made any other plan. We have not done so because one is dealing here with the logical development of a policy which hon. members opposite cannot explain away, and this is the reply in regard to this matter.

I want to conclude by telling hon. members that …

Were the loans logical?

Of course the loans were the logical step to take at that stage. That was the most obvious step to take in regard to that first phase, when there was a deficit on …

Who is supposed to pay that back?

But, surely, we are paying it back now. [Interjections]. Hon. members opposite are starting once again with their political delirium tremens laugh. It is being paid back by way of this legislation which is going to be passed now.

Who is paying it back?

It is being paid out of the Revenue Fund. If the Bantu had not made their contribution by way of direct and indirect taxes, we would ten to one have made another plan for getting that money back. In fact, one could argue that the Bantu themselves are paying that money back through the increased income tax they have to pay and through the purchase tax contribution they are making. Why are hon. members not laughing at it again? They should not try to pass the matter off as lightly as that, for they will not succeed.

I want to conclude by telling you, Sir, that we are implementing the policy of multi-national development logically here. Hon. members are still going to stumble over this matter on many occasions, for if there has ever been something beautiful, then it is this logical development. I wish hon. members would have more discussions with the Bantu leaders on this matter, for then we would also have more unanimity on it in this House. If that were to happen, this country would benefit. I may as well tell you that, just as we are implementing our policy very logically in respect of Bantu education, whilst we appreciate the necessity of Bantu education—in terms of the policy as stated here by me, we shall go on helping them by making up deficits as required and according to the contributions made by the Bantu by way of indirect taxation—our policy on the other hand is also very clear, and we are in the process of implementing it, namely that Bantu education is geared homeland-centrically; the proof of that is reflected in the latest figures. At the moment the total number of schools in the homelands is 5 968—I know the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is interested in this—as against 5 442 Bantu schools in the White area of South Africa. In the Bantu homelands there are 31 358 teachers—97 per cent of the teachers in Bantu education today are Bantu teachers; White teachers represent only 3 per cent at the moment—as against 20 806 in the White area of South Africa. The number of Bantu children attending schools in the homelands is 1 843 063 as against 1 193 688 in the White area. I think that if there has ever been a magnificent achievement on the part of the National Government, then it is that achievement in the sphere of Bantu education. I also want to express my sincere thanks to the officials who are making this important contribution, the Secretary for Bantu Education and the other officials, for this praiseworthy work which has brought us to a fine milestone in the history of this country, i.e. the abolition of the Bantu Education Account as a result of its having been outgrown owing to the implementation of the policy of multi-national development. My wish and my hope—and I shall continue to do this—is to keep this matter as far away from the political arena as possible. I hope that we can rely on that side to try to make a positive contribution along these lines as well.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.