Mr. Speaker, one asks oneself the question: What is the basis of the criticism levelled against this Budget by the Opposition? What is the true reason for the Opposition coming here and asking for a commission of inquiry into the activities of the Railways? Sir, I can safely say that it does not concern the management of the Railways, because in point of fact, a number of compliments have been paid to the Management of the Railways by the other side of the House. I can say, too, that it does not concern the productivity maintained by the Railways. The high degree of productivity maintained by the Railways, speaks for itself. Sir, it does not concern proper planning or modernization of the service either, because here, too, the other side of the House agreed that everything necessary was being done in this regard. Nor does it concern large-scale inefficiency. Of course, minor criticism was levelled by the other side of the House. The hon. member for Durban Point, for example, referred to the inability of the harbours from time to time to deal with all the cargo. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti, again, levelled criticism concerning certain aspects of the luxury bus services and of the airways. He had other criticism too, but that one must expect. In as vast an industry as the Railways, one simply has to expect shortcomings in certain sectors of the industry. We have never hesitated to acknowledge that. We accept that criticism can be levelled concerning minor matters, but mention to me one transport service of the scope of the S.A. Railways anywhere in the world that provides more efficient service than the S.A. Railways, and I will be prepared to give you a hearing. The same can be said of the S.A. Airways. It compares very favourably with the best in the world. I say, therefore, that the charges that have been made here are trifling and have nothing to do with the major considerations, for example whether the Railways is being managed efficiently or not. Sir, we who have been sitting in this House for many years know ourselves where the point of friction is. We know that the major weakness in the Railways revenue account is the fact that the Railways has to transport so much uneconomic freight. This, therefore, is intimately bound up with the low-rated traffic of the Railways.

And with the passengers.

Now, we have had various commissions over the years. For example we had the Schumann Commission to investigate the principle underlying the rates structure of the S.A. Railways. Therefore we have already had a commission to investigate this matter of rates.

In 1962 we had the Borckenhagen Commission on financial relationships. In 1963 we had the Van Zyl Committee to investigate the Republic’s export trade, something ments by private industry. In 1965 we had the Marais Commission to investigate the co-ordination of transport. In 1972 we had the Reynders Commission to investigate the Republic’s export tradt, something that is closely connected with the harbours. In 1973 we had the Riekert Commission which investigated the decentralization of industries, something that is also related to the activities of the Railways, and lastly, in 1973, we had the Driessen Commission to investigate suburban transport. Besides these commissions there have also been a great many departmental commissions. Now, after we have investigated all these aspects of the activities of the Railways and put our finger on the point of friction, the hon. member for Durban Point and his side of the House solemnly propose that we should appoint yet another commission. To investigate what? Every sector of the industry has already been investigated.

May I put a question? May I ask the hon. member whether it is not true that all those commissions which both he and I mentioned were limited to one specific aspect of the Railways Administration?

No, one cannot have a commission which investigates only an isolated aspect of the service. The investigations undertaken by these commissions ranged widely across the activities of the Railways although some of them had limited terms of reference. For example, the Schumann Commission dealt specifically with the rates structure. [Interjections.] Yes, a diagnosis was made and the hon. mem bar for Maitland spelt it out again yesterday. He says that that is the factor, that is the problem which has become worse over the years and which has now driven the hon. the Minister into a corner, viz. the rates structure, in which low rates play such a decisive role. Sir, we accepted the report of the Schumann Commission and said that we should implement it gradually, because this House must acknowledge that the difference between the low rates and the high rates should only be eliminated gradually. One cannot bridge that gap all at once. There will always have to be a differentiation of tariffs and we recognize this. This is something that is built into the provisions of the Constitution in regard to the functions of the Railways. The man who is prepared to eliminate this gap between the low and the high rates all at once, will completely disrupt the overall economic structure in this country. Therefore this is a process which must be implemented gradually as has been done by this Government on two occasions. On the first occasion, i.e. after the Schumann Commission submitted its report, the previous Minister said: It has been found necessary at this stage to increase tariffs; this is an opportunity to give effect to the report of the commission, namely to add a bigger surcharge to the low rates than to the high. Now the present Minister is doing the same. While the increase in high rates has been somewhere in the region of 6%, he increased the low rates by up to three times as much with the very aim of narrowing that gap. And are we getting the assistance of members opposite, who know that this is the problem that causes the railways to forfeit a great deal of income? Are we now being given the necessary assistance by the other side of the House? Do they say that the Minister is on the right track because he is gradually and progressively eliminating this weakness in the rates structure without disrupting the economy of the country? No, but what are they doing instead? They are not complaining about the reasonable increases in the high rates. No one opposite has asked why we increased the high rates by about 5,6%. They come here and complain endlessly that we are giving effect to the report of the Schumann Commission. Is that not true? Is it not true that the hon. member for Maitland said that this was the great weakness in the existing rates structure? And then he turned round and appealed to us not to increase the low tariffs. We asked him: But what should one do then? By implication he said that we should let the gap remain. Did the hon. member not say specifically: We should not increase the fares? When we asked him by how much the fares should be increased, he said: No, do not increase the low fares; go and ask the Government for aid; let the Government pay for it. Is that not what the hon. member said?

I suggested other methods.

I know about the other methods, but the hon. member spoke about the low fares, and the low fares mean a loss of about R100 million for the Railways every year. The hon. member is fully aware what the problem is. He knows what the cure is, too, namely that these fares be gradually increased. Then he and the hon. member of the Progressive Party complain that we are reducing the gap between the rates. That is our difficulty with hon. members opposite. They know just as well as we do what the solution is. However, they are not prepared to recognize the facts. If one were to leave them and they were to be faced with this situation …

Heavens no!

If the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Maitland had been in charge of this Budget, one would really have seen a fine mess. [Interjections.] I shall tell hon. members what they would have done. The hon. members are unable to accept a challenge. When they are faced with a major situation, they always try to shy away from it. I shall say here today what the hon. member for Durban Point would have done if he had been Minister of Railways. He would do well to be honest and tell me whether he would have done this or not. He would not have increased tariffs, not so?

I should have acted far more wisely.

He is not even prepared to say that, notwithstanding the fact that he taunted the Minister for having increased the rates. However, he himself is not prepared to say that he would not have increased the rates. I am telling the hon. member now that he would not have increased the rates. He would have been too afraid to do so. What would he have done? The R32 million surplus we had this year he would have placed, not in the Rates Equalization Fund, where it belongs, but instead he would have used it as revenue and then budgeted for a deficit of about R50 million next year. At the same time he would have cherished the hope that the favourable climate of which he painted such a detailed picture here yesterday, namely that there would be a greater flow of traffic and that this would mean more revenue for the Railways, would be a windfall for him next year, and that for the rest he could have depended on that. Is that not what the hon. member would have done? The hon. member for Maitland said that he would have done that.

There is no doubt that we should have had a strong economy if we were in power.

In saying that the hon. member for Durban Point has now admitted that that would be the course he would have followed. That being so, I want to tell the hon. member that by doing that he would only have staved off the evil day. Does the hon. member, a man who has both feet on the ground, now want to tell me that he can budget now for a deficit of R50 million next year? Where would he have got the money from next year and the subsequent year?

Read my amendment.

That is typical of the United Party: When they are faced with a difficult situation, they merely try to stave off the evil day. “Tomorrow is another day” and perhaps the dear Lord will provide a solution in the meantime!

Let us have a look at the activities of the Railways. The hon. member for Durban Point conceded that as far as the present financial year is concerned, factors such as the very substantial salary increases, the steel prices, the fuel prices, etc., had a very major impact on the economy of the Railways. He admitted this and said, too, that these things were unavoidable. He therefore recognizes that these expenditures were essential, and then, as usual, he asked that there be still greater expenditure.

Inter alia, he broke a lance for the pensioners. It is a pity that we should sometimes have to agree, but in this regard I want to agree with the hon. member about one matter. The hon. member said that railway pensioners did not all benefit equally from the increase of 10% and as far as certain groups of railway pensioners are concerned, I want to agree with the hon. member. I refer now to the old pensioners who retired five years ago or more. I think that this is a matter on which there is a fair measure of agreement on both sides of the House and I believe that the hon. the Minister will give consideration to the matter in his own time. The fact is that these minimum pensioners are having a hard time of it. It is no use their basic salaries being increased. There is also the problem that the special temporary allowance which was granted to them, is not drawn in its entirety from the Superannuation Fund. The matter is, therefore, more complicated than meets the eye. However, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider once again the position of these railway pensioners who retired five years ago and more.

The hon. member acknowledges that that expense had to be incurred and he asks for still greater expenditure, but what the hon. member does not do, is tell us where the money to pay for it is to come from. All he offers as a solution, is that a commission be appointed. But a commission will not rectify the position for us as far as this Budget is concerned. We therefore want to know from the hon. member what his solution is now. The Progressive Party has a simple solution, naïve as it is. The hon. member for Orange Grove states that there is only one solution, namely that the Railways should simply transport nothing that is not economic. He says that we should forget about low rates and uneconomic rates …

I say if you subsidize you must do so openly.

I am still coming to that. He said, and I have it here in my notes, that low tariffs merely constitute another means to subsidize groups that are already privileged, people such as agriculturists, etc. I should like to refer the hon. member to what the hon. the Minister said in his Budget speech. He said—

We are so quick to criticize this principle of low-rated traffic, but where would the development of South Africa have been if it had not been for the fact that through the years the Railways has carried this low-rated traffic in the interests of the development of agriculture and the economy? I want to point out to the hon. member that the constitution does clearly provide that the Railways is to be run on business principles. But to that is added the express stipulation that due regard should be had to the agricultural and industrial development of the country. This fact the hon. member for Orange Grove has of course never heard about.

As far as the United Party is concerned, the hon. member for Maitland had an even simpler solution. Having diagnosed the weakness, he merely stated that we should not increase the low rates, but that the deficit be made up by the Treasury.

The deficit in respect of passenger traffic.

Surely I have already dealt with the passengers. Now I put the question: Where was the Minister to have obtained the funds to balance the Budget? As I have said, the hon. member for Orange Grove has his solution. The hon. member for Durban Point, again, says that a commission should be appointed, something that will not remedy the situation. The member for Maitland, in his turn, says that we should ask the Government for the money. Sir, I think that there was only one honest solution and basis for this Budget and that was to increase the rates, as has in fact been done by the Minister. Two aims will thereby be accomplished. The primary aim is to acquire sufficient funds to allow the service to carry on unrestricted and to prevent the development of the Railways from being hampered in any way. On the other hand, the recommendations of the Schumann Commission will be further implemented in that the gap between the high and the low tariff classes will be further narrowed.

In spite of the necessity of adjusting tariffs within a reasonably short period closer to the basis of costs, you will note that the Railways increased these rates very circumspectly. The House must accept, as I have said before, that this gap will have to be narrowed gradually, while there will always be differentiation between tariffs, otherwise the economy of the country in general will be disrupted. What is more, by means of this Budget we have succeeded in gradually placing the Railways on a more competitive footing in relation to other transport services. By increasing rates in this fashion, we have also succeeded in reducing future losses on low-rated traffic. In the third place, we have succeeded in causing the social obligation placed on the Railways to become progressively smaller in the future. Sir, I do not have the time to refer to yet another point, and for that reason I shall simply say, “Thank you”.

Mr. Speaker, I feel I must draw the attention of the House and of the hon. the Minister—I think he already knows about this—to some of the hardships which have befallen those who have to pay the higher passenger tariffs. I should like to refer more particularly to some of the less privileged people in this country, those who fall in the poorer categories, those who earn less and those who feel this additional burden to their cost of living much more than others. I should like to read a telegram to the hon. the Minister, a telegram which has been received by a colleague of mine. I read this to him more with the purpose of making a plea than with the object of carping or criticizing him for the tariff which he has imposed. The telegram read as follows:

This telegram comes from the Secretary of an organization called the Association for Educational and Cultural Advancement of Africans. This is a practical example of what the burden of this additional taxation will be. Previously concessions were granted to scholars, but have now been taken away. I must point out particularly in this case that these unfortunate scholars are actually the victims of Government policy. They are obliged to travel these long distances in order to pursue their post-primary education in the homelands. They are going to suffer most severely and in many instances this might even curtail their continued education. I do not want to diverge on to a different topic, but here we have an instance where one of the most vital and most important infrastructure elements of South African life, namely education, could possibly be denied these people by the increase in tariffs. I hope that the hon. the Minister will take the matter into consideration, particularly in the case of this category of travellers, and that he will see what he can do in reply to this appeal which has been made so poignantly by the secretary of this educational association.

I shall deal with the hon. member who has just sat down a little later. There is no question that particularly the increase in passenger tariffs, but also the increase in the case of goods, has come as has rightly been described, as a great shock to the people of South Africa. Despite the assurance that it will affect the cost of living by a mere ripple of less than half percent, I think, as anyone in practical life in this country knows, that it will hardly be the case. One can never limit this ripple which continues all the time over a wide surface. This increase of less than a half percent can assume very much greater proportions than what the hon. the Minister expects and as set out on paper. I wonder whether this was the right time for the hon. the Minister to take the important step of bringing about what he hoped was a proper business administration of the Railways. I wonder whether he chose the right time to add to the cost of living, to add to the inflationary trend and to set in motion something the end of which we cannot picture. The inflation rate is running well over 15% and in many cases it is already nearly 20%. The prices of food have just risen by 34% in one month, which indicates a possible increase of 36% per year if one takes it to its logical conclusion. Was this the right time for the hon. the Minister to have chosen this course? Should he not perhaps have given some additional consideration to the wisdom of dealing with the matter in another way and at a different time? I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that the Governor of the Reserve Bank said in his statement at the annual meeting for stockholders that this is a most serious situation which South Africa is facing. I would like to quote to the hon. the Minister what he said because this is very pertinent. This is a matter to which the hon. the Minister of Finance directed our attention: I quote:

He goes on to say:

He goes on to relate some of the evils, but primarily the message he conveys is that this is the vital evil this country has to consider.

Then I turn to another economist in the person of Dr. Martin van den Berg, who is a well-known economist and banker and is highly respected in this country. I want to quote what he said in a question-and-answer interview because I think his words are of interest to this House. I quote from the newspaper article, beginning with the interviewer’s question:

Dr. Van den Berg: As die Minister die nodige geld daarvoor uit die inkomsterekening van die sentrale Regering sou kon verkry het, sou dit iets meer as een persent van totale netto ontvangste (uitgesonder lenings) verteenwoordig het.

Talking about the question of holding back inflation, a further question is put to him:

This is the point of view of Dr. Van den Berg who goes on to say—if the hon. the Minister will permit me to pursue this article—that South Africa had a very wonderful opportunity to try to avoid inflation by looking rather to another source of income, viz. from the central funds as such. Dr. Van den Berg says further:

In other words, faced with this problem as the hon. the Minister was, here was the first and best opportunity that presented itself to the country to show by example that instead of passing on the costs and so increasing the spiral of inflation, he could well have decided not to do so now and sought an amount which was just about one per cent of the total Budget of the country in order to absorb these costs and so avoid what could be a very serious situation. I commend the article concerned which appeared in Rapport of 22 September 1974 in which Dr. Van den Berg goes further and says that the next 15 months will be the most vital and important period in the history of our country with regard to the control and containing of inflation and that, if we do not succeed, we may well find ourselves in one of the most serious situations imaginable. Let us look back over the past five or six years. We know of the problems the Railways have had, we know of the possible deficits and we know of the possible imbalance with regard to tariffs: We know of all the difficulties which the hon. the Minister is experiencing and which have been enumerated by hon. members on that side of the House, difficulties that have been disclosed arising out of the work of the various commissions and in respect of which so many ad hoc decisions have been taken from time to time. We know all that and yet, despite it all, the position has been so carefully nursed and guarded so as to avoid a step of such magnitude as has been taken this year. Of all times, it has been taken now in the face of and against the background of the extraordinary situation in which South Africa finds itself financially. I have the privilege of associating myself with Dr. Van den Berg and with the Governor of the Reserve Bank when I ask: Was the hon. the Minister wise to have taken this step now in the face of the problems that he is experiencing? Should his wisdom not rather have guided him in the direction of containing the inflationary possibilities, the inflationary spiral, the inflationary trend which he will aggravate by his action? Was it the wisest thing to take this step now rather than contain inflation and seek assistance, as has been done before, from State revenues themselves? I should like to commend that thought to the hon. the Minister when he replies to this debate.

I want to deal now with the question of our having asked for this commission of inquiry. It is essential to ask for a commission. We know according to the demographic prophecies or portents that have been sketched for us by people like Prof. Sadie that by the end of the century we are going to face a total population, as we can assess it at the moment, of some 50 million people of whom the Blacks will number about 37 million. We know that these figures will change over the course of time and most probably increase considerably. For instance, we are aware, as the hon. the Minister of Labour recently told the congress of Sabra, that 60 000 new Black workers will enter our cities throughout the country annually. While that may be the minimum figure that has been assessed for the years to come, it is nevertheless a serious one. Does the hon. the Minister of Transport not realize therefore that as far as urban transport is concerned, one of the most vital and difficult problems may arise? We are concerned not only with the general improvement of urban transport, but also with the transport of workers and other passengers from the Black areas surrounding our big cities, and from the Coloured areas surrounding our big cities like Cape Town, East London and Port Elizabeth, into the cities themselves. This is the sort of information that we should have received from the hon. the Minister. We should, have been given some picture of what the future holds in this regard. I know that the Driessen Committee has been sitting and that it has already submitted a report. However, one would have imagined that at this stage the hon. the Minister would possibly have taken the first step I suggested and contained this inflationary process. At the same time, however, he has given the country a picture of what the future may hold and of what has to be done. We know, for instance, that local authorities have been in touch with the hon. the Minister in regard to some form of liaison between State and city in order to provide the necessary funds and also the necessary joint planning to bring about a very much more effective and up-to-date and modern system of urban transport. When I think of what is happening today with regard to the Black people of Soweto, who still come to the city by virtually the same approaches as previously, confined approaches to a limited number of terminals, people who still make use of the same form of transport, with no noticeable changes having been brought about in order to improve the situation, I am appalled. We should have heard something about this here today. The cities themselves, as the hon. the Minister has been told, are simply choked with transport. Not only here but all over the world urban authorities are talking about underground railway systems, of monorail systems, of entering cities by surface and underground railway systems, and so forth. There are tremendous schemes on the drawing boards and investigations taking place in all parts of the world in regard to this vital question of urban passenger transport. I could give the Minister many references: I could tell him what is happening, for instance, in Hamburg, in Sweden and in Paris. [Interjections.] Sir, I am hesitating because I want to give the Minister the correct information. I do not follow the Nationalist Party policy of giving incorrect information. I could tell the hon. the Minister what is being done in Paris today in order to improve transport facilities. In Stuttgart there is already planning taking place to improve the rail system in order to provide effective urban passenger transport. Sir, the vital point I want to make is that for this to work effectively and in order to have proper liaison and proper planning, it is essential that a big State undertaking like the Railways should be in close contact with what is happening in the big cities. So far the attitude of the hon. the Minister has been, “This has nothing to do with us; this is a problem which must be solved by your city and it must be dealt with entirely by your city and by no one else”. But, Sir, other countries in the world have not adopted that attitude. In the United States, for instance, they have given considerable federal grants of money in order to assist the cities to improve and speed up their urban passenger transport. In Belgium the central Government has financed the cost of rail cars in two new systems which are being constructed in Brussels and Antwerp. The same approach has been taken by the State in Germany. There is close liaison between the State and the urban areas in other countries of the world today in order to bring about constructive and satisfactory planning to be able to deal with this vital problem of urban passenger transport. It is in this field particularly that we should have a comprehensive investigation. I am not satisfied with what the hon. member for Parow has said here. He talks about seven, eight or nine commissions which have investigated such matter over the last 20 years. Of course we know that these commissions have sat, but each one has dealt with a specific aspect of the activities of this great undertaking, and in each period of time a specific change has been brought about, but what is required here is something much more comprehensive to be able to cope with the very rapid development of South Africa over the next 15 or 20 years. Sir, I want to commend these few aspects for the hon. the Minister’s consideration: Firstly, will he tell us whether he thinks he was wise to have taken this step at this particular stage, taking into account the background of the financial position of the country; secondly, should he not have come to us with a very much more graphic, visionary picture, which would have given us some inkling as to the future thinking of a big undertaking such as the Railways with regard to the co-ordination of urban passenger transport in all the big cities of the country so as to be able to meet our economic demands from the point of view of transport of labour; to be able to cope with the increased transport requirements resulting from the growth of our cities, and also to be able to cope with the sociological situation that is arising from these enormous townships which are being built right throughout the country and which adjoin our large cities. Sir, that is the picture that we want the hon. the Minister to point to us; that is the sort of information that we wanted, from him; that is the message of hope that we expect to find in a Budget of this nature—not a Budget Speech which in the first few lines emphasizes the fact that the Railways must be run on business lines and then, after quoting an extract from the Constitution in support of that statement, proceeds to impose additional tariffs on the defenceless customer in every sector of our community. I do not want to restress what has been stressed before. It has, in any event, been made perfectly evident to the hon. the Minister that the burden is going to fall very heavily on this country and its people, and this talk of less than ½% will, I sincerely hope be somewhere near to what he has prophesied but I fear it will be a very serious set-back financially in the inflationary life of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member for Jeppe will expect anybody to react to his speech in connection with rates. I think the hon. member for Parow has already dealt with it thoroughly, hence the fact that the hon. member spoke so briefly. Sir, you will permit me to prolong the calm atmosphere for another while and to say a few words on the Railways staff in particular. The almost 250 000 employees of the Railways—White, Brown, Black and Indian—probably constitute one of the greatest assets which the S.A. Railways have. It means that a close watch has to be kept continually on these people’s working conditions, their conditions of service, their remuneration and, in particular, their security. This is obvious and absolutely essential. During the course of the industrial unrest that prevailed amongst Black workers in Durban this year, it was very striking indeed that as far as the S.A. Railways were concerned, the Black railworkers calmly went on doing their day’s work. It is in fact the greatest demonstration of confidence in the Railways as an employer, of confidence in the Management, that they will constantly watch the working conditions and try to create for the workers working conditions which will be as nearly ideal as possible. That absolute industrial peace is being maintained, is to my mind also to a large extent attributable to the fact that the system of works committees is functioning and being utilized properly. For that reason I think that the hon. members opposite have to a certain extent been taken on tow by the Progressive Party as regards their pleas for Black trade unions, and that they ought to take cognizance of how works committees function in the Railways. Little has been said in this debate about Railway salaries. Since the election is something of the past, one did not expect the Opposition to start an agitation in that regard either; the only exception was that the hon. member for Durban Point—I should not like to do him an injustice—said that he had spoken about it in February. They will not talk about salaries now. The fact of the matter is that the increased rates are at present a much more exploitable topic than are salary increases.

I said the increases were smaller than the prevailing inflation.

But surely that is not the case, Sir. If I have the opportunity towards the end, I shall prove to the hon. member that since 1960 the increase in the wages and salaries of Railway workers has outstripped the rise in the cost of living.

That is true.

Yesterday the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark pointed out here how the Government had been meeting the needs of the Railway worker through salary increases over the years. This demonstrates that the Government is mindful of the Railway worker’s salary and his working conditions, and that it is constantly engaged in improving that situation and also in ensuring that the Railway pensioners are not forgotten. This Government, like any other government, does in fact have a real duty towards the Railway worker to provide him at all times with the security that he will have employment and that his opportunities for employment will not be encroached upon or threatened in the future. Over the years the Railway worker has been rendering his services unselfishly as his contribution to the development of the country. Reference has often been made to this, and for that reason I want to quote verbally what is provided in section 103(1) of the Constitution—

I have specifically quoted this verbally because it is this provision which lays down the principle of high and low rates. Time and again in the past we had please concerning the total subsidization of the Railways from the Treasury. That argument is as old as this hills. However, yesterday the hon. member for Durban Point repeatedly tried to emphasize that point. After all, one does believe that over the years Railway officials too, as organized in their trade unions, were probably of the opinion that the conveyance of such low-rated goods was being subsidized substantially by the Railways and that this could have been a handicap to them in their wage demands as it could prejudice the profitability of the other factors. I do not want to elaborate on this argument. Quite a number of answers were given to it, and there are also counter-factors refuting it. What I want to emphasize today, however, is that through the years the railway worker has faithfully contributed his share, and that he has done so in exchange for industrial security in that the Railways were the only public conveyor without competition from outside. A state of restlessness—at this stage I do not want to refer to it as “unrest”—has now developed amongst railway staff groups. Here I want to refer specifically to the announcement that the Sishen-Saldanha railway line will be operated by Iscor as a multi-purpose line. I want to approach this matter purely from the angle of the staff aspect and not from the angle of its broader financial aspects. That is why I find it a pity that the hon. member for Johannesburg North has already rushed in to this matter, in a weekend newspaper, in a manner which in my opinion will not be to anybody’s advantage or be a source of joy to anybody. I want to say at once that if we concur in our views on the desirability or undesirability of this railway line being operated by Iscor as a multi-purpose line, then it is probably for totally different rasons. The hon. member for Johannesburg North and his party in this House have obviously made it their main task to conduct a crusade against Iscor. One gains the impression that the hon. member and his colleagues here in this House are representing far more interests than only those of Johannesburg North or Sea Point and the others. Almost by the day it is becoming clearer to one that this is a case of “he who pays the piper, calls the tune”. In this process of continuous suspicion-mongering which is being kept going by them and a large section of the Press infinite harm is being done to a concern such as Iscor. For that reason I do not want to enter that field and do not want the standpoints adopted by us on the operation of this railway line to be regarded as an attack on Iscor. At this stage Iscor is conducting very delicate negotiations, and these can be bedevilled completely by the attitude of those hon. members. On 7 March last year, during the course of the Railway Budget, the former Minister of Railways, the hon. Mr. Schoeman, said the following according to Hansard (cols. 2104-5)—

He went on to say—

However, lower down in the paragraph the hon. the Minister said the following—

May I ask the hon. member a question?

If the hon. member would just give me the opportunity of completing my argument, I would consider a question of his. To continue—

At the time there were misgivings amongst Railway people on account of this announcement, but I think that the hon. the Minister’s statement in the Budget satisfied them, especially the conditions laid down by him. It was also accepted at the time that if the Railways themselves had to develop the railway line at that stage, they would not have been able to give the same measure of priority to it as Iscor would be able to do by undertaking its construction itself. But on 30 August of this year a further announcement was made, which has changed the whole situation. I quote from Die Burger of 30 August, in which this matter was reported as follows (translation)—

The announcement of this decision that the Sishen-Saldanha railway line will be a multi-purpose line has, in my opinion, met with approval everywhere. In fact, that announcement was received with great excitement. Especially we who are from the Cape feel tremendously encouraged by the fact that it will now be possible for the North-West to develop further in this regard. That the multi-purpose railway line will nevertheless be operated by Iscor without there being any reference to the cardinal conditions as announced in last year’s Budget speech, is a matter which, I must say, has caused a measure of shock and concern to the railway worker since he now feels threatened in his traditional employment situation. Sir, I just want to read out to you a number of examples from the Press in order to show that a measure of unrest does prevail amongst the railway staff in regard to this whole matter. I want to refer, in the first instance, to the Rand Daily Mail of 5 September, in which the following was stated—

Later in his report there is also a statement by Mr. B. L. Currie of the S.A. Railways and Harbours Salaried Staff Association saying that they feel unhappy about this state of affairs. I am also going to quote just a short passage from the Sunday Times of 8 September—

Many of these fears, as well as the concern in the minds of the railway workers, may perhaps be totally unfounded. That is why I want to plead very seriously with the hon. the Minister today to take into his confidence not only us, but also the Railway staff in particular, and to put their minds at ease. There are in fact a great many questions about this matter which spring to mind and which cause uneasiness at the moment. In the hon. the Minister’s Budget speech he argued that the Administration functioned as a Government department and that this fact had certain undeniable advantages, which he then proceeded to spell out to us. Then the hon. the Minister completed the circle with the following words—

This brings me back to the announcement of 30 August by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, namely that the Cabinet had had another opportunity to consider the second report of the Straszacker Committee and certain other information. We do not have the report of the Straszacker Committee, and because the railway worker is not aware of the recommendations it contains, serious questions arise in his mind. The cardinal question in this regard is in fact what it was in the straszacker report which compelled the Government to take this decision, or is the position that the Railways will not be in a position to take over the operation of that line at this stage? In the announcement mention is made of branch lines and roads which would be built, depending on future needs, and also of the determination of rates. Now questions involuntarily arise in this regard as to how these branch lines are going to link up with the main line between Sishen and Saldanha, how the operation by these two bodies is going to be controlled, how the flow of traffic of the Iscor system is going to link up with our own railway network, and whether this development does not imply a serious threat to Railway interests.

Order! Has the hon. member considered whether he wants to reply to a question?

Not at this stage, Mr. Speaker. Sir, as I have shown you from newspaper reports and also as I have experienced it personally, there is reaction amongst the staff and feeling has been aroused amongst the staff associations which have caused a stir amongst them. The fear exists that, without certain questions being answered, this reaction may promote dissatisfaction, which may imply unnecessarily serious disadvantages for the Administration. These questions have, for instance, arisen: how is rolling stock going to be built for Iscor, how is Iscor’s rolling stock going to be maintained, who will be responsible for the manufacture of parts which are at present being built by the department of the mechanical engineer for the whole Republic? The Van Zyl committee’s report of 1963 did in fact cover the division of work between the mechanical engineer’s department on the one hand and the private sector on the other hand. The Government’s decision at the time to accept the minority report was specifically aimed at not extending the activities of the mechanical workshops of the Railways to such an extent that they would encroach upon the work of the private sector, but at ensuring that the work done by the mechanical engineer’s department at that stage would remain the prerogative of the Railways. Our Railway staff, like any other staff, can only be kept satisfied if they are promised that railway work will be retained for the railway worker. Owing to the changed pattern in work activities and in rolling stock requirements the stage has already been reached where the amount of work in the steel production shops has begun to show a downward trend in recent years. The situation has already been reached that there is a downward trend of between 25% and 30% in the amount of work done in the workshops in Salt River. With further changes in the pattern of work and the further phasing out of steam, this percentage will inevitably show an increase, and this trend will possibly spread to other workshops in Salt River as well. After all, it is only natural that this trend should cause concern amongst the railway staff. We have an adequate works in Cape Town and the working facilities in Koedoespoort are very modem, but a further drop to below the capacity potential could have very serious consequences for these workshops. The manufacture of parts and the maintenance of rolling stock for Iscor’s purposes could have a tremendous effect on the Railways and could also be in the national interest. As a result of the downward trend in the working load at Salt River, they have recently had to withdraw 20 units from their particular trades and transfer them to trades that are strange to them. At the moment this is keeping those artisans partly satisfied, but hon. members can understand that there will be real concern about the future in their minds. If private companies should also enter this industry, this process would be aggravated unnecessarily and it could even have serious complications. The act of the matter is that the Railways have the necessary mechanical facilities, that they have the necessary engineers and that they have the technicians who have the knowledge to be able to do the work. Concern has already been expressed in other spheres about the possibility that the introduction of television will place tremendous pressure on our technicians. The fact that the Sishen-Saldanha railway line will be electrified means that there will be a very strong additional need for electricians who will duplicate the existing service.

I want to emphasize a last aspect which really is a cause of concern to the railway worker, namely that the Railways are making provision for a specific division of work between Whites and non-Whites with a specific salary structure. The entry of another employer into the same field with another labour set-up and another salary structure can, from the nature of the case, cause us tremendous problems. It is these problems in particular which will come to the fore when the staff of the Railways and the staff of Iscor will have to integrate in a specific employment situation, e.g. where the S.A.R. branch lines and Iscor lines will link up with one another.

I have really tried to convey the fears and the concern of the railway worker to the hon. the Minister in a spirit of responsibility. If there is a person who will understand those fears only too well, then it is in fact the former artisan who, in his time, also stood behind the work-bench in Salt River and who is the Minister at the moment. He is a person to whom those railway workers are looking up with unlimited confidence. The railway worker is not looking for any confrontation in this situation, he is only looking for security to be able to work, and not only to be able to work in the immediate future, but also in the years ahead. For that reason I am making this very serious plea today: Give the railway worker the certainty that this line which is now going to run parallel to his will join up with his line again just beyond the proverbial hill, and that this joint line will be able to run forward in the future, not only in his interests but also in those of the whole of South Africa.

Now I shall consider replying to the question of the hon. member.

Can the hon. member tell me the difference between a multi-purpose line and a general line?

Same difference. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, my friend, the hon. member for Tygervallei, has the gift of the gab. He avoided answering a question up to the last moment, and then, to my surprise, furnished us with a good answer. However, there is another question he himself put to the hon. the Minister, a question which cannot remain unanswered. The hon. the Minister should furnish us with a full reply to this question. The question the hon. member put to the hon. the Minister directly and indirectly, is the following: Is there any reason for fear among the White railwaymen as a result of the possibility that Iscor is now going to employ non-White labour for the construction of the railway line? This is a very real fear. The hon. member also referred to the workshops in Salt River and he knows as well as I do that some considerable fear prevails among the White railwaymen at the moment in that they might be replaced by non-White labourers at a lower wage under the labour pattern under this Government.

The hon. member as well as his predecessors, said very little about inflation and the inflationary effects of this Budget on the economy of South Africa. I want to quote to him and to the other members who really avoided the question what was said by no less a person than Mr. Van Aswegen of Sanlam about the latest increases in railway rates. Mr. Van Aswegen said (translation)—

I think that the attitude of Mr. Van Aswegen at the time was the correct one, and I think it is applicable even today. I am afraid that, as a result of this inflationary Budget of the hon. the Minister inflation will only escalate in South Africa. Dr. Hupkes was asked recently to comment on the increases in tariffs and he said—

Do hon. members know why Dr. Hupkes adopted this attitude? It is because he has been entertaining the same thoughts for quite some time in regard to the increased tariffs and increased taxes and the contribution they make towards inflation in South Africa. I have in front of me an article in Rapport which was written by Dr. Hupkes towards the middle of 1971. He said—and I think this is not inappropriate since we are discussing this Budget (translation)—

He went to say (translation)—

†Then, on a lighter note, he quotes some of the classic remedies that have been used to fight inflation in America. He quotes an American economist by the name of Peter L. Bernstein who, in a publication known as The Nation in February 1970 had the following to say—

He concludes the article by saying—

*Mr. Speaker, the same conditions, exactly the same state of affairs is besetting South Africa at the moment. I am afraid that this Budget is going to contribute in no small way towards a further wave of inflation in South Africa.

†l want to deal with the effect of the increased suburban fares in respect of the two suburban lines in the Cape Peninsula. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that no matter what figures he can quote or what argument he can advance, he cannot gainsay the fact that the working man, the man who has to travel by train from the southern and northern suburbs to town, has been hard hit by the increases in the rail fares announced by the hon. the Minister recently. The hon. the Minister worked in the Salt River Workshops at one time. Does he know that a return fare from Cape Town to Salt River is now 20½ cents? Does he know that the return fare from Vasco to Cape Town is 42 cents? Does he know that the fare from Tiervlei, where a number of railway employees live, is 49 cents, almost 50 cents? Taking the southern suburbs line, does he know that the fare from Claremont, for example, is now 33½ cents; from Wynberg, 42 cents; from Retreat, 53 cents; from Muizenberg, 66 cents; from Fish Hoek, 78 cents; and from Simonstown, 88 cents? Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that the return fare from Simonstown to Cape Town actually exceeds the daily pay of the national servicemen doing their national service in the Navy? The effect of this Budget is going to be that people will again use their cars. This is going to aggravate parking problems, it is going to aggravate traffic congestion, particularly in the southern suburbs, and it is going to hamper our efforts to save fuel. On behalf of the train users of the Peninsula, the commuters, the ordinary working men and women, the people who come to town to earn their living each day, I want to lodge the strongest protest with the hon. the Minister at these absolutely abnormal increases in fares that he has announced.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to say something this afternoon about harbours. I want to discuss more particularly the position that might arise as a result of the reopening of Suez. I think that it must be accepted that when Suez is reopened there will be a reduction in the amount of shipping using the Cape route. However, I do not believe for one moment that that reduction will be of a permanent nature or that it is going to be substantial. One of the main reasons I have for saying this is that two-thirds of the tankers on the waterways of the world today have draughts which are too deep to permit their using Suez. Of those that are being built at the moment, something like 70% will also be too large to use Suez.

Do you know, Sir, that in 1967 it was unusual for a ship of 35 000 tons to use Suez, but at the moment very few of the new ships that are being built are in that category of tonnage. But let us have a look for a moment at the advantages of using Suez. First of all, I suppose, one should say that Suez is not the same as it was before the Six-day War; that it offers a shorter route but that as a result of the Six-day War and escalating costs subsequent to the war, there will be a higher cost for extra insurances that will have to be taken out by shipping using Suez because of the obvious danger of damage to what are very expensive investments. There will obviously also be higher toll charges, especially if the Suez Canal is to be widened.

Sir, what are the advantages of the Cape route over Suez? I would say, first of all, that it’s longer but it is safer. Secondly, it has been found that it is cheaper to transport oil by super tanker than in the old smaller tankers; thirdly, there are in fact ship repairing facilities, even if they are limited, along the coasts of South Africa. Most of the local work here in Cape Town is done in respect of tankers which are of between 350 000 and 400 000 tons. Let us look back over the last five years because the last five years have been the era of super ships, super tankers and super carriers. Only 20 years ago, in 1955, the largest tanker afloat was one of 47 500 tons; that was called the Spyros Niachos. Today there is a tanker that is ten times larger than the largest that was afloat 20 years ago, and that is the Globtik Loudon, which is 476 000 tons.

Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that at the moment there are 11 450 000-ton tankers being built in Japan, and that there is talk of a million-ton tanker being built very soon. Do you know, Sir, that in Lisnave, the shipbuilding yard in Portugal, which I had the privilege of seeing in January, orders are being placed at the moment for equipment for shipping yards sufficiently big to handle as a matter of course 1 million-ton tankers? I believe that the Cape route will continue to be of the utmost importance even after the reopening of Suez, but in any event it will be some years yet before Suez will be able to be in full operation. Suez is 160 km long, an before it can be turned again into a modern and a viable water-way, it will require many, many years of full-time attention by engineers.

Sir, as a result of the Six-day War, the Cape route was given a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, an opportunity to re-establish itself. I think we made a late start in providing the additional facilities that we are now providing at the harbours, but every single cent that is now being spent on the expansion of our harbours is a cent that is being spent in the interests of all of us in South Africa. Sir, world shipping is increasing. At the moment we are spending R398 million on harbour development, but it is being well-spent because the tonnage of ships being built in the world today is going up by the year. South Africa needs friends; it needs security; it needs to export to enable it to earn foreign exchange. It has a 2 000-mile coastline and South Africa is a maritime nation, even if at present it is in effect a small maritime nation. But we also need other nations, especially our friends, and we must make them feel that they need us and the services that we have to offer.

That is why I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, when very often criticism is levelled at the harbours for congestion and for waiting; for what is called under banner headlines in the newspapers “Long periods of delay and congestion and waiting outside the harbours”. I think a lot of this criticism arises from ignorance. First of all, if you travel along De Waal Drive in the morning and you see all the ships that are lying at anchor outside of Table Bay harbour, it does not mean that all of those ships wish to enter the harbour. Many of them, known locally in the docks as “the cockroaches”, are little fishing trawlers waiting to tranship their fish. Then you have the bulk carriers, some of them waiting for repairs to be done; then you have other ships waiting for commercial berths and you have still other ships waiting to effect repairs in the roadstead or to take in bunkers and water. In the case of some of the ships there is a delay of two to five days. I think those delays are longer than we would like to see, but they are certainly not inordinate delays.

You see, Mr. Speaker, the harbours have great problems. At the moment you have lscor importing steel, steel which has to go to many different destinations; you have bigger and bigger ships and bigger and bigger cargoes, and whereas, say, 20 years ago you needed about 150 metres of wharfage, you now need 250 metres of wharfage for some of the vessels that you have to accommodate. And then of course you have your seasonal problems between February and May. Lastly, I think it is fair to say that there is a tendency for goods to pile up in the warehouses and in the various stores in the harbours. These goods lie there awaiting clearance, 80% of the goods are for local delivery but are not cleared by the local people because very often they will not accept goods after five o’clock in the afternoon, and local businesses also will not work over week-ends. But that does not absolve the Harbours Administration from the responsibility of keeping the harbours working and getting the goods cleared as soon as possible, because our good name is at stake.

We have thousands and thousands of ships visiting our harbours every year and it is vitally important that they are serviced and that they are looked after so that they can take away with them a good reputation for South Africa. I think that with the Lourenço Marques and Beira situation being what it is today, we are going to find that goods will not only be landed at the coastal ports for coastal port destinations, but that they will also be required for the interior. I think we must look for-ward to the time, with anticipation and with a measure of anxiety, when Rhodesia will have to use much more of our railways and our harbours.

In regard to Durban, there have been many complaints over the years in regard to unnecessary delays. In the newspapers reference is made to delays of up to 20 days. The harbour traffic in Durban and the traffic in Cape Town cannot I think be increased, but I would suggest to the Minister that serious consideration be given to the possibility of East London and Port Elizabeth being more widely advertised as ports which are able to accept traffic far more readily than both Cape Town and Durban. Harbour congestion has admittedly got worse. It was very bad in the middle of June 1974, and in fact at Lourenço Marques, Beira and Durban there had to be a congestion surcharge of about 20% imposed on all goods which entered in the harbours. I think a similar surcharge has in fact been imposed also on the other harbours. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what the outcome was of the departmental discussions with the Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of Industries here in Cape Town in the middle of August about the possibility of providing a round-the-clock service.

Then I wish to make a few remarks about containers. Containers are going to be the common methods of transportation of cargo in 1977 in all our harbours. An announcement was made in March 1974 that we were going over to containerization, but much remains to be explained. I would like to ask the Minister to be kind enough to tell the House precisely what is going to happen as regards the cost of hauling goods to the loading terminals, to the container bases, and as to the utilization of the existing wharves and sheds which could well become redundant as a result of containerization, and what he has in mind with which to refill containers with overseas exports. Because one of the big problems at the moment with containerization in Australia is the number of ships leaving Australia on their return to Europe with empty containers.

As the Minister will appreciate, no container is a profitable container unless it is a full container. We are going to have in Cape Town, as I look into the future, lines and lines of insulated stores in the Duncan Dock which will have become outdated, because fruit is going to be packed into containers at source, and all that is going to happen in the harbour is that containers will be loaded into container ships. So, costly plant is going to become redundant and our refrigerated ships, of which there are quite a number, will have to find other cargoes to fill them. I wonder whether the Minister has looked at the possibility of fish being conveyed in these refrigerated ships. There are 153 container ships being built in the world at the moment with an aggregate of 2½ million tons.

I think we were right to change to containerization, but I wonder if we were right to have committed ourselves to cellular ships? There are reservations important quarters about whether we should have committed ourselves to a particular form of ship. If the Minister would look at the November 1972 issue of Tradeways he would see the views of his predecessor, Mr. Schoeman. He said—

It seems to me we have committed ourselves to cellular ships, of which there are to be 10. I should like to hear the hon. the Minister’s views on the possibility of a more generalized form of container ship being acquired and used.

I want to deal briefly with the new port control authority office in Cape Town. There were years and years of struggle to get this building erected. I remember, if my memory serves me correctly, that first of all the Port Captain’s office was on top of a pre-cooling store in B berth, then it vas on top of a customs building, at least a was to have been, thereafter it was on lop of a grain elevator and now at last it has been built in the right place at the entrance to the docks. I want to deal briefly with the services that are being rendered in the harbour. The question of bunkering engages a lot of Press attention and I think we should get our thoughts straightened out about what bunkering actually implies. When we talk of bunkers, we think in figures which range from 6 000 tons for a 250 000 ton vessel travelling from the Persian Gulf to Europe to an average-sized cargo ship consuming about 12 600 tons in a full year of operation, which means in effect about half a year at sea.

I referred earlier to the fact that world shipping is on the increase. If one takes the orders that were placed in August and October 1973, then new vessels show an increase of 26 million tons dead-weight. This tonnage constitutes a total of 3 350 new ships on order—257 000 million tons dead-weight which will cost R39 000 million. All these ships require bunkers. Bunkering takes second place in our ports. It is second to cargo-handling. Bunkering is nevertheless a vital service and the position is, I think, unsatisfactory. I believe the Minister can tell us whether representations have been made to the oil companies recently for them to undertake bunkering services outside our harbours. It seems to me that the oil companies, who I think in many respects live off the fat of the land, are playing a waiting game. In fact, they are waiting until 1977 when containerization is in operation and they are hoping that some of the berths will become available so that they will be able to offer bunkering facilities from the existing berths. Another suggestion has been made for the building of a tanker dock either near or in Cape Town docks. I should like to ask the Minister whether this is a possibility which has been given thought. At present, bunkering arrangements take place within the confines of the Duncan Dock. While The Cape Times correspondent on shipping Mr. Young let me say this for the benefit of my friend on the left here—has been writing for The Cape Times for a very long time, something like 40 years, he is not always right. He always writes interestingly, but he is not always right. He has pointed out for some years that there is a danger to shipping when bunkering takes place in a commercial harbour. He has pointed out that ports of the same size as Cape Town elsewhere in the world have refused to accept oil cargoes for loading and discharging among commercial shipping. I understand that the local Harbour Advisory Board is satisfied with the arrangements, but is the hon. the Minister in a position to give us the assurance that there is no danger to commercial shipping as a result of these bunkering operations? The Cape Times’ shipping correspondent has from time to time also suggested that there should be an off-shore tanker terminal. I think the possibility of this being located off the shores of Robben Island is a real one, but I want to join issue with him if he suggests that such a tanker terminal, or any form of dock facilities for tankers or for oil carriers should be contemplated in False Bay. It is utterly unsuitable as there are completely divergent interests in False Bay. The danger of pollution, even limited pollution, is very real and would completely destroy the ecology in False Bay. False Bay is the last place where any thought should be given to oil operations of any kind. The oil companies, the owners and the agents, I believe, are involved in this question of bunkering. All of them blame each other and some of them also blame the Railways and Harbours Administration. South Africa gets a bad name as a result of these delays in bunkering facilities. I think the matter must be brought to finality. South Africa’s name suffers and we need more friends than we have. I would urge the Minister to see what he can do to bring this matter to finality.

Another point I wish to make is in connection with the number of organizations that operate in our docks. You have the forwarding agents, the road carriers, the customs officials, the bulkers, the warehouse operators, the port operators, the stevedore agencies and the Railways, all of which get a “cut” of one kind or another from freight. I think the Minister must also give his attention to the possibility of some of these bodies, many of which fall into the category of what I would call middlemen, being eliminated from the operations in the docks.

The South African shipbuilding industry and those associated with it can be very proud of some of the facilities that are being offered to visitors to our shores. I think particularly of the services that we are offering at the moment. There is the hull survey service which was first begun in 1967 by the South African Bureau of Standards. It is a system whereby ultra-sonic sound waves are used to survey a ship’s hull, sound waves which can find where the weak places are in a hull without all the time-consuming procedures of previous days. It saves dry-dock charges, the drilling of holes in the hull of the vessel and ships being taken out of service. It also saves the necessity of holes having to be welded up again. What in fact happens with this hull service we offer to foreigners to our harbours, is that we enable a technician to join the ship at the Cape Town docks. By then, if it is a tanker, it is gas free, having travelled from Europe to Cape Town. He examines the hull of the ship between Cape Town and Durban if it is to be a short examination, but if it is to be a long examination he does so from Cape Town to the Persian Gulf. That gives ampel time to the owners and others concerned to place the necessary orders for any replacements required for the ship’s hull. Then we have another service which is performed off Cape Town at the moment. This is another reason why I say people are very often misinformed when they complain about the number of ships lying in the roadstead. They think it is all due to congestion, but some of these ships lying in our roadstead are in fact waiting there for their hulls to be cleaned at night. We have a very advanced technique at the moment whereby divers can go under a ship at night and by the next morning the bottoms of those ships can have been scraped clean. But not only can they have been cleaned, but the sludge can also be removed. We have recently acquired and are using with success paints from overseas which can be applied under water. Then you have the helicopter services. They are used to take mail and supplies to ships in the roadstead. We also have the off-limits services which are growing yearly, taking supplies to ships which pass our coasts. Some of them only stay there for a few hours; they do not have to come into the harbour at all. They are supplying ships on the move. These are all new services, and they all help to reduce congestion in the docks, and should as such receive every encouragement from the Government. I hope that the Minister is in effect keeping his eye on the situation to see that these people, who are playing a vital role in helping to solve congestion in our docks, are given the facilities and opportunities they require for their services.

I want to conclude with a reference to shipbuilding and ship repairs. In Cape Town and Durban we do have dry-dock facilities, but they are completely inadequate. Some years ago I asked the Minister’s predecessor whether it would be possible for a consortium, assisted by the 1DC, to take over the dry-docks in Durban and to build additional dry-docks. I understand that negotiations did take place, and I would like to ask the Minister what in fact has come of those negotiations. I raised the same question in regard to the Duncan Dock here in Cape Town. The Minister said Table Bay was completely inadequate for the purpose, that it was too shallow and that it would therefore be too expensive. However, for years and years there has been talk of the possibility of a dry-dock being built in what we know here locally as the yacht basin in the harbour. The yacht basin, I think, is too small for the yachts that use it; and if a dry-dock were to be built there, it would be close to ancillary serves and to suppliers. The yachts themselves, I believe, could be accommodated at Grainger Bay. As the Minister will know, the only body using the facilities at Grainger Bay at the moment is the Gen. Botha Nautical College. I think that consideration should be given to the possibility of a dry-dock being built in the present yacht basin and the yachts being moved, with the assistance of the Railways, to Grainger Bay. I emphasize that it should be with the assistance of the Railways, because it is a costly procedure to build a breakwater from Mouille Point partially to enclose Grainger Bay, and I know of no other Government department which can give that assistance to enable the yachts to be accommodated there.

Now, Sir, what has happened to Narinda Bay? The Minister’s predecessor said that one of the reasons why he was not so concerned about building a dry-dock in Table Bay or at Durban was the possibility of the IDC helping to finance an enormous super dry-dock in Narinda Bay in Malagasy. I would like to ask whether anything has come of those negotiations, and whether we now have to abandon all hope of a dry dock being built with IDC funds at Narinda Bay. I have never been one of those in favour of that development because I believe that we have to look at our own developments along our own coast. We cannot be dependent on foreigners. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, it is always pleasant in this House to follow up on a member who has made a contribution in a responsible and positive way. The way in which the hon. member for Simonstown made his speech here this afternoon, was of such a nature that we on this side of the House could listen to him with attention and with satisfaction. The hon. member said at the outset that this Budget and the rates increases would have an effect on the inflation structure in the country. We want to agree with the hon. member. The economy will not escape these rates increases. However, I want to ask that we guard against making the S.A. Railways a victim of the spiral of inflation in South Africa. I think that it is in fact this organization which is, through its deeds, complying with the requests made by the hon. the Minister of Finance for increased productivity and greater efficiency to be the order of the day. I think one is quite entitled to say that this department and its officials are doing their utmost to comply with that request and that it will in fact be here that we will see the greatest productivity and the greatest measure of efficiency.

Sir, the difference between this side of the House and that side has in the past been spelt out in various spheres. I think that we saw one of the clearest demonstrations of this difference last Wednesday in this House in the Budget speech of the hon. the Minister and the reaction to it by the hon. member for Durban Point. The Minister in his Budget speech acted purposefully and with his gaze directed at the future, the hon. member for Durban Point, on the other hand, negatively, without vision and, if I may put it this way, looking back nostalgically to the past. The hon. the Minister said the following in his Budget Speech, which illustrates to me how oriented to the future this Budget is—

Then, a little later, he said—

I think that testifies to a purposeful and motivated approach. In contrast to this, the hon. member for Durban Point displayed a completely negative approach to this Budget. The hon. member, in his speech last Wednesday and again yesterday in this House demonstrated that that side of the House cannot get away from the past. Yesterday the hon. member for Durban Point qualified, and to a certain extent apologized for, his shocking outburst “Ben was better” or “Bring back Ben”. I think, however, that we can say without fear of contradiction that the feeling of this side of the House towards the predecessor of the present hon. Minister was far more sincere than that of hon. members on that side of the House. I also think that there was far more appreciation on this side of the House for the service he rendered and for the work he did. We on this side of the House, however, do not wish Uncle Ben back. The reason why we do not wish him back, we find in the fact that this side of the House has purposeful and competent successors who are not only able to follow in the footsteps of those who have retired, but who will also be able to meet the requirements of the future. While other hon. members have congratulated the hon. the Minister on his appointment, I not only want to congratulate him, but also express a word of appreciation because his conduct up to and including this stage has been such that the officials of the Railways have already accepted him as one of the Railways administration.

The hon. member for Durban Point, true to the wilfulness by which we know him or perhaps it was merely a slip of the tongue, said in his outburst that the heart of the family has been struck by this Budget. He said for example: “The price of meat and livestock has gone up by 60%.” I have not heard this being qualified or corrected. The position is that only the rates have gone up by 60% and not the price of meat, as the hon. member said.

The hon. Opposition is a party which lives in the past. This was demonstrated to us by the hon. member for Durban Point when he referred to the individuals who drive to work in Packards. The last Packard used by the Administration was in Dr. Malan’s time. The last Packard was imported in the year 1959-’60. When a party lives in the past in this way, it cannot be effective and is quietly passing away. If this is the direction in which those hon. members are going there is this crumb of comfort for them, which is that the rates increase on a coffin weighing 200 kg amounts to only 1,35 cents. The increase in the tariff on the conveyance of a tombstone weighing a 100 kg is 5,0 cents. This is at least a small comfort to that side of the House.

There are two aspects of the image of the S.A. Railways which I should like to deal with briefly this afternoon. This concerns, firstly, the charge that the S.A. Railways wants to appropriate the monopoly of transportation for itself and, secondly, that in South Africa insufficient recognition is being given to the development and the planning of this department. Both these facets are mentioned in passing in the July/ August edition of Railway Engineering. I am referring to the article under the heading “Comment”. I am quoting from this comment—

This side of the House would like to endorse this comment.

To prove the charge of being a monopoly false I first want to point out a few aspects. The South African Railways, as a general transport organization, is expected to convey all transport which is offered, while the private sector has the choice of selectively accepting the high-rated goods, and leaving the low-rated goods to the responsibility of the South African Railways. This entails that with this selection the private sector, in 1957 already, handled 67 million tons of revenue earning traffic as against the 65 million tons of the South African Railways. For the 1968-’69 financial year, rail transport conveyed 119 million tons while road transport was responsible for the movement of 375 million tons. These are figures which were released by the Barclays National Review of June 1974. It is interesting to note that during 1971-72 private contractors handled two and a half times the tonnage of the Railways, although the average distance per train by the private contractors amounted to 36,6 km, while that of the South African Railways amounted to 501 km. The growing loss of traditional high-rated traffic reached such proportions that it was in fact inter alia responsible for the policy of transport costs rather than that of what the traffic can bear being the primary consideration in determining rates, as the hon. the Minister consequently spelt out in his Budget speech. A reason for this change having to take place is that since 1910 road transportation has grown from nothing to two and a half times that of the South African Railways. If the Railways had in fact held a monopoly in respect of this aspect the development of this competitor would not have been possible and would not have taken place. In 1910, when the South African Railways was the only means of transportation in South Africa, a tariff policy had to be determined under circumstances in which there was no competition and it was therefore possible to draw a distinction between high-rated and low-rated traffic. The possibilities for private transportation were first realized just before 1930, and with its development, the Motor Carrier Transportation Act of 1930 was consequently placed on the Statute Book. It is important to note not only that this Act protects the South African Railways, but that this Act is also the guarantee for the private contractor that he may proceed with his organization and with the service he wishes to render. Although the Railways want to be a self-supporting structure, there is no desire, in the measures which have perforce to be adopted, to bring about the stagnation or even the downfall of the private sector. I think that with the energy crisis with which we have to contend at present, it is becoming necessary for urgent talks to be held between the South African Railways on the one hand and organized private contractors on the other in order to consider measures and to find a formula to accomplish these four objectives. Firstly to allow the South African Railways as well as the private contractor, as far as practicable within the framework of the optimum saving of fuel, to exploit the joint market unhindered with the mutual recognition of the rights of both to an existence and to earnings. Secondly to try to ensure as far as possible that transport costs will not comprise such a component in the final costs of a product that it makes the product uneconomic for the consumer; thirdly, that a formula will be found to allow the S.A. Railways as well as the private contractors to share in the high-rated short-distance traffic, but also that both groups will accept responsibility for the low-rated long-distance traffic; and lastly,—and this is also important—that a formula will be found in terms of which these two sectors, i.e. the S.A. Railways on the one hand and the private road transport service on the other, agree that if the one cannot cope with the traffic offered to it, the responsibility of handling those goods will then, on a contractual basis, be shifted to the other body. The solution to these problems can only be to the benefit of the S.A. Railways on the one hand and the private road transport service on the other, and in particular of the consumer public, the industrialist and the farmer.

I also want to exchange a few ideas now in regard to one of the high water marks in the history of the S.A. Railways over the past few years, namely the inauguration of the test centre for rolling stock at Koedoespoort. This development entails that South Africa will continue to enjoy recognition in the international transport structure as a resourceful and developing community. One of the great problems of all steel-on-steel transport systems in the world in all countries is that it entails tremendous capital investment problems in regard to the care, careful inspection and servicing of the rolling stock. In South Africa this rolling stock represents not less than 4 200 locomotives, 9 000 passenger coaches and 166 500 wagons. These assets are supplemented annually at an expense of approximately R150 million. It is this investment which entails that the R800 000 spent on this test centre at Koedoespoort is not only a wise, but also an essential investment. I think one can compare this test centre for rolling stock, for the iron and steel of the Railways with the service which is being offered to the staff in the spheres of the clinical psychologist, the staff information service, personnel selection, psychometrics and personnel research. Trained personnel who have to work with obsolete machinery, are no guarantee for safety, in exactly the same way as complicated material which is handled by maladjusted persons cannot bring success and growth. This factor is appreciated by the S.A. Railways. To illustrate this, may I mention that in 1963 just over 2 000 people were tested by vocational guidance officers. This number increased to 15 239 in 1973. In addition to this 25 000 persons were tested at the various employment offices by non-professional staff under the supervision of vocational guidance officers. The importance of this screening among non-White staff is proved by the fact that almost 8 000 Bantu were subject to screening for the post of train marshaller. This psychological guidance and testing entails that the productive manpower has to be reclaimed. It would otherwise be a weak link in the chain of the growth and progress of the S.A. Railways. The chief vocational guidance officer of the S.A. Railways, Mr. Van der Walt, said the following in Volkshandel of August 1974 (translation)—

Sir, one is very grateful that, in spite of the speed at which the South African Railways moves both within and outside the Administration there is still recognition for the individual in the profession and for the individual in his specific occupation, and I think, too, that this is one of the reasons to which the success of the S.A. Railways may be attributed and why the S.A. Railways is today able to convey twice the number of passengers and half as much the tonnage of freight, while the staff has over the past decade remained almost constant. This, Sir, we attribute to better utilization and the screening of the staff, and also to the fact that the railwayman still receives and enjoys recognition as a person within the framework of the Railways. For increasing traffic, Sir, the doubling of rolling stock is only the last step. Factors which have to be borne in mind are, inter alia, whether the existing sections are of such a nature that increased traffic, with or without heavier axle loads, will be conducive to unhealthy wear and tear, or whether the doubling of rolling stock for example could be utilized productively for a full financial year. Through this test centre at Koedoespoort efforts are being made to attain the highest degree of efficiency and productivity; to be able to render sound economic service and to keep pace with the constantly increasing demand for transport. This increasing demand for transport is illustrated by the fact that the tonnage increased from 99 million tons in 1963-’64 to approximately 120 million tons in the financial year ending 31 March 1974. Passenger journeys increased over the same period by 180 million to 565 million. This increased responsibility consequently entails that a careful watch has to be maintained on the safety of the passenger, the consumer and also the official. With productivity and safety in mind, the South African Railways has already developed bogies which ensure that travellers on the Blue Train are guaranteed a comfortable ride and bogies which are equipped and developed to convey the exceptionally long trainloads of ore over long distances with the minimum wear and tear on the wheel as well as the minimum wear and tear on the flanges. Sir, this accomplishment did not come about simply by chance; it is the logical development of our work which will in future probably meet with a great response in many parts of the world. Consequently we want to wish the South African Railways success with the cross-anchor suspension bogey which will probably be tested soon, where one finds the principle that the running surface of the wheel is hollow, which allows for limited wear and tear on the wheel as well as on the rail.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude. The service which the South African Railways is rendering testifies to complete unselfishness. The engineering faculties at virtually all our universities can testify to the co-operation and the service which the South African Railways also renders to these faculties. The co-operation is on the highest and the most satisfactory level. A monopolistic institution usually entails selfishness, secrecy and a lack of progress. The South African Railways definitely cannot be accused of this. We on this side of the House are sure that even if future research and experiments require millions of rand, the South African Railways will continue to ensure that it will be regarded as one of the most efficient, most productive and as one of the safest railway systems in the world, with what is still one of the most loyal structures of officials.

Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to reply directly to the hon. member for Bethlehem, but in the course of my speech I will touch on some of the points he has made. At a later stage, too, I would like to come back to the question of the Saldanha/Sishen railway line which has been raised by the hon. member for Tygervallei.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister in presenting his Budget has put forward proposals which incorporate wide and sweeping increases in the tariffs which will be charged by the Railways here in South Africa. These inevitably, as they work themselves through the system, are going to affect all South Africans to a greater or lesser extent, as has been pointed out by speakers on this side of the House. Mr. Speaker, I would rather draw the attention of the Minister to the particular effects of his proposals in regard to the movement of minerals and ores which are produced within our country. Mr. Speaker, the mining industry is of course not without importance to South Africa, a fact which I think is generally recognized and accepted by all parties in this House. Indeed, it is impossible to visualize the future development which could be available to South Africa as being separate from the development of the production of ores and minerals, and in addition they have a very valuable function in the earning of foreign exchange. With very few exceptions, the ores and minerals produced in South Africa have to be sold on the world market where we have no control over the price which is realized. In the great majority of cases this simply arises from the fact that there are a number of other alternative sources of supply available. Now the Minister, as we understand it, proposes that the average rates increase on ores and minerals shall be 21,6%. That in itself is going to seriously impair our competitive position as compared with producers in other parts of the world. In effect, depending on the nature of the contract, either the producer will have to absorb the increase himself, which will hardly encourage him to go forward and find the capital and expertise for similar ventures in the future, or alternatively, he will try with varying degrees of success to pass this increase on to the purchaser. The natural consequence of that will be that the purchaser, of course, will be forced to reconsider and to look carefully at alternative sources of supply.

The Minister himself recognized this in a speech in March last year, when he spoke in a different capacity as the Minister of Economic Affairs, when he said that in this sphere there was keen competition and that profit margins were slender. The importance, therefore, of these increases, not in as immediate a sense as some of the others that will affect every member of a household in South Africa, should be clearly understood as the production of ores and minerals is an important catalyst in the whole of the development of South Africa through the multiplier effects and the employment opportunities it creates through the development of other industries to serve the needs of those engaged in that production. Nor is the Minister’s general contention, that railage as a component of the selling price is relatively small, able to stand up to close examination when it comes to the export of such products from South Africa. This is not to mention the cases inside South Africa, for example the coal industry, where the practice is to sell coal at the place of mine, so that the transportation cost is of course borne by the purchaser. Therefore a tariff increase in those cases will be simply immediately reflected in the selling price.

On closer examination, as we understand it, the Minister’s proposals amount in practice to the following, and I am talking here about the previous tariff classes 13 and 14, or classes 274 and 281 as they used to refer to ores and minerals. Previously these ores transported by the railways to be manufactured or processed within South Africa were charged more or less at the rate of 70% of the rate charged for export. Now, as we understand the Minister’s proposals, he is proposing to raise these on average by 21,6%, but the breakdown shows that the ores and minerals carried for export will get a reduction of 10%, i.e. 90% of what was previously charged, but those transported for processing within South Africa will be subject to a rise of no less than 26,2%, to a comparable figure of 88%. In other words, if we are correct in our understanding of the Minister’s proposals, the differential between export and internal traffic has almost completely vanished. We have, therefore, these two effects, namely a weakening over-all of our competitive position in the world and, as I have said, if our understanding is correct of the proposals and the mathematics involved, the virtual abolition of any incentive previously given to beneficiate or to process ores and minerals within South Africa. This surely seems to run against the policy of the Government as stated on a great number of occasions and indeed confirmed by the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech. Previously we have been given to understand that it was important that as much value as possible should be added within South Africa. If we understand these proposals, an encouragement which was previously given has now been virtually abolished. Now, there will be a number of fortunate exceptions. A number of parties will be fortunate in the sense that they will escape these increases because the Railways have given a guarantee as to the rates to be charged because the business was deemed at the time it was entered into to be in the national interest, such as the export of coal through Richards Bay, or alternatively like Iscor which will own and manage its line to Saldanha Bay. This is a matter to which I should now like to turn, to support the questions raised by the hon. member for Durban Point yesterday. As background I should just like to quote three passages, one by the hon. the Minister’s predecessor. On 7 March last year (col. 2105) he said—

Secondly, we have a quotation from the hon. the Minister himself about three weeks later on 29 March (col. 3692)—

Finally, we have a third quotation, from the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, on the 29th of last month—

Here we therefore have a complete contrast because that simple statement by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, quite apart from the fact that it anticipates the necessity to amend the law, something which has subsequently been confirmed by the Minister, destroys the one and only argument of any importance ever used by this Government to justify the fact that Iscor should own and manage the railway line. This is a colossal muddle which leaves a great number of questions unanswered. The Minister of Economic Affairs has said that Iscor is run on business lines. The Minister opposite has said that the Railways are run on business lines. What is one to make of that now, or has the national interest simply been abandoned? We now have two public State corporations in active competition with each other. On what terms are the other potential users of the line to be treated? Will the hon. the Minister give an assurance that Iscor will not have a preferential position? Will the Minister give an assurance that Iscor has not given any guarantee in respect of transport costs to a purchaser of its ore? I doubt if he can do that, because if Iscor has given such a guarantee, then clearly any other user must be prejudiced. The Minister himself, finally, has told us that it is impossible to visualize divided control between harbours and railways. Presumably, then, Iscor is going to manage the harbour as well. If that is the case, as Alice said when she was in Wonderland, “it becomes curiouser and curiouser”. Where is the divinding line between the respective responsibilities of these two corporations to be drawn? We are not attacking either corporation; we are simply asking for an elucidation of what is a colossal muddle. Who is going to be responsible for what? Who is going to be responsible for the branch lines? The only sensible thing to do in the national interest is, as the position always was, for the Railways to be responsible for the management of both the railway and the harbour, or if I may quote finally from Alice in Wonderland, since that seems to be closely connected with this muddle, the Duchess said: “If everybody minded their own business, the world would go round a great deal faster.”

Mr. Speaker, it is quite interesting to note the direct contradiction between the approach of the hon. member for Johannesburg North and that of the hon. member for Orange Grove to the low-tariff transportation of various goods. As the hon. member for Parow has already indicated, the hon. member for Orange Grove yesterday virtually pleaded for the abolition of the transportation of low-tariff goods, because, as he put it, it was a subsidy for people who are already privileged. Now the hon. member for Johannesburg North complains about the excessive increase in regard to the transportation of ore and minerals, because there is to be an increase of roughly 21%. In the report that has been tabled it is interesting to note, if one compares the tonnage carried by the Railways with the income, that as far as the transportation of low-tariff goods is concerned it constituted in 1969-70 77,8% of the tonnage carried by the Railways and provided only 40,7% of the income. In 1973-74 it constituted 76,4% of the tonnage and provided only 37,6% of the income. Against this, the high-tariff goods constituted 23,6% of the tonnage carried and provided 53,3% of the income. Consequently it is obvious that the transportation of low-tariff goods is undertaken at a considerable loss in relation to the four component services making up this department. The Railways are already running at a loss and the overall surplus that was provided this year was only due to the surplus on the other services, namely Harbours, Pipelines and to a lesser extent the Airways. Surely the hon. member for Johannesburg North should realize that if the Schumann Report suggested that there should be a gradual diminution of the gap between low tariffs and high tariffs, it is only sound economics to move in that direction gradually and in a responsible way. That is exactly what is being done in this year’s Budget. It is a slight and responsible movement in the direction of narrowing the gap between high-tariff and low-tariff goods.

*Something which I think should, however, be mentioned in this Budget is the tremendous confidence the Railways organization inspires in general as one of the largest employers in South Africa. It has an establishment of 109 473 Whites and 122 094 non-Whites, a total establishment of approximately 231 000. This is, therefore, almost a quarter of a million people, a large percentage of the total population of South Africa who are dependent on the Railways for employment. But that is not all. With a revenue budget of R1 500 million and a capital budget of R500 million, it constitutes a tremendous part of the economic structure of South Africa. South Africa’s entire economic prosperity is dependent on the Railways as an organization. From the co-operation which exists between Members of Parliament and the top management of the Railways, and also with people who are employed at various levels in the Railways, it is clearly apparent that we are dealing here with an organization which is not just an organization which merely renders a service, but is also an organization which inspires confidence with its efficient advance planning and its loyalty to South Africa’s economic needs. One can express nothing but appreciation for this loyalty and for the service which is being rendered.

Let us consider the treatment of the Railways staff. I should like to draw your attention to a few aspects. From 1968-’69 to 1973-74, the cost of living rose by 34%, i.e. within the space of five years. These figures were furnished to me by the Department of Statistics. During the same period the per capita salary of the White railwayman increased by 55,6%. As far as the non-Whites are concerned, the per capita salary rose by 56,3%, somewhat more than that of the Whites. But during the past year, 1973-74, the increase in the cost of living was 9,8%. Over against that, the salary increases of the Railways staff varied during 1973-74, on a per capita basis, from 15,4% for the Whites to 21,7% for the non-Whites. Another factor of importance is that the Railways, one of the largest employers, ensures that the salary structure of the less well-to-do, White as well as non-White, is usually ahead of the private sector. I understand that the salary structure of the Public Service, including that of the Railways, is approximately 15% higher in respect of the lower paid groups than it is in the private sector. This is, after all, an indication that we have an organization here which really cares for its employees.

If we consider the various privileges the Railways staff receive, we see the tremendous privileges they enjoy in respect of housing, for instance. Here we have an organization which does more for the housing of its workers than any other organization of the same magnitude in Southern Africa. But they do not only see to housing; they also offer the workers security. Questions were asked here about the future pattern of employment, especially in the light of the existing tendency to employ more non-Whites because it is simply essential to make it possible to supply the necessary services. The question was asked what the prospects for the future are with regard to the White railway servant, in the light of this growing tendency. I think there need be no doubt whatsoever in anyone’s mind, among the public or the railway servants as such, that the security which the Railways offers every worker who is worthy of his hire will in any way diminish. Security is being offered here which no other organization in Southern Africa can offer. As far as pensions are concerned, the Railways offers better benefits than many other organization. The Railways offers security for old age. As regards medical schemes, medical provision and the medical care of employees in the Railways, we can only say that there is an excellent scheme in this case as well. In general every person on the Railways who renders a service knows that he will receive his rightful remuneration and absolute security as long as he renders good service. What is more, we know what a large measure of satisfaction there is among the railway staff in general, when we measure it against their reaction to the labour position in this country. It has already been mentioned that, during the recent labour unrest in certain areas, there was no similar dissatisfaction among the railway staff, nor among the non-White railway servants. In my opinion this is the case because there are a series of staff organizations which acquaint themselves with the situation at all times and which act in the closest liaison with all branches of the staff in the Railways organization. What apparently contributes most to inspiring confidence is the fact that the Management, the higher paid railwaymen who are in charge of the actual management, inspire confidence. Although it might probably be possible, particularly in these times, for these men to increase their salaries and incomes considerably in the private sector, I want to express my thanks to them for, in spite of that fact, continuing to serve the Railways in order to render a really outstanding service to South Africa. I really think they deserve the thanks of this House, the highest legislative body in South Africa, for doing so.

There are a few other aspects to which I should like to refer, aspects which give an indication of the tremendous growth which has taken place in the services rendered by our Airways. Let us have a look at the number of passengers who made use of the S.A. Airways. From 1968-’69 to 1973-74 the number of passengers who made use of the internal flights increased by 106%. The annual increase, based on the figure for the previous year, from the 1968-’69 financial year to the 1969-70 financial year, was 19,8%. In the following year it rose by 10,6%. There was only one year when the percentage increase was particularly low, i.e. 5%. The year after that the increase was 12,7%, and for the 1973-74 financial year the increase in the number of passengers on the internal service was close on 26%. The external service showed a more spectacular increase. From 1968-’69 to 1969-’70 there was an increase of 24,1%, in the following year 28,4%, after that 13%, 24,4% and 20,76% respectively—a total increase of 170% between 1969 and 1974. As far as air freight is concerned, there was a spectacular increase as well. From 1969 to 1974, as far as internal air freight is concerned, there was an increase of 162%. As far as external air freight is concerned, there was an increase of 209%. This is an indication that, in general, more and more use is being made of the services offered by the S.A. Airways, which is yet another indication of confidence in the excellent service rendered in this country by the Railways and Airways organization in general.

In spite of a new tendency in the harbour and shipping services, there is the question of containers for which preparations are to an increasing extent being made. One of the aspects arising out of this is that it brings about a change from a labour-intensive system to a more mechanized system. I think the containerization of freight may be seen as the mechanization of freight handling. Where we in South Africa still have a relatively low labour cost structure in comparison with Europe, there is at this stage, seen in isolation, perhaps not as yet such a clear economic case to be made out for it, because the capital outlay which is required for handling facilities is very high. It is a fact, however, that circumstances in this country are also changing very rapidly and that this aspect will become all the more essential in future. I have not quoted the figures, but it is very clear that the wage structure of the non-Whites is rising more rapidly than that of the Whites because the former have such a tremendous backlog. The average per capita income of Whites is approximately R4 609 at present, spread over the total establishment of Whites in the Railways. Over against that, the average per capita income of non-Whites on the Railways is only R858 at present. There is, therefore, a tremendous backlog and the tendency throughout the world is to raise the salaries of lower paid workers more rapidly than those of higher paid workers. Therefore, it will also be the case to an increasing extent in South Africa that we shall have to prepare ourselves more fully for more mechanized services. I am therefore of the opinion that fewer staff members will be required at the harbours, probably from 1977, 1978 or 1979 when container services are provided, but the capital-intensive requirements which will have to be met are of such a nature that apparently it will initially be considerably more expensive to provide these services. The provision of container berths and the necessary facilities brings about that the costs of each container berth—five are being built in Durban—will be R12 million according to present calculations. It is therefore, a very expensive undertaking, but it is something we simply have to do since the world’s transport structure is increasingly being geared to this. I see preparations are being made to prepare the Railways as well for the greater utilization of the container system between the major industrial complexes. It is expected that from 1978 onwards five trains will run between Durban and Johannesburg daily, trains which are exclusively geared to container services. Provision is also being made for these trains, which are goods trains, to run from Durban to Johannesburg within 15 to 18 hours. Here we have the prospect of a considerable speeding up, therefore, of the delivery of goods from one centre to another.

I wonder whether an indication could possibly be given as to whether staging facilities for container services will be provided at important junctions in the South African Railways. I am thinking of a place such as Ladysmith, where a very large goods office is being built which is obviously not being geared to container services at present, but which will also, as the heart of the Tugela industrial development basin, become a major industrial centre. I am also thinking of Newcastle, where this will apparently be the case as well. I think that timely provision should be made for facilities to make container services available for the Railways at these places. I am sure that plans will probably also be drawn up very soon for the provision of container services at the Richards Bay harbour. In the plans which have been drawn up thus far, Richards Bay is not included as one of the harbours at which container services will be provided. With the tremendous expansion of that area as a general industrial area, which will be used not only for minerals and ore but which will also, to an increasing extent, become an industrial complex, it is necessary, in my opinion, to avoid too long a delay in the provision of this kind of service there. I should like to express my appreciation for the preparation, planning and progress which is being made with the construction of the Vryheid-Empangeni line. It is interesting to note that this will be the first line in South Africa to employ a new kind of electrification, i.e. the alternating current system as opposed to the system of direct current which is used by the Railways at all the other places. In my opinion it is important that we should make use of this new system and learn from it, for I am convinced that we will derive considerable benefit for electrical goods traffic as we will be able to make provision for heavier loads. I notice it is being planned that, while the normal trains can deliver a load of approximately 2 000 gross tons, the trains on this alternating current system will be able to handle approximately 5 500 tons per train. Sir, it is very important to give this additional carrying power to the Railways by means of the electric system for the very reason that South Africa has reasonably cheap electrical power at its disposal and because we have the prospect of being able to use hydro-electric power to an increasing extent, hydro-electric power which it will be possible to generate to an increasing extent in the Tugela Basin, the Tugela River and its various tributaries. Since South Africa therefore has this source of cheap or relatively cheap electricity, it will be of tremendous benefit to the South African Railways. I just want to emphasize once again that, in general, confidence is being inspired in our growing economy and in the work structure in South Africa by means of the efficient organization of this undertaking.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member for Klip River and other hon. members on that side that I have listened very carefully to this debate and that although we are now in the second day of this debate I have not heard a single constructive suggestion from any member on that side of the House. As far as those hon. members are concerned, there is not a single improvement to be made. We are dealing here with thousands of millions of rand, and all they do is to thank the Minister all the time. Mr. Speaker, the rest of their time they spent attacking members on this side of the House, and they used arguments which, quite candidly, were as thin as the gold in a week-end wedding ring. I think the hon. member for Durban Point came here with an outstanding amendment. I think all hon. members on both sides of the House should feel indebted to the hon. member for his outstanding amendment and for the manner in which he motivated it. I just want to tell the hon. member for Turffontein before he leaves that the hon. member for Durban Point introduced this amendment in a far more effective manner than any of his predecessors have moved their amendments in the past.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at the Capital Estimates that we have before us, you will find in going through these capital projects that there is no indication of the year in which any particular project was approved. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that you cannot deal with the backlog of capital works and ascertain what progress has been made unless you know the year in which each project was approved. The hon. the Minister will know from his experience in the Cape Provincial Council that when they present their capital works programme they always indicate the year in which the particular projects were approved. I want to appeal to the Minister that in future, when he presents his capital works programme, he should give some indication of the year in which each particular project was approved. Sir, once one can see the year in which a particular project was approved, one is able to deal with it intelligently. I want to say that as long as we are not given the year of approval, for so long these capital works will remain merely a farce because you will not be able to analyse them in detail at all. Mr. Speaker, if you look at the capital works you will find that something like R446 million odd is being taken from the Loan and Betterment Fund and approximately R172 million from the Renewals Fund. These figures would be far more meaningful if we could compare them with the date on which these particular projects were originally approved. If the hon. the Minister says he is not prepared to furnish us with the year of approval, I feel that he will be withholding information to which we are legitimately entitled. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister seriously to consider my request to give us this information in future. Sir, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that he has started his record as Minister of Transport in charge of Railways on a disastrous basis. The Minister has alienated thousands upon thousands of railway workers by allowing Iscor to establish the railway line from Sishen to Saldanha. I think the hon. the Minister will concede that his predecessor would not have tolerated this situation and that he would have fought this decision tooth and nail. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister today whether the General Manager of the S.A. Railways and his establishment approved of this particular decision. I am quite convinced that they would never have approved of this decision. Iscor will be competing with the S.A. Railways for staff and they will be competing with them for salaries. Other hon. members have gone into detail in that regard and I will not elaborate on it. I have no doubt that the hon. the Minister will regret this decision bitterly and that he already regrets his decision. This decision will be rejected by all the railwaymen in South Africa. I have no doubt about it because this decision can never be justified. When one has a look at the Straszacker Committee’s report, which we were told we were not allowed to see, one has no doubt that that committee did not recommend that that particular railway line should be handed over to Iscor. It was the empire-builders in the Cabinet who forced that decision through, and the question is why? The Minister has had the report of the Straszacker Committee since May 1974 and we would like to know why it took him until August of this year to come with a decision in relation to that report. The answer is obviously that the report did not recommend that Iscor take over this railway line. I think that the hon. the Minister has got himself into a mess in this regard.

You are much too cheeky for your size.

Sir, I did not realize that size had anything to do with the conduct of a debate in this House. I should like to say that the predecessor of the hon. the Minister said that the Sishen-Saldanha line would be run by the S.A. Railways. The hon. the Minister has left the S.A. Railways in the lurch by allowing Iscor to run this line. In fact, one of the staff associations, the Western Transvaal Divisional Staff Association, consisting of 3 500 railwaymen, has told the hon. the Minister that they are desperately upset with him; they have accused him of a sellout and say that the Government has reneged on Mr. Schoeman’s previous undertaking. There has always been a very close understanding between Mr. Schoeman and the railwaymen of South Africa, and I think it is in the interests of South Africa that this Minister has the same close understanding that his predecessor had with the railwaymen of South Africa. I have no doubt that what will happen is this: Iscor will arrange the finance for this particular scheme and eventually they will have to hand the scheme over to the S.A. Railways. I think it is in the interests of the country and in the interests of the economy and of the morale of the railwaymen of South Africa that the Cabinet reverses its decision and hands this line over to the S.A. Railways to run. I do not think for a moment that the railwaymen of South Africa will stand for the fragmentation of the Railways. By granting this rail concession to Iscor, you are actually creating a railway within a railway.

Sir, to come to a more pleasant subject, I think it would be ungracious of me if I did not tell the hon. the Minister that people throughout the Republic of South Africa (and not only the people of Port Elizabeth) and abroad, welcome the decision to go ahead with St. Croix. They welcome the fact that the S.A. Railways intend operating that scheme. I hope that the hon. the Minister will make up for his tardiness in relation to this scheme by now expediting it. I must, however, tell the hon. the Minister that I cannot help remarking that he has had a heart transplant in regard to this matter. The hon. the Minister was not one of those who was sympathetically disposed towards this scheme. In fact, he was one of those members who opposed this particular scheme. The hon. the Minister must accept responsibility for the delay and I believe that Railway experts estimate that because of the delay of the St. Croix scheme the loss to the S.A. Railways has been something like R100 million. I want to tell the hon. Minister further that the failure to go ahead with the St. Croix scheme has cost the country well over R300 million in foreign earnings if one takes into account that this scheme could already have been operating four years ago. Because of the failure to make crisp decisions we have lost a lot of money. If the Minister had that money he would not have had to increase the tariffs as he has now had to do. The fact that the hon. Minister has announced that he intends spending R40 million over the next five years on Port Elizabeth Harbour and that he intends reclaiming 50 ha. of land, makes it obvious to me that he realizes the urgency of extending the harbour facilities at Port Elizabeth. I do not think I have to go into detail concerning the urgency of the matter.

I think we are all agreed that we must not base our expansion plans on being allowed to use Lourenço Marques and Beira ports indefinitely. We are all agreed, I think, that we should expand all our harbours as a matter of extreme urgency. I think that it is important that in this urgency we do not sacrifice long-term planning for short-term expediency. I may tell the hon. Minister that in the case of Port Elizabeth I am seriously worried that he is sacrificing long-term planning for short-term expediency. I understand that it is desirable to plan expansions of harbour capacity once utilization has exceeded 60%. At the present time, on the basis of a seven-day working week, the Port Elizabeth harbour is operating at full capacity with serious and costly delays being experienced by cargo vessels which have to wait several days. The present volume of general cargo I understand, is one-third greater than it was a year ago. Furthermore, annual growth in the years before containerization, and after containerization, may be expected. It is of great concern to us that disruption during the construction period for two or three years, based on the plans which the hon. Minister has in mind, on the Chari Malan quay will further reduce the harbour capacity and will further reduce the level of efficiency. This will especially be the case during the period in which the four prime berths are being converted to two containerization berths.

There is no doubt in the minds of any of the Railway experts that on the very day that this expansion is completed, the port will be congested. I should like the hon. the Minister to give serious consideration to the urgent investigation of this matter again. I am convinced that his investigations would prove irrefutably that we must plan for an alternative deep-water port facility along the Port Elizabeth coast. In other words, the development of a deepwater harbour at St. Croix, we would not tail. For strategic and defence purposes, and geographically, Port Elizabeth is ideally suited for the deep-water harbour. I hope the hon. the Minister of Defence will support me in this.

In the event of our developing a deepwater harbour at St. Croix, we would not have to disrupt the existing harbour facilities and we would be leaving the existing facilities as they are. St. Croix could become the biggest deep-water harbour in the Republic of South Africa. I understand —and the hon. the Minister must correct me if I am wrong—that the Railways have looked at the potential, that they are most impressed and that they find that there is the potential for taking ships of up to 400 000 tons. The other day the hon. the Minister of Bantu Affairs told us that we on this side of the House must have a vision. I want to tell him that the people of Port Elizabeth have a vision. They have a vision of Port Elizabeth with the St. Croix scheme completed with a semi’s plant established, with a deep-water harbour and the next Iscor there. If all these visions are translated into realities, I can only say that the hon. the Minister will then be showing that he has the confidence in the South African economy which all of us on this side of the House have, because if we were in power that is what would happen.

I should like to bring a parochial matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister. This matter concerns the locomotive hooters on the narrow-gauge line passing near the airport in Port Elizabeth. That railway line runs round a bend, but the hooter noise is driving the Port Elizabeth people round the twist. This matter has been going on for a long time. The South African Bureau of Standards has issued their report now and I hope this matter will be cleared up because the people of Port Elizabeth, and that includes members of the National Party and the United Party —the Progs do not exist in Port Elizabeth of course—are all upset about this.

I would like to come to one other matter, viz. the question of higher tariffs. The cost of transporting goods to the main Reef market would hit coastal manufacturers most unfairly and I think a concession should be given to these coastal manufacturers. I hope the hon. the Minister agrees with me. He must also accept that the higher tariffs will result in higher distribution costs in respect of almost all consumer goods. We are perturbed that the hon. the Minister is asking the country’s salary and wage earners, especially the large mass of lowly-paid workers, to accept a further decline in the purchasing power of their pay-packets. A very large proportion of the earnings of working-class families is spent on foodstuffs which will all be affected by the higher tariffs and which are all transported by rail. Unless there are further Government subsidies it is obvious that the result will be that higher wages will be demanded from all sides. There can be no doubt that the increase in the rail tariffs and the increase in the cost of food will widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots. I sincerely hope that subsidies and concessions will be granted in this regard.

In the short time at my disposal I want to raise one last matter, which I hope the hon. the Minister will clear up for me, viz. the question of the Faros inquiry. According to Mr. Van Greunen, the commissioner inquiring into this whole affair the Administration could have saved R635 765 if they had accepted shipping offered at lower freight rates than those offered by the Faros group of companies. I think it is common cause that these contracts given to the Faros group of companies were tainted. I think they were obtained under fraudulent misrepresentation by this group of companies. The hon. the Minister will concede that the Government is the trustee of the taxpayers’ money. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he has had legal advice as to whether he can recoup this R635 000. I believe that this money belongs to the taxpayers of South Africa, and if the legal advice is that he is entitled to recoupment, I would like to know from him whether he has pressed for recoupment and what the outcome has been.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to follow up on what the hon. member for Walmer said, because I fear there is nothing to follow up on. His train trundled rather slowly through the Karoo. The United Party speakers in this debate today are like a train short of steam that is unable to make it up the hill. It puffs and blows, but the wheels continue to slip. One reason for this, perhaps, is that they no longer have the Sunday Times as a stoker.

In spite of all the negative things we have been hearing from that side today— we were told by the hon. member for Durban Point that “the Railways has reached a crisis point”—I want to compliment the hon. the Minister and the Management of the Railways today on having succeeded, in spite of the inflation that has caused fuel and steel prices to soar, in keeping the financial position of the Railways sound to the core. South Africa’s industrial growth has been phenomenal in recent years and the Railways has not only succeeded in keeping abreast of it, but has in fact, remained in the forefront. The Railways plays an enormous role in the domestic economy of South Africa. It is no longer only the national conveyor only, it is also the largest single employer and contributor to sustained economic growth. As an employer, provider of houses and as a consumer the Railways contributes a great deal towards the economy of the country and has also become an important growth factor in our cities and our towns.

In 1972-’73, total purchases by the Railways amounted to the enormous sum of R420 million. This included local purchases to the value of R317 million and purchases abroad to the value of R54 million. During the past five years the Railways has spent approximately R1 670 million on capital and improvement works. The Railways labour account at present amounts to approximately R621 million. This shows us the size to which this industry has already grown. The Minister and the Management therefore deserve the tribute and the thanks of the entire South Africa for having been able to maintain such a giant industry in such a sound financial state.

South Africa’s economy has benefited enormously from this economic strength of the Railways. The Railways has played its part in making South Africa economically strong. It is important that South Africa, in the light of world events and particularly the events on our borders, should be economically strong. Today economic strength carries a great deal of weight with the nations of the world. Sir, our Railways have played their part, notwithstanding world inflation, which, through our imports has also hit us hard, and which has shaken the transport systems of other countries, too, Sir, as you have already heard. In America the collapse of a large American railway company almost plunged the country into a depression. But by dint of economizing, mechanization, automization, team work and hard work the S.A. Railways saved itself at a stage when things were very difficult. This example had an infectious effect throughout the country. But, Sir, it did a great deal more than that. The Railways has also modernized itself and drastically adapted itself to the changing transport pattern of the new, greater South Africa which has been created by the Nationalist Government here.

We do not begrudge the railwayman his higher salary, because he richly deserves it. The railwayman has made a major contribution towards the Railways having weathered the storm in the difficult years that are past. It speaks volumes for the railwayman that it has still been possible to push up the level of productivity in the Railways every year. This achievement has been made possible by the praiseworthy loyalty and industry of the railwaymen. As a result the Railways has been able to play a key role in a fast-growing South Africa. The National Party has always had a soft spot for the railway workers and the other workers of this country, because the National Party has always been the party of the worker. That is why the old Labour Party died out in this country and was never able to revive.

In the quarter century in which the Nationalist Party has been in power, the salary and wage account of the railwayman has been increased by the massive amount of R511 million. We do not begrudge the railwayman a cent of it. We do not begrudge it him nor do we reproach him by saying that it is his salary increases that have been the cause of higher rates. That is what the Opposition says by implication, but does not have the courage to say frankly. Sir, the Railways is probably the only organization in the country which has been able to retrench staff and at the same time increase production. The Railways has set an example to the country as far as this is concerned. This is eloquently illustrated to us all by the figures. The volume of traffic of the Railways has increased by 31,8% over the past ten years, while the staff position of the Railways has increased by only 3,3%.

This is truly an achievement on the part of the railway worker. The Railways greatest achievement, however, was probably that it saved itself after landing in the red. Under the leadership of capable Ministers on this side of the House, the dynamic National Party Government, the Railways did not go and sit in sackcloth and ashes, but decided to save itself when it saw that things were going wrong. The Railways tackled things in an imaginative way. To retrench staff by 2% and push up production by 4,7% with that reduced staff, is an achievement of which any enterprise can be proud. Now the railwaymen will once again show that they are loyal, hardworking and dutiful and that they will earn the salary increases which have been granted them under difficult circumstances, to the full. The railway official has in fact, by dint of greater exertion on his part and the splendid effort put in by him to help the proverbial train up the steep incline, already earned what he has now received.

The United Party tried to paint a sombre picture of the Railways for us. They spoke about a crisis, but I do not think that things are going nearly as badly for the Railways as for the United Party. The hon. member for Durban Point wants yet another commission of inquiry, in addition to all the commissions of inquiry we have already had, which would investigate the transport problems of the country. It has always been a handy tactic to ask for a commission of inquiry if one does not have constructive suggestions or ideas. By doing so one only displays one’s own impotence, with the intention of passing it off on others.

Come along, give us a few constructive ideas.

The hon. member should immerse himself a little more deeply in these matters; then he will find that there is a built-in investigation in our whole approach to our transport system. People who are well-grounded, in these matters are constantly inspecting the transport problems of our country with a critical and inquiring eye. In other words, we investigate as we go along and we improve as we go along. Should the hon. member for Durban Point not rather consider establishing a commission of inquiry to investigate the role of the United Party as an effective Opposition? Particularly in view of the opinions of the public at large and in the light of the concern among people, the railwaymen too, that the official Opposition is no longer able to pull its weight owing to inner paralysis, it would perhaps be as well if we were to have a commission of inquiry into the United Party. Such a commission would meet with the approval of many people and perhaps even of those hon. members too. Perhaps this could be a source of light to them in the dark political night in which they still find themselves.

Order! The hon. member must not get derailed now.

Thank you very much for the hint, Mr. Speaker; I shall act on it. The railway people, and we, too, will be very grateful if this matter could be cleared up. Perhaps it would also help to relieve the mutual tension that we are so often able to detect among hon. members on that side of the House.

The hon. member for Durban Point posed here as the champion of the workers, particularly of the White workers. Let us take a brief look at the record of the United Party as far as the workers is concerned. We do not want to rake up old stories, but we shall have to go quite far back. If we do so, we find that the same tendency and pattern has been displayed through the years in the behaviour and the way of thought of the United Party.

What has this to do with the Railways?

Be quiet, the hon. member will hear in a moment. One cannot deduce from this pattern that the United Party has ever been the champion of the workers of this country, and that includes the railway workers. One could—rather say that the contrary is true. As far back as 50 years ago, in 1922, Mr. Jagger, the Minister of Railways and Harbours in the United Party Government of the time, dismissed more than 17 000 White railwaymen from the service and replaced them with 10 000 non-White railwaymen. One wonders how Black the Railways would have been today if those friends had remained in power. Under their rule, in the years 1938 to 1948, the number of non-White railway workers increased almost twice as fast as the number of White railway workers. The door was simply thrown open to the non-Whites. In the decade 1938 to 1948 the number of White railway workers increased by 43%, while the number of non-White railway workers increased by 72%. What would have been the position today if we had suffered the misfortune of their continuing in power? The Railways would have been as black as a coal train. Perhaps it sounds incredible, but there was a time when hon. members opposite pleaded in this Parliament for White railwaymen to be discharged so that they could be replaced by lower paid non-Whites.

That is untrue.

Mr. Speaker, I quote from the Senate Hansard of 1951 in which Senator Hosking, a U.P. Senator said: “There are too many White labourers on the Railways.” The whole spirit and purport of that debate, if you want to look it up, was: Take the White workers out of the Railways and replace them with non-Whites, because the non-Whites are cheaper workers. The sympathy of the United Party is still with the financially powerful and with the major users of the Railways. Its heart is still with those people who want to have as much cheap labour as possible and who do not care what happens to the White worker in the process. The White railway workers of South Africa will not forget that, even though they are courted and told: “You should have been given greater benefits.” The White railway workers know that under a U.P. Government they would be ousted from their jobs and they are afraid that it might again be said, as Senator Hosking did, that there were too many White labourers in the Railways, the shocking implication being that more cheap Black labour and less expensive White labour could perhaps help to balance the Railway Budget.

That is not our policy. You are off the track.

The hon. member should just listen. I am telling him the history of his party and I am applying it to the United Party of today. The United Party is not honest in its approach to the White worker. We experienced this once again during the recent election. Often we had to hear in the workers’ constituencies that the Government allowed Whites to be ousted by non-Whites. We came across this sordid propaganda at workers’ constituency after workers’ constituency. When they come here …

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

I withdraw the word “sordid”, Sir. When the hon. members come here, job reservation is their major stumbling block in the path of industrial development in our country. Fortunately the electorate no longer believes them, as was devastatingly shown by the election results. The workers know that the policy of the Nationalist Government has always been that the White worker will be protected against undermining of his wage level by the use of cheap non-White labour, and that non-Whites will not be employed at the cost of Whites.

The Opposition now have a great deal to say because more non-Whites are being employed by the Railways in an orderly fashion. This has taken place as a result of the country-wide shortage of White workers. It has taken place with the full support and agreement of the Railways staff associations concerned. The White persons who have been released in this way are, as far as possible, appointed to better posts than those they held previously. This also implies benefits for the Whites, while at the same time the department is in a position to utilize its labour force more effectively. You should remember that it is a case of mutual co-operation and absolute confidence. The railwayman trusts the Government in this regard because he knows that the Government will not leave him in the lurch. If this arrangement in respect of labour were to have taken place under a U.P. Government, there would have been strikes, rebellion and chaos in this country because the railwayman does not trust them. With that black record of theirs, the railwayman does not trust them.

As far back as 1951 Mrs. Margaret Ballinger, a former member of this House, had these very significant words to say about the United Party—

Mrs. Ballinger knew those people. [Interjections.] The doors and the floodgates that the National Party keeps tightly closed to protect the White worker and the White railway worker of this country, would be thrown open by the United Party if they were given the chance. They would do so because they would rather join the financially powerful in serving the golden calf than serve the White worker of South Africa. This has been the pattern of their actions and of their thinking in past years.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bloemfontein North has kept this House going for the last 20 minutes or so. During the time that I have been in this House I cannot recollect hearing any member who was as mixed-up and who so completely contradicted himself in the space of 20 minutes, as that hon. member. He started off by castigating the erstwhile United Party Government for replacing 3 000 White workers on the Railways with 6 000 Black workers, and he ended up by boasting of the fact that under the Nationalist Party Government the number of Black workers on the Railways had increased by 62%. Where is the logic in his argument? What exactly did he try to tell the House this afternoon?

I want to tell you what he was trying to do, Sir. He was not trying to say anything to this House. For political reasons, for miserable petty party-political reasons, he was putting on record what he wanted to go and quote at his first report-back meeting in Bloemfontein, and what for, Sir? To go and tell the railway workers how wonderfully they are being treated by this Nationalist Government. But, Sir, he is not going to bluff them for much longer. These workers have learned, and they are learning, just exactly what they can expect from this Government. Hon. members on this side of the House have shown over and over again during this debate what the effect of this Budget of the hon. the Minister is going to be, this inflationary Budget which is going to affect every single one of our people, railway workers as well as others, in this Republic of ours. The hon. member for Bloemfontein North was not in the House at the time of the last Minister, Mr. Ben Schoeman—at any rate, not long enough to have got to know that gentleman. Sir, he must know that it was the Hon. Ben Schoeman, when he was Minister of Railways, who took the cow by the tail; who had the courage to come out and say, “I have an Administration to run, and if I have to use Black workers for it I will do so”, and more power to him, Sir, for having done so. He did this because he had an Administration to run. Sir, the hon. member for Bloemfontein North says that the Railway Administration has saved itself in years gone by through higher productivity, through good work by its workers. Sir, I am prepared to concede that; of course it has, and it is going to have to do it again now, but the poor unfortunate railway workers today have a harder task than they have ever had before, because they are not getting the leadership from that hon. Minister and from the Government that they should be getting and to which they are entitled; because, Sir, they have a Minister and a Government who are hide-bound by ideology, the very ideology that that hon. member for Bloemfontein North has just been talking about. Sir, until such time as we get a change of Government, a Government which is unfettered by ideological chains, we are going to continue with this situation that every now and then this Government is going to run out of cash, as the Railways have done now, and will have to come to the public of South Africa and sock them again with increased tariffs. Sir, this has been the pattern over the last 24 years, and here it has happened again this year.

Worse than ever.

Sir, we are coming now to the end of this debate, and there is one thing in which I have been very disappointed. On that side of the House I think there are something like 65 farmers, but I have not heard one word of protest from a single farmer on that side at what the hon. the Minister is doing to our farming community—not one word of protest —and then that is the Government that says it is a farmers’ Government!

Are you going to talk politics now?

They are not a farmers’ Government; they hate the farmers. That refers particularly to this hon. Minister, because what has he done? I notice that a farmer, the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs and of Forestry, has come to sit next to him. What is going to happen to his timber industry?

He has come to protest now.

I sincerely hope so. What has the hon. the Minister of Transport as Minister in charge of the Railways done to the hon. the Minister of Forestry and to his department and to the industry that he is supposed to be looking after? He has come along with an increase to the grower of 18,6% on his railage costs. That is what the hon. the Minister has done to the timber farmer, and I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister of Forestry is protesting. Sir, I am very glad to see that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture has come into the House.

I have been sitting here all the time.

Well, I am glad to hear that. Will he tell me how many farmers have protested? Has he protested?

No, he sat here lapping it up.

Does he know what the effect of this increased railage is going to be on the farmers of this country?

He does not care.

My hon. friend here says that he does not care. I think that is the impression that we have got and I think that is the impression which the farmers outside are getting too, that this Government does not care about them any more. Sir, let us just look at a few figures. Unfortunately the Minister of Agriculture himself is not here, but his Deputy is here and he can convey these figures to him. Of course, Sir, I would like to know, too, whether the hon. the Minister of Agriculture was party to this decision that the hon. the Minister of Transport now brings to this House with regard to these increased tariffs. Sir, the hon. the Minister has now introduced an increase of 60% in the tariff for the cartage of livestock. Last year the cartage of livestock brought in R11,1 million. An increase of 60% on that amounts to R6.675 million, and this is what the stock farmer is being asked to absorb, because unlike the businessman or the industrialist he cannot pass on this increase. Do you know what this means, Sir? I have five carcasses that were sent to the Port Elizabeth abattoir. The net return from those five carcasses was R207-64 and the railage was R22. In other words, 11% of the net return of that farmer went in railage. But, do you know, Sir, what it is going to be now after this increase? It is not going to be R22 any more; it is now going to be R35 on that consignment worth R207, so it is going to be 17%. Seventeen percent of the return of that farmer will now go in railway rates. The Minister says they must absorb this, that the stock farmers must absorb this cost; they must not pass it on. But the farmer cannot pass it on, so there is no question of their not absorbing it. But let us look at the other products. In respect of animal products like wool, hides and skins, which during this last financial year brought in R10,36 million, the increase is going to be at the rate of 16,6%, which means an extra R1,72 million which the farmers will have to absorb, the wool farmers and the others here in the Karoo. Let us have a look at the worst bit of all—that is the farmers who are producing what is referred to in the books of the Administration as “vegetable products”. Here the increase in the tariff is 20,9%. Last year the income from these products was R64,2 million, and 20,9% increase on that, if my arithmetic is correct, amounts to an additional R 13,422 million which these farmers will have to absorb on the railage of such things as maize, wheat and other agricultural products. Moreover, that is basing it on last year’s crop, and last year all that the Railways had to move in the form of maize to the coast was just a little under ½ million tons, a little under 500 000 tons. This year they will have to move 3,6 million tons, so it is going to be a lot more than R13 million that those farmers will have to absorb by reason of the increased rates on maize, wheat and other agricultural products. In fact, I believe that what this hon. Minister is asking the agricultural sector to absorb in direct costs is over R30 million for this year. The total of the figures I have given is R21,817 million, but I believe that when you take the increased crops we have had and the natural increase in tonnages which the Minister anticipates he will have to move, the direct cost of this Budget to the farming community of this country is going to be R30 million. How can the farmer absorb it? At the same time, because of the nature of his business, he is not in a position to pass it on to anybody, to the distributor or to the butcher or to anybody else, because it is a direct charge against the farmer in every case.

Now, Sir, I have only dealt with the direct cost, the direct charge to the farmer, but what about the indirect cost? What about the fact that the tariff on the transport of fertilizer has gone up by 30 %? That is how he has increased it. The hon. the Minister in his Budget Speech glibly passed off the fact that certain tariffs have gone up by 5,8% and others by 18,9% on average but this is what it means. Fertilizer tariffs have gone up by 30%, and the farmers will have to carry that as well because they will have to pay more for their fertilizer. The average increase in tariffs for all these necessities that he is going to have to use is in the region of 15%. Parcel rates —and I do not believe that there is any sector of the community in South Africa that makes more use of the railways parcels service than do the farmers—are up by 15%. Then there is coal. Most farmers have to use coal for heating and for other purposes, and that is up by 17,5%. This is apart from the other costs that are going to flow from this Budget, such as the natural increase in the cost of living which the Minister has been warned about. Will the hon. the Minister say that petrol and diesel fuel is not going to cost more? The transport of these fuels will cost more, but are they also not going to cost more at source because of the tariff increases that the Minister has made? With the extra charges on the transport of tractors, spare parts, fencing materials and all of these things, what is the cost going to be to the farming community? If it does not reach at least R50 million I will eat my hat. This is the direct financial cost to the agricultural industry.

There are, however, side issues to this. One, in particular, is the effect which this increase in the tariff for livestock of 60% is going to have on our livestock industry as a whole. I do not know whether this hon. Minister knows it, but the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, I am sure, is fully aware of the fact that our livestock industry cannot exist without our stud breeding industry. The stud breeding industry in turn is dependent upon agricultural shows and the sales held at those agricultural shows for its continuing prosperity. What is the effect of this increase going to be? I just want to digress to record here that this increase of 60% now comes on top of an increase of 60% which was introduced in February last year, so that in 18 months the effective increase has been 150%. A farmer sending an animal today to an agricultural show will pay 150% more than he paid in January last year.

That is a scandal.

This is something that must also be taken into consideration. Let us, however, only deal now with this present 60% increase. A breeder here in the Western Cape who wishes to send an animal to the Rand Easter Show will have to pay R10 more for the railage on that animal. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture will know that the Studbook Association and other breeders’ associations have made representations through his department for the réintroduction of the rebate which was allowed in the past. This is because the stud stock that went to agricultural shows went at the livestock rate, in the old days, less a rebate. That rebate was removed a couple of years ago. The hon. the Minister will know that in February I asked his predecessor whether it was his intention to reintroduce the rebate or not and he said “no”. Now I know why. He was not only not going to reintroduce the rebate, he was going to sock breeders for another 60%. When one thinks of the large agricultural shows in this country, the Royal Agricultural Show in Pietermaritzburg, the Rand Easter Show in Johannesburg and the Cape Show here, does one realize what is going to happen now? These breeders are not going to send their stock to these shows. These shows are going to become regional shows only. One will only have the Western Cape breeders showing their animals here at the Cape Show and one will only have the Transvaal breeders showing at the Rand Easter Show. Our stock industry in this country is going to lose out. Why? Because this hon. Minister cannot run an efficient administration. That is why. This is so because he has come along and increased the tariffs. He glibly says that everybody must absorb these costs. I only hope he realizes now exactly what he has done to the agricultural industry. There is an agriculturist.

What are your suggestions?

Change the Government and let us have an efficient administration! That is my suggestion. There is an agriculturist, the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet. Is he happy at having to foot the bill for another R50 million?

What are your suggestions?

I told that hon. member what my suggestion was. However, is the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet happy to go and tell the agricultural sector that they must absorb another R50 million to keep the Railways going? He does not answer. It is all very well for him to keep quiet there. Why did he not get up and challenge the hon. Minister and ask him why he had increased the tariffs?

I am asking you: What do you suggest?

I have told the hon. member what I suggest. What I suggested was that they must move over and let us take over and then we would have an efficient administration. I said so when I started, and the hon. member for Bloemfontein North had to speak as he did because he has a Government and a Minister which cannot give the proper guidance to the Administration of the Railways. They are hidebound; they are shackled by their ideologies.

I want to come to another aspect of this Budget. A report appeared on the front page of The Cape Times on 20 September saying that the Price Controller had instructed all regional offices to keep a sharp look-out for any attempts by traders to exploit the increased railway rates. The heading of the article is “Beware Price Exploiters”. What is happening is that this hon. Minister and his Government are now hiding behind this idea of price exploitation instead of admitting that it is their inefficiency which has caused this increase in tariffs which must be passed on, because nobody can absorb all this. They ignore this factor completely. I have just mentioned the agricultural industry which will have to pay out R50 million. What is the hon. the Minister asking everybody to absorb? He is asking them to absorb R200 million. How can industry and commerce absorb R200 million? He has pretentions of being an economist; there was a time when he was Minister of Economic Affairs and he must know how things work. I want to warn hon. members here and now that the Government cannot hide behind this threat, this bogeyman. There was also a report that the Government must subsidize foodstuffs. This is not the time for me to plead for it, but I think I can say to the hon. the Minister of Transport that I believe he should go to his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, and tell him that his industry has taken a knock and that he should introduce greater subsidies, especially for necessary foodstuffs for the day-to-day needs of the people in South Africa.

In conclusion I want to look into the crystal ball as so many members on that side have done. I believe the hon. the Minister has made a big mistake; whether or not it is intentional I do not know. He has now budgeted for a surplus of R3 million. In his speech he spoke with exuberance of the buoyancy of the economy, of the growth he anticipates and of the extra tonnage that he will cart. But he still budgets for a surplus of only R3 million. We are going to have a repetition next year of what we have seen so often with this Nationalist Government and its various Ministers, not only the Ministers of Finance, but the Ministers of Railways as well. He is going to come here in March next year with a thumping big surplus, extra money that he has taken unnecessarily out of the pockets of the housewives and all the consumers in South Africa and out of the pockets of the farmers. He is then going to stick his chest out and say: “Look what a good boy I am.” All the psycho-phants ar going to get up and thank the hon. the Minister for that tremendous surplus. I want to warn him now that I will remind him then of what I am saying now, and the housewives, the other consumers of South Africa and the farmers of South Africa will not forgive him for taking millions of extra rand unnecessarily out of their pockets. This is going to result because he is not prepared to accept the amendment proposed by my friend the hon. member for Durban Point, namely that he should investigate this matter and see where he is making his mistakes and where he is losing out, where he can take short cuts and where he can economize.

Time, gentlemen, time!

Under which Whips do I serve? Do I really have to listen to the Whips on the other side? Anyway, I think I should take it as a cue; perhaps there is an agreement between the Whips. I support the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point and I am warning the hon. the Minister that he is upsetting the agricultural sector, the industrial sector and the housewives. Next year when he comes with a tremendous surplus he must look out for the wrath of all of them.

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate for two days now, and until the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg had spoken, I was inclined to think that many constructive ideas had been brought up in the debate, but now I must honestly admit that he added so much straw to the mixture, that I shall need a lot of time to pick out the grains again. In particular, the hon. member argued that the farmers were going to have a very hard time of it as a result of the rates increases, an argument that entirely contradicted the argument advanced by the hon. member for Durban Point. The hon. member for Durban Point said that everything would be passed on to the housewife, and that the housewife was going to have a very hard time of it. He said—

Does a farmer not have a family?

He went on to say: “For example the price of meat and livestock has gone up by 60%.” But now the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South is saying that it will not be passed on to the consumer. As it happens, the hon. member is right. I do not want to give him much credit for what he said this afternoon, but concerning this point he is entirely correct, in contrast to what the hon. member for Durban Point said.

Nevertheless, I listened attentively, and many debating points were raised. Many arguments were advanced here merely for the sake of debate and for the sake of party politics, but even some of these were stimulating to my train of thought as the responsible Minister and also to that of the Management. Now I just want to make one remark. When I introduced this debate, I said that I had the greatest appreciation for the staff of the Railways. For the Railways, the human factor is of vital importance, and that is why I welcomed the fact that so much was said by various hon. members about the interests and the welfare of the officials of the South African Railways. I want to say, too, that I shall make it my business to maintain very close contact with the officials of the Railways, as I have already done since occupying the post of Minister of Transport. To start with I made a round trip in order to call on the various systems. In the course of the trip I was in Bloemfontein, Kimberley, East London and Durban and have already called on the Johannesburg and Pretoria systems, and have been to inspect the workshops. I have also visited the harbour in Durban. I have not been everywhere yet, but I have made it my business to begin as soon as possible.

Have you been to St. Croix too?

Yes, I was in Port Elizabeth once before. I shall call on the System Management there, too. I made it my business to make contact with the various sections of the Railways. Sir, I should like to give the undertaking that I want to maintain that contact continuously. I have now made a start with this, not only because I wanted to acquaint myself with the activities of the Railways, but also because I want to have personal contact with the people of the Railways. That is why I should like to make it my business to pay a call on the various sections every year, if at all possible.

Nevertheless, Sir, I should like to express my appreciation for the debate that has been conducted up to now. I should like to deal with the various subjects that have been raised here individually—as I said a moment ago, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South has not made my task any easier—and in order to study the subject in more depth and in so doing, to provide better replies, I shall require more time. I therefore move, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate of the Bill I told the hon. the Deputy Minister that we objected to the transport levy which would have to be paid henceforth and that we would pursue the matter in the Committee Stage. During the Second Reading debate already, we on this side of the House stated most of our motives for opposing this clause. I just want to repeat that, in the first instance, we believe that the wording of the clause implies an increase and we on this side of the House are opposed to any increase—apart from the fact that we are also opposed to the principle of the levy—because we believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister has more than enough money in his fund to pay the necessary subsidies to various companies.

I pointed out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that we had a balance of R2 640 000 in that fund at the end of the 1972-’73 financial year. If the subsidy being paid is increased and there are problems with the levy which has to be collected, one expects there to be a reduction in the balance of the fund the year after. We find, however, that at the end of the 1973-’74 financial year the amount in the fund was not R2 600 000, but R4 713 000. It seems to us as though this fund with the present levies, which are considerably lower than the maximum levies, is large enough to meet the needs existing for subsidies to the full. Consequently we feel that an increased levy should be opposed and I therefore want to move the following amendment to the clause—

The maximum levy which is being collected at the present time is more than 50 cents. There is a considerable balance in the fund, and I might add that this balance does not constitute the only moneys which are available for a transport levy. There are also funds available from the liquor account—for example, the profits made on liquor sold to the Bantu. Mindful of the cumulative effect of these increases, we on this side of the House believe that there are already sufficient funds available and that there is consequently no justification whatsoever for increasing the maximum levy to R1. The argument will be advanced that it is a maximum levy and that it is not the intention to levy the maximum levy, but our counter-argument is that one does not stipulate a maximum figure of one does not intend collecting that maximum levy from the employer at some stage or other. We believe it is not necessary since there are adequate funds. I therefore move this amendment to reduce the maximum levy from R1 to 50 cents. For accounting purposes a levy of 50 cents will give just as little trouble as a levy of R1 and therefore there is no reason for the hon. the Deputy Minister to object to the amendment from an accounting point of view.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Maitland and I will understand each other better after I have given my explanation. His problem is that his premise is a wrong one. In order to obtain the balance of the fund, the hon. member adds up the contributions from all the areas in the country. He then arrives at a gross amount and regards this as a reserve fund or an accumulated available fund. His premise is a totally wrong one. If he reads the Bill, he will see that the fund of every area belongs to that specific area and is allocated to that specific area and cannot be made over to another area. No such thing as mutual subsidization exists. One cannot collect a levy in Port Elizabeth and use it to subsidize a service in Johannesburg. There are regions to which the funds are restricted. Now the hon. member will immediately understand that in certain regions we shall have smaller surpluses where the nature of the circumstances in those areas makes it practical and feasible for this to be the case.

The second mistake the hon. member makes is that he again argued from a wrong premise when he said that this was an increase which was being proposed. This is, in fact, no increase which is being proposed …

[Inaudible.]

Pardon?

No, I am listening.

It is sensible to listen. The hon. member is, in fact, requesting a radical reduction, and this is something I unfortunately cannot accept.

I want to give an example of a few areas in which the maximum of 20 cents a week, as the Act reads at present, is being levied, and in which considerable supplementary funds are still being obtained from the Treasury. One of the points we also heard in the debate we have just had, although it is not relevant here, is the concept and principle of Treasury contributions in subsidization of these types of services. I am just going to mention a few at random; I cannot read out the whole long list to you. Let us look at Boksburg. There the balance is R79 000, the anticipated revenue per annum is R132 000, while the anticipated expenditure per annum is R1,8 million. The additional funds from the Treasury as from 1 April of this year already amount to R613 000, to make it a round figure.

Is that for Boksburg?

Yes. The hon. member should remember that the maximum is already being collected there. When these matters are not taken into account in making an assessment of the accumulated amount, surely hon. members can see that it creates a discrepancy altogether. We may mention any other example. Let us take Edenvale for argument’s sake. At the end of August of this year the balance there was R11 998, the anticipated revenue for the year was R47 000 and the anticipated expenditure R100 000. The hon. member should remember that they already pay the maximum contribution of 20 cents there. The contribution of the Treasury during the period I mentioned, from 1 April to the end of August, was R32 546. I have here a list of approximately 12 regions which I could mention to you in which the maximum contribution of 20 cents is not adequate. In those regions contributions to the value of R613 000 have been received from the Treasury at one place, R107 000 at another place, R358 000 and R368 000 respectively at two places, and at another place R288 000. In other words, these funds do not succeed everywhere in having the maximum effect at the maximum tariff and therefore the Treasury is asked to contribute.

There are a number of areas in which the maximum of 20 cents is collected and in which the balance is adequate to meet the demands for subsidies at the present time. As it is the hon. member’s problem related to those regions in which there is sufficient funds and in which a small balance has consequently accumulated without any Treasury contribution whatsoever having been paid. I mention a few examples to you. In Brakpan the balance is R612, the anticipated revenue is R68 000 and the anticipated expenditure R54 000. The maximum of 20 cents is contributed there. Another example is Carletonville. At present the balance there is R822, the anticipated revenue R35 000 and the anticipated expenditure R30 000. In other words, we have a favourable situation there at the maximum contribution. I can mention a whole number of them. In Vereeniging the balance is R121 000. However, the anticipated revenue is R180 000 and the anticipated expenditure R240 000. Therefore, if we add up the figures of the existing balance, we get the wrong picture of an accumulated surplus. We go further. There are a large number of areas in the country in which the maximum contribution is not made. Alberton’s scale is 2½ cents in terms of the present provision; Alexandra, 10 cents; Benoni, 5 cents; Kroonstad, New Germany and Johannesburg, all 10 cents; Cape Town and Pinetown, 15 cents. In other words, there are a whole number of areas in which the maximum contribution is not collected, because we cannot take the money from those areas to pay for another region in which the maximum does not suffice. In the meantime certain areas have been exempted because the amount collected was quite adequate to provide in the subsidy needs of those particular areas. The following areas have already been exempted altogether: Evander, Germiston, Kimberley, Kinross, Klerksdorp, Krugersdorp, Trichardt. These areas have all been exempted altogether because the accumulated funds are sufficient to cover the position there completely.

I now come to the argument in connection with the increase. I maintain—and I shall prove it—that it is, in fact, not an increase. We are speaking about the maximum now. The present contribution is 20 cents a week, for a six-day working week. Therefore, in order to determine what the monthly amount is, one has to make this small calculation on the following basis: 20 cents divided by six days gives one 3,333 cents a day. If one multiplies 3,333 cents by 26 days, one gets 86,6 cents; let’s say 87 cents to make it a round figure. That is the present contribution. If the employee has a six-day working week in a month of 31 days and we determined that the contribution should now be R1 per month, one calculates this as follows: 26 working days divided by the 31 days of the month multiplied by R1 gives one 83,87 cents a month. That is, in effect, what he will pay. That is why I say that the argument that this is an increase is not correct. It depends on the working pattern and the calculating pattern. From the nature of the case someone with a seven-day working week will have to pay the maximum amount, but the calculation differs in the other case too. Therefore, there is no radical deviation and there is no radical increase. As a matter of fact, I maintain that in most cases it will bring about a reduction, due to the maximum six-day working week at R1. This is an easy figure to calculate. I think the hon. member should consider withdrawing his amendment so that we may have unanimity on this matter. I am convinced he will now see the matter in the same light as I do.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister does not seem to appreciate the fact that, to start with, this side of the House is totally opposed to sectional taxation. We are totally opposed to taxation imposed upon an employer for a need caused by the Government. The hon. the Deputy Minister has said quite correctly that the State should bear certain expenses in this connection. He gave us figures of the amount that the State bear in addition to the levy with which we are dealing now. That is, surely, the correct procedure. It is State policy that creates the areas from which this transport is required. It is that hon. Deputy Minister’s Minister who has failed to provide the necessary rail transport.

Oh, get off that one!

Therefore he has to subsidize. We have just completed a two-day debate during which we have asked for an inquiry into the whole question of transport in South Africa. This is one of the problems, where the employer, because of State policy, has to pay an employer’s tax, one of a number of taxes he has to pay as an employer. We are now being asked to increase this amount as far as the average employer is concerned. The fact is that these employers have up to the present been asked to pay 83 cents per month, the maximum scale, in respect of their employees. They are now being asked to pay R1. In principle we are opposed to the increase, and in fact we are opposed not only to the increase but to the tax. We believe that if in justice and for socioeconomic reasons transport must be subsidized then, it should be subsidized by the State. On what basis does the hon. the Minister tell us that the State subsidizes one town and does not subsidize the town next door? Why must Boksburg get a subsidy from the State, while Benoni does not get a subsidy and does not even pay the full levy?

Because I look after it.

The hon. member for Boksburg says he looks after it. Sir, I will tell you what he does to it; he makes his employers in Boksburg pay the maximum, which at the moment is 20 cents a week. That is how he looks after his employers; he loads them with the maximum special punitive tax for being an employer, whereas my hon. friend, the hon. member for Benoni, looks after his employers who only pay 2½ cents a week. That is the difference between a good M.P. and a bad M.P.

You make even me laugh.

Mr. Chairman, I always laugh when somebody sticks his neck out and lays it gently on the block so that I merely have to tap it to chop it off. Sir, let us get back to the real issue. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister what the basis of calculation is. What is the point at which the State subsidizes instead of calling upon the employer to pay this tax? He admits that in practice this is not going to be a nominal maximum. If towns are paying the full 20 cents already and the Government has to subsidize, then obviously the employers are going to have to pay R1 immediately, so there is going to be an increase for all those firms in all those towns which are at present on the maximum. On what basis? Why this discrimination? Will the Minister tell us how this discrimination works? On what grounds does he discriminate between Benoni and Boksburg when Benoni has non-White employees and Boksburg also has non-White employees? It is not as a result of Benoni’s policy or Boksburg’s policy that townships such as Daveyton and the resettlement area, which has a train service, are situated where they are. That decision was made not by the employers but by the Central Government and therefore it is right that the Government should be responsible. Sir, if the Minister is going to subsidize, then why not subsidize his colleague, the Minister of Railways? We have been hearing for the past two days of the R100 million loss on passenger traffic on the Railways. Here we have this transport levy. If you are going to sock the employer, why not give the Railways some benefit too? Sir, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to do something else. He has given us the subsidy that is being paid out. I want him to tell this House exactly how he analyses the books of a transport undertaking before he allocates a subsidy to it. What auditors check the books and how do they check? Is the Minister satisfied that some of the recipients of this subsidy, this tax from the employer, are not in fact hiding their profits through clever bookkeeping, because I have heard it said that there are some very clever bookkeepers who can take a set of books and, without any crookery but, just by careful bookkeeping, hide profit. Sir, we have seen it happen with this Government over and over again. I want to know how the Minister ensures that he is not being taken for a ride, and that with the provision made for reserves and depreciation and with hidden costs, he is not in fact subsidizing companies which in fact do not require that subsidy. Sir, not only is this amount excessive, and therefore I support the amendment, but we are not satisfied with the way in which this is being handled by the Minister.

Sir, right at the end of his argument the hon. member let the cat out of the bag. He said this Government could not be trusted with any organization which involved money.

I did not say so.

His specific words will appear in Hansard; we will be able to read them there. But what is he trying to do? This is an example of their economic sabotage tactics, to commit economic sabotage in respect of every public organization in which the Government has an interest. Sir, I do not want to proceed in that vein. However, it is a pity that he came along with that story in the penultimate sentence of his argument. But let us view the position as it is. This afternoon I am not going to chase after the hon. member for Durban Point; I am not going to run after him, for some of his friends have already found out that if one runs after a man one eventually gasps for breath oneself. Sir, the position is that the National Transport Commission examines and has to approve each one of the tariffs bus services are allowed. Every single one of these tariffs is assessed by the National Transport Commission. All possible evidence is heard in that regard. They arrive at a decision and make a recommendation to the Minister of Transport on the tariff which would be reasonable and fair and on the amount of the subsidy; and when, from the nature of the case, the National Transport Commission has decided that such and such a subsidy should be allocated and that the maximum contribution in that particular region is not adequate, the Treasury steps in and allocates an additional subsidy. [Interjections.] I first want to complete my argument; then the hon. member may speak. He can have many opportunities to speak, for we are in Committee. Let me first speak about the argument as to why certain regions pay more than others. Sir, surely it is the most elementary logic that due to the infrastructure—and the hon. member for Durban Point touched on this —a Black residential area happens to be situated near a certain region. From the nature of the case, transport costs from that place to the adjoining municipality are lower than they are to the outlying municipality. Now, what must the Government do in this connection? What must the Government do other than allocate a subsidy on transport to this area which is situated further away from the Black residential area so that the worker will still pay the same amount in both residential areas? What else can we do? What is fairer than just this? And when the maximum contribution is made and it is still not adequate, money is taken by the Treasury from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and those workers are placed in a similar position. What, seen from a human point of view, is fairer than just this, and what objection can there be to this? It has been accepted throughout the years that this is a sectional tax. It was said when the original Act was introduced, and it was said when it was amended, but it is still hoped that this will be a temporary pattern since the ideal still is that the industrialist should pay his worker sufficient to be able to meet his travelling expenses himself.

But this has been the situation for the past 16 years.

This is not the occasion, neither is it within the scope of the present discussion or within the scope of this legislation, to go into that. I cannot determine new wages or make any statements about that. You would immediately rule me out of order, Sir, After all, I cannot discuss that principle. But it is the primary task of the industrialist to see that this matter is set right. Then these things will not be necessary. But as long as this situation persists and the industrialist does not pay his worker enough in wages to enable him to afford his full travelling expenses himself, so long the State will be called upon to establish a fund and to compel the employer to contribute to the transport costs, and so long will the State be compelled to take money from the Treasury, money paid by you and me as taxpayers, in order cover these costs. This is the situation, and the hon. member should accept it as such. The only alternative, if one is to abolish this, is for the Treasury to accept full responsibility for these costs. This is a matter which was debated when the principles of the original Act were discussed. Another alternative will be that one will in any event have to compel the employee to pay a fare he is unable to pay.

I now come to the other question put by the hon. member for Durban Point, i.e. about control, the books. When I was still administratively in charge of the matter—it is no longer the case; the hon. the Minister handles it himself—the National Transport Commission from time to time gave the hon. the Minister and I the assurance that they had appointed cost accountants to scrutinize the books of each of these companies and to check and study their applications for amended tariffs very thoroughly. If one is acquainted with the workings of the National Transport Commission and knows how it examines applications, one will realize that I have reason to be satisfied that the National Transport Commission has done its duty very thoroughly in every respect. In cases where the Transport Commission was not satisfied, it instituted additional investigations so as to acquaint itself fully with circumstances and to satisfy itself before it came to the Minister with a recommendation for increased tariffs. I say again, for the edification of the hon. member for Durban Point: This is not an increase. The present Act makes provision for 20 cents a week. The amount depends on the length of the working week and the calculating method. The legislation before the House at present proposes R1 a month. I still contend, that there is no increase in tariffs. It is, however, a more effective method of costing, and for that reason I see no logic and reason for the amendment and, from the nature of the case, I can neither debate it further nor accept it.

Mr. Chairman, I can see why the hon. the Deputy Minister is a little sensitive here. After all, their record is not so good. They have been a little careless with public money on occasions. We only have to think of some of the inquiries that have taken place. And let me tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that he said so, not us.

Your colleague said so.

He said nothing of the sort. [Interjections.] Yes, his Hansard is there. I listened and we all listened. All he asked of the Deputy Minister, quite civilly, quietly and unemotionally, was: What is the basis on which the subsidy is paid and what control is exercised over the books of the companies who are going to get this subsidy? I can, however, understand the sensitivity of the hon. the Deputy Minister when it comes to matters of public money. The hon. the Deputy Minister then goes on and tries to lay the blame on the industrialist. He says the industrialists are not paying adequate wages. During the Second Reading debate, however, I asked him whether he was prepared to make representations to the hon. the Minister of Labour, or through his Minister to the Cabinet, to see that we get a proper wage determination. If he feels so bad about the wages being paid, why does he not see that a proper wage determination is applied?

This transport is a factor in this wage determination.

That is correct, this transport is part of the determination and is taken into consideration. All this Deputy Minister has to do to get out of his difficulties is to see to it that a fair determination is decided upon. However, this Government does not have the courage to do so. That is why we sit with this sort of …

Get off it!

Get off what?

You cannot bait me!

The hon. the Deputy Minister says I cannot bait him. Look, I believe that we have introduced a perfectly reasonable amendment and if the hon. the Deputy Minister really took time to consider that amendment, he would know that he would be quite safe, in whatever he wanted to do, by accepting that amendment. I believe it to be a reasonable amendment showing the attitude of this House towards this sectional tax, and I shall accordingly support the amendment.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.