Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Leader of the House, I should like to announce that as far as the business for next week is concerned we shall, as far as possible, follow the Order Paper.

I should like to add that if we get as far as Order of the Day No. 10 today, it will be necessary to move that it stand over since the Minister of Manpower is unable to be present here today.

intimated that he had exercised the discretion conferred upon him by Standing Order No. 1 (Private Bills) and had permitted the Bill, while retaining the form of a private measure, to be proceeded with as a public bill.

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned last night I was indicating that spending on infrastructure and the provision of services is not adequate to ensure socio-economic development. History shows us that there have been certain countries which invested in transport on a large scale but nevertheless failed to achieve economical development. This had catastrophical consequences since too much was invested in the transport sector, leaving too little money for financing other services such as education, housing and employment.

One could ask what the role of transport, as a servant of the national economy, really is. It is evident that transport is no end in itself, but is a derived demand, and that one should always take into account the fact that before providing a transport service one should ensure that that service will in fact be used. The best example in this regard is the construction of the Sishen-Saldanha railway line, the harbour facilities at Saldanha Bay, the railway lines to Broodsnyersplaas and Richards Bay and the construction of the harbour itself. In those instances there was a demand for ore and coal, and from that emanated the derived demand for transport services.

At this stage we can ask ourselves: What can transport do? Basically, transport can play four roles to perform its function within the national economy: an economical function, a political function, a social function and a strategic function. When considering these functions it is no wonder that the transport economist, Denis Munby, when spelling out the role of transport in the national economy, exclaimed—

Basically then, this summarizes the problem faced by transport when services have to be provided. However, this is not all. If transport is not provided, the authorities are criticized. If transport is in fact provided but is not fully utilized, the Government is also criticized. Therefore the problem remains that within the capitalist system it should be borne in mind that the demand for transport is a derived demand, for only then can adequate transport be provided.

The two most serious problems which threaten this demand in the short-term, and therefore also constitute a threat to the role of transport, firstly as a derived demand and secondly as a servant to the national economy, are the following: Firstly, that of labour. Transport is already a labour-orientated activity and is consequently experiencing grave problems in obtaining suitable labour.

Coupled with this is the problem of energy. This problem affects transport in two ways. One aspect is the availability of energy, and the second aspect is the price. I shall deal with the price aspect first. At the beginning of 1973 a ton of marine oil cost $17—I am speaking of American dollars now—in the largest harbour in the world, Rotterdam, while in July this year the price increased to $240 per ton. The effect of this is very clearly visible in the current rate of inflation and in the cost of importing and exporting over long distances.

When the role of transport is analysed and one tries to work out what transport is all about within the capitalist national economy, it is essential to be aware—and this should be spelt out very clearly—of the task entrusted to the transport sector, for without clearly outlined instructions, transport will be unable to function within the capitalist system.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed on his maiden speech. I should also like to congratulate his electorate on their choice. At least they chose a person who has some knowledge of transport affairs. [Interjections.] It seems as if the days of retired locust officers in this House belong to the past … [Interjections.] … and we are very pleased with this. Of course, he is not the only person who is breathing down the neck of the hon. member for Randburg. There are other hon. members in this party too who would like to get at the neck of that hon. member. We shall just have to wait and see what will happen in future.

†A number of people have asked me when I would be delivering my second maiden. I imagine that I would have to crave your indulgence for a moment or two, Mr. Speaker, to be able to do so, but even if one does not recover one’s innocence whilst one is away from this House, I think that absence does allow one to look at it in a more careful and interesting manner. The nice thing is that we now have two maidens in this House, although perhaps they would rather call themselves “matrons”. I think that what they must be really relieved about is that there is no danger that they will have their hands kissed unexpectedly in the Lobby by any of their colleagues. Perhaps someone has learnt that kissing hands is not the way to make progress in the NP caucus.

Nevertheless, it is good to be back again and to see so many new faces. I am certainly looking forward to knowing them much better. Since I was here last we have had a new Speaker, a new Prime Minister, a new official Opposition, and also a new leader of the Opposition. I am pleased that I can come back to Parliament from Natal where a sophisticated and independent group of voters have given the Government a thrashing.

Before you call me to order, Sir, let me say, finally, that I trust I shall be able to uphold the best traditions of Parliamentary democracy and shall always seek to do so in a courteous and truthful manner without any personal animosity. It is my profound and serious conviction that the greatest threat to this our great institution of civilized government is the crass, reckless and prolonged policy of the Government of refusing four-fifths of our people participation in this political process.

We have before us a Bill amending the National Road Safety Act. Those of us who consider road safety will know that it is a serious matter for South Africa. Apart from the lives that are lost, there are the injuries suffered by and the maiming of tens of thousands of people. Anybody who visits our hospitals must be struck by the tragedy of young lives, in many cases, reduced to cripples and often human cabbages as a result of these tragedies.

We have endeavoured through our laws to create various weapons with which to combat death on our roads. We have regulations concerning certificates of roadworthiness. People cannot drive a vehicle without being licensed and knowing the code of the road. We have a law governing seat belts. We have well-engineered roads with careful signposting and road-marking. We also have an educational process which, I believe, the National Road Safety Council has not been able to apply as well as it may have liked to do so. We also have a good Road Safety Council and I believe that Dr. Rigden has laid a very fine basis for the council.

I want to spend a minute or two considering the question of drinking and driving. The older hon. members of the House may perhaps even have “driven” on horses. If they were a little inebriated at the time, they would at least have got home safely thanks to their fourlegged friends. If they were riding a bicycle, they may possibly have fallen off before they could cause an accident. Some people think it is a joke to talk about drunken driving. In fact, as a wisecrack has it, you should not drink and drive because then you spill it. The point is that at least 50% of all road accidents have alcohol as a contributing factor.

The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs has come to us from another Ministry which is concerned with promoting drinking, although not necessarily drinking and driving. I want to urge him and the Director General of his department, under whose control the staff will now fall, to do their best to assist the staff in promoting a campaign to stop drinking and driving. In fact, in a real sense a drunken driver is nothing less than a murderer. I believe that the House has to give careful attention to the whole question of alcohol in our society and, in particular, on our roads. I believe that the conference the hon. the Minister of Health has organized for October is going to be important. We cannot regard alcohol as something like green mealies which can be sold anywhere and everywhere. It has social effects and on our roads it has devastating effects.

I want to spend a little time on clause 9. When I heard the hon. the Minister talking about clause 9, I could not believe my ears. In fact, I believe that having clause 9 in the Bill has been a major triumph for the verligtes in the NP caucus. Here the Government is foregoing revenue of 75 cents per car. What I cannot understand is that the Government overlooked the opportunity to realize the potential there is in collecting this revenue. In Transkei, for example, there are 37 potential border posts which could be manned, and in Bophuthatswana there are most probably double that number. If the “verkramptes” had got their way—I am sure the hon. the Minister defeated them in the caucus—these border-posts could all have been used to collect money from people entering South Africa. They could have taken the students from the Vista University and taught them within their own cultural and language background how to levy taxes. But that is not all. If Soweto becomes a homeland, an independent State, imagine the opportunity if they could raise the levy from 75 cents to R1 and they could have border-posts—as they have now, but they are called blockades—between Soweto and Johannesburg and put R1 coins into R1-rifles. I believe we have lost an opportunity here to collect every single cent possible. When one thinks of the implication of interstellar traffic safety, once the constellation is established, there is a vast source of money to finance this operation.

I believe this clause is a victory for this “verligte” hon. the Minister and a defeat for the “verkramptes”. We know the hon. the Minister is “verlig” and we know that when he talks about “verdringing”, he is in reality assisting the hon. the Minister of State Administration and of Statistics.

This party will support the measure and it gives me great pleasure to join our chief spokesman on transport affairs in supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, through their chief spokesman on transport affairs, the hon. member for Berea, the hon. the Opposition have indicated that they support this positive legislation. I should like to thank the hon. member for what he has said in support of this Bill.

†I should also like to thank him as the shadow-Minister of Transport Affairs on the Opposition side. I think we will be able to co-operate with one another.

The hon. member raised a few matters. The first point is that we are going to lose money when we abolish the levy of 75 cents. This year we will be losing R12 900.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, it is negligible. It is a very small amount. We will be earning approximately R4 million from the 75 cents we take from each third-party insurance for this fund. The amount has been increased from 50 cents to 75 cents, and we will be earning approximately R3,7 million from that. The hon. member also gave very interesting statistics concerning collisions and said that 300 000 collisions had occurred last year.

*The hon. member for Beaufort West, who lives in a region of vast distances, a region which takes hours to cross in a car, made a fine contribution. I should like to thank him for his interest in the work of the NRSC. During the recess, at about the time of the Republic festival, we held a meeting in Touws River. The hon. member was also present. On that day alone he travelled 650 km in his constituency.

†The hon. member for Amanzimtoti asked why it was necessary to bring this matter under the control of the Government. He wanted to know if something was wrong. I can tell the hon. member there is nothing wrong; we are simply doing this to bring it into line with all the other boards we have in this department. The hon. member knows that we have a National Transport Commission, a Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund and others, and they are all autonomous bodies, just like this one, but manned by civil servants. They all become civil servants but they remain autonomous. Because of this fact, I do not think that this was wrong to do. The hon. member also asked whether the council had been doing its job correctly. It has been doing its job correctly but, as I said during my introductory speech, we wish to streamline the whole position by bringing the council under the control of the Department of Transport Affairs. I was also asked whether we had consulted the provinces. I just want to say that on this council we have the MECs of all four provinces. They are on the council.

Are they happy?

Yes, they are happy. Even the Natal MEC is happy, and it takes a great deal to make the Natal people happy!

In regard to this point, may I just ask whether the hon. the Minister has consulted with the various motoring organizations such as the Automobile Association and others?

We consulted with all of them.

*Finally I come to the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed who delivered his maiden speech on this occasion. I am used to the fact that if one can have something done, one does not do it oneself. It is for this reason that I am glad that he is here, for as a transport economist he has in the past assisted me in certain investigations, when he was still attached to the faculty in question at the university. In fact, he is conducting an inquiry into bus subsidies at the moment. I think I shall be able to co-operate with him very well. Hon. members heard him make a positive contribution, for which I thank him. I think he made an excellent speech to his voters.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Republic of South Africa is a signatory to the Convention on International Civil Aviation drawn up in Chicago on 7 December 1944. In fact, the convention was added as a schedule to the Aviation Act, Act 74 of 1962. In terms of article 35 of the convention no munitions or implements of war may be carried in or above the territory of a State in aircraft engaged in international aviation, except by permission of such State.

†The intention of the draftsmen of the Convention of Chicago is quite clear in framing into this international agreement a specific provision prohibiting the carriage of munitions or implements of war by aircraft engaged in international navigation. The necessity of such a stipulation has since increased with the extended use of air transport as a means of transportation.

*However, the stipulations of the convention have to be adapted to South African circumstances and needs. The most important adaptation is to refrain from limiting the prohibition of the conveyance of munitions in aircraft to international flights only. Such conveyance may also take place internally, and then article 35 of the convention does not apply. Subsequently it is necessary to insert a specific provision in the Act to regulate the matter properly. This is now being done by means of clause 6 of the Bill.

As a premise clause 6 now provides that no armaments shall be conveyed in an aircraft except with the written permission of the Minister of Transport Affairs. The rest of the clause is concerned with related matters to facilitate the application of the measure, e.g. the identification of aircraft and the searching and seizure of aircraft suspected to be conveying armaments illegally.

†The proposed enactment has no bearing on particular incidents and is in the general pattern of safeguarding national security. It suitably fits in with other legislation for instance the Civil Aviation Offences Act, Act 10 of 1972.

The remainder of the Bill deals with matters caused by rationalization in the Public Service and the abolishment of the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for his kind remarks towards me when he replied to the Second Reading of the previous Bill. I also look forward to being able to co-operate with the hon. the Minister as much as possible, and I am sure we shall get on well together.

The Bill which the hon. the Minister has just introduced is in many ways a tidying-up measure. The hon. the Minister quite correctly devoted his comments to clause 6, which is really what the Bill is all about. It clearly deals with the question of the conveyance of armaments by aircraft, and the hon. the Minister has given us part of the history relating to the Chicago Convention, which applies to international aviation, and which indicates that the case for this Bill is that there is no provision for the control of the conveyance of armaments by air within the borders of South Africa.

The Bill provides for fairly considerable powers. It provides for the power of arrest, for the power of search, for the power of seizure, both of armaments and also, in certain cases, of the aircraft involved itself. It also provides for very severe penalties. It requires that anyone who wants to convey armaments should obtain a permit from the Minister himself.

We have no problems with this Bill. Nevertheless, I should like to raise the question of the definition of armaments, which concerns me a little. The Bill tells us that for the purpose of the measure the expression “armaments” bears the meaning assigned thereto in section of the Armaments Development and Production Act, 1968. The definition in that Act reads as follows—

My problem is this. Would this provision affect, for example, a private aircraft owner who goes on a hunting trip and who takes his own gun and his own ammunition with him? This must frequently happen. Would this private individual, before he went on that trip, actually have to go to the Minister and apply for a permit because he is going to carry his rifle and ammunition with him on his aircraft? If that is so, one can foresee very considerable administrative difficulties. It would mean inconvenience to the bona fide person who is carrying a firearm for hunting purposes or for his own protection. As I read the Bill I have a problem in this regard. I feel that that would fall within the definition in the Armaments Act relating to the carrying of a weapon. I am sure this is not really what the hon. the Minister intends, but I do have a problem with this, and I should be grateful if he would respond to this question, because I believe it does need clarification. I think it could cause a great deal of confusion and also a great deal of irritation as far as the general public is concerned; people who, for purely legitimate reasons, might want to carry a weapon of some sort. The whole question relating to the definition of a weapon is very wide indeed too. I do not know what a weapon is meant to be in this instance. A weapon could also be a knife, in certain circumstances. It could also be a knobkierie or any other sort of implement used by a person to defend himself. Therefore I believe the hon. the Minister should give some attention to that, and I am awaiting his reply with interest.

Subject to that reservation, however, we in these benches will support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to thank the official Opposition for their support, bearing in mind the reservation just voiced by the hon. member. However, at this stage I can already tell the hon. member what the hon. the Minister will say to him. I wish to reassure him that in subsection (6) we actually have to do with armaments and I think this is the key to the entire issue. It therefore does not concern a pistol which someone happens to have with him or a rifle he goes hunting with. I think it is quite clear that the Bill involves armaments and other things which could cause us problems.

If one considers the times in which we are living and South Africa’s strategic, political and geographic circumstances, I think this amendment Bill has become imperative. Indeed, it is surprising that we were able to get by for so long without such legislation. I therefore wish to thank the hon. the Minister and his department for introducing this Bill here today.

The Convention on International Civil Aviation was established in 1944, more than 37 years ago. In 1962 we became parties to the convention, as the hon. the Minister said, by way of our Aviation Act, No. 74 of 1962. The convention lays down that no munitions of war or implements of war may be carried in or above the territory of a State in aircraft engaged in international navigation, except by permission of such State. It is now 1981. We are living at a time in which air transportation is increasing and air transportation is being used as a means of transportation on a larger scale than ever before, not only for passengers but also for cargo. For this reason it has become essential that the provisions which apply to international aviation also apply to domestic aviation. The major amendment contemplated is therefore to extend the prohibition on the transportation of armaments to domestic flights.

In this connection I should like to quote a few figures to indicate the extent to which air traffic has expanded and the large and important role it already plays nowadays. In the annual report for the latest financial year at my disposal viz. 1979-’80, the total number of air traffic movements at State airports is given as 306 669. At airports other than State airports in the same financial year the figure was 378 404. If we add these two figures together we have almost 685 000 air traffic movements in one year. Because article 35 of the convention only applies to international flights and therefore not to domestic flights, clause 6 of the Bill is now being added to bring it into line with international civil aviation.

This clause provides that anyone conveying any armaments in an aircraft without authorization may in future be severely punished, as is spelt out here. Sentences of up to 10 years’ imprisonment without the option of a fine may be imposed. In addition the Minister may authorize officials to seize the aircraft conveying armaments without authorization and the armaments themselves. The authorized officials also have the authority to search any aircraft they suspect is conveying such armaments. Anyone suspected of committing an offence in terms of this legislation or attempting to commit such offence may also be arrested.

The provisions of the legislation also protect other people’s rights in respect of an aircraft which is seized, for example anyone selling aircraft on hire-purchase or hiring out aircraft. Such a person must satisfy the Minister in writing within 30 days, through the Director-General, that he did not know that the aircraft was being used or was intended to be used for the commission of an offence or that he could not prevent such use.

In subsection (6) “armaments” is defined, and this is where the official Opposition seems to be experiencing problems.

Clauses 1 to 5 are necessitated by changes in definitions, the abolition of the Senate and the rationalization of the Public Service.

As I have already said, it is actually surprising that we have got by without this legislation thus far, particularly in view of the times which we are living in, and for this reason we on this side of this House welcome it. We are grateful that the Bill has been introduced today and we give it our full support.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear what the intention of this legislation is, namely to give the hon. the Minister the necessary power to control the illegal movement of arms across South Africa’s borders, and for this reason we in the NRP will be supporting the Bill. However, there are two things that I want to comment on. The first one has already been referred to by the hon. member for Berea, and that is the clear definition of the term “armaments”. We have here a very broad definition. It covers almost any sort of weapon, and because this Bill will, no doubt, get some publicity in the Press, over radio and TV, I would like the hon. the Minister to make it clear that this would not apply for instance to a man who is planning to fly from Durban to Cape Town on one of the S.A. Airways’ flights and happens to have a pistol on his person. Under existing legislation he would have to hand it over to the Airways’ officials who will put it in a bag, and we all know how that works. Nor do I imagine that this would apply to a person who may have a weapon in his baggage which is going into the hold of an aircraft. I should like the hon. the Minister if he could clarify this point so that there can be no misunderstanding about the fact that this Bill intends to deal purely with arms shipments from one part of the country to another.

The other point which I should like to raise with the hon. Minister is the possible diplomatic consequences of this legislation. The hon. the Minister says it is the result of international deliberations; so I take it that it is legislation on which international agreement has been reached. I am, however, led to believe that South Africa has certain diplomatic agreements with, for instance, Lesotho, which is virtually surrounded by South African territory, and also with Transkei. Does this legislation now mean that before an aircraft carrying a shipment of arms for Lesotho, as an independent State, can fly over South Africa, the Lesotho Government, or the people who are shipping the arms, will have to apply to the hon. the Minister for approval to do so? Or has there been some arrangement with the Government of Lesotho that they will watch this so that it will not cause any inconvenience or problems between the two countries?

With these comments and hoping that the hon. the Minister might enlighten me on these points, we will be supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am gratified to hear that all the parties in this House support this legislation. I also wish to agree with those who voiced their surprise that we waited so long to introduce these amendments to the Act. I wish to assure the previous speaker, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, that I agree with the hon. member for Kempton Park that where reference is made in the Bill to “weapons” it actually refers to armaments. After all, it could not mean a “knobkierie” or anything like that.

Although there may be doubt as to the nature of the weapons, I still think that it is a very good amendment. In the second place, I also think that if any neighbouring State wishes to convey weapons over our air space, South Africa ought to know about it, just as we, if we want to convey our weapons over another independent country’s air space, must inform that country of our intention to do so.

We live in a changing world, a world changing from day to day, a world in which murder and assassination are rampant, a world in which leaders of State, even State Presidents and spiritual leaders, are no longer safe, a world in which members of the diplomatic corps are held hostage in a country. This is part of the world pattern of urban terrorism. South Africa cannot escape the onslaught of urban terrorism. It is crystal clear to me, as it is to anyone else in this House, that we are encountering urban terrorism in South Africa to an ever increasing extent. Only yesterday we had the example of an attack on a base in Voortrek kerhoogte. The attack was made with a rocket launcher tube firing 122 millimetre rockets. These are weapons which cannot be brought into South Africa other than by air.

For this reason I am completely satisfied with this Bill. Although this does not fall under this legislation I just want to ask the hon. the Minister—I assume this Bill has been introduced at the insistence of the State Security Council—to consider extending these provisions to the legislation on containerization as well, and to all other legislation concerned with transportation, including road transportation. As the hon. member for Amanzimtoti pointed out, there is a possibility that weapons can be secreted in a person’s luggage and transported in the hold of the aircraft. No one would know about it. These are things we will have to investigate in order to damp down on any possibility of urban terrorism in any area.

I am grateful to the hon. members of the Opposition for supporting this legislation so unanimously.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. members for Berea and Amanzimtoti asked questions concerning weapons belonging to individuals. If an hon. member wants to go hunting and he has his own aircraft he need not declare his weapon to anyone, because it is his own aircraft. All these matters are defined in Acts dealing with this type of offence. If he has his own aircraft there is no need for him to declare the weapon. If it is someone else’s aircraft he obtains permission from the owner of the aircraft to convey the weapon. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti is quite right. When a person boards an aircraft at Jan Smuts Airport he tells the ground crew that he has a weapon in his possession and that he is having it placed on the aircraft. After all, he must be able to convey his rifle or fire-arm when he travels from Jan Smuts Airport to Windhoek to go hunting. This legislation does not prohibit this. As the hon. members for Kimberley South and Kempton Park said, this Bill concerns terrorism. The Attorney-General will certainly not be able to prosecute anyone in terms of this Bill if he takes a rifle, which he has declared, onto an aircraft. There is nothing wrong with that. To me this is quite obvious. The Bill applies only in cases where anyone conveys weapons to commit acts of terrorism or to wage war.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? The new clause 15(A)(1) reads—

In other words, it has to be the Minister. There is no provision enabling a person declaring his weapon to the captain of the aircraft or to an official and then not fall under the prohibition.

The purpose of this piece of legislation is to promote the security of the State. It has nothing to do with the Civil Aviation Offences Act. This legislation is aimed at controlling the illegal transportation of weapons by aircraft. The entire matter must be regulated so that problems cannot arise in times of war or riot.

That is the intention, but does it not go further than that?

Well, according to the description it can be extended further. The hon. member’s problem is apparently that if he wants to take a weapon with him he must have the written consent of the Minister.

Yes.

That is, however, not the intention. After all, the Minister’s powers are delegated to the airport authorities. He may delegate his powers to the people running the airport and there one can obtain permission to transport weapons, as in the past.

The hon. member also asked a question about Lesotho. We have international agreements with Lesotho and Botswana as regards the conveyance of weapons and they also have agreements with us. There is therefore no problem in this connection.

Are they aware of this legislation?

They are fully aware of this, and the agreements are international agreements, as I have said. Everyone is aware of it because all countries are getting copies of this legislation. This is being done to keep things in line with the Chicago Convention.

*The hon. member for Kempton Park outlined the intention of and background to this legislation very clearly. I can add nothing to what he said, because there is nothing contentious in this. If anyone wants to convey weapons with the intention of promoting terrorism, there is now a method of dealing with him.

The hon. member for Durban Point must take cognizance of the fact that the Minister’s powers are delegated to the officials at the various airports. The Director of Civil Aviation has the authority to grant the hon. member permission to convey certain things if the hon. member wishes to do so legally. It is not necessary for him to approach the Minister. I am going to delegate my powers.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to take up the hon. the Minister’s explanation during the Second Reading debate of this clause. The hon. the Minister told us that it was not his intention to include people conveying arms in private aircraft. My problem lies not with the hon. the Minister’s intention, but what the Bill itself states. The Bill gives no definition of aircraft, i.e. it does not specify that it has to be an aircraft other than a privately owned aircraft. The Bill simply mentions anyone who conveys armaments in “an aircraft”. This brings one to look again at the definition in the Armaments Act, which includes a reference to weapons. I therefore still foresee problems, no matter what the hon. the Minister’s intention is. As I have said earlier, I am sure it is not the intention to affect people flying in private aircraft and simply hunting-rifles or something like that.

It can, however, be interpreted in that way, in terms of the provision in the Bill itself. We are making a law. I am not satisfied that there is sufficient clarity on this issue in the clause we are discussing. I think it could give rise to difficulties in the future, no matter what the intentions of the present Minister are.

I should like the hon. the Minister to respond to this and indicate to me to what extent, when looking at the law, one must assume that where there is reference to “aircraft” this does not mean a privately owned aircraft. I do not see that in this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, we, too, have certain reservations about this. I should just like to point out to the hon. the Minister that the proposed new section 15A starts with the words—

I think this terminology excludes the possibility of the Minister delegating his responsibility to an airport official or an SAA official to take away, let us say, a passenger’s hand weapon, put it in a plastic bag and leave it with the crew until he arrives at his destination. Therefore I think the hon. the Minister must consider some sort of amendment here. It could, for instance, be amended to read as follows—

I think the law would then cover what the hon. the Minister intends and also, in fact, what is happening at the present time. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to consider the need for such an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as I see it, there are two problems the Committee has. One concerns the question of delegation and the second the question of a group of friends going off shooting and wanting to take perhaps eight or ten rifles or sporting guns with them on an aircraft. I think that the question of delegation is a recognized legislative technique. As far as the question of sporting rifles is concerned, I do not know whether the hon. the Minister should not rather include a definition of “armaments” which would exclude licensed weapons. Nobody may have a sporting rifle unless it is licensed. Presumably armaments, or “krygstuig”, would not be licensed in the sense in which personal weapons are licensed. Certainly, as the clause now stands, I believe it may present serious difficulties. No matter how bona fide the hon. the Minister’s intentions may be, we may have to deal with this legislation after the Minister’s intentions are no longer relevant.

Mr. Chairman, I can see the problem the hon. members of the Opposition have with this. We should actually introduce an amendment. I consulted the officials and they said that in practice the difficulty does not arise. However, if this is laid down in law, it can cause problems. But we do need to introduce a small amendment. Is the hon. member for Amanzimtoti busy with one?

*I am satisfied that the Opposition understands what the purpose of this legislation is. However, when one comes to the details and one has defined the concept of “weapons”, one finds that eventually people cannot even legally transport a weapon without the Minister’s permission. As I have said, I shall delegate my powers in this respect. The legislation must not be changed in such a way that it will be applicable to the honest person as well. I am looking for the people who want to harm my country. I am not looking for somebody who wants to go and shoot pheasants with a shotgun.

Mr. Chairman, may I suggest to the hon. the Minister that the problem may be met by an amendment “to insert in line 5 in the English version after the word ‘determine’ the words ‘or in terms of prescribed regulations’”. By inserting those words, the Minister will still have the overriding authority, but in terms of the legislation he can prescribe certain conditions under which armaments or weapons may be carried if properly declared to officials of the airline or the airport concerned In terms of the present system, a soldier, for instance, travelling from Windhoek to Cape Town does not get written permission to carry a weapon. He simply hands his weapon in, it is accepted by the official and returned to him when he reaches his destination. This measure provides that there should now be written permission. That will start a whole new system of permits and authorities and it will delay embarkation. If, however, the words “or in terms of prescribed regulations” are inserted, those regulations can cover normal eventualities, such as a hunter going on a hunting trip or a person who has his revolver with him for his own personal protection …

Or his catty!

… and declares it. Otherwise, as an hon. member suggested, he will not be able to carry his AK47 and a little boy will not even be able to carry his catapult. A catapult is an “armament” in terms of the definition. Anything which can injure anyone or project a stone or anything which can damage anything falls under the definition of armaments. It is an extremely wide definition. I do not, however, want to start that sort of argument. I am just trying to suggest a simple method whereby the hon. the Minister can prescribe and can deal with legitimate circumstances while at the same time having the protection which this Bill seeks. I should therefore like to move my amendment now to give the hon. the Minister an opportunity to consult his officials. I move—

Mr. Chairman, I think we have hit upon a problem here which cannot be solved on an ad hoc basis. The first part of 15A(1) reads—

The first problem is the question of what constitutes “an aircraft”. The definition of #x201C;aircraft” in the principal Act is very wide. It is defined as—

That means an aircraft is anything that can fly. It does not matter whether it is an aircraft of the SAA or whether it is a private aircraft; as long as it goes up into the air, it is an aircraft. I think it is common practice that people moving from one city to another in South Africa and who carry a pistol of their own, put their pistol in their luggage and it goes into the hold of the aircraft. In terms of this clause, that would be an offence.

[Inaudible.]

As the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North pointed out, there is no definition of “armaments” in this clause. I take it that a pistol is an armament, in which case we seem to be getting into a lot of trouble. Perhaps the clause needs more thought and perhaps the hon. the Minister will consider allowing this matter to stand down until it can be resolved on a proper basis.

Mr. Chairman, I request an opportunity to look at the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point.

†I think it is a reasonable suggestion, and I ask the hon. member to give me an opportunity to discuss it with my law advisers before we go on with the clause.

*Hon. members must not think they are so smart. They receive good salaries and should therefore help to make good laws.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Road Transportation Act, No. 74 of 1977, came into effect on 1 January 1978. Although it can be considered one of the more recent laws on the Statute Book, it has been in force for long enough to reveal deficiencies and loopholes. For this reason, amendments were made to the Act as early as 1979.

Since then practice has shown that all the deficiencies and loopholes have not yet been eliminated. That is why this amendment Bill is before Parliament today.

Act 74 of 1977 provides that transportation of exempted goods is not deemed to be road transportation for the purposes of this Act. This means that exempted goods may be conveyed freely throughout the Republic without a road carrier permit by any person or body.

However, it has come to light that transport operators from other States station vehicles in the Republic and use them to transport exempted goods within the borders of the Republic. This obviously takes place at the expense of local transport operators. This practice also causes money to leave the country, which would not be the case if the transportation were undertaken solely by South African transport operators.

Foreign transport operators sometimes give a very wide interpretation to what is included under certain exempted goods, with the result that illegal road transportation is then undertaken. In such cases, law enforcement officials find it difficult to ascertain the ownership of the vehicles from other States, since the vehicles are registered outside the Republic. It is therefore almost impossible to institute legal proceedings against such transport operators where and if necessary, one of the reasons being that they are domiciled beyond the borders of the Republic, where a summons cannot be served on them.

†The proposed amendment of section 1(2)(z) will mean that only South African citizens or companies registered in the Republic will in future be allowed to convey exempted goods without a road carrier permit. Furthermore the vehicle used to convey the exempted goods must be registered in the Republic and identified in the prescribed way and the vehicle’s owner must be domiciled within the Republic. The requirements concerning domicile of the owner of the vehicle and registration of the vehicle in South Africa will mean that a summons can in fact be served where prosecution is necessary. Alien transport operators will not be able to convey exempted goods ad libitum when this Bill becomes law. If they do not comply with the conditions laid down by clause 1, they will have to apply for a permit since the conveyance of the exempted goods will then be regarded as road transportation. It is my considered opinion that this measure is justified by the vested interests of local transport operators.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has given us an explanation of what is intended by this Bill. It is an amending Bill that affects the owners of vehicles registered outside the Republic or people who are not citizens of the Republic in regard to the conveyance of exempted goods. At the moment, as the hon. the Minister has said, anybody can convey exempted goods within the Republic without a permit. I understand from what the hon. the Minister has told us that there are problems in regard to competition from carriers outside the Republic who station vehicles within the Republic and then compete with local carriers in this regard.

The object of the Bill is to restrict the conveyance of exempted goods in respect of motor vehicles which must be registered in the Republic and whose owner is domiciled in the Republic. It goes on to provide that the conveyance of exempted goods has to be undertaken—

Looking at it normally, simply from the point of view of outside competition for local carriers, one can see the object of the Bill. I am bound, however, to say that I foresee other difficulties. I think one might well be opening up a can of worms here which could produce a great deal of difficulties for us in the future. The problem arises when one deals with the part which talks about conveyance by a person who has to be a South African citizen. Here we are not only talking about people who will operate from, let us say, Zimbabwe or Mozambique, but as we are also talking about citizenship, we are getting into the very difficult area of citizenship which is a very crucial one at the present time in South Africa. We are actually talking about Transkei, Bophutha tswana, Venda and other future independent States. I can foresee a great deal of difficulties.

Let us take the situation of, let us say, Bophuthatswana and especially the situation of the hotel there, Sun City. What is their position if they want to convey goods which might be exempted goods within the Republic? They would fall under the provisions of the Bill. I think that in that sense the Bill has much wider implications than the simple implication of preventing competition for South African carriers from people outside. I think there is going to be a great deal of cross-traffic from the independent States, and if one is going to limit this to citizenship, one is going to cause a great many more difficulties than the difficulties which exist at present.

As much as one looks at the intention of the Bill, when one takes into consideration those difficulties and bears in mind the whole question that could arise because the citizenship of people—up to now they have been South African citizens—may change, one thinks that the Bill should be rethought. For that reason we are not able to support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, to start with I should like to deal with the problem the hon. member has with Sun City. Surely the hon. member is aware that in a case such as this the Minister has the power to issue three types of permits. There is a so-called public permit, a personal permit and a temporary permit. This is also what is involved between States, namely that when one concludes bilateral agreements one of the things you can insert in them is that this type of permit may be issued by the Minister when such cases arise.

When I went through this complicated one-clause Bill I realized I did not understand it either, and for this reason I do not blame the hon. member. I then read through the remainder of the principal Act and found that it still remains complex. This reminded me of my first experience of road transportation many years ago. That was in the days when we still took the wheat to the mills in mule wagons.

You still had some hair in those days.

Where I come from there were two vehicles which one could call road transportation in those days—the milk lorry and the post lorry. Hon. members will not know what a post lorry and a milk lorry are. In those days if you wanted to travel from McGregor to Robertson and you wanted a ride in the milk lorry you did not have to pay but you had to help load the milk-cans, and on a winter’s morning loading milk-cans was not a pleasant occupation. You could of course also ride in the post lorry. That vehicle transported everything you could care to mention. It carried the post, and conveyed everything from the station: Milk and oil-cans, paraffin, petrol and even people. Even goats were loaded into that vehicle. On a Saturday it was quite a business getting to Robertson. The Coloureds sat on one side and the White’s on the other—not everyone could sit in the front of the vehicle. The goats and the milk-cans were in the middle. It was easy; we had no problem.

If you wanted to ride in the post lorry you had to pay sixpence a head. For children it was a tickey. Naturally we did not have many spare tickeys. We therefore went by bicycle. On the way there was a long gradient of about four miles. We knew that the post lorry had to stop at the bottom to pick up the post-bag. We would therefore wait there with our balloon-tyred Hercules bicycles and pretend to be adjusting the valves. That lorry belonged to Jack Wessels and when the old contraption had halted there, you knew it would pull away again in a cloud of smoke. All you had to do was catch hold of the side of the lorry and try to keep going for the entire four miles. A gravel road is no laughing matter. It has deep ruts. [Interjections.] There are banks of gravel on the sides of the road. If you were really good you managed to hold on for the entire four miles. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member will now have to alight from the milk lorry and return to the Bill. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I was only pointing out the origins of road transportation. [Interjections.] If I consider the single clause of this Bill, I realize that one cannot understand all these things merely on the strength of this clause. There is for example a term such as “exempted goods”. I therefore ascertained what this actually involves. I then found that there is a list of goods which were exempted by the hon. the Minister on 1 January 1981.

I tried to ascertain whether all the items appearing in that long list of exempted goods could be classified in a certain way into certain categories or procedures. However this was no easy matter. It would seem to be done on a more or less ad hoc basis. However, I was able to identify two categories. One category consisted of items one finds in a bedroom. In this we find things like baby’s cupboards, walking rings, playpens, cots, and build-in cupboards for babies and beds. [Interjections.] One can already learn something from this. There is a certain degree of order in the method of exemption. Let us now take the kitchen-ware category. Here one finds things such as electric toasters, electric frying pans, electric hair-dryers, electric kettles, clothes dryers, food mixers, vacuum cleaners, irons, heaters, etc. It would seem to me the hon. the Minister knows how to categorize these things.

However it is a fact that one can convey a gravestone without a permit but if an inspector catches you with granite on your truck you are in trouble. [Interjections.] If you wish you can also convey roof tiles. However, the moment you convey corrugated iron roofing sheets you are definitely in trouble. [Interjections.] I think this is merely because people have not yet approached the hon. the Minister for exemption in this connection.

Basically, however, one thing is involved here. I have now referred to the background and as a matter of fact I believe that one must look at the background to the Act if you want to discover what the hon. the Minister is aiming at. What it basically amounts to is that we have a provision in the legislation in terms of which exempted goods, if they are conveyed without a permit, may only be conveyed by a South African citizen. One can also go further and allege that such conveyance must occur in a vehicle registered in South Africa. In any case we cannot allow foreigners to reap a benefit from this for themselves. I believe that the hon. the Minister is quite correct in this regard. No Act is perfect. All Acts must be amended from time to time. The Act now being amended is only 3½ years old. As the hon. the Minister put it we must also eliminate the loopholes in the Act; we must ensure that they are closed. We cannot allow foreigners to transport exempted goods at the expense of South African citizens. A South African company which has the right as an entrepreneur to generate employment for people in South Africa and which has the right to exploit this specific field can rightly demand that the legislature ensures that hijackers and robbers—these pirates—do not deprive our own citizens of opportunities. In that case the South African citizen will be entitled, and rightly so, to point a finger at the legislature and at the Government of the day. Why should a foreigner, from whatever country he comes, be allowed to use his truck on our tarred roads without having to take out a licence for that purpose? There was no provision saying that he must have one. For this reason I think it is high time that this important provision be included. The old saying “charity begins at home” also applies here. The possibility exists—and I would like to suggest this to the hon. the Minister—that some foreigners may suffer losses as a result of the sudden application of this provision. This will depend on how this provision is applied, when it is to be applied and whether prior notice will be given.

The hon. member Dr. Welgemoed referred to the fact that there is a connection between the economy of a country and the transport of a country. Private contractors play a very important role in the transport structure of South Africa. We all know that we cannot build bridges or skyscrapers if we cannot make use of the private entrepreneurs in South Africa, namely the transport contractor. However, they are also the people who are hardest hit when there is a sudden recession in the economy. Hon. members need only read the newspapers or the advertisements to see how many trucks are offered for sale when there is insufficient work. Because these people operate in a very sensitive area of our economy I am of the opinion that it is essential that whatever can be protected for them in the South African economy should be protected.

Mr. Speaker, I do believe that the House should be grateful to the hon. member for Roodeplaat, first of all for entertaining as at the beginning of his speech and then for talking about the need for private enterprise and the need to ensure that the free market is maintained and encouraged in South Africa. It is for this reason that I should just like to dwell for a short while on the intention of the Road Transportation Commission when it drafted this legislation some 3½ years ago. I know that the hon. Chief Whip of the NP was the chairman of that commission and I am sure he will agree with me when I say that the intention of the commission, one of the main objectives of the commission, was to examine and find out whether it was possible to deregulate road transport so as to make it more free, because it was felt that the regulations that existed at that time in regard to road permits were stifling free enterprise. I was a member of that commission and my hon. leader was a member of that commission, and I am sure the Chief Whip of the NP will agree with me that when we concluded our report and when we had the draft Bill before the House it was the general feeling of all concerned that the legislation proposed at that time was an advance towards more free enterprise and free marketing. It was a liberalization of road transportation, and for that reason I think it was the unanimous feeling in the House at the time that this should be supported. Unfortunately we now have before us legislation that in fact restricts private enterprise. When I say that, I should like to make it clear to the hon. member for Roodeplaat that it restricts private enterprise within South Africa. My party can go along with all the arguments regarding the prevention of people from outside South Africa coming into South Africa with vehicles, vehicles that may be registered, let us say, in Mozambique, vehicles owned by a Mozambican, operated by a Mozambican, coming into South Africa and operating for hire as a contractor and in so doing competing with South African residents thereby in many instances denying them the opportunity to participate in the free enterprise system in South Africa.

Our concern is in regard to the words “South African citizen”. I should like to put it to the hon. the Minister and to the hon. member for Roodeplaat that this particular term, South African citizen, denies for instance a Portuguese who has immigrated to this country, or a German or any person of any other nationality or citizenship who is not a South African but is a permanent resident of South Africa and who is going to make his future here, the right to enter into our free enterprise system as far as road transportation is concerned. This would also apply to a Venda who may be permanently resident in South Africa. Let us for argument’s sake take a Transkeian, because we have an independent Transkei, who is living in Soweto. This legislation as it now stands will prohibit that Transkeian from transporting these so-called exempted goods without a permit.

This is the problem we have with this legislation, and I should like the hon. the Minister to consider even at this stage amending clause 1 so as to remove the words “South African citizen” and to insert the words “permanently domiciled in South Africa”. If the hon. the Minister can see his way clear to do that, we will support this legislation. If, however, he is unable to do that, I am afraid we must vote against it. I am, however, sure he will see the logic of the case we are putting, namely: Why should a person who may have been living in Soweto for 20 years or may even have been born in Soweto—I am now thinking of the proposed constellation of States—be denied the right to convey exempted goods because he may choose to retain his citizenship of Transkei? As I have said, unless the hon. the Minister is prepared to concede this point to us, we will be forced to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti raised a technical point which is fairly reasonable. On the other hand I can also understand the hon. the Minister’s problem as regards the implementation of the legislation in order to allow the procedure to proceed normally. In the first place, domicile is a prerequisite. The hon. member’s proposal is not in conflict with this idea. I can understand that there must be registration in the Republic so that the legislation can be implemented. The question of citizenship can however to a certain extent be to the disadvantage of the individual. As an alternative, such a person can make use of a registered private company in the Republic, although this only concerns the larger operators and not the individual. If the hon. the Minister can see his way clear to preventing this I should be prepared to concede this point. On the other hand, I understand the hon. the Minister’s problem, viz. that in the implementation of this legislation he will have to weigh up the one against the other. However, I shall leave it at that.

The point I do wish to make is I wish to join with the hon. member for Roodeplaat in supporting this legislation. It is a pity, as the hon. member for Amanzimtoti put it, that where we have had a movement towards a freer economic system in transportation in South Africa, it is now necessary to revert to State control and State interference, as a result of exploitation by foreigners. If one looks at the Republic of South Africa as a whole, we have to contend with abnormally long distances which make it essential for transportation to be made as supple, smooth, economic and rapid as possible in order to help the economy. In addition we have the high cost of road building because the distances are so great. Things become even worse when we come to the cost of maintaining those roads in order to make rapid and economic transportation possible in this country. As a result one already has the domestic problem that when it comes to licencing by provincial authorities there is friction among the various provinces. The reason for this is that the licence fees of the different provinces are not calculated on the same basis. I am aware that this problem has already surfaced in the Cape, where vehicles registered in other provinces are used in the Cape because the licence fees are cheaper in the other provinces than in the Cape. For this reason one is sympathetic as regards this legislation before the House at present. One realizes that there is unreasonable competition abroad as well—not only locally—and that at the moment there is exploitation of well intended legislation, and for this reason it is necessary that we change it. However, this is not all. When one looks at the crux of this legislation, namely its application to these vehicles and their owners, the question of State security again arises. It is essential for there to be effective control and for the registration of Foreign vehicles using our roads also to take place in the Republic and to be linked to the domicile of the owners.

For all these reasons it is a privilege for me to support this legislation.

I shall not give a specific reply to the previous speaker’s arguments now, but I shall get round to them in the course of my speech.

We understand that the legislation before this House came from local undertakings, associations of local conveyors in co-operation with the department, mainly however at the insistence of these local conveyors. The aim of this legislation is twofold: In the first place to combat malpractices in connection with the conveyance of exempted goods and in the second place to restrict the outflow of currency with regard to road transportation concerns, the owners of which do not reside within the Republic or the companies of which are registered outside the Republic.

Naturally we have no objections in principle to the combating of malpractices, provided the Bill makes it quite clear that it is only combating those malpractices. Examples of these malpractices are that certain undertakings merely have a post box in the Republic so that they may also register vehicles in the country. At the same time the vehicle is also registered in Maputo or in Zimbabwe for example. They then have two or three sets of number plates which are switched at the border. We are definitely opposed to this type of malpractice, and in so far as the legislation combats this type of malpractice we support it.

This brings me to the conveyance of goods. Here there are three possibilities on which I shall elaborate later when I come to the problems caused by the legislation. In the first place there is conveyance from a centre in the Republic to another centre within the Republic, then there is conveyance from a centre within the Republic to one outside the Republic and finally there is transportation from a centre outside the Republic to one within the Republic. There are therefore three types of circumstances affected by the legislation and which influence the application of the legislation.

This brings me to the question of the outflow of currency. Bearing in mind pressure groups in the private sector we must be careful that this House does not become an instrument for protection malpractices in conflict with the principle of free enterprise. There are certainly sufficient measures in terms of which the behaviour or participation of overseas companies in the Republic can be arranged so that we need not specifically make provision for a pressure group. In connection with the outflow of currency the transport associations have informed me that the legislation should be aimed primarily at curbing so-called “pirate” operators from say Zimbabwe or Maputo, who are in fact able to compete on the local market.

However, if one makes a few inquiries one finds that there are in fact large companies working on a bona fide basis in South Africa which do not belong to the specific pressure group. They employ many people, but are also a target of the specific pressure group I mentioned. We must therefore be careful not to react to a pressure group. I say this because the overseas companies must in this case also compete on the local market for business, equipment, labour, etc., and there can therefore be no question of their asking this House for protective measures because the overseas companies are placed in a more favourable position than they themselves are, because as I have already said, they must compete on the same market as the South African companies or locally registered companies. These companies pay their taxes and are as subject to all the other rules and regulations as the South African companies. I am now speaking of the large companies that are active here. I am certain the other measures in connection with exchange control will be adequate to regulate their local activities.

It is only when one comes to the effect of the legislation in South African circumstances that one really feels that the legislation should first be investigated further in order to enable it to achieve the objectives for which it was drafted. South Africa is only one star in the proposed constellation and we feel that the application of this legislation could cause “Star Wars” within the constellation which would put Hollywood to shame. Even a member of the association representing the private conveyors, when he heard that the members of that association who were established in Bophuthatswana or Transkei would be affected by the legislation, said: “Oh dear! That was not our intention.” It is not that we feel that there is no problem at all; it is just that we feel that the application of the legislation in its present form will definitely cause more problems while it seeks to solve the one problem, viz. the malpractices.

The other provision—I think this was touched on by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti—is, as I said, a little drastic. That is the provision pertaining to citizenship qualifications. We know there are many “permanent residents” who are operating such an undertaking and are affected by this legislation. We feel this is not entirely fair.

In order to prevent the legislation from being pushed through while still not doing justice to its aim, we shall oppose it in order to give the hon. the Minister a chance, in consultation with the organizations concerned, to examine it again.

Mr. Speaker, I can understand the problem of the hon. member for Berea and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, but they must understand what the purpose of the legislation is. There can be a company whose director lives in Canada, but it operates in Maputo with trucks not registered here. There is no carrier in the Republic who is opposed to us wanting to prevent this sort of practice. I have sympathy for a Transkeian who operates a truck between Durban and Johannesburg. He drives up and down between Durban and Johannesburg, but lives in the Transkei. He can receive permission from his local road transportation board and our transportation board to operate.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti, and I think the hon. member for Berea as well, were specifically concerned about the following words—

†We can alter that by deleting the words “a South African citizen” and replacing them by the words “domiciled in South Africa”.

That is it.

What about the company?

That remains un changed. The company must be registered here. In the case of a company registered in the Transkei or in one of the other States we created, we have made the arrangement that it may come to an agreement with its road transportation board and we can then give it a permit to operate in the Republic. However we cannot continue with this other system.

Why not say “normally resident” rather than “domiciled”?

Let me give the Afrikaans version. We delete the words “’n Suid-Afrikaanse burger” and substitute these with the words “in die Republiek gedomisilieer”. I can accommodate the hon. members in this way. However, I cannot allow us to continue with the present system. The hon. member for Roodeplaat rightly pointed out that the carrier in our country is frequently not a prosperous man because his business fluctuates according to the economy. Such a person comes to me and asks me whether it is fair to allow a person from another country to operate here while he himself has only one truck with which he must earn his living. It is that man we want to protect. The hon. member for Roodeplaat pointed out a number of very interesting things. This reminded me of the time when we were arguing about tariffs. The hon. member pointed to prohibitions to prevent our eventually having an uneconomic transportation system in the country, such as the railways in America which are insolvent today. There must be certain restrictions. The hon. member pointed out that gravestones enjoy exemption, but not granite, and this is quite true, because once the stone has been processed into a gravestone it is something else. The question is how many gravestones are conveyed and how much granite is conveyed. There was a time when the farmers argued about the tariffs for tomatoes, because there were other tariffs for fruit. A tomato can be a fruit, because tomato juice is made from it for example. However, the farmers said that tomatoes are vegetables and as such they should be conveyed at a cheaper tariff. There were always arguments as to whether they should be conveyed at a special tariff or not.

The hon. member for Vasco also elaborated on certain irregularities, and I appreciate his contribution.

†I want to conclude by saying that I want to accommodate the Opposition because I want them to support me in protecting our own people. But then they must not make it difficult for the man who was mentioned, the Portuguese who is not a citizen.

*That man is carrying on a business in this country and is still going to become a citizen of the Republic. His company is registered here, his truck has a South African registration number and he pays all his taxes. We must accommodate that man.

But a man from the Transkei is domiciled in the Transkei and a man from Venda is domiciled in Venda.

There are bilateral agreements.

That man can get a permit from his country.

But say he is normally resident there?

Mr. Speaker, I shall come forward with an amendment during the Committee Stage, after I have discussed the matter with my law advisers. We must however not defeat the purpose of this legislation.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill is aimed at amending various statutory provisions regarding the Railways. The implications of the various amendments are explained in the explanatory memorandum, and I will therefore deal briefly with the more important aspects only.

The amendment of certain definitions in the department’s pension laws, as contained in clauses 1 and 9 of the Bill, is necessary to provide for the granting of salaried status to all non-White employees who are paid on a monthly basis, with effect from 16 March 1981. This step will facilitate accounting and promote efficiency.

As regards clause 2, I would like to explain that in terms of section 16(7) of the Service Act, 1960, certain Railway employees at present have the right, before or after attaining specific retirement ages, to give at least six months’ notice of their intention to retire. The department likewise has the right to give such an employee at least six months’ notice of the intention to retire him. Thanks to efficient planning it is now possible to reduce the minimum period of notice to three months. The proposed amendment will bring about parity with the Public Service and will surely be to the advantage of both the department and its employees.

Clause 4 of the Bill provides for a contributory pension scheme for Railway commissioners. At present pension benefits are payable to Railway commissioners on a non-contributory basis in terms of the Members of Statutory Bodies Pension Act, 1969 (Act 94 of 1969). However, the duties, functions and conditions of service of Railway commissioners differ substantially from those of other statutory bodies, and it is therefore deemed necessary to introduce a separate contributory pension scheme for commissioners.

The payment of benefits will take place according to regulations published by the Minister in terms of the proposed legislation. As in the case of benefits under Act 94 of 1969, the benefits in terms of the proposed scheme will still be payable from the Railways and Harbours Fund, and no new principle is therefore involved here, except that the scheme will now be contributory.

In clause 5 of the Bill provision is made for the Minister of Transport Affairs as chairman of the Railways and Harbours Board to nominate a commissioner as deputy chairman of the board to act as chairman at board meetings in his absence.

The proposed amendment in clause 6 is aimed at authorizing the Administration to increase the annuities of Railways pensioners without having to amend the pension regulations.

†The purpose of the proposed amendment of section 17 of the Railways and Harbours Pensions Act, 1971, as envisaged in clause 7 of the Bill, is to increase the rate of contributions of members to the New Superannuation Fund in order to provide for improved pension benefits.

Clause 8 of the Bill relates to the interest rate applicable to pension fund loans for housing purposes. In terms of section 19(3) of the Railways and Harbours Pensions Act, 1971, the average interest rate in respect of such loans shall not be less than the average rate of interest earned on the pension fund’s new permanent investments with the Public Debt Commissioners during the preceding financial year. If no such investments were made with the Public Debt Commissioners in that year, the interest rate is determined with due regard to the current interest rate on the general investment market. Only a limited portion of pension fund moneys is, however, invested annually with the Public Debt Commissioners and it is considered unrealistic to calculate interest rates on pension fund moneys for housing purposes on the rate of interest applicable to such investments. The purpose of the amendment is, therefore, to provide for the rate of interest on such loans to be calculated on the current rate of interest on the general investment market.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is much less controversial than the Bill with which we have just dealt. It deals with a number of aspects relating mainly to Railway personnel and most of the provisions appear to effect an improvement in the existing situation. As the hon. the Minister has told us, clause 1 is consequential upon the granting of salaried status to the Railway non-White employees. In fact, the clause acknowledges the salaried status of such employees. As I say, the remaining provisions appear to be an improvement.

Mr. Speaker, when business was suspended I was dealing with the various clauses of the Second Railways and Harbours Act Amendment Bill, in particular with clause 2, which deals with the right of certain employees to give notice, at any time before or after attaining a specified age of retirement, of their wish to retire from the service on pension. The hon. the Minister has indicated that due to greater efficiency it is now possible for this retirement period to be reduced from what was a period of six months to a period of three months, bringing it into line with the other sections of the public service. This, of course, is progress and obviously one must compliment the Administration on the state of affairs. We certainly find this to be an improvement.

Clause 4 of the Bill deals with the pension scheme for the members of the Railway Board, and the hon. the Minister has stated that what in fact is now going to happen is that this now going to become a contributory pension scheme. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a few questions on this. What really is the effect of this, apart from the fact that it now becomes a contributory pension scheme? The hon. the Minister has indicated that in any event the benefits will continue to be paid from the Railways and Harbours Fund. Is the only difference the fact that it now becomes a pension scheme? Presumably it entails greater pension benefits to the members of the Railway Board. But I should like the hon. the Minister to motivate this further when he replies to the debate. But it clearly appears to be an improvement.

I should also like to say in passing that it is interesting to note that, where we are dealing here with members of the Railway Board, there are only three of them for whom special provision is being made in regard to their pension scheme. I am not saying that this is not necessary, but I wish the department and the hon. the Minister would give equal consideration to the other Railway pensioners. I think particularly of the pre-1971 Railway pensioners, whose case has often been put in this House, but in each case we have been told that this is a small group of people and that it is not possible to accommodate them. I think the hon. the Minister, with his ingenuity, ought to give some attention to this matter and try to do something to relieve the plight of these people, especially when he is prepared to do so in the case of the members of the Railway Board. I merely raise that in passing.

Another provision in the Bill deals with the automatic right to increase annuities and pensions payable to employees without the need to amend pension regulations. Here too, when it comes to increased pensions or annuities, it is an advantage that one does not have to bring to Parliament to have the regulations amended on each occasion. The members entitled to those annuities will, of course, be advised. This is provided for in the Bill.

The final point I want to make is in regard to the matter dealt with in clause 8. It seems to be a sensible provision. It provides that the rate of interest on loans for housing purposes will be calculated in future on the current rate of interest in the general investment market. This, of course, need not necessarily be an advantage if one takes current rates of interest into consideration. I wonder if the hon. the Minister has given consideration to that. In fact, the rates of interest might be greater, depending upon the economic circumstances at the time than they might have been hitherto. But no doubt the Administration has a good reason for this. It probably makes it much easier to administer by attaching this to current interest rates. However, I should like the hon. the Minister to comment on that.

Generally, then, as far as the Bill is concerned, we find that it is an improvement in many spheres, and we on this side of the House are, as I have indicated earlier, going to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that we have had a refreshing breeze blowing through the House today, from the direction of the hon. member for Berea. Whereas previously we heard nothing but criticism from him, today we are enjoying his wholehearted assistance and support. This just shows that one should rather travel by rail to avoid the danger of crossroads, because when one comes to “Crossroads”, one is in danger of becoming involved in an accident, whilst when one travels by rail, one has the prospect of a safe arrival at one’s destination.

The hon. member for Berea made a positive contribution here today. Therefore, he helped us to reach the “Nathoogte” station today, together with the full staff sitting on this side of the House. This proves that the Railways is in the safest hands possible. That is why we also know that, in the hands of the top management and the hon. the Minister, the Railways is moving ahead safely.

Now I also want to convey my congratulations to the hon. member for False Bay, who has just been appointed as Railway Commissioner. I want to wish him everything of the best on behalf of all hon. members in the House.

Hear, hear!

Now I feel I should also refer today to two of the people who laid the foundations of much of the Railway legislation that exists today. Both of these people left us recently. The one was Oom Danie du Plessis, who was the General Manager of the S.A. Railways for a considerable time. The other one was Mr. Ralph Botha, the former Deputy General Manager (Staff). He too had a great deal to do with drawing up the existing Railway legislation. We shall mention this again later.

The existing principal Act is a very important piece of legislation. The amending Bill that is now under discussion, is a measure that really deserves our attention. Sometimes the question is posed as to why the NP does not move ahead more rapidly. However, the fact is that the NP moves slowly but surely. This is also proved by the fact that over a period of 40 years—seven years before the NP came into power—the Railways and Harbours Pensions Amendment Act had already come into effect. That was in 1941. Amendments have already been made to that Act in the meantime. A further amendment is now being envisaged. In this way, in its own slow-but-sure way, the NP ensures that no accidents occur along the railway line. For instance, we note that in the 20 years between 1961 and 1981, twenty amendments have been made to the existing Act. That is why the existing principal Act, with all its subdivisions, is of such public importance. The original Railways and Harbours Pensions Act was amended as early as 1941, as I have already said.

Now we are taking another step forward with regard to the non-official employees of the Railways. They too are being given salaried status now. From the definition in the Bill, it is now clear that a salaried status is being granted to all monthly paid non-White employees of the Railways. This grant will be retroactive from 16 March 1981. This is an important step, by means of which not only the accounting work will be simplified and made more efficient, but by means of which a new era is being introduced too, which will definitely have an influence upon the buying patterns of these people.

What is also very important, is that rationalization is also playing an important role here. At long last parity is being achieved in this sphere between the Railways and the rest of the Public Service. I believe that this is a very important aspect of the legislation. What is also important, is the provision that notice of retirement is being reduced on either side from a period of six months to a period of three months. I do not like the word “afgedank” in the Afrikaans text. I prefer it to be said that “mense tree uit die diens” or “met pensioen uittree”. When we talk about “afdank”, it sounds as if the person is being discharged. [Interjections.] Therefore, I wonder whether a somewhat better word than “afgedank” could not have been chosen in the Afrikaans text.

The Railway Commissioners, to whom I have just referred, have their special sphere of activities too. Their obligations, functions and activities differ entirely from those of the other statutory bodies. Now they can contribute towards their own pension scheme, a privilege which they did not have previously. Those benefits are further defined in Act 94 of 1969, and are payable from the Railways and Harbours Fund. No new principle is involved in the matter. The Minister can now make arrangements for the payment of the benefit by means of regulation.

Another step forward is the fact that the Administration is now being empowered to increase the annuities of pensioners. The pension regulations no longer have to be amended when the annuities are increased.

The proposed amendments are all very important, but I want to devote myself to clause 3 today. It concerns the elimination of the designations of “station foreman” and “signalman” which have been changed to train control officer. This is a very important amendment and we do not oppose it. However, there was a tremendous shortage in these grades which was ascribed to the long shifts. Young people in particular were not too keen on it, because it encroached upon their social activities. I believe that at the moment there are 883 vacancies countrywide in the grade of train control officer, out of a total staff of 2 644. This is an indication of the tremendous shortage that exists in this grade.

If one takes note of all the changes, one cannot but think back with nostalgia to the role that the station foreman and the signalman played in the past. I have here a button that has always attracted my attention. It is blue and silver in colour and it is inscribed “Stasievoorman”—“Station Foreman”. This is something that became characteristic of the South African transport services, but we shall have to do without it in the future.

The designations “station foreman” and “signalman” existed in South Africa even before Union and were taken over from the Railway organization at the time. It requires quite a good deal of research in order to establish the origin of all these titles. A great deal of valuable information has been lost in the meantime. The station foreman was in charge of smaller stations that did not justify a station master. He carried out the duties of the station master, on a smaller scale, in the sphere of trade and commerce. The first “signalman” was a Railway Policeman who was called a “bobby”, and he was responsible for the safety of the trains. Formerly, the signalman was in charge of booms and signal boxes and gave signals using flags. The designation was in fact a good description of the work which the person holding the position carried out.

As a result of the changing industrial techniques and due to the fact that at present both the station foreman and the signalman have been concerned chiefly with train control measures, the designation of the position of the grades was changed to that of train control officer as from February 1981. This term is now more descriptive of the work which the incumbents in the above grades perform, and the change of the designation of the position also corresponds to the view of the staff associations that represent the grades.

However, when I think of the romanticism attached to the station foreman to whom I have just referred, with his blue and silver button on his lapel, and to the adventurous signalman, I feel that something is now disappearing from our vocabulary as a result of the new designation of train control officer. I hope that a shorter, possibly more romantic and more descriptive name will be given to this grade. Long-forgotten is the period when three station foremen worked shifts of eight hours on the stations. The trains are now automatically regulated at crossings by a new CTC system using coloured lights. Changing the points was not the only duty of the station foreman. There was also a pulpit that he had to ascend in order to be able to hand the tablets to the driver of the locomotive rushing by, and often he had to act very rapidly and deftly while he was up there. He sold tickets and performed other administrative tasks as well. Sometimes he dozed in his solitude in the late hours, only to be shaken from his slumber by an approaching train.

I heard a story about such a station foreman who fell asleep in the office in the early hours of the morning. It was a summer night. He awoke later to see a large white light beyond the hill and realized that a train was approaching, for which he had to make arrangements for a crossing at the next station. He immediately informed the station foreman at the next station of the fact that train No. so-and-so was on its way and asked him to arrange for that train to cross at the intermediate crossing. The station foreman at the following station replied: That suits me very well, because I also have a train that I can send to that crossing. In the meanwhile the one train was heading for that crossing. The first foreman looked again and again and saw that the train that he had noticed when he woke up was standing still behind the hill and he thought to himself: That is strange; after all there is nothing to hold up that train. He then noticed that it was a very strange train indeed, because it had such a large, white light. He looked again and rubbed the sleep out of his eyes, and then he discovered that it was the rising moon behind the hill that he had taken for a train. He then had the problem that the other train was on its way and that he required the tablet of the “moon” train for that train. He then realized that he was faced with a tremendous problem. So he asked the station foreman who was off duty and fast asleep to take the tablet by car to the train waiting at the crossing. But then he discovered that he had yet another problem, because he had to take the tablet from the second train to the station foreman at the third station. You see, this is the romanticism that is so characteristic of the South African Railways. [Interjections.] Here behind me I have a nominated hon. member from the Free State. He tells me that the Freestaters finally said that a railway line would be built to the moon before one would be built in the Free State. However, such a “moon” train can give rise to tremendous problems.

As far as this matter is concerned, I can tell the House another story that I heard from a station foreman. At Brakpoort, near Hutchinson, it becomes bitterly cold. It became so cold, he told me, that he finally took pity on a rabbit. That rabbit came to sit close to the coal stove in the mornings when that tremendous, biting cold hits the Karroo. This is a very interesting area.

Then I should also like to refer to what happened in the game reserve. This story was told to me as a true story and I have never yet questioned it. One day a huge maned lion—it was a tremendous creature—chased the station master along the main line. When the matter became very serious, the people saw the station master running along the main line, but the lion was running along the siding. I then asked: But how was that possible? Then they told me: That station foreman kept his head. He saw that it would not be long before the station master was devoured and so he went to the points and changed them so that the lion could run along the siding. [Interjections.]

There are many anecdotes, but this one that I want to tell in conclusion, is a true story. It is not a fable. Let me tell you now, there were remarkable animals. There was a man called James Wiley. He came from England. He lost his legs in an accident. He then became station foreman at Uitenhage in the Eastern Cape. However, he discovered that he needed assistance, because he could not carry out all those movements that were required. He then employed a baboon, and the baboon was finally able to pull all those levers. The station master gave the levers names and one day he told the baboon to pull Harry … [Interjections.] Yes, that was really one of the names. All this is part of the cultural heritage of the station foreman.

I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his new station. I know that we will not have a baboon with a walking stick there, as the hon. the Minister once told me. I know that we will have a very fine station there, and I wish him and the top management, and all hon. members, a very pleasant journey with this piece of new legislation.

Mr. Speaker, when I read this Bill I thought it was a fairly straightforward Bill, and on reading clause 3, I thought it the most insignificant clause of the Bill. That changed, however, once I had listened to the hon. member for Rosettenville. Once again one finds he has lived up to his reputation of being able to tell the House a lot about the history of the Railways in South Africa. I am quite sure every hon. member enjoys this, but I also think it is good to have an hon. member such as the hon. member for Rosettenville to recall some of these anecdotes whilst telling us about the history of the Administration. I think it is a good thing to have all this recorded for posterity’s sake. I sometimes wonder whether, some day in the future, there will not be some post-graduate at a university who may want to look into the history of the Railways and whether he may not publish a small booklet perhaps entitled “Sporie se stories”?

As the hon. member for Berea said, this particular piece of legislation primarily concerns staff matters. I do not intend to dwell on many of the details, because hon. members who spoke before me have already done so. I do, however, want to put a question to the hon. the Minister. This has, I assume, all gone through the staff association which has, I take it, had a lot to do with the drawing up of this amending legislation? I am sure the hon. the Minister will be answering my question in due course.

This brings me to clause 4. This clause relates to pension benefits. In the long title one sees reference made to amending “section 2 of the Railway Board Act, 1962, so as to provide for a contributory pension scheme for Railway Commissioners”. Clause 4 itself, however, makes no mention of a “contributory” pension scheme. It merely states—

Will such regulations state that this is, in fact, a contributory pension scheme? The fact is mentioned in the long title, but is certainly not referred to in the clause itself.

In clause 5 one finds that the amending legislation will empower the hon. the Minister to nominate one of the board members as deputy chairman. It goes on to state—

Is this because of what has, in fact, happened in practice, i.e. that the hon. the Minister has not, because of pressure of work, found it possible to attend every meeting? I am just a bit concerned that this may result in giving increasing responsibility to the members of the board because the hon. the Minister may not be present at all the meetings. I am sure that is a question the hon. the Minister will reply to in due course.

We think that increasing the amounts that employees will contribute to their pension schemes is a good thing. I think that pension schemes should be updated and improved so as to ensure that employees of the Administration do, when they retire, have a satisfactory pension to see them through the latter days of their lives. So we support this wholeheartedly.

Finally, let me say that I think that changing the interest rates on housing loans is just one of those things that one has to do today in the light of present-day financial and economic circumstances. It is a very realistic measure, and as such we in these benches will be supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. members of the Opposition for their support. As the hon. member for Berea has said, all the clauses are constructive and to the benefit of the Railway personnel and the commissioners.

In answer to a question of the hon. member for Berea, let me say that, as regards the pensions of the commissioners, the purpose is to bring them into line with the pensions of the members of Parliament, except that the commissioners are going to make a contribution of 4% whilst the members of Parliament do not contribute. After 15 years’ service the commissioners will receive a full pension.

*Furthermore, in reply to the questions of hon. members opposite, I want to say that if one includes details about pensions in the legislation, it will mean that any adjustment which might be necessary from time to time, will have to be kept in abeyance until there is a Parliamentary session and the necessary legislation can be passed. This would cause a delay. What is important and what I want to emphasize, is that the details of the regulations in question will be tabled at each Parliamentary session. In these tabled Railway reports, hon. members will be able to see whatever adjustments have been made from time to time.

†I want to refer to the pre-1971 pensioners in the discussion on my Vote. It is true that some of the pre-1971 pensioners are in financial difficulties. I shall go into the whole matter in the discussion on my Vote.

As regards the interest referred to in clause 8, I can say that only in the case of loans of more than R65 000 will the working interest rate be charged. Below that amount, the interest rate is 5%. This clause only serves to make provision for a person who cannot find a house for less than R65 000 to be granted an additional loan. However, on average I think that such cases will seldom occur.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti has asked whether it is because of pressure of work that I will not be able to serve as chairman all the time. That is not the reason. I can say that I am always with the commissioners or they with me. When Parliament is in session they are in Cape Town. We are in the same building and we have regular contact. I regard them as three Deputy Ministers. They advise me. However, should I be at a Cabinet meeting, the senior man must serve as vice-chairman so that the work can be proceeded with. It is not so much a question of pressure of work.

*It is said that the more one does, the more one can do. If I want to begin at six o’clock in the morning, they are also ready to work. So it is not because of pressure of work. It is merely to facilitate matters. Sometimes one needs a vice-chairman.

The hon. member for Rosettenville has the gift of remembering and lauding the fine things. It has become necessary to replace those established words “station foreman” and “signalman”. I can assure hon. members that each of these clauses has been discussed with the staff association. It was at their suggestion and after consultation between the management and ourselves that it was decided unanimously to use the words “train control officer” instead of “station foreman” or “signalman”.

Once again I want to thank the hon. member for Rosettenville for beginning, five years ago, to request a new station for Delmas. A load of bricks was unloaded there the other day and I believe we may inaugurate the new station within a few years. Thank you very much. I also thank hon. members of the Opposition for their co-operation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The purpose of the Bill is to substitute legislation for the Railways and Harbours Control and Management (Consolidation) Act, 1957 (Act No. 70 of 1957), and the Railway Board Act, 1962 (Act No. 73 of 1962), and to modernize existing provisions where necessary. The implications of the Bill are comprehensively explained in the explanatory memorandum and I shall, therefore, confine my comments to some of the more important aspects.

Statutory provision is made in clause 2 of the Bill for a suitable name for the department, viz. the Department of South African Transport Services. As the department operates not only railway and harbour services, but also airways, pipeline and various subsidiary services such as road transport services, the proposed name is considered appropriate. The main services will, however, continue to be known as the South African Railways, Harbours, Airways and Pipelines. All the various services were not previously defined in the legislation and provision therefor is now made in subsection (2).

The provisions of clause 8 have been adapted to maintain South African Airways’ competitive position, while clause 29 has been drafted to comply with modern harbour requirements.

*This opportunity is being taken to adjust the provisions relating to the rights of the Railways to enter upon any land before expropriation for the purpose of constructing pipelines—clause 9(7)—so that the Railways is compelled to serve the registered owner or occupier with written notice in advance informing him of the intention to enter upon the land with a view to staking out the route of the pipeline and the conditions on which this will be done. In the light of the fact that the Administration conducts its operations along business lines, provision is made in clause 64, which deals with the period of prescription for claims against the Administration, for the present prescriptive period of 12 months to be replaced by a period of prescription of three years in order to achieve parity between the department and commerce and industry. In big business it is difficult and sometimes impossible for the Railways to finalize its own defence within 12 months, with the result that it is then compelled to renounce its rights to plead prescription, which of necessity causes administrative and policy problems.

Clause 65 concerns the payment of compensation for fire damage caused by burning objects emanating from a locomotive or a train or caused by an employee of the South African Transport Services acting in the course of his duty on railway property. In view of the necessity of an investigation into the cause of such a fire being held as soon as possible before evidence of it is obliterated, it is provided in this clause that subject to certain other statutory provisions—inter alia, that the claim must be filed within three months—for the department to be held responsible for the destruction or damage provided that the fire is brought to the attention of the Administration within 72 hours.

The vast majority of the other clauses of the Bill seek to modernize or adjust existing provisions where necessary.

Mr. Speaker, if we as a Parliament had been dealing with this Bill in normal circumstances, it would have rated as a very important Bill to come before the House, because it raises very important issues relating to our transport services in South Africa generally. This is not a party political Bill, but it is nevertheless a Bill of fundamental significance in a developing country such as South Africa.

In his introductory speech the hon. the Minister said he would not repeat what is contained in the White Paper. He has given a very short and simple introductory speech in regard to a Bill which, as I have said, deals with fairly fundamental issues as far as transport in South Africa is concerned. We are grateful to the department for explanatory memorandum which does give some sort of indication as to the trend within the department itself and the trend they would like to see for our South African transport services.

In many ways the Bill purports to be a new charter for the operation of transport services in South Africa. As the hon. the Minister has said and as the White Paper tells us, it substitutes the Railways and Harbours Control and Management Act of 1957 and the Railway Board Act of 1962, and combines many of the provisions of these Acts in one Bill with various adaptations. Of course, the situation as far as transport is concerned has changed dramatically in South Africa since those pieces of legislation and their predecessors were enacted. At that time the Administration operated only Railways and Harbours but, as the years have gone by, its responsibility has been added to with the addition of transport services, airways services and pipe line services. We are told in the White Paper that the necessary power to exercise these various activities was conferred originally by way of legislative enactments but, as the years have gone by, because of the rapid development that has taken place, the Administration has placed much greater emphasis in recent years upon contractual arrangements to regulate its activities as opposed to additional legislation and statutory regulations. For example, the White Paper also tells us that the Railway Board regulations and the Tender Board regulations today go very much further than was originally intended and, here again, there is evidence of the fact that the Administration’s activities and projects are again being controlled on a contractual basis rather than by statutory regulation. We are also told in the White Paper that as far as Home-Ownership Fund regulations are concerned these are all today of a contractual nature and need not exist in the form of statutory regulations. These aspects have all been taken into account—so we are told in the White Paper—in the compilation of this Bill. So, Mr. Speaker, in many ways the comments of the White Paper and the Bill itself underline the dilemma in which the Railway Administration finds itself at this stage in the development of transport services. I think that this is a subject that we can discuss in general terms at this stage.

I think the dilemma is this: Is the Administration merely another department of State subject to the strict control of Parliament and the prescribed powers and responsibilities given to it by this House; or is it rather a massive business and commercial undertaking which should be allowed a high degree of flexibility in its management and in the scope of its operations and be allowed to develop its own initiatives within the broadest possible interpretation of its own statutes? That, Sir, is I think the dilemma highlighted by this legislation. It is highlighted but it is not completely answered by it because in spirit, while the Bill certainly indicates to me that there is a movement in a particular direction, it still leaves the Administration somewhere between being purely a State department on the one hand and a massive business or commercial undertaking with great flexibility on the other hand.

In clause 2 of the Bill, for example, we have a new name to which the hon. the Minister has referred. This name is the Department of South African Transport Services although elsewhere in the Bill the name mentioned is merely South African Transport Services, the word “department” being omitted. In fact, the definitions clause provides that the one name shall be the other. In my view this again indicates the dilemma of the department to which I have already referred. As I read the intentions and as I read the spirit of the White Paper I think that the direction in which the Administration is moving is clear in the sense that it wants to move away from being merely a State department. They realize the responsibility that they have to South Africa as a whole as a vast commercial and economic undertaking. Improvement though it is, we are still left with this Bill which presents us with something of a hybrid situation.

The Administration, in its vastly enlarged area of responsibility which has grown through the years, sees itself, I think, in a very different role from the other Government departments. Because of the nature of its activities, because of its contractual obligations to the private sector, because of its vital part in our economy and because of its links with commerce and industry, it desires a degree of autonomy not enjoyed by other State departments.

In this connection, while it may be only of cosmetic significance, I want to suggest that the confusion in the Bill in regard to the new name should be resolved before the Bill is finally passed by Parliament. I do not see the need to have a definition such as I have mentioned where in the one part of the Bill it is called “the Department of Transport Services” and in another part it is called “Transport Services of South Africa” or “South African Transport Services”. I should think that, in the interests of consistency and in the spirit of the Bill, perhaps the word “department” should be dropped and we should call the Administration merely “South African Transport Services” which will at least emphasize the difference between this Administration and other sections of State administration in South Africa. It will mean an amendment to clause 3 which deals with the legal identity of the Administration and will also mean an amendment to clauses 1 and 2. I shall suggest appropriate amendments at the Committee Stage and I hope the hon. the Minister will consider them. The question of the name of the enterprise is, as I have said, largely of cosmetic interest.

What we have to ask ourselves—this is much more important—is: What is the future of the organization and where does the trend towards more autonomy and a separate identity end? This is really what we should be discussing in general terms. I think it is time that this Parliament ought to discuss it. We should also ask: Where is the Railway Administration going to; what is its future going to be; and up to what point do we go on considering greater autonomy for the South African Railways? I should like to hear the hon. the Minister’s views on this when he replies to the debate.

In recent times others have expressed opinions on this. I refer particularly to a recent viewpoint expressed by Dr. Albert Wessels when he addressed a Railway dinner some two months ago. On that occasion Dr. Wessels posed an interesting thought and I should like to quote from a report in The Star of 22 May which reads under the heading—

It is an interesting thought and again I think it is something to which we could apply our minds. Is this Bill perhaps a straw in the wind in that direction? Are we moving towards a closer association between the private sector and the Department of Transport Services? Has thought been given to some of the views expressed by Dr. Wessels on that occasion?

As I say, it has deep implications; it might also have very considerable advantages. I should think at some level this ought to be discussed and I think it should be considered. Certainly I think that the involvement of the private sector in transport services should be encouraged wherever possible. I think there are services and branches of transport matters which can possibly be performed by private enterprise. I think this is another matter which we should consider when we look at the whole area of responsibility presently enjoyed by the transport services.

As I have said, the implications of this sort of thought can be fairly considerable because if the Administration is to be regarded as a business-orientated enterprise, it will also have another dilemma, because we know that historically and traditionally the function of the South African Railways in South Africa has not just been one of providing transport. It has played and it does play a major part in the socio-economic life of this country. It has opened up the country. It is the greatest single employer of manpower in South Africa, as far as I am aware. It provides services for people, often at considerable loss, simply because there is a need for those services. It serves the needs of a community within a community. It has all these functions towards society as a whole, but this again creates another dilemma when it tries to consider itself to be purely a business undertaking. It is not always easy to reconcile these functions with a business undertaking when, as I say, in many instances, it has to finance works and services which do not pay but for which there is a need as far as the community as a whole is concerned.

Leaving us with the general thought about where we will be going in the future, the Bill does purport to go some of the way towards giving the Administration a stronger business image. Hopefully it will assist us in meeting some of the demands of the immediate future. Apart from that it takes over many of the provisions of the two original Acts, some of which are good and some of which are not so good. It also contains one new provision which, I believe, is downright bad. I shall come back to that shortly. Other hon. members on this side will deal with some of the details of the Bill. I also want to deal with one or two matters at this stage.

There is the question, to which we referred during the discussion of the earlier Bill that was passed, which relates to the operation of the Railway Board. I wonder if it is not time for the functions and the operations of the Board to be reviewed. The hon. the Minister says he regards members of the Railway Board almost as being his Deputy Ministers. The Board consists of three members who meet with the hon. the Minister and whose function is really an advisory one. Again, if one looks at the enormity of the enterprise of the S.A. Railways and South African transport services, one frankly cannot imagine a private company operating with a board of that size, for one. I should imagine a private company operating an enormous undertaking like the S.A. Railways, having a board with far more important functions than simply advisory functions and certainly having a much larger board than the Railway Board at the present time. It is small in the circumstances and its functions are rather limited. It is advisory to the Minister. It has powers, some of which I must say appear to be completely unrealistic in the light of the responsibilities it carries. We are told, for example, in clause 5 of the Bill that the Minister has to consult the Board and that it is the duty of the Board to deal with various matters and to advise the Minister on all matters, more particularly on the general policy of the S.A. transport services, any substantial alterations in the tariffs of rates, fares and charges, capital and working budgets which are from time to time to be submitted to Parliament, all Bills affecting the South African Transport Services, which the Minister proposes to submit to Parliament etc. I presume the Board does in fact deal with these matters and deliberates on them with the Minister.

Clause 5(1)(e) mentions the following—

This too, I must say, would seem to me to be a little outdated because, after all, a sum of R50 000 in relation to present-day prices—dealing with the sort of undertaking we are dealing with here—is a very small sum indeed, and it seems a very strange function that the Board has to perform when matters of that kind, even down to that level, have to be dealt with by the Railway Board. That is another matter on which I should like some comment from the hon. the Minister. I should like to know whether he is really satisfied that the Board is performing the functions it ought to be performing in assisting with the management of the administration of the South African Transport Services.

Then there is another point with which I should like to deal, and which will be raised again during the Committee Stage. That is the reference in clause 55 and other clauses to Blacks and the distribution or serving of liquor by the Administration. It seems quite unnecessary when talking about employees of the Administration that there should be constant reference to Black employees. When one takes into account that the laws have been changed, that there is no discrimination on the grounds of race in so far as the operation of our liquor laws is concerned, I do not believe it is necessary for the word “Black” to be inserted in a Bill of this kind. I think it is totally unnecessary and I believe one could simply talk about the employees of the South African Transport Services.

If you move an amendment I shall accept it.

You will? Well, that is progress indeed. I shall move appropriate amendments in that regard when we reach the Committee Stage.

I come now to the clause which I believe is a downright bad provision and that is the subsection of clause 45 which is taken from the Second Police Amendment Act of 1980 and which now makes applicable to the Railway Police the same disastrous provisions of that Act in respect of comment made by the media on the activities of the Railway Police in the exercise of their duties. In 1980 when the hon. the Minister of Police introduced a similar provision in regard to the S.A. Police we opposed it and we opposed it in the strongest possible manner. We see this is as an extension of the same sinister provision that was inserted in that legislation. We believe it is designed to deny the public the right to know what is taking place in regard to the activities of the Railway Police. We believe it is designed to muzzle the Press and the media in regard to these activities and we also believe that it is designed to set up the Minister and the Commissioner of Railway Police as some sort of super censors. We are certainly going to vote against this provision when we get to the Committee Stage. It is a subsection contained in a Bill which has many, many advantages, as I mentioned in my earlier remarks, but when we come to the Committee Stage we shall certainly oppose that provision. We shall vote against this clause because I think it is a thoroughly bad provision. I think it is a great pity that that provision has found itself in a piece of legislation that in so many ways is as constructive as this one is.

Apart from those reservations, apart from the very strong reservation in regard to the provision relating to the reporting of the activities of the Railway Police by the media and apart from other details which will be dealt with by my colleagues, in general terms this Bill is an interesting Bill, it ought to facilitate the operation of our transport services and we shall support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, you will forgive me if to begin with I apologize for the fact that the chief spokesman on Railways for this side of the House, the hon. member for North Rand, is absent today since he is in hospital. We also want to wish him everything of the best from this side of the House. That is why I have decided to stand in for him at short notice.

It was also interesting to note that there is a new chief spokesman on transport affairs on the Opposition side. It was interesting to listen to the hon. member’s approach, particularly in the light of the standpoints that his predecessor, the hon. member for Orange Grove who fell to the hon. member for Yeoville, raised. One knew precisely what his standpoints were.

In his analysis of this piece of legislation which in my opinion is a very fine piece of legislation, the hon. member for Berea went out of his way to avoid adopting a standpoint. He quoted what Dr. Wessels said about the position of the Railways on the occasion of a dinner. He asked whether this organization is moving in the direction of a free market organization and whether it would remain under the control of Parliament. I want to put a straightforward question to the hon. member. We know where his predecessor stood and we also know where his party stood at that stage. Wherever there was any sort of peg on which they could hang an accusation that there was no parliamentary control over certain aspects of the Railways, it was blown sky-high because the Railways Administration is responsible to Parliament in the first place and also because it is directly responsible to the Select Committee on Railway Accounts. The hon. member is now moving around like this, testing the atmosphere and asking whether the public wants it to become a business enterprise. If the smoke veers in the direction that he expects, he will adopt a standpoint. What would the standpoint of the hon. member and his party have been if they were also required to adopt a standpoint today with regard to the legislation which is now offering an opportunity for greater commercial orientation? Should the Railways continue to be managed as it is done at present, being directly responsible to Parliament, or should it be managed as a State corporation, something which is continually being placed in the line of fire by the official Opposition? One simply has to look at previous debates to realize how the Opposition places Government corporations in the line of fire from time to time.

The hon. member referred to the Black clause, as he called it, i.e. clause 55, in which reference is made to Black employees of the S.A. Railways. In this respect the hon. the Minister announced that he is amenable to such an amendment, and I want to tell the hon. member at once that he must not consider it a feather in his cap that the hon. the Minister is going to accept the amendment, because the Minister’s study group had already sorted out that amendment with him.

If time permits, I shall come back to clause 45(8) which was actually the sting in the hon. member’s speech. You will probably allow me, Sir, to refer to the Bill itself. Today we are experiencing an important day in the sense that the name of an organization that has been known as the S.A. Railways and Harbours Administration for many decades, is now being changed. As a result of the demands of the time it has become necessary to change the name of this gigantic organization to suit the times. One can compare the name with that of the S.A. Defence Force which is an umbrella description of all the fighting components of our Defence Force. In the case of the S.A. Railways too, it has become necessary to have a blanket concept to include all the components of the S.A. Railways and Harbours Administration.

I feel that the hon. member for Rosettenville will make another speech with a tinge of sadness and nostalgia at a later stage about the days when this institution was still known as the Railways and Harbours Administration. In the popular language, however, that concept has been changed and has simply become “the Railways”. In the formative years of the Railways and Harbours, this was probably a viable description because railways and harbours were the chief components of this organization. With the technological development and the change in mode of transport, the requirements and operation of this organization gradually underwent a revolutionary change. Particularly with the advent of the jet age, air transport became a larger part of the operation of this organization. Similarly, pipeline services became a much larger component than in the past, both in extent and in the contribution it makes towards the central revenue account. The same holds good for road transport services too.

That is why it is only logical that all these facets must be allowed to develop a full identity. That is to say, railways, airways, harbours, pipelines and transport services must each develop a characteristic identity, but that they will be known under the blanket title “S.A. Transport Services”. The effect of this will be that the S.A. Airways will no longer, as is the case at present, be a component of railways, that pipelines will no longer be a component of the railways and/or harbours but that each division will fall under that umbrella of National Transport Services in its own right.

That is why I think it is a special achievement for the Administration of this organization and the House should place its particular pleasure on record today for the fact that this development that we are experiencing can occur without any additional costs, that it can take place without any organizational disruption, because “S.A. Railways” will still be seen on the wagons of the S.A. Railways. “S.A. Airways” will still be seen on the towels of the S.A. Airways.

As the function of the Railways and Harbours Administration expanded over the years, so too did its commercial orientation, its business orientation undergo a change. Since we are dealing with the blueprint for our national transport system, I believe it will be fitting for us to look at the function of the Railways, as it was set out in the Constitution at the time. I am referring specifically to the repealed section 103(1) of the Constitution which read as follows—

The Railways has never been able to escape these terms of reference which the Constitution imposed upon it in earlier times, even though prevailing circumstances have now changed completely and are no longer at all related to what was originally laid down in the Constitution.

South Africa was primarily an agricultural country and there was little question of export. Consequently, it was chiefly import orientated. True to its terms of reference, however, the Railways played a very important role in the economic development of South Africa. It succeeded in doing so, because to a very large extent, it served the secondary purpose of the Constitution as it read previously, by means of its tariff policy. In this process South Africa became an industrial country, unlike the historical position.

The secondary purpose of the S.A. Railways and Harbours was to assist agricultural and industrial development by means of cheap transport and to establish the agricultural and industrial population in the inland areas. That ideal has been achieved today. The primary section of the terms of reference, however, was that the Railways should be administered on business principles.

Since the first portion of those terms of reference as they were previously laid down in the Constitution, viz. the portion that deals with the development of agriculture and industry, have been virtually completed, conflicting elements often arise now when an attempt is made to carry out the other portion of the terms of reference as they were laid down previously, in an effective manner, viz. that portion that determined that the Railways and Harbours should be administered on business principles. According to those terms of reference, the Railways had to attempt to bring about a distribution of the industrial population in the inland portions of all the provinces. If the Railways is to look to healthy business principles, it must also attempt to bring about a distribution of freight throughout its entire system. Hon. members will concede that in the nature of things, the prime requirements for an efficient business enterprise must be streamlining, cost saving and profit making. It is for the very purpose of complying with these requirements and fulfilling them that we have this legislation here before us today.

This piece of legislation is a summary of two existing Acts, i.e. the Railways and Harbours Control and Management (Consolidation) Act, 1957, and the Railway Board Act, 1962. This proves to us today that is an attempt to establish such streamlined, rationalized legislation in order to comply with the demands of the time. However, it has also meant that irrelevant provisions in the two laws could be left out of the new dispensation. If time had allowed me, I could have mentioned several such cases. Other provisions were then able to be brought together in the legislation, to much better effect.

Today, one looks with a great deal of pride at the image of the South African transport services as a business organization, but what strikes one in particular, is the purposeful administrative set-up that had already taken efficiency so far and which should increase it further in the future, with a consequential increase in productivity. I think the South African transport services, in all its facets, is the only means for mass transport, whether it be the transport of ore, maize for export or other mass transport that constitutes part of our key-industries. Private initiative would simply not have been in a position to handle it in such a way that we would still be able to compete on the world market.

In addition to this, the Railways are also expected to provide certain services in particular, as the hon. member quite correctly pointed out. He pointed out that passenger services, for instance, are provided at a loss. Therefore, as a result of the losses that are suffered, it is only right that this organization should be entitled to protection for its profit-making transport. In this respect the development of private road transport is particularly important. From time to time the private sector sends up a cry that there should be freer transport, but ironically enough these cries chiefly have a bearing on high-rated goods, whilst the Railway’s share in this category is in fact diminishing year after year. It would really be a sorry day if we as legislators were to do anything to detract from that justifiable protection of our national transport system. I feel that Europe has already realized this to its sorrow, as well as the American Railways to which the hon. the Minister referred on occasion.

Another facet of our transport services that makes a tremendous impression on one, is its status as the largest single employer in South Africa. It is also the employer with the largest variety of professions in South Africa. If I am not mistaken, there are approximately 272 000 people of all population groups employed by the Railways today, of which 116 500 are Whites. One of the greatest single achievements that the administration of this organization has achieved, however, is the excellent relationship between the management and the staff association. A staff association already exists for Blacks. In the South African labour setup it is in the ranks of the South African transport system that labour adaptation takes place according to a perfectly natural evolutionary process. That is why one cannot fail to pay tribute to the ministry, the Administration and in particular to the employees of our transport services for the conditions of employment that prevail there. This applies to its administrative set-up too. Today it has the largest computer network, not only in Africa, but in the southern hemisphere. This legislation also confirms existing administrative practice by means of the maintenance of the Railways Board which will be known under the new dispensation as the South African Transport Services Board. On this occasion I also want to convey the sincere congratulations of this side of the House to the hon. member for False Bay who has been appointed to this Board as from 1 November. It is beginning to become a habit for the Government to take my best Whips for higher service every so often. If it is not for the President’s Council, then it is to serve as Administrator; if it is not to become Deputy Speaker, then it is to become a member of the Railway Board. I believe that with the appointment of Mr. Albertyn, the tradition of using men of top quality, is being honoured. I want to wish him every success on behalf of this side of the House.

Let me come back for a minute to the hon. member for Berea’s reference to clause 45, and, I think specifically to sub-section (8) if I did not misunderstand him. I want to concede that once this clause is one that lends itself perfectly to discussion in the committee stage. I knew what the hon. member’s standpoint was during the discussion of the Police legislation, but I really cannot believe that this would be his standpoint too within the limited framework of the South African Railway Police. One cannot but fail to receive the impression that no opportunity is allowed to pass by without steps being taken to place the Government under suspicion, particularly with regard to aspects concerning State security. We know that terrorism occurs today. We know that there is urban terrorism. The hon. member for Berea ought to know better than I because it has already occurred in his own city. I am not saying this with malicious joy, but with very great regret. Under these circumstances one expects the official Opposition to co-operate with regard to clause 45(8) rather than to adopt the standpoint of which they have previously given notice, that they are going to request that it be dropped. However, I think that we can leave the discussion of that clause for the committee stage, to good effect.

I want to conclude by wishing the hon. the Minister success with this new piece of legislation. We also want to convey our best wishes to the Administration since they are dealing with a new blue print for the management of the organization. We trust that they will also continue under the new name of the South African Transport Services to build upon the proud record that they have established under the old name.

Mr. Speaker, so far in this debate the emphasis has tended to be away from the actual consequences of the legislation before us. It has rather been about the role which the Railways, Harbours, Airways and Pipeline have played in South Africa in the past and no doubt will play in the future. It was the hon. member for Berea who said that there appears to be a dilemma or, if I heard him correctly, that the Administration appears to be in a dilemma in that on the one hand it appears to be just another Government department —might I just add: What a department, if one considers, as the hon. member for Tygervallei said, that it employs over 200 000 people and has a budget in excess of R5 000 million—while on the other hand it may be considered to be a massive business and commercial enterprise which is trying to find its place within the total economy of South Africa. I believe hon. members are indebted to the hon. member for Tygervallei for going into the history of the Railways Administration in some detail and the role it has played in South Africa over the last 80 to 90 years. As he said, there are many socio-economic services which it has provided. When one considers the dilemma the hon. member for Berea was referring to, the dilemma of this large organization on the one hand being expected to provide these socio-economic services and on the other hand being expected to be a dynamic and competitive organization because it has to compete with the private sector, one can appreciate the problems involved. The Railways provides many services at way below cost. One thinks, for instance, of passenger transportation. If the Railways were to provide passenger transport as a private enterprise and as a competitive organization in competition with other businesses, no doubt the fares the Railways charges would have to be increased considerably. In the past the Railways bore this additional cost or subsidy, although in recent times these moneys have, fortunately, been coming from the central Revenue Fund.

On the other hand, the Railways have been used to develop certain areas in South Africa. The most recent case of such development was in northern Zululand with the development of the Richards Bay harbour and all the railways that have been built to serve that harbour. Therefore as the hon. member for Berea said, we do have this dilemma and I feel before one can really take any decisions on this there will have to be an indepth study of all the consequences of giving the Railways Administration greater autonomy than they have at present. The impact on South Africa of allowing the Railways to become more independent, would be so considerable that if it were to be done without a great deal of care and thought, it might upset the great progress which not only the Railways but the whole socio-economic development in South Africa has enjoyed in the past.

One should also never forget that within the Railways itself there is a tremendous amount of public money which has been built up over the years. As the hon. member for Tygervallei said it is because of this fact that there is the need for the actions of the Railways to come before Parliament and before the Select Committee so that this public money can be watched and so that Parliament can ensure that the public are protected in that regard.

I should like to thank the hon. the Minister and his staff for the explanatory memorandum submitted by the Department of Transport Affairs. I should like to quote from the first paragraph, which reads—

When one studies the Bill, one finds—as the hon. the Minister has said—that many of the provisions have simply been transferred from one or the other of the two previous Acts to this Bill. In that respect there has been very little change in a vast number of clauses in the Bill. For the enlightenment of the hon. the Minister I should like to read some of the general remarks which concern me. I agree that there was a need for this modernization and my party will be supporting this legislation. In reading some of the sections of the old Acts which have been modernized, we are in agreement with that. There is, however, one aspect of the Bill which gives me some cause for concern. I quote from the general remarks—

Then it goes further to state—

this is the point I want to get to—

It goes further to say—

Then, in the next paragraph we read the following—

When one studies this legislation, one finds that the provisions of clause 2 are very wide indeed. These provisions now give the Administration tremendous power and I can find no reference to the Tender Board Regulations at all. I can only assume that what is going to happen now is that the General Manager is going to issue instructions which he feels are required in order to enable him to manage the Administration in a manner which he believes will make it more competitive in this modern day and age. The point that concerns me, Sir, is that at the present time we have the Tender Board and its regulations and when one considers the capital budget of the Railways which is at present, I think, in the neighbourhood of R1 700 million per annum, it means that a large number of capital projects are put out to tender. In the past, all these contracts have been dealt with according to the Tender Board Regulations. I do not want to go to great lengths to inform the hon. the Minister as to how the Tender Board is constituted and to go into the details of its regulations. However, under the present situation, as I read it, if the General Manager of the Railways is unhappy with the Tender Board’s recommendations he can submit further proposals and information to the Tender Board. In other words, he can motivate his case as to why the tender should be granted to a person other than the person recommended by the Tender Board. If there is any disagreement in this regard then there is an appeal to the Minister who will arbitrate. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister exactly how the system is going to operate in the future with a view to the powers which this Bill now proposes giving to the General Manager. I say this because the Railways is an enormous organization with an annual capital budget, as I have said, of something like R1 700 million.

The whole reason why we are debating this subject today is because Parliament has control of the Railways. I was therefore concerned about a report that appeared in The Natal Mercury of the 11th of this month headlined: “Contractual problems hit the Railways.” This stems from the Auditor-General’s report that has now been tabled. It would appear that the Auditor-General has found that there have been many instances of problems arising from contractual arrangements because of instructions that have been issued under the present dispensation. Some of these are quite considerable. I should like to quote one of these from the newspaper report to which I have referred. It reads as follows—

The point I want to make is that if this legislation is going to place far greater powers in the hands of the General Manager and the Minister and is going to by-pass some of the rules and regulations that existed under the old Tender Board regulations, and in the light of this report of the Auditor-General, I want to ask the hon. the Minister what additional care does he envisage will he and the General Manager of the Administration exercise in the future to ensure that this sort of problem does not occur again?

As I have said, Mr. Speaker, we agree with the general principle that the legislation affecting the Railways should be updated. We agree with the title that has been given to this organization. We feel that the designation “South African Transport Services” is a very apt and desirable one for these activities and we are going to support the Second Reading of this Bill. However, there are certain points that we are going to raise with the hon. the Minister during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak after the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. We want to thank him for the constructive contribution he made in his speech. Inter alia, he put certain questions to the hon. the Minister in connection with Tender Board regulations, an aspect which I think can be debated to very good effect on the Select Committee.

I should like to come back to an aspect broached by the hon. member for Berea. In his first speech as the chief spokesman of the official Opposition on Railway matters the hon. member referred to the argument—I wonder whether I could have the attention of the hon. member for Berea …

Where are you, André? Do stand up, man.

In his speech the hon. member for Berea referred to the argument which has often been advanced in this House before, viz. that the S.A. Railways (a) must be freed of parliamentary control and (b) must move further in the direction of the free market. The hon. the Minister will probably react to this aspect as well, but I want to point out to the hon. member that if he were able to find a buyer for urban passenger services, I am convinced that the hon. the Minister would sell this aspect of the S.A. Railways to such a buyer. If the hon. member for Berea could bring a person from the private sector who wishes to take over the goods traffic of the S.A. Railways, I am equally convinced that the hon. the Minister would relinquish this leg of the S.A. Railways voluntarily and with the greatest of pleasure to the private sector. When it comes to the free market mechanism the private sector is interested solely in those aspects on which a profit can be made; the large branch of the S.A. Railways which is being operated as a socio-economic service must, however, remain the responsibility of the State. We cannot argue in this way and the S.A. Railways as the national transport organization will have to remain under the jurisdiction of Parliament in toto.

The measure before this House entails the amalgamation of two existing measures, viz. the Railways and Harbours Control and Management (Consolidation) Act, 1957, and the Railway Board Act, 1962. The hon. member for Tygervallei dealt comprehensively with the few amendments in principle which are to be amended by the Bill, and any comment on my part on these aspects will detract from a very commendable speech.

Seen from a different angle, the legislation is certainly of exceptional importance. Since the National Convention of 1909, the S.A. Railways, as we knew it then, has made its mark on the geographical map of South Africa.

The measure before this House concludes an exceptional period in the administration and control of the Railways Administration, and the amalgamation of these two measures to which I have referred, and the Bill we are now discussing, may be seen as the axis around which the large wheel of the Railways revolves. In this respect I want to refer in particular to clause 7 of the Bill, in which reference is made to the fact that the S.A. Railways shall be administered on business principles with due regard to the transport needs and the economic condition of the Republic of South Africa.

The specific point I want to emphasize as far as clause 7 is concerned, is the following: Quite apart from the fact that clause 7 places a mandate on the shoulders of the hon. the Minister, and consequently two, by way of delegation, grants the general management of the S.A. Railways a mandate in accordance with which the S.A. Railways must be controlled and administered, the clause also incorporates an exceptional administrative and operational philosophy which elevates the S.A. Railways as a multinational transport organization to the level of a national asset. This exceptional administrative and operational philosophy underlying clause 7 elevates the operation and administration of the S.A. Railways to the level of a national asset. What is more, it elevates the S.A. Railways to a position in the frontline of the struggle for survival here in South Africa.

Now I want to put it as follows: From clause 7, and the particular operational philosophy underlying it, it is possible to arrive at two conclusions, viz. that 80% of the goods being conveyed by the S.A. Railways—and the goods traffic is at present estimated at approximately 200 million tons per annum—are being conveyed at tariffs which are lower than cost. The exceptional administrative philosophy underlying clause 7 means that 80% of the goods traffic which is being conveyed, is being conveyed at uneconomic tariffs. The result is that approximately 621 million passengers who are being conveyed annually, are being conveyed at a tariff which really amounts to a socio-economic service. This is a direct result of the exceptional philosophy of administration and control which arises from clause 7 of the Bill. That is why hon. members will not take it amiss of me when I say that, historically speaking, there has not been one other factor in the entire South African economy, since the inception of the Railways in 1911, which has made a greater contribution to the stabilizing of South Africa, the creation of an infrastructure, the growth of commerce and industry, the growth of the economy as a whole, than the S.A. Railways has. By keeping the wheels rolling, even though this has been done at uneconomic tariffs, the South African economy is annually being given an infusion of approximately R250 to R300 million. By removing from the Exchequer the burden of making provision for the uneconomic and socio-economic services, the burden is now being placed on the shoulders of the Railways, which will bear the responsibility for providing the services. Accordingly, I want to make two statements. In the first place, the profits of commerce and industry and mining, and the achievements of commerce and industry and mining, are based on the deficits of the S.A. Railways in providing these sectors with these raw materials. The profit on the balance of payments and the advantageous balance of payments position is based on the loading of the high-rated traffic in the interior.

Seen in its entirety, this legislation is a historic piece of legislation. It concludes an exceptional period in the control and administration of the S.A. Railways and, if it please this House, it gives us a moment to take stock of and examine the exceptional achievements of the S.A. Railways. Then, as they come to mind, I simply want to mention a few of the outstanding achievements in the operation and administration of the S.A. Railways, which have been accomplished up to the present. For example I am thinking of Richard’s Bay which was built at a total capital investment of R1 200 million and which produces foreign exchange earnings of R3 000 million. I am thinking of Saldanha Bay, an ore exporting harbour. It was taken over by the S.A. Railways in 1977 for an amount of R650 million. Then there is City Deep, Bapsfontein and various other aspects, such as the enormous electrification programme of the S.A. Railways.

I am thinking of the fact that the value of S.A. Railways assets has increased over the past 15 years, from R1 600 million to a present value of R10 000 million. And that the S.A. Railways entered the international money market under its own name in 1973. I am thinking of the fact that the productivity index stands at 3,8%, and that the contribution of the S.A. Railways to the gross domestic product is plus-minus 6%. These are sparkling achievements of the S.A. Railways. Since we are now coming to the end of an exceptional period, it also serves a good purpose to examine these aspects. But one cannot refer to the achievements of the S.A. Railways without also referring to the people who have contributed towards these achievements, and helped to make them possible, viz. the loyal officials of the S.A. Railways who, with the exception of a few, have involved themselves in Railway property and interests as though they were their own. From the labourer to the artisan, the official, the Section Manager, the Assistant Manager, the Assistant General Manager and the Deputy General Manager, these are all staff members who are loyal in the service of this multinational transport organization. Having mentioned all these categories, from the labourer to the general manager, I tried to devise a suitable category for the General Manager. I then walked down to the station café and spoke to the people there. “Surely you know the people with whom you work,” I asked him. “The man at the top—the general manager, which category could one place him in?” The chap scratched his head, but could not help me. Then one of his friends came up and he asked him: “What starts with an A?” “Ape,” replied his friend, and then he said: “No, man, we are talking about the general manager now, not the Minister.”

Finally I want to refer to clause 2, which also records an historic event. The designation “South African Railways and Harbours” may fade in the course of time and subsequently it will be only a vague memorary, but whereas the name may fade, the operating and administrative problems of the South African Railways and Harbours remain just as real and actual. We find two of the major operating and administrative problems of the South African Railways in the fact that the links forged between the socio-economic services and the operating results, must now be severed. Those links must now be forged with the Exchequer, and the hon. member for Berea must help us to do this. If he is able to do so, he will be making an exceptional contribution.

Another problem of which we shall have to face up to is the fact that the South African Railways provides the infrastructure of a growing economy, but this operation does not share in the economic growth.

In my opinion inflation is a problem which is in future going to present the administration and operation of the South African Railways with serious problems. There are aspects which we could debate under the Vote of the hon. the Minister, and I want to conclude by saying that this is an historic measure which also attests to the gaining of statutory independence of the South African Railways. Consequently I gladly support the measure.

Mr. Speaker, as I address this House for the first time, I am very conscious of the tradition that becomes part of an institution of great power. It is ground out by the processes of history, built upon by the great figures of the past, and must not be taken lightly. An institution has been created which we must honour, whose ideals we must respect, or accept chaos as our inevitable destiny.

It is small wonder to me that the existing South African Railways legislation must be modernized. Few organizations can parallel its remarkable growth. In fact, it is considered by Fortune magazine as one of the world’s really big economic organizations. Its growth has followed, and sometimes led South Africa’s own remarkable expansion. Nevertheless, it remains something that we ordinary businessmen take for granted when it does its job and shout about so that everybody can hear when something goes wrong. However, can we consider the organization as only a transport organization? I am not referring to its peripheral pipelines, harbours, ships, airlines and the other things it operates, but it has been used to draw development into areas which have subsequently become strong growth points. Saldanha Bay and Richards Bay are examples of this. It has represented a mechanism through which hundreds of thousands of people have been introduced to the sophisticated and industrial world. It has become, together with our food-producing farmers the most significant, peaceful strategic weapon that this country possesses. It has the means to assist neighbouring states whose technology and management ability are deficient, in a manner that is free from political stigma. As an example we can take the maize and copper that are moved for Zambia and the assistance that we have given in respect of harbour and railway facilities for Maputo.

Another unsung and very major success achieved by the S.A. Railways was in the field of industrial relations. They acted imaginatively and early in the introduction of Blacks into jobs that had previously been reserved only for Whites. This was an extremely sensitive area, given the traditional attitudes of the bulk of their labour force. However, in an example of the honest and enlightened handling of a complex situation, after bringing existing staff completely into their confidence they set an example for private enterprise to follow.

Despite clause 7(1), which reads—

…and clause 7(2)(a), which reads—

As an aside, I wish they had used a word other than “exploitation”; it makes customers nervous!—I would submit that there are also many instances where it is very much in the interests of South Africa that the S.A. Railways act as a stimulant and subsidize healthy national development. If one takes the Eastern Cape as an example one has an area with two large ports that have shown a relative decline in significance. Port Elizabeth was originally established as a centre from which imported goods were distributed into the hinterland. It later became a change point from which goods were loaded, either on a ship or on a train for onward transmission and subsequently it became a manufacturing centre. Its existence, prospects and fluctuating fortunes have been decreed almost entirely by transport considerations. When mineral deposits were discovered inland, the Transvaal was able to offer all the factors of production, for example, a market, labour, minerals in unprecedented abundance, power, water, raw materials and capital. Port Elizabeth could then retain its industry only precariously in the face of these attractions.

That is the reason why I quoted from clause 7, with the emphasis on the phrase “the economic needs of the Republic”, because South Africa cannot survive with a vibrant, healthy PWV area with money to bum and the Stock Exchange as the only topic of conversation, while 5 000 000 people, 20% of the country’s total population, decay in the vast rural slum of the Eastern Cape.

They can no more do this than a man with an excellent heart and sound lungs can ignore the cancer in his foot. The P.E.-Uitenhage region is the metropolitan region with the highest percentage of regional products derived from the manufacturing sector. 74% of these manufactured products are railed out of P.E. Only 30% of the material input of the manufactured product is engendered locally. I do not think anything could illustrate more graphically the dependence of this region on rail transport for its economic well-being. Viewing this in conjunction with the importance of the region for the health of the total nation, I hope that the authorities will ensure that clause 7 is interpreted as I believe it is meant. My plea, therefore, is that the South African Railways use its ability to act in the national interest to ensure that the Eastern Cape be accorded rail rebates that would, to some extent, compensate for its unfavourable geographic position. Over the long term, I have no doubt, the country will redeem this investment many times over through the development of an export industry on the coast, something which is unattainable by manufacturers with plants located far inland.

Mr. Speaker, it is an exceptional privilege for me to be able react to the speech by the hon. member Walmer, and I should like to congratulate him on his maiden contribution to the proceedings of this House. He and I have a great deal in common as far as the interests of our constituencies are concerned. We come from the same part of the world and I think I can honestly say that he has made a constructive contribution today. However, I want to prepare the hon. the Minister for something. Although some of us in the Eastern Cape may differ with one another politically, there are many matters of common interest in respect of which we make representations to the Government from time to time, and I am sure the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs will not be excluded in this process. I am sure that there will be occasions when we shall have to make representations to his department.

This brings me to the legislation as such. In the words of the hon. member for Tygervallei, I want to say that it is, in my opinion, a fine piece of legislation. To me it is a very fine example of the rationalization of our legislation, a project which the Government is engaged in. Rationalization has not been adopted in principle only, for this process has in actual fact already come a long way. The idea is that one should incorporate similar or associated measures in one piece of legislation. That which belongs together, must be put together, and that which is obsolete, deleted. Accordingly that is what is being done today by means of this piece of legislation.

I do not want to say a great deal about the non-contentious aspects of the legislation. Perhaps, however, I shall just refer to just a few of the clauses in question. Two of these provisions relate to previous discussions in Parliament. There is, for example, the question of the designation, a matter which has been raised before by a former Minister of Transport. It is with a feeling of satisfaction that a Parliamentarian sees matters which have been raised at one time or another, subsequently put into effect in legislation. This is what has happened here as well. The other provision in the same category concerns clause 9(7), which introduces the sound principle that the Administration shall serve an owner notice in advance if it wishes to enter upon his property for the purpose of surveys, work on pipelines, etc. I understand this matter has on occasion been raised not in Parliament, but in the former Senate, and that this is the result—the fine result—of that process of our Parliament.

I also want to refer to clause 9(2), which contains an interesting provision. Admittedly it is not a new provision, since it was incorporated in the Act as far back as 1974. It is the existing section 2(1)bis of the Act. This provision provides for certain drastic powers in terms of which the Administration may encroach upon the rights of the private individual. It concerns the proprietary rights of the individual. Because this is the case and we regard the rights of the individual, and in particular his proprietary rights when it comes to immovable property, as sacrosanct, I want to express the hope that this power vested in the Administration will not be exercised in an autocratic way, but in the spirit—probably this must be so—of the well-known rule audi alteram partem. The position is that the Administration is authorized to intervene when property is transferred and impose the condition that the property concerned, and any other property of the owner concerned, be linked by means of a servitude which stipulates that the two properties shall not be alienated separately. I assume that this is a power which is very important for the effective functioning of the Administration. I just want to ask that it be exercised with the utmost circumspection. Although, for example, this is not required in the clause in its existing form, I trust that the owner will at least be notified and will have the opportunity to react by means of representations if he were to feel that it was unjustified that his property be encumbered in that way.

I also want to refer to clause 64, in terms of which the Administration makes the praiseworthy gesture of stipulating that claims are to elapse only after three years, and not after one year, as is the case at present.

Furthermore I should like to make a few remarks in connection with the contentious part of the legislation, according to the hon. member for Berea, viz. clause 45(8). The hon. member for Tygervallei has referred to it as well. Since there is consensus that this is primarily a piece of the legislation which can be discussed in depth during the Committee Stage, I shall content myself with a few brief remarks on this matter, in particular the attitude of the official Opposition in this respect. We know that their standpoint in this regard will largely be a repetition of the standpoint they adopted last year in respect of the second amendment of the Police Act. Consequently we may assume that the Opposition will advance the same arguments and offer the same resistance here as well. The first remark I want to make is that this matter definitely does not concern the Press. The Opposition is inclined to argue that it endangers the freedom of the Press and that the Press must therefore be protected. The fact of the matter is that this is purely and simply a matter of State security, and does not concern the Press at all. I want to say that this measure is definitely necessary in the times and the circumstances in which we are living, and is moreover fully justified.

The principle was adopted years ago in regard to Defence Force matters. It was adopted as far back as 1967. Last year we extended it to the S.A. Police as well. In present circumstances it is only logical that the same provision be extended to the Railway Police, too; in fact, it would be irresponsible of us not to extend this restriction to the Railway Police in present circumstances. It would be anomalous if these two arms of our internal security services were not brought into line in this regard. It is important in this connection that we placed the National Key Points Act on the Statute Book last year. From the point of view of State security the Railway Police are today, in my opinion, responsible for a whole series of places and areas which may for the purposes of that Act—Act No. 102 of 1980—be considered to be national key points. Let us examine what a national key point is, according to the Act. It is stated in the Act—

I do not know whether any specific places or areas were declared national key points last year in terms of the Act. Perhaps this has not been done formally, but I think that in the general sense of the word we cannot but regard airports, large stations and harbours as such. These are all very sensitive places and areas with regard to our national security today. That is why it is certainly justifiable for those areas to be considered national key points for practical purposes, and that is why it is important that those who are responsible for the security of those places, viz. the Railway Police, be placed on the same footing as the S.A. Police and the Defence Force, as far as this aspect of the matter is concerned. It is definitely essential for all railway lines, stations, airports and harbours to be guarded with the utmost vigilance, and that is why it is logical that this provision must be implemented in respect of the Railway Police as well, for they are the people responsible for those places.

I do not want to take the debate further today, for, as has already been said, the discussion can be taken further during the Committee Stage. However, I do want to make one remark concerning the standpoint adopted by the official Opposition. I do so primarily because the Chairman who will be in the Chair during the Committee Stage may not allow me to make this one remark. I do not know how strict he is going to be when we come to the Committee Stage. The standpoint the PFP has adopted in respect of this matter, as indicated by the hon. member for Berea, is really nothing but another salvo in the boycott campaign of the Opposition, of which we have had so much recently. That campaign is aimed in particular at two categories of Government measure.

It is in the first place aimed at measures aimed at bringing about a better political dispensation for all the population groups of South Africa and, in the second place, at all measures aimed at improving South Africa’s security against the onslaughts by its many enemies. We now have a few examples of this onslaught and this campaign we have been experiencing recently, and I just want to mention one or two in passing. In the first place, there is the refusal to have any part in our search for a better political dispensation by way of the President’s Council. Secondly, there is the threat to refrain from receiving or addressing foreign visitors any longer, although this has now started to boomerang on them. Thirdly, there is the reprehensible resistance shown by them yesterday to better education facilities for Blacks in this country; and fourthly they displayed the attitude in this debate today of not doing the fair thing in the interests of South Africa in this regard either, and admitting that the security of South Africa is at stake and that it is consequently necessary and desirable that this measure be placed on the Statute Book. I gladly support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, one does not really feel like dragging politics into a discussion on the South African Transport Services, but since the hon. member for Sundays River has mentioned it, I should like to ask him whether he is really living here on earth. Does he expect us to agree with apartheid? We have been sent to this House by a quarter of a million people for the very reason to oppose that policy. [Interjections.] That hon. member says that we should support institutions such as the President’s Council and the Vista University, and in the meantime Cabinet Ministers rise here to tell us that the President’s Council is in the tradition of Dr. Verwoerd. We have a duty towards our voters because they have sent us here to oppose the Government. [Interjections.]

I also wish to refer to the provision dealing with the police. There are certain things which are more important than our parties, and these include the institutions of Parliament and of our free society. One of these is that there should be a free Press. All of us are sinners and there are sinners in the police too; why should they be able to hide? Why should their activities not be revealed in the Press?

†Mr. Speaker, we have before us today a historic Bill and I must say that I am sorry that as a very new member of the transport group I have not had more time to study the Bill and to appreciate its implications. I say this because the South African Railways and Harbours Administration which is now to be called the Department of South African Transport Services is a very large, a very complex and a very important organization in South Africa. However, there is happily no better way for me to start than to have to deal with and read through and study a Bill of this nature because it is in a real sense the Magna Carta of the South African Transport Services and it is a good base from which to start.

There is a reference in the explanatory memorandum in regard to legislation going back to 1916 and, as I thought it might be useful for us to remind ourselves of some of the dimensions of the Railways, I, to this end, decided to look up the report of the General Manager for 1916. We see that from 1916 to the present the number of locomotives has increased from 1 593 to 4 988, the staff establishment has increased from 59 000 to 265 000 and the number of passengers carried has increased from 43 million to 650 million in round figures. We are also told that the capital investment of the Railways in 1916 was some £90 million to £100 million, whereas now it is some R9 000 million. So, by any standard, as the hon. member for Walmer has mentioned, we have to deal with a corporation which is large by international standards, very large indeed.

It is also, however, a corporation which is concerned with efficiency, and it is interesting to read in the report of the Auditor-General that the labour cost as a percentage of revenue—I am now referring to the railways only—has improved during the period 1975-’76 to 1979-’80 from a proportion of 52% to a proportion of 55%. If one reads some of the older Hansards, one is conscious of the fact that many of the clauses with which we have to deal in this Bill come from Victorian times. Some of them are quaint indeed. One appreciates that the Railways are indeed woven into the history of South Africa.

There are six chapters in the Bill and they deal with the powers of the Railways; passengers and goods; harbours; police; catering, which should actually be drinking because that is all it seems to be concerned with; and miscellaneous. Furthermore there are two schedules.

I think it is time for us to think carefully—we have already mentioned it—as to what exactly the South African Transport Services embrace. We should consider what the attitude of this House should be to it, because there is clearly a lobbying going on to get the South African Transport Services’ position and especially its statutory position changed. I do not believe it is a matter which we can best deal with during this debate and it is a matter which may possibly have to be referred to a Select Committee. There is obviously a sense in which the S.A. Railways, while being a department of State, has a measure of autonomy. It has already been mentioned that it employs more than 250 000 people in this country. That, however, is not the only thing it does. It houses most of the more than 250 000 people it employs. It has funded that housing and it has also provided a fantastic opportunity for people to gain skills. During a visit to any of our mechanical workshops one can only be immensely impressed by the whole range of training that goes on there. The S.A. Railways have played a most vital part in uplifting in economic terms thousands of South Africans. In fact, even speaking personally, my grandfather worked in the S.A. Railways—fortunately his son and his grandson were shrewd enough not to—and the Railways played a vital role in his life and indeed in mine too for that reason.

If one is to talk about the economy, the Railways of course are a classic example of Marxism. It is a State-controlled institution, it is a State business corporation, if one cares to describe it as such, and it is owned by the State. It is socialism in its purest form. Is that good or bad? I believe that the Railways are something which are going to reflect in a real sense the economic problems of this country in the next 50 years; i.e. bringing together what one can describe as the Third World economy and the First World economy. I believe that we in this country have to face the fact that we cannot run this country as though we, the Whites, are the only people who live, as it were, in West Germany transported to Africa. We do not live like that. I believe that we have to appreciate that just as the Railways played a vital role in the socio-economic upliftment of the poor Whites, and particularly the Afrikaans-speaking South Africans, it has to play that role possibly again.

I do not have to go into the history of this. I also do not mean to be controversial. What happened, however, in 1948? The first thing the NP Government did was to fire the General Manager of the Railways. He was replaced by a man of their own choice because they realized the importance of the leverage that the S.A. Railways could give to the improvement and development of Afrikaner Nationalist interests. I am not suggesting that that was a bad thing. It happened peacefully. It was painful for certain people, but the point is that through using that institution of the State, thousands of people were given a new life and a new future. I believe we have to understand that there are thousands of South Africans who are not White, who also want to be uplifted, who also want to share in a new future. I believe the Railways, with their experience, their conservatism and their background, can play a vital role in that regard. One must also not forget that the Afrikaanse Taal-en Kultuurvereniging had a function to perform for the benefit of railwaymen. It had an important role to play, and I believe that we have to realize that the Railways is not just another business organization, but that it has national ramifications. It also has them in an economic sense, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Walmer.

I believe we also have to look at this matter from the point of view of free enterprise, and in this regard I should like to quote what Sir H. H. Juta said in this House on 2 April 1913. I quote from Hansard of 1913, col. 1234—

Thus we see that free enterprise was alive and well in 1913. Mr. J. Searle, who was at that time the member of Parliament for Port Elizabeth, South-west, had the following to say.

To what party did he belong?

Mr. Speaker, I guess he must have been a member of the old South African Party; I am not sure.

He could not have been a Nationalist.

It did not really matter in Railway debates. I am sure the hon. the Minister is conscious of that. Mr. Searle had the following to say about Port Elizabeth. He said that he represented what might be called a minor port, but it had always borne the name of the “honest port”, and it had always paid its way. I go on to quote from the 1913 Hansard, col. 1232—

The point here is that the whole question of Railways control and free enterprise was an important issue of debate in 1913. One must now admit that if the Railways are going to become a corporation, they have to ask various other questions. I believe these are questions we cannot go on to now. One question, e.g. is whether they are going to be taxed. What about subsidies? The Railways have already been clever enough to extract R172 million last year from this Government to pay for apartheid in Railway transport. What are they going to do now? Are they going to have an elaborate system of subsidies if the Railways become a State corporation or a separate corporation? I believe that these are some of the many questions we have to ask. What will be the position, e.g. when they close down certain railway lines in areas where they have become uneconomic. Let us take, e.g. the narrow gauge railway line from Weenen to Estcourt in Natal. It is an uneconomic railway line. Is it going to be closed down? If so, and if the Railways are going to become a corporation and that railway line is closed, who is going to look after it?

That brings us to the next question, that of the Railway Board. It is also included in the Bill now under discussion. The Railway Board is a board which has also given rise to a good deal of controversy. I looked up a report of a debate on the Railway Board in 1916. This is what John X. Merriman had to say about it. He said—

and here Mr. Merriman is a wise man—

I believe that the Railway Board is something that needs to be looked at very carefully. I do not wish to refer to any personalities but when one looks at it one sees that it consists of three men. If one reads the regulations one sees that a quorum is two. If one of those two men happens to be the chairman, who has a deliberative or casting vote, it means that one person can make a decision. The hon. the Minister has said that he regards them as Deputy Ministers, but is that really their function and role? If in fact the Railway Board simply consists of political appointees, which in fact its members are at the moment, then I believe that it has lost its point. Men or women should rather be appointed to that board on the basis of their particular skills, for example, in accountancy, engineering, transport affairs or whatever it may be. That is not to say that the present members of the board do not do their best. I believe that if the Railways wants to move towards being a real business undertaking it must seek to establish a more professional board than simply a board which provides a very pleasant job and reward for political services. I would therefore urge that this question be looked into.

Under clause 9 the hon. the Minister arrogates certain powers that I believe are very important. First of all, he arrogates certain powers relating to freehold property. In fact the S.A. Railways is not only the South African Transport Services; it is also a colossal building society that lends millions of rand every year to its employees. I want to assure the hon. the Minister right now that as long as I am involved in transport affairs he is going to find that I am going to pay a lot of attention to this. What concerns me is the question of housing for Black personnel. The non-White members of the Railways comprise considerably more than half of the total work force of the Railways. Yet, if one looks at the figure in respect of money spent on Black housing one finds that it is a fraction of the amount spent on White employees. What does one in fact find? If one makes an analysis of the South African situation one finds that there are many people who analyse it in Marxist terms. What do they say? They say that the whole object of the present Government is to bring single, cheap labour into the industrial areas and to leave all the wives and families in rural slums. In fact employers like this system very much because it is much cheaper to house single men than it is to house families. That is a Marxist interpretation, but I believe that the Railways is in fact assisting this interpretation because they are building thousands of hostels for single men whereas if they were White employees they would not stand for it. The result is that the rural areas are suffering.

I know that we have a new Minister of Transport Affairs, I know that he is a man “wat lief is vir barmhartigheid” and I am sure that he is going to give his attention to this matter. However, I wish to point out to him that although he is now going to make use of the 99-year leasehold system, his department could many years ago have acquired properties freehold. In this respect I am talking particularly about my constituency. In Edenvale there is a large Black area where there is freehold title—their deeds are registered in the Deeds Office in Pietermaritzburg. Why, for example, have the Railways never assisted their Black staff in acquiring properties there? In Pinetown there is a large Black township called Clermont and both these townships fall today within Black scheduled areas. There is nothing to stop the Railways from acquiring freehold title on those properties and, if necessary, taking rights to grant bonds, to have sales in execution or to take back the properties if necessary. I believe that in this respect the Railways can play a vital role in stabilizing and creating decent family life for Black employees as they have already done in regard to their White employees.

Clause 9(7) is known as the Charles Henderson clause and relates to the rights of people in regard to pipelines constructed across their lands. The Railways were eventually persuaded to adopt the Expropriation Act of 1976 as a basis for acquiring land. That gives the expropriatee certain rights. In clause 9(7) the person across whose land the pipeline is constructed also has certain rights. For instance, the Railways Administration has to give him notice etc. As I see it, these are perfectly reasonable rights. Why is this not the case in clause 9(6), (8) and (10) and in clause 27? The Railways can now literally walk on to any man’s farm and build a weir across his river without the owner being able to do a thing about it. If they want to erect a telephone pole, they can do so without even advising the owner beforehand. However, there is an amusing provision which provides that they may not enter a man’s house or the fenced area around his house without giving him 24 hours’ notice. My point is that if the Railways Administration is prepared to accept the principle that an individual does have some basic rights in a democratic society in respect of his property, why not be consistent and include this in all the relevant provisions of the Bill? I believe that would be a useful thing to do because the Railways has the reputation of sometimes riding fairly roughshod over the rights of private citizens.

Chapter II of the Bill deals with the conveyance of passengers and goods and is fairly straightforward.

Chapter III deals with harbours and here I must remind the House that in clause 41 we have a reminder of the independent spirit of Natal, of its determination to maintain the spirit of free enterprise and, of course, to make considerable profits out of harbour carrier certificates. However, in my view it is a pity that the traders and carriers are under a two-year Sword of Damocles in terms of clause 41.

Chapter IV deals with police and powers of arrest by officials. This matter has been dealt with more competently than I could do by my colleague the hon. member for Berea.

Chapter V deals with drinking on the Railways. If hon. members have not read the Bill, they may not be aware of the fact that if they happen to spend the night 32 km or 20 miles away from any place where they can obtain liquid alcoholic refreshment, they are entitled to demand such refreshment at any time of the day from the S.A. Railways. If, therefore, one has spent the night 32 km or 20 miles away from the local Railway buffet, one can arrive at 6 o’clock in the morning and demand to have whatever is one’s choice in alcoholic beverages.

I believe that this is a very important Bill as it deals with an important part of our economy, which, I believe, is generally run very efficiently, something for which we should be thankful. It is a Bill which brings together and builds on the foundations of colonial and republican railway administrations of the last century. It is indeed a Bill which I believe represents progress in terms of our legislative programme and I am very pleased that my party and I can support it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Berea put a few questions to me.

†He asked whether we were in a dilemma. I can say that we are not in a dilemma. The Railways remains a business undertaking but it is closely connected with the State, for instance, in regard to subsidies, for millions upon millions of rand are being paid in subsidies. However, we still remain a business enterprise. The hon. member referred to the speech of Dr. Albert Wessels and asked why we could not be like Iscor. However, if one compares the figures of Iscor with those of the S.A. Railways there is no comparison. I do not want to talk about Iscor but if that hon. member wants to compare us with Iscor he is making a big mistake. If one takes the price of steel and compares the profitability of Iscor with that of the S.A. Railways I feel that we should stay as we are. I shall refer to that later on.

I said that the principle should be considered.

One must look at the whole situation. As that hon. member and also other hon. members correctly said, we employ 265 000 people in this country. One cannot look at it solely as a business enterprise.

The question is whether they want it.

No, the hon. member referred to the possibility, I must be fair, for he said that we should investigate the possibility. He did ask for that.

Is he in favour of it? He need only say yes or no.

Why does the Railway Board need three members? The hon. member forgets to mention our management. If he looks at the annual report of the General Manager he will see the top management that we have. The three commissioners are there to support the Minister in the making of certain decisions.

*The hon. member also referred to the scope which exists. For many years the management could decide on amounts of up to R50 000 without approaching the Minister. Due to inflation and other factors, however, it is being intended to increase this amount to R200 000 now, precisely in order to curb stagnation and to grant the power of decision-making so that one can act quickly to be able to do certain things. This is done in ordinary large business enterprises. If the management is entitled to decide on the expenditure of R200 000 in order to promote faster decision-making, thus causing matters to go without a hitch, I feel that this concept cannot be linked to a slow-working Government machine. But all these matters must come back to Parliament. They are tabled and there is a Select Committee which has to go into them. I have oftened examined the modus operandi of the Railways, but I cannot think of a better system, for one always knows that one is accountable to the Select Committee and Parliament, for that is where matters are thrashed out.

The hon. member for Tygervallei replied very effectively to the hon. member for Berea on certain points. He also referred to the business principles of the Railways and that it was laid down in the initial legislation that the Railways had to consider the circumstances of agriculture and industry in our country. In that regard the Railways has played a tremendous role and this has always been a fundamental part of the activities of the Railways. I thank the hon. member for Tygervallei.

†I also want to reply to the point raised by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. If we run the Railways on business lines and we charge an economic price for passenger transport we will be unable to manage without a Government subsidy. We shall then have to close certain lines.

That is why I say you are in a dilemma.

No, I will not call it a dilemma. It is a service that we provide for the country. The hon. member for Bellville also referred to the fact that 80% of all the goods we transport is transported at an uneconomic rate. I think that improves our standing even more as it is really exceptional.

The hon. member also asked me about the Tender Board regulations. We still work according to instructions and that position is not affected in terms of the Bill. No change whatsoever is contemplated in regard to the Tender Board. It will remain as it is. In his speech he also referred to problems in regard to contracts and he had a newspaper clipping in that regard. Those are things that happened three to five years ago. Who discovered them? They were discovered by our own internal auditors and were brought to the attention of the Auditor-General. It was not the Auditor-General who discovered these shortcomings. It was our own people and we are busy rectifying these matters to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future. However, the report the hon. member referred to dealt with things that happened three to five years ago.

*The hon. member for Bellville is making a sound contribution in the sense that he is the secretary of the study group. He is extremely interested in the Railways and also replied very effectively to many of the previous speakers. He also referred to the loyalty of the Railway official and I shall refer to it when I deal with the Railway Budget. Then I shall also refer once again to the commissioners and our present staff.

†This brings me to the hon. member for Walmer, who made his maiden speech. I am sure he is going to be a member of the Transport Affairs Group. He made a very good contribution, in which he referred to the 5 million people resident in the Eastern Cape. I held discussions with certain parties last week and was told about even less maize being exported through East London harbour and eventually more maize through Richards Bay. We have, however, decided to increase the capacity at East London. We must see to it that there is no stagnation in the Eastern Cape because there are 5 million people living there. That hon. member is therefore quite correct.

*The hon. member for Walmer seems like a fine fellow to me. I think that he and I will get along well.

The hon. member for Sundays River touched upon certain matters and suggested certain improvements. I want to thank him for that, as well as for his very effective reply to many of the questions of hon. members of the Opposition.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North is a rather difficult member. In this debate, which I regard as a debate which must rise above politics, I definitely do not want to discuss politics, but he said some terribly cruel things about the Government since 1948.

†He said we got rid of the General Manager to appoint a Nationalist as General Manager. However, the growth of the Railways actually only started in 1948. He also referred to the ATKV. He wanted to draw differences between Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people into this debate. I simply cannot do that, because I am not that sort of person.

*I really cannot drive a wedge between the ATKV and the staunch old Afrikaner nation. I want to tell that hon. member something: Honestly, my friend you must leave them alone.

I am married to one of them, man.

Yes, I know. That hon. member said that his grandfather was a Railway worker, but he is not a Railway worker. But I can give him the assurance that this is in fact a business organization. We select our people. Surely we do not take just anybody to come and work in the Railways. [Interjections.]

†He referred to the subsidies for apartheid. I agree that certain of our apartheid regulations did contribute, but we nevertheless have to transport people, and now we subsidize that transport. I shall be giving attention to the housing of Blacks. I have said before that I do not want workers on the Railways all to be living in a Railway complex. I want each man to have his own house in a village or township amongst other people.

*This practice of simply throwing together a number of houses and saying that it is a Railway complex causes a stigma to attach to the organization. Give a man a loan and let him build or buy his own house. In the past we obtained subsidies via the Government for Black residential areas. The Railways is now working on housing plans for Blacks, so that it may be possible for them, too, to acquire their own homes under the 99-year leasehold system, and be able to afford them as well.

He also said that Railway Commissioners should be businessmen.

There are, of course, some people whom one cannot consider to be businessmen, but often one soon changes one’s mind when one has round table discussions with them. I have been in charge of the Railways portfolio for almost a year now, and in that period the Railway Commissioners, and, of course, members of Management as well, have given me a great deal of advice on business matters. We have men who have doctor’s degrees in completely different disciplines. But we make such a man head of a section in which he is purely a businessman. We really have top men in the Railways Administration. These are men of whom I am very proud.

I should just like to reply to these few remaining points. I agree with the hon. member for Berea as regards the elimination of the word “black”. I shall accommodate him in that respect during the Committee stage. The hon. member for Tygervallei wanted a change in the reference to “besig-heidsonderneming”. I am prepared to amend the clause in question.

In respect of clause 45(8) I must, however, dig in my heels. We may cross swords on this issue, for I can make no concession here. But we shall have to decide during the Committee Stage.

I shall let this suffice, for I have one more Bill to finalize, and I still have to catch a plane to be able to get back to my farm this weekend.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill provides for the construction of a guaranteed single railway line between Broodsnyersplaas and a terminal point on the farm Hartbeestfontein 339 JS.

The Railways and Harbours Board has investigated the proposal and recommended the construction of the line. Full particulars of the proposed scheme are contained in the board’s report, which has already been tabled, so my remarks will be brief.

BP Southern Africa (Pty.) Ltd. proposes to export 4,25 million tons of coal, for which it has the necessary export permit, from deposits on Hartbeestfontein farm, which is situated approximately 20 km to the south of Middelburg, Transvaal, through Richard’s Bay, and has approached the Administration to build a single railway line from Broodsnyersplaas to the farm under guarantee. The intention is to start exporting as early as July 1983.

The company has undertaken to finance the construction of the line, to build it according to departmental standards and to transfer it to the Railways upon completion, to be operated by the Railways as a public line under guarantee. This offer is acceptable to the Administration, especially since the Railways will not spend any capital and is not physically able at the moment to do the work departmentally.

†In terms of the agreement entered into with BP Southern Africa (Pty.) Ltd., the Railways will be indemnified against operating losses during the guarantee period of 20 years. The capital investment in the railway line, including interest, will be refunded in full during this period by the levying of a special surcharge on outgoing traffic, which will also be utilized to defray any losses which may be sustained in the working of the line.

The traffic to be offered by the company is expected initially to total some 500 000 tons during the period July to December 1983, with an anticipated increase to 2,84 million tons during 1984 and 4,25 million tons annually from 1985 onwards.

The proposed line, which will be electrified, will be approximately 13 km long and will cost an estimated R12 million to construct.

Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief, partly in response to what was nearly a plea from the hon. the Minister when he referred to the fact that he has to catch an aeroplane at 5.30, and secondly because this is a line about which I know very little indeed. I have discussed the matter with the hon. the Minister’s department and I have looked at the agreement between the Administration and BP, which seems to take the form of similar agreements entered into in the past.

What I want to record, though, is that I am disappointed that the report from the Railway Board came into our possession only this morning. The Bill which has just been read a Second Time and which is to take over from the old Act of 1962, in dealing with the functions of the Railway Board, provides in clause 5(2)—

We sat in this House the whole morning discussing transport matters and only after we had commenced sitting was the report of the Railway Board made available to us. This hardly facilitates members of the House being “informed and satisfied” with regard to a proposed line. I raise this matter in the hope that in the future the report of the board on matters of this kind will be made available to members earlier, giving them far more time to study the report if it is of any significance at all.

Sir, I have looked at the Bill and it is clear that this proposed line is necessary. It involves a contractual arrangement between the Railways and BP and therefore we shall support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I just rise to tell the hon. the Minister that we of the NRP shall be supporting the Bill. One point I would like to make is that I think this matter gives a clear indication of what South Africans can expect as far as coal exports over the next few years are concerned. This one company alone expects to export 4,5 million tons annually by 1985. This bodes well for our coal exports during this decade. We shall support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to learn that the official Opposition and the NRP are supporting the Bill. It is a great privilege for me to be able to enter into a discussion with the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs on this occasion concerning the construction of railway lines, specifically because it comes close to my home this time—by that I mean my constituency. Because many more railway lines are needed in my constituency, I think this is a suitable occasion for reminding the hon. the Minister of the fact that Groblersdal now also falls in my constituency and that …

Order! The hon. member must not digress from the Bill.

Sir, I shall come back to the Bill in a moment. I just want to remind the hon. the Minister of the fact that there are prominent farmers who also need services.

As I have said, it is a great privilege for me to discuss the construction of a railway line in my constituency on this occasion. It gives me the opportunity of drawing attention to the rapid development in that part of the country. If there is development, surely there must be a reason for such development. I think I am the only member in this House who can say that he has three power stations and 11 coal mines responsible for the generation of energy in his constituency at the moment. What is more, they are all in one district. While we are on the subject, it would be a good thing if other Ministers would also take cognizance of this development, for with regard to the services which will have to be provided in that constituency, other departments will certainly have to be involved as well. Middelburg lies at the centre of a part of the Republic where the greatest supply of energy in the country is going to be generated.

Order! The hon. member must deal with the railway line.

Sir, I shall talk about the railway line, but I just want to point out how important it is that the railway line be built there. That line cannot be built if the inexhaustible resources of coal, water and labour and other infrastructure are not available. Precisely because the line is going to be built in an environment which is also situated in the development area around Bronkhorstspruit, it is especially important that we have the opportunity today of providing for the construction of that railway line. The proposed Bill provides for the construction of the line from Broodsnyersplaas to Hartbeesfontein farm, or vice versa, from Hartbeesfontein to Broodsnyersplaas. I may mention for the sake of interest that Hartbeesfontein farm originally belonged to a former member of the House of Assembly who represented the Middelburg constituency, Mr. Jan Heyns. The farm was recently purchased by BP Southern Africa (Pty.) Ltd. from the son of the late Mr. Jan Heyns. That line from Hartbeesfontein will join the line at Broodsnyersplaas, and will actually be an extension of the line between Broodsnyersplaas and Richards Bay. This extension of the line is welcomed. I have examined the agreement between the Administration and BP Southern Africa, which is a schedule to the Bill which is before us. The line is being built at the expense of BP Southern Africa, at an estimated amount of R12 million, as the hon. the Minister also indicated in his Second Reading Speech.

That amount provides for the construction and equipment of the line, the necessary sidings, stations, buildings and other equipment required for the utilization of the railway line. This proposed line will be a great asset to the area, since it will provide a service that will be much more comprehensive than merely the transportation of coal. It will also open up the area for further development, development which is perhaps not even foreseen at this stage. In this respect, I should like to draw attention to paragraph 3(2) of the Schedule to the Bill, which reads as follows—

Of course, the plan is not annexed hereto. Consequently I do not know exactly what route the line will follow. However, this is a very important aspect of the agreement, which we shall have to examine. Therefore I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that that line is going to be built through an area with a very high agricultural potential, and that major problems will therefore be experienced with the expropriation of land. The possibility exists that farms in that area may be seriously affected. Therefore I should like to request the hon. the Minister to have the possibility investigated of routing that line in such a way as to cause the least possible inconvenience to the farmers concerned. I do not wish to be unreasonable in my request. Every reasonable person will understand that there are certain norms which have to be taken into consideration with regard to the gradients, for example, and other aspects of such a programme. Nevertheless, I think it is possible to route the line in such a way as to cause the least possible disruption.

Finally, I wish to express the opinion that on the whole, the railway line will be a definite asset, and that it will also provide a link with a part of the country which has rich coal-fields, something which will be invaluable to the Republic, especially with a view to exporting coal and earning foreign exchange. Therefore it is a very great privilege for me to support the Second Reading of this Bill, especially because it has a bearing on my constituency as well, and may stimulate great developments in that part of the country.

Mr. Speaker, before I proceed to anything else, I just wish to indicate to the hon. member for Berea that he has every right to be dissatisfied. However, we want to get the line ready as soon as possible, because BP wants to meet its export contracts. Hon. members are normally afforded ample time for studying legislation and all the related documents. However, this is the reason why the report referred to by the hon. member only reached him this morning.

Furthermore, I also want to point out to the hon. member for Middelburg that he can go and study the report. It is lying in his office. At the back of the report there is a big map on which all the relevant details are indicated. The hon. member can inspect the entire route of the line on that map. It is clear to me that the hon. member has not had a look at the report yet. However, I promise that I shall see to it in the future that hon. members are at least given a few days to study details of this nature.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti referred to the importance of coal exports. The railway line to Richard’s Bay was built with a view to exporting 24 million tons of coal a year. Already, 44 million tons are being exported, and I foresee that the amount will rise to 60 million tons.

I can assure the hon. member for Middelburg that we shall see to it that the minimum of disruption is caused by the construction of that line. But I must say that I know farmers too. As soon as a farmer hears that there is a possibility that a railway line may be built across his farm, he starts making sums and lining up his objections straight away. The Railway Commissioners have already visited the area through which the proposed line will pass. I promise that we shall see to it that the disruption that does take place will be as small as possible and that the compensation to the farmers concerned will also be such that in my opinion, they should be satisfied.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Because of the fact that it is virtually impossible for the S.A. Nursing Association to keep track of nurses whose names appear on the register, but who are no longer practising, the association has requested that the Act be amended to provide that only practising persons should be members of the association.

The association is a professional body. Nursing assistants form the category with the largest number of members. In terms of the present provisions of the Act, nurses, who are the most highly qualified, can be completely crowded out by nursing assistants because of their numerical superiority. For that reason it has been deemed necessary that the members of boards and persons entitled to elect such members be restricted to registered nurses.

The association is at present drawing up a new constitution. The Act contains no distinction based on race or colour. However, in order to prevent any possible problems regarding race relations in the future, the Minister is being authorized to approve any amendment to or replacement of the constitution.

Because of the shortage of medical practitioners and pharmacists in the public sector, it has become essential to use nurses trained for this purpose to perform certain functions of medical practitioners and pharmacists in order to prevent the collapse of public health services. These functions are restricted to community services and include the following: Ante-natal and post-natal care; immunization, tracing and treatment of cases of tuberculosis and venereal diseases; geriatric services; psychiatric after-care and family planning.

Tuberculosis remains one of the major health problems in South Africa. Tuberculosis is diagnosed either by an X-ray examination interpreted by a doctor or by means of a laboratory examination of a sputum sample. The treatment of the condition is very specific with certain medicines or combinations of medicines.

The extent of venereal diseases is not known, and because of the nature of the disease, it is an open question whether a patient referred to a doctor by a nurse ever gets to see the doctor. When the disease is confirmed by means of a blood sample in a laboratory, the nurse must also be able to administer the necessary medicine.

The National Family Planning Programme could never have been as successful as it has already been if we had had to rely entirely on medical practitioners.

Minor indispositions to be diagnosed and treated by a nurse are specified, and the medicine she is allowed to administer and provide is given to her in pre-packaged doses, with an indication of what contraindications there are as well as the side-effects which may occur. The following are a few examples with regard to children:

1. (a) Diarrhoea:

On the package is written—

1. (b) Roundworm:

It says on the package—

There are many other conditions such as scabies, measles, chicken-pox, mumps, sore throat and headache which can be treated in a similar fashion.

When specific symptoms lead the nurse to suspect that there may be a more serious disease, she has to refer the patient to a medical practitioner. It is certainly not the intention that treatment should be initiated by her in such cases.

Only nurses who are employed in the public health sector and who have the necessary experience and have been properly trained for this are used for performing these functions.

In terms of the present provisions of the Nursing Act, 1938, nurses are seriously concerned about the fact that they do not enjoy legal protection with regard to the performance of these functions. As a result, they may also have problems with regard to indemnity under the insurance scheme of the Nursing Association. The provision in clause 2 is intended to afford such nurses the necessary protection.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to say that the hon. member for Parktown has apologized for not being present, but like the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs he has had to catch a plane.

†Mr. Speaker, the PFP will support this Bill with reservations which I shall detail shortly. We shall also deal with the reservations more comprehensively during the Committee Stage and move certain amendments.

In the first instance, clause 1 of the Bill deals with two separate matters. The first of these is, as was indicated by the hon. the Minister, a request by the S.A. Nursing Association in regard to the registration of persons practising nursing in the Republic. The request of the association dealt with non-practising nurses and I am sure that we all agree that if they are not practising they ought not to be compelled to be members of the association. In the second instance, if this is so, then, of course, they will not have a vote in the election of representatives of the nursing profession to the board. We respect their request to the hon. the Minister and we have no difficulties as far as these provisions are concerned.

As far as paragraph (b) of clause 1 is concerned, however, we do have some difficulty and it is a fundamental difficulty. Here we have a S.A. Nursing Association that was established in 1957, that is, 24 years ago when the Act was promulgated. It is accordingly a statutory body. The Act of 1957 provided exactly how the S.A. Nursing Association was to be established, its objects and functions and precisely how it was to meet and how it was to be controlled. One wonders why at this stage there should be an intrusion upon the rights and privileges of an association such as this to the effect that if they want to amend their constitution they will no longer be able to do so without the consent of the Minister. I should like to know why it should be that the Minister now has the right to veto any amendment to that constitution. We are opposed in principle to a right of this nature being given to the Minister where a body is autonomous, like this one, and where it has the right to control its own affairs. Why, when the constitution has to be amended, must the Minister be brought into the picture in order to give his consent to such a measure? I say, therefore, that we have grave reservations in this regard.

In his introductory speech the hon. the Minister mentioned the fact that a new constitution had been drawn up for this association and that in terms of that constitution there would be no discrimination on the grounds of race or colour. We appreciate this because that is in fact the position as far as the Act is concerned. However, the hon. the Minister gave no motivation at all for the innovation now being introduced to give the hon. the Minister the right of veto and we feel very strongly about it. It is a principle we cannot agree with where the body is autonomous as is this association.

Clause 2 of this legislation deals with a different aspect entirely. This clause provides that registered nurses who are in the employ of the Department of Health, Welfare and Pensions, a provincial administration or local authority may be permitted to render certain services which normally they are not permitted to perform, provided the medical practitioner or pharmacist, as the case may be, is not available. We must approach this with a measure of caution. Firstly, it is very interesting to note—and the hon. the Minister will forgive me broaching this subject because I should imagine that the subject of nurses is a very sensitive issue as far as he is concerned—that the hon. the Minister himself says in regard to this matter that there is a shortage of nurses. That is not quite in keeping with what he told the House the other day. He then told us that there was no shortage according to the figures which he quoted to the House. However, this afternoon he tells the House that there is a shortage of nurses and he uses this fact to motivate his argument. This subject becomes important because the role that nurses play is a very important one in so far as the field of medical services is concerned. In the broadest sphere we should like to see nurses incorporated in a type of health policy generally adopted by the Government, which in fact is our policy, and that in the first place nurses should play a more import ant part in so far as referrals are concerned. There should be a number of poly- and subclinics in which patients can be examined so that they are not kept waiting unnecessarily and then, after an initial assessment has been made—not a proper medical diagnosis which the nurses are unable to do—referrals can be made and the matter decentralized on that basis. That would be a very fine approach to medicine. If this legislation is to be the forerunner and foundation of something of that nature we shall be very pleased to know it.

We have obviously listened with great interest to the hon. the Minister with regard to just how far the nurses are entitled to go because this is a very serious and responsible matter in so far as the physical examination of any person is concerned, in so far as the diagnosing of any physical defect, illness or deficiency is concerned and also as far as the keeping of prescribed medicines and the promotion of family planning is concerned. The hon. the Minister has given some examples as to just how far they can go. I should like to direct hon. members’ attention to the proposed section 38A in terms of which the performance of any health service can only take place “after consultation with the S.A. Pharmacy Board” and so forth. We feel that it should rather be in agreement because to a large extent it is the profession involved in terms of this proposed section that should be able to say how far a nurse can actually go in administering the medical service that is required of her in terms of the provisions laid down in paragraphs (a) to (d) of the proposed section 38A to which I am referring. Only after having obtained that agreement should this be put into operation.

On the other hand, we see a benefit in this in the sense that firstly, if there is an emergency where some form of medical attention needs to be given—certainly to save life—and if a doctor or pharmacist is not present, then obviously one must support such action in a situation of crisis in so far as it can save a life. We must lend our support to that. However, we are also now giving added responsibility to the nurses. I hope that this added responsibility, which is a very serious responsibility, will be borne in mind by the hon. the Minister when he considers the salaries to be paid to such nurses.

The other aspect that I think we have to take into consideration is the fact that if a nurse, in the circumstances in which she is employed at present, renders any of the four categories of service mentioned in the proposed section 38A and, because of negligence or otherwise, administers an overdose or administers medical treatment that leads to the injury of the patient or loss of life, and if she does this on her own, then the body involved, be it the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, the local authority or a provincial hospital is not liable. But we must see the legal implication in this namely, that if the nurse is acting in the course of her duty and within the scope of her authority and is negligent, then the body or local authority involved is going to be liable and if a claim for damages is issued against them they will be responsible. In such a case we see that there is a measure of protection that can in fact be given to the public. It is a sort of indemnity insurance that will cover the public in the event of that type of negligence.

Our attitude is, therefore, that we do not want to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill because it provides certain benefits. However, we find the provisions of clause 1(b) offensive and we propose moving an amendment in the Committee Stage in respect of that portion of the clause.

Mr. Speaker, from the discussion of this Bill, and further to the hon. the Minister’s speech, it is essential that we take cognizance of the responsible position which the nurse occupies in the broad sphere of our health services.

We must also remember that there are nurses in remote places, where a doctor is not always available. In such cases, a very great responsibility rests on the nurse. The hon. the Minister spelt out very clearly the duties which nurses sometimes have to perform and also referred to the fact that sisters sometimes held acting posts. In the light of this, it is only right that we should protect the interests of those sisters and see to it that they receive legal protection as well.

I welcome the support of the official Opposition for this Bill, as expressed by their spokesman. However, the hon. member expressed his concern, especially with regard to the limits within which nurses may perform certain duties. In my opinion, the official Opposition should not have any problems in this connection. The hon. the Minister made it quite clear, and it is set out at length in the Bill as well, that a nurse is restricted in the performance of the duties concerned. Her activities are also subject to certain conditions. One of the preconditions is that no doctor must be available.

With our population composition, and because our population is so widely dispersed, it is not possible to have a medical practitioner in every village. Especially where there are clinics serving people of colour, the services of nurses and nursing sisters must be used. If they are exposed to the consequences of their acts because they do not have legal protection, we should accept this as a reason why there are not enough nurses available in certain respects.

The hon. member for Hillbrow also expressed his misgivings about the duties that should be entrusted to a nurse. However, I believe that this protection will bring peace of mind to the nurses in remote places, or where they have to perform especially responsible duties. It will also ensure that nurses will perform those services with greater dedication.

Clause 1 is mainly concerned with the registration of practising nurses, and no distinction is made on the basis of race or colour. However, an important provision is that the Minister must approve final changes to the constitution of the S.A. Nursing Association.