Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, the discussion of the Votes comes to an end on Friday. The House will then proceed with the Order Paper.

Mr. Chairman, I still have to reply to 53 questions and I shall try to do so as quickly as possible. A total of 53 questions were asked, and most of them were intelligent questions.

†I shall begin with the hon. member for Berea, who complained about the attitude of the S.A. Airways’ staff. During a previous debate, in February, the hon. member for Yeoville praised the S.A. Airways’ staff for their high standard of service, courtesy and friendliness, and it is therefore ironical that seven months later the hon. member for Berea finds so much fault with the attitude of the S.A. Airways’ staff.

*At this point I should like to interrupt myself and say that the hon. member for Yeoville and I have buried the hatchet and are once again living in peace in this House.

†The hon. member for Berea also inquired about the rail infrastructure to serve Bronkhorstspruit. The South African Transport Services is, as the new name indicates, an organization which will provide whatever transport services it is called upon to provide. The planning of new growth points does not lie with these services and I cannot therefore comment on fare structures, subsidies and services at some future date at Bronkhorstspruit or any other projected growth point.

*The hon. member for Witbank asked for parity in pensions payable to workers doing equal work. I just want to say that the hon. member for Witbank and various other hon. members who have Railwaymen in their constituencies, inter alia, Koedoespoort, De Aar and similar places are of tremendous assistance to me in their constituencies because they bring the slightest problem which arises to my attention or directly to the attention of the Management in order to serve their voters to the best of their ability. If there is any function I have to perform in Witbank the hon. member for Witbank is always there to accompany me without my having to ask him. I just want to tell the hon. member that according to legislation pension benefits are based on the number of years of pensionable service completed by an employee and on his pensionable emoluments at retirement. Naturally pension benefits will therefore vary from person to person, even if they were on the same grade.

†The hon. member for Amanzimtoti alleged that diesel drivers from Zimbabwe are taken on as assistant drivers. I replied to him in this regard last night but one point that I omitted to mention was that these new drivers do not know the ropes as far as our Railways are concerned. They are from a foreign country and we still have to train and educate, them. That is why they have to start as assistant drivers and not immediately as full drivers. For instance, if a pilot on S.A. Airways resigns and then returns to the service after let us say, two years, he cannot start immediately as a First Officer or Captain. He has to re-enter the service as an assistant pilot in order to be able to cope with new techniques and so forth.

The hon. member also referred to the danger to passengers when railway carriage doors are pushed open. The Railways is concerned about the safety of its passengers and all practical steps are taken to prevent these doors opening. The doors on coaches now in service cannot be changed but the doors of new generation suburban coaches are being redesigned. These doors are the same as lift doors. One cannot have a door on a coach closing like an ordinary door because a passenger’s hand may be injured when the door closes. A coach door must be like a lift door which in closing cannot inflict injury.

The hon. member also wished to know whether it is policy to drive away first class commuters and cause them to travel by road. That was the question the hon. member asked and I can tell him that that is definitely not the situation. We are concerned about our first class commuters and we do not wish to chase them away.

The hon. member also referred to the problems experienced by first class passengers at Berea Road station. I paid a visit to Berea Road station together with the Railway Commissioners and top management and we spent the whole day there. As the hon. member will realize, that station has not yet been completed. The problems are due to the fact that only part of the new station has been opened for use by commuters. Certain temporary measures have been taken to provide more facilities for first class passengers.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti further requested that rail/bus tickets should also be provided for first class passengers. Rail/bus tickets can only be provided between a limited number of stations where volumes justify such tickets. However, the Railways is prepared to look into the matter. At the moment the scheme only applies to third class passengers.

The hon. member also referred to the timekeeping of passenger trains in the Durban area. Passenger trains in that area are 88% punctual at the present moment. The Railways is, however, constantly striving to improve the punctuality of commuter services. Line capacity will be extended in future programmes. I realize that the punctuality can be improved beyond 88% but sometimes there are power failures and other problems beyond our control.

The hon. member also said that loitering at stations created problems for the travelling public and that control measures were inadequate due to the size of barriers. Police action is aimed at restricting loitering as far as possible. However, the problem is to distinguish between loitering and waiting for trains. Barriers are used to limit access to platforms. Concerning the allegation that barriers are too small to handle the mass of passengers it should be pointed out that all possible space on platforms is being utilized for this purpose. It is not possible to improve the system significantly without the complete redesign of stations. However, this will be considered should electronic barriers be installed. I approached a man standing on Berea Road station and asked him what he was waiting for. He told me that he was only looking at the station. It is a very difficult thing to distinguish between people waiting for trains, as I have said, and people like this man who just come to look. One finds the same thing at airports on Sundays. People go along there to watch the aeroplanes taking off and landing. However, we are investigating the whole matter to see what can be done about preventing loitering and stopping people making a nuisance of themselves.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti referred to the littering of stations and trains, and requested that an anti-litter campaign be launched. The Railways in Natal have teamed up with the “Keep Durban Clean” Association. The association concentrated on Grey Street and Berea Road, using banners and special containers. This is the start of a wider campaign and we shall pay attention to the ideas the hon. member has on having signs and advertisements in railway coaches.

*The hon. member for Amanzimtoti asked a vast number of questions, but they were all good questions. I just want to say that since I got this job from the hon. the Prime Minister, it has been really wonderful to work with a Management which this morning sat up until 03h00 working out the replies to the questions for me. I wrote down all the questions, but this morning at 08h00 the officials came to me and said here are all the replies to the questions. It is really wonderful to work with such a Management. I almost feel that I am being overpaid, because one could get anybody to come in here and read out the replies. [Interjections.]

†The hon. member for Amanzimtoti referred to the stevedoring services and in reply I want to tell him that nine stevedoring companies are licensed to operate at Richards Bay. Four of them have general licences, two have limited licences to handle coal, one has a limited licence to serve ro-ro vessels—i.e. roll-on, roll-off vessels—one is engaged in hatch cleaning functions and one is licensed to handle only timber. For the sake of comparison I may point out that Durban is served by only three stevedoring companies with general licences. Richards Bay is therefore better off with its nine stevedoring companies.

*The hon. members for Swellendam and Rosettenville referred to the railway line which was washed away, the Makadas railway line. The hon. member for Swellendam made a mistake. The hon. member for Rosettenville explained on a previous occasion where the name comes from. Makadas has nothing to do with dust and that sort of thing. The people who built the railway line, used to visit a certain woman there and when the inspector came along they then had to “make a dash”. “Make a dash” then became Makadas in Afrikaans. [Interjections.] I hope I’ve got that right.

Unfortunately there is no economic justification for the rebuilding of this railway line. Recently the service had been operating at a loss of about R3 million a year. Even if the money to rebuild the line could be obtained free of charge from elsewhere, the service would still be limited because it would have to adapt to economic realities. I hear that the road transportation system which has now been introduced meets with general approval. We are at present working on a fixed tariff structure which will be submitted to the local committee.

I wish to give hon. members the assurance that the community of Ladismith will definitely not be worse off now than before the disaster. Admittedly there are three farmers there who are worse off, but the other farmers are in a better position as a result of the bus service which now goes right up to the farmsteads.

We visited the area and a meeting was held in the Ladismith town hall. We heard the representations because a railway line is always a sensitive matter. I pointed out to the audience that the railway line was built at a time when there was no work. The building costs of the railway line came to about R700 000, but if we were to rebuild it now, it would cost R41 million. Years ago it was a cheap railway line to build, but while it was still in operation we lost R3 million a year on it.

I want to tell the residents of Ladismith that we have now found, on the basis of what the farmers told us, that they are better off as a result of the introduction of the bus service and they do not want us to lose R3 million a year. The General Manager visited the people in that area himself after the Railway Commissioners and I had been there. He gave them the undertaking that our bus tariffs will be adjusted in such a way that we would rather lose on the bus service than on a train service.

The bus tariff for coal and cement, for example, has almost doubled.

Yes, but in the past the farmer had to go to the station himself. Now the bus delivers the goods to his farmstead.

The hon. member for Sundays River requested that the S.A. Airways introduce an early morning flight from Port Elizabeth to Cape Town. This matter is being investigated to ascertain how many passengers would make use of such a flight.

†The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North asked whether the Johannesburg-Durban main line will by-pass Pietermaritzburg. Unfortunately this will not be possible. The double line in the Pietermaritzburg area is not being rerouted to any major extent. The hon. member also asked what the Administration intends doing with the station building at Pietermaritzburg and with the land at present occupied by the goods facilities when the Mason’s Mill project is completed. The land that is to be vacated when the present goods facilities are moved to Mason’s Mill will be utilized departmentally. Further, the hon. member asked that consideration should be given to the phasing out of steam in the Pietermaritzburg area. However, the present policy is to retain steam where possible in order to save diesel fuel. Steam shunting locomotives will be retained for some time yet because of Mason’s Mill’s close proximity to the Natal coalfields as well as to the existing mechanical repair facilities in Pietermaritzburg. Coal is mined in Natal, so why should we abolish all steam locomotives while we are having problems with diesel fuel? The hon. member also referred to the long working hours of train personnel, and wanted to know whether it was the policy of the S.A. Railways to have such long working hours. Congested shunting yards and other unforeseen circumstances often result in long hours being worked, particularly in the winter. Every endeavour is, however, being made to ensure that shorter hours are worked. Additional facilities such as Sentrarand at Bapsfontein are being constructed to improve traffic flow, and this should result in shorter hours of duty.

The hon. member referred to an item in the report of the Advocate-General concerning money-making on tickets in Maputo. The facts as stated are broadly correct. There are other suspects in the case and investigations are still proceeding. The whole matter must at present unfortunately be classed as sub judice. A full police investigation was originally ordered by the General Manager, and I am satisfied that there were no mala fides in not pursuing the original allegations.

Further, the hon. member asked that pensioners should not be inconvenienced by the abolition of return tickets. I can assure him that they will not be inconvenienced as only one privilege ticket order will be required for both the forward and return journeys. He also stated that railway facilities, especially those for Blacks, were overcrowded, and appealed for the improvement of these facilities. Trains and facilities will always be crowded during peak periods. This is normal for all railways throughout the world. Waiting-room facilities are continually being improved as and when the need arises and funds become available. The hon. member referred to empty departmental houses, especially at outlying stations. Houses at these stations which become vacant for reasons such as Central Traffic Control installation and deviation of railway lines are allocated to employees of any race group where practicable. However, many of these houses are too remote from places of work to be used, and they are then offered to the public for hire.

*I travelled from Ermelo to Richards Bay by rail on a handcar. The journey took two days and we came across a number of empty houses next to the railway fine which had previously been occupied by Railway officials. Vryheid is the central control point and the positions of all the trains on the section are indicated in colour on a board. These trains convey 18 million tons of coal, and everything is controlled between Ermelo and Vryheid. One presses a button in Vryheid and 300 km away a signal shifts. In the past this work was done by people at the various stations, but now it is all done automatically at the central control point, which undoubtedly testifies to wonderful engineering skill. One then cannot help thinking of the time when people living alongside the railway line in little houses were responsible for this work. As a result of modernization these houses had to be vacated, but we shall try to use them properly.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North advocated that the transport services should become more labour intensive. To provide an economic service it is necessary to make a large capital investment and this makes an organization more capital intensive. Consequently, between 1971 and 1981 the number of White persons employed in the main service, Railways, dropped slightly. However, the number of people of colour rose by almost 40%. Speaking of labour intensive undertakings I find it very ironical that we introduced containerization to remain on a par with world conditions. However, we made many labourers redundant in this way. When I was still a young boy I used to watch people at East London loading sacks of maize on to a ship. Next we got the grain silo’s. Nowadays maize is loaded into ships at 90 kg a second. The maize is blown into the hold of the ship through an extremely thick pipe. A ship can be loaded to the full overnight. We do not have birth control and we therefore have a growing population. There will therefore be an ever increasing number of people looking for work, and yet we keep on mechanizing at an ever increasing pace. But what can one do? In Taiwan I say a man carrying a basket. He was off-loading sulphur from a ship. He scooped the sulphur into a basket and carried it to the harbour. I asked their Minister of Agriculture why he did not use a mechanical shovel. He then said they do not use a mechanical shovel because the people must have work. I then asked him why he did not give the man a larger basket. His answer was that the sulphur would then be off-loaded too quickly and those people must be kept busy. This is the approach some people adopt to solve their labour problems.

The hon. member for Langlaagte asked for a new staff residence to be erected for 500 inhabitants in Du Toit Street west in Langlaagte.

That is a good one.

In the near future the Management Committee for Staff Housing will consider the possibility of a new staff residence in Langlaagte. The hon. member’s request that a new staff residence be erected in Du Toit Street west in Langlaagte will definitely be borne in mind. One cannot believe how that hon. member pesters me about railway matters in Langlaagte! He says there is only one constituency, and that is Langlaagte. However, we are glad to help him because he always makes such a fine contribution here in this House.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort wants the assurance that White apprentices undergoing two years military training will not be worse off than their non-White counterparts. This question was also asked by the hon. member for Sunnyside and the hon. member for Kimberley South. It is a very reasonable question. We want to move away from discrimination. If a White youth has to undergo two years military training, while the Black youth can learn his trade immediately because he is not obliged to undergo military training, we shall have to look into the situation. A great deal of progress has already been made with this matter at the level of the Manpower Commission and the Manpower Board and the Minister of Manpower has indicated that in future a person called up for national service will be able to choose whether he will undergo his initial period of military training before or after completion of his apprenticeship. However the Railways has already decided in principle that an apprentice who has undergone military training will not be worse off as regards his appointment as technician, his precedence and his salary, than an apprentice who need not undergo military training. We are constantly considering this matter, and I wish to reassure hon. members that we shall not penalize a man who goes to defend his country.

†The hon. member for Yeoville referred to the question of stand-by fares. The air fares on domestic routes have been established at a level that will be economic when a reasonable load factor is obtained. The maximum number of air travellers therefore derive benefit from this policy. A system of stand-by fares, combined with booked flights, leads to opportunistic travellers electing to stand by without attempting to book. This leads to loss of income, without generating new traffic.

*There are even people who say we must arrange our new airports so that one can arrive at the airport, hand in one’s ticket and then go to a departure lounge from where one can board the aircraft directly. However, we are then saddled with booking problems. A person phones and his place is reserved but he never turns up. Then one has a waiting list. As the hon. member for Kimberley South said it could also happen that a man arrives at the airport, books his seat, receives his ticket, hands in his luggage and then goes to the bar. Then he drinks so much that when the aircraft is due to depart he is still sitting in the bar, while his luggage is already in the aircraft. In other countries they do not have this problem because all passengers for a specific flight are sent to a departure lounge and must remain there until the aircraft leaves. The passengers can then buy refreshments in that lounge. We hope to be able to introduce this kind of arrangement eventually at the new airports. It is frustrating, when one is on time, to have to sit and wait in an aircraft which does not leave. If you inquire about the cause of the delay, you are told that one of the passenger’s luggage is on the aircraft but he cannot be located at the airport and one does not want an aircraft to leave with someone’s luggage on board while he is not on the aircraft.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a question. If the system of stand-by fares works overseas and if the system of commuter flights, where one simply arrives, gets into the aeroplane and it leaves when it is full, works—and I can give him many examples of where that works—why does it not work in South Africa?

That is a reasonable question. We are investigating the whole matter. However, there is congestion at Jan Smuts Airport and also at D. F. Malan Airport, especially over weekends. Some of our people are overseas at the moment investigating what is happening at other airports. At the Chicago airport, for instance, 1 000 landings take place every day, in comparison to Jan Smuts where there are 180 landings per day. The authorities there handle this problem, and we are investigating the whole matter.

The hon. member for Yeoville also referred to catering facilities on international flights. As far as the hon. member’s remarks on the food on external incoming flights are concerned, it is a feather in the cap of our own catering services to hear that the food on the outgoing flights is better than that on the incoming flights. South African Airways spares no cost in the provision of food on flights coming in from overseas destinations. We order the best food available. At certain points of supply the catering is perhaps not up to the standard to which we are accustomed on our outgoing flights, but everything possible is being done to maintain the highest standards.

*Yesterday the hon. member handed me a plastic bag containing a sandwich and an apple for taking aboard an aircraft. We discussed this matter for a long time this morning. One of the officials then asked in a fighter vein: “Why did he give you a plastic bag, and not a bag made out of skin?” I am only saying this by way of a joke.

The hon. member also asked me another question which I must reply to in detail. It dealt with the financing policy of the Railways. The hon. member for Bellville spelled out the policy in full, like an expert. However, I want to give a summary of the capital programme. It is basically financed from the following sources: (i) Loans: This represents loans on the domestic as well as on the overseas capital markets. At present domestic loans are still arranged by the State, but the Railways deals with overseas loans itself. (ii) Higher replacement reserve: In terms of the system of present costs depreciation is levied on the current replacement price of assets and not on the original purchase prices. If an asset therefore cost R100, the system of current costs recovers, say, R150 from the consumer. The difference between R150 and R100, i.e. R50, represents capital formation which is available as an additional source of finance for the financing of the capital programme. The hon. the Minister of finance will not allow a company to do this, because one can manipulate income tax in this way. (iii) Revenue Reserve: Sound business principles require that an undertaking should have a debt ratio, i.e. a ratio between own and foreign capital, of at least one to one. One of the methods of building up own capital is in the Appropriation Account, to transfer a sum to a revenue reserve, which reserve is then available as a source of financing. This transfer to the revenue reserve is indicated for appropriation under Item No. 51.1 on page 15 of the Estimates of Working Expenditure. There is therefore no possibility that funds for the financing of the capital programme are “concealed” in the budget.

It is true. You did it.

No, it appears in the document. It is one method of providing money, and it is not tucked away. It is printed in the relevant document.

As regards the increase of R21,1 million, the increase as a whole may be ascribed to the replacing of certain operating reserves, for appropriation in the Income Reserve Account.

That is unnecessary.

It may be unnecessary, as the hon. member argues, but one wants to improve the reserve. In the past operating reserves were created from income in respect of certain items of expenditure which were expected to have a relatively low frequency but to be of large magnitude. When the actual expenditure occurred it was debited against the operating reserve instead of against the specific operating account. However, an analysis has now revealed that these expenditure-items are relatively stable and will therefore not have a significant effect on the operating result if they are debited directly against the operating accounts. It has therefore been decided to transfer the balances as at 31 March 1981 to the Revenue Reserve Account. The increase of R21,1 million therefore does not represent a division of new revenue but is merely a transfer of moneys in the existing operating reserves to the revenue reserve.

For what purpose is that money going to be used?

For the reserves.

Then surely it was unnecessary to raise the tariffs.

This principle has been discussed fully in previous debates here in this House. The hon. member for Berea and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North serve on the Select Committee and they heard and accepted the explanation.

But it was still unnecessary.

The hon. member for Umfolozi requested that a full-fledged Section under the control of a section manager should be established at Richards Bay. A post for an assistant section manager at Richards Bay, under the control of the section manager, Durban, has already been created in connection with the coal line. The establishment of a separate Section will be decided later.

Then the hon. member for Umfolozi requested that the provision of goods facilities at Richards Bay be brought forward. A proposal for the supplying of a goods depot has been included in the five-year programme for possible financing during 1985-’86. The problem with the goods shed at Richards Bay is not of such a magnitude that it justifies the bringing forward of this scheme. Part of a redundant timber-and-iron goods shed will be transferred to Richards Bay to provide additional shelter and interim relief.

The hon. member for Umfolozi also asked whether the staff at Richards Bay could not be allowed to catch fish in the bay. Angling is in fact permitted and angling permits are issued for use in the beach area, including the northern breakwater and northern spur. Access to other areas, however, cannot be allowed for security reasons and considerations of safety.

The hon. member for Newcastle asked for concessions to be granted on the conveyance of iron ore to Newcastle. Tariffs on the conveyance of iron ore to Newcastle cannot be reduced in isolation. Nor can the tariff for iron ore be reduced in general, because iron ore is already being conveyed in the second lowest tariff class, less 6%. At present the S.A. Railways is negotiating with Iscor on contract tariffs for iron ore, and Newcastle is included in this.

The hon. member for Newcastle wanted to know if Richards Bay cannot be used to export steel. Richards Bay has not yet been equipped to cope with steel exports on a large scale. In my budget speech I announced that special facilities for the handling of steel, granite and wood were being planned, which ought to have been completed by the end of 1985. Leaving harbour facilities out of the reckoning, the traffic on the Richards Bay railway line is so heavy that provision cannot at this stage be made for steel traffic.

The hon. member for Paarl gave a wonderful description of how the railway line runs through the vineyards and beautiful scenery and made mention of the road transportation services which operate over 70 000 km. We seldom take the road transportation services into account when we discuss our transport services and I therefore appreciate the hon. member’s contribution.

†The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central requested that the same sea freight and rail tariffs should apply to City Deep irrespective of port of entry, because City Deep is regarded as a port. Rail rates are based on distance, and the nature of the terminals, be it port-to-port or otherwise, does not affect their levels. Deviating deep-sea containers from Durban to Port Elizabeth will not ease the load on City Deep as they all have to pass through that port finally. However, Port Elizabeth already enjoys a 22,6% rebate per ton/kilometer to City Deep compared to Durban-City Deep.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central also inquired about the application for a declaration order by Magnum Airlines to the Supreme Court in Pietermaritzburg regarding the interpretation of its scheduled licence. S.A. Airways was not a party to these specific proceedings. S.A. Airways is serving the bigger centres, while smaller undertakings, such as Magnum Airlines, are only operating feeder services. This whole matter, however, falls under the Department of Transport and South African Airways was not a party to the proceedings. The hon. member wished to know what was being done to increase the degree of utilization of harbour facilities at Port Elizabeth. Containerization inevitably leads to an initial under-utilization of harbour facilities. Port Elizabeth is no exception amongst South African harbours, but the situation there was aggravated by the reduction in iron ore exports by that route. Any artificial stimulation of traffic through Port Elizabeth harbour can only result in a further underutilization of other harbours. Furthermore, such stimulation will result in increased inland transportation costs, which would have to be recovered from the users. As I have said before, the Railways already subsidizes container traffic between Port Elizabeth and City Deep by 22,6% on an actual cost basis.

If one should visit Table Bay Harbour on a Sunday afternoon and compare it to what it used to be 15 years ago, one notices a major difference. Years ago the harbour was practically crowded with vessels. Nowadays one will find only two or three vessels there at a time. This is of course the result of containerization. With this new method, offloading is faster and ships are therefore handled far more effectively.

*The hon. member for Gezina said that the preservation methods used to treat wooden sleepers are not efficient because the preservative we use when fastening them does not penetrate the wood deeply enough. He claims that one of his voters has developed a better preservation method. Hardwood sleepers are treated under pressure according to the specifications of the Department of Forestry. As a result of the density of hardwood the preservative only penetrates between 8 mm and 10 mm into the sleeper. For this reason holes for sleeper bolts are drilled, filled with creosote, and then the screws are also coated with creosote before they are driven into the sleepers. The hon. member has already made written representations on this matter to me on behalf of his voter. The person concerned has now undertaken to have his process tested by the CSIR.

†The hon. member for South Coast referred to the narrow-gauge line between Port Shepstone and Harding and inquired about the future of that line. The Port Shepstone-Harding narrow-gauge line operates at an annual loss of R3 million. The committee which is investigating all branch lines which would seem to be operating at unacceptable economic levels, will also include this line in its studies. No plans exist at present to improve the capacity of the line, other than the study of possible dieselization. The hon. member also inquired about the road bridge at Umtentweni. It allows for five lines, and the hon. member wants to know whether it is intended for a marshalling or staging line. The bridge in question allows firstly for the present line, secondly for a future doubling of the line, thirdly for two lines required in connection with the proposed guaranteed railway line to the cement factory, and fourthly for future extension of the goods loop. A shunting yard at Umtentweni is not contemplated.

Then the hon. member for South Coast asked whether Port Shepstone Station and goods complex could be moved to Marburg. Representations were made during 1974 to shift the station complex to Marburg and it was estimated that this proposal would cost some R28 million at that time. The cost will now be some R80 million. The proposal is not economical as the distance from South Port to Marburg is approximately 6 km longer than the present main line. In addition, the curvature and gradient will be greatly increased. The construction of the new cement line will reduce the pressure on the facilities at Port Shepstone.

*The hon. member for Verwoerdburg referred to pension benefits for employees’ children. The pension matters to which the hon. member referred will be included in the investigation I have already announced. I shall keep the hon. member informed from time to time. The hon. member also requested that applicants retired from the Service owing to constant ill-health, should receive full insurance cover for house loans. We are already investigating this matter. The hon. member lives in a neighbouring constituency; I see him often and I shall keep him informed.

The hon. member for Hercules mentioned the serving of meals on short domestic flights. As I have indicated, the entire question of the serving of meals on aircraft is being investigated with a view to a simplification of the meals. The hon. member asked a further question in connection with the level crossing at Lüderitz Street, Pretoria. Bearing in mind the high costs involved in the elimination of this specific level crossing, the City Council approached the S.A. Railways with a view to the financing of a pedestrian bridge from the Level Crossings Elimination Fund. The Railways has indicated that 75% of the costs involved in the project will be borne by the Fund. To date we have not heard anything from the City Council. We can discuss this matter again later.

The hon. member for Yeoville inquired about our financing policy. I think I have already replied to this.

No, I want a reply on the concentration.

That will still be given.

†The hon. member for Yeoville asked to what extent the rail commuter services in the PWV area, and specifically the Soweto services, are being subsidized. Specific commuter services were subsidized by the Central Government up until 1980 when a portion of the Franzsen Committee’s recommendation were implemented. The Railways now receives a globular subsidy on passenger services. It is therefore impossible to quantify the subsidies for the commuter services in the PWV area or for the Soweto services. The hon. member also expressed concern about the landing instruments at South African airports.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question before he deals with that matter? Can the hon. the Minister tell us, expressed in money terms, by how much he is subsidizing the services in the PWV area and how is he then going to implement the hon. the Prime Minister’s policy of making those services fully economic?

We are busy working on a formula and we must obtain an approximate figure. However, it will be approximately 2%. The subsidy allocated to this specific area will be based on the Franzsen Committee’s recommendations. But the whole matter is still under discussion, because we did not fully implement the proposals of the Franzsen Committee’s report. I hope at a later stage to have a reply on this matter and I shall contact the hon. member.

Is it 2% of the R240 million?

No, I say that we can be correct within 2%.

The hon. member also expressed concern in regard to the landing instruments at South African airports. This question actually falls under the Department of Transport, because they control landing instruments, but I want to tell the hon. member that I have been informed that they are completely satisfied that these instruments are completely up to date. There are certain items on order to enable us to keep abreast of new techniques. However, although we are not used to having our airports snowed in we are certainly very safety conscious. I do not wish to criticize, Sir, but, unlike overseas countries, we are most unaccustomed to snow.

It is not just a question of snow. It is a question of safety in all weathers.

The airports were snowed in. That was the first time in our history that we had ever experienced this sort of thing but we are giving attention to it.

The hon. member for Yeoville also asked whether there was a shortage of technical staff on the S.A. Airways. There is a shortage but, although this shortage exists, there are sufficient apprentices in training and being recruited to fill vacancies as and when they occur.

Finally, the hon. member for Yeoville asked what the attitude of S.A. Airways was towards the sky courier services and why. Any freight agency that wishes to offer a door-to-door courier service can do so by utilizing S.A. Airways’ special express freight facilities between all major centres in South Africa. We do object to an agent abusing the terminal facilities for passengers by converting them into a semi-cargo terminal to the detriment of passengers.

*The hon. member for Rosettenville inquired about longer coaches for suburban services in order to convey more passengers. The new generation suburban coaches makes provision for longer coaches and no passageways. More passengers can therefore be transported. Tests are also being undertaken with other types of seats.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein East referred to the protection of commuters on trains. A committee has been appointed to investigate all aspects of the safeguarding of passengers, and its recommendations for the Cape Peninsula have already been introduced with good results. Its final recommendations is expected shortly and will be implemented as soon as possible in other places such as Bloemfontein.

The hon. member for Witbank referred to the role of SAR-Women and the Wife and Mother organization. We listened with appreciation to the speech of the hon. member for Witbank about the role which the Railways wife plays in the community. I should also like to pay tribute to the dedicated organization SAR-Women and thank them for their aid to Railway families such as those who lost all their possessions in the flood at Laingsburg. About a week after the flood at Laingsburg my wife and I drove there one Sunday. When we arrived at the station, we met the station-master. His wife was extremely grateful for what had been done for her. I asked her what the Railways had done for her. She then said that they were the first people to receive a caravan. The station-master quickly rounded up the mayor, the management committee and all the officials and asked me to address them. His wife came to me and said: I hope you do not mind, but we cannot serve tea now. We shall serve tea as soon as the people have left. As I said, this woman was living in a caravan. She was so grateful for everything. She was so grateful that the General Manager had visited them and that they had a place to stay. I asked her: What can we do for you? And she answered: Nothing. We lost our house and our furniture and our motor-car and everything, but we still have our children and we have a caravan to live in. Then I asked her: Why did you say you will serve tea later on? She answered: Because we only have five cups. Then she even offered us milk-tart she had baked in the caravan. And all the while she was so grateful that they did not need to live in a tent. She is also a pillar of strength to her husband. I was so impressed by these people who did not complain. I then asked her: Can we not help with a motor-car? Then she said to me: Sir, there are other people here who are much worse off than we are. We can still travel by train because the railway line has already been opened. It was that woman who had that effect. The General Manager’s wife is president of SAR-Women and the work these people do is commendable. I appreciate what the hon. member for Witbank said.

The hon. member referred to the sharp increase in pension benefits at specific dates. The increases in the pension benefits to which the hon. member referred, coincided with improvements in the formulae according to which these benefits are calculated. Each one of these increases was accompanied by an increase in pension contributions. Improved benefits are therefore being paid.

Sir, I think I must get full marks, because I did not skip a single page. I read everything given to me and I therefore think we can now put an end to this matter. The days are long enough.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with what the hon. the Minister has said. I too am becoming tired of Schoemans having to plead and butter people up. It is not necessary and therefore I want to cut it short. He will forgive me if I do not ask permission, but simply give directions as to what must be done.

Certain recommendations were made in connection with alternative airports to Jan Smuts. Now I want the hon. the Minister to take note of the fact that before his time, when the other two great Schoemans were dealing with it, they decided that Lanseria was the most effective for this purpose. This decision was reached on the strength of scientific investigations into weather conditions. Even when there is a thick mist at Jan Smuts, there is no sign of it at Lanseria. Furthermore, Lanseria is the non-official airport for the small aircraft entering the country from or departing to our neighbouring States. If there is a question of an alternative airport, the hon. the Minister should forget about the Eastern Transvaal as well as the other possibilities, because there is one place only, and that is Lanseria. What we are dealing with here, is unfortunately a matter that affects the Department of Transport, but it does at least fall under the jurisdiction of the hon. the Minister. This is why I am referring to it in passing.

In addition, Lanseria is 600 ft below Jan Smuts.

As far as Olifantsfontein Station is concerned, I should like to please ask the hon. the Minister something, but before I do so, I want to pay tribute to the officials for the fact that they have succeeded, as far as the Bapsfontein works are concerned, in putting one line into operation despite all the problems that they have been experiencing there. By the way, a portion of the territory concerned falls in my constituency. I am aware of the problems that they experienced there with grade separation structures and the fact that the company that tendered for the works, went bankrupt. We are proud of what has already been achieved and we are looking forward with interest to what is yet to come.

I now come to an unpleasant matter and that is Olifantsfontein Station. I have brought certain things to the attention of the hon. the Minister in writing. I want to point out that I personally carried out an investigation one morning from 06h00 to 08h00 on that spot in the beginning of July. Reference is often made here in a negative, sneering fashion to the concept of crowding out in this country, but there is true crowding out there. However, it is not necessarily on a racial basis, nor is this my premise and the motivation of my standpoint. There I witnessed a lack of a good understanding of civilization and civilized behaviour in public. It happened there that young school girls on their way to school were simply trampled, satchels and all, as a result of inadequate entrances and control. It is a question of lack of civilized behaviour, unfortunately on the part of other races in the country. I myself had to watch that morning how seven women at a time had to stand back for a horde of Black people who simply forced them out of the way, and illegally to boot. They did not have the right to use that bridge. The Whites simply had to stand back.

This happens because people are acting in an undisciplined fashion in a civilized community. They oversleep and consequently they arrive at a station late. The result is that they are then guilty of this type of behaviour. I want to bring this matter very seriously to the attention of the hon. the Minister and point out that we are dealing here with a question of crowding out in the true sense of the word. We shall have to do something about it.

However, I want to make an allowance. As a result of the broadening and multiplication of the lines between Johannesburg and Pretoria, the development of the stations has not been able to keep pace. New residential areas have been established. Here I am thinking of Mitrand which will be established as a central town in my constituency. I understand this. However, reference was made here to the adaptation and modernization of stations and I just want to ask for stations like these to enjoy priority, because they are the victims of development for which they cannot be held responsible.. In addition, we must maintain peace between the various race groups in the community, and I therefore make a serious request that attention should be given to this matter.

In the last instance I want to refer to containerization. A great deal has already been said about it in this debate. In the first place I want to make a request of the businessmen in the Opposition, for instance the hon. members for Berea, Yeoville, Hillbrow and others, who are continually in contact with trade and industry. During the month of May a great deal of criticism was expressed in connection with containerization; indeed when I read the newspaper reports concerned, I thought that the sun, the moon and the stars were going to fall, that South Africa would no longer be able to exist and that we were going to have the same problems as our neighbouring States. But I gave the undertaking that we would discuss this matter positively. The businessmen must take into account that the containerization project entails an investment of R352 million. In addition, R20 million has now been added, which means a total of almost R400 million. Unfortunately the Railways cannot determine in advance when a ship or train should arrive with its cargo. They cannot determine exactly when a container train from Durban, Port Elizabeth or Cape Town should arrive at City Deep. The Railway programme runs 24 hours per day and seven days per week, and the time has come for commerce and industry to adjust to this. They will not be able to continue to work 4½ days a week while expecting the Railways to give attention to this matter seven days a week. They will no longer be able to say that they are not prepared to accept a container at four o’clock in the afternoon or on a Friday afternoon because their staff does not feel like dealing with it. In all fairness and reasonableness I request commerce and industry to keep pace with modern developments, particularly with a view to the example that the Railways and its staff is setting and the capital investment that has been made in the containerization project. It is, after all, to the benefit of commerce and industry itself because the Railways does not make any profit out of this.

Commerce and industry work only 4½ days per week and the long weekend in May lasted from Thursday until the following Tuesday. But commerce and industry just could not worry. They consider it the Railway’s problem. However, this is not how South Africans should act, Sir. South Africans ask certain questions, assume obligations and decide that if they are to make a contribution in a specific regard, they are not going to make politics out of it, but are going to do their share. This is the request that I want to make of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in all fairness. I believe that we should consult with commerce and industry in a positive way. I feel that the pragmatism that the Railways displayed in this regard was praiseworthy because they have already solved the problem. In light of the new offer which was made for Capital Park and the satellite station at Rosslyn, we asked for more co-operation, interest and adaptation on the part of commerce and industry in order to prevent a repetition of the problem.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for North Rand is obviously a very experienced person when it comes to problems relating to the Railways, but he must not run away with the idea that industry does not have problems collecting containers on a seven-day basis. Industry does have very serious and justified problems.

An hon. member on that side of the House remarked yesterday that an equalization of rail rates on containers, between Durban and the Reef and between Port Elizabeth and the Reef, would cost a lot of money. That is obviously correct. Charges for the Durban route would have to be raised, whilst charges on the Port Elizabeth route would decrease. The overall cost to the customer, for the haulage of containers, would however be increased. I do not believe, though, that what we are really talking about is an equalization of rates. After all, 7 500 containers per month are already being handled in Port Elizabeth, despite the fact that the cost of moving containers from Port Elizabeth to the Reef is R124 per container more than the cost of moving the same container from Durban to the Reef. What is required is an inducement to push up the port’s capacity to 12 500 containers per month, or possibly, with the introduction of a further crane, to 16 500 containers per month. What we are talking about, I think, is generally reduced rates. Not only for containers. I submit it is not only the extra cost that may be involved, but also whether there is a resultant saving in other areas. Obviously there is. This move would create jobs in Port Elizabeth and increase the whole viability of the area. It is infinitely easier to create jobs in this manner than to create jobs, at very great expense, in new border areas or decentralized areas where factories establish themselves only at the greatest possible risk, because the amount of the subsidy cannot be established, nor the period for which the subsidy would continue.

The theme that comes through clearly, from the contributions made by hon. members in the Port Elizabeth region, no matter whether they are from the NP-side or from this side of the House, is that Port Elizabeth is not a metropolitan area in the normal sense of the word. It is far more analogous to a deconcentration area. To whom do we bring our message? The viability of the area is in the hands of the S.A. Railways and the Division of Planning. It is our duty to bring it home to this House that in the Eastern Cape it is the whole of South Africa that has a problem, and not merely the Eastern Cape in itself. If the powers that govern this country will not listen to White representatives from that part of the world, they will be faced with a very real racial problem caused by unemployment and poverty, in possibly the most highly politicized Black area of the country. The university’s Institute of Planning and Research shows that in the period 1972-’76 Cape Town, which is the slowest-growing of the remaining metropolitan areas, grew 46% faster than Port Elizabeth. The same institute shows that the average growth rate of Port Elizabeth, for the period 1971-’79, was 0020,7%. It therefore had a negative growth rate. In recent years we have seen one factory after another either shifting from Port Elizabeth or making its major expansion elsewhere, primarily because of rail rates and the distance separating Port Elizabeth from the major markets.

The extent of Port Elizabeth’s railage disadvantage can be highlighted by a set of figures I should like to present to the House. In a year in which the motor manufacturers produce 100 000 vehicles, they send approximately 60 000 to the Reef. To do this they face a rail bill of approximately R8 million for these vehicles. They would consequently be at a disadvantage in relation to a vehicle manufacturer on the Reef. The size of the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage Black population is already more than one third that of the total population of the Soweto complex near Johannesburg. The unemployment figure probably approaches 40%. The cost of creating additional employment, in an area like Port Elizabeth, is a fraction of the cost of creating employment in entirely decentralized areas in the country which might happen to be a few miles closer to Black States than Port Elizabeth is.

If Port Elizabeth did not exist, the Government would be tumbling over itself to establish a deconcentration area for industry at that port. With an excellent bay for a harbour, a plentiful water supply and an easy rail run up country, it would be regarded as a paramount site for establishing viable industries. It is near Ciskei and Transkei which together contain 20% of the total Black population of South Africa. It is an obvious decision to promote Port Elizabeth and to provide employment for these people. It is safer, sounder and more predictable in every way than to establish factories in the bush. If one of the motor firms were to leave Port Elizabeth or even make its major expansion away from Port Elizabeth, the Government would have an immense sociological problem on its hands. There would be a squatter problem around the major industrial cities elsewhere that would make Crossroads and Nyanga look insignificant. I believe the House must really give consideration to that area in every way possible. I do not believe I am exaggerating the situation at all. The conditions in our townships are worse than you will find in areas where positive action is being taken on a large scale, such as Soweto. If there is any way in which assistance can be given in that area, I believe South Africa will benefit. It is not just a question of wanting more benefits for a local area, and I think everybody should be aware of the seriousness of that problem.

Mr. Chairman, when a budget like this one is studied critically, one of the most important aspects to which attention is given, is the question of how and where such a transport institution obtains the funds with which it has to render services. If we look at this budget, the only deviation from this that is worth mentioning, is the increase in transport tariffs. That is why one would expect the Opposition to single it out as the most important point of criticism. In a time of inflation, tariff increases are of course a sensitive instrument for stimulating inflation. No one would deny this. However, it is striking that the hon. member for Berea introduced the debate with a great fuss on the first day. However, as the debate proceeded, the increase in transport costs did not continue as the principal idea in the speeches of the hon. members of the Opposition. However, I want to give the Opposition credit for the fact that they have changed the reason for their criticism. It is true that various people like industrial leaders, businessmen and economists have expressed their opinions since last week, and the public media has reported these opinions. This positive reaction, together with the general opinion that these increases will have little or no influence on the economy as a whole or on the rate of inflation, have made the hon. member for Berea and his fellow party members realize that this political straw has slipped through their fingers. I feel that the increase in travelling costs should be viewed as an essential, unavoidable part of the budget, a budget about which no one is entitled to complain.

The fact is that the Railways is still offering the cheapest transport in South Africa. The fact that the loss is being carried—there is a loss in spite of the increase—shows the high priority which the Government grants to the interests of those who use the trains. Now it is interesting to note further that when the Opposition saw that this was not going to work in this debate, they could not resist the temptation of returning their old well known strategy, viz. to act on behalf of those who are supposedly not represented in the House.

Well, are they or are they not?

No, Sir, but this time they went as far as Zimbabwe for their arguments. After all, in the eyes of the official Opposition the hon. the Minister has committed the crime of expecting his counterpart in Zimbabwe to come and negotiate with him. In the eyes of the Opposition it is unthinkable for a Minister of Zimbabwe to lower himself to such an extent as to come to speak to a White Minister of the Republic of South Africa.

That is not true.

I want to tell the official Opposition that this behaviour is characteristic of people who want to tell certain countries in Africa that the Whites who are governing here, are the stumbling-block in the way of peace and harmony in South Africa.

That is true.

This impression is eagerly grasped by communist orientated Governments, like that of Zimbabwe.

Another well-worn story that came to the fore once again, is that freer competition should be brought about. The fact is that there is already so much free competition with the S.A. Railways that the S.A. Railways has only a very minor share in the transport of high-rated goods today. Of course, in the nature of things the private sector is only interested in goods which can be transported economically. I do not hold this against them. After all, they cannot remain active in an industry or enter an industry which would mean their financial downfall. However, I wonder whether the Opposition wants the S.A. Railways to transport uneconomic commodities only. I am aware of their standpoint in this regard.

If we take their standpoint with regard to the transport of livestock, I can say that they have asked in the past for the transportation of livestock to be left to free competition. A previous Minister decided that the Railways would not oppose permits for the transportation of livestock. A large number of private transporters then began to transport livestock and a significant percentage of the transportation of livestock was channelled to the private transport sector. However, many of these private transporters did not find this to be as profitable as they expected it to be. As a result, as far as the transportation of livestock is concerned, there has gradually been a return to the Railways. Now we must bear in mind that the Railways is the only body thus far that has been prepared to transport livestock at a loss. With the return of the transportation of livestock to the Railways, the Railways is no longer in the same competitive position as the private sector, because the Railways cannot back out of this specific industry, the Railways cannot refuse to transport livestock. I should like to know from the Opposition whether the freer competition they are requesting also means that the Railways is entitled to turn down the transportation of goods that are not profitable.

Speak to the NRP. We say it should be subsidized.

Now if the Opposition is honest in their standpoint and if this is the case, I can understand it. However, if it is not the case, you can understand that the opposite should now be true. If they have an honest standpoint, they must spell out to us further what their view of the economy of South Africa is, with its transport infrastructure. How do they view the transportation of food over long distances? How do they approach the transportation of export goods, which after all must be presented in such a way that it can maintain a competitive position in comparison to goods provided by other countries? How do they view these things? What would they say if the Railways—if it was possible for it to do so—were to refuse to transport goods that were not profitable for it? If hon. members of the Opposition do not want the Railways to have the right to refuse to transport uneconomic goods, surely it is true that they are requesting one-sided competition, which would be to the detriment of the Railways.

Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to speak on the subject referred to by the hon. member for De Aar, viz. the matter of the low/high rate of tariffs. As I said during Second Reading, I do believe that we should move towards a more competitive transportation system throughout South Africa. At the present time the high-rated traffic or high-valued traffic is being burdened with the losses which the Railways are suffering on their passenger services which are heavily subsidized, and also because of the transport of low-valued goods, which is also very heavily subsidized.

The argument I should like to put to the hon. the Minister is that the tariffs which are being charged for the high-valued goods are way above what they should be in order to cover the losses suffered. I therefore ask the hon. Minister whether there is no way then in which we can reduce the losses? As I said during Second Reading, the problem with subsidies—the problem with the whole concept of subsidies—is that the man in the street is beginning to look upon this as his right rather than his privilege. If we are not careful we will ultimately find ourselves being drawn into a whirlpool as it were of a completely uneconomic system, such as we have at the moment in the case of passenger traffic. This year alone the loss suffered on passenger traffic amounts to R680 million.

Mr. Chairman, how can we prevent these tremendous losses suffered on these two important sectors of the Railways’ operations. As far as present low-tariff goods such as coal, etc., are concerned, is it not possible to assume that those sectors involved have begun to take for granted the privileges granted in earlier times, when the principle of charging what the market could bear, was probably the correct thing to do, owing to the fact that coal and other goods were low-income earning products. In those days such an attitude was the right one for the sake of the country’s economic development. Today, however, with the cost of coal, for example, being very high and the volume of coal being exported extremely vast, the whole concept of whether this product should enjoy these privileges, is something which, I believe, should be reviewed.

Much has been said here today about passenger transport, and I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for replying in such detail to the questions I put to him yesterday. I appreciate that very much. However, I should like to put it to the hon. the Minister that the losses in this instance are not true operating losses as far as the Railways are concerned. These losses are not being incurred only because the Railways are not doing their job properly or correctly but rather because revenue is being artificially restricted for socio-economic reasons. Nevertheless, I want to make some suggestions about how these losses can be reduced. The main reason for this, as I have said, is that the revenue earned is far too low because the Railways are subsidizing passenger transport costs, thus allowing people to use trains at too low a cost.

I have here in my files a few calculations I did some years ago which received publicity in Amanzimtoti’s local newspaper, at a time when I attempted to educate my people to understand the privileges they were enjoying. It was at the time when the petrol price was increased to 51c per litre, and I calculated that for a commuter travelling the 27 kilometres between Amanzimtoti and Durban, a first class monthly season ticket would cost him R16 per month, whereas if he drove a car giving him 34 miles to the gallon—I do not know how many kilometres that would be to the litre—his petrol alone would cost him R60 a month. I therefor ask whether people really appreciate how cheap it is to travel by train? The ticket at that time was R16 per month, but to drive their car the petrol alone would cost R60 per month. And what is the cost today? I would therefore like to suggest that possibly by means of a publicity campaign it should be made very clear to commuters just how cheap rail traffic really is.

Mr. Chairman, the Railways can correct their problem with regard to the huge losses on passenger traffic in two ways. They can either put up the tariffs, which we know will create a tremendous public outcry and will be inflationary for the people concerned or they can increase the numbers of passengers using their facilities. They have the facilities, in the form of a tremendously high capital investment in the commuter rail transport system, and I believe that we should press for greater utilization of these facilities. The hon. the Minister said earlier today that the punctuality of trains was 88% in the Durban area, which he admitted was not good enough, and that the fine capacity should be extended. I agree with him. But there are still other things that are irritating to a commuter and it is rather frustrating when one thinks that these should happen. I made use of the train services and I must say that once the train got on to the welded line, one enjoyed a nice smooth ride; it is quiet and it is fast. We left Durban on the commuter train down the South Coast and it was like travelling on a commuter train in Great Britain. It was fast, smooth and quiet. However, as soon as we got past Isipingo we got onto the old rail, and the ride changed. It was no longer so pleasant. Then, Mr. Chairman, once we started going up what is called the Umbogitwini hill, on two occasions on the same day the train stopped. We waited three to eight minutes. Suddenly a goods train came chugging by. This is because it is a single fine, and apparently that is the way the trains are scheduled. Here one has a system where the train is travelling a good speed and everybody is happy because they think they are going to get home on time, but then they have to sit, and waste time, and wait for a goods train to go by. I suggest that there needs to be a whole new look at this sort of thing in the interests of the commuter.

Mr. Chairman, I have stressed that we must encourage people back to the rails. The hon. the Minister has conceded that the space on platforms is rather limited and this will require a redesigning of platforms. But I say that maybe this is necessary in order to protect one’s investment. In business, situations sometimes arise where one cannot afford not to do things in order to survive. The problems on stations are serious problems, and some stations may have to be enlarged. First-class fares cost about four times as much as third-class fares, and if the number of third-class passengers is reaching such proportions that it is pushing the higher first-class fare-paying passengers off the platforms, then I believe something is wrong, especially when one considers that in giving up travelling by rail, first-class passengers are going onto the road, which will be costing them so much more, as I have already indicated. The position with many first-class travellers—and I am not only referring to the Whites—is that they no longer enjoy travelling on the rail anymore because there is no value for money there, despite the fact that it is so cheap.

I have about four minutes left to me and therefore I want to get back to Richards Bay and the question of stevedoring. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I would appreciate it very much if he would call for an in-depth study of the question of stevedoring licences. The hon. the Minister has come back to me and has indicated that there are nine stevedoring licences, viz. four general licences, two limited to coal only, one “ro-ro” licence, which is for containers, one hatch-cleaning stevedoring licence and one for timber only. When the hon. the Minister gave me those figures I am sure that that is the information that he had, but I am going to tell him what the real position is. First of all, let me deal with the four general licences. One is Sasco, which we know is a subsidiary of Safmarine. I have information at my disposal—which says that Safmarine blocked the full licence which, it is said, was going to Forex, the one that has a half licence. Sasco blocked it because they feared the competition. Then there is Rennies, Grinrod and Dusty Miller. These are remaining three of the four general licences. But what are the facts? Firstly, Sasco is a subsidiary of Safmarine and the Government has shares and interests there. Secondly, Rennies and Grinrod have now combined, and one of these companies has sent its manager back to Durban. Dusty Miller has never yet operated as a stevedore. He has the licence but he does not use it. This is the unfair thing about it. The hon. the Minister says that there are four stevedoring licences when in fact there are onlytwo. Firstly, there is Sasco, which is partly Government, and then there is a consortium of two of the licences who have now got together, while the fourth is non-operative. Therefore, in reality there are only two effective licences. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti spoke about low tariffs for coal and about subsidized services. I should like to talk about the transport of livestock.

The approach of the S.A. Railways at the end of the previous decade was that the Railways could not continue to provide a highly uneconomical service such as the transport of livestock. That is why it was decided to use the modes of transport which could render this service in the most cheaply and equally efficiently in transporting livestock. Consequently, the transport of livestock was exempted from the Road Transportation Act. I realized at the time, and I think the Railways did too, that livestock would not be able to be diverted from rail transport completely and therefore I requested, just as in the case of containerization, that an urgent investigation should be carried out for an effective new approach to the transport of livestock. On 14 March 1979 I referred to this during the Railways debate. At the time I expressed my concern about the tremendous drop in the transport of livestock by rail. At that stage it was estimated that between 80% and 90% of small stock and nearly 50% of larger stock was being transported to the markets by road. At the time I expressed my conviction that producers should return to rail transport on the medium term, but definitely on the long term. I do not want to give the reasons for this once again here this afternoon, but if they were valid then they are even more valid now.

It is interesting to note, on the basis of statistics, how the position since 1973 first deteriorated and has now improved again. The number of large stock that was transported by rail in 1973, amounted to 2 841 596. This amount decreased significantly each year until only 904 935 animals were transported in 1979; in other words, less than a third of the number that were transported in 1973. The annual decrease during these years was as follows: 14%, 21%, 5%, 20%, 25% and 18%. However, in 1980 we saw the turning point that I had predicted and the increase with regard to large stock was 24,2%. The picture with regard to the transport of small stock showed exactly the same trend, viz. a drop from 6 224 103 animals in 1973 to 1 503 933 animals in 1979; in other words, less than a quarter of the number that was transported in 1973. The turning point arrived in 1980 for small stock as well, when there was an increase of 5,3%, although it was definitely not as large as the increase with regard to large stock.

Road transport followed the same trend. With regard to large stock the number decreased from 216 463 animals in 1973 to 47 168 animals in 1979; in other words, approximately one-fifth of the number in 1973. With regard to small stock, the drop was even greater, viz. from 241 412 animals in 1973 to 41 954 animals in 1979. This is approximately only one-sixth of the number that was transported in 1973. The turning point in road transport also took place in 1980 and it was a considerable turning point at that. There was an increase of 42,8% in 1980 and an increase of 59,6% in 1981. This is in connection with large stock. The increase in the number of small stock that was transported, was even greater, viz. 43,9% in 1980 and as much as 76% in 1981.

As I have already said, I do not want to go into the reasons for this afternoon, but I want to state that the S.A. Railways also played their part. The Railways developed new modes of transport in order to be able to transport this type of traffic at lower rates. In this way the three-deck sheep truck was designed and put into operation. It provides a better loading capacity per truck and therefore the unit cost is lowered. GZ trucks were converted into three-deck trucks for the transport of sheep. Consequently the capacity per wagon was increased from 120 to 360 units of small stock. This service was put into operation at a tariff which was approximately 50% below the usual tariff for livestock. More rapid uninterrupted transport is also guaranteed and consequently the three-deck truck is used only between places which have a transit time of not more than 48 hours.

I am sorry to say that in spite of these measures, the support of this service is so poor that it has had to be curtailed. That is why I want to request our cattle farmers—those who can do so under those circumstances—to give their full support to this service.

The road transport service has also introduced a new tariff scheme which could cut transport costs by a full third. When vehicles transport a load in both directions and in one direction at least 75% of the mass or volume is utilized, 33⅓% is saved on the return journey. If one farmer does not have a load to transport in both directions, he can make arrangements with someone else for the vehicle to transport his goods in the opposite direction and still receive the discount.

The Railways has special vehicles such as special three-deckers with fold-up decks for the transport of sheep, goats, pigs and cattle. With nearly 200 depots throughout South Africa the Railways can undertake transport countrywide subject to the road transport legislation.

Since the largest percentage of our small stock also produce wool, I should also like to point out the following briefly: Recently, with a view to uniformity, the Railways introduced a wagon loading 9 rate, viz. rate class 9, for the transport of unprocessed wool which is presented for rail transport in specific quantities and subject to certain conditions. The tariff is approximately 22,9% lower than rate class 8 which would otherwise apply. In addition, a further important concession has been made, viz. that farmers who do not have a full truck of wool, can pool their consignments in order to obtain the benefit of the cheaper rate.

I want to thank the hon. the Minister and his department for not announcing tariff increases with regard to the transport of livestock, because it is true that the tariff at which livestock is being transported, can basically be classified as low tariffs. It is also true that tariffs on low-rated traffic were increased on 1 April 1980 and 1 April 1981 by 12,8% and 16% respectively, whilst the tariffs for livestock were increased by only 10% and 15%. Furthermore, it is also true that the level of tariffs for livestock is so low that even with the latest tariff adjustments and increases, only approximately 64% of the transport costs of the traffic is being covered.

With such a Minister of Transport Affairs who was one of our best Ministers of Agriculture for many years and is therefore well aware of the problems of the farmers, we know that in the future when decisions have to be made regarding the transport of the farmers’ animals and products, such decisions will be made with the greatest of sympathy.

Mr. Chairman, today I want to talk about the transport of cement, one of the basic materials in the construction industry. The construction industry is extremely sensitive to up and down swings in the economy and it is also sometimes said in the industry that they act as the open or closed tap for the economy. In this respect the Railways therefore has a duty to ensure that when the tap is opened, there are no blockages in the pipeline. However, the hon. the Minister need not be concerned that I am looking for a scapegoat now, because if we take into account the fact that cement consumption over the past year increased by 40% and that at the same time there was also a record maize harvest and a greater demand for coal, one can accept that the Railways rendered the best possible service. In Natal in particular we experienced problems in the construction industry. Irregular or delayed delivery of cement does of course contribute towards higher building costs because building contractors have to stockpile larger supplies than would have been the case if there had been a guaranteed delivery date. Delays in the delivery of supplies can also give rise to large losses and this can lead to large claims against clients, which are ultimately passed on the public. This also brings about an increased use of road transport, and over longer distances in particular, this is really not economical.

Cement is in fact a perishable product, particularly in the smaller packages purchased by the smaller user, and with a view to this I want to ask whether packaged cement in particular cannot be considered as perishable, strategic material and can therefore enjoy priority when it comes to transport. With the high consumption of cement, the handling of cement en masse was one aspect where the Railways caused inconvenience and losses too at times because on the one hand there were not enough tank trucks available and on the other hand, deliveries were irregular. In Pietermaritzburg the large consumers of cement, for instance, regularly had to borrow cement or storage space for cement from one another because the railway trucks either arrived too late or before the usual delivery date, which resulted in a surplus.

Then there is also a new development in the construction industry which will influence the transport of cement in the near future, and I should now like to bring it to the hon. the Minister’s attention so that the Railways can make provision for this timeously. I am referring to the almost revolutionary change-over to cement or concrete bricks and blocks in the building industry, and the use of vast amounts of cement by the manufacturers thereof. Advance planning of rolling stock must therefore make provision in the near future not only for normal growth, but also for a change in the technology of the building industry.

Then I should like to put a question or two to the hon. the Minister in connection with the Airways. Firstly I want to recount an anecdote. Recently when I was delayed at Jan Smuts Airport, I could hear the hydraulic valves of the Airbus screaming prior to take-off. Apparently something had jammed. After 20 minutes had elapsed, the pilot announced that the technical problem had been solved and the aircraft returned to the runway. There it groaned and moaned once again and after a few minutes we were back at the start of the runway. We sat there for a while once again; the engines screamed again and by this time I was rather nervous, but the air hostess assured me that it always sounded like that. However, before I could leave, we were in the air. After having circled Johannesburg three times, it was announced that one of the large flaps had in fact jammed, that we had to return to the airport and that it would be a more rapid landing than usual. After a few more circles around Johannesburg we were back where we started two hours later.

I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether unnecessary pressure may possibly be being brought to bear on pilots and flight engineers to take calculated risks because they know that the maintenance or service is inadequate due to a possible shortage of staff, on the one hand, or because the fleet is so small that the aircraft cannot be kept out of the air for long enough to be properly checked. I am asking this because I must admit that I was rather nervous that day.

To come to my following question, I must recount what happened after that. A few of us were then allocated seats on a later flight, but the later flight had already been delayed by approximately an hour.

Then you went and had a drink in the bar.

It was a direct flight from Johannesburg to Cape Town. We subsequently completed that flight in approximately 12 minutes less than the usual time. The pilot said that we completed the flight more quickly because we had taken a short-cut. Therefore, if there is a shortcut—and the short-cut did not exactly feel as if it was more bumpy or had sharper curves or steeper slopes than the other one—why is the long route usually used?

It is a short-cut with higher speed.

I would say that a saving of 12 minutes on every flight between Johannesburg and Cape Town could bring about quite a saving over a period of a year.

Mr. Chairman, I am fairly certain that the hon. member for Greytown had enough Dutch courage to survive all the tribulations that he sketched to us.

I should like to refer to the hon. member’s problem with the transportation of cement. He said that deliveries take place either too late or too soon, or that loads reach their destination at inconvenient times. However, I do not know whether the hon. member has been to any cement factories over the past few months, particularly during the building boom to which he referred. Perhaps he knows that road delivery vehicles stand in queues there, sometimes 100 of them in a queue? They stand in those queues for days. This is what is happening there.

This was after we had received the consignment notes.

A man has already told me that my load of plastic pipes was waiting for me at the Railways, and then he and I cursed the Railways into next week, until I eventually said that I would collect the goods with my own truck. However, he then said that I should please give him three days so that he could just get the pipes there. This happens with cement too. Of course, another problem is the one to which the hon. member for Greytown also referred. I am talking about the rolling stock that is required for the revolution taking place in the building industry whereby cement bricks are being used to an increasing extent. However, in the normal construction process, cement bricks are more expensive than ordinary fired bricks. It is simply because there are no ordinary bricks that the cement bricks are being used. I see that hon. member is shaking his head.

I hear him shaking his head.

So did I! However, the hon. the Minister’s plans for rolling stock to transport cement, should be fitted in with that of the owners of cement factories. Surely it is senseless for the hon. the Minister to carry out his own advance planning and make an excessive quantity of rolling stock available if there are no plans for the expansion of existing factories or for the erection of new factories.

I am so pleased that the hon. member for Smithfield raised the issue of a farmers’ day in discussing Railway affairs, because I should like to talk about maize exports. Over the past eight years maize exports have amounted to nearly 2,9 million tons per annum. I feel that this is a level which has stabilized in the ’seventies, and in the future we can expect nothing but increased production in the interior, depending on whether ethanol is going to be manufactured from maize or not. If ethanol is in fact manufactured from maize, the figure may be as high as 9 million tons per annum by the ’nineties. The railway line at East London is now being electrified. At the moment that railway line is being utilized up to 70%, but once it has been electrified and dual tracks have been built, the capacity of that line will be increased considerably. I understand, although I do not know whether this is true, that the grain elevator there is going to be enlarged from a capacity of 76 000 tons to a capacity of 190 000 tons. That expansion will cost R30 million. If I look at these facts, I must deduce that it is being envisaged that all maize exports in future will take place through this specific harbour. I have spoken to people who served on the Maize Board and they said: “We all know that the harbour at East London can handle ships of less than 14 000 tons only. Is the cost of our imports not becoming too high if we are using such small ships only for exporting?” The reply was: “The problem is that when the freight reaches its destination, it must be divided into small loads”. Does the Railways not perhaps want to take the lead in an investigation to establish what the difference in cost would be if one could use a deeper harbour that could handle ships of 80 000 tons to 100 000 tons, instead of a small harbour. Then one would have a figure that one could give the farmers. I really think that such an investigation would be advisable to and would contribute towards eliminating many of the problems that we as farmers are experiencing.

I also want to refer to the positive contribution that the Railways and the authorities have been making towards the maize exports over the past eight years. The Railways will have invested between R80 million and R90 million in rolling stock for the exclusive purpose of exporting maize by the end of this year. I have already referred to the expansion that have to take place in the harbour in order to make provision for greater exports. The Railways has also taken the initiative and in 1976 a congress was convened between the Railways, the cooperatives, the consulting engineers and the Maize Board about future plans regarding the export of maize. At that stage Mr. Hennie Loots came forward with the idea of block loads. This brought about a considerable increase in the quantity of maize that was transported, whilst the same tractive power was used. I want to dwell on this for a moment, because I feel that a mistake has slipped in here, to put it in the hon. the Minister’s idiom. The Railways said that they give the Maize Board a rebate of 5% if a co-operative creates facilities at a specific grain elevator for a block load to be pushed through at a time. This means that 25 empty trucks must be able to be pushed in and leave again without any shunting taking place. This 5% rebate is granted to the Maize Board. I am a member of a cooperative and I can tell the House that at the grain elevator where I deliver my products, we load 1,6 million tons of maize annually. I do not want to tell a lie, but I am quite sure that I am wrong. This means that 160 000 tons are loaded.

Just say “a lot”.

[Inaudible.]

Some places have the name, and other places produce. If the Railways is serious about this 5% rebate, it must give it to the co-operative that makes the facilities available because this is the co-operative that incurs the expense. Last year this planning was carried out at the specific grain elevator and it would have cost us R280 000. Then the board of directors of the co-operative said that they were not going to create the facilities so that other people could skim off the cream. A year later a much smaller extension cost us R220 000. If we had originally made the extension for R287 000—we had the tender for this—it would have meant that in one year we would have saved R182 000 on that site. It would have been worth our while and it would have been worth while for the Railways. In other words, it would have been to the benefit of the industry. However, since the premium goes to the Maize Board, the co-operative says that they do not see their way clear and ask why they should stick their necks out for the sake of others. The result is that no one benefits by it. I want to ask the hon. the Minister seriously …

Ask the hon. the Minister of Finance.

Where is he? I want to ask him and the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs to give this 5% to the co-operative that establishes the facilities. I want to ask for a decision to be made on this issue now because at the moment there are grain elevators under construction at a cost of approximately R30 million. Therefore, let us set the matter right now.

Mr. Chairman, I first want to react to what the hon. the Minister said earlier in reply to my speech yesterday. I want to say to him that it is not the overfilling of facilities at City Deep in Johannesburg that I am concerned about, but rather the congestion at Durban harbour which I believe can be caused by an additional 20 000 containers arriving there from the Far East. If that happens, will Durban harbour not be over-congested? Can they cope with another 20 000 containers and will it be necessary to spend extra money to enable them to cope with that? If that is the case, would it not be better to utilize the facilities that already exist in Port Elizabeth to take some of that load off Durban? I should like the hon. the Minister to react to that.

Secondly, in regard to Magnum Airlines, the hon. the Minister said he could not actually react to that issue because it had nothing to do with S.A. Airways at all but with the National Transport Commission. I want to quote from an article which appeared in the Financial Mail of 12 September 1980. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can tell me whether the following which appears in that article is correct or not—

That is what is stated in the article. I do not believe that S.A. Airways can hide behind the skirts of the National Transport Commission. If they are laying criminal charges, I believe we should then be entitled to ask why and what the cost is. I also want to say that I believe that this, in the words of Magnum Airlines, is against the spirit of free enterprise.

At the end of his speech yesterday, the hon. member for Yeoville mentioned briefly the Sky Courier débacle and I believe that the hon. the Minister has given a totally unsatisfactory answer to that. He said it was causing congestion in the passenger facilities. Well, Sir, the job of S.A. Airways is to react to demands placed on it and to provide the necessary facilities. I should like to go fully into this matter of Sky Couriers and ask a number of questions in this regard.

Even if a man has 20 big suitcases with him?

That is fair enough, but I can suggest a practical answer to that. On 11 days’ notice S.A. Airways banned Sky Couriers. In the first place I do not think that that was reasonable or decent. On 11 days’ notice Sky Couriers had to close down their sky courier service and this created many problems for the many, many companies who use this service. What is more, Government departments themselves use it for the purpose of delivering documentation and parcels.

The letter from the Deputy Chief of S.A. Airways says, and I quote—

That was the actual letter that was sent by S.A. Airways’ Deputy Chief to Sky Couriers. It would appear therefore that the hon. the Minister’s answer does not reflect quite the whole story, because part of the reason obviously is that S.A. Airways themselves wish their own express cargo service to be utilized. The reason why it was not utilized to any great extent by the people who use Sky Couriers is simply that the service provided by Sky Couriers was better, more convenient and faster.

I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister—he is the one who is so fond of quoting overseas countries to us as examples of how bad they are and how good we have it here—that British Airways allow couriers on all their internal flights; so do Air France. Is the hon. the Minister telling me that S.A. Airways is such an unbusinesslike operation that it cannot cope with a situation of that nature? I do not think that is the right answer at all. In fact, Heathrow airport has a special courier clearance centre, where those couriers check in. That is apart from the normal passenger facilities. Why can S.A. Airways not set up a facility similar to that at Heathrow airport? I should recommend that this be investigated.

It has gone farther than that, and what has happened now? What has happened is that Sky Couriers have begun to use National Airways. They are chartering planes to transport the goods. S.A. Airways have lost out on that business, and I should like to point out that in 1979 Sky Couriers paid S.A. Airways an amount of R296 000. That figure jumped to R554 000 in 1980. They had planned to spend R850 000 with S.A. Airways last year, and that figure has not been spent. That is a direct loss to S.A. Airways of R850 000 a year. I submit that had proper facilities been provided that loss would not have occurred. Unfortunately I have no more time left. I would have liked to go farther into this matter, but my time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to react to the speech of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. Whilst he floated around in the air, I want to keep my feet on the ground.

When one reads the annual report of the S.A. Railways, one notes with a great deal of appreciation what this tremendous organization is doing in order to provide accommodation to its employees. In one of his replies to the Second Reading debate the hon. the Minister set out the policy of the S.A. Railways very clearly yesterday when he said that the accommodation which the S.A. Railways provides for its employees, is being approached in such a way that it becomes part of the greater residential area in which those houses are situated, and that railway people will no longer be established as they were in the past, in railway camps like those to which the hon. member Mr. Vermeulen referred in his speech.

In Kuruman there are approximately 20 houses belonging to the S.A. Railways. Recently the S.A. Railways built a number of new houses in Kuruman. In the meantime, however, there are already a good number of Railway houses that are very old. These are houses which are situated on one single large piece of land, land which belongs to the S.A. Railways. It is true that some railway officials at Kuruman want to buy some of those houses. Some of those people are already very close to retirement age. These are people who have devoted their entire lives to the S.A. Railways, and who have been living in those houses at Kuruman for many years already. Apparently an arrangement was made whereby if people want to buy those houses, they themselves must organize the surveying and subdivision of the land, and that they should also pay the cost involved. Now I should like to ask the hon. the Minister for the S.A. Railways, which has the necessary skilled people, to undertake the survey and subdivision of the erven themselves so that those houses can be sold to the people concerned. I also want to ask the Railways to carry the costs involved. It is not only in Kuruman that such situations exist. The same situation exists in other towns and I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister that in such cases these single areas, on which a large number of houses are built, can be divided into erven so that these houses can be sold to officials of the S.A. Railways. The hon. the Minister will gladden the hearts of people who have been in the employ of the S.A. Railways for a lifetime and by means of such a step will be in a position to obtain their own home in which they can live for the rest of their lives.

Another matter that I should like to raise today, is a matter which I raised in my maiden speech in this House approximately 12 years ago, as well as on several occasions since then. At the time I asked for the Sishen-Saldanha railway line, which was still a dream at that stage, to be extended through Kuruman and to join up with the existing rail link in the vicinity of Vryburg. This is a railway line that could become the artery of a natural line of development, from the most natural harbour in South Africa, viz. Saldanha Bay, through the mineral rich Northern and North-Western Cape to the PWV area. The then Minister of Transport replied that he did not see any purpose in such a railway line because all that he had seen in that area was sand. In the meantime the Sishen-Saldanha railway line and the development of the Saldanha Bay harbour has become a practical reality, to the great benefit of South Africa. The mineral contribution of the Kuruman, Hotazel, Sishen and Danielskuil area has increased since that time from a mere R39 million to more than R800 million in 1980. We have here the only rural area that has shown a natural growth over the past decade.

In the recent delimitation of constituencies the Kuruman constituency was the only rural constituency that lost voters. We lost nearly 3 500 voters to other constituencies. It is a rural constituency which has a natural growth potential which it has already proved. The hon. the Prime Minister’s declared initiatives for encouraging decentralization to prevent the rapidly growing population of South Africa, Johannesburg, Durban and Cape Town with their Sowetos, Nyangas and Crossroads, from doubling, makes it essential for developmental and growth points to be sought elsewhere in South Africa to support the growing population of South Africa on the road ahead. Here I am talking about an area that has already indicated in a natural way that it can form the nucleus for establishing the growing population of South Africa on the road ahead.

When I ask for the Sishen-Saldanha railway line to be extended, which could be a new line of development for the future, a new artery for development, then I say that if this can take place, Saldanha Bay, the most natural harbour in Southern Africa, can also be linked to the PWV area. It has already been linked to the mineral riches of the Northern and North-Western Cape. A natural harbour city can develop here where the White man and the Coloured man can find employment opportunities.

The Kuruman area, bordering on Bophuthatswana, with its mineral riches of iron ore, manganese, limestone, asbestos and diamonds, together with the labour situated in neighbouring Bophuthatswana and with the water from “Die Oog” which at the moment can supply a city the size of East London with water as well as the Vaal-Gamagara pipeline which has already been constructed by the Department of Water Affairs, Forestry and Environmental Conservation, could give rise to further growth in this area.

Last year during the discussion of the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote, I asked for the next Iscor to be situated in this area because all the elements that are necessary, are here for providing employment opportunities to the Tswanas in their own fatherland, or on the border of their fatherland, so that they do not need to stream to the cities of South Africa to work there. I want to thank the Office of the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs for having had the vision last year to investigate this railway line for which I am now asking. I therefore want to say thank you very much to the hon. the Minister, his department and to the Office of the Prime Minister for having undertaken this investigation and also for the fine way in which the officials carried out this investigation. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he could possibly tell us how far the investigation and the decision-making has progressed in connection with the report which was submitted to him by the committee of inquiry.

In asking this, I want to say that we are eager to hear the good news about when this artery for the future development of South Africa but particularly of the Cape, which has had few opportunities for growth in years gone by, is going to be established. An average of approximately 10 000 Tswanas arrive in Kuruman by bus every day. We have to establish a new bus terminus and our city council is already drawing up plans for establishing a new bus terminus there, with all the necessary facilities for the people of our neighbouring State. However, we should like to know where the new Kuruman station is going to be situated because the ideal place for this bus terminus which I have just mentioned, would be the site on which the new Kuruman station is going to be built. That is why I ask the hon. the Minister and his department to give us a positive reply in this regard as soon as possible.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kuruman’s speech was divided into two. One section of it dealt with the Sishen-Saldanha railway line, to which I do not want to react except to say that I think he put his request well. The second section of his speech dealt with Railway officials and with their housing in particular.

I want to elaborate on that theme tonight and in this regard I want to say that I am pleased that the hon. the Minister of Health, Welfare and Pensions is present here. Tonight I want to talk about the principle of freedom of choice with regard to doctors.

If the hon. member for Roodeplaat coughed this afternoon and broke a few ribs, what would he do? He could simply get into his car and go to a doctor of his own choice and Parmed would pay part of that account.

Even Dr. Barnard.

Yes, even Dr. Barnard. However, a Railway official is restricted to a panel of Railway doctors and possibly to only one or two doctors in smaller towns. I want to say at once that I have nothing to say against the medical staff that have looked after Railway staff in the past and rendered medical services to them. It is not a case of their service having been poor. I want to put the case of freedom of choice when choosing a doctor. Earlier this year the hon. the Minister of Police and the hon. the Minister of Justice introduced new medical schemes, one for the Police and one for the Prisons staff. These people are grateful for these opportunities that they have. They are using them and they are satisfied with them.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister—he said he has no enemies—what he has against the Railway people? What does he have against the Railway people? What does he have against those people not to give them freedom of choice in choosing a doctor? Earlier this year I spoke to the hon. the Minister on this matter. He listened to me in a friendly way and promised that he would investigate the matter. We listened here with a great deal of appreciation to hon. members who referred to the work of the Railway staff, their long hours, the overtime that they work, etc. We also heard about the good wives that they have. They too have their family life with confinements, illness amongst their children etc. I feel that these people should also have the right to choose their own doctor. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to tell us whether he has already had this matter investigated and whether he supports the issue of freedom of choice of a doctor and whether we can expect the Railway officials to have the same opportunity in future as all the other Public Servants do, of choosing their own doctor.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to questions which hon. members put to me.

The hon. member for North Rand referred to containerization. He made a very positive contribution and hit the nail on the head. The inability of organized agriculture and industry to cope with the containers adequately outside working hours, is a matter he raised and I am very pleased that he did so. We have even offered incentive prices in this regard. The Railways is always being criticized, but these people are not doing their share. I want to thank the hon. member most sincerely. He is the chairman of our transport group and the chairman of the Select Committee on Railway Accounts as well. He and I work together very easily in spite of his habit of saying that he wants a reply now and not tomorrow. You see, there are two kinds of Schoemans. The one is the difficult kind, but I do not know what kind he belongs to. In any event, the hon. member and I work together very well.

Since he referred to his constituency and pointed out that we have overcrowded conditions at Olifantsfontein, I can give him the assurance that an urgent investigation will now be instituted into the matter.

Negotiations in respect of Lanseria Airport are in progress. However, this matter falls under a different department, but I may point out in passing that we are going into the whole matter pertaining to the problems of the Lanseria Airport. I shall from time to time keep the hon. member informed of developments.

†The hon. member for Walmer referred to certain points he had made previously. I can inform him that the problems which the industries experience in the Western Cape stem from their geographical disadvantages. The fact of the matter is that Railway tariffs must of necessity be based on the cost incurred over the distance the traffic has to be conveyed. Railway rates cannot be used to overcome market disadvantages occasioned by geographic considerations. It is also not possible to manipulate any other tariffs such as harbour charges to overcome these disadvantages.

I am aware of Port Elizabeth’s problems, especially as regards growth, and view them in a sympathetic light. There must be employment; there must be stimulation. More than a dozen items are included in the Browne Book in respect of capital projects in Port Elizabeth and on the main line to that port. The work will be carried out over a number of years and the amount involved is far in excess of R100 million. The operating expenditure for the Cape Midlands system amounts to over R200 million per annum. I think the Railways are doing their share, but I took notice of what the hon. member asked.

*The hon. member for De Aar referred to the conveyance of less profitable commodities. He is quite right. The businessman does not convey products from which there is much money to be made. We are conveying livestock at a loss. When I come to the hon. member for Smithfield, I shall again refer to the conveyance of livestock. The hon. member for De Aar rightly asked whether we should not stop conveying unprofitable goods. It would be wonderful to be the Minister of Transport Affairs if we did not have to loose R680 million per annum on the conveyance of passengers. However, we have a service we have to render and that is why we are doing this. The private sector is inclined to skim off the cream and to leave the conveyance of less profitable commodities to us.

†The hon. member for Amanzimtoti again referred to certain points. He said that low-valued goods are heavily subsidized by high-valued goods, and he asked whether tariffs on low-rated traffic, such as coal, should not be revised. The rates on low-rated traffic are percentage-wise increased higher than those on the high-rated traffic in order to narrow the gap between high and low rates. Much of the low-rated traffic, including coal for export, is already transported at contract rates which are based on the cost of the service. When contracts are renewed special attention will be given, amongst others, to aspects raised by the hon. member.

He also suggested that we should be more prepared to advertise the efforts which we make. I never realized that if one travels a certain distance, one pays R16 a month …

That was when the price of petrol went up to 51 cents per litre.

… for a rail ticket, but if one uses a motor-car that consumes a gallon every 34 miles—that, of course, is a small car—one spends on petrol alone R60 per month. I think we must get this message through and we must bring it to the attention of our commuters. We should encourage our people to return to the Railways.

I shall also go into the matter of the stevedoring at Richards Bay. He said that only two companies have full licences if one disregards companies such as Sasko, Rennies and the one in which the Government has a stake. We shall go into the matter and I shall come back to the hon. member.

*The hon. member for Greytown referred to the conveyance of cement, and problems were experienced here at one stage. Inter alia, the hon. member asked us to convey cement in bags as a perishable product. However, cement is not perishable to such an extent that anything will happen to it within six months, but something may happen to it after longer periods. However, the hon. member for Heilbron correctly pointed out that railway trucks were standing at cement factories and waiting to be loaded.

Subsequently the hon. member spoke of the aircraft which circled Johannesburg for two hours, but this is once again a demonstration of how well we treat our customers, for we did not even charge him for those two hours of sight seeing. There are literally thousands of wires in one of these aircrafts which require an excellent maintenance service. I can assure him that the aircraft remain on the ground long enough to be serviced properly. Our service in this respect is one of the best in Africa; in fact, some African countries send their aircraft to us to be serviced. However, no mention is made of this. Hon. members will be surprised to hear where we sometimes send spare parts and who approaches us for technical assistance. In some countries Boeings are often grounded for a week and then they come and ask us for assistance.

Recently there was a thick layer of snow on the landing strip and a few passengers kicked up a tremendous fuss and were even unmannerly because one of the Airbuses had developed engine trouble. I went up to them and said: “Chaps, I have good news for you; we need not wait 1½ hours any more, because the pilot has said that he is prepared to convey volunteers in an aircraft with only one engine.” Their reaction to this was: “But you are out of your mind.” These people demanded the departure of the aircraft, but they were not prepared to fly in an aircraft with only one engine. If a disaster had struck us and the aircraft had plummeted to earth, it would have been disastrous.

Furthermore the hon. member referred to the shortcut on which 12 minutes could sometimes be saved. The aircraft from Cape Town to Johannesburg flies with a slight curve over Bloemfontein because this is the route along which contact is maintained with the satellite and the means by which control is also exercized in respect of radar, the weather, etc. This is an international agreement and in accordance with boundaries which have been drawn. If a pilot sometimes changes altitude slightly it has happened that he informs the airport that he is going to take the shortcut, but they do not react to this, because they are not really allowed to do so, and consequently the pilot does this at his own risk. The 12 minutes which are saved is not only because the pilot has cut out the curve. Sometimes this happens because he has changed his altitude and also because there was a strong wind.

The hon. member for Heilbron discussed the maize exports. The Railways may grant the discount on block loads only to the person, organization or company which pays the railage. In the case of maize the account of the Maize Board is debited with the railage and the discount is granted to the board. If the discount accrues to the cooperative, the co-operative has to discuss the matter with the Maize Board, otherwise an arrangement has to be made whereby the co-operative may pay the railage. We receive our instructions from the Maize Board, since we have an agreement with them. The hon. member could talk to the co-operatives and the Maize Board and ascertain whether they are not able to make an arrangement in this regard. This is a very fair request on the part of the hon. member, but the money which is paid into the Maize Board is still to the benefit of the industry and every maize farmer, for if the Stabilization Fund and other funds of the Maize Board are sound, the maize farmer also benefits.

†The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central referred to over-congestion in regard to containers at Durban. The hon. member can, however, rest assured that the Railways can handle containers from the Far East, and no problem is foreseen in this regard. I have already referred to other matters raised by the hon. member, and will investigate his suggestions, especially those in regard to Magnum Airlines.

The hon. member mentioned the service provided by Sky Couriers, and I may point out that we have had the experience of people coming to the airport with 20 to 25 suitcases, without consulting us. However, if we can make money out of this and if we can have new arrangements in regard to couriers, I am prepared to ask the Management to go into this matter. As the hon. member says, some other countries do have this service, and if this service can be furnished economically in other countries, I cannot see why we cannot do so as well.

*The hon. member for Kuruman discussed the houses at Kuruman. We shall go into this matter very sympathetically. We shall try our best to be of assistance with this problem, but it will first have to be investigated in order to ascertain the scope of the problem. It is, of course, our intention to make houses available to our own officials, if we can succeed in having them alienated. If this is feasible, we shall do so.

Furthermore there is the investigation into the rail link to which the hon. member also referred. I am now referring to the Sishen-Pudimoe-Vryburg line. The investigation has been completed. The new line is economically viable and will maintain its priority in the planning, due regard being had for the funds which will be available. We are awaiting the comments of the other departments which are involved before we take this matter further. I am going to address the development association there on 15 October and then I shall inform the people there fully as to what progress has been made. I am doing all these things simply because that hon. member, as Whip, dealt with this debate so well. [Interjections.]

†I have just this moment received a reply from the Management to the question put to me by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. To save time I shall send the reply to him directly. I want to “make time” as the Americans say.

*This brings me to the hon. member for Parktown. I have an uncle who lives in Darling. He was a Railwayman all his life. When he falls ill, they tell him that he may not avail himself of the services of the local doctor in Darling. The Railway doctor is in Cape Town. We investigated the entire matter and the investigation is almost complete. The only bodies with which I still have to hold talks are the staff associations. We want them to go along with us, for the hon. member’s request is a reasonable one. If a person is a member of a medical fund he must be entitled to consult a doctor of his own choice. I am almost certain that if the staff associations agree with us, in other words if this does not entail financial losses for them, we shall be able to put the new system into operation next year.

Schedules agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, there are still a number of matters that have to be dealt with at this Third Reading stage. Before we come to deal with general comments about the Bill, and the debate on the budget that has already taken place, there are one or two individual matters I should just like to raise with the hon. the Minister. One of these relates to the Sishen-Saldanha Une. I wonder if the hon. the Minister would tell us, in the first instance, whether there is any intention—or perhaps even planning—on the part of the Administration to use the line for conveying goods other than iron ore, which I understand is the position that pertains at present. Is there any intention or plan on the part of the Administration to consider the conveyance of ordinary goods and passengers on this line?

The second issue which I wish to raise also relates to the Sishen-Saldanha line. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether there are any plans for the future for linking this line with the rest of the South African railway network. In this regard—and I think the matter has been raised previously in the House—one thinks of the Laingsburg disaster where the disruption of traffic could have been minimized greatly if it had been possible to re-route that traffic via a line such as the Sishen-Saldanha line.

The hon. the Minister has just replied to that.

Sorry, I must have been distracted.

The third question also relates to the Sishen-Saldanha line. Can the hon. the Minister explain why it has been necessary for a separate system headquarters to operate in respect of Saldanha? At present we seem to have a situation where we have a separate system headquarters with a Systems Manager to control a harbour and two stations and, I believe, one or two crossing points. If this is correct, surely there is no economic justification for a separate railway empire in respect of this particular line, something which must add to the operating costs of the line. One thinks of the situation obtaining in regard to the Richards Bay line which I believe crosses three separate rail way systems and serves a harbour which is much bigger than Saldanha, yet it does not have a separate system operation and does not fall under a separate Systems Manager. I should like the hon. the Minister to respond to these questions when he replies to the Third Reading debate.

I should also like to put another question briefly to the hon. the Minister. Yesterday the hon. the Minister replied to my question concerning air hostesses, and particularly the question of the difference in salary for White air hostesses and Black air hostesses. From his reply it is not quite clear to me what he meant. The hon. the Minister said it was unreasonable to expect Black air hostesses who are only starting and who are receiving training to receive the same salary as White air hostesses. I want to ask him specifically whether he was telling me that if the White air hostess commences training at the same time as a Black air hostess—in other words, they are both equally inexperienced—they will start at the same salary? I think that will clarify the issue, because it was not completely clear from what the hon. the Minister said yesterday.

Having dealt with those minor issues, I want to return to some of the things that came out during the Second Reading debate and during the Committee Stage. Nothing that was said during either of those two debates in reply to the criticisms which we have offered to the hon. the Minister’s budget proposals and the implications has altered our attitude to these matters. On the contrary, on any basis of logic and if words have any meaning at all, the response we have had from the hon. the Minister and other Government speakers has only served to confirm our original attitude. For example, the hon. the Minister said—and it was raised by other hon. members this afternoon—that he had received very little criticism of his budget proposals outside. I think the reason for that was that there was a sense of temporary relief. I think commerce, industry and others have been steeling themselves for tariff increases across the board, and I think the only reason why criticism has not been greater, is that although there has been criticism of the increase in passenger tariffs, people felt that there had been a temporary reprieve in regard to more general tariff increases.

In the Second Reading debate I set out three reasons why we could not support the hon. the Minister’s proposal. They related to the fact that we believed that the passenger tariff increases on rail and air fares were totally unreasonable. Secondly, we believed that Government policies were adversely affecting the attempt by the Management of the Railways to operate the rail and other transport services on business lines. Thirdly, we were not satisfied that the vast capital expenditure, of recent years in particular, was producing the returns on investments which it should.

There have been no reasonable attempts to answer these points of criticism. Instead, we have had a series of misstatements, ill-directed debating points and other verbal evasions. It has been said consistently from Government benches that our attitude has been negative and that we have criticized increased tariffs without suggesting alternative methods of overcoming the financial and budgetary problems of the Administration. Some, including the hon. the Minister himself, even resorted to the all too typical Government ploy of suggesting that our criticism and stance on this Bill amount to our being un-South African or unpatriotic.

What are the facts? We have certainly criticized the passenger tariff increases, which are totally unreasonable and punishing on the travelling public and which are designed to produce a paltry R27 million in extra revenue for the Administration in a budget which is concerned with some R7 000 million. We have suggested that this punishment of the public could have been avoided by using one of the reserve funds. It could have been avoided by using the Revenue Reserves or other funds. Instead of that the public has been asked to provide the extra R27 million. So, Sir, there was nothing negative about our approach in this regard.

We have also analysed the hon. the Minister’s own reason for these problems and tried to get to the source of those problems. Time and again in his budget speech the hon. the Minister referred to the high cost of fuel as the cause of the difficulties, not only in respect of Airways’ profitability, but in general terms relating to the escalation of costs on capital works programmes and the like. As I have said, the hon. the Minister’s speech in the Second Reading debate was punctuated with references to the high cost of fuel and the effect this was having on transport services. We then looked to the cause of these high fuel costs and suggested that, if we had had political policies which were more acceptable to the Free World, these costs would not have been so excessive. I want to suggest that there was nothing negative about that approach either.

The hon. the Minister in his reply to the Second Reading debate yesterday said that the high price we have to pay for fuel has nothing to do with our racial and political policies. Does the hon. the Minister still believe that? I believe that that is arrant nonsense and that the hon. the Minister knows that. I need only quote from the statement made by the hon. the Minister’s colleague the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs earlier this year when he announced higher fuel costs—

That was said by the hon. the Minister’s colleague. Clearly, what he was saying was that he recognizes that there are special and political circumstances which operate against us in our attempts to acquire fuel and in the price we pay for it. Why does the hon. the Minister deny this? Why does the hon. the Minister take me to task for suggesting that this is the result of racial policies and political policies?

What is the price of a litre of fuel in Zambia? [Interjections.]

I am not interested in that. I am talking about our situation. Let us be realistic. Despite the international fuel crisis, which we recognize, despite the fact that the Free World generally has been hit by the crisis, the situation in South Africa in this regard is worse than that of other countries. What is the reason for this if it is not our racial and political policies?

Then the hon. the Minister and others took exception to my reference to the fact that the problems of urban Black commuters in South Africa had been accentuated by Government political policies and that this poses particular problems for us now and in the future. Sir, what is wrong or negative about that? Surely, that is also a statement of fact.

Government policies, racial segregation, the Group Areas Act, etc., determine that Black urban workers should live in separate areas, often far removed from their places of employment, and this adds to our transport problems.

Is this a negative argument, or is it a statement of fact? If it has no validity as an argument, I should like to ask why it is necessary then there has to be a massive subsidy for these services. Quite clearly the Government recognizes that there are special circumstances relating to these people and that therefore special assistance has to be given to them. We could talk of Soweto or Sophiatown; we can even talk about District Six or Mitchell’s Plain, but what, if it is not the Government’s policy, has determined that it is necessary for the Government to provide transport services over far greater distances for our urban workers, and pay the price for it?

So I reject any suggestion that our criticism of our transport services is in any sense negative. We have expressed sympathy for the Management and the personnel, and we have said specifically that their laudable attempts to run the service on sound business lines are being thwarted and hampered by Government political policies. We adhere to that view.

It is true that more and more one sees the intrusion of political and other influences into the domain of our transport services, an intrusion which, we believe, is unreasonable, dangerous and wrong. It is an intrusion which, we believe, runs totally counter to the entire historical and traditional purposes of transport in a developing continent such as ours.

This brings me to deal with the challenge in regard to our responsibilities in the field of transport to our neighbours in this developing sub-continent at this particular time. Historically and traditionally it has been established that irrespective of political attitudes and differences between people and systems, transport services, the conveyance of goods and people, the opening up of undeveloped areas, providing means of communication—all these things—are in the end more important than political rhetoric and political posturing in bringing social and economic stability to people and to regions.

It is railroads that opened up the West in America and Canada. It is railroads and transport communication which have opened up the hinterland of South Africa and Southern Africa, which, through the great ports of Durban, Table Bay and elsewhere, have linked these areas with the great markets of the world. It is transport communications which can bring stability and prosperity to people and to nations; stability and prosperity which very often transgress political and ideological differences, and I believe that if there is one role which we in South Africa should be fulfilling in these difficult and troublesome times in this subcontinent it is the positive role of assisting people and their economies to overcome poverty and to achieve prosperity and stability by taking initiatives ourselves, through our railways and harbours network and systems, to link them to the markets of the world. That is the vital role we should be playing at the present time in our history.

Yet, what have we had in the debate on this Bill?

In the Second Reading debate I raised the issue of our responsibility in the field of transport to our neighbouring states. I referred to this Government’s previous commitments to ensuring that our transport services provided the means of bringing peace, prosperity and stability to our neighbouring states, so as to stabilize the Southern African region. I questioned the attitude of the Administration to Zimbabwe in this regard, in particular in recent months. I questioned the withdrawal of trucks and locomotives and the reported resultant problems in that country because of what had happened. I also asked who had been responsible for this apparent change of attitude, this coyness, this reluctance on the part of our Administration.

I must point out though that the response from the hon. the Minister and other Government spokesmen has been very revealing in this regard. From their responses it appeared quite clearly that the Administration, through influence perhaps beyond its own control—perhaps through the influence of the Department of Defence or the Department of Foreign Affairs or the Government itself—was involved in an operation of sanctions against our neighbouring states in so far as availability of our transport services were concerned.

It is a punitive or politically bargaining posture in which they are involved in regard to their preparedness to assist neighbouring Southern African states in respect of transport services, and I believe it is motivated entirely by political considerations. The availability of our transport services, our railways and harbours, to an otherwise landlocked interior are to a very large extent being used, in relation to the hon. the Minister’s reply, as a diplomatic tool in an attempt to make our neighbours tolerate our political policies. It is clear from the responses from Government benches on this issue during the Second Reading debate that we are deliberately playing a game of “hard to get” for purely political reasons.

The hon. member Dr. Welgemoed in a lame speech that was clearly made on instructions, went to great length to tell us that our withdrawal of locomotives and trucks from Zimbabwe and elsewhere was purely motivated by our own economic considerations. He went further and said that the States to the north who were complaining about our attitude were only doing so as an excuse for their own ineptitude in building up and managing their own internal economies. Yesterday, the hon. the Minister in his speech said that there was nothing to stop the Zimbabwe Minister of Transport initiating an approach at top Government level to the Republican Government. He said, incidentally, that the approach could be made to one or other of his colleagues; so he does expect the approach to be made to himself. He rejected the notion that this situation could be handled at General Manager level as it has been in the past and as it has been in the case of our transport links with Mozambique. Then the hon. the Minister let the cat out of the bag. He got very worked up in dealing with this situation and asked why we should go out of our way to give economic and transport aid to countries which may be harbouring people and organizations who threaten our own internal security. [Interjections.]

Do you not agree with that?

There we have it. That is the real reason for his change of attitude, and the reaction of hon. members opposite at this moment confirms that that is the reason for our change of attitude and for our apparent coyness over this issue. Let the Government then be honest and say that we want to punish these people because we believe they may be harbouring these people. Let them say honestly that we are imposing sanctions because I believe it is a form of economic sanction that we are applying in the Southern African region. I believe it is a very, very dangerous game to play and it will do nothing to stabilize the region or to increase our sphere of interest within it. All over the world trade and economic links between nations have survived political and idealogical differences between nations. In Southern Africa we have in the past managed to maintain reasonable practical working arrangements, for example with Mozambique, notwithstanding our profound differences over political ideology. Countries can only benefit from a two-way exchange of trade and economic resources and it is vital for our own interests that we take positive initiatives to stabilize the Southern African region politically, socially and economically. Poverty, hunger and economic breakdowns in any of our neighbouring States can do nothing to strengthen our own stability as the senior, most developed and powerful country in Southern Africa. Our reluctance to provide transport aid to Zimbabwe because of ideological differences does not only affect that country; it affects the whole region. We must remember the situation of Malawi and Zaire. These countries are not hostile towards South Africa, but they will also be directly affected if Zimbabwe is placed under pressure to the extent that it is unable to move its own traffic.

The hon. the Minister and the Government must take this into account. They are not only dealing with Zimbabwe; they are dealing with the entire Southern African region. As far as transport and economics are concerned there is an interdependence involving all these countries and South Africa, and the sanctions game played against one can have disastrous results for others. If we play sanctions we are inviting counter sanctions and this is a very dangerous situation for us to be involving ourselves in at this stage of our history in Southern Africa. I believe that it is the function of the Administration to encourage and allow our transport services to fulfil their rightful role, a major role at that, Sir, in providing the communications that are so necessary to bring stability and prosperity to this Southern African region. I believe that these services should be allowed to operate free of political interference in the interests of all the people concerned. I believe and I know that the hon. the Minister has experienced problems in this regard but I want to say that he as the Minister of Railways has permitted the Railways to be diverted from this normal, reasonable role, this responsible role, at a critical time in the history of this subcontinent. I do not know to what pressure he has been subjected but we can only criticize and condemn him as the ostensibly responsible Minister for allowing this situation to develop. I believe it is a serious situation and I believe it is totally unfortunate that the Railways have found themselves in this situation. I trust that before much further time elapses wiser counsels will prevail and we will realize the immense responsibility, the immense chance, the immense challenge we have in regard to what is taking place elsewhere on this subcontinent.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately we have once again been hearing the hon. member for Berea speaking here this afternoon in a way which clearly showed this House his true colours. I am very sorry that the hon. member displayed his true colours by speaking in this vein in this House this afternoon in an effort to disparage us as the Government, and the hon. the Minister. He levelled accusations at us because we had said that they had adopted a negative approach. He denied this but at the same time conceded that very little criticism had been levelled at this budget from outside. I question every matter which that hon. member raised in this House this afternoon. I have no choice. It is very clear to me that hon. members opposite sit and chat over there while their questions are being answered. They sit and talk amongst themselves and do not listen to what is being said. Now the hon. member has put the same questions to the hon. the Minister. I do not know whether the hon. member did so in order to make an impression on the Press. I do think that the hon. member acted in contempt here. I think it is stupid of those hon. members to act in this way.

We have virtually come to the end of this Railway debate, which has taken more or less three days. In the first place, I should like to convey our gratitude and appreciation to the hon. the Minister, the General Manager and the officials of the S.A. Transport Services.

Where is the Minister?

Those hon. members have no say. Such negative people should rather close their mouths with a zip. If they were to turn around, they would look better than they do from the front. As I said, we want to convey our gratitude to the hon. the Minister, the General Manager of the S.A. Railways and his whole staff, the Railway Commissioners and every person in the Railway service. I just want to point out that when we speak of excellent service being rendered, it can be ascribed to those very people. Consequently I take great pleasure in doing so this afternoon. The hon. the Minister has already referred to his officials. However, I want to go further by pointing out that the budget which was introduced this year by the hon. the Minister with the assistance of his right hand men is an excellent one introduced under extremely difficult circumstances.

It is once again very clear to me that the maximum forward planning has been done, but once again the accusation is being levelled at us by the other side of this House that there has been no forward planning done by the Administration. Let us leave it at that.

The Opposition moves amendments by way of its chief spokesmen on Railway affairs, the tenor of which is the following: What the amendment of the hon. member for Berea amounts to is that the PFP refuses to support the Second Reading of the Bill because—

This is the first time in my life that I find that something of this nature can be punishing to someone. However, he goes further—

Is the hon. member unable to think for himself? In what age is that hon. member living? He goes on, and I find this ludicrous, for he says in effect that because the PFP is not convinced that the Railways Administration’s handling of capital investment is yielding the necessary profits, specifically as a result of inadequate planning, it does not support the Second Reading. Note the words “because the PFP”. Do they have the say? They are the people who concede that no criticism was levelled at the budget from outside, but now they level this criticism as though they are the only people who may criticize.

I want to put it to you this afternoon that the S.A. Railways is one of the vital arteries of the South African economy, but what they are asking, cuts through that vital artery. If this had to happen, where would we be? I shall tell you where we would be and this is exactly what they are seeking: We are to end up in the same position as Zambia and Zimbabwe. Because the railway systems of those countries have come to a standstill, their economies have gone down the drain. That is what they are seeking and that is why they are trying to criticize the Government with regard to this matter.

We are being criticized—the hon. member has just done so again—because of the refusal to give locomotives to Zimbabwe. The hon. member furnished the reasons, but I now want him to tell the hon. the Minister across the floor of this House whether he is willing to ask the Zimbabwean Minister in question to hold discussions with our hon. Minister in order to obtain those locomotives. Is the hon. member willing to do so?

You must do it.

Oh, we must do it.

The Management must do it.

They criticize, but refuse to do anything constructive to help the Government.

After all we have listened to in this debate, after all the so-called criticism from that side, I want to tell you, Sir, that the hon. the Minister must have the patience of Job and the wisdom of Solomon to deal with the Progs’ complaints and criticism.

However, I now want to come closer to my constituency. In the early years of the Railways there was a small halt named Bowkers Stop where certain passengers could put the cost of their tickets on a monthly account. In other words, even at that stage they believed in the idea of travel now, pay later.

They travel on account.

Yes, they travel on account. In 1904, when the Natal Government Railways was expanded, a halt was opened at Upper Malvern, with the official name of Bowkers Halt. However, this halt was soon known as “Soap Box Siding”, but they were not the kind of soap boxes that hon. members opposite have to do with. At that stage those people had to use the soap boxes to climb onto the train, for there were no platforms. Even today hon. members opposite want us to remain stagnant, do not want expansion to take place, and that is why I refer to these places. This Soap Box Siding is now Escombe Station with proper platforms and all the necessary buildings, but there is something which I want to draw to the hon. the Minister’s attention.

This station has the ordinary waiting rooms, just like those at Malvern, and now I want to come back to those who maintain that we are racists. It has been indicated in this House that something can be done where there is real over-crowding, but in the Escombe waiting rooms people are being wilfully forced out. There are many children in that constituency who have to go to school by train, but the girls cannot sit in the waiting rooms in the mornings, for there are regularly two or three people of colour who pass all sorts of remarks about them. Consequently I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he cannot do something about this matter.

A second question I want to raise concerns Berea station, and now I am going to put another question to the hon. member for Berea. Has that hon. member ever approached the hon. the Minister in connection with the over-crowding taking place at Berea Station?

He has never travelled by train.

No, he does not take cognizance of matters of that kind, but in the meantime a finger is pointed at the Government. [Interjections.] The hon. member at the back should rather be quiet, for he grew up only recently.

Has he grown up yet?

No, he has not yet grown up, he still has to wear diapers.

The hon. member for Berea has never gone to see what is happening at Berea Station. However, I have made representations because some of my voters make use of Berea Station. I received a letter within a week. I am going to quote this letter, for it will be of assistance to that hon. member. In reply the hon. the Minister wrote me this personal letter, and I quote—

Now, of course, that hon. member is not listening.

He still knows nothing about his constituency.

I quote further—

However, the letter goes on—

Immediate steps were taken by this department.

However, I want to put a question to the hon. the Minister with regard to a matter which has already been raised in this House. I want to ask that attention be given once again to a railway line on the Esplanade in Durban. Of course those hon. members are going to object immediately. After all, they have objected in the past. I am now referring specifically to the PFP. The matter has been raised before, and since the Durban City Council is controlled by the PFP, objections were raised. The project was then abandoned, as it were. However, I am asking the hon. the Minister to have that matter investigated once again. I am now going to indicate why I am asking this. The Railways as such would benefit by it, for a very large number of people living on the west side do not travel by train because of the problem at Berea Station, and also due to the fact that Berea Station and the new station are situated a long way from the city. Consequently, when the people alight there, they still have to make use of buses in order to arrive at their destination.

Are you saying that the planning was inadequate?

Quiet, you! Mr. Speaker, once that railway line on the Esplanade becomes a reality, all those people—I give the hon. the Minister that assurance—who at present use their cars will immediately start travelling by train. Those hon. members say that there will be crowds of people of colour in Durban, and this is their area.

What does the city council say?

The city council says exactly what they are saying. They are echoing the city council. This is the problem.

But surely they are racists there.

Yes, they are racists. I agree with the hon. the Minister. However, the vast majority of the people of colour will continue to make use of Berea Station, since they are employed within a radius of 1 km of that station. Consequently they will not travel further and cause congestion on the Esplanade. That is why I request that attention be given to that matter once again. I ask that the matter be investigated.

I should now like to put certain questions to the official Opposition, and indeed, I see the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is seated there. If this matter pertaining to the railway line on the Esplanade were to be investigated, what would their attitude be?

Would they give evidence?

I am asking them what their attitude would be. Would they give evidence? [Interjections.] They are keeping quiet. They do not want to reply to that question. [Interjections.] However, it is a foregone conclusion, because those hon. members are ruled by the Durban City Council. [Interjections.] That hon. member can go ahead and laugh, but he does not know those people.

A moment ago it was Zambia. You must just decide exactly who it is.

Order! That hon. member must address the Chair.

I should like to put a few more matters to the hon. the Minister. He has already replied with regard to the issue of pensions for persons who retired before 1973. I just want to have it on record that I, too, should like those replies from the hon. the Minister. We must see whether we can do something for those people. A question which was replied to last year and about which I must frankly say that I do not feel very happy, dealt with concessions for national servicemen and students. I looked up the hon. the Minister’s reply, and I know what it entails. However, I want to ask that that matter be investigated again. The carnage on our roads during the past month or six weeks was for the most part due to our national servicemen who were unable to reach their homes. The national servicemen are given a seven day pass and want to go home, and all they can do is hitch-hike. Many of them have been killed over the past few weeks.

I now come to my final request to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister has already discussed the houses along the railway lines. Hundreds of railway houses are standing vacant beside the railway lines.

Is that criticism?

What does the hon. member for Greytown know about criticism? He has just arrived here and now he is trying to tell us what we must and must not do. I want to come back to my request to the hon. the Minister. There have been a great many requests from both sides of this House in connection with elderly people who do not have any accommodation, such as elderly people who have been evicted from certain blocks of flats. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether those houses cannot, if possible, and after an investigation into the matter, be given to our old guard so that they can have a dwelling place where they can spend their old age.

I want to conclude by once again conveying my sincere gratitude to the hon. the Minister and the staff as a whole for the budget which was introduced. In addition I want to request the hon. members of the official Opposition this afternoon to realize once and for all that it is also possible to level constructive criticism.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to react to any great extent to what the hon. member for Umhlatuzana had to say. He reacted to what the hon. member for Berea had said in regard to our relation with Zimbabwe. I will leave what I might have said, partly because of what the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has said, and partly because I am confident of what the Minister will say, and rather use the few minutes at my disposal to concentrate on the fact that we are dealing here with the Third Reading, and the final stage of this debate, in which we are being asked to approve, a budget totalling some R7 200 million. We have debated this budget hard and long. As far as the Railway finances are concerned, we have reached the stage where I think we have made great progress in ensuring that the capital base of the S.A. Railways is protected or assured. I listened to what the hon. member for Bellville had to say, and I intend to study his speech in greater depth when I have the time. However, I want to submit that the hon. the Minister should take a closer look at the problem of securing of the capital base of the Railways. I am appealing to-day, for the inclusion in our capital reserves, of the interest earned on those reserves.

In the old days when the State set up certain utility corporations or amenities and had to borrow money in those days before high inflation, a redemption formula was worked out which enabled the authority concerned to recover the capital expanded over the period of the depreciation of the asset so that when that period had expired and, for example, the assets had cost R2 000, R2 000 would be in the fund to repay the person who had lent that money to the authority concerned. The idea at that time was that the generation of the day would be burdened with the capital costs of the utility they were making use of at the time. However, in a modern economy which is growing and prospering it was found that there has to be a certain degree of capital formation. Instead of using a redemption formula, a straight-line depreciation formula was used. For example, if one borrowed R2 000 to purchase an asset and depreciated it at 10% per annum over 10 years and if these depreciation contributions were invested at an interest rate of, say, 10% compounded, after the 10 year period one would not only have recovered the R2 000 one borrowed but one would also have in one’s capital formation fund, compounded interest amounting to something like R1 530 which is nearly 75% of the purchase price of that asset. So one would repay the money one borrowed and one would have R1 500 in cash. If there was no inflation, one would then have to borrow only R500 to buy a new item which would cost R2 000. That is capital formation in an era in which there is no inflation. Of course, in times of no inflation one would probably not earn 10% on one’s money. So the actual amount recovered would be about 50% rather than 75%.

However, what is the position to-day during a period of high inflation. We find that one would only have recovered something like R3 500 in total, that is, the R2 000 in capital, plus R1 500 in interest. If there was an inflation rate of 10% per annum compounded, the cost of replacement of the asset would be approximately R5 100. So, whereas one would have the money to repay the R2 000, one would be falling far short on one’s capital formation programme. It is for this reason that we now have this additional capital fund, namely, the higher replacement cost fund.

I want to submit to the hon. the Minister that, if we borrowed R2 000 to buy an asset for the Railways, depreciated it on the higher replacement cost basis and took the depreciation moneys and invested them at 10% per annum, we would in fact recover the entire replacement cost of R5 100. We would, however, only have to repay the R2 000 we borrowed so that we would have formed about R3 100 of capital. If we do not include interest on these funds, however, we will fall far short in our capital formation programme. This inclusion of interest earned on the funds is essential in any business in order to protect one’s capital assets, i.e. one’s capacity to perform, and also slowly but surely to form capital. Having established that in our funds, I do not believe we need to take any money from revenue for transfer to Revenue Reserves for capital purposes. If one studies the total assets of the Railways, the capital we form in the manner I have described, within the Railways with assets of close to R13 000 million, would be sufficient to keep the gearing right to enable us to proceed with our own capital. If we then have to expand, we can borrow from other sources.

I appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider including interest earned on the depreciation account in those funds so as to stabilize the capital side of the Railways.

I want to conclude with a quotation from the budget speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance last year. In his speech he set out six steps by means of which the country can fight inflation. With a budget of R7 200 million the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs has an extremely important role to play in the fight against inflation. I recommend that he read column 3525 of Hansard of 26 March 1980 which contains those six steps. The hon. the Minister probably knows them as well as I do. I always bear in mind these six steps when we talk about fighting inflation. Let me just quote the sixth step which I believe is very relevant to this debate—

Mr. Chairman, what was the hon. the Minister of Finance actually saying when he said that strict discipline had to be applied? Surely it must mean that tariff increases must be kept to a bare minimum. But how does the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs achieve this? Surely it must be achieved by way of fighting the cost escalations resulting from inflation; in other words by keeping costs down. The question however, is how does one do this in business if one is really serious about fighting inflation? Surely it requires a renewed effort to pull in one belt. The hon. the Minister is a practising farmer, a very successful farmer too. If a farmer hits a bad patch—a drought, for instance—what does he do? He has to pull in his belt, get out into the field and “put the stick in”, as the Zulu would say, in order to get his team working. That is the only way in which more productivity can be brought about, by way of which a greater through-put per unit of capacity can be achieved. However, it is not always the worker who is directly involved who has to work harder. This is the point I want to put to the hon. the Minister in conclusion viz. that it is often the Management’s approach to problems which is of major importance.

As the S.A. Transport Services expand their operations they are, I believe, going to have to become more innovative. They have already started this as we have seen, for example, with the block-loads; i.e. block train-loads which are resulting in many economies. They have also become more innovative in the case of the expansion of the third-class commuter services. Also air freight has expanded greatly in recent years. So, as I have said, they are being more innovative. I tried to convey this message to the hon. the Minister during Second Reading, at which time I also tried to provoke a debate as it were, a debate in order to exhort the S.A. Transport Services to become more competitive and more business-minded in their dealings with the commercial sector.

I do get the feeling at times that the Railways is inclined to be a bit soft in certain aspects of its relations with the commercial sector. Everybody seems to be running to the Railways asking for concessions. I do believe that when our major objective is to fight inflation, and where the objective of Parliament surely is to create a really dynamic, efficient, economic and non-inflationary transportation system in South Africa, it requires of this hon. Minister and of the Railways Administration to use all the tools which management in the private sector normally use for increased productivity and the creation of wealth. I submit this to the hon. the Minister for his consideration.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti it seems is very business-orientated. I am told that in the Select Committee his contributions are very valuable throughout. I shall therefore pay attention to his proposals, especially to those with regard to capital formation and financing. We will go into all the hon. member’s proposals. I am also in favour of having sufficient reserves to draw upon during times of inflation. Additional capital funds are, I believe, also essential for the same purpose.

*The hon. member for Umhlatuzana replied in great detail to the arguments of the hon. member for Berea. However, I want to tell the hon. member that we have taken cognizance of the crowding which occurs at the Escombe and Malvern stations. We shall give attention to this matter. Furthermore, the hon. member referred to the proposed railway line between Berea Road and the Esplanade. If the hon. member is able to give me the undertaking that the Durban City Council and all other interested parties will support this matter, we shall approach it very sympathetically. I know in advance, of course, what the reaction of the Durban City Council will be. However, we shall go into the whole matter thoroughly.

In addition, the hon. member made a request with regard to concessions to national servicemen and students. However, I must say that it is impossible for the Railways to grant concessions to everyone who asks for them. Since I took over this portfolio, we have received requests for concessions from almost every imaginable quarter. For example, requests have been submitted by the retarded, orchestras, “volkspelelaers”, Voortrekkers, Girl Guides, Boy Scouts etc. Everyone is asking for concessions. My reply is that people requiring concessions must approach the Government departments in question. As a business-undertaking the Railways cannot grant concessions, particularly since we are already conveying passengers at 40% of the total cost. However, if there is a need for a national serviceman to travel at a special rate, he may do so at any time, provided Gen. Malan pays the account. [Interjections.] Consequently the hon. member for Umhlatuzana must address his request to the Government department in question. If it can be done in this way, we shall be only too pleased to let people ride. [Interjections.] However, we must also view matters from a business point of view. I nevertheless thank the hon. member for his contribution.

We have now reached the dying moments of this debate and consequently I should like to reply to the arguments and questions put by the hon. member for Berea.

†The hon. member wanted to know whether the Sishen-Saldanha railway line could be used for the transportation of goods other than iron ore. I should point out to the hon. member that that specific line was built as a specialized railway line. One single train travelling along that line may be carrying a mass of 20 000 tons, worth R1 million. A vessel of 200 000 tons may be waiting to load that cargo. If congestion should occur there and there is a delay, I foresee big problems financially, but we shall go into this matter. There are separate systems operating at Sishen compared with Richards Bay. I can tell the hon. member that Richards Bay will also have a separate technical and operating control officer in charge. He has already been appointed. Therefore the position there will be the same as it is at Sishen.

I now wish to say something about the salaries of air hostesses. With the next salary adjustments the gap between Whites and non-Whites will disappear.

The hon. member also says that we criticize the PFP for being un-South African and also that we are not prepared to accept criticism.

*The hon. member is making a grave mistake. It is the task of an Opposition to criticize; that is quite right and I am not allergic to criticism. But my question to him is: What is the attitude of the Opposition? In his last speech the hon. member again hammered on this question of Zimbabwe. The hon. member said: “We must help people to overcome poverty and we must link with the markets of the world.” But what are we doing? The hon. member also said: “We are using the Railways as a political tool to make people accept our unacceptable racial policies.” There is no country in Africa which can prescribe to us how to conduct the domestic affairs of our country. For example, if there is a communist country, must we act here to satisfy that country with our policy? What does the hon. member prefer? Must we go against the wishes of that country which is communistic, or must we say that we determine our policy here with our own interests in mind and are not going to help that country to accept our policy? In other words, he wants us to accept that country’s policy as well.

No.

That is what it amounts to. [Interjections.] The hon. member referred here to Zaïre and Malawi. Why did he not add Botswana and Zambia? I am sorry to have to say this, but why must those countries that held discussions with us on Government level, speak in that vein? Who the devil is Zimbabwe to say that they are not prepared to conduct discussions at Government level like Zambia, Botswana and Malawi? The hon. member for Berea prattled on at length about Zimbabwe, but we did not withdraw a single railway truck. At present 20 of our steam locomotives are there. We had a contract for 25 diesel locomotives as well, but the time expired and we withdrew them for the winter. Now Zimbabwe wants them back. The hon. member said that we criticized him for criticizing us. Accordingly I ask the hon. member: Is it wrong for me to tell Zimbabwe that the other countries are holding discussions with us at Government level, why can they not do so?

What about Mozambique?

I mentioned the other countries. This is precisely my difficulty with the hon. member. Does he know how much of our material is in Maputo today? Does he know how much is in Zambia today? I cannot tell him, as confidential negotiations are in progress at the moment. I do not want to embarrass another country when they are seeking assistance in regard to some matter. It is not a question of wanting to manipulate people deliberately. However, Zambia is shouting in the UN: “Boycott South Africa!” It makes no secret of it. Surely any rational person can think for himself what this means. There was a report on the 8 o’clock news this morning to the effect that there is a vast quantity of fuel for Zimbabwe in Mozambique, but that Zimbabwe cannot transport it. It is in Mozambique.

Machel is angry with Mugabe. He is only speaking to the ANC and the BBC.

I think we have said enough about this matter for we shall never be able to convince that hon. member. The hon. member must bear one thing in mind: “Help people to overcome poverty and link them with markets of the world.” This is what we are doing in every sphere when an African country approaches us. A communist country is getting a spray from us to combat the bluetongue among its sheep. The hon. member spoke about Government level. We must simply think realistically about these things. We are neither a boycott country nor a country which wishes to prejudice any other country. We are in favour of co-operation, but there must be something like fairness.

I want to conclude by thanking all hon. members who participated in this debate. I want to finish off, Sir, for the hon. member for Yeoville has just entered.

Does the hon. the Minister need assistance?

No, I am very grateful for the fact that we have discussed this appropriation bill in the course of three days and one night. I am very grateful to the railwayman of South Africa and to our top management. It is a pleasure for me to work for such an organization. Moreover, it is a pleasure for me to discuss these matters with the hon. members of the Transport group. I am very grateful to everyone involved in these activities for their positive contribution. I want to thank the Opposition as well. I am not allergic to their criticism. I am asking only for understanding of my people and its continued existence and for the continued existence of all groups in this country. Sir, I say that these Railwaymen are plain, simple and modest people, but I feel as they do and that is why I want to continue to be Minister of Transport Affairs in this country for many years.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, in terms of this recommendation a pension of R4 800 per annum is to be paid to Anna S. Pohl with effect from 1 October 1981. I do not believe there is a single hon. member in this House who does not know who this person is. She is Prof. Anna Neethling-Pohl or Prof. Anna as she is generally known. The recommendation of the Select Committee is to the effect that this pension be awarded to her in recognition of her valued contribution to South African theatre and the Afrikaans culture. If I were to elaborate on what Prof. Anna has achieved in South Africa over the past 50 years and more, we would be here a long time. Let me just sum it up in a few words to the best of my ability. I want to say that we are concerned here with a great woman, a cultural pioneer who achieved wonders for theatre in South Africa in the days when there was no Capab, Pact or any control boards of that nature. It was even before the National Theatre Organization, the NTO, was established. I pay tribute to her as a person who performed at virtually every national festival, without being paid for it, of course. This is one of the reasons why the Select Committee took this praiseworthy decision, because people like Prof. Anna, who has devoted virtually her whole life to things for which she has received no payment, but has done everything in the service of a great cultural ideal, should also be recognized by the highest authority in the country, viz. this House. When we accept this amendment—I hope that it will be accepted—we shall be paying tribute to a truly great figure. Let us put aside all political considerations and party-political affiliations and anything of that nature—here is a great national figure and a cultural leader of the first water. I take pleasure in lending this recommendation my strong and wholehearted support.

Mr. Chairman, I, too, should like to make a few remarks on behalf of the hon. members on this side of the House who served on the Select Committee on Pensions and considered certain recommendations and various applications. I think it is important that we place on record that the Committee’s decision, not only in the case of Prof. Anna Neethling-Pohl, but also in respect of all the other cases that were disposed of, was unanimous. I wish to convey my appreciation to the hon. members who have performed an exceptional service in this capacity.

I think it is very important that as far as this recommendation is concerned we should note that this award is being recommended purely on merit, in the sense that her application was considered on merit by the Select Committee in the same way as any other application. By that I wish to say that Prof. Anna Neethling-Pohl is not in possession of sufficient pension benefits to assure her of a decent living, particularly since she is getting older and time is marching on. In the second place, it is important to point out that the Select Committee has great appreciation for the work she has done. She has also been awarded the highest civilian decoration in this country. In the third place, it is important to note that the application was initiated by the office of the hon. the Minister of Health, Welfare and Pensions.

I think it is important to mention this so that the public at large may also take cognizance of the fact that the department does not only look after the welfare of senior citizens in the country, but also greatly appreciates the merits of the contribution of each to, among other things, the development of our national culture. Accordingly we wish Prof. Pohl a very hale and happy old age. There is appreciation not only for her contribution but also for that of her colleagues.

In conclusion, there is one final thought I want to mention: In future it will be necessary to consider the circumstances of artists in the same situation as Prof. Anna Neethling-Pohl, who worked for years virtually for charity, were not members of a proper pension scheme and, on reaching old age, find themselves in the situation that they are unable to look after themselves. I think it has become a matter of great urgency to give consideration to this category of professional people who have performed a tremendous task at the cultural and social level in South Africa. They must take cognizance this evening of the fact that there is unanimous and sincere appreciation on both sides of the House for the work they do and that we shall do everything in our power to try to ensure that they, too, enjoy a happy old age when they become senior citizens by taking the necessary steps and supporting pension funds which can make this possible. I wholeheartedly support the recommendation.

Recommendation agreed to.

Recommendation No. 6:

Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to support this recommendation. If one looks at the other people who have received pensions, one finds that they are all people who have been relatively well-known or who have made considerable contributions in public life. However, I think it is important to bear in mind that when the committee analysed these petitions and made recommendations, it also had compassion for ordinary people. He is important because, I think, in many ways he represents the ordinary people of South Africa. In my view it is important that we show that we have compassion, not only for people who are well-known or famous people, but also for the ordinary pensioner of South Africa.

When considering these recommendations, I think it is also important to note that many people tried to make provision for their retirement but through no fault of their own found that, in fact, the provision they had made were no longer sufficient.

On behalf of this side of the House I should like to thank the chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. member for Pietersburg, who handled matters with fairness and compassion.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank hon. members who have paid tribute to people to whom awards have been made. I do not wish to dwell further on the history of these people, but as the hon. member for Edenvale said, the Select Committee on Pensions is one of the outstanding committees of this House. It is a committee which can, for example, deliberate on petitions submitted either by the public through their MPs, or by a Minister. The Committee then considers such a petition purely from the point of view of mercy, reason and fairness, without political motives. Perhaps it is for that reason that I have never encountered any difference of opinion among members when their committee’s report is submitted. It is clear that this committee performs an outstanding service, and on behalf of my department and the Government I wish to thank the chairman and members for the way in which they handle matters of this nature. Every case is dealt with on merit and is properly investigated.

Both the hon. member for Johannesburg West and the hon. member for Brits paid tribute to Prof. Anna Neethling-Pohl, and I too, should like to add a few words. In my opinion she is one of the admirable people in our society and in the history of our people. When one sees her on the stage in one’s mind’s eye, one cannot help feeling cold and weak at the thought that she must disappear, because she has played a major role in our cultural life. I feel it is only right that the Government should assist her, too, at this juncture. She has already been the recipient of the highest award in the country, the DMS, but I am sure, too, that we on this side wish her everything of the best in the twilight of her days. This is not to say that the other petitioners are not also important. I mention her name merely because other hon. members made mention of it.

Recommendation agreed to.

House Resumed:

Resolutions reported and adopted.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

When the Fund-raising Act was considered by this House in 1978, it elicited a great deal of discussion.

I do not want to rake up the arguments raised then, but I do just want to draw attention to one aspect, viz. that it is clear from debates at that stage that section 29 was intended for cases in which swift action was called for. Those wanting to refresh their memories can read the Hansard of 15 June 1978, from column 9541.

The amendment of Section 29 for which provision is made in the Bill I have now submitted, merely confirms the initial intention of the Act.

It has been necessitated by a Supreme Court order in terms of which a prohibition on the raising of funds by an organization named Fosatu has been lifted.

However, this legislation is not aimed at Fosatu as such, but is aimed at giving expression to the original aim and at closing a loophole in the Act. I shall take another look at the affairs of Fosatu in due course.

I appreciate the court’s decision and abide by it. I also have great respect for our rules of natural justice, such as the audi alteram partem rule, and believe that we must retain this as far as possible.

On the other hand, I should be grossly neglecting my duty if I did not ensure that the necessary legal powers are created to put an immediate stop to the raising of funds in cases where the security of the country or other considerations require it.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Minister reminded us, during the debate on the Fund-raising Bill of 1978 in this House, there was strong opposition to the measure, not only on the part of the official Opposition, but also on the part of the NRP. The hon. the Minister must also be aware—in fact he has just said it—that section 29, the very section he now wishes to amend, was found to be the most offensive and resulted in the strongest opposition. I shall not, however, repeat all the arguments used during that debate. The official Opposition is fully aware of the importance of fund-raising. We are aware of the need for the orderly collection of funds and the need for the meticulous control of funds so raised. How can a public have enough confidence to make them willing to donate their money if this were not so? What was objected to was not the need for control, but the power given to the Minister and the director over these organizations. The main objection to section 29 was that the Minister, in spite of all the other provisions in the Act, was still not satisfied, and wanted even more powers to—

Considering all the other methods available to the Minister and to the director, there appeared to be no justification for such added ministerial powers. It is interesting to read the reply of the then Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions to this argument during the Committee Stage, and I quote (Hansard, 15 June 1978, col. 9542)—

It is very interesting to read this and to compare it to the statement by the hon. the Minister of Health, Welfare and Pensions this afternoon—

The Minister, and nobody else—

That is what the then Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions said, and it is very interesting to compare that with what the hon. the Minister of Health, Welfare and Pensions said this afternoon. According to this Act, once an organization was prohibited, it had a chance to be heard. The applicant had the right to appear before the appeal committee through its management and its legal representative, or to submit statements or arguments in writing in support of the appeal. Therefore the appeal committee would have been entitled to change the director’s decision, to confirm it or set it aside, or substitute its own decision. Something or somebody has changed the hon. the Minister’s mind, for the proposed amendment clearly removes any chance of the organization against which action was taken by the Minister, to be heard or to make representations. The proposed insertion reads—

We on this side of the House must oppose this amendment. We do not believe that the hon. the Minister should have this power.

Do you enjoy saying that?

You are quite right, I enjoy saying that. We believe it is wrong that the hon. the Minister should have such powers, and we also see this as a typical method of the NP Government to silence more and more people and organizations, sometimes only at a Minister’s whim.

Mr. Speaker, there are a few aspects we must spell out very clearly before we can have a meaningful debate here tonight. This must be done for the sake of the new hon. members who have joined us since the legislation was accepted in 1978. We must remember that there was not only new legislation in connection with fund-raising, but that we also had completely new welfare legislation and an entirely new welfare set-up. Apart from that we also looked at the position of medical practitioners, dentists and allied professions. One could almost say that those three Acts of 1978 ushered in a new era which was to the benefit of everyone concerned. This includes fundraisers and persons for whom funds are raised, everyone in the field of welfare, those serving and those being served. It also affects the position of medical practitioners, dentists and allied professions. Since 1978 we have progressed a long way in the implementation of these three Acts, as regards their spirit and legality as well. Considerable progress has also been made in connection with the general welfare of everyone in South Africa. I refer to this in order to place the Act in question, the Fund-raising Act, Act 72 of 1978, in perspective. I remember very well that in the debates on all the stages of that legislation in 1978, the Opposition unfortunately saw it in the same light as they do this fine Act in its entirety.

I want to state quite explicitly what is basically involved as far as the Opposition is concerned. I do not believe that the Fund-raising Act of 1978 in its entirety and what it has achieved in respect of orderly fund-raising and the distribution of funds, and the entire philosophy behind this legislation, are what is most important as far as the official Opposition is concerned. This is the reason for the reprehensible attack by the hon. member for Parktown on the hon. the Minister in which the hon. member played off the former Minister against the present Minister. I want to say that there is absolutely no difference between the approach of the hon. Minister who originally dealt with this Act and that of the hon. Minister who is introducing this amending Bill.

As far as we are concerned, Section 29 is not the primary issue. We are interested in the legislation in its entirety. I think one detracts from everything that fund-raising involves if one is solely obsessed with the single facet that certain instruments, if I may call them that, can be misused, and if one does not look at the Act in its entirety.

It is not only the Government of South Africa which looks very closely at funds entering the country from elsewhere or raised in the country to be used at a specific place with sinister motives. In the USA, for example, there is much stricter legislation in this connection than South Africa has. Allow me to give one example. For example, during the past few weeks one could read in the newspapers that the Reagan administration has, so to speak, been scrutinizing with a magnifying glass funds entering the USA from South Africa for the so-called McGeoff project in connection with the Washington Post. This has been done for a number of years in the USA, but is only crystallizing now. I refer to this to show the Opposition that when money from South Africa is spent in an improper way in the USA, the USA subjects the matter to very close scrutiny.

Now just turn the situation round and evaluate the Government’s actions when money comes to South Africa, not from a small country, but from a major world power, not through the correct channels created for it, but through channels and in ways specifically aimed at thwarting our legislation. I believe that I would be neglecting my duty this evening if I did not point out that the Government is certainly not concerned with one section of the Act only, but with the Act in its entirety, and is concerned that this Act should be to the benefit of everyone in South Africa in every possible respect.

I believe that the hon. the Minister will himself react later on to the false accusations levelled at him. I should very much like to pass a few remarks in connection with fund-raising. Surely this is basically what this legislation is about, and this of necessity brings us to Section 29 of the Act, about which we can debate with one another. After all, we are not afraid to debate the matter. We are not ashamed of what we are doing, nor of the way in which we deal with these matters in South Africa. We are proud of it. The Act at issue here is one of the best fund-raising acts in the entire free Western world.

Have you studied them all and compared them?

Order! I just wish to point out to the hon. member for Brits that the Act itself is not at issue here, but only the amendment relating to the audi alteram partem rule, in section 29 of the principal Act.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your guidance. As far as I am concerned, this is exactly what is involved. However, I just want to state this against the background of the principal Act as such. For example, when we take a look at control, to us the real issue is that in the first place, it is not a whim of the Government to introduce a minor measure merely because it has something against certain organizations and certain methods in accordance with which money enters the country and can be dealt with and distributed. There is a history behind the entire development which led to this proposed amendment.

Control of fund-raising in South Africa has existed since 1947. That control was reaffirmed in 1965, when certain welfare organizations were established and specific welfare numbers were allotted to them. Now they must operate under their welfare numbers in order to comply with the requirements of the legislator. In 1978 the Act, section 29 of which we are amending, came into force. In terms of the Act of 1978 the golden thread of control has remained unbroken up to now. However, what I want to say very specifically this evening is that the legislation of 1978 set right what could not be regulated and controlled in terms of the legislation of 1947 and 1965. The same controlling regulations therefore apply to all welfare bodies and all bodies that raise funds.

What is of importance, and what the hon. members of the Opposition should take note of, is that over the years it has been proved that in spite of control measures the public has not been fully protected against abuse. Basically, this is what it amounts to. If one were to investigate these abuses in detail, one would discover that one of the most serious problems facing a Government, and the public which must be protected by that Government, occurs when the required control measures do not exist. It is very important to note that—bona fide organizations whose revenue is raised by normal methods through normal channels are not involved. What is involved is organizations and bodies exploiting the public for personal gain and the public not being protected against this.

For this reason, in respect of section 29, seen against the background which I sketched at the beginning of my speech and the appointment of the Van Rooyen Commission which published a report and specifically wrote a chapter about the matter we are debating at the moment, the essence of what is involved is in fact that contributions must go to the body for the purpose for which the funds were raised, that the public must have the assurance that their contribution will get to where they intended it to go to and that it will realize the purpose it was intended for. Unfortunately, however, certain bodies abuse this right to circumvent the Act. That is why we are debating section 29 again this evening.

I am in total agreement with everything the hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech. We respect the decision of the judge in the case to which the hon. the Minister referred. He is one of the most highly respected judges in the country. I think the fact that our judiciary, which is sovereign and for which we have absolute respect, can find against the legislation in a certain case, ought in fact to prove to the entire world and also to the whole of the Republic of South Africa that South Africa is not a police state, that we in fact respect the judiciary and that we have no quarrel with the judge who decided this specific case.

I wish to remind the hon. members of the Opposition, particularly the hon. member for Bryanston, that in his speech during the Second Reading, as regards this clause as well, he spelt out in column 6975 of Hansard, 1978, that this legislation has many positive aspects. I think this is an important point. Both he and an hon. spokesman for the NRP voiced their concern about the fact that on the basis of section 29 certain powers are being vested in the Minister, and that they feel a little wary of the power being given to the Minister to decide that a fund-raising effort must be terminated.

There is a great difference and I think the Opposition is overlooking it. It does not mean, in essence, that the organization as such that is doing the fund-raising is being prohibited or eliminated. All that is involved is a specific action which can at some stage be an embarrassment to the State and can eventually create a situation for the public in which their safety will be threatened. Let us call it by its name, because this is what is involved. I do not think there is anyone present in this House tonight, not even the official Opposition, that can dispute the principle that a responsible Government must ensure that the public is protected and not exploited, especially as regards the safety of the public and the State.

If one analyses what the Opposition says, it is very clear that as far as they are concerned two aspects come to the fore in connection with section 29, viz. that this provision of the Act can be used to cut off funds to people who are in so-called need. In other words they are anticipating something and I am waiting to hear what the Opposition will say when they begin to debate this point, because in 1978 they were already anticipating with regard to this section that at some or other time a situation would arise in which the Minister would have to intervene and use his power.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, I should very much like to conclude my speech by passing the following two remarks. In the first place, the principle of the matter being debated is that the public must be protected, in the first place against fraud and exploitation, which can in fact happen if the Fund-raising Act is circumvented, and in the second place against subversion. You will concede, Sir, that it is possible that there will be people or bodies that will try to undermine the State and the public by pushing in funds in certain ways and places and that they will do so if they can. Therefore I want to ask the Opposition whether they support this principle I have just mentioned, namely, that the public must be protected, and in the second place, whether they also support the principle as regards fund-raising as set out in Section 29 of the principal Act—namely that we must guard against subversive bodies that are out to jeopardize the security of the State and the public. If they answer this question unconditionally and in the affirmative, I shall believe in their loyalty to this country and its people; otherwise I shall not. The point is just that the hon. the Minister must have the authority to take action against subversive bodies whenever and wherever they operate. Therefore I want to make it quite clear that we on this side of the House wholeheartedly support Section 29 and the amendment thereto and want to authorize the hon. the Minister to use his discretion in this connection.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset that we agree with the principle involved but not in the way it is being applied here. I do not wish to reply to what was said by the hon. member for Brits except to make two observations. The first is that I gained the distinct impression that he has a conscience.

That is not possible.

That is a problem that he has and how he is going to solve it, I do not know. That is his affair.

It died a long time ago.

However, trying to motivate his case has still, I believe, left him with a problem, a big problem. The second point I should like to make is that both he and the hon. the Minister have made great play of the competence of the judiciary and the high esteem in which they are held. However, section 29 of the principal Act and this amendment before us this evening preclude that same judiciary from assisting in coming to an independent decision. Therefore, we on this side of the House cannot support this amendment. In the original Bill we opposed the very provision that is now before us for amendment. I want to make our position very clear in this regard.

One may ask why Fosatu’s application was not allowed to follow due process. Why was this application not allowed to follow the normal procedure, to be referred to the Director-General or his nominee and then, depending upon whether or not it was refused, to make use of the right of appeal? That is the question I wish to ask. Obviously, because of the court case and the judgment handed down we have this legislation that is before us this evening. I do not think that there can be any doubt about that at all. The problem is, however, that I believe that that judgment can be interpreted in many ways. This is the worrying aspect. We believe that this amendment will make section 29 of the principal Act even harsher than it is. These are hard words to use. I believe that it shows a lack of tolerance. Although I believe that the hon. the Minister must act on information, one must ask whether the information on which the hon. the Minister sometimes acts is always unbiased. This is the problem that I have. If it is not unbiased, then one has the position where the hon. the Minister may in fact inflict an injustice upon someone and, if that is the case, then there is no appeal. There is no recourse whatsoever. Section 29 and its proposed amendment are far too heavy-handed in our opinion. I believe this amendment also shows a lack of confidence in the director or his delegated authority and I also believe it shows a lack of confidence in the appeal committee. Why must a Minister have these powers? I do not know; obviously the hon. the Minister will tell us at some future time.

This brings me to the point of the portfolio of Health, Welfare and Pensions. I believe that this portfolio should be a portfolio that is set aside from real politics. It is a portfolio that should be in the periphery of politics. It should deal only with the organizations that concern themselves with charitable and welfare work. We are, however, now finding that this portfolio of the hon. the Minister is being pulled into the very vortex of the political situation, and I do not believe it is in the interests of Health, Welfare and Pensions. The very fact that there is no right of appeal makes this legislation sinister and I believe it will further damage the attempts of so many people aiming at a more tolerant approach to the problems that we have today. This is not the time for legislation that precludes the right of an aggrieved person to appeal and if necessary for the judiciary to make the final decision. I believe this is a sign of being undemocratic. We on this side of the House definitely cannot support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, in order to conduct a meaningful debate, I think one must take into account the original intention of the present Act. The original intention was to give the hon. the Minister specific authority, when circumstances require it, to act swiftly in the public interest. The hon. member for South Coast said that an unlimited power was being vested in the hon. the Minister and that the Minister was not being called upon to answer to anybody in any respect. It is part of the normal procedure of review that if the Minister acts in conflict with the public interest, he is always accountable to this Parliament.

The statement was also made earlier that this amendment was a product of the National Party and as such was aimed at getting at certain people. Surely this is not true. What is being recommended here by the National Party is not in conflict with the original recommendation of the Van Rooyen Commission. I wish to quote from this commission to refresh the memory of the Opposition (p. 217): “The Commission has gained the firm impression that it is not possible to legislate for every contingency.” This goes without saying. “Man’s resourcefulness always enables him to find a loophole in the law or to think up ways of acting which, though not inconsistent with the letter of the law, are contrary to its spirit.” This is exactly what is now happening in practice, and: “To prevent such malpractices from being continued indefinitely …” it is recommended “… that the Minister be specifically empowered to prohibit … any method of fund-raising, if he is satisfied that this is necessary for the prevention of malpractices …” The spirit of this addition to the Act is the result of a scientific investigation by an independent commission. I do not wish to say anything further about why this addition is necessary as I think the hon. member for Brits made it quite clear. Suffice it to say that the insertion, as it stands before us, is not in conflict with the original recommendation of the commission, and for this reason I support this amendment wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, before I react to the speech by hon. member for Randfontein, I should like to refer to a statement which the hon. the Minister made in the course of his speech earlier this evening. He said that the original aim of the Act was to provide for cases where swift action is called for, and alleged, inter alia, that the amendments contained in the Bill reaffirm that aim. I should like to analyse this aspect and ascertain whether it is really the aim of this Bill, and whether in the past it has been implemented under such circumstances. To be able to do this, I must refer to the case of Fosatu vs the Minister of Health, Welfare and Pensions, to which the hon. the Minister also referred. Fosatu is “The Federation of South African Trade Unions”. This case was decided on 28 August of this year in the Supreme Court at Pietermaritzburg by the Judge President of Natal.

In December 1979, Fosatu applied to the Director of Fund-raising for temporary authorization to raise funds. The application was with the Director from January to May 1980 without his giving a decision. Where is the reason which, according to the hon. the Minister, led to the addition of this clause to the Act? Where is the swift action? Six months after the application had been made there was still no reaction to it. On 6 June 1980, six months after the application had been made, the hon. the Minister issued a prohibition in terms of section 29 preventing Fosatu from raising funds, and published it in the Gazette. Who could take seriously the statement made by the hon. the Minister earlier this evening? The aim of that clause is not to be able to act swiftly, but to give the hon. the Minister absolute power to do what he wants, and I shall refer to this again later. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Brits floundered for 20 minutes and did not refer to section 29 once. He told us about the totality of the Act and said how important it was. This, however, is not what we are discussing here this evening. We are discussing the amendment of section 29. What is involved here is the deletion of the principle of the audi alteram partem rule.

†We are not here interested in the totality of the Act. That was discussed in 1978, and at that stage the hon. the Minister indicated that the basis of the Act was accountability by way of disclosure. I have no problem with that principle, Sir. It is aimed at preventing abuse and malpractice and as such forms the basis of legislation in many other overseas countries. However, we know now that the primary object of the Act was not really the introduction of the principle, but to place into the Minister’s hands the absolute power to decide who he would allow to raise funds and who not. [Interjections.] Section 29 of the Act does not even pretend to hide this. There is no subtlety about that section. During 1979 there was heavy criticism of that section. The hon. member for Bryanston called it a tyranny. At that time the hon. the Minister tried to allay his fears by explaining that the sole test was the law and not the wishes of the Government. That statement of his appeared in Hansard, volume 74, of 12 Junie 1978, column 9071. At that stage the Minister at least pretended to have respect for the law. What, however, do we have now? What, in fact, does the Bill before us now amount to? [Interjections.] It amounts to the most blatant attempt to circumvent our most basic legal principle, and that is the right to hear the other party, the audi alteram partem rule. [Interjections.] This principle has been inherent in our legal system for centuries, but it is now deliberately being chucked out of the window in favour of absolute and crude ministerial power. I say “crude” because this sort of bureaucratic power is normally only given to Ministers in banana republics or in dictatorial regimes where there is, in any event, contempt for legal principles. This is what is happening now. [Interjections.] The Minister can now willy-nilly close down any fund-raising activities without the relevant organization even having the right to make representation. He can even act maliciously if he wants to, and he does not have to give reasons. There is no come-back, no appeal, nothing!

Scandalous!

Let us have a look at the actual judgment in the Fosatu case in order to see what that case is all about. The application was brought by Fosatu for an order declaring the notice which the hon. the Minister had issued null and void on the grounds that the hon. the Minister had disregarded the audi alteram partem rule.

And not for the first time either.

And, I am afraid, not for the last time.

This is what the Judge President had to say in his judgment about the hon. the Minister’s observance of that principle—

That is what the Judge President had to say in his judgment. The hon. the Minister does not, however, want to abide by the audi alteram partem rule.

That is right.

He does not intend to do so either.

He wants to avoid it.

That is why this amendment has been introduced. He wants to be a law unto himself. [Interjections.] If ever I have seen a deliberate circumvention of a Supreme Court judgment, this is it! We have heard from the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Brits, however, about the respect they have for the judge and the courts.

Lip-service.

Yes, it is lip-service. The Bill before us amounts to a vote of no confidence in our courts and makes a mockery of them. [Interjections.] What the hon. the Minister said earlier tonight in his speech was that the Bill is aimed at closing a loophole in the law. He said—

Let me ask the hon. the Minister, therefore, whether he is closing a loophole in the law by removing the audi alteram partem rule? Is that how he sees the law? Is that a loophole as far as he is concerned? In the most primitive of societies the right to be heard is observed. The Induna in Natal sitting under a tree has respect for the audi alteram partem rule.

Surely you are not suggesting that the Zulus are primitive?

So the Zulu is a primitive person.

I think the hon. member for Umhlanga wants to know whether the system applied in Zulu law compares with the international system. The respective rule is a centuries-old tradition that we try to uphold via our Roman Dutch law.

*I should like to ask the hon. the Minister for what reason he imposed a prohibition on Fosatu’s fund-raising activities in June 1980.

The surveys of Fosatu …

We are entitled to know what the hon. the Minister understands by the concept “public interest”. In the second place, does the hon. the Minister intend to take action against Fosatu again as soon as the legislation has been passed? This Bill is not only aimed at trade unions. It threatens many other organizations with which the Government is at odds.

The Council of Churches.

The hon. member for Brits told us this evening that this Bill is aimed at organizations which can be an embarrassment to the State. This is the type of organization which will have difficulties with this legislation if it is passed. For example, a few days ago we heard the hon. member for Mossel Bay say that people wanting to grant legal aid to those charged under the Group Areas Act are misusing the courts. We heard him say that they are obstacles in the courts and in the administration of justice. They are supposed to be embarrassing the Government. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister: Is this the sort of organization he will prohibit from raising funds. After all, they are embarrassing the Government, according to the hon. member for Mossel Bay. What sort of organization does the hon. the Minister want to involve in this Bill at present before this House? [Interjections.]

Order!

What does the hon. the Minister understand the concept “public interest” to mean? If he can give us an indication of what he understands this to mean, we may be a little easier in our minds about this legislation. In 1978 the former Minister of Health said: “The sole test is the law, and not the wishes of the Government.” Now, a mere three years later, we have already reached the stage where the present hon. Minister is basically telling us: “The sole test is the wishes of the Government, and not the law.” This shows how rapidly we are going downhill.

Mr. Speaker, unlike the hon. member for Durban Central I should like to thank the hon. member for Brits and the hon. member for Randfontein for their contributions. I do not think they can help it if the hon. members on the opposite side are so obtuse that they cannot understand what one is talking about. Before I continue with my speech I wish to refer to a remark made by the hon. member for Parktown. He said: “The whole object of the amendment is to silence organizations.”

Precisely.

In saying this, the hon. member implies that this provision will be applied at will, frivolously and with impunity.

It is not implied; it is stated so.

This is, of course, absolute nonsense. I think the hon. member should read the clause. It reads as follows—

It is therefore not an unfettered discretion. [Interjections.] It is a discretion which can be tested in a court of law.

The Minister has already shown a startling lack of judgment.

If he exercises it incorrectly, maliciously, mala fides or without applying his mind to the matter, it can be taken on review. [Interjections.]

If you can prove it.

Sir, no amount of shouting is going to detract from the point I have made, because what I have said is absolutely correct in law. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for South Coast mentioned that this legislation is as a result of the judgment. The judgment certainly has an influence on the amendment. I do not think it needs a prophet to say that. The further point the hon. member made was that there was no recourse to an appeal. I have just mentioned that there is recourse to review. Obviously, the hon. member should reconsider his attitude.

The hon. member also said that this portfolio should be kept out of politics. I could not agree more. It is, however, not our fault that this has been dragged into politics. There are subversive organizations and they have inevitably dragged this portfolio into the political sphere.

Like what?

We are very sorry that that is the case and I agree with the hon. member that it is unfortunate that that is so.

Are you going to cool them off?

The hon. member for Pinelands should shout louder. I cannot hear him from here.

Well, just sit down and I shall tell you what …

He has good reason to be upset. He, more than anybody else, knows…

You are right.

… which organizations could possibly be subversive. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must be given an opportunity to complete his speech.

The hon. member for South Coast in a reasonably good speech—I grant him that—asked whether it is true that the information available to the Minister is always unbiased. The situation is simply that the Minister makes use of the best available evidence, the best available information.

Without hearing the other side.

Nobody can say that this information will be absolutely correct. I would go further and say that even in a court of law not all evidence is unbiased. Therefore even in court one does not always have unbiased evidence to act upon. That is a problem. However, we also have a problem with subversive organizations. The best we can therefore do is to act on the best available evidence.

The hon. member for Durban Central…

… made a brilliant speech.

… mentioned that the audi alteram partem rule has now become a principle, an absolutely inviolate principle. If he were to look at the judgment itself, the Fosatu judgment, he would see that the judge did not put it higher than a maxim to be applied unless the intention of the legislature is otherwise as can be seen from the Act as a whole. I must make it very clear that it is not a principle, but a maxim to be applied in certain circumstances.

How do you distinguish between a maxim and a principle? [Interjections.]

In his judgment the judge referred to it as a maxim. [Interjections.] It is clear that the hon. members on the other side are so biased and so unwilling to see that they cannot see the wood for the trees. Everything to them is suspect and nothing is judged on its merits.

*I should like to come back to my speech and say that we should ask ourselves whether this constitutes a deviation from accepted norms in the administration of justice. I should like to exchange a few thoughts on this matter. Before I come to this, I should like to say that the legislation must be seen against the background of the report of the Van Rooyen Commission. That commission’s great problem was the fact that it is so easy for people to be misled. I should like to quote from Hansard of 15 May 1978, col. 6972—

This is the problem we are facing. When we speak of people being “unscrupulous”, what do we mean by that? We mean that those people have no conscience. This unscrupulousness can immediately be classified into two different categories.

People without maxim.

It may belong to the category of swindling the public. People swindle the public for their own gain. This is the one kind of unscrupulous action.

You are now talking about maximless people.

The hon. member for Bryanston, who keeps yapping all the time—I don’t know whether he thinks that he is a cock—reminds me very much of a broody hen. [Interjections.] In his speech the hon. member conceded that one did not wish the public to be swindled. I believe that he conceded that.

I should now like to come to the second category into which this unscrupulousness can be classified. That is the category of undermining the authority of the State. The State is all of us. The State does not consist of the Government only. The State consists of the whole population of the country. Therefore, when we undermine the State, we arrive at the very thing which was mentioned by the hon. member for Brits. When we undermine the State we undermine the interests of each inhabitant of the country. We must not suggest that the State is on one side and we on the other. That is not true. We are all involved.

I should now like to inquire of hon. members of the Opposition whether they agree that action should be taken against people who undermine the security of the State. [Interjections.] Do they regard the undermining of the security of the State as unscrupulous? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Pinetown is laughing. The hon. member for Pinelands is turning up his nose. I should very much like to have this put on record. This will be used against them at some later stage. [Interjections.]

This is a fund raising Bill; not the Terrorism Act.

Very well. The object here is very clear. It is the object which is important, and that is that we should make it as difficult as possible for an illegal organization to collect funds in this country. If we agree on this point, we can proceed, but even if we do not agree on this, it is still my belief that we should make it as difficult as possible for any illegal organization …

Are trade unions illegal? [Interjections.]

I have not yet specified which organizations should be illegal. I am making a broad general statement when I speak of illegal organizations. Does the hon. member for Bezuidenhout agree with me? If he does not agree, we cannot discuss this with each other.

Who decides whether an organization is illegal?

We shall come to that.

Is it the Minister who has to decide?

Up to now we have managed to make it very difficult, if not impossible, for illegal organizations to receive money from abroad. As a result they are now compelled to obtain money from people in the country. So they approach Uncle Piet and Aunt Sannie and collect money from them. While Uncle Piet and Aunt Sannie’s grandson is fighting on the border the two poor old people unwittingly donate money to a subversive organization. [Interjections.] Surely we cannot allow such a thing to happen.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member for Pretoria West whether it is not possible for the Minister to get a court interdict within a matter of two hours in order to stop any organization that undermines the State from collecting money?

That is a good question. I hope I shall have the time to reply to it.

Come on, reply to it now.

No, that question does not concern the subject I wish to deal with in this speech. [Interjections.] However, I should like to put it to the hon. member for Pinetown that he will not have to wait three years for a judgment from me. [Interjections.] The people of this country agree that the South African Communist Party, the ANC and their front organizations should be prohibited from raising money for their own purposes in South Africa. [Interjections.] An illegal organization and its front organizations must not be allowed to raise money in this country. [Interjections.]

Now the question is: How should we deal with this matter? Consequently we want to look at the section itself. Those hon. members who say that the audi alteram partem rule is being abolished, are quite correct. There is no doubt about that. I do not wish to elaborate much further on the audi alteram partem rule than to consider the judgment of Mr. Justice James in the Fosato case. When we consider the judgment of Mr. Justice James, the Judge President, I should like to quote the background to his judgment. He says—

That stands. That section 2 is not under discussion today. It is very clear. The judge goes on to say—

This is not a principle as there are exceptions—

†That is the first point; “by necessary implication or expressly” means if we so say that it should be excluded. That is quite possible. It is nothing new. It has been done before. In that particular case, of course, the judge said that the rule need not be applied.

The Government does it all the time.

There is a second leg too.

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

First let me deal with the second leg. There is the second leg and that is that there are exceptional circumstances which would justify the court’s not giving effect to it. The hon. member may now put his question.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member, if he is correct in saying that the law may be so changed by Parliament that the audi alteram partem rule does not apply, would he then also say that the decision taken by the United Nations General Assembly that the audi alteram partem rule should not apply to South Africa is a legal decision that we should respect? [Interjections.]

In the first place, the United Nations General Assembly is not a court of law.

*Nor is it a Parliament. It is a political body which is so prejudiced against this country that it cannot think. I think the hon. member should think of a better example if he wants to draw comparisons. [Interjections.]

Order! I appeal to hon. members to give the hon. member an opportunity to complete his speech.

The judge considers it to be normal that, where there are exceptional circumstances, the court need not give effect to the maxim audi alteram partem. That is the law. The judge says so. Furthermore he says, and this is the point the hon. member for Durban Central made—

Not in this case. But if it had existed then obviously the maxim would not have applied. What then is the true meaning of the maxim audi alteram partem? Does it mean that a person is entitled to put his case personally before a judge?

You do not know your audi from your elbow!

Does it mean that the judge has to listen or that the Minister has to grant the application? That is not what it means. There is a misconception about the sanctity of this maxim. But what does the judge say? He says that the Minister may ignore or disregard the decision of the Director or he may disregard or ignore that of the Appeal Committee. He can absolutely ignore them. All he need do is to have some written evidence or depositions before him.

Read what it says after that.

Of course, that hon. member does not understand what he read. [Interjections.] At that stage the judgment states that he is entitled to ignore or disregard the decisions because at that stage he is applying an independent test for himself, according to his own conscience. He is applying a test.

Read that paragraph.

He has then to decide whether or not the collection of contributions by or on behalf of any organization is or is not in the public interest. It is there for the hon. member to read.

You missed out a sentence.

I did not miss out a relevant sentence. I know what I have read.

You do not understand it.

The problem is, Sir, that that hon. member does not understand what he reads. How does the problem arise in practice? How does the problem as regards fund raising by subversive organizations arise in practice? The hon. the Minister acts on information that is filtered through several agencies. Then, having recourse to the information before him, he decides that it is in the public interest at that stage to prohibit an organization from collecting money. I have agreed with the hon. member that it is possible that the hon. the Minister’s information may not be 100% correct. I have already discussed that point.

What now is the position of the law as it stands today? The hon. the Minister has to do one of two things today. First of all, he has to prove exceptional circumstances if he does not wish to apply the maxim audi alteram partem. He has to prove exceptional circumstances. More or less the same position applies when an interdict is applied for. I say this in answer to the hon. member’s question.

He does not have to prove anything.

If the hon. the Minister wishes to do away with this necessity, he has to prove exceptional circumstances.

But the onus is not on the Minister.

This means that he has to disclose sources of information. That is the problem that we have when we are dealing with subversive organizations. When he opposes an application or applies for an interdict, in this case as the respondent …

You don’t know your onus from your elbow either!

That hon. member may be something of a theologian, Sir, but he certainly is not a lawyer.

But I know what justice is.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I think that hon. member has a warped sense of justice.

Coming from you, that’s rich!

As the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information said, the hon. member for Bryanston is the only hon. member in this House who does what he is.

You have no sense of justice either.

I would say that the problem here is that as soon as the hon. the Minister discloses his sources of information the whole apparatus of intelligence becomes jeopardized. We have now to decide whether it is worthwhile jeopardizing our whole system of gathering information simply by going before the court and saying: Please do not apply the old maxim audi alteram partem. That is one way of going about it. There is no problem. We can go about it that way. The whole problem is that one then discloses one’s sources of information.

The second way of going about this is the roundabout way which is to allow the applications to come before the director, to allow them then to go before the appeal committee and eventually to decide on evidence provided by State agencies. It is a very long way and in that long period of time, in this particular case a year, a subversive organization—I am not saying Fosatu is a subversive organization—can plan how to use money which has been collected. That is only in the interests of that subversive organization and not in the interests of this country. I would say that one’s approach to this problem depends on the perception one has of the onslaught against South Africa. If you say there is no onslaught against South Africa, if that is your perception, then there is nothing we can do about it. Our perceptions differ. We say there is an onslaught against South Africa which necessitates us taking steps. I want to read again what I read the other day, namely what Lord Denning said—

I am certain that all right-thinking South Africans will agree with this Government that it is in the interests of State security and in the interests of everybody to have this amendment to the law passed. I wholeheartedly support the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I have something of a problem with this Bill in that, being a human being, I am somewhat sympathetic towards the attitude of the hon. the Minister. He has been annoyed and frustrated as a consequence of action taken against him. Any human being is always a little frustrated when this sort of thing happens. However, I think one must bear in mind quite a number of circumstances. Let me explain what I mean by frustration. There are organizations that collect money, whether it be Fosatu, unregistered trade unions or the various unorthodox religious organizations about which I have from time to time said I wished someone would stop them from collecting. Therefore I can appreciate the Minister’s frustration.

However, having said that, I think one has to be a little cautious. Many of these organizations that do collect money have no incumbency upon them to expound how they use that money. I know that under certain circumstances you have to get permission and you have to get a welfare organization number and various things like that, but there are cases where you do have people who appear to think they have the right to collect. I know of cases where collections have been taken and where these people impose on a gullible public and collect a lot of money. Some quasi-religious organizations even seem to impress upon people that they collect tithes, and even though those people may not be able to afford it, they contribute and make their children suffer as a consequence. I have come across cases like that in the City of Durban.

Having said all that, I still find myself with a problem. If one is thinking of this sort of legislation, which is contrary to the normal concepts of what we like to think of as Western justice, we have to give consideration to what we are imposing by way of law as against the benefits we are going to get out of it and the debits we are going to get as a consequence of it. This is my problem, because when one looks at a case such as we are talking about—incidentally, it must be borne in mind that we are not merely talking about Fosatu, although that may have been the trigger action; we are talking about a very wide spectrum of collecting of money—one has to give thought to what benefit we will really get out of it and what dangers we will be exposed to as a consequence of the legislation, dangers to our Western concepts of freedom and justice. I have never been noted as a sloppy liberal, as one who believes that you have to give way in every respect to the weak and the stupid, if I may use that expression. However, at the same time I do strongly adhere to the principles of our Western society. In my view a piece of legislation such as this cannot do our country any real good. Let us be quite honest and talk unemotionally about it. It cannot do us any good. To start with, it takes time to collect the money. Are they going to use it for guns or for pamphlets. Spreading anti-Government sentiments? Whatever they do, it is still time-consuming and, I believe, there are other laws one could use.

Why is it time-consuming?

It is time-consuming to collect money. It normally takes a considerable time to collect a large sum of money.

But they do not collect it on the streets.

It is a relatively small sum of money we are talking about, and if the State finds itself in such a position that it can be endangered by the amount of money under discussion, then I am afraid we are in real trouble. However, they can only collect a relatively small amount of money in the time before other legislation can be invoked to stop their nonsense. When it comes to the danger that the country can suffer as a consequence of this legislation, then I am worried. Already people overseas adopt the attitude that we are a somewhat totalitarian country.

We are very close.

You, Sir, and I know that we are not. Some of the hon. gentlemen on my right may believe that we are. But although I do not believe that we are a totalitarian State, this sort of legislation might create the impression that we are. [Interjections.] This sort of legislation will create the impression that we are totalitarian and in this sense it will not benefit us in any way. The damage that it could cause will be plastered over every newspaper in the Western world, saying how stupid we are because we have invoked this sort of—I hate using this word again—Draconian legislation.

The hon. member for Pretoria West made the point that it was not likely to be invoked lightly, in that the hon. the Minister had to decide first whether it was in the public interest. With due respect, the hon. the Minister is, as I indicated earlier, merely a human being, just as we all are. Anybody can be prejudiced. The hon. the Minister, myself and any of the hon. members can have prejudices, and I believe that these prejudices might be revealed by invoking this legislation. I believe therefore that it would be most undesirable to have this legislation on our Statute Book.

Only under circumstances of the utmost emergency could I consider the abrogation of the audi alteram partem rule. I can accept that only in circumstances of danger facing our country, and no real, immediate danger to our country could be removed by this sort of legislation.

Why bring everything else into consideration if it is merely designed to take action against a trade union? I believe that it would be very simple for the Minister of Manpower to introduce legislation precluding trade unions from collecting money from any source other than from their own members, for example. I am merely suggesting that as an alternative to this sort of legislation.

We are not only talking about trade unions …

No, but this is what sparked this off. This is what triggered this particular piece of legislation. The good that it can do as a piece of legislation, however, is so negligible, in comparison with the damage it can do, that I believe that the hon. the Minister would be extremely wise, not only to amend this legislation, but to withdraw it altogether.

Mr. Speaker, what I found very interesting during this debate tonight, is the fact that so few hon. members of the Opposition who opposed the Bill so strongly during the debate in 1978, particularly clause 29, have opened their mouths in this House tonight. It really strikes one as being strange. One simply has to look at the reasons that were raised by the official Opposition in particular.

[Inaudible.]

As far as I am concerned, the hon. member for Parktown could rather hold his tongue and pay attention to the debate. Then he would be much better off. We listened to nonsense in this debate tonight. It was the contribution of the hon. member for Parktown. [Interjections.] We simply have to look at the shortcomings that existed in the National Welfare Act of 1965, which gave rise to an unbiased commission being appointed to investigate and report to Parliament on the subject of legislation in connection with the raising of funds. People like the hon. member for Parktown could do well to take the trouble to read the report of the Van Rooyen Commission, because those people know much more about fund-raising than he does.

It is essential for this legislation to be placed on the Statute Book. Any Government that is worth its salt, must take certain decisions, and that is why I cannot agree with the hon. member for Umbilo. Even if it damages our image outside, if we deem it necessary, in the interests of the security of our people in the Republic of South Africa, we must have the courage of our convictions to carry it through. [Interjections.] Just look at the sums of money involved here. It is not simply rands and cents that are at issue. In a place like the USA R26 milliard is raised annually.

If you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to an interjection that we heard yesterday in this House. When I mentioned a welfare organization in this House, the SAR woman, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred to the “Black Sash”. [Interjections.] Bearing in mind the legislation that is before us tonight, I challenge him to take the opportunity of reporting on the activities of the Black Sash. [Interjections.] After all, that class of person is sitting in this House too. [Interjections.] It is very interesting to look at the arguments which were raised during the debate in 1978. It is very interesting to see how the Opposition acted in connection with the recent squatters episode. [Interjections.] Those hon. members may go ahead and laugh about it. Let us look at what the hon. member for Bryanston said when section 29 was discussed in this House at the time. He referred to—

[Interjections.] These are the people who are raising funds abroad that undermine the State. It is necessary for this legislation to be promulgated. I know that there is a difference of opinion in the House tonight on the question of whether the authorization should be given to the hon. the Minister or not. When the undermining of authority in the Republic of South Africa is at issue, the prevention of revolution and the security of the State, action must be able to be taken as rapidly and efficiently as possible. The hon. the Minister does not owe anyone an apology for introducing this legislation to the House tonight. The hon. the Minister must be enabled by means of legislation to safeguard the interests of the Republic of South Africa at all times, in view of the era in which subversion is the order of the day and where a serious onslaught is being made on the security of the State.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to what the hon. member for Witbank said.

You were wasting your time.

I am afraid I find nothing to reply to as far as his contribution is concerned. As you rightly ruled, Sir, we are not dealing with the general aspects of the Fund-raising Act, but we are dealing with the amendment to section 29, which is before us. All the hon. member for Witbank said, is that it is necessary, but he advanced no reasons whatsoever why it is necessary, and he did not reply to any of the arguments advanced by hon. members on this side of the House.

What we have before us tonight is this vexatious amendment to section 29 of the Fund-raising Act. This section was argued very strenuously. It was one of the most vexatious clauses in the Fund-raising Bill. We spoke about it, and the House divided on it. The hon. the Minister’s predecessor, the present hon. Minister of Mineral Affairs, was obliged to pilot the Bill through Parliament. During the discussion he said, after an interjection by the hon. member for Groote Schuur (Hansard, 15 June 1978, col. 9543)—

That is what we are doing here tonight. We are calling the hon. the Minister to account. This clause gave the hon. the Minister powers which went far beyond the normal principles of justice and of law. We have heard arguments about the World Council of Churches, fund raising, money coming from overseas and the security of the State. That was not really the issue. The real issue was the principle of law that we are enacting in granting these powers to the hon. the Minister. We in the Opposition were opposed to the clause as it read then. Not only were we opposed to the clause as it stood then, but we are opposed to the amendment before us. Even the hon. the Minister was worried and he actually said (col. 9543)—

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member to tell this House how many times this section has been used during the past three years?

That is not the point. The point is that after you lose a case you come back and change the law.

At this stage we are aware of one such case which was published in the Government Gazette and which has led to this amendment being introduced. [Interjections.] On the one and only occasion when this measure was applied, it formed the subject of a court case—I shall refer more specifically to the judgment in a moment—and, the Government being dissatisfied with this, an amendment is now being introduced which is a dictatorial provision of the Draconian measure which exists at the moment. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister is taking unto himself the role of judge …

You were a persecutor in your day.

You mean a prosecutor.

When the hon. member for Turffontein appeared before me he was being prosecuted … [Interjections.]

You were too lenient.

Does the hon. member remember that he was found guilty?

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he is prepared to play the tape recording made at that meeting to this House? [Interjections.]

May I ask that hon. member whether the audi alteram partem rule was applied to him and whether he was allowed to put his case?

I did not help him. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, let me get back on the rails.

Order! I appeal to hon. members to give the hon. member a chance to make his speech.

The Bill of 1978, which has become law, was so bad that we opposed it throughout. We foresaw the dangers. Why is an amendment to it before us now? We are told by the hon. the Minister that there is a loophole in the law. What is that loophole? It is not the kind of loophole a clever lawyer can find in the law to get his client acquitted. No, Sir, this loophole happens to be the application of the fundamental principle of justice anywhere in the Western world, a fundamental rule of law, namely to hear the other side, to give the other side an opportunity.

What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with fund-raising. Sir, it is bad enough trying to raise funds. As regards this Bill, apparently an organization was raising funds for purposes, so we are told, which are not in the interests of this country. This could cover two categories of organizations. It could cover an organization—the definition of “organization” is very wide—which is applying for a temporary permit to raise funds and/or an organization which is already registered. I do not think we have to worry about the category of organizations which are already registered. If the organization is already registered, it has had its application passed by the director and everything has been organized and legalized. In that case it will have been given the right to raise funds and will be a perfectly lawful organization. That should therefore occasion no trouble. Where there appears to be a bit of trouble, as suggested by the hon. the Minister, is when the organization, as in this case, is not a registered organization but one which applies in terms of the provisions of the law to obtain a temporary permit to raise funds. After a delay of six months, as was well set out by the hon. member for Durban Central, the Minister refused that application. As regards the judgment given, let me say that I am amazed at the arguments advanced by a learned colleague of mine, the hon. member for Pretoria West.

Learned?

He advanced arguments which, with great respect, are simply untenable in fact and in law. In this judgment the learned judge deals with the application in terms of the Act. The learned judge says, and I quote—

That is the whole question. It is clear from the judgment. The judge then, having considered argument on both sides, came to the conclusion—

Now, why does the hon. member not tell us this?

No, he did not read that. [Interjections.]

Why does he not tell us?

Is that supposed to be part of the total onslaught? [Interjections.]

If the hon. member does not wish to argue the matter, there is still no reason why he should not let us have the facts. I submit, however, that we should argue the whole matter on a proper legal basis.

Alf, you are only embarrassing them.

It really is disgraceful to be so dishonest. [Interjections.]

All we are left with now is the measure before us. I think we should accept that this is not meant to create a loophole …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Bryanston entitled to tell the hon. member for Pretoria West that it is disgraceful to be so dishonest?

Did the hon. member for Bryanston use those words?

No, Mr. Speaker, I was just remarking in a general way that it was disgraceful to be so dishonest. [Interjections.]

Order! Was the hon. member referring to the hon. member for Pretoria West?

I was not referring to him, Mr. Speaker. However, if he feels guilty, I am prepared to withdraw it. [Interjections.] Of course, it is not my fault if he does feel guilty.

Order!

Very well. If the hon. member feels guilty, I shall withdraw it. [Interjections.]

The hon. member must withdraw those words unconditionally.

Then I withdraw them unconditionally, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Bryanston entitled to make a public fool of himself in this House? [Interjections.]

Why are you asking that? Are you jealous? [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. the Deputy Minister need not be afraid, in any case; I shall never be able to catch up with him. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, if we pass … [Interjections.]

Order! I am now making a final appeal to hon. members to give the hon. member for Hillbrow an opportunity of continuing with his speech. Hon. members of his own party should please give him a chance to speak.

Mr. Speaker, if we pass this amending legislation which we have before us this evening, what will the effect of this be? The effect will be that the hon. the Minister will be able to prevent any organization from raising funds. He will be able to do that summarily, on his own decision, without consulting anyone. He will be able to bar any organization or stop it from collecting money merely by way of a proclamation published in the Government Gazette. That is the effect that this amending legislation will have.

In terms of the principal Act applications for registration as fund-raising organizations can be made to the Director and, should the applicant feel aggrieved if a decision of the Director goes against him, that applicant is entitled to lodge an appeal against the Director’s decision. Already built into the Act is a type of appeal machinery which clause 1 now completely negates. The hon. the Minister then has a tremendous onus placed upon him, and when I talk of the Minister I do not mean that specific hon. Minister sitting over there or the previous Minister. I talk generally of the Minister because laws are on the Statute Book for a long time. We do not know how many Ministers may be in charge of a particular portfolio over a period of time. I am not being personal; I am talking about the discretion given to a Minister in terms of an Act.

With regard to the question of appeal the Director is obliged to give his reasons for the refusal. In this connection I want to ask the hon. the Minister two questions. Firstly, will he give his reasons for refusing an application of this nature, and secondly, will he give a person any opportunity whatsoever to appeal or to come back to him in any way? Those are two fundamental questions. If the hon. the Minister does not give reasons, and he is not obliged to do so, how soon will the organization know what they are doing wrong?

They will know soon enough.

How will they know that they are transgressing the law? I also want to ask the hon. member for Pretoria West: When one goes to court by way of review, on what does one base one’s review? The hon. the Minister does not have to give any reasons. He does not have to motivate his actions. Must one base one’s review on the discretion of the Minister because one cannot give the court any proof as to whether he exercised that discretion mala fides or not? Must that be the only basis for a review in court? The only basis for such a review is that the Minister must have acted mala fides. On what information then does the Minister act in exercising the discretion given to him in terms of this legislation? Is it based on a “skinderstorie”? Is it based on somebody’s information who does not like some organization or other? Is it based on a rumour that is one passed from one person to another and then passed on to the Minister? Is it based on an affidavit? Is it information obtained after a thorough investigation has been made by his department as to where the funds are coming from and whether they are going to be put to subversive use or not? How far will that statement or evidence by the Minister be tested? That is the problem with which we are faced. We are legislators, we make the laws for our country and we in South Africa are proud of our rule of law. We are proud of our courts and we are proud of the judgments given by our courts, but what are we doing to them? We are negating the law, we are negating the very basic concept of the rule of law and of justice by taking away a fundamental right that is given to everyone—the fundamental right to be heard. Please hear the other side.

Tell us about the Chairman’s Fund.

I don’t know about the Chairman’s Fund but I should like to know about your fund! [Interjections.] Let me make it perfectly clear that we do not stand back in so far as the security of the State is concerned. Hon. members must not come here today with arguments that this measure has to be of such a nature so that the security of the State will not be affected by the raising of funds. What are we being asked to perpetuate? Is it another section 6 or 22 of the Terrorism Act? Is it merely to incarcerate someone or just to take action that will have a tremendous effect upon people and upon organizations? Is that what the hon. the Minister is asking us to do in terms of this measure? The greatest admission or confession was made by the hon. member for Pretoria West who said that the Minister would act on the best available evidence which might not be absolutely correct. Was that what he said? Those were the words that I wrote down. What an admission this is! The hon. the Minister has to exercise these Draconian powers on evidence which is the best available.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether all evidence given in the courts is correct?

Of course not, Sir. However, there is one fundamental difference and that is that that evidence can be tested. It can be tested by investigation and it can be tested by cross-examination. [Interjections.] That is the difficulty of the hon. the Minister, Sir. He simply has to accept evidence that has not been tested by means of investigation or cross-examination. That’s why I referred just now to the question of a “skinderstorie”. For all we know it could be a “skinderstorie” on which the hon. the Minister is acting and upon which he has to take this very major step of preventing an organization from collecting funds.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pretoria West did not answer the question put to him by the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member for Yeoville put a very pertinent question to him. He asked the hon. member whether he agreed with the fact that the audi alteram partem rule was not applied at the United Nations. Does the hon. member agree with that? You see, Sir, he is silent. He did not like it when this rule was ignored at the United Nations. We know it was wrong. Every hon. member in this House would say that it was wrong to deny South Africa the right to be heard at the United Nations. The very thing that those hon. members have complained about in the media and on television is something that they are perpetuating in this very House of Parliament. They are perpetuating it here and they are asking us to swallow this pill. [Interjections.] No, Sir. When it comes to proving exceptional circumstances I believe that we are being unfair to a Minister if we place this tremendous onus of responsibility on that one individual as is sought to be done in terms of this Bill. It goes completely against the very basic principle of the rule of law and we shall oppose this amendment with all the strength at our command. There is absolutely no way at all that we can accept an amendment of this nature.

Mr. Speaker, the official Opposition has really carried on just as we expected tonight. They did not come up with any new arguments. All they really said here were a few insubstantial things. To tell the truth, everything that they said about this amending Bill tonight, can be found in Hansard when the principal Act was discussed in 1978. They used the same old weak arguments.

The hon. members of the Opposition acted like a group of crying schoolchildren once again tonight. They wanted to try to tell us tonight that they now want to protect the entire Republic of South Africa with all its people. Strangely enough, when the principal Act was discussed, St. George’s cathedral also came up for discussion. I am sure that St. George’s cathedral could cause us greater problems than the hon. the Minister could ever imagine in his wildest dreams regarding the principal Act and this amending Bill that is before us at the moment.

What does the Pope say?

The judge passed judgment on a legal point. When the hon. the Minister referred to the loophole in the Act, then he was not talking about the Act regarding which the administration of justice was at issue; he is talking about this amending Bill that is before us. He is referring to the amendment of section 29 of the Act which we are discussing now and it is that loophole that we now want to close by means of this amendment.

Tonight we are faced with exactly the same problem as the problem that we were faced with 2½ years ago. I should like to read to hon. members what the Minister said on that occasion. It has already been read by an hon. member but I should like to repeat it again. The Minister said the following, inter alia—

Then the hon. member for Groote Schuur said: “We shall see”. I hope he is going to apologize to the hon. the Minister tonight. The hon. the Minister said—

The hon. the Minister can therefore be called to account in the highest authority in the country, but what the Opposition is nevertheless overlooking—and it was mentioned here a moment ago by the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs—is the fact that this clause has been used only once during the past 3½ years. Only once! And this is what they made such a fuss about last time. It is now going to be used every day, they say; for every Boy Scout’s “Bob a job” there will now have to be long lists and authorizations. This is the kind of fuss that the Opposition made last time.

There are approximately 6 500 welfare organizations and welfare bodies that have raised funds over the past 3½ years. This is the first time that one has been prohibited and we do not have to ask what Fosato’s objectives are since we already know what the situation is. Then hon. members of the Opposition come along with ridiculous arguments about Zulu Indunas sitting under trees. We are not dealing here with Zulu Indunas in Natal, but with organizations that go about things in a sly, underhand fashion. This is why clause 29 is there. We are not dealing with people living in their natural state. Nor are we dealing with people who first ask us for a hearing when they are involved in subversive activities. Then they do not talk to us, but they keep under the covers and sometimes we can go looking for them in cathedrals. These people do not tell us when they start raising funds to channel to other subversive causes in an underhand way. [Interjections.] These organizations were mentioned during a previous debate and I do not want to mention them again here now. Suffice it to say that this piece of legislation is of absolute, cardinal importance to prevent people raising funds over a long period. These people are out for one thing only, and it is to undermine the security of this State of ours, not only of the National Party or hon. members on this side of the House, but also of the hon. members on that side of the House. They will be the first ones to complain if an organization uses funds for subversive purposes against them. Then we will hear what they have to say and they will say: “May the people not stand up and be heard first?”

Under no circumstances can we allow an organization to continue to raise funds under the cloak of the Act, and by raising a great deal of dust, funds which are going to be used against the security of this country and against the order here. I simply cannot do anything else; and I must place on record that I grant my wholehearted support to this legislation. I know that if the hon. the Minister has used it once in 3½ years, he is not using or abusing a Draconian law.

Mr. Speaker, I shall refer to the hon. member for Stilfontein’s remarks in a moment, but I want to put things logically first. What is being done with this Bill? When you take away the audi alteram partem rule, certain things happen. Firstly, under this rule, one has to give the other side notice of the charge. Secondly, you further have to give the other side notice of the specific prejudicial allegations made against him. Furthermore, one has to give the other side representation, unless it is specifically denied and, finally, one has to weigh up both sides. That is what the rule of audi alteram partem means. All these things are being denied by this brief but very serious Bill. We are not altering the law of South Africa. The principle of audi alteram partem is not only a South African or an English legal principle. It is pronounced by all courts in the civilized world to be a rule of natural justice. The Appellate Division, the Supreme Court, indeed, every court in our country calls it a rule of natural justice, and so do the courts of America, England, France, West Germany and of the whole civilized world.

It is not a criminal offence that we are dealing with here tonight. We are dealing with a law that deals with fund-raising. [Interjections.] Why is it necessary to take away audi alteram partem in this Bill? The hon. member who has just spoken used the expressions “ondermynende bedrywighede”, “staatsondermyning”, “state security” etc. Where in this Bill is one of those expressions mentioned? Where is the hon. the Minister required to consider “ondermynende bedrywighede” or “ondermyning van die staat”? Where is he required to consider the “veiligheid van die staat”? [Interjections.]

Public interest.

That is exactly the point I want to raise. Hon. members on that side of the House confuse the public interest with “ondermynende bedrywighede”. Even before the hon. the Minister has to apply his mind to it, these hon. members have already confused the public interest with “ondermynende bedrywighede”. [Interjections.] If that is what the hon. the Minister is going to do without hearing the other side, then we are already in a very sorry state in South Africa. [Interjections.]

What is in the public interest? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Pretoria West is interjecting loudly but I should like to ask him what is in the public interest? Does he know of one Act that makes a crime of something that is against the public interest? Perhaps he would like to answer that question.

Terrorism.

Is that what he thinks terrorism is? Let me tell the hon. member what the definition of terrorism is. [Interjections.]

Do you know what it is?

Certainly I do. Fortunately, I do know something about the law.

You do not know it.

The definition of a terrorist is contained in section 2 of the Terrorism Act, which reads—

is a terrorist.

Is that not in the public interest?

That is exactly the point I am making. If one wants to define a crime …

Mr. Speaker, can the hon. member tell me, if an organization starts off with fund-raising and after four or five months we find out that that organization is intent solely on undermining the authority of the State, whether that is not terrorism?

If it in fact endangers the maintenance of law and order, then of course it is terrorism in terms of the Act. However, I cannot stand up in a court of law—we have courts of law and good judges—and say to the judge: “M’Lord, that undermines the State”, because the judge would say to me: “Mr. Pitman, don’t talk nonsense, does it endanger the maintenance of law and order?” [Interjections.] All the judge wants to know in determining terrorism is whether that particular act “endangers the maintenance of law and order”. One cannot just put one’s own definition on something and say “Undermining the authority of the State” is equivalent to “endangering the maintenance of law and order”, because that is not the case. I hope the hon. member understands. [Interjections.]

Let me now come to the point I really want to make tonight. What did the hon. the Minister say when he introduced this Bill? In telling this hon. House what the purpose of the Bill is, he said “dat artikel 29 bedoel is vir gevalle waar vinnige optrede ’n voorvereiste is”. With due respect to the hon. the Minister, I must tell hon. members that that is no reason at all. That actually exposes the complete falsity of this Bill, because the way in which this Bill proposes fast action, is one of the slowest ways one could possibly act in South Africa. I say that because of what the hon. the Minister would have to do in terms of the Bill. He would have to put a notice in the Government Gazette. One cannot, however, put something into the Government Gazette in five minutes or two hours or even three hours. Even if one could get in it within 24 hours, the law is still such that the Government Gazette has to reach Natal, for example, before it has any efficacy there. The fact of the matter is, however, that one cannot get a notice into the Government Gazette within three, four or five hours.

Let me now answer the point raised by the hon. member for Stilfontein a short while ago. If one found that an organization or a person is, in fact, doing something that endangers the maintenance of law and order, one could go to the Supreme Court. One could go to a judge in chambers. One could do that in two hours, in fact, in half an hour.

You cannot, you know.

One can do it very quickly indeed. One can then get an urgent interdict. Even if one were to fail in one’s attempt to stop the rapid collecting of money in the space of say two hours, one could nevertheless interdict the money that has been collected.

That is right.

It is very simple indeed. The point is that the law makes ample provision for moving far quicker than this Bill will allow. [Interjections.] So the reason that the hon. the Minister gives for introducing the Bill is—and let me be frank about this—no reason whatsoever. It is complete nonsense.

Your effort up to now is very feeble.

The rule of natural justice, the rule allowing the other side to be heard, is a rule that is observed in all civilized countries in the world. In fact, it is even observed—and even in criminal cases—in the Soviet Union. [Interjections.] I thought that might be a shock to the hon. member for Stilfontein!

You know Soviet law as well.

Na zdo roviya!

Under article 201 of the criminal code of the USSR, what one has to do is to acquaint the affected person with what is called “the materials of the case”.

In Siberia, yes.

That is what the Russian provision is. Then the affected person is entitled, in terms of the Russian code, to look at all the “materials of the case”. He is entitled to a copy of all the “materials of the case”, and then he has an opportunity of answering all the “materials of the case”.

In Siberia, yes.

I do not want to suggest that we follow the Soviet Union but let us not be worse than the Soviet Union. What I do want to suggest, is that we retain the rules of natural justice, especially in cases such as this, where people are not even charged with criminal offences, and especially in cases where we are dealing with a phrase as vague as “the public interest”. Let us follow, abide by and remain with the old rule of natural justice that has stood the test of time for virtually thousands of years. We must remember that our system of law comes to us from Rome of two thousand years ago, via Holland and also mixed with the Common Law of England. We are justly proud of that rule of law. It is not only a rule of law, however, but in fact natural justice. If one does not like the “Engelse konsep” of “the rule of law”, call it “natural justice”. Let us stay with that, however, and not, in a mere Fund-raising Bill, move away from such a concept.

Mr. Speaker …

The Ayatollah speaketh!

I prefer to ignore the hon. member for Bryanston. I think he has already said enough today to show how ignorant he is about this matter. He was the chief spokesman in 1978. The hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs who dealt with the matter at the time will remember him.

I warned him even then.

In 1978 that hon. member thought that this rule had already been abolished, and that there would be no reversion to the courts. The hon. member thought so even then. However, the very first time this was tested in the courts it was found that the hon. member was wrong.

I was right about your intentions.

The hon. member must not talk about what our intentions were. If he did not quite understand me, then I shall explain it to him again. In 1978 the hon. member thought that this rule had already been abolished. Is that correct or is it not correct?

I understand the mentality of the NP very well.

I want to quote what the hon. member said at the time. There is nothing better than a tape recorder or a printed Hansard to refresh one’s memory. The hon. member said (Hansard, 15 May 1978, col. 6980)—

Thus far the hon. member was correct—

Absolutely right.

The hon. friendly member for Johannesburg North must bear in mind that we are not dealing with a court case on television. We are dealing with an important case. [Interjections.] I listened very patiently to the Opposition and I call upon those hon. members to listen to me now. I know that they were very excited last night. The hon. member for Yeoville came up with an example which even a Std. 3 child could understand, viz. that the UN could take certain decisions, whereas we speak about a sovereign Parliament in South Africa that can amend a law. That is not a new idea. There are cleverer people than I who have said that. I am not a lawyer, but when it comes to the security of the State, I know just as much as any other hon. member of this House. I know what the security of the State involves, and I know what subversive activities are, because they are discussed every week in the Cabinet.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Bryanston must be quiet now. The Opposition did not even use him in this debate, because last time he made such a faux pas that this time they preferred to keep him under wraps.

Faux pas is your second name.

The hon. member for Yeoville must not bother me now. Yesterday he was hammered by the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs.

Do not threaten me. I am not afraid of you. You are just a big mouth.

The hon. member for Yeoville will be outside this House soon, skins and all. He has already talked himself out of the House on one occasion. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister must be afforded an opportunity to make his speech.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. the Minister has threatened that I would be outside the House just now. That is a usurpation of your function, Mr. Speaker. He has no right to do that. It is presumptuous and arrogant.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Yeoville entitled to refer to an hon. member of this House as a “big mouth”.

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

There is nothing big about him. [Interjections.]

I shall come to the reasons for the amendment shortly. First, however, I want to refer to a few aspects of the Act which have already been discussed here. In difficult circumstances, and in the midst of a tremendous uproar from the Opposition, the hon. member for Pretoria West quoted the judge’s finding. The judge said that the Minister had the right to take the action which he did in fact take. There was only a difference concerning the audi alteram partem rule.

That is what is at issue.

I did not interrupt the hon. member for Hillbrow when he was speaking. Of course this is what is at issue. He need not try to be cutting. He and the hon. member for Pinetown should just listen. They carried on here like men possessed, and tried to tell the world that we in South Africa are removing the audi alteram partem rule from our legal structure, whereas we are only doing so with regard to subversive organizations that seek to undermine the authority of the State by raising funds within and outside the country. We must speak frankly to one another. The hon. member for Houghton knows what I am talking about. What did the judge say in 1954? This case was quoted by the judge who pronounced the judgment. The hon. member for Pretoria West referred to this, but it bears repetition—

Sir, our Parliament is sovereign, and it cannot sit with its eyes shut while subversive activities are going on in our country.

Look at the judge.

Let the hon. members of this House judge this for themselves. There are sufficient hon. members on this side who want to listen, if that hon. member is not sufficiently interested to listen. Since the legislation came into operation, we have already received 3 600 applications of which 2 500 have already been processed while the other 1 200 are still being considered and investigated by the director. Of the 2 500 that have been approved, I prohibited only one, and I did that for a very good reason.

What is that reason?

We have a good set-up. I need only refer hon. members to the report of the Office of the Prime Minister.

Did you grant the Broederbond’s application?

I refer hon. members to page 11 of that report, where security planning is discussed. Sir, the hon. member for Yeoville is extremely over-sensitive. Every time I refer to him he flies off the handle, but he nevertheless keeps making interjections from where he is sitting.

I asked you a question. [Interjections.]

I did not interrupt him this evening. In any event, I was not speaking to him. But he does not even show the courtesy to remain quiet while I am speaking.

I asked you a question. [Interjections.]

I am not going to reply to the hon. member’s question.

You have got no manners.

I have more manners than the hon. member for Yeoville has.

*His conduct in this House yesterday was a disgrace.

You have got no manners. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it permissible for an hon. member to say of another member: “You have no manners”?

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Sir, on page 11 of the report of the Office of the Prime Minister there is a clear exposition of how that office carries out the security planning of the country. A clear indication is given of how these matters are dealt with. Where there is a possibility that I have to prohibit an organization by publishing the data in the Gazette, I shall only do so when there is sufficient information to prove that that organization is engaged in subversive activities against the State. Since in the two years that I have been Minister I have only prohibited one organization, how can I be accused of sniffing out and prohibiting every Boy Scout organization, as one of the hon. members said?

However, we are living at a time when the people who seek to undermine the State are using this same sickly story of law and order and the rule of law. They do so within a democratic system in order to undermine that very system. What do you think, Sir, why do they want the Act as it is? It is because they can go from one court to another and drag the case out for months, while in the mean time they are raising funds.

For a Minister you are advancing a very poor argument.

There is another aspect too. When State security is involved, I am not prepared to state in public what my sources are.

Why do you need the courts?

Order!

The hon. member knows how the kind of person we are dealing with makes use of the courts, because in a democratic system they are where they can hide behind the kind of arguments advanced this evening by the hon. member for Parktown. I make no secret of the fact that this provision is aimed at organizations which seek to organize subversive activities in South Africa.

Why then do you not say it in the Bill?

I am not going to take them to court. I shall deal with them in this way in order to prevent them raising funds abroad or at home.

You are too afraid to take them to court.

Surely many of the hon. members opposite know what I am talking about when I speak about organizations that obtain funds from abroad or from within the country.

It should be called the “Vasvat” Act and not the Fund-raising Act.

We must see this as a matter with two separate aspects.

†The hon. member for Umbilo has made it very clear that there are two types of things one is dealing with. The one is ordinary fund-raising. There are already 2 500 organizations collecting funds all the time.

*They are authorized by the director to raise funds. There was no appeal against the decision of the director in this case. The only grounds for objection would be if their documents were not in order. These are people who raise funds for welfare work, for example the ACVV or whatever other organization.

On the other hand, however, there are organizations which seek to undermine the security of the State. Do hon. members of the Opposition wish to dispute that? [Interjections.] Does the hon. member for Pinetown dispute that? [Interjections.]

The NP is undermining South Africa with its actions and utterances. [Interjections.]

After all, the hon. member for Pinetown appears in court from time to time on behalf of people who undermine the State. [Interjections.] Surely it is true that the hon. member for Pinetown appears on behalf of such people from time to time. [Interjections.] There are other people, too, who do this. Does that hon. member want this Government to sit tight and do nothing at a time when our country and our people are at stake? Do they want us to allow people to hide behind the audi alteram partem rule? Must the Government simply sit back and allow them to do what they like with us?

Why can you not charge them?

Surely the hon. member knows what I mean when I speak about subversive organizations.

[Inaudible.]

No, she knows as well as any other member in this House. How could she not know? [Interjections.]

Why can you not take them to court?

Why should the hon. member for Houghton be so naïve now? When every other hon. member in this House knows, why should she be the only one who does not know? [Interjections.]

You are a Gauleiter. [Interjections.]

You are too scared to take them to court because you have no evidence at all.

The hon. member for Pinelands should rather not say anything. After all, he is a man whose name appears in other reports, too, for example, one concerning the University Christian Movement. He knows what I am speaking about. [Interjections.]

Why do you not name the organizations you want to have banned?

Charge them. [Interjections.]

Are you perhaps talking about Fosatu?

Those hon. members still have a great deal to answer for. They might as well know that. [Interjections.]

I now wish to deal with a few of the matters raised here by hon. members. Basically, all the arguments advanced by hon. members of the official Opposition concern one matter. The original legislation of 1978 was introduced in this House by my predecessor. It was legislation that stemmed from the recommendations of the Van Rooyen Commission relating to fund-raising. Why do those hon. members not read what the Van Rooyen Commission had to say? They would do well to find the time to read that report. If they do so, they will see that the important aim of this legislation is, in the first place, the regulation of fund-raising. As hon. members on the Government side have already correctly pointed out, the Van Rooyen Commission stated very clearly that action would have to be taken against people who raised funds for subversive activities. Why, then, does the State carry out investigations, and why are commissions of inquiry appointed? Surely this has to be done when it is necessary. I prohibited this specific organization from raising funds, and I did so on the basis of very sound information I received, information which was processed by the source to which I have already referred. I see that the hon. member for Houghton is laughing. She can laugh if she likes. I am sure that she knows more about that organization than I do. [Interjections.] She knows more about that organization than I do.

If you have such damning evidence against them, why do you not take them to court then? [Interjections.]

I now come to the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Durban Central in the course of his speech.

They were very good arguments. [Interjections.]

The hon. member contends—and here of course he is reflecting on my integrity—that it is surely not true for me to say that this measure must be passed now, without delay. I want to refer the hon. member to what my predecessor, the present hon. Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs, had to say about this same provision on 15 June 1978. I quote (Hansard, 1978, col. 9541)—

I shall now furnish hon. members with an example of such a case. If I give them an example, they will understand what I am talking about. If I were to receive information concerning a certain organization being investigated by the director …

He takes six months to complete his investigation.

Now the hon. member is referring disparagingly to the time that the director’s investigation takes. Does he perhaps think the director should carry out such an investigation before breakfast? [Interjections.] The Director has to inspect the forms that have been filled in. He must obtain information from various sources concerning the purpose of the fund-raising in question. He also has to determine from what sources that money derives. If, while the Director is engaged in his investigation, it is brought to my notice that the organization in question may pose a threat to the security of the State, then surely it is only logical that I should publish a notice in the Gazette without delay. I know the hon. member for Pinetown referred sneeringly to the time it takes before something is published in the Gazette. I want to put it to the hon. member that I can have such a notice in the Gazette within an hour. Only hours later, that Gazette can even be in Durban. After all, Natal is not on the other side of the globe. If we do that, then we have acted rapidly. Then one should also be aware that when one has exercised those powers, one is still responsible to this Parliament, as hon. members on this side of the House have pointed out. I am also responsible to the Cabinet. After all, I cannot prohibit an organization simply because I do not like it. A few ridiculous statements to this effect have been made. What Minister would prohibit an organization simply because he did not like it? However, when it is a matter of subversion of the State, then I shall not allow this to take place under my nose without taking action.

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

No, I do not have time for questions now.

You have got lots of time.

He is not capable of answering questions.

That hon. member had sufficient time to speak. Therefore this is what this whole matter is about if we look back at this legislation. All the other matters raised by the Opposition are not relevant. Why are they so sensitive about this specific matter? Why did they fight it so vehemently on the previous occasion as well? For whom are they really interceding this evening? Are they the intercessors for the good, decent, lawful organizations that have never harmed anyone, or are they the intercessors for the people whom we expect to make trouble?

Why did the director refuse the application?

The hon. member knows full well that if the Director refused the application, the appeal had to come into operation and the Director had then to furnish all the reasons … [Interjections.] Yes, that is correct. I make no secret of it. Must the State reveal its sources simply because someone wants to play a stupid game? We are dealing with dangerous people. After all, we are not dealing with decent, reasonable people as far as the security of the State is concerned.

Keep the people informed in terms of the Bill.

That hon. member thinks that because he knows something about the Act he alone can hold the floor. He can go and argue with his other colleagues about the Act, but there are two issues at stake here. The issue is not merely the legislation itself; the security of the State is also at issue. If those hon. members want a lesson on that then I am available at any time if they want to come and see me.

I said earlier on that we had a few courses of action. We could appeal against the judge’s finding, and we could resort to other courses of action as well. However, we have found ourselves in a position where even the lawyers could not agree as to whether the judge’s finding was right or wrong and whether we should appeal or not appeal. How long will it take before one can rectify that situation? In the mean time, months or even years pass, as some cases go, before one can eventually take action against fund-raising organizations again. Do hon. members think they are going to sit still and do nothing? Do hon. members think that they were not aware of this legislation the moment the judge gave his verdict? The courts were full of people who were interested in this finding.

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

No, I am not in the mood for questions now. I have spoken a great deal and one gets tired at this time of the evening.

It is your job to answer questions.

How much money did Fosatu collect?

There is just one question to which I still wish to reply. I think it was the hon. member for South Coast who asked the question. He asked why this fell under my Ministerial jurisdiction and not that of the hon. Minister of Manpower or someone else. We cannot saddle the hon. the Minister of Manpower with all these ordinary funds that are raised by the ACVV and the Boy Scouts, for example. There are more than 3 000 of them that are being controlled by the director at present. Must that hon. Minister now be saddled with those problems simply because there are two or three organizations that create difficulties? One cannot evade one’s responsibilities. I am the Minister of Health, Welfare and Pensions, and fund-raising falls under welfare, and if I have to take action against people who do not raise funds in the interests of the State, then I have to do so. What has this to do with my outside image with regard to the other people who act lawfully and decently? After all, a Minister has a duty to the Cabinet. Someone has to do this. If, for example, one can shift it on to the hon. the Minister of Justice, then he has to be saddled with all these other people who raise funds in the normal way. Surely it is senseless to pass the whole matter of fund-raising to another Minister simply because there is one specific instance that creates problems. Someone has to do it, and I am not afraid to do it. I shall do it again if I must, but then all I ask is sufficiently strong legislation so that I need not go to court every time. After all, one cannot go to court every time one deals with subversives.

†The hon. member for South Coast made a point about bringing politics into fund-raising. It is actually the other way around. Politics are being brought into fund-raising. There are certain activities that should not be associated with fund-raising, and they do need funds for whatever purpose they need it. That is where our problem lies. It does not lie with the ordinary people.

*I have pointed out that the Van Rooyen Commission spelled this out very clearly and I do not believe I need to go into it again.

I thank the hon. members on this side of the House who took part in the debate—the hon. members for Pretoria West, Stilfontein and Witbank—for their contributions. The hon. member for Witbank spoke in very difficult circumstances because he had to make his speech in the midst of a constant uproar from that side of the House. Is that what debate in this House has come to? The hon. members talk about audi alteram partem but they did not even want to hear the hon. member for Witbank; how could they ever apply that rule? The hon. member for Hillbrow does not want to listen to me either, because he keeps on making a noise while I am speaking. If we on this side of the House speak and they do not want to listen to one, it does not matter, but if one wants to implement certain things in the interests of the State, then one may not do so.

†I think I have dealt with the one or two matters raised by the hon. member for Umbilo. However, I feel that he went a little far when he said that the amendment contained in this clause will not do our country any good.

Quite right.

Sir, if we have to seek the approbation of the outside world in regard to everything we do to discover whether it is going to be good for our country domestically we shall be lost before we have started. It does not matter how drastic they are; the fact remains that we have to take certain measures in this country. We have to take measures to ensure that we have law and order in this country and to ensure that people do not misuse funds that they obtain either from outside the country or from within the country in order to do various things that they should not be doing and to create havoc in our country. If they can only do these things when they have money then we have to ensure that our home front is in order and not concern ourselves about what the outside world is going to say. However, the sort of impression that will go out to the outside world is the impression that was created by the hon. member for Hillbrow this evening to the effect that the whole of the audi alteram partem rule in our law is disappearing because this provision is being written into one Act. [Interjections.] *The hon. member for Witbank said something very interesting, and the hon. member for Stilfontein raised it too. They pointed out that legislation was introduced three years ago, but in my opinion the circumstances are at present far worse than they were three years ago. We are faced with circumstances in which we must be on our guard against people who seek to attack us and are now far more sophisticated and clever than they were a few years ago. If they want to get hold of money they will find it; to them it does not matter if they transfer money from one fund to another. I do not believe we have enough eyes to implement even this legislation fully, and that is exactly what they are pinning their hopes on.

If one looks at the discussion this evening one thing becomes very clear. It is that the Opposition always adopts a sanctimonious attitude with regard to matters of this nature. They make out that we can tell them nothing about State security. If we can tell them nothing about it, why do they not support me? Surely they, too, must see that there are strange things in our whole set-up. After all, they must know that there are people who provide money to terrorists, or do they not know that? I cannot accept that they are so naïve as to be unaware of any such thing. Surely they know that there are people who raise funds specifically in order to maintain a process of subversion; why should they dispute that? [Interjections.]

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

No, Sir, I am not prepared to answer questions now.

I want to conclude by saying that I do not apologize for the fact that this amendment is to be inserted in the Act. That is the first point. The second point to which I want to refer is that in his finding, the judge stated that if one wanted to abolish the audi alteram partem rule, it had to be done by placing an Act of Parliament on the Statute Book. That is what I am now doing so that there need be no question about the matter, because at present the lawyers are still unsure as to whether the section as it reads at present results in exclusion or not. The judge feels that there is no exclusion, and after all, we cannot argue with him. He is a respected judge, a person with much experience. After all, that means that we and our lawyers who advised us that there was exclusion, were wrong. That, too, is how the hon. member for Bryanston understood it when the original legislation was before this House. Now we have to change it, because it is not unusual in the sense that one may not do it at all. After all, the judge says that if one wishes to do so, then one must do so. That is what we are doing now, and this side of the House will support me, because it is in the interests of this country that we do so. It will serve to counteract subversion; it will serve to counteract organizations who think that they will catch this Government unawares and undermine it.

Question put, Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to fight with the hon. the Minister again, because I realize that he is past redemption. During the Second Reading and in the Committee Stage I spoke very nicely to him in an effort to persuade him to amend the legislation so as to make it possible for this side of the House to support it. However, the hon. the Minister has not done so, and therefore we just have to persist in our opposition to the legislation.

The principle of this legislation is that the fund which relates to the insurance of foreign investments will be expanded to reinsure investments abroad as well. However, we have a problem with regard to the type of investment for which provision is being made in the legislation. If the reinsurance only concerned investments that related directly to commerce, this side of the House would have been in favour of the reinsurance of investments of that kind. However, the hon. the Minister has made it very clear in his Second Reading speech, and by way of the amendments he introduced in the Committee Stage—and this was also made very clear by other hon. members—that we are also providing here for the reinsurance of investments aimed exclusively at promoting the economy of the country in which the investment is made. We felt that we could not support the reinsurance of that type of investment. It is clear that we are a country that want investments to be made in this country. We should like to see countries overseas investing in our country. Consequently we do not have sufficient funds to encourage more large investments overseas. That is one of the reasons we advanced for our opposition to this legislation. We asked the hon. the Minister time and time again to explain a few things to us. We asked him to tell us in respect of which countries the Government would envisage such reinsurance and also to explain to us what types of investment are envisaged. We wanted to know what was meant by the statement that there are certain countries where there is an investment risk due to the political instability of the countries concerned. In the nature of things we were given no satisfactory replies by the hon. the Minister. I therefore think that the hon. the Minister, even at this late stage, owes this House certain replies and assurances. Accordingly I call upon him to avail himself of the opportunity to reply to our questions.

Unfortunately we cannot support this legislation and will thus oppose the Third Reading of this Bill as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to say that we will indeed be supporting this piece of legislation. I think we made our position quite clear during the Second Reading debate and also during the Committee Stage. After having listened to the hon. member for Bryanston, however, I can only repeat what I said before. I think he is seeing a lot of spooks in this Bill, or alternatively he is representing a feeling that exists in his party, and that is that the PFP will oppose any legislation that might assist or allow those national States that have opted for independence to succeed financially.

You did not listen.

This Bill seeks to reinsure those private investors who would like to invest in the homelands. That is one of the main reasons.

You do not really believe that, do you?

One of the main reasons, I said. [Interjections.] I think the PFP is afraid that some of the homelands might just, as the result of the investments of private entrepreneurs and businessmen, be seen to be succeeding some time in the future. That is one of the reasons why they are opposing this Bill. We, however, shall be supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti has made some extraordinary statements in his short speech. He says that what we are frightened of is that the national States, former parts of South Africa that are now independent States, will be advantaged by this Bill. He says that is our reason for opposing it. I want to ask that hon. member, however, where in this Bill it is stated that reinsurance of investments can only take place in homeland States or in former homelands of South Africa that are now independent? It is not in this Bill at all. The Bill refers to any country anywhere in the world, not just to the homeland States. Therefore, in the first place that hon. member is incorrect, and in the second place, he seems to think that this is a perfectly normal sort of arrangement that can take place in any country in the world. This is, however, extraordinary legislation, and not normal legislation. If this legislation were aimed only at improving the export situation of South Africa, we could have said that it is normal legislation, but it goes far beyond that. The aim of this legislation is not only to promote the exports of this country, but also to promote the economic development of that country, whichever it may be, where the investment is made. I believe that that party is once again assisting the Government in arriving at a situation which is abnormal and not encountered in normal society.

[Inaudible.]

That hon. member is a member of the subspecies homo irrelevansis. The main characteristic of that subspecies was mentioned by my hon. leader the other day, viz. that if their brains should explode, their glasses would not fall off their noses.

I want to deal particularly with the effect of the Bill. The Bill is too wide, because it means that we can reinsure investments. Let us again get clarification as to who is reinsuring those investments. It is not the Government, but the taxpayers of South Africa who have to reinsure these investments. We are asked to reinsure these investments in any country in the world, not just in the homelands. Once again, had it been the homelands, it would have been a different story. This legislation, however, goes far beyond the situation of simply reinsuring investments in the homelands. Secondly, as I have said, this legislation covers any development, not just developments for exports. I submit that the Government has made investments outside the country. Because of political reasons, some of those investments have, in fact, created problems. The hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs knows full well that there are investments made by South Africa to provide energy through Cabora Bassa, and because of political instability in the country concerned, those investments that are made …

What is your definition of an investment?

An investment is any money spent either in a foreign country or in this country which is dependent on a foreign country.

Is a loan an investment?

A Ioan is an investment of a kind. It is in fact an investment in that country until such time as the loan is repaid. What I believe is going to result from this, is that businessmen anywhere in the world will no longer necessarily be required to make the decision: Is the country in which I am investing my money, politically stable? He can simply hand the decision over to the government by payment of a fee to an attorney. A case can then be put before the reinsurance group and he can apply to have his investment covered against political insecurity in the country concerned.

I think this Bill is going far too far. Let me repeat our point of view to make it absolutely clear. It would have been a different matter had it been oriented only towards exports and the promotion of South African exports. We know that it stands in the Bill that it does serve to promote exports, but it goes further than that. That is the problem. It is not just to promote exports, but also for virtually any other purpose which could promote the economic development of the country in which the investment is made, and we do not believe that it is in the interests of the taxpayer of South Africa necessarily to reinsure investments made in another country for that country’s economic development.

Mr. Speaker, it is a long time since I have encountered such an exhibition of point-scoring as was occasioned by this Bill. It is a long time since I have heard so many conflicting opinions expressed by the Opposition as I heard in the debate on this Bill. On the one hand, it is sanctimoniously stated that economic development in the independent States is supported, but then they add that there should not be ideological aspects as well. If there is investment in Zimbabwe, that is wonderful; then it is an economic investment, but when it is nearer home, for example in Transkei, then it is ideological.

Let me tell the Opposition that as I know the business world, if a profit can be made, it does not matter whether it is ideological or not. They invest there. I think the Opposition should define more closely what they mean by economic investment which is supposedly ideological. Let us speak the language of the businessman.

Then we had the further hypocrisy that all of a sudden they are now opposed to the outflow of capital. I cannot understand it. Do hon. members want to tell me that Anglo American are now all of a sudden not going to invest overseas any longer? Let me ask the Opposition whether they are now suddenly opposed to Minorco’s investments overseas? Are they opposed to De Beers taking part in diamond development overseas? I am sorry, Sir, but I certainly cannot go along with the Opposition. I regard what is happening here an absolute display of point-scoring.

Then we come to the whole question of multinational companies. Again there is a sanctimonious pretence that it should all be connected with export. Is there, then, no such thing as multinational companies investing overseas and deriving a profit from doing so? In Business Week of last week—this is therefore not outdated information—one reads that the multinational companies insured their investments for R700 million in 1980. Is this all of a sudden connected with export?

Do they reinsure with the Government?

Of the R700 million, R600 million is insured by the State. This was political risk insurance. With regard to the American situation I wish to quote as follows from Business Week—

Now we may not do this because it would be ideological. Please, can we just be a little business-orientated about this? [Interjections.]

Now the countries for which political reinsurance is available also have to be stipulated at once. Surely there are scientific methods of deciding which countries and which rates of risk will be involved. Let me give an example. If one invests R200 million in Libya, one will pay R7,2 million for political insurance. If one invests in Saudi Arabia, the insurance will cost one R3,6 million. In the case of Spain it will cost R1,6 million. Surely there is a method on the basis of which the Bill will be implemented. Why, then, do hon. members ask what countries will be involved in this? Surely they are businessmen, or do they not have contact with the business world? [Interjections.]

Suddenly the taxpayer is going to have to pay such a lot. Hon. members must tell us where such a loss has been incurred in other countries with regard to these funds. Since 1964, as far as I have been able to ascertain, no State has yet incurred a loss in total as a result of political reinsurance. This measure removes the element of political risk for the businessman if he wants to risk an economic investment. There are examples such as the sugar project we developed in Malawi. Was this also too ideological? Was this not business-orientated? I am sorry, Sir, but I want to say sincerely that to me, this point-scoring about such a matter is absolutely ridiculous. I take pleasure in supporting the Bill.