Just before the House adjourned last night I was discussing the significance of containerization for South Africa and for the S.A. Transport Services, and I wish to devote the few minutes left to me, to other aspects of this matter. In the first place, I wish to refer to the distribution phase of containerization at the stage it was in at the start of the new financial year. Last year prophets of doom opposite prophesized that our system of containerization in South Africa was lapsing into chaos. Nothing came of those predictions, because if we look at the actual results of containerization, it is evident that on 1 January 1982 only 649 containers at the Durban harbour and approximately 73 at City Deep were waiting to be distributed. It is therefore evident that the system of containerization is running smoothly.

If one weighs this achievement up against the development of the containerization system in South Africa, we find that containerization grew by 90 000 containers to 405 000 containers in the course of 1981. To solve the bottlenecks at this stage of development was, I believe, a tremendous achievement on the part of the S.A. Transport Services.

Accordingly I maintain in this regard that in the coming financial year we are entering a new era, the era of further expansion, consolidation and development, a new era which we can certainly enter with the greatest confidence. However, I should be failing in my duty if I were to omit to refer on this occasion to the major achievements of our harbours. A total of 77 million tons of cargo was handled by our harbours during the past financial year. We only grasp the significance of this figure when we realize that 50 years ago our harbours handled a mere 9 000 tons of cargo.

Looking at the actual operating results of our harbours we note that during the 1980-’81 financial year, harbour activities yielded a surplus of approximately R96 million. During the 1981-’82 financial year the surplus was approximately R138 million. For the 1982-’83 financial year a surplus of approximately R330 million is being budgeted for in terms of the new harbour policy. In the light of this one realizes that we must be very grateful for our harbours. In the difficult circumstances in which we find ourselves we can still utilize our surplus funds to subsidize the less profitable components of the S.A. Transport Services. We can therefore say that our harbours contribute substantially towards making our S.A. Transport Services a successful undertaking for South Africa and all its people.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak after the hon. member for Newton Park. He made an exceptionally interesting contribution about containerization and our harbour services. The hon. the Minister will undoubtedly react to the hon. member’s speech at a later stage.

Section 1A of the Railways and Harbours Control and Management (Consolidation) Act, Act No. 70 of 1957, provides that in the administration and control of the S.A. Transport Services, then still known as Railways and Harbours, certain considerations will be taken into account. I quote the section in question as follows—

Analysing these considerations, we find that the administration and control of the S.A. Transport Services must, in the first place, be in terms of business principles. However, it is also true that section 1A(2)(a) provides as follows—

What this means is that the S.A. Transport Services should be administered and controlled in such a way that there will be no profit motive. At the same time, section 1A of the Act in question provides that the economic interests and the total transport needs of the Republic of South Africa be taken into account. Therefore it is clear that the S.A. Transport Services also has a socio-economic function in terms of the legislation in question.

I should like to dwell for a few moments on these considerations that must be taken into account. When it is said that business principles must be taken into account, then in my opinion this implies, inter alia, that if a specific service is not profitable, it will be ascertained why that service is not profitable and that efforts will then be made to make that service profitable. I should like to congratulate the S.A. Transport Services on the success achieved in this regard over the past year. It is evident from the annual report of the Transport Services that the deficit in regard to the railways has dropped, during the past financial year alone, from R27 917 751 during the previous financial year to only R1 379 297 during the last financial year.

Ask Ray Swart whether he heard that. If he did not hear it, tell it to him again.

Mr. Speaker, I maintain that this is an exceptional achievement. Expressed as a percentage, this deficit over the last financial year is less than 0,04% of the total revenue or expenditure of the railways during that financial year. I say without fear of contradiction that this is an outstanding result, particularly if one bears in mind the prohibition of the profit motive to which I have already referred. In fact, I venture to say that there are probably few organizations of the size and scope of the Railways, that render a service equivalent to that of the Railways, that can boast that their deficit comprises a mere 0,4% of their budget.

I also wish to devote attention to the socio-economic function of the S.A. Transport Services. This function is not restricted to the undertaking of profitable services, and it means that services should not be summarily suspended or turned down because they are not profitable; in other words, in this regard the S.A. Transport Services is also entrusted with the duty of rendering a service to the community. Accordingly, these unprofitable services are subsidized by the State. For example, over the past financial year the State contributed R443 million by way of subsidization of the social function of the S.A. Transport Services.

I believe that the economic interests of the Republic of South Africa require, inter alia, that the contribution of the Railways, or a specific service of the Railways, to the infrastructure of the South African economy should be taken into account, and here I am not referring solely to the direct contribution, but also to the indirect contribution. In fact, the indirect contribution to the South African economy of the S.A. Transport Services is often even greater than the direct contribution. In fact, one could barely imagine an economy like the South African economy without effective transport services. Therefore, since we are duly grateful for the strength of the South African economy, we may not overlook the importance of the input of the S.A. Transport Services to that economy.

I believe, too, that this contribution should not be seen solely in the light of its total contribution to the overall economy, but also in the light of its contribution to the infrastructure and economy of a specific region. I believe it is important that its contribution should not be assessed solely from the point of view of the country as a whole, but that careful consideration should also be given to ensuring that the S.A. Transport Services does its duty in respect of the infrastructure of specific regions—and often the regions in question are the economically backward regions.

As far as the other consideration is concerned, viz. that the S.A. Transport Services also has to take into account the total transport needs of the Republic of South Africa, I believe that this includes the transport requirements of all the people of all the parts of South Africa, and not merely the transport requirements of certain people in certain parts of the Republic of South Africa. I believe that the transport needs of all the people of South Africa are equally important whether there are many of them at a specific place or whether there are fewer of them, whether they are near to large centres or near the markets or not, whether they are Whites or non-Whites and whether their contribution to the country’s economy is important or less important. I believe, too, that the transport needs of all those people must be met as far as humanly possible.

Accordingly I conclude that it is not necessarily in the best interests of the Republic of South Africa if services that are not profitable be summarily terminated or turned down. I therefore believe that it is necessary to consider the situation as a whole before concluding that a specific service be suspended or turned down. My appeal, therefore, is that the consideration of business principles should not be overemphasized at the expense of the social function of the S.A. Transport Services. It is true that we are going through a difficult financial period at present and one is aware that discipline must be applied in all spheres, and certainly in the case of the S.A. Transport Services as well. However, it is clear from the report that the Transport Services as a whole were able to end the recent financial year with a surplus of more than R43 million. Therefore it seems that there is a little room for manoeuvre. Accordingly I appeal to the hon. the Minister to give renewed consideration to services which may, due to a lack of profitability, have been suspended in the past or are to be considered for suspension or which have already been turned down, in order to determine whether it is not, after all, financially possible for the S.A. Transport Services to perform its social function in regard to those services as well.

There is one aspect of the social function about which I could wax lyrical, and that is the way in which the S.A. Transport Services fulfils its social function by way of the human material of its officials and their contribution to community life, particularly on the platteland. Great appreciation has been expressed in this debate, and rightly so, for the services of Dr. Loubser, Mr. Hugo and Mr. Loots and Dr. Grové, who succeeds Dr. Loubser. I have great pleasure in associating myself with that. An organization which has officials of the calibre of these men can count itself fortunate. As a rule an organization does not have men of this calibre in its top executive posts if the total staff structure of that organization is not also of exceptional quality, because the officials of an organization must be of an exceptional quality to continue to produce men of this calibre. I venture to say that there are few if any organizations of the scope of the S.A. Transport Services that can boast officials of the calibre of the officials of the Transport Services.

Unfortunately it is true that in the past, railway officials used to be looked down upon. I say that this is an unfortunate fact, but I venture to say that over the years the officials of this organization, through their fine and positive contribution, through their own actions, have transformed this approach into one of the highest appreciation for these officials and for what they mean to a specific community. I can attest to several communities, particularly on the platteland, that could barely have continued to exist had it not been for the exceptional contribution of the members of the staff of this organization to the religious life, the cultural life, the economic life and, let us say it, the political life and the sporting life of those communities. Often it is the officials of this very organization that display the sound insight to exercize their political rights in a way that is ultimately in the interests not only of the Transport Services but also of the whole of South Africa.

They vote National.

The hon. the Minister says they vote National; I thought that that was implicit in what I had said and that it was therefore unnecessary to say so expressly.

But for which Nationalists do they vote?

I shall conclude by conveying my thanks and appreciation to the S.A. Transport Services for the way in which it has performed its social function over the years and is continuing to do so. I believe that South Africa’s transport services are among the many things of which we in South Africa can be justifiably proud.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself at once with the hon. member for Waterberg and say that surely the workers of the S.A. Transport Services are independent. Many of them even voted for me during the last general election. [Interjections.]

Next I come without further ado to the hon. member for Mossel Bay. I want to tell him that of course the S.A. Transport Services have socio-economic functions. This is exactly what I spoke about in the previous budget debate. The Transport Services played a very important part in the upliftment of the White Afrikaner. It is also going to play a very important role in the upliftment of Black South Africans and this role will rapidly continue to increase in importance. We have no problem on that score. Perhaps this is exactly what the hon. member for Amanzimtoti does not realize.

†The S.A. Transport Services need to be as efficient as possible, but a monopoly which seeks to serve the national interests of South Africa and can administer price increases, cannot have the standards of modern competitive industrial business applied to it in every respect. Obviously it has to be efficient. The hon. the Minister has told us how much it costs per kilometre to move units, but to move a kilogram of yarn from Port Elizabeth to Estcourt by rail costs 16,5c and takes three to four weeks, whereas it costs 12c and takes 24 hours by private road transport. Obviously that is a matter which should receive the attention of the hon. the Minister.

A kilogram of what?

It costs 16,5 cents to transport one kilo of yarn.

It is NP policy!

That’s no yarn!

Yes, that is true. In last year’s debate the hon. member for Berea raised the matter of the withdrawal of locomotives lent by the S.A. Transport Services to Zimbabwe. The hon. member for Ermelo has also referred in this debate to the importance of the S.A. Transport Services as a factor for stability in our subcontinent, or in Capricorn Africa as it is sometimes known.

I want to take the opportunity to thank the hon. the Minister for responding to good sense in allowing the long-term interests and the decades old tradition of the transport interests of Capricorn Africa to overrule the views of the wilder elements in the Government who have blinkered and dangerously short-sighted perception of the needs of South and Southern Africa. Indeed, from tomorrow in the Pietermaritzburg South constituency we will hopefully have exposed, at least to some extent, the stupidity and adolescent mentality of the incompetent asses, some of whom, advise us on the national security of our great country. Unfortunately, it would appear that these short-term interests forced the withdrawal of these locomotive last year. In October last year the hon. members for Berea, Sea Point, Green Point and myself visited Zimbabwe and we made a point of meeting the most senior people in the transport industry in that country. We found only goodwill and a desire for continued co-operation with the S.A. Transport Services, but, to be honest, we also found a sense of puzzlement and even pain at the South African breach, in refusing locomotives of what have since the nineteenth century been the excellent relations enjoyed by our and their transport services. We are thankful and relieved that relations have now been normalized, and I am sure that Malawi, Zambia, Zaire and Botswana are also pleased as they were surely affected.

The view of our party is that stability in the countries bordering us is vital to our and the Western long-term interests in Africa. Attempts to destabilize neighbouring States through bringing pressure to bear on the S.A. Transport Services is not going to assist in providing peaceful solutions to South Africa’s problems. We need prosperous, stable countries around us and efficient, interdependent transport services are vital components of their economics. The hon. the Minister and the General Manager of the S.A. Transport Services will have our support in the important contact they have on a day-to-day basis as well as in occasional high level contact with the transport services of neighbouring countries.

I think it is not inappropriate to pay tribute to the retiring General Manager for his assistance in Southern African politics. Many of us have short memories and we forget that the former Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster, and Dr. Kaunda met on the White Train and through the efficient assistance of this General Manager who worked towards the establishment of relations which I believe to be in the best interests of Southern Africa. I think South Africa has benefited greatly from the present General Manager’s service—over a long period for a General Manager—and we also wish the new General Manager all the best even though he does not have the advantage of having been an engineer. However, perhaps finances is of more importance than engineering in the S.A. Transport Services at the present time.

After all, the Minister is a farmer.

Passenger services have received a lot of attention during this debate.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Yeoville allowed to read a newspaper in the House?

I am not reading a newspaper; I am busy with … [Interjections.] I am not doing a crossword puzzle either. The hon. the Minister must get his facts straight.

The financial aspect of the passenger services was dealt with earlier in this debate. In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister mentioned the reduction of services, and we welcome the fact that it is his intention to give the required notice so that private enterprise can provide a bus service to replace the rail service that might fall into disuse. I trust that he will not only give notice, but will also vigorously advertise the fact that a service is being discontinued, so that it can be replaced by the necessary bus service.

There are also other problems in relation to commuter transport, and I do not even have to repeat them in this House, because we all know that the problems are ones of overcrowding, crime on trains, poor platform and station facilities, lack of cafe and kiosk facilities, evasion of fares, etc. In the estimates more facilities are being created for Black commuters who form the vast bulk of passengers. Anybody who has investigated conditions for Black commuters will know how poor these facilities are in many places. Waiting-rooms are inadequate, many passengers have to wait long hours for connecting trains and buses and seating facilities and shelter are, in some cases, totally inadequate. Pietermaritzburg gives one example of overcrowded, inadequate facilities. At Estcourt Station one can see people sleeping on blankets on the platforms, out in the open. The Natal north coast commuter service is dangerously overcrowded at certain peak times. The Mabopane-Pretoria service has been a disgrace for a long time, and although much better now, is still far from satisfactory. We notice with appreciation that Belle Ombré station will soon be operational, and it is interesting to see how a new concept such as balloon lines will hopefully produce a much swifter service.

In the General Manager’s report the addenda list only classes of fares and no longer make mention of racial groups in furnishing passenger statistics. Is it not time for the only distinction on commuter services to be one between classes and between smokers and non-smokers? A trial project in the Peninsula would surely be worthwhile. I believe that this would lead to economies for the railways. I believe that the hon. the Minister should tell us whether a departmental committee exists for the study of commuter problems and, if so, how often it meets. I also think that he should tell us whether commuter associations are represented, what commuter associations they are and what the terms of reference of the committee are. I think he should also indicate whether the committee is multi-racial.

During his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister mentioned improvements to the Richards Bay line. I appreciate the fact that there are lines other than the main Broodsnyersplaas line serving Richards Bay, but even allowing for the Golela line and the Durban line, it is proposed that tonnage be increased to 37 million tons. The hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs has disclosed that the Government is now giving permits for the export of up to 80 million tons of coal, and that is excluding the poorer grades of coal. Let us assume that these extra tonnages are going to be moved through Richards Bay, and as I understand it the coal terminal is going to be expanded to take 48 million tons. Let us also assume that between 5 million and 7 million tons of maize are also going to be exported through Richards Bay, and I gather that the Maize Board is agitating for this plan to be expedited. If we add to this the fact that wattle-chip exports are also being diverted through Richards Bay, my question is: How are these lines going to handle such tonnages? Even allowing for the fact that some of this material could be exported through East London and Durban, it seems to me that the main new Richards Bay line is going to be heavily overloaded in a very short time.

I am quite sure that the planning department of the Minister and the General Manager has had a careful look at that, but it does seem as if there are some contradictions between what is said by the Minister’s colleagues in the Cabinet and what appears to be the capacity of this line. This is clearly a matter of concern to us in Natal. Richards Bay is going to develop very rapidly and has obtained the very best decentralization concessions. Its function as a major port is clearly a very important part of the economy of the province of Natal and KwaZulu from where I come.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have much fault to find with the contribution that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North made this afternoon. I think that the general impression of the Opposition’s contributions towards this debate are less applicable in his case. I think that in general one can say of the Opposition’s contributions that the more one listens to them, the more difficult it is to understand the mentality of the Opposition. We are involved here in a debate on what is probably one of the finest institutions in our entire domestic economy. It is an institution with a fantastic record of excellent achievements. As a good South African citizen, one is actually inclined to go into transports of delight about such an institution. Nevertheless one finds that most of the speakers on the Opposition side reacted fairly bitterly and sourly to what is happening in this debate. I think they are doing themselves an injustice by adopting such an attitude, because in this way they are denying themselves something to which they surely have a claim: As fellow-citizens of the country they, like us, should be proud of the wonderful achievements of the Transport Services. Nevertheless they deny themselves that privilege and they do not want to share in it. As far as the hon. the Minister is concerned, I should say that in any event the Opposition has given few headaches thus far, through the contributions that they have made. I think it will definitely not be difficult for him to deal with them.

I should like to associate myself with previous speakers in my hearty congratulations to Dr. Grové on his promotion. He has been promoted to a position that is probably one of the most important and most demanding positions in the public sector of our country. As other hon. members did, I too want to wish him wisdom and strength in that mighty task. He is taking on an important position. Those of us who have already become acquainted with him, know that he has already proved his mettle. I believe that just like his predecessor he too will put his special stamp on that post in due course, because he has the required talents.

I also want to testify to the great privilege that it was for me to have become more closely acquainted with Dr. Loubser over a period of several years, particularly on the Select Committee level. I grew to know him as a person but I also became acquainted with his outstanding talents and special qualities. One is impressed by the skill and dedication that he displayed in this high position. I think time will tell that one of Dr. Loubser’s most outstanding merits was that while he held the position, he gathered a number of top men around him in the top management of the Administration, particularly fairly young people, but extremely skilled and dynamic people. The team is sometimes referred to as “Kobus’ ‘kindergarten’”. In the future, the country will probably still reap many benefits of the farsighted policy and efforts of Dr. Loubser during his period of service. Now that Dr. Loubser is taking his leave of this position, I can imagine that there will be a great demand for his special talents and that his services will be very much sought after in the private sector. I would not be surprised if companies in the private sector were to stand in line to obtain the benefit of his services and his special advice. I should like to wish Dr. Loubser many rewarding years in the new phase of his life that he is now entering.

I want to associate myself with an announcement that the hon. the Minister made in his budget speech. I am referring to his remark that all services with relatively low numbers of passengers would have to be thoroughly investigated with a view to withdrawing them. The hon. the Minister said that this is indeed being investigated continually, and when numbers do not justify a specific service and it becomes uneconomical, even main-line services, but particularly local passenger services, are withdrawn. One also finds the same phenomenon with regard to the transport of passengers in the road transport services, which of course are simply an extension of the railway service. I shall come back to that in a moment.

This announcement by the hon. the Minister focuses attention on a tremendous problem that the S.A. Transport Services is facing, viz. that passenger services as such are being run at a considerable loss. Until recently the loss amounted to approximately R250 million per annum and according to projections it may be as high as R2 000 million per annum in the year 2000, i.e. if the prevailing trend were allowed to continue. It is this trend that gave rise a few years ago to a decision by the S.A. Transport Services to rationalize passenger services. The aim of the project is two-fold in nature, viz. to offer an economical passenger service in the interests of the country and at the same time one which will comply with the requirements of the travelling public. Therefore, it must comply with the demand and at the same time it must be economical as well. The way which this must be done, is to formulate a plan of operation for the passenger services of the Administration in order to achieve the optimum ratio between the supply of passenger capacity and the demand. Organizational provision has been made for this by establishing a special section of the Administration in May 1980, viz. the passenger services and road transport division under the control of a separate administrative head with the rank of Assistant General Manager. In order to introduce a service of this scope over such a broad spectrum and to maintain it on an on-going basis, a service that must be both efficient and economical, obviously makes very high demands of any organization. It requires very thorough planning, a great deal of skill and business acumen and it requires continual study, in-depth research and reliable projections to maintain such a service at the desired level of efficiency.

In order to understand the scope and complexity of this task, one can think back to announcements made during last year’s budget, inter alia, that the Administration had launched a capital programme of no less than R13 000 million. According to this programme, approximately R3 000 million will have to be spent per annum by the year 1985-’86. It is already approximately R2 250 million in this year’s capital budget.

Another facet that shows the extent of the organization, is the sum of money that is being spent on purchasing aircraft. Recently a single order amounting to no less than R250 million was placed. In any business enterprise of that calibre, it is obvious that existing services and infrastructures will have to be looked at continually with a view to adaptations and changes that are made necessary and desirable due to the fluctuating needs of the time. This then is the explanation and motivation for the introduction of the section for passenger services and road transport and for the programme of rationalizing the passenger services. Obviously it will be a continuous, on-going process. The plan of operation entainls a number of aspects to which I just want to refer very briefly.

In the first place management teams have been drawn up at section level, with the task and responsibility of ensuring that the plans of action that flow from the business plans, be put into operation. In the second place, specifically with regard to suburban services, various plans of action have been put into operation with regard to research. In this respect certain important aspects are receiving attention. For instance, services that are not properly supported, are being evaluated with a view to cancelling them. Research is also being conducted into spreading suburban peak hours over a longer period and country-wide research with a view to the early implementation of adequate capacity and accommodation. Then there is a third aspect, viz that of the more effective functioning of services. A great deal of attention is being given to this, particularly with a view to future efficiency, as well as with a view to the rationalization of all suburban and main line services.

In the fourth place, in order to obtain particulars with regard to the utilization of every trainset, station and stage, surveys of all suburban, local and mixed trains are being conducted country-wide. By processing the statistics scientifically, an investigation can be carried out and it can be established which steps should be taken in this regard.

I should very much liked to have given a few interesting snippets of information with regard to the statistics of our transport services—very impressive facts. But time does not allow me to do so. Furthermore I also want to make a few remarks in connection with the appendage to the railways, i.e. road transport, because we also find the same phenomenon here, viz. that certain services become uneconomical in due course, and then a process of rationalization is called for in order to establish whether such services should continue or whether consideration should be given to terminating certain services.

Road transport services have been offered since 1912 as an extension or supplement to rail transport. Usually these are in the form of dual services, i.e. both passengers and goods are transported. However, it is more specifically in connection with passenger services that I want to make a few remarks. Passengers who make use of road transport, are usually farm labourers who go to town for shopping or medical treatment. We also know that such services are run between railway stations and the homelands and neighbouring states. Although they are largely unprofitable, these services nevertheless make an important contribution towards the development and expansion of our country, and also help to combat the depopulation of the rural areas. The rationalization of road transport services—more specifically with regard to the passenger aspect thereof—is also necessary because in recent times a particular phenomenon has been detected here. This is that where provision is also made for the transport of first-class and third-class passengers, apart from goods services, one finds that sometimes there is an oversupply of passengers in the third-class, whilst there are practically no passengers in the first-class. This is something that occurs in the Eastern Cape in particular. It is true that first-class is reserved for Whites, whilst the third-class can be used by people of colour. In order to illustrate the problem in this regard, a problem that presents the Administration with having to make a few specific decisions in this respect, I want to give some statistics with regard to four routes in the Eastern Cape over the six months from March to August last year. In the case of the first service to which I want to refer, the numbers of passengers with regard to non-Whites, fluctuated between 2 444 and 3 322 per month whilst the first-class, which is reserved for Whites, fluctuated between 1 and 10 per month. In a second service to which I want to refer, the numbers fluctuated between 2 897 and 4 255 per month in the third-class, whilst in first-class it fluctuated between 8 and 34 per month. In a third service the fluctuation in the third-class was between 2 765 and 3 843 per month and in the first-class, between 18 and 37 per month. In the case of a fourth service the fluctuation was between 1 169 and 1 905 per month in third-class whilst there was not a single passenger in first-class. Therefore it is obvious that under these circumstances the Administration is faced with a difficult decision because it must be decided whether it is justified to continue the services. From an economic viewpoint, it is obvious that it is not justified. However, there is another aspect, and this is that the matter has political implications. As one can imagine, some of the passengers, particularly the non-White passengers, are unhappy about the fact that they are overloaded in the third-class whilst the first-class is mostly under-occupied or even completely unoccupied. This could cause friction and could be detrimental to good relations between the races. It could even lead to incidents. That is why it is definitely in the interest of racial harmony that there should be serious deliberation on this situation and that a sensible decision should be made in this regard. It is a matter on which the Administration will have to deliberate. Whether it would be the correct solution to withdraw the first-class service and whether consideration should be given to making it a service for people of colour only, are aspects about which the Administration in its wisdom will have to decide. If it were decided to maintain both the first and the third-class services for non-Whites, this could mean that non-Whites would have a choice of using the more expensive first-class or the cheaper third-class.

There are other fine achievements by the Railways that one would like to mention, achievements of which we can rightfully be proud, but time does not allow me to do so now.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member for Sundays River that in the main I agree with what he has said. He will therefore excuse me if I do not follow up the subject that he dealt with. I want to return to yesterday’s debate and say that I am convinced that it really does not serve any purpose to judge the budget under discussion so one-sidedly, negatively and critically, as the hon. member for Berea and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti did, without giving an alternative that is workable and that will be able to help the S.A. Transport Services out of its funding dilemma. It is no use being blinded by tariff increases with which one does not agree and then in the process throwing out the baby with the bath water. If one follows that course, one does not achieve anything by one’s criticism and the alternatives that one gives.

Sir, it is one thing to criticize the methods that have been given for funding, but it is quite another thing and much more difficult to give alternative methods to help one escape from one’s dilemma with regard to funding. This is the one problem that I experienced with the few hon. members who spoke yesterday—that that alternative was wanting. I feel the poorest alternative that one can offer and which those two hon. members did in fact try to offer, is to move amendments which on the one hand refuse to agree to such a budget; therefore not to allow the budget to come into effect after it has been agreed to or, on the other hand, that the budget should be temporarily stopped; in other words, that certain conditions must be laid down before such a budget can be agreed to. I am fully aware that this amendment is actually nothing more than a type of gesture by means of which the two Opposition parties want to make known their dissatisfaction with the budget and that it cannot remain anything but a gesture. However, this type of gesture is also sent out into the world and the people outside take note of this type of gesture. It also builds up a type of resistance in one’s public outside, which is something that one does not want.

I am no expert in the financial sphere, nor am I an expert in the economic sphere, but I just want to say the following: In judging a budget like this one there are a few realities that one must take into account and it is against this background that one must criticize and state one’s alternatives.

The first reality that I want to state this afternoon is the fact that the S.A. Transport Services, like the Public Service and the Post Office, forms part of the domestic economy and is absolutely indispensable and irreplaceable with regard to the service that it renders to the country, to every inhabitant of the country, to the private sector of the country and even to the countries abroad. This fact is a reality that must be taken into account when one wants to criticize and give alternatives.

Frans, you are making a very good speech.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that I would have still been sitting there if he had not driven me out! [Interjections.] But I do not want to continue with my speech in that vein. I want to try to deliver a speech that will be to the benefit of the hon. the Minister and his department. Therefore I should appreciate it if, in the five minutes that are still at my disposal, the hon. the Minister would give me the opportunity to do so.

The second reality that I want to state is this: That the S.A. Transport Services is an enormously large business enterprise that in its entirety establishes a network of services throughout the Republic of South Africa which is so vast in its extent and variety, that should these services have to be terminated or hampered due to a luck of funds, it would do incalculable damage to this country which could, as I see it, cause the entire economy of the country to collapse. In the third place, the comprehensive and wide variety of service, has made the S.A. Transport Services an employer that plays a very important role in the labour sphere in its provision of employment and training. I do not want to anticipate the Committee Stage now, but I nevertheless want to refer to the example of the training centre for telecommunications apprentices that is going to be completed at Koedoespoort with the sum of money that is being budgeted on this occasion. It is an important training facility that is being created there.

If the budget that is before us is to be turned down or prevented from being executed, it would mean that this large employer would not have the funds—this may sound simplistic—to remunerate its vast workers corps. How can one continue to render a service if one does not have the funds to pay one’s people? If this budget is turned down—I want to say this to the hon. members of the Opposition—they would be telling the world outside that they are refusing to pay the Transport Services’ official that increase that is his due, and also telling the pensioner outside that they refuse to grant him that increased pension that is his due.

I want to say thank you very much to the hon. the Minister this afternoon for granting such a large pension increase to those who retired prior to 1973 in particular. These are people who carried the Administration under very difficult conditions in years when things were not so plentiful, sophisticated and modern. I say thank you very much to him for having done so, but I should like him to treat these people with even greater piety and sympathy in the future, because they are people who are struggling out there.

Mr. Speaker, we thank the hon. member for Koedoespoort for a very constructive contribution towards the debate.

In the past financial year the S.A. Transport Services has made remarkable achievements, financially speaking. It is no mean feat to conclude the 1981-’82 financial year with a net surplus of R43,8 million, R111 million higher than that of the previous financial year. This achievement must be seen against the background of two factors in particular. In the first place there are the moderate recession conditions in the local economy and then there is also a levelling off in the economic activities of our most important trading partners. Viewed against this economic background—I do not want to go into it further—the financial achievements of the S.A. Transport Services are on a very high level.

We are now debating the Second Reading of the Transport Services Appropriation Bill. What it is essentially about, is that the hon. the Minister is seeking authorization from this Parliament to spend R6 500 million, with regard to the revenue account, and R2 200 million with regard to the capital account. What does the hon. the Minister want to do with those funds? This is indeed the question. The hon. the Minister is asking for these funds in order to continue to build on an infrastructure, to continue to build, as the hon. member for Standerton said, on the vital, dynamic arteries of the South African economy, to be able to make provision, by means of capital outlay and business acumen, for commerce, industry and agriculture so that they can fulfil their vital functions in the South African economy. This budget of the S.A. Transport Services cannot be viewed in isolation, but it forms part of the total economic structure of South Africa. The two are mutually beneficial to one another. A healthy South African economy is essential to improve the quality of life of everyone in South Africa. A healthy, vital economy is also necessary to serve as a basis on which orderly government in South Africa can be established. The S.A. Transport Services are indirectly responsible for contributing towards an infrastructure that assists in improving the quality of life of everyone in South Africa and also assists in maintaining an orderly government dispensation.

The second point that I want to make is that the S.A. Transport Services is a strategic industry. Strategically, it is on the same level as the Koeberg Nuclear Power Station, our own armaments industry or a third Sasol. In the South African dispensation the S.A. Transport Services is a strategic industry, whether we judge it from an economic, political or social viewpoint. Against this economic background and in view of the fact that the S.A. Transport Services is a strategic industry, the hon. member for Berea is moving an amendment in which he asks that the House should not pass the Second Reading of the Bill because of the fact that the increases in goods tariffs, harbour tariffs and travelling costs are excessive and highly inflationary. I want to debate this point today. The syndrome that rail tariffs that are being increased are inflationary must be carefully analysed and settled here this afternoon. To single out the increase in tariffs by the S.A. Transport Services as the scapegoat for inflation in South Africa, is a mystical dream. I want to tell the hon. member for Berea that in the purely economic sense of the word, the tariff increases are not inflationary, and I shall explain why I am saying so in a moment.

The hon. member for Berea and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti voted together with us on this side of the House when we dealt with section 7 of the S.A. Transport Services Act. This section provides expressly that the S.A. Transport Services be managed according to business principles. What is meant by that is that the S.A. Transport Services is a large scale business enterprise. It is a business enterprise, just like business enterprises in the private sector that have to be run according to specific principles. Just as any business enterprise in the private sector is subjected to cost pressure factors, the S.A. Transport Services is also the victim of such cost pressure factors. It is not the creator of inflation. It is the victim of inflation. Let us take for instance cost increases over which the Administration has no control. First of all there is a sum of R500 million for salary increases. The fuel price has increased by 1 200% over the past five years, which demands millions of rands from the S.A. Transport Services so that they can remain in production. If electricity tariffs are increased by 1%, it means an additional R150 million per annum that must be found from the revenue account of the S.A. Transport Services. The Browne report provided that the S.A. Transport Services should pay property tax. These are input cost factors over which the S.A. Transport Services has no control whatsoever, and they amount to a sum of nearly R1 000 million. Therefore, the hon. the Minister had one of two choices for defraying these cost increases. The hon. the Minister discussed it with his group. He took us with him. He took us into his confidence and told us that he had one of two choices only. He pointed out the cost increases and also told us what the financial position was. He said that he either had to curtail the service, the operating efficiency, or increase tariffs. The hon. the Minister decided that he had to look to South Africa’s interest on the long term, and long-term decisions are not always popular ones. It was decided to increase tariffs moderately as a result of the cost increase factors. If possible, I now want to take the hon. member for Berea with me …

Where to?

For argument’s sake only, of course. In the purely economic sense of the word, these tariff increases are really not purely inflationary. Why do I say this? I say it because these tariff increases do not even make provision for covering the basic cost of services that are being provided. These tariff increases are aimed at covering certain expenditure. Firstly there are passenger services. After the contribution of the State has been defrayed, there is nevertheless a loss of R343 million. The cost of covering suburban services, after tariffs have been increased, is only 24%. On mainline services, after tariffs had been defrayed, it is 46%. Then we come to forestry, agriculture and fisheries. 94% of the tonnage of goods that are transported, are transported below cost, and this means a loss of R87 million. Then there are mines and quarries. 74% of the tonnage of goods that are transported, are transported below cost at a loss of R92 million.

In the case of the manufacturing industry 41% of the tonnage of goods is transported at a loss, a loss amounting to R70 million. The whole axis on which the budget and the argument turns, is that unlike the private sector there is an unequal economic relationship between growth and turnover in the S.A. Transport Services. The more passengers that are transported, the greater the loss; the higher the tonnage of goods transported, the higher the loss. Therefore, if one understands the finances of the S.A. Transport Services, the whole matter that the PFP, the NRP, organized commerce, Assocom and the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut are overlooking, is that the tariffs of the S.A. Transport Services are not being increased in order to increase the profits, but to decrease the loss. This is the crux of the matter. That is why I say—and I shall debate this with anyone—that in the true economic sense of the word this is not inflationary.

Hear, hear!

What do the farmers say?

One tries to decrease one’s losses only when the price of a newspaper jumps from 20 cents to 50 cents when the price of paper increases. Exactly the same principle applies to the S.A. Transport Services.

They are not going to quote you.

The hon. the Minister is quite correct. It is a cost factor defrayal just as an Anglo-American and other large companies would do. The cost increase is recovered in the service that is rendered. On the other hand it is inflationary when costs increases could have been brought down by increased productivity over and above normal profits. This rule does not apply to the S.A. Transport Services. I think that I have now dealt with the hon. member for Berea.

He was embarrassed.

I now turn to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. He and I are good friends. We had the privilege of speaking to one another for a few years in the Select Committee. I believe that the hon. member for Amanzimtoti has the interests of the S.A. Transport Services at heart. But I know him: When he has nothing to say …

Then that is when he speaks!

No, then he speaks quickly; and when he speaks nonsense, he speaks loudly. Well, he spoke very quickly and very loudly when he delivered his speech.

You do not believe that yourself.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti thought fit to indicate that he does not approve of this budget, inter alia, because an investigation should be carried out into the existing capital structure. This amounts to his arguing that the S.A. Transport Services is over-capitalized. Then he compared the S.A. Transport Services with a capital of thousands of millions of rands to a lorry on a farm in Natal that travels back and forth every day. This is the comparison that is being made. The hon. member quoted certain figures from documents. I do not hold it against him that he read out the figures wrongly. I would probably have read them wrongly too. The hon. member tried—as I shall indicate in a moment—to make this fine capital programme of the S.A. Transport Services a point of attack. The capital of the S.A. Transport Services is used for electrical wiring, rolling stock, and so on. These capital assets cannot be measured according to the norm of a lorry that travels back and forth in Natal.

And the road has already been completed.

The road has already been completed. In certain respects the capital assets of the S.A. Transport Services are required on a seasonal basis only. Suburban services also require a tremendous amount of capital, because between 9 o’clock in the morning and 4 o’clock in the afternoon the capital is unutilized. Indeed, fish cannot be transported in a coal truck. Both of these commodities require a special capital outlay.

Ask him what happens to the lorry driver.

Yes, that is another question.

[Inaudible.]

I do not want to deal with the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. He presented his argument of over-capitalization by the S.A. Transport Services in a mocking fashion. I do not think he could really have meant it.

In the S.A. Transport Services there is a dynamic, unequalled programme for combating inflation in South Africa. [Interjections.] I want to deal with this point once again. On the basis of the capital programme the S.A. Transport Services is involved in an anti-inflationary programme which is unsurpassed in the commercial history of South Africa and unequalled in the private sector, whether by a syndicate or a partnership.

Give us examples of it.

I am going to.

What about the Opposition …

An aspect of the capital package is the important principle of self-financing. Over the past number of years the S.A. Transport Services has been involved in a dynamic programme of self-financing. I am not going to go into the technical details now, and in any event the hon. member would not understand them. However, it amounts to the fact that R150 million has been provided from revenue for the Revenue Reserve Account this year. Provision is also made for depreciation and increased replacement costs. The revenue reserve account is the dynamo, the financial thrust of the S.A. Transport Services and it is being used to obtain capital assets. By utilizing this accumulated sum of R1 300 million in order to obtain assets, the Administration is saving on capital and amortization. I have worked out that if the accumulated sum in these accounts were R1 300 million, the Administration would save R200 million in interest this year. In a rigid economic market the Administration has access to capital and a debt burden ratio that enables them to obtain funds abroad, which in turn affects the risk margin at which they have to borrow money. I repeat that this is a dynamic, unequalled programme of anti-inflation that the S.A. Transport Services is launching.

When the economic history of South Africa is written one day, a chapter will be able to be devoted to the contribution by the S.A. Transport Services towards the economy of the country, towards the creation of an infrastructure, and towards the establishment of order and stability and the increase in the quality of life of everyone in this country.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately time does not allow me to reply in full to the speech made by the hon. member for Bellville. However, I must react at once to one or two of his remarks. One of his major arguments is that self-financing is wonderful because according to him it is not inflationary. However, he omits to say that 25% of the total budget consists of interest on capital obtained from self-financing, loans and in other ways, including depreciation, of course. However, the interest on capital amounts to 25% of the total budget. But the hon. member for Bellville alleges that this is the way to bring down inflation. Then he says that the problem lies in the rising prices. However, the entire energy account of the Administration constitutes only about 10% of the budget. Only 10% of its expenditure is related to energy. This includes oil, electricity, etc.

No, that is not so.

The energy account of the Administration represents about 10% of the budget. [Interjections.] Hon. members have only to look at the figures. [Interjections.] However, it seems to me that the hon. member for Bellville has forgotten the lesson he learnt from the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. In circumstances such as these, there is only one way of saving and of combating inflation. That is greater productivity. Greater productivity is the only method. However, the hon. member for Bellville says this is not so. Because costs are rising— this is the opinion of the hon. member for Bellville—tariffs have to be increased, the public has to pay more, and this is not supposed to be inflationary. It is not supposed to be inflationary when the cost of living is allowed to rise. The hon. member for Bellville had better wait and see how prices are going to rise during the next month or two. Then he can come to this House again to tell us that this budget is not inflationary. [Interjections.] Of course this budget is inflationary.

†One can merely take one simple thing by way of illustration, Mr. Speaker. We have had a major campaign aimed at improving efficiency. Part of it has been very well planned and very well executed. The turnaround time of a truck, however, is still more than 10 days. It has improved infinitesimally, by 0,5% or so, but it is still very much the same as before. This is the type of figure to which one should look for one’s savings. It is to the employment of one’s assets that one should look for one’s savings. One cannot simply shrug one’s shoulders and say that everything costs more and that extra increases should therefore just be shoved onto the shoulders of the consumer.

What was the turnaround time of a truck 10 years ago? It was less than it is now. I challenge the hon. the Minister to look it up. He can go back over the years and check what the turnaround time of a truck was 10 years ago. It is now still more than 10 days. It takes more than 10 days to turn a vehicle round. If one can turn that vehicle round in eight days one can get more revenue out of it. If a truck with a fixed tonnage capacity could be filled more often and the same capital asset can therefore be used to gain more revenue, then one can reduce one’s cost structure. That is the target at which the S.A. Transport Services should aim. Instead we find the approach of the hon. member for Bellville, who says that fuel and electricity cost more, that passenger traffic is running at a loss, and that the amount of traffic should be reduced in order to cut losses. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Amanzimtoti by way of interjection asked the hon. member: Why do you not withdraw all the rail services? You will then have no loss at all. That is the sort of idiotic approach one gets from the hon. member for Bellville and from other Government members.

In the short time at my disposal I want to deal with one or two other matters this afternoon. I want to say right at the start that occasionally the frustrations and the knocking of one’s head against a brick wall all seem worthwhile when one sees something come about for which one has been fighting; where one has knocked one’s head until one’s forehead is as flat as a board and then suddenly one sees a breakthrough, a crack of light. Seldom however, does it happen to one in Opposition that in one budget one sees two rays of light. I therefore want to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister for acting in two specific fields. The first is the concession to national servicemen. I did not have the time to go back into older files, but I went back as far as 1967 and I have a letter here dated 12 October 1967 addressed to me about a rail fare concession scheme to servicemen. It is a letter in reply to my letter of 3 October 1967. As far back as that I was having a running battle with successive Ministers of Transport and of Defence. Now, after all these years, we have got onto the right track, from Schoeman, via Muller, via Heunis to Schoeman again. We have got to the right Schoeman this time because at last he has done what all his predecessors had said was absolutely impossible even in times of high activity, high profit, a growing economy and when we had lots of money. But this hon. Minister, even at a difficult time economically speaking, has shown that it is possible. He has shown up his predecessors, and I thank him for it.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May I point out that I did this because of requests from my side! [Interjections.]

I have certain letters here but I do not have the time to quote them all. I took out only a few which I wrote to this hon. Minister when I started corresponding with him. These letters give all the reasons why it was impossible! It was not until July last year that I got a break-through with the Department of Defence. They were going to talk to the Department of Transport Affairs. However, I do not claim all the credit. I just happen to know that for a decade and a half I have been fighting this battle and therefore I am very glad to see this breakthrough I am not being ungrateful by saying what a tragedy it is that it has taken so long, because it is a fact that the 50% concession that is now being granted is for more than what the total fare was when we started fighting for concessions for servicemen due to the escalation of tariffs. For example, one can take air fares. Air fares have increased by 150% in the last two years. The 30% concession which is to be granted hardly makes a dent in the fare that has to be paid by somebody who has to travel, for example from Upington to Durban or from Windhoek to their home in the Republic of South Africa. I am simply pointing it out as a fact that the impact of this concession has been vastly reduced by the tremendous escalation both in rail and air fares over the years, so much so that the concession to be granted is more than the total fare was when we started asking for this assistance. I am not even mentioning the tens of thousands of men who have done their spell of duty over those years, over that decade and a half, men who served their time without any assistance in getting home. Nevertheless I am grateful for it and thank the hon. the Minister for breaking the deadlock. I do not blame him for the past although I do blame him for what he said earlier last year when he told us it was impossible. However, I thank him for having seen the light. Perhaps he can take this just one little step further. When the American astronauts reached the moon they said that their first step on the moon’s surface was one small step for man but one great step for mankind. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can also take one further small step. Would it not be possible to link the journey from Upington to Durban and not make national servicemen pay for two separate tickets because they cannot get a connecting flight? The schedule was changed to suit the Airways so the men leaving the camp at Upington have to break their journey and pay for two separate tickets. This is a matter that I have also been fighting for for two years and I am sure that the handful of people affected can be assisted if this step is taken.

The other hardy annual, Sir, is the question of pensioners. In this regard I also wish to express appreciation to the hon. the Minister for the welcome relief he has granted them. I think everyone in this House appreciates the desperate straits in which many of the older pensioners find themselves. However, I still wish to take up the cudgels for the pre-1973 pensioners, together with the hon. member for Koedoespoort, my colleague in opposition who has supported the position we have adopted all along. I want to point out to the House that railway salaries have increased by 152% over the past decade. In the 10 years from 1971 to 1980 railway salaries have increased by a 152,1%. Salaries have increased from R3 800 on average to R9 600. I do not believe that the 2% differential scale that has been applied takes proper account of the inequality of the pensions of the people who retired prior to 1973. I am not only referring here to people who occupied just any job. I am also referring to people who occupied senior positions, a person who occupied the post of, for example, Port Captain or senior station master. Such an individual receives far less if he retired on pension in 1971 than the pension received by a person occupying a very much inferior position who retired in 1981. The sliding scale does not take account of that differential between the pensions of those who retired prior to 1973 and those who retired in 1981. I am referring to the 5% difference—from 13% to 18%. I want to ask that this matter be not considered simply on a percentage basis but that the whole question of the ratio of pensions be carefully examined and a cash sum established so as to bring these pensions more realistically into line with each other. As I say, we welcome what has been done especially the fact that the annual 2% increase will now no longer be deducted. There are not all that number of people affected by this provision. Since 1973 many of these pensioners have died. Their numbers are therefore decreasing and I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will give further consideration to this matter.

It is perhaps too much to hope for a hat-trick so I shall not discuss another matter during this debate because I do not like bandying names around. However, I do wish to refer briefly to the people who were previously dismissed from the railway service compared with those who are now dealt with in terms of amended regulations with effect from 1 December last year. These people who were dismissed were refused any sort of annuity. As I say, I do not wish to discuss this now because I could embarrass the hon. the Minister in that he had some information given to him which was incorrect and which he passed on to me. I do not blame him for that. However, I do wish to make the plea that now that this whole situation is being re-examined, he will also include the category of these people who were dismissed without annuity, and redress the wrong that has been done in this regard. I know that some of these people are contemplating taking legal action and I do not believe such action would be in the interests either of the Administration or of the people themselves.

Finally, Sir, there are just one or two odd points I wish to raise. I sometimes wonder whether the Administration really knows what it is—whether it is the S.A. Railways or the S.A. Transport Services. From a series of advertisements that have been published, I have noticed that in one instance “the S.A. Railways has bad news and good news for you”. The next one states: “The S.A. Railways: We really care”. Then the following one refers to the S.A. Transport Services. We also find the General Manager in one instance being referred to as the General Manager and then, in another article which he wrote the other day, being referred to as the Director-General of the S.A. Transport Services.

Now that we have the new name I think we must get it clearly across to the public.

I want to come to a point in connection with the argument of the hon. member for Bellville. This has to do with the unutilized capacity. The Blue Train is fully booked a year in advance, and yet the Drakensberg, the old Blue Train, stands idle, doing about one trip a week unless it is chartered. I can see no reason why our marketing does not use an asset like that to create another attractive tourist trap—if one cares to call it that—with top-class service. If we do this, then we shall absorb some of the demand for the Blue Train.

I refer to another example: I hear that the Ermelo station has had a lot of money spent on it, but that the new parcel section is not in use yet and the passenger section is only partially used. It is this kind of planning which wastes capital. I cannot confirm the situation at Ermelo, but this is what I hear from railwaymen. It is wastage if money is spent but the results not fully utilized. If such assets were fully utilized, it could help to reduce the loss.

Lastly, why has the hon. the Minister gone into the tipper transport business? I gather now that the Administration is buying tippers to compete with private enterprise in the tipper transport business. The last thing one would like to do at a time of economic restraint and when one is short of money is I should say, to go into a brand new business which involves the purchasing of new equipment.

Finally, Durban station has paid the price of tremendous inconvenience for commuters who have to catch a bus to get into town. I hear now that the Cape Town station is going to be closed in 1985 or 1986 to all main line traffic except the Blue Train. Main line passengers will have to commute to Bellville in order to get on to a main line train. [Interjections.] If that is correct, then I believe we should be told of it now. I left this till last in case the hon. member for Bellville would say “hoor, hoor” when I raised the issue.

Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. members of the Opposition could understand the implications of this large organization. [Interjections.] I think their amendments also demonstrate very clearly that they do not understand this large organization in all its facets.

Nevertheless the hon. member for Durban Point referred with great appreciation to the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs, and we are proud of the role he plays. He will also be able to tell the hon. member for Amanzimtoti that the S.A. Transport Services is a bigger industry than the sugar industry. One really cannot compare the sugar industry with such an industry as the S.A. Transport Services. The activities of the S.A. Transport Services are equivalent to 50% of the country’s budget, and annually R9 billion must pass through its books. Such an organization is obviously much bigger than the sugar industry in Natal. Surely the S.A. Transport Services has more employees than the Natal sugar industry. At present 270 000 employees with over a thousand grade designations are working for the S.A. Transport Services. The employees of the S.A. Transport Services represent a total of more than 1,25 million people if one also takes their families into consideration. Surely this is a far greater number of people than can be employed by the sugar industry in Natal. People with as much intelligence as the employees of the S.A. Transport Services will never be able to do justice to themselves in the Natal sugar industry. Last year the S.A. Transport Services’ labour account totalled R2 500 million, an enormous amount. This is the amount that was pocketed by officials of the Transport Services as wages on this account.

The hon. member also had something to say about inflation. He referred to what a previous speaker had said in the debate, but I maintain that one should take a look at the way in which the private sector frequently exploits people. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti referred to parasites sucking the lifeblood of the country, but I say there are other parasites in this country. Last weekend I saw Cape grapes in a greengrocer’s shop in Johannesburg—hon. members must listen to this because it is commodities like this that push up the inflation rate, and not increased tariffs—being sold at R2,80 a kilogram. I then ascertained from hon. members who know about the price of table grapes that producers receive only between 45 cents and 50 cents a kilogram for their grapes. Let us consider what it costs at present to transport one kilogram of grapes from Huguenot station to Johannesburg. By passenger train, the quickest method of transport, it costs 33 cents a kilogram, whereas it costs only 7 cents a kilogram by mechanical refrigerated truck. A producer therefore receives about 50 cents a kilogram for his grapes, and he pays 7 cents a kilogram for railage. But his grapes are sold in Johannesburg at R2,80. Why is the price so high? It is parasites like these that exploit us, but then people say they do not vote for the National Party because we push up the prices! Meanwhile it is the Progs in Johannesburg who are making the prices so extremely high. It is therefore not surprising that bottles of grape juice are served free of charge on airways flights, because grape juice is a good deal cheaper than one kilogram of grapes which, as I have said, costs R2,80 a kilogram in Johannesburg.

The Opposition forgets certain basic facts. As the previous speaker on this side of the House said, the S.A. Transport Services remains the backbone of this country and in times of a revival as well as in times of a recession it must be able to convey goods in all situations and be prepared for them. Hon. members must bear in mind that this organization is expected to provide the country as a whole and all its population groups with reasonable services at a reasonable price at all times, even when the business cycle is down. They are already dealing effectively with the export of minerals and coal to the benefit of South Africa and its economy, and it is this organization that is conveying export coal which fetches high prices and keep our exports going while the gold price is so low. Organized commerce says that the infrastructure must keep pace with the development of our trade. The hon. the Minister and the top management of the S.A. Transport Services have indeed succeeded in bringing this about.

Hon. members of the Opposition must therefore not complain if orders are cancelled and must not say we have done “too little, too late”. Do hon. members still remember the scornful remark by the Opposition: “Your harbours are inadequate”? By means of containerization larger quantities are now being handled and the problem has been solved. However, now there is criticism from the Opposition that there is too much rolling stock and that trucks are standing empty. Do hon. members not know that the life of a truck is only 40 years, and that 3 000 new trucks must be introduced every year? New trucks mean increased capacity and greater efficiency, because they are equipped with air brakes. It is even possible for a single train to be 2,5 kilometres long, a world record, if these trucks are used.

We also constantly hear that there are insufficient coaches and capacity for third-class passengers. Do hon. members not want any more coaches to be purchased? The new residential areas for Blacks and Coloureds— about which I shall have more to say in a moment—have led to large numbers of workers having to be conveyed to our factories, and it is for their convenience that new coaches have been purchased. Does the Opposition not want such improvements? It is quite clear that there is a continued revival in economic activity.

This was clearly the reason why the real gross domestic product increased by 6,3%, as against a growth rate of 4,7% the previous year. It is also common knowledge that when this occurred a real economic growth rate of almost 4% was envisaged for the coming financial year. Hon. members know what happened. One need not refer to these figures all the time. For two years there were poor international conditions. The surplus on the current account decreased. As hon. members know, there was also a drop in the gold price, together with a sharp increase in the price of imported goods and a decrease in the export of merchandise.

In spite of this, did the gross revenue not increase by 21,9%? Did the number of first-class passengers not also increase by 4,3%? Was there not also an increase of 8,6% in the number of people travelling second-class? Did the number of third-class passengers not also increase by 5,1%? Did the revenue from passenger services not total approximately R195 million, an increase, of over R32 million on the revenue of the previous year? There was a State contribution of R243 million, which was to compensate for the loss in socio-economic passenger services. It must be taken into consideration that all these aspects had an effect on the tariff increases. There were also the salary adjustments which had to be effected as from April 1980. There was the increase of 10% in the depreciation contribution. Large sums of money had to be found for the higher interest rates on capital loans. There were the rising fuel prices and the increase in the price of coal. Electricity also became more expensive and the cost of steel soared. The price of tyres rose, not to mention the prices of many other material requirements.

Why is the Administration not being praised for the Strandfontein-Nyanga service which was introduced on 30 June? Every day 20 000 passengers are being conveyed in one direction by 62 trains. This is what is being done for the Black people. However, we are constantly being attacked with the following kind of questions: “What are you doing for the Black people?” However, I have just referred to a tremendous task which the hon. the Minister and the Administration undertook there. I am also thinking of the So-shongwe-Pretoria North train service which has been conveying 10 000 passengers in 28 trains in one direction since 29 December 1980. Why are the hon. the Minister and the top management not congratulated on the fact that trains are now considerably longer and that up to 14 coaches can stand at one platform? Every day almost 28 000 more passengers can be conveyed to Soweto. Is this not a tremendous achievement?

The vast majority of overseas railways are experiencing problems in balancing their finances. This is not only a problem in South Africa. In European Community countries all railways are compensated so that they can continue their uneconomic services. According to regulations published by the European Economic Parliament, railway undertakings are fully compensated, in the first place, for obligation imposed on the transport undertakings concerned to offer a transport service they would not have undertaken if it had to be offered on the basis of purely business enterprise principles. In the second place, the compensation is also concerned with tariff obligations imposed on the specific undertaking, that conflict with the interests of the undertaking. That is why we have the current problems in the EEC countries. The problems result from the fact that there are markets that are static, markets that are showing a downward tendency, increased running costs and increasing dependence on the State for financial assistance. I have many figures I could quote in this connection. The Belgian railways has a railway network of 4 003 kilometres. It is being subsidized with an amount of R896 million. The German railways is subsidized with an amount of R4 705 million, the French railways with an amount of R2 497 million and the Italian railways with an amount of R1 711 million.

So we find throughout the world that in every country, even if the railway network is smaller, the State simply has to contribute. Even the Japanese railways, that is frequently held up to us as a model railway system, suffered a loss of R3 287 million which had to be borne by the State. The Japanese railways is at present cancelling all services that convey fewer than 1 000 passengers at a time. By 1985 the labour force of the Japanese railway will have been reduced from 420 000 to 350 000. The Minister of Finance has already jokingly suggested that the Shinkansen Express be converted into an “all-night cabaret for Government officials.”

What is the position at the moment in the USA? The passenger services run by the public corporation Amtrak incurred a loss of R714 million in 1980 and that loss had to be borne by the State.

The Opposition also referred repeatedly to the Airways. Is it not true that nowadays the Airways does not fly by the shortest routes? Is it not true that the aircraft must take on fuel at places where fuel is so extremely expensive that inflation is handicapping us further? Is it not true that owing to the oil crisis the expenditure on fuel these days is more than a third of the total expenditure, whereas it was only 12% before? Is the inflation rate not so high because aircraft equipment and material has to be purchased abroad at exorbitant prices? Is it not true that the terms of fuel contracts have to be negotiated while the dollar is very strong against the South African rand? We hope that with the weakening of the South African rand we can attract more tourists from abroad.

Is it not true that our most important markets, the United Kingdom and Europe, have shown virtually no growth during the past two years and that the recessionary conditions there also affect the utilization of our aircraft? Our traffic to Australia and North America is still expanding. Flights to South America are not doing well. However, what will happen if Qantas and Pan Am again enter the market and begin to compete with our Airways? There are the problems the hon. the Minister and his staff are faced with. It is the recession that is keeping business at a low ebb. Having said all this as far as the amendment is concerned, I want to say that there is more at stake than just sugar. Tunnels, bridges and running costs in general are at stake.

In the last few minutes at my disposal I want to congratulate Mr. Frans Swarts most sincerely on his appointment as the new General Manager of the SAA. We shall have an opportunity later on to say more about him. We also have the highest regard for Dr. Grové, who will take over the reins next year as General Manager. I will never forget, when I was still in the Senate, how Dr. Grové came to my office in the Marks Building one day and explained financial matters to me when I still knew nothing about them. It is those little things that Railways staff do, that one will never forget. I want to wish him a very successful career. I know that like his predecessor, Dr. Loubser, he will go very, very far.

It is with a feeling of sadness and nostalgia and with a feeling that this should not already be happening, that I take leave of Dr. Kobus Loubser. He is the fourth General Manager I have known intimately. First there was Mr. Heckroodt then Mr. Hugo, and Mr. Du Plessis and now Dr. Loubser. He is the fourth General Manager I have had many dealings with. Dr. Loubser is very much a part of the soil of South Africa. He was born on a wheat farm in Philadelphia in the Malmesbury constituency where the well-known Fanie Loubser, a follower of Dr. Malan and Advocate Strydom, eventually won the Malmesbury seat for the NP.

Dr. Loubser grew up on the family farm near Philadelphia, and when he speaks of his father it is always good to hear him say that his father, who came from Germany, in the most trying circumstances during the war, when the S.A. Transport Services was having a very hard time, never spoke in a derogatory way but always had praise for this service. Hon. members will therefore realize that Dr. Loubser takes after his father. His father spoke Afrikaans fluently and it is he who compiled the first dictionary of locomotive terms. There were no Afrikaans locomotive terms and Dr. Loubser’s father compiled a dictionary, which was definitely a great asset to the Administration.

Dr. Loubser followed his father as chief engineer in Pretoria, and father and son designed the class S1 locomotive together. When I was working in the shunting yard at Kaserne I saw those class S1 locomotives shunting. This was the first locomotive designed and built in South Africa, and the Loubser family was responsible for it. Today Dr. Loubser’s son Mathys, named after his father, is a civil engineer in the S.A. Transport Services in Johannesburg.

Dr. Loubser’s greatest talent is that he can work with people. He managed to get Whites and non-Whites to work together for the good of South Africa in the trade unions and we applaud him for this. In a period of 40 years of service in the S.A. Transport Services, of which he spent 12 years as General Manager, he has led this organization in overcoming tremendous challenges. As far as he is concerned the S.A. Transport Services is part of the Afrikaner. In the USA and Germany he opened doors and obtained loans. Under trying circumstances he recently raised a loan of R450 million in those countries. In addition he placed South Africa on the map by giving international lectures. His fame in fact extends as far as Europe and even America. He built up relations with African States by supplying them with services on a recompensory basis, in contrast with other countries who give them everything for nothing. He can justly be proud of this, and we thank him for what he has done in this regard.

He also made our narrow gauge line the leading railway line in the world. He was responsible for goods trains 2,5 km in length and passenger trains that will soon be capable of top speeds of 250 km an hour. He was also responsible for the most powerful locomotives in the world which can haul up to 20 000 tons. We also thank him for this.

We pay tribute to him for the awards he has won and we hope that he will render further services at RAU, were he received an honorary professorate. We also believe that the Economic Advisory Council of the Prime Minister, of which he is a member, will confront him with even greater challenges and that he will make a good contribution for the S.A. Transport Services in the Energy Policy Committee. We are proud of Dr. Loubser and we know that in the years ahead he will lead South Africa to greater heights.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Rosettenville on his speech. He solved the inflation problem. According to him, the solution lies in grapes, and not in tariff increases.

†My approach to this budget was to ask myself what shortcomings an all-powerful monopoly develops and then to see whether the documents reveal that the S.A. Transport Services is suffering from these shortcomings. In other words, I wanted to find an area to criticize, because I have enough respect for the S.A. Transport Services and for the General Manager, who is now retiring, to believe that they would welcome criticism. Moreover, I had more than a feeling that the praise aspect would be handled at length and more than satisfactorily.

I should say that a monopoly has a tendency to develop the following characteristics. It becomes indifferent and careless of the interests of customers because it does not fear to lose business to competition. I believe the S.A. Transport Services, on the contrary, have good customer relationships and works steadily at keeping them good. A second characteristic of a monopoly is that it becomes exploitative of its market. This also does not apply to the S.A. Transport Services. I think it sees itself as a national and strategic strength and that it does not try to maximize profit. In the third instance a monopoly tends to manage the easy way. Instead of managers taking the strain, their privileged position allows them to pass it on to customers who must carry the extra load in the form of increased charges. Managers are not conscious that they are failing to manage well and that they are avoiding difficult decisions, because it is impossible to measure oneself in a vacuum, and they have no competition.

The first area to suffer concerns staff management, staff complements, staff remuneration and staff discipline. This is natural because bosses are not ogres. The loyalty that employees have for their organizations and managers is reflected in the loyalty and affection that good managers have for their employees. From the statistics given I should say there is a strong possibility that this syndrome is manifesting itself in the S.A. Transport Services.

If this is so it is a very serious situation because of the scale and position of the S.A. Transport Services in the South African economy, and the effect that it can have on inflation. What makes me say this? Let us take the Railways just by way of example. Although the country is desperately short of skilled labour the complement of White staff has remained constant, in the region of 101 000 from March 1977 to November 1981. During the same period the complement of non-White labour has also remained almost static, and has increased over the last four years by less than 1% a year. Between 1980 and 1981 Whites received an average increase of 25,2% in total remuneration, and between 1981 and 1982, an increase of 28,5% in total remuneration.

These figures are about 25% above the national average.

The annual report states that productivity has increased by 2,9% a year since 1971. I am not sure how this particular figure is calculated, but total assets per man employed have virtually doubled since 1976. There is no way in which private enterprise would rather solve its labour problems than by increasing salaries and wages across the board. They have in fact had the tendency to do this, but this solves nothing. The competition for staff simply takes place at a higher level and aggravates inflation. Our labour problems can only be solved by increasing the supply of skilled labour, and, as the Manpower Commission has told us, that labour will increasingly be Black. The knowledge that higher wages are not the answer to an employee’s inflation problems, and that one cannot control inflation without increasing productivity and containing the wages bill is beginning to spread overseas. Thus the Ford Motor Company’s Union recently agreed to freeze wages for 30 months and to eliminate 24 days’ holidays over the next three years. They are no longer intent on higher wages. They are worried about their jobs. United Kingdom wage settlements have tended to be in the region of 3% to 5% against 15% to 20% in 1978 and 1979. Obviously this situation creates problems for Governments, e.g. the Thatcher Government having to show strength of purpose and moral courage in the execution of Conservative policies. Let us accept that these increases were necessary to wipe out an historical situation. It would appear that in 1978 and 1979 remuneration was increased only minimally. But that leaves this Government and this hon. Minister with a problem and a responsibility. What is S.A. Transport Services’ policy on salary and wages going to be in the coming year, assuming that there will be inflation at a rate of between 13% and 17%? I ask the hon. the Minister to give an answer to that question because it is something on which the Government must have a policy. The country must be told what that policy is and what the reasons are behind it. The matter cannot be handled on an ad hoc basis. If the Government allows its workers to believe that they can expect annual increases something higher than the inflation rate, it is acting misleadingly and irresponsibly. I would have expected S.A. Transport Services’ statistics to have revealed a far clearer and more pronounced swing to Black labour. One only has to refer to Manpower Commission reports to see that in 18 years’ time Whites will be supplying a much smaller percentage of industrial, managerial and skilled manpower requirements. It would appear that the S.A. Transport Services are prolonging the status quo and are not ahead in this particular game.

In a year when inflation is projected to run at 13% or 14% there is to be an immediate average increase of S.A. Transport Services charges of 15% per annum, i.e. R100 worth of S.A. Transport Services’ transport will cost R115 from the implementation of the tariff increase. On the other hand, if our inflation rate is to be 14% per annum for this year it will take 12 months before R100 worth of commercial goods and services will cost R114. The S.A. Transport Services’ budget would therefore appear to be highly inflationary and a dangerous example to the private sector. It would tend to sidestep the controls that the hon. the Minister of Finance would like to see applied.

There is another aspect to this. South Africa has been trading for a long time, exporting its products to areas where the inflation rate was higher than our own. We followed other countries in the inflation stakes. We must beware of a situation where we follow other countries into a deflationary spiral. This could have, temporarily, serious implications during a period of high domestic inflation, when we could be selling our products abroad in markets where prices are dropping. Figures recently published indicate that already imported goods show an inflation rate substantially below our domestic rate of inflation.

The fourth area in which monopolies go astray is the ambition to expand or to empire-build. Peculiarly, it is often the best managers who fall into this trap because they are not lazy in seeking challenges and they look for new areas to expand their talents and energies. It would appear that S.A. Transport Services are not unaffected by this problem. The hon. member Dr. Welgemoed spoke at length on deregulation. No responsible person would advocate the destruction of an organization of the strategic value of the S.A. Transport Services. It is an immense national asset. But is there for example any reason why they should be so ambitious as to push hard into the field of road haulage? If we believe in private enterprise, surely this is one area where a healthy and growing industry is waiting and ready to expand. Thus, Mr. Bolton, chairman of the Public Carriers’ Association, said at the Business Leaders’ conference in Cape Town at the end of last year that although the Department of Transport Affairs had afforded private enterprise the opportunity to express its view on transport, the fruits of this dialogue were often negated by the biased attitude of the S.A. Transport Services because they appeared to oppose every transport service performed by the private sector, quite in conflict with the recommendations of the Van Breda Commission. Mr. Du Toit, Deputy Manager of the S.A. Transport Services, indicated an expansion into road transport in competition with the private sector in a statement reported in Motor World in November of last year. The private sector asks: Why? If the philosophy of this Government is to support private enterprise, why discourage it in this area where it is ambitious, efficient, competitive and anxious to develop? Above all, if the Government is determined to compete, why not do so fairly and, as nearly as possible, on an equal basis?

We only get 50% of the business.

The S.A. Transport Services has many built-in advantages which, of course, the taxpayer must ultimately fund. For example, it pays 36c per litre for fuel against the 56c which private enterprise has to pay and it does not pay licence fees although it uses the same roads. These two items alone amount to more than 20% of the total cost to the private sector of running a vehicle. The S.A. Transport Services purchases vehicles, spares, plant and equipment duty free and it does not have to go to the market for capital requirements in the same way as private enterprise has. The Road Transportation Act is biased heavily in favour of State control and the Act is used by S.A. Transport Services to give it a preferential position as against private enterprise. S.A. Transport Services is also in a favourable position in respect of harbour traffic, container transport, services to decentralized areas and export traffic rebates. The private sector and the transport contractors in particular are concerned that in this industry the Government is not honouring its undertaking to promote private enterprise in preference to State enterprise.

Another aspect that I should like to discuss is the question of the way in which statistics are produced for us. An outsider has difficulty in ascertaining from S.A. Transport Services finances how its capital purchases are actually allocated. One cannot establish what money is costing, how the pattern is changing and whether adequate provision has been made for the cost of money in the 1982-’83 financial year. For example, if one takes the 1976, 1980 and the 1981 year plus an estimate for the 1982 year based on an amount of R7 627 million for 1982 plus capital expenditure of almost R2 billion, it would appear that interest rates have hardly changed. In 1976 we averaged 8,1%, in 1980, 8%, in 1981, 8,9% and in 1982 when we are to spend R2,2 billion on capital expenditure, we estimate that the interest burden will be 8,7%. In the light of recent interest movements is the hon. the Minister satisfied that this is correct? To my mind it appears to be a little strange. I also believe that it would be of great advantage to us if in future years we could have a cashflow statement. If we had a cash-flow statement for the year we were reviewing together with an estimate for the coming year, it would assist us considerably in establishing how capital was being used, where it was being used and what it was costing us.

I have much pleasure in supporting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Berea.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to be able to participate in the debate after the hon. member for Walmer, because I should subsequently like to cite him as an authority to refute the small amount of criticism which the Opposition has produced during the past two days.

I cannot understand why the hon. members of the Opposition are kicking up such a row, because on 16 September last year (Hansard, 1981, col. 3878) the hon. the Minister hazarded the following prediction—

The hon. member for Berea hazarded the same prediction (Hansard, 1981, col. 3893)—

He was correct in this prediction—

And then he cited Julius Caesar—

Yesterday he said he was perturbed after he had thought about the budget over the weekend. He then spoke of an “understatement”, but did he not believe his own prediction he made last year? Surely he said at the time what would happen.

Actually the PFP, as usual, is blowing hot and cold. In this connection I should like to quote the hon. member for Walmer. On 21 September (Hansard, 1981, col. 4330) he said—

I should like to hear from the hon. member for Berea whether he agrees with this statement.

As far as the NRP, and specifically the hon. member for Amanzimtoti is concerned, their premise, as usual, is incorrect, because on 6 March 1978 (Hansard, 1978, col. 2384) he said—

How does one understand this? Surely that is an incorrect premise. Transportation is not á necessary evil, but an essential service. In the amendment which the hon. member moved yesterday, he spoke of the role which the South African Transport Services should perform as a service. Actually he was contradicting himself, because in 1978 he spoke of a necessary evil. Consequently one cannot take much notice of the NRP.

I now wish to quote another hon. member, and at the end of the quotation I shall indicate which hon. member it is; one will find it difficult to believe (Hansard, 1981, col. 4330)—

That is what a member of the PFP said. Believe it or not, it was the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, the hon. member for Walmer.

Why is the NRP being so negative then? Surely they could also be positive and constructive like the hon. member for Walmer who in reality differs with the other hon. members in his party.

The Opposition keeps on alleging that the loss on passenger services may be attributed to our policy of apartheid. If one goes into everything carefully, however, one finds that a loss is also being suffered on the transportation of White passengers. I want to put it another way: Even if there had been only one population group in South Africa, we would still have had the same transportation problems. We do not have the millions of people which London, New York or West Germany have, and in addition our country, geographically speaking, is too expansive. I admit that most sectors of our society, including the man in the street, will be hit by this budget, but the S.A. Transport Services serve the whole of South Africa. The S.A. Transport Services incur capital expenditure on which many other sectors thrive, from which such sectors derive direct and indirect benefits. Such a position results in increased tariffs, and that is why subsidies are being paid on the conveyance of bus and train commuters. If these services are no longer to be subsidized, who should make good the deficit? Should the man in the street, the passengers do so, should personal tax or sales tax be increased, or should we make election promises, as the Opposition made last year shortly before the election because they knew they would not be governing and could consequently act in an irresponsible way?

What are the S.A. Transport Services worth to commerce and industry in South Africa? The S.A. Transport Services spend millions of rands in South Africa in that they purchase many capital and operating goods here. Only 10% to 15% of these goods are imported. The rest are all purchased locally, and commerce and industry therefore benefit.

Before one can conduct a meaningful debate on the S.A. Transport Services, one must first acknowledge certain basic, elementary truths in advance. In one’s assessment of the S.A. Transport Services one must bear these points of departure in mind, otherwise the budget may be seen in a completely distorted light. Of course there are factors outside the S.A. Transport Services which have a material effect on the S.A. Transport Services. The S.A. Transport Services are part of South Africa and South Africa is not an isolated planet or island, but an integral part of the world. What happens in the world, affects South Africa directly, and consequently, too, the S.A. Transport Services. The economic position of South Africa’s trading partners determine a larger or smaller volume of exports or imports, and this also affects the S.A. Transport Services. The oil price has a radical effect on the S.A. Transport Services. The same applies to the gold price.

On the other hand a revival in the South African as well as the world economy has a positive effect on the utilization of the internal and international routes of the SAA. The achievements of the agricultural, mining and export sectors also influence these services. Throughout the performance of the commercial and industrial sectors is decisive for the revenue of the S.A. Transport Services. A meagre demand for raw materials in the outside world is reflected in the decline in the demand for transportation. A huge enterprise such as the S.A. Transport Services with all its activities is all the more a captive, a victim, of price increases in respect of fuel, iron, steel, coal and electricity. When the economic position of South Africa and the world is not a good one, the S.A. Transport Services are compelled to cut back on their capital expenditure, and then various projects have to be delayed. The S.A. Transport Services are a sensitive barometer which reacts immediately to the economic climate in South Africa and the world.

Another factor is that the transportation aspect must always be made subordinate to the national interest. We must bear in mind what the S.A. Transport Services are directed to do in terms of section 7(1) of the Transport Services Act. As a result of this important and comprehensive directive a heavy responsibility is placed not only on the top structure of the S.A. Transport Services, but also on every employee in the service of this organization. If one analyses this directive superficially, one could perhaps conclude that the S.A. Transport Services have only one function, viz. to manage its affairs according to business principles. Owing to its nature and the type of service it renders, and also owing to the nature of the indirect traditional functions which it has acquired over the years, the S.A. Transport Services perform other additional functions as well. It has an important social function within its own organization. We need only think of pensions, housing, medical schemes and the role played by the ATKV. It also has a political function, i.e. its contribution to the constellation of Southern African States which is indispensable and will continue to be so in future. It also has a strategic function, because it helps, inter alia, to establish a strong and stable economy, which is a prerequisite for our survival. Through the S.A. Transport Services we are placed in a strong position to maintain ourselves as a force in Africa and the rest of the world. They also have a socio-economic function owing to the part they play in making passenger services available.

Because the Opposition is not an effective Opposition, and because they are superficial in their analysis of the budget, I want to delve deeper than the Opposition did and ask the penetrating questions which the Opposition should in reality have asked. I shall also try to reply to the questions myself. Firstly, a few general questions. Have the Transport Services, under NP régime since 1948, gone from strength to strength?

Not as a result of the NP régime, of course.

If one analyses the annual reports, examines the achievements of the Transport Services and analyses all the data scientifically and objectively, one concludes that the reply is a definite “Yes”. Are the services, under the NP régime, becoming better every year? There is only one answer, and that is “Yes”. Are the Transport Services complying with all the requirements imposed on it? The reply is another “Yes”. I come now to one last question. Has the S.A. Transport Services discharged its obligations and complied with the directive laid down in the Act? As was clearly apparent from the arguments of my hon. colleagues on this side, the reply in this case as well is obviously “Yes”.

Now I wish to ask a few specific questions. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti said that we should have asked these questions, and now I am going to ask them. Are the S.A. Transport Services efficient? To be able to answer that question, one need only look at the various services. Let us look at the passenger services, goods services, containerization, the harbours, the road transportation service, the airways, the staff, etc. Their training facilities, for example, are among the best in the world. Their co-operation with neighbouring States is being conducted in an extremely correct way. The RSA, which is generally acknowledged to be a leader in all spheres of transport services, is in the unique position to be able to promote close relations with all the countries of this geographic area of Southern Africa. If realism triumphs, this could produce benefits for all, and also for us in South Africa, as the hon. member for Ermelo indicated.

This brings me to another penetrating question. Is there efficient administration? Here I should like to quote the hon. member for Walmer once again. Last year he said that he believed that in the S.A. Transport Services we had a remarkably fine organization. To tell the truth, if it had not been for the efficient financial control of the S.A. Transport Services, he would have experienced serious problems a long time ago. The S.A. Transport Services are in fact accepting the challenges, are aware of the problems and bottlenecks and are seeking and finding solutions.

We need only examine its technical and engineering achievements during the past few years. New services are constantly being introduced and—as has already been indicated in this debate—steps are constantly being taken to restrict expenses.

The Opposition also asked whether there were any examples of their applying economizing measures. I should like to mention the classical example of a simple item, the concrete sleeper. Initially it was manufactured from timber and iron, but when hardwood became scarcer and iron more expensive, the S.A. Transport Services sought another method or model and ultimately decided upon concrete sleepers. This was economizing in the true sense of the word. However, there are many such examples, for instance in connection with brake blocks, wheels, longer trains, a high stability bogey system, developments in the sphere of electronics, development in the sphere of signals, development in the sphere of telecommunications and in the mechanical sphere, and developments in connection with block freight operation. In this way millions of rands have been saved by the S.A. Transport Services in various spheres.

Another example is the purchasing system of the S.A. Transport Services, the tender system. The Transport Services work in close co-operation with the Tender Board to ensure that the cheapest prices are negotiated.

Another penetrating question which the Opposition should have asked, was whether there had been better utilization of existing capacity. In reply to this question numerous examples may be quoted. I shall furnish only a few. There is the quicker turn-round time of the waggon fleet; improved tractive power; increased operating capacity; the freight offered can be conveyed with fewer trains; better waggon design; and the elimination of uneconomic services. From time to time alternative methods are investigated for increasing the capacity. For example greater use is being made of heavier and longer trains, which required a general conversion to air-brake trains. Moreover, the design of waggons was changed to improve maximum loading dimensions. In regard to the airways as well, routes are changed from time to time in order to eliminate uneconomic routes.

What alternative did the hon. the Minister have to increasing his sources of revenue? Does the Opposition want salaries to be reduced, housing funds to be curtailed, pensions to be pruned and medical aid schemes to be stopped? They must also tell us where cheap loans are to be had.

I should like to support the increase in salaries. I have no fault to find with that. Salaries are not only increased before an election, but afterwards as well. I also wish to say that as regards the increase in pensions, particularly for the pensioners who retired prior to 1973, we on this side of the House demanded this just as much as the hon. member for Durban Point did.

Then I should like to point out another problem in connection with passenger services, a problem which one does not think of every day. I am referring to the suburban services which are being run at a tremendous loss. In the short period of two hours every morning thousands of passengers have to be conveyed from their homes to their places of employment. For that short period of two hours a tremendous number of coaches have to be available. This requires a tremendously high capital investment to make provision for a period of only two hours in which travelling workers can reach their places of employment quickly and safely. In the late afternoon the same thing applies again. Then those workers wish to get home to their families as quickly as possible. In urban areas there are 5, 6 to 7 sets of railway lines lying side by side, and these are not for goods traffic. These railway lines are for passenger services, which incur heavy losses. The suburban passenger services cannot be curtailed, even if they are run at a loss. It is essential that people be conveyed to their place of of employment.

I wish to conclude. The S.A. Transport Services is our national transportation service. The difficult economic climate is imposing heavy demands on this organization. This organization accepts its challenges with great realism and idealism. Consequently it is acquitting itself of its task efficiently, and in the S.A. Transport services we have a sound enterprise.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon. member for Bloemfontein East, particularly because I agree with everything he said. I want to begin by extending my very sincere thanks to Dr. Loubser, who is now, after a period of 40 years, going to retire. Forty years sounds like a very long time, yet in the life of a person the years pass so rapidly that one feels one has scarcely begun. Looking at Dr. Loubser now, it seems to me he still has many kilometres ahead of him. We believe that in the time which is granted to him he will still do a great deal of fruitful work for the country.

I also wish to extend my thanks to Mr. Du Toit and Mr. Loots, who will be retiring soon. These two gentlemen have done very good work. Then I wish to convey my congratulations to Dr. Grové, who is soon going to occupy the position of General Manager of this very large enterprise in South Africa. I believe that this is a good appointment and I hope and trust that Dr. Grové and his family will derive much satisfaction from it. We believe that he is the right man, who is being appointed at the right time.

I should also like to convey my thanks to all the officials of the S.A. Transport Services, from the highest to the lowest grades, for the services they have rendered in years gone by. Were it not for them South Africa would probably not have had a transport service of this calibre today.

We know that it was probably not easy for the hon. the Minister to introduce this budget, but I can give him the assurance that I understand his difficulty. He was responsible for a budget in these difficult times of inflation, over which he has no control. In fact no one in South Africa has control over inflation. It is after all a world-wide tendency.

We also realize that the hon. Minister and everyone involved in preparing this budget had to take into consideration that the services which are being offered have to be financed from some source or other, and that they realized that the financing would not be arranged by the fairies. If one gives, one must also receive, and vice versa. That is why it is no easy task to prepare a budget, and we are thoroughly aware of this fact. We know that it was an uncomfortable and difficult budget to prepare, and that is why we sympathize with those who were responsible for it. In the short time it has been granted to me to serve in this House, this has probably been the most difficult budget for the S.A. Transport Services that was introduced, and I am particularly conscious of this fact, because I served on the Railways Committee.

We also realize that the gold price had an effect on the budget, and that the present economic situation has hit South Africa as well as the rest of the world hard. It affects us all, from the kitchen to the bedroom.

Mounting interest rates and the high inflation rate also played a major role in the preparing of the budget, and we are fully aware that difficult times await us. Inflation is a dangerous thing. We know that the Western World has, time and again, been struck by mounting inflation rates. The worst I know of was in 1923, when a loaf of bread in Germany cost a million German marks. However, we hope and trust that our country and the rest of the Western World will be spared the devastating consequences of such an inflation; we hope that the good Lord will spare us that.

There are many measures which may be applied to counteract inflation, but it is not going to be an easy task. Medicine is always bitter. Even if one knows that the medicine can restore one’s health, it is never pleasant to have to drink it. But let us not try to combat inflation with words only. Now is not the time for words, but for deeds.

This budget focuses attention on many achievements, and we are very grateful for them, inter alia, the marketing methods to which the hon. the Minister referred in his speech. I am very optimistic in this regard, because I believe that they will have good results. We must encourage our people to travel by train as much as possible instead of by car. This will save foreign exchange, for then we will be able to import less fuel. It probably does not cost much less to operate a train which is three-quarters full, than it does to operate a full train. Perhaps it is necessary to perform an experiment by introducing train services on branch lines, so that people can make greater use of trains. I am merely suggesting this as a possible experiment. There are other ways as well in which we can try to encourage people to travel more frequently by train.

I am also very pleased with the 40% scheme for our senior citizens, and for the “tripper” card which is now available for national servicemen. It makes provision for a 50% discount on train journeys and 30% on air journeys. It sometimes happens that trains and aircraft are not fully booked. In this connection I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister could not perhaps request the hon. the Minister of Defence, who is also involved in the matter, to help him to effect a possible improvement in the situation which prevails when trains or aircraft are not fully booked. I do not think there is anyone in this House who does not have boundless sympathy for these people. After all, it is they who man the front outposts to protect and defend the country. Consequently there can be no difference of opinion on this matter in this House. That is why I am asking, with all due respect, that this be done.

In this debate reference was made to the serving of meals on our aircraft. I am very satisfied with the position as it is. I think it is time we also accepted certain things as being self-explanatory.

As far as the pensioners are concerned, I am exceptionally happy. A considerable number of pensioners in my constituency told me that they received an allowance together with their pensions. That allowance apparently varies. However, I ascertained that it amounts to R44 a month. I want to request the Minister to determine whether it is not possible to consolidate that allowance with the pension. A consolidated pension will provide those people with greater security. If possible, I should like to recommend this.

I realize that we are dealing here with a budget in which the inflation rate of 13% has been taken into account. But I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would not be so kind as to recommend to the Minister of Finance, when the question of income tax is considered in the main budget, to exempt the additional money, which people are going to receive in the form of increased pensions, from income tax. Otherwise, all it amounts to is that 13% of what those people are receiving will first have to be lost to inflation, even before income tax is also deducted from that amount, something which will mean those affected will be no better off than before. But perhaps this is possible. Perhaps there is not enough money for this in the Exchequer. If there is not enough money, I accept it. I know that there are no fairies who give away money. Yet I am addressing this request to the hon. the Minister in all fondness and modesty.

In addition I should also like to express my thanks to all who helped to prepare this budget. It was a difficult budget and we hope that things will go well with South Africa, also as far as planning for the future is concerned. In this respect I hope and trust that money will not be so scarce that it will be necessary to cut back on amounts in the next budget. I also hope that the project which the S.A. Transport Services intends to initiate will get off the ground in the coming year, so that it will also be possible to cope with the problem of unemployment.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I should just like to refer to the two amendments which have been moved, and which I shall deal with further tomorrow. The hon. member for Walmer asked me to pardon him for levelling criticism. It is not my intention to quarrel with the Opposition. It is the hon. member’s privilege to level criticism. However, hon. members of the Opposition must then not take it amiss of me if I tell them the truth. In that spirit we can argue with one another.

The hon. member for Berea and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti each moved an amendment. They were amendments which one can really pull to pieces. We are dealing here with a demand for salary increases which came from everyone concerned. The demand was for a salary increase of 15%, plus an increased pension, plus demands in regard to the medical scheme, demands which cost the Administration R416 million.

Hon. members all know that our burden of debt rose by R105 million, that our fuel account rose by R112 million, that our electricity account rose by R28 million, and that we must nevertheless make the S.A. Transport Services a profitable enterprise. In the meantime we have not requested a single increase in the capital programme. We are meeting these obligations by way of loans. But we must balance our books. The S.A. Transport Services is not running a slap-dash business. After all, we cannot show losses.

To mention only one example, however: While he was speaking a moment ago the hon. member for Walmer referred to the unfairness of this monopolistic undertaking. The S.A. Transport Services handles considerably less than 50% of the transportation in South Africa. The hon. member for Walmer is a businessman. I challenge him now to take over all the road transportation services of the S.A. Transport Services and operate them for his own account. It would be easier for him to pick up a mirror for a shilling. [Interjections.] Today we are the firm that is prepared to convey a load of lucerne across remote areas of the Karoo with a road motor carrier service, which no private enterprise is prepared to do. Nor are they prepared to convey passengers. When the hon. member speaks of cheap tariffs for fuel, he need only think of the millions of rands which are being paid to Putco in the form of subsidies. Many millions of rands are being paid out to that company to convey passengers. One cannot wrest these matters out of context by saying that the Government has created a monopolistic situation, while we are compelled to render certain services.

Before I become unsociable, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members know, the Department of Manpower has been engaged in amending the Labour Relations Act, 1956, since 1979, on the one hand to give effect to the resolutions of the Government as contained in various White Papers on manpower affairs, and on the other to adapt to the demands and circumstances of the times. This process of rationalization, modernization and adaptation to new developments will be continued on an ongoing basis, in view of the Department of Manpower’s experience with the practical implementation of the Act and in view of advice which is from time to time received from the National Manpower Commission as well as valid representations that may be received from time to time from trade unions, employee organizations and from other quarters. The purpose of the Amendment Bill is to make provision for various matters which will contribute towards greater efficiency in the interests of all the parties concerned.

The proposed amendment of the definition of “unfair labour practice” will establish a further protective measure for employees who may be the victims of alleged victimization. Although victimization is at present prohibited by the Act and although such action is subject to criminal sanctions, their effect is limited. This amendment will result in making it possible for labour disputes over victimization to be brought before the industrial court and it workers having ready access to an effective remedy for the reinstatement of employment or the restoration of conditions of employment.

At present the power to require the reinstatement of employees or the restoration of the terms and conditions of employment is vested in the Minister of Manpower. The proposed amendment add this task to the functions of the industrial court.

Provision is being made for the establishment of a Rules Board consisting of parties who have an interest in the functions of the industrial court. In this way employers and employees, as well as the legal profession, are not only being granted the necessary say, but it is also being ensured that the rules concerning the proceedings of the industrial court will remain up to date. It will be the task of the Rules Board from time to time to review the rules which have been drawn up in the mean time and which will come into effect on 1 April 1982.

The closed shop provision is being expanded in view of the Government’s decision arising from the National Manpower Commission’s investigation into and report on this practice. At present the Act totally prohibits the employment by an employer who is a member of an employers’ organization or who is himself a party to a binding agreement containing a closed shop provision of employees or employees of a particular class, who are eligible for membership of a trade union. Similarly an employee or employees of a particular class who are members of a trade union which is a party to such agreement may not work for employers who are not members of an employers’ organization which is a party to such agreement. In terms of the proposed provision a post-employment period of 90 days is allowed in which to comply with the requirement. This concession allows greater flexibility and also allows all parties more time to comply with the provision.

The Act is also being amended to give effect to the resolution of the Government that the powers of the Minister of Manpower to require the reinstatement of employees or the restoration of terms and conditions of employment should be transferred to the industrial court. What is also important, is that the power to order the abstention from unfair labour practices, too, will in future rest with the industrial court. The fact that the manner in which the parties may be represented before the industrial court is now being laid down in the Act is of equal significance. This will have the effect, inter alia, that in future representation by legal practitioners will be subject to mutual agreement by both parties. In this way the costs of litigation before the court can be kept down by one or both parties.

As far as compulsory arbitration is concerned, hon. members will observe that the powers of the Minister in respect of certain disputes are also being transferred to the industrial court. The provision with regard to the mode of representation before the industrial court is being made applicable in this case as well.

In view of the explanatory memorandum I have tabled, the remaining proposed amendments, which are primarily of an administrative nature, require no explanation. I should just like to point out that these proposals now before this House have already been discussed on previous occasions and are in fact also the outcome of representations in this regard by hon. members of this House.

This, Mr. Speaker, comprises in general outline the proposed amendments and I trust that they will meet with the approval of this House.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has outlined the major changes that this amending Bill will effect. I want to say immediately that I am grateful for the explanatory memorandum because it is certainly of great assistance. It is, therefore, not necessary for me to repeat everything contained in that memorandum or in the hon. the Minister’s introductory speech. I would, however, like to highlight some of the major changes, that are contemplated and to say again to the hon. the Minister that we are grateful that the progress that has been made up to now is continuing because we see this as further evidence of the hon. the Minister’s good intentions in regard to labour practices and renewal in South Africa.

Clause 1 of the Bill contains a very important change. As the hon. the Minister will know, we on this side of the House have from time to time raised this particular matter with him. I refer to the definition of “unfair labour practice”. The hon. the Minister will know that the definition was virtually tautological in so far as an unfair labour practice was defined as an unfair labour practice. Obviously, this is not a good thing either in law or in practice. The extension that is being brought about in clause 1 is to my mind a considerable improvement and we certainly support it very strongly. It means that an employee will also have the protection of the Industrial Court in so far as an unfair labour practice is concerned and we feel that this is a step in the right direction.

Clauses 2 and 3 deal with matters which are of a relatively minor nature but are nevertheless also important particularly in view of the fact that it is clear that the provisions that apply to trade unions will now also apply to employers’ organizations, and this to us also makes good sense.

Clause 4 makes provision for further rationalization and we also support this.

Clause 5 is a very important clause. Once again, the hon. the Minister will know and this House may well recall, that as far back as 1979 when we had a very long debate when the principal Act was introduced we made it very clear that we believed that the right of appeal to the Supreme Court was a necessity. I should like to quote here from Hansard of 7 June 1979, col. 8043 where the hon. member for Houghton had, inter alia, the following to say—

From the very beginning when provision was made for the industrial court, we made the point that for a court really to enjoy support and confidence from employers and employees, it was necessary for such a court to be seen as a court. I believe that the changes which are envisaged in the Bill make the industrial court very much more of an advantage to employers and employees.

The fact that there is going to be a Rules Board is to our mind very good indeed. We believe that the industrial court should not make its own rules. We believe that when there is an advocate or attorney as the representative of the employers on the one side and an advocate or an attorney as the representative of the employees on the other side, it will make good sense and it will give the necessary representivity which is required to have good rules. We are also pleased to notice that the Rules Board will have the power and ability to review the rules from time to time as they continue. We note also that this will come into practice on 1 April according to the footnote in the memorandum.

I now come to the amendments to section 24 as contemplated in clause 6. There will now be a period of grace in terms of the closed-shop principle. This is not the time for us to have a long debate on the closed-shop principle, but certainly I can imagine that this is a matter which will require further consideration when we come to the Vote of the hon. the Minister.

We have read the White Paper.

That is fine, but perhaps the hon. member should read it again.

What I want to stress to the hon. the Minister is that it is generally accepted that the closed shop is on the one hand an encouragement to unions and their members, but on the other hand it is open to abuse. This is a fact and it is acknowledged by some major trade unions. Therefore it is not something which only we stress here. The abuse can be seen in terms of a union becoming quite slcak because it has a closed shop and therefore it does not have to worry about certain things. On the other hand, however, we know full well that it is possible for a union—I say it is possible; I hope it will not happen—to introduce under-cover job reservation. I hope we shall avoid this at all costs, particularly as the hon. the Minister has made it clear that we are moving away from job reservation in every other respect. I hope this will continue. As I have said, we do not have time to discuss in great detail the whole question of the closed shop, but I hope we shall have an opportunity for that when we discuss the Vote of the hon. the Minister. I may point out, however, that I believe that the introduction of a period of grace makes very good sense and that it is an improvement. We shall support the amendments which relate to clause 6 and stand in the name of the hon. the Minister on the Order Paper.

In connection with clause 8 I wish to point out that here too the powers which up to now have been vested in the Minister of Manpower go to the industrial court. I believe this too is a considerable improvement, not because we have anything personal against this particular hon. Minister, but because we believe it should be the industrial court itself which handles these matters rather than the Minister, whoever that Minister might be.

The other clauses are consequential and they need no comment from me. We shall support the Second Reading and all the other stages of the Bill. We congratulate the hon. the Minister and his department on continuing this good work over the past two years.

Mr. Speaker, when a debate on labour legislation was conducted here in this House about seven or eight years ago, it was as though a red flag had been waved in front of a bull, as far as the Opposition was concerned. Fortunately, since then, such peacefulness has come to pervade the atmosphere, that we can even begin to tolerate one another.

That is because you people have accepted our sound recommendations.

That hon. member is very proud now that his wife has begun to govern in Randburg today, but in the meantime, he is still struggling to come to power. What could one call the process which has changed the labour legislation to such an extent in South Africa over the past few years? I don’t know whether linguists would permit this, but I think a term such as “evorevolutionary” would probably be acceptable. There are a few outstanding characteristics in the legislation before this House today.

The first characteristic is that certain functions of the hon. the Minister are being transferred to the industrial court. This means that the functions of the hon. the Minister are being depoliticized. Certain decisions which have to be taken—so we believe—are now being transferred to the right quarters, viz. to the court, instead of the hon. the Minister taking such decisions, thereby giving them political overtones. The hon. member for Pinelands will agree with me that this is, in fact, the case. This is true in two respects. In the first instance, it is true with regard to status quo orders in terms of the provisions of section 43. In terms of the old Act and according to the procedure of the old court, there were three occasions when the hon. the Minister could make such a status quo order. He could make this order in the case of a summary dismissal, a suspension, and a unilateral change in the conditions of service. However, two other provisions are being added, viz. unfair labour practice, and, in terms of the provisions of section 66 which are now being included in section 43, in cases of victimization as well. I think that it is correct that these things are being referred to the court in this case, instead of leaving them to the hon. the Minister.

Secondly, the determination of fees is now being left to the hon. the Minister in co-operation with the hon. the Minister of Finance. The determining of fees applies to witnesses who give evidence before an industrial council, a conciliation board or an industrial court, for assessors of the industrial court and, in the third instance, for members of a conciliation board who are not public servants. Regulations in this regard have, in the past, not been amended or adjusted for periods of up to 10 years, because it was a tedious process. However, the hon. the Minister of Manpower may now merely adjust fees in consultation with the hon. the Minister of Finance. I think this is a great improvement.

The old industrial tribunal, the industrial court since 1956, in terms of the 1956 Act, had the right to make rules for itself, but this never happened. Those of us who appeared before that court, know that we tried to abide by the rules of the Supreme Court as far as possible. I think that it is a good thing that a Rules Board is now being established, which will have as a result the establishment of a set of rules for taking part in the proceedings in this court, and which are unique to this court. These will be able to be drawn up by interested parties as well as by lawyers. I think that this will make the task and functions of this court meaningful.

Probably the most important aspect of the legislation at present before this House, is the closed-shop provision. The hon. member for Pinelands glossed over this briefly. However, this is a very sensitive aspect of labour legislation in South Africa, as well as in any other country in the world. I am saying this because closed shops are the monopoly of the labour world. They create the monopolies in labour. What does this mean, however? In the old language, it means that if I work for an employer and an industrial council or a conciliation board agreement or allocation applies which indicates that the closed shop principle will apply, I receive an application form for membership of the trade union concerned, together with my application form for employment. The National Manpower Commission investigated the matter and proposed that there should be a 30-day period of grace. However, I am pleased that the Cabinet has decided not to accept the period of 30 days, but, in fact, a 90-day period of grace. In my opinion we are giving the employee the opportunity of realizing what he has let himself in for. We are also affording him an opportunity to decide whether he wants to carry on and join the trade union, or to decide to resign because he does not see his way clear to accepting the principles of that trade union. Because this is the case, it is of great importance that the National Manpower Commission, after more than 500 institutions had been consulted, came to the conclusion that even if we did not like the monopoly of a closed shop, it has nevertheless brought about stability in the trade unions in South Africa. Suppose we did away with this now. Then there could still be bargaining outside the Act, and this is precisely what we do not want. We particularly want bargaining to take place within the provisions of the Act. Suppose we did not allow this. This would mean that one would always have the small group of adherents. In other words, Mr. A. becomes a member of the trade union and pays his monthly membership fee. The trade union then negotiates better conditions of service and a better salary for Mr. A. However, Mr. B, who is too stingy to pay R2 or R5 a month, also gets the privileges of the conditions negotiated by his fellow-workers under the banner of the trade union. I wish to congratulate the hon. the Minister on this legislation, but I think that it is necessary to ask the Manpower Commission to keep a constant watch on the closed shop provision and to keep an eye on its implementation as well, to see whether it still has a positive effect. Then when it begins having a negative effect on the economy, or on stability in the labour sphere in South Africa, we should again give it our attention,

I should like to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we in the NRP also welcome the provisions of this amending Bill. What the hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. member for Roodeplaat have said, applies of course equally in the case of hon. members of the NRP. Our support also includes the amendments the hon. the Minister has on the Order Paper. I would, however, just like to ask the hon. the Minister for some answers or assurances in regard to certain aspects of the amending Bill.

Firstly I want to refer to the provision dealing with the closed shop. We believe that there may be a possibility that the various trade unions have taken umbrage at the 90-day recommendation. We should therefore like to have the hon. the Minister’s assurance that there was full consultation with the various trade union organizations. Perhaps the hon. the Minister could tell us whether this co-operation was assumed from the input or evidence given by the trade unions to the National Manpower Commission or whether further negotiations have taken place, particularly in recent times, with the Trade Union Council of South Africa or TUCSA, to establish whether there is full agreement about the 90-day extension. I should also like to ask the hon. the Minister whether there is not a danger, in regard to clause 6 which deals with the extension of time, or our creating a preclusive situation in regard to the new trade unions.

Let me say what our difficulty with this particular clause is. We are supporting it, but we have difficulty in establishing all the consequences of this clause. It is inevitable that an employee will become a member of a trade union if he enters the employment of an organization which is party to an industrial agreement and has a closed shop agreement. He will only leave the employment of that organization if he is dissatisfied with the conditions of service or his job. Seldom will it have anything to do with the actual trade union movement as such. We believe, however, that there is a possibility that this particular clause will make it extremely difficult for new unions to gain membership in such an employment organization.

I should also just like to say that we welcome the provisions contained in clause 8. We have always believed that justice is very expensive to administer and wherever a possible reduction in the cost of the administration of justice is possible we shall certainly welcome it. The parties that will be involved in disputes are more likely to be organizations of the employers and organizations of the employees—rather than individuals. However, even for them we welcome these particular provisions.

We also welcome the transfer of functions to the industrial court with specific reference to the unfair labour practice which the hon. member for Roodeplaat has dealt with. The hon. member for Pinelands perhaps spoke about another section of the Bill rather than this particular part. As I have said, we welcome this. I believe that the industrial court is reaching a stage of maturity. The additional functions transferred to the court will result in a greater efficiency.

Needless to say, we also welcome the right of appeal to the Supreme Court. Justice, once again, can only be satisfactorily dispensed if the right of appeal is there. We note with some interest that the intention of the hon. the Minister and his department to centralize the location and operations of the industrial court has in practice now been reversed. The decentralization function is to be welcomed and we believe it will make a better facility available to labour and organizations in South Africa.

Lastly, I should just like to ask the hon. the Minister what sort of organizations he had in mind in regard to clause 2, in which he spoke of unregistered employers’ organizations and the obligations that are going to be placed on them, as they are placed on the unregistered trade unions, i.e. to provide the Registrar with information regarding their head office, addresses, names of office bearers, etc. Can the hon. the Minister give us an example of the kind of unregistered organization for employers that he has in mind in terms of that clause?

Mr. Speaker, I tend to agree with the hon. member for Roodeplaat that for many years, whenever labour matters were discussed in this House, the sparks flew. Today we are able to discuss these matters peacefully. I want to thank the hon. member for Durban North for supporting this legislation. I agree with him to a large extent as far as the principle of the closed shop is concerned. That principle has often caused us problems in this country. Everyone would admit this. In the past, this principle of the closed shop has often been used by the workers in the trade unions themselves—not the employers—against other workers. I think that the Manpower Commission is the appropriate body to guard against this.

There is not a great deal to be said about the legislation before us, as it is a continuation of the improvement and development of the new labour pattern which South Africa has adopted in the past few years. Accordingly this has already been argued about and thrashed out and in this House. I find in this legislation a few commendable improvements in the interests of the employees, improvements within the framework of the report of the Wiehahn Commission, the Manpower Commission and the White Papers issued by the Government. In fact, I find something new in this legislation, something which I have not come across before and which has not been debated in this House, and that is the registration of labour brokers. This is a completely new innovation, and I believe that this is a step in the right direction which the hon. the Minister has taken in having the labour broker register, just as all employers and trade unions have to register, because this new method of recruiting labour could lead to peddling of labour on the black market. I therefore believe that it is as well that the hon. the Minister is bringing labour brokers under control.

In my opinion these amendments being effected by this legislation are sound ones and it attests to good understanding on the part of the Opposition Parties that they are supporting this labour legislation. We thank them for their support.

Mr. Speaker, the fact that there has been such a short debate on this legislation and that all sides support it, should not create the impression that there are no important provisions contained in the Bill. I wish to thank the hon. members for their support and I wish to point out one or two of the provisions to them.

In the field of labour it is always a sensitive situation and a danger for the worker, especially if he is under the impression that the labour situation is being controlled by the employer, that he may be coerced by means of victimization or that he may be discriminated against, and this applies in particular to workers in South Africa. In a multinational country such as South Africa, there is also the fear that employers may drive out workers by means of subtle victimization. It may therefore occur that workers feel unprotected, and this is a very sensitive situation. Hon. members who represent working class constituencies, will realize this all too well. The fact that we have established a court and that we have singled out victimization as one of the possible areas of friction and abuse and have labelled it as an unfair labour practice, will, I believe, afford the worker in South Africa a special security.

As far as this matter is concerned, the hon. member for Durban North has asked whether this legislation has been submitted to the trade unions and whether they have agreed to it, including the 90-day provision. I can assure him that there was, in fact, co-operation on the part of the trade unions, and that the talks held between the department and the trade unions were highly successful. The fact that these two reached agreement on most aspects of the legislation, should reassure the hon. members. We would not have been able to come forward with this legislation if we did not have the approval of the trade unions, for then we should have made trouble for ourselves.

Any form of victimization is being eliminated by way of this legislation, and this affords the workers security. This legislation therefore represents an important milestone.

A second important point is that we are now trying to do something in South Africa which, I believe, has not yet succeeded in any other country, and that is that in the agreements with regard to the closed shop, we are doing something which does not yet exist in either Britain or Europe. However, there is the practice that someone joins a trade union, and can then find employment. However, he first has to be in possession of trade union membership before he may work. This means that the trade union may control the situation completely. We are now trying another experiment, and I believe it could be successful. We stipulate a period of 90 days in which the employer, as well as the worker, may decide whether they want to enter the industry and whether they want to remain in it or not. Should we obtain the necessary co-operation and cause this experiment to succeed, I believe that we shall set an example to many other countries as far as this matter is concerned, and we can also prove that we can create something different to the rigid system which is, at the same time, worthwhile.

I believe that we have made exceptional progress as far as these two areas are concerned. I do not think that there is anything else I want to add in this regard, except to refer to the question asked by the hon. member for Durban North with regard to the registration of trade unions. However, I believe that we can take the matter further when the Manpower vote is discussed in this House at a later stage. Should the hon. member so wish, we could continue the discussion then.

I believe that the hon. the member Mr. Van Staden has raised a very important point. He referred to the question of labour brokers. He is quite correct in saying that this is a new monster which has raised its head. Suddenly there are people who are recruiting others and hiring them out. Serious abuses could occur in this regard. Hon. members can imagine for themselves what could happen in this country if the situation were to arise in which hundreds of thousands of people belonged to organizations which traded their labour and hired out labourers to other people. This is a brand new way of making money, something which could give rise to tremendous evils. Because this practice has commenced, and because we have perceived it, we are now rectifying the matter. I therefore wish to agree with the hon. member that it is important that we nip this practice in the bud at this stage, before it gives rise to evils which would later cause us embarrassment.

I once again thank all the members for taking part in the debate, as well as for their support of the present legislation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 7, in line 48, to omit “commencement of their employment” and to substitute:
   • coming into operation of such prohibition
2. (2) on page 7, in lines 50 and 51, to omit “such commencement” and to substitute:
   • coming into operation of such prohibition or from the date of entering into employment where the entering into employment takes place after the date of coming into operation of the prohibition
3. (3) on page 7, in lines 55 and 56, to omit “is at the date of employment of such members,” and to substitute:
   • at the date of coming into operation of such prohibition is
4. (4) on page 7, in lines 59 and 60, to omit “such employment” and to substitute:
   • coming into operation of such prohibition or after the date of employment, where the employment takes place after the date of coming into operation of the prohibition

The reason for these amendments is to ensure that closed shop agreements which are to be declared binding in the future, will also be applicable to workers who are already employed. Consequently the emphasis is shifted from the date of employment to the date of commencement of the agreement by which a prohibition is imposed; i.e. the date on which it is declared binding by the Minister in the Gazette.

The prohibition would therefore apply from the date of commencement thereof or from the date of employment, where employment takes place after the date of commencement of such a prohibition. What this in fact amounts to is that it is important to understand that there could be an agreement consisting of a number of people who do not meet the requirements, while there are a number who do meet the requirements, as well as newcomers, of course. As we are drafting it now—I am sorry that we overlooked this when the legislation was drafted originally—I believe that we are eliminating problems. The amendment is therefore aimed at improving this legislation.

I thank hon. members in anticipation for their support.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, let me begin by saying that we on this side of the House apologize to the hon. the Minister for not having been able to give him the amendments we would like to discuss, due to circumstances and the progress made with legislation in this House. I apologize for this. In any event, it was not our intention to inconvenience the hon. the Minister.

As far as clause 1 is concerned, there are two aspects in particular which we should like to raise here. The one concerns the ministry which will be responsible for implementing the provisions of this Bill. As the Bill reads at the moment, this task is being entrusted to the Office of the Prime Minister. There are obvious reasons why the Office of the Prime Minister should handle this legislation and why the council should fall under the Prime Minister. One of the reasons is that the council will represent a large number of disciplines in the natural sciences, and now we are looking for an all-embracing authority such as that of the Prime Minister to exercise overall control. However, there are also strong grounds for considering other ministries for this function. There is, for example, the Minister of Internal Affairs, who is after all responsible for the protection of the interests of the public in general. Secondly, there is the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism, who after all has an interest in the work produced by natural scientists. As hon. members know, most of our natural scientists today are associated with our large employers either as consultants or as employees. There are very few natural scientists who practise their profession within that framework and who work independently. In that sense, with a view to involving industries or whatever, surely one would also have grounds for considering whether the provisions of the Bill should not be placed under the control of the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism. A third possibility is the hon. the Minister of National Education, by virtue of the fact that we are very much concerned here with the training of people, the training of natural scientists. One of the strong reasons advanced to explain the need for this Bill during the Second Reading debate was the need to train more natural scientists. We have no amendment to move in this connection. I am just putting it to the hon. the Minister that these are questions we must ask in this connection. We also believe that from the nature of his work, the hon. the Prime Minister has enormous responsibilities in this country, and it is doubtful whether it would be humanly possible for him to find the time and the energy to give any attention to this matter, which is actually a detail within the broad framework of the work he has to do. This is the first point I wish to raise, and we should very much like to hear the remarks of the hon. the Minister in this connection.

The second point we wish to raise here is actually a friendly request which I want to address to the hon. the Minister and this House in connection with definition No. (xi) in the English text, the definition of “private consulting practice”. That definition has a bearing on the proposed reservation of work in terms of clause 7(3)(c) of this Bill. We have fairly drastic proposals in terms of our proposed amendment to clause 7, the gist of which is actually that we recommend that clause 7(3)(c) be deleted. We want to provide in section 7(1) for the definition by the council of work which can be done by a natural scientist. Therefore we request the hon. the Minister and this House to allow us to discuss this definition of “private consulting practice” along with the provisions of clause 7 and our proposed amendment to these.

The hon. member will first have to argue the case before I can decide whether we can do so or not.

Very well. The basic problem with the Bill is that there is a big difference of opinion concerning the coercive regulation of this matter. As was clear from the Second Reading debate, the whole question which is at issue is the fact that we accepted at Second Reading that a council should be established. Now, however, the fundamental question is whether we should regiment the natural sciences in South Africa in the way laid down in clause 7(3) in particular. As you know, Sir, in terms of the provisions of clause 7(3), the council will make recommendations to the Minister and the Minister will then be able to make regulations in terms of which he can, inter alia, reserve the work, in order, I believe, to eliminate duplication, but I take it that he can also allocate the work to be done by the various disciplines among the natural scientists. In terms of clause 7(3), the Minister also has the power to lay down, at the recommendation of the council, the tariffs which natural scientists may charge.

The Minister cannot do it without the council. He cannot do it of his own accord.

No, that is correct, but that is not the point.

But it is important.

Yes, it is an important point. I have made it very clear that the hon. the Minister acts on the advice of the council in this connection. What we are opposed to, however, is the coercive character of these provisions. What we want to propose is the amendment of section 7(1)(1), (m) and (n), in terms of which we wish to authorize the council to implement those provisions. So we are not saying that these matters should not be regulated; however, we should like to place this function in the hands of the council. Furthermore, we want to place it in the hands of the council in such a way that its coercive nature will disappear. So the council will continue to perform its function. It will co-ordinate, lay down tariffs and so forth.

But if the council lays down the tariffs, surely it has absolute power.

There is a further amendment which we are going to move in this connection, and in terms of this, the power, when it comes to the fixing of tariffs, will be of an advisory nature. The tariffs will be published in the Government Gazette, but the power in this connection will be advisory. In fact, even the way the Bill reads at the moment, the power with regard to the tariffs is not coercive.

It is not coercive, but in terms of your argument it would appear to be.

I am referring to the power within the context of work reservation and the function of the council. What is at issue here is not whether we lack confidence in the Prime Minister; it is simply that we want to create a situation where the council, which consists of very responsible persons—we shall see this when we deal with clause 3—such as representatives of the major disciplines among the natural scientists and representative of other bodies, will be quite competent and authorized to do this work. The council must be competent and authorized to do the work in such a way as to fulfil the objectives of the legislation; i.e., without having to introduce compulsory work reservation and all these penalizing elements into the Bill.

These, briefly, are the reasons why we actually wish to make a friendly request only. What it actually amounts to is that only the reference to section 7(3)(c) should be replaced, in accordance with amendments which we intend to move, by a reference to section 7(1)(n), for when it comes to clause 7, we want to move certain amendments to paragraphs (1), (m) and (n) of subsection (1). This does not affect the essence, the intention of the Bill, but it would be placing us in a difficult situation if we had to accept the reference to section 7(3)(c) at this stage. Our request is that the definitions be allowed to stand over until the clauses concerned have been dealt with.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member Prof. Olivier has raised a whole range of matters. He began by saying that the administration of the Bill should not fall under the Office of the Prime Minister, but his real objection was to clause 7(3)(c). What it boils down to is that when we come to clause 7, he wants to move an amendment to paragraphs (l), (m) and (n) of subsection (1). The amendment he wants to move in that connection must also be applicable to the definition of “private consulting practice” as it appears in clause 1(xi).

The hon. member said it should not fall under the Office of the Prime Minister.

No, I did not say that; I simply asked a question.

That is precisely the problem. The hon. member advanced an argument about the coercive regulation contained in the legislation. It is mainly concerned with the compulsory regulation of fees, tariffs, the kinds of work that can be reserved and so forth. Of course, this is by no means the primary objective of the legislation. The primary objective of the legislation has to do with science as such. For that reason I think it is essential that it fall under the Office of the Prime Minister. The other aspects are secondary to the purpose of the legislation. I believe that if the hon. member and I are in agreement about this and if we understand this, we should not have any serious problem about this. The other point which the hon. member raised can be discussed further at a later stage, but I think he should first have a clear understanding of the primary objective.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member who has just sat down does not understand the question of the hon. member Prof. Olivier with regard to the Office of the Prime Minister. The legislation before the House deals specifically with natural scientists in private practice and not so much with scientific research with which the Office of the Prime Minister is involved. One of the reasons for this reason for this legislation is, as the hon. the Minister explained during the Second Reading, to remove the problems which have arisen with regard to natural scientists, as defined in the Bill, and other fields of science, for example the engineering and medical professions. It would be better to have the Professional Engineer’s Act, the Architects’ Act, as well as the Quantity Surveyors’ Act, all of which correspond almost word for word with the legislation which is before the House at the moment, administered departmentally by a capable official who is well-informed about the implementation and the mechanics of this type of legislation. For this reason it would perhaps be a good idea to have all this legislation fall under one and the same Ministry. The hon. member Prof. Olivier pointed out that one could then argue about the specific department under which this group of acts should fall. It is, therefore, not in a spirit of criticizing the Office of the Prime Minister that I am suggesting that this legislation should not fall under it.

I want to raise a further point, but if the hon. the Minister can tell us now that we can discuss this matter later, I shall not elaborate on it now.

You have not quite convinced me yet.

I should then like to explain to the hon. the Minister that another reason why the legislation is being introduced is to regulate the natural sciences as a discipline in such a way that there can be work reservation, or a demarcation of the various disciplines, in the first place to remove problems within the profession, such as problems with regard to the overlapping of work, and secondly, to demarcate the various fields of activity where the natural scientist can possibly come into conflict with, for example, the engineering or the medical profession.

If a conflict should develop, should there not be someone to resolve it?

Yes, there has to be. The third reason which was mentioned was that the public must be protected against certain abuses which may arise in the general application of science, for example, in industry. With the amendments we want to move, we still want to attain all these objectives, because they are laudable things to strive for. However, we are concerned here only with job reservation. One can define the work which is normally done by a natural scientist, but one does not have to reserve it to protect the public, for example. If the public knows what a wide field is covered and that a list of natural scientists exists, they can see if the particular work they want done falls under the broad description of the work which is normally done by a natural scientist. The public can also study the list in order to choose a consultant, for example, but on the other hand they can also decide to negotiate with an expert of their own choice who is perhaps not a natural scientist. In other words, we have nothing against the natural sciences as a profession being regulated and defined in a general way. It is only the work reservation aspect which is perhaps not absolutely necessary. For this reason the definition could be discussed better after our amendments on clause 7 have been fully motivated.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to say a few things in support of some of the points mentioned by the hon. member Prof. Olivier. Firstly, there is the fact that this piece of legislation will be administered by the Office of the Prime Minister. I should just like to make it very clear that the hon. member did not say that we necessarily want it to be otherwise. We only wanted to know whether there was any specific reason why it should in fact fall under the Office of the hon. the Prime Minister, because one wonders whether it will not overburden the Prime Minister’s Office. Our impression is that it could really be done through a process of elimination. When one asks oneself why the administration of such a piece of legislation falls under a specific Ministry, one must ask, in order to compare, by whom similar legislation is administered. As we know, Acts like the Professional Engineers’ Act, the Architects’ Act, the Quantity Surveyors’ Act are administered by the Minister of Community Development. This may not have been a good idea either, but I think hon. members will agree that it could have some merit for one department to be responsible for the administration of all this legislation regulating various professions. As the hon. member for Greytown has already indicated, some measure of expertise may develop in such a department, which could be useful in the administration of similar new legislation. The Ministry concerned—whether it be that of the Prime Minister or of another Minister—has a very essential function in the implementation of this legislation. If one pages through the Bill, one sees how often reference is made to the hon. the Minister, how many appointments the hon. the Minister has to make, how many times he has to give permission for certain things and how many times things must be proven to his satisfaction, etc. That is why I believe it is important to give consideration to the Ministry under which this legislation should fall.

As has also been indicated by the hon. member Prof. Olivier, we shall also try to indicate by way of amendments that a role is being assigned to the hon. the Minister— whoever the Minister concerned may be— which provides for too much interference in the administration of the natural sciences as a profession. It can of course be argued that this Bill is technically speaking comparable with other legislation such as the Professional Engineers’ Act, etc. However, I should like to point out that we are entering a new field here in the sense that this profession covers a very wide field. I am sure hon. members will concede that we shall encounter many problems with the initial implementation of the legislation, many types of new problems which will require new solutions and which will have to be approached in a new manner. In my view we therefore have to give serious consideration to the question of whether the Minister concerned should really be involved to such an extent in the administration of this type of legislation. With a view to the amendment mentioned by the hon. member Prof. Olivier with regard to clause 1 and the fact that this amendment is really consequential upon the acceptance of amendments to clause 7(3)— this of course concerns cases of work reservation and the determination of fees which can be charged by natural scientists in private practice—I feel that when it comes to work reservation, we can turn for advice to professions which are not necessarily directly related to the natural sciences, or to professions which, unlike those of engineers and architects, have not necessarily received similar statutory recognition in similar legislation. In this way, with regard to the determination of fees, one could perhaps get a few useful ideas from the fee system of the legal profession, which contains much less coercive regulation and is designed rather to provide guidance. I think that we should also seek the advice of those types of professions with regard to this legislation. I think it would be of assistance to us in considering the sort of problems and questions which have been raised in the debate by hon. members on this side of the House up to now.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. members who spoke before me dealt with changes to clause 1. The first matter which was dealt with was the specific department under which the Bill falls and the Minister who is mentioned in the Bill. I should prefer not to argue with them about that, because I believe it is a matter for the Cabinet to decide, having regard to the amount of work which each individual Minister has. When I read this Bill I personally thought that legislation such as this could also be successfully administered by the Minister of Manpower, but if the hon. the Prime Minister and the Cabinet saw fit to allocate it as they did, I do not really want to raise any objection to it.

With regard to the complaints about clause 7(3)(c) I wish to state clearly that I cannot support the official Opposition’s view.

Order! I just want to point out to the hon. member that we are dealing with clause 1.

Yes, Sir, but reference has been made to amendments to clause 1 which would be consequential to amendments to clause 7(3)(c).

The legislation concerning natural scientists should rather be placed in the same category as the legislation with regard to medical practitioners and dentists and the Professional Engineers’ Act, instead of comparing it to laws relating to the legal profession. The legislation with regard to medical practitioners deal with widely divergent fields of work, for example, those of dental surgeons, general practitioners, chemical pathologists, radiologists and surgeons. The Professional Engineers’ Act covers fields such as civil, chemical and electrical engineering. It therefore covers a very wide range of activities. The Natural Scientists’ Bill deals with the work of chemists, physicists, mathematicians, etc.

One could ask oneself what these various disciplines have in common. I think that the medical people have their training very much in common. The medical practitioners all have the M.B. and Ch.B. degrees. Furthermore, they are all called physicians and can use the title “doctor”. Professional engineers all have their first year at university in common. Thereafter they go their separate ways and follow their respective courses at university. Finally, as regards training, they have their B.Sc. engineering degree in common. They can, furthermore, use the title “professional engineer” and write Pr.Ing. behind their names. Natural scientists all study at the same faculty, and in the first year many of them will follow the same courses but even their first year is not the same for all. In terms of this legislation they will be able to write the abbreviation Sci.Nat. behind their names.

I cannot see why there should be such a big difference, in terms of clause 7(3)(c), between the reservation of work for the natural scientist and for the professional engineer and medical practitioner. The Professional Engineers’ Act, the Architects’ Act and the Quantity Surveyors’ Act were all referred to Select Committees when they came before the House, and the Select Committees accepted those clauses. I cannot see that the work of natural scientists is so different from that of professional engineers. Why do hon. members of the Opposition want to pull this legislation’s teeth? Why did they not object to similarly worded sections in the Professional Engineers’ Act? For this reason I cannot support the proposed amendments.

Mr. Chairman, now that three hon. members of the PFP have argued their case, it is clear that their whole attack on this question is rather wishy-washy. They are not sure whether they should oppose the legislation or whether they want to oppose it or whether they are going to oppose it. Perhaps the hon. the Minister’s reaction will determine whether or not they persist in their opposition.

It is the same with their party.

The hon. member for Green Point alleged that it did not belong under the Office of the Prime Minister, and that it should rather fall under the Department of Industries, Commerce and Tourism or one of the other departments. However, the hon. member must bear in mind that among the scientists involved, there are 1 600 agricultural scientists who in terms of his argument would belong under the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. I do not know exactly how many geologists there are. I believe there are approximately 600, and I suppose they would probably fall under the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. There are also scientific geologists, physicists, botanists, mathematicians, in fact, several thousand scientists belonging to various disciplines, and what department is more appropriate than the Office of the Prime Minister, especially the Scientific Planning Branch, which is specifically equipped to serve the natural sciences as such? I can see no reason whatsoever why it should fall under any other Minister.

However, hon. members on the Opposition side have also mentioned the essence of the matter to which they object. It is the, as they call it, coercive discipline with regard to this matter. It is mainly concerned with work reservation. In the debate on the Bill which has just been dealt with, we spoke about closed shop, and about certain occupations and tasks which are reserved for members of the trade unions concerned. The opposition had no problem whatsoever with that; in fact, they supported it. However, now that we are discussing the legislation concerning natural scientists, they suddenly object vehemently to the fact that certain work will be reserved for scientists of the respective disciplines. I cannot understand their attitude at all. It would appear to me that when it comes to trade unionism, especially when the trade unionism involves politics, the Opposition does not hesitate to support the matter. We know that the primary objective of trade unions is to negotiate about the benefits and conditions of employment of their members. As far as natural scientists are concerned, however, negotiating about their benefits and conditions of employment is only a secondary objective. The primary objective of this legislation is to enhance the credibility of the natural scientists and to promote science as such, and now, all of a sudden, there is a major problem. Therefore I have no idea what the arguments of the Opposition are all about.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to explain briefly why the impression may be created that we are actually discussing clause 7 at the moment, while clause 1 of the Bill is under consideration. The official Opposition has proposed that clause 1 stand over until clause 7 has been discussed, because they want to move certain amendments to clause 1, depending on the acceptance of an amendment which the hon. member Prof. Olivier wishes to move to clause 7(1)(c).

Let us begin with the first aspect raised by the hon. member Prof. Olivier, in which he was supported by the hon. member for Green Point. The hon. member asked certain questions. He wanted to know why a specific ministry rather than any other ministry should accept responsibility for this legislation. The first objection which the hon. member Prof. Olivier raised in this respect was that he did not believe that the hon. the Prime Minister, with his enormous burden of work, could give attention to this matter as well. I think that is a valid point. That is precisely why the work has been delegated. The hon. member Prof. Olivier must please understand that when I introduced the legislation with regard to the Peninsula Technikon in this House, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens expressed concern about my burden of work. On that occasion the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens wanted the administration of that piece of legislation to be entrusted to the Department of National Education, which implies, of course, that I have too much work and the hon. the Minister of National Education has none. I want to assure the hon. member that I do not mean to be unkind in saying this. I concede that one could probably advance quite valid arguments to the effect that the administration of this piece of legislation could just as well fall under a different Ministry. The hon. member argues that this particular profession is mainly devoted to serving industry. I fully agree with the hon. member about that.

In all probability, the number of natural scientists in private consulting practices represents a small minority, as is in fact the case with professional engineers. In evaluating this situation, it seems to me, the following aspects are important. I believe that the hon. member Dr. Odendaal also advanced some valid arguments in this connection. The fact is that natural scientists represent such a wide spectrum of disciplines that it is difficult to categorize people in this profession in order to place them under the jurisdiction of a specific Ministry. The moment we concede this, it seems to me, one has to take the argument further in order to ascertain where the proposed legislation would most logically belong, bearing in mind, of course, the fact that it represents such a wide spectrum of disciplines.

Now I want to add at once that the Office of the hon. the Prime Minister has not adopted a dogmatic standpoint about this. It is quite likely that one could have this legislation administered by another Ministry. However, let us take the legislation relating to professional engineers as an example. One could argue with some justification that the administration of legislation relating to that profession does not necessarily have to fall under the Ministry of Community Development, but may belong under some other Ministry. I concede this at once. However, as far as the natural sciences are concerned, I must point out that the Office of the hon. the Prime Minister has several planning functions. The one which is really relevant in this connection is Science Planning. I believe that I could convince the hon. member that there really are important reasons and considerations on the basis of which, having conceded that there is no exact way of determining where this profession belongs, one could nevertheless be persuaded to accept that this is a profession which should in fact be administered by the Office of the hon. the Prime Minister. The Science Planning Branch of the Office of the Prime Minister is the focal point of the natural sciences or matters relating to them, for three reasons, I believe. Firstly, it provides the substructure for the Scientific Advisory Council, and this council is appointed by the hon. the Prime Minister and his Office. Therefore it is an important substructure for that council. Secondly, it processes the Government budget in respect of the money allocated for research and the drawing up of priorities in that particular connection. Then I think it is also important to note that the Office of the Prime Minister performs an important co-ordinating function and, in addition, represents a mechanism for liaison between the central controlling bodies. I think the hon. member will concede to me that for these reasons, and considering the fact that there are no definitive norms that can be applied, it will in all probability be best for this legislation to fall under the Office of the Prime Minister. If considerations were to arise in the future in terms of which it would be essential or more effective for the administration of the legislation to be vested elsewhere, I shall be quite prepared to consider such an argument in this particular connection.

I now want to deal with the reason why the hon. member is asking us to allow clause 1 to stand over until we have dealt with clause 7. In the first place, the hon. member stated that the provisions of clause 7(3) were too coercive and that they placed powers in the hands of the Minister which in the hon. member’s opinion should rather be in the hands of the council, if I understood him correctly. Referring to clause 7(3), I just want to point out that it is not a coercive provision.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.