Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, first of all I just want to refer to a remark made while the hon. member for Witbank was speaking during the Second Reading debate. It concerned the whole situation which is developing in South Africa and which we are also taking into account in the legislation under discussion, viz. that more and more use is being made of female labour. We are also taking note of the need which has arisen, viz. that in respect of female labour, too, there should be no differentiation. Hon. members of all the various parties in the House have spoken about this subject. However, the hon. member for Witbank made a very good remark, a remark which I should like to support. He said that in these changing circumstances employers have a responsibility to contribute towards facilitating the entry of women into the labour market. He also pointed out ways in which they could do so. Even in factories and other workplaces, facilities can be created at the expense of the employer for the care of children while their mothers work. The reason I am referring to this now is that I believe that as we are now discussing the implementation of this legislation, it will be as well to draw attention to this aspect. I wholeheartedly support this concept, and also associate myself with the hon. member for Witbank by making an appeal to the people concerned. In this sphere we could really have a major contribution from our employers. Consequently I thank the hon. member-for this remark of his and I express my wholehearted support for it.

There is clearly confusion among some hon. members about the question of work on Sundays in shops and offices, particularly in shops and factories. I referred to that in my Second Reading speech as well. The Shops and Offices Act stipulates that no employer shall require or permit an employee to work on any Sunday in or in connection with a shop or an office in which work is performed as part of the business carried on in the shop, that he may not do any work pertaining to the business carried on in the shop except in a shop which is by law allowed to be open on a Sunday. The provision relating to shops being open or closed is not, therefore, a function of this legislation. This is a matter that is largely regulated by ordinance. However, where it is provided that a particular shop shall be closed, what I am going to say now, applies. The said Act also specifies the payment of the employee when he has to work on a Sunday, and is worded similarly to the relevant provision in the Bill under discussion. Therefore, the prohibition applies only to work done on Sundays behind the closed doors of a shop, or in connection with an office as part of the business carried on in a shop, for example cleaning, the rearrangement of shelves, the annual stocktaking, etc. This is because by law, shops may not be open. In particular cases, however, the Minister could grant exemption, something which was in fact done for practical reasons because applications at short notice could be received from the largest to the smallest shop.

These applications could be received from all over the country. This could be done quickly and at short notice, and could even take place under circumstances which could complicate the handling of such an application.

In the case of the existing two Acts as well as in the case of the new measure, any matter dealt with in accordance with a measure regulating conditions of employment in terms of the Labour Relations Act, the Wages Act or the Manpower Training Act, is not affected. Consequently the implementation of the provisions pertaining to work on Sundays has a very limited effect. The Bill under discussion brings the position in respect of shops in line with the prevailing position in respect of factories and now expressly provides that permission may be granted by an inspector. Inspectors are acquainted with local conditions and are more capable of sound judgment on the merits of applications received. Accordingly the existing prohibition on work in shops and offices on Sundays is now being abolished. The prohibition is being repealed in terms of which the Minister had to grant permission for work on Sundays, but the prohibition is being retained, and the power to grant permission for exemption is being transferred to the inspector. To avoid any misapprehension in this regard, however, I just want to point out that this measure has nothing to do with whether, as in the past, work could be done behind closed doors on a Sunday. For that exemption had to be obtained. It is now a matter of who grants the exemption. Does the Minister have to grant it, and should he perhaps have to do so in the event of thousands of such applications, or should it be granted by the inspector who is on the premises and could perform the task more easily? I just want to point out that it is a question of the duty to grant exemption, as it is now put, being transferred from the Minister to the inspector who deals with it in all circumstances in any case, and who is likely to be in a better position to deal with it than the Minister is in such an instance.

Mr. Speaker, the discussion of this Bill could make political history.

Fame’s last Bill!

Of course this is not because of the contents of the Bill, but because of the surrounding circumstances associated with this Bill. During the Second Reading debate I said that this Bill could almost be a kind of Magna Carta in regard to the workers affected by it. Of course it could also be that this Bill, because of the developments that have taken place around it, could also be the graveyard of one or more political figures in South Africa. [Interjections.]

During his reply to the Second Reading debate the hon. the Minister issued the challenge to the hon. the leader of the CP to resign his seat and to oppose him in Soutpansberg. We have all taken cognizance of the developments around this situation and we in the country are waiting anxiously …

Order! What situation is the hon. member discussing now?

The situation stated by the hon. the Minister in his reply to the Second Reading debate.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am only reacting to what the hon. the Minister was allowed to say. In my ignorance I assumed that if the hon. the Minister was at liberty to go beyond the purview of this Bill, that right would also be granted to other hon. members in this House. [Interjections.] I am not impugning the hon. the Minister or this House or your ruling. I just want to submit that the hon. the Minister replied to a specific matter which was raised during the debate on the Second Reading and I wish to react to it. It does seem to me that this would only be fair, and I shall not occupy much of your or this House’s time with the matter. It is only fair that I should make a few remarks in this connection. Unfortunately there is nothing which this party can do about that situation. All we can do is await further chapters to see whether we are dealing here with shadow boxing, or with a farce, or with a drama.

With reference to the contents of this debate—because this became apparent from the discussion during the Second Reading debate—I just want to say that there is one thing which we find perturbing—and in this connection I am speaking on my own behalf and I think, too, on behalf of other hon. members in this House—and that is the element of personal bitterness which has also emerged in this debate. We all accept that harsh things are said in the political struggle. I have always hoped and indeed I believe that it is the function of this House to analyse legislation and other measures on their merits. If it is possible to put an end to this tone of personal bitterness in some way or another, I shall be very grateful.

In connection with this Bill I just wish to say that we have already indicated that we shall support the Bill. We adhere to that. We are also grateful for the degree of explanation which the hon. the Minister has just given us in his speech. What this legislation entails is nothing but a step towards bringing our position into line with what has become the practice in other Western countries. The provisions which we have in this legislation certainly differ from those which exist in similar spheres in other countries, but we shall have to allow ourselves to be guided by the practical circumstances in our own country. The fact that we have this legislation before us is indeed an indication of the norm of development which we have reached in our society. If one remembers the earlier days and the enormous amount of exploitation which occurred among the workers, one is grateful that we have a need to protect our workers against possible exploitation by way of a Bill of this nature and in pursuance of the legislation which has been repealed.

In this connection I want to make two observations before I resume my seat. The first is concerned with the question of female labour. The modern development is simply, throughout the world, that forms of discrimination in connection with employment, conditions of service, obligations and rights and privileges pertaining to the utilization of female labour have developed to such an extent that we can no longer distinguish between the utilization of female and the utilization of male workers. In that sense the legislation merely interprets a development which certainly cannot be halted.

I want to make it very clear that what is being done in the Bill in respect of women is by no means an encroachment upon any rights of women. All that is being done is that the privileges which were available for other workers are also being extended to women. Consequently women—and I am saying this for the sake of my hon. friends on the CP side—are not being deprived of anything, nothing at all. In fact, they are being given privileges which they have not had up to now.

I have always been aware that when it comes to colour and race our hon. friends in the CP not only have certain prejudices, but in many respects—I shall return to this in a moment with reference to the Bill—hold certain racist views. However, I have never thought that they were misogynists as well. [Interjections.] Nevertheless, my interpretation is correct: Women are not being deprived of anything here; all that is being done is that privileges given to other people are also being allocated to women now.

I listened with careful attention to the hon. member for Langlaagte in his reaction to the Bill. On the basis of the Bill I very clearly got the impression that the entire approach of the CP—that is to say, if I have to judge by what the hon. member for Langlaagte said—is not one Of safeguarding the White man, but is in fact one which is completely characterized and dominated by racistic considerations.

You are quite wrong. [Interjections.]

Once again the White worker is not being deprived of anything here, nothing at all. On the contrary, the White worker is being afforded greater protection. All that is happening in the Bill is that some of the disqualifications and the discriminations to which workers were subject are being removed. Consequently there is nothing in the Bill which does the White worker an injustice, nothing. I challenge anyone on the CP side to show me where, in comparison with the present situation, the White workers are being placed in a worse position by the Bill than other workers in this connection.

But you do not even have a seat which you could resign.

If the hon. members on the CP side are of the opinion that they can run an economy without using workers other than White workers, they are free to do so and I hope that they will be able to implement the Sabra idea to establish a little all-White State near the Orange River to which they will all move. I think that would be a blessing for all of us.

There is a confusion in norms, and that is that we can maintain the position of the Whites by committing an injustice to other groups. In the first place I reject that norm.

Surely you know you are talking nonsense.

I want to take it further. In this country we cannot build righteousness upon an injustice to another group. I cannot imagine our endangering the position of the Whites and that of the White workers to a greater extent than by committing an injustice against people of colour in this country. Consequently I merely wish to say that I wish to dissociate myself from the general spirit which emanated from the reaction by the hon. member for Langlaagte to the provisions of this Bill. I say once again that we in these benches support the hon. the Minister in this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I gladly associate myself with the thoughts expressed by the hon. member Prof. Olivier. Sir, I hope you will not rule me out of order when I say that he acted here as a political mediator when he referred to the surrounding circumstances. I should like to draw his attention to the fact that the Basic Conditions of Employment Bill is being discussed at the moment. However, if one looks at the present climate, it seems as if we shall have to review and debate the Unemployment Insurance Act one of these days. Interjections.] The Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act and the Shops and Offices Act have become household words in any factory or office, but in view the Bill at present before the House, which is now at Third Reading, the old Acts will disappear and the new legislation will be known as the Basic Conditions of Employment Act.

When we in South Africa talk about manpower and the utilization of manpower we simply cannot afford to discriminate with regard to race or sex. [Interjections.] Every person in South Africa, whether he be Coloured, Indian, Black or White, has the right to offer or utilize his services in any factory or office to the optimum extent. [Interjections.] Let us look at the situation. By 1981—the most recent figure on record—two million factories had been registered in South Africa and it is interesting to look at the numbers of persons in the employ of factories at the end of 1981. There were 301 807 White men, 83 380 White women, 167 771 Coloured men, 134 306 Coloured women, 85 304 Asian men, 41 334 Asian women, 864 083 Black men and 178 758 Black women. In view of these figures we see that we can by no means afford to discriminate with regard to labour in South Africa, and even less to allow it to enter the political sphere. [Interjections.]

Reference has been made to female labour. The possibility was referred to that women in South Africa were being discriminated against. I should like to refer this House, with respect, to a recent HSRC newsletter—the date is 1982—which dealt with the question of “womanpower”. It is clear that women are comprising an increasingly important part of the labour market. In 1951, 20% of the total economically active population consisted of women. By 1980 the figure had risen to 32%. According to statistical surveys, almost 70% of all White women between the ages of 20 and 24 worked outside the home in 1980. However, after the age of 24 the figure decreases considerably.

With the broader framework that this Bill provides in respect of basic conditions of service, all people can live their lives to the full and utilize their services in factories and offices to the full.

With these few words I take pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we have now come to the Third Reading of this Bill, a stage which will probably be described by future historians as one of the most significant watersheds in contemporary history. [Interjections.]

Let me interrupt myself at this stage, however, and congratulate my hon. leader on the wise decision which he announced yesterday evening. [Interjections.] I want to tell my hon. leader that this is the beginning of the end of the NP and the end of the beginning of the CP. [Interjections.] During this debate the die has been cast. Now the eyes of South Africa are turned upon the Minister of Manpower. Now he will have to show us what kind of man he is. Now we are waiting to hear what the mountain is going to bring forth: Is it going to be a man, or is it going to be a rat? Is he going to disown himself and the NP and sink into obscurity, or is he going to allow himself to be ground into the dust in Soutpansberg? He has no choice. His hour of truth has arrived.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the Bill.

Sir, I want to point out with all due respect that the hon. the Minister of Manpower devoted a great deal of time in his reply to the Second Reading debate—it covers seven pages of his Hansard— to an attack on my hon. leader, the hon. member for Waterberg, in respect of matters which had no connection whatsoever with this Bill. You will recall, Sir, that I even asked you to rule that the hon. the Minister should return to the Bill. In spite of that, he continued with a personal attack on the hon. member for Waterberg. That is why I think it is only fair that you should allow the parties to react to it.

Order! The hon. member may discuss it on another occasion, not now.

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I must insist upon it. I shall not be dealing with this aspect for long, but I do wish to state our standpoint on it. [Interjections.] With all due respect, Sir, you allowed the hon. the Minister to proceed and I think it is only fair that you should give us an opportunity too. I give you the assurance that I shall not be dealing with this matter for very long.

Order! I ruled the hon. member Prof. Olivier out of order. Consequently I have no choice but to rule the hon. member out of order as well. [Interjections.]

I just want to base it on the hon. the Minister having used language in his reply to the Second Reading debate which was unworthy of him as hon. Leader of this House, language which is unworthy of an hon. member who has been in this House for 25 years. He behaved himself like the rogue buffalo he is. His hatred, his envy, his venom and his bitterness …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order…

Order! The hon. member must please confine himself to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, may I, with all due respect, address you on this matter?

Order! I have already given my ruling.

I wish to address you on this matter from another angle. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to you that my colleague, who was in the process of addressing you, did so on the basis of the hon. the Minister’s reply to the Second Reading debate. My hon. colleague referred to the hon. the Minister’s speech and was replying with reference to it. I wish to say, with all due respect, that a Third Reading speech is a speech in which reference may be made to the preceding debate. In view of this … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I am in the process of addressing you, but the hon. the Chief Whip of the NP is making it almost impossible for me.

Order!

I shall continue, Sir. In view of what I have said, and since it is also foreseeable that the hon. the Minister is once again, in his reply in respect of this matter, going to seize upon the opportunity to turn this matter into a political issue, I want to ask you, with all due respect, to allow the hon. member for Brakpan, and through him the CP, an opportunity to utilize the one chance which it will have in this debate to state its point.

Order! Many further opportunities will arise during which it will in fact be possible to raise this matter. I rule that the hon. member should now come back to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I fail to understand your ruling, and I would therefore just like to have clarification on it, I hold no brief for the CP at all, but what I want to know is whether it would be correct to interpret your ruling in this way, that it applies only to hon. members of the Opposition while the hon. the Minister can do what he wants? In other words, does your ruling apply only to the Opposition and not to the NP?

Order! The hon. the Minister did not say anything in the Third Reading which was outside the context of the Bill.

I am referring to when the hon. the Minister replied to the Second Reading debate. Is your ruling to be interpreted that you make different rulings for different sides of the House?

Order! No.

How could you then have ruled as you did?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it in order that the hon. member for Sand-ton should imply by way of questions that you allowed the hon. the Minister to adopt a mode of conduct which you did not approve of among hon. members of the Opposition? I maintain that this is a reflection on the Chair, and that the hon. member ought to withdraw those questions.

Order! The hon. member for Brakpan may proceed with his speech.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to do my best to defer to your ruling, but you will understand that this debate deals with aspects of labour and employer and employee matters, and consequently I would appreciate it very much if you would exercise a wide discretion in this connection.

Since we are discussing mediation and conciliation in labour legislation, I wish to put it to the hon. the Prime Minister for his consideration that it is a danger to South Africa that a person such as the hon. the Minister of Manpower should be in charge of this sensitive portfolio. He has no charisma. I would not even ask that hon. Minister to act as mediator in a dispute between Mike Schutte and Jimmy Abbott. The hon. the Minister reprimanded the hon. member for Pinelands for dragging politics into labour matters, but immediately afterwards he dragged the CP into the political arena on this matter. That is the consistency of that hon. Minister. As in certain debates last year, he reproached the CP for having ostensibly accepted the White definition of “worker” in 1979, in other words for having also accorded recognition to Black trade unions. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that no party has deviated and run away from its principles and policy to such an extent as the NP has in fact done. Surely the hon. the Minister admits this himself, or does he still advocate the same principles of a year, two or three ago? It is typical of the NP to accuse other parties of doing precisely what it itself is doing. In fact, the day is still going to arrive when the PFP is going to be without a policy because the NP will have usurped its policy completely. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member is not talking about the Bill under discussion at all.

Order! The hon. member may proceed with his speech, but he must confine himself to the legislation.

I am talking about the principles of the NP.

Mr. Speaker, may the hon. member for Jeppe refer to the hon. the Minister of Manpower as “Fame”?

I said “old Fanie”.

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member for Jeppe that there is only one form of address for hon. members in this House.

Mr. Speaker, it is general practice here that hon. members …

No, it is not the general practice. The general practice is to call hon. members “hon. members”.

Oh, come now, Koos!

Mr. Speaker, I am being shouted at all the time…

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. the Minister of Community Development refer to me as “Koos”?

The hon. the Minister of Community Development must please address the hon. member as “the hon. member for Jeppe”.

Remember that, Pen.

Let us go into the history of this matter for a while. The hon. the Minister will remember that in the years 1978 and 1979 he went to a great deal of trouble in this House to convince us, when we were still in the NP, that it would be a security risk not to recognize the Black trade unions. He said that those trade unions were growing and that they were being recognized by the employers. They had head offices in Lesotho and were being financed from outside. Consequently we did not dare ignore them. We trusted the hon. the Minister. He wanted to obtain control over those trade unions. But he led us further and further into the abyss. We pointed out the flashing red danger lights to him, but he took no notice of them. When we came to the registration of trade unions, he said the best way of getting at the malcontents was to ensure that they had to register. He said that he was going to compel them to register and, if they did not do so, he would even institute prosecutions. Nothing came of this. He then came forward with the question of mixed trade unions. He knows that he did not convince me in this connection. The hon. the Minister then afforded me an opportunity to have a discussion with trade union leaders. I thought that this invitation was addressed to all the members of the labour group of the NP, but when I arrived at the meeting, there were only two other hon. members and I, and there was a horde of trade union leaders present. I subsequently realized that the trade union leaders who were there were persons whom the hon. the Minister had singled out. Those who represented the right-wing trade unions in South Africa did not attend the conference. Once again, however, we accepted the bona fides of that hon. Minister. But he has a short memory. He accuses the hon. member for Waterberg of having a lot to say about labour. Now I want to take him back to Marble Hall once again. That hon. Minister still owes me a reply on the Marble Hall speech, and perhaps he can give me that reply today. Once again I want to quote to him what my hon. leader said at Marble Hall. On the labour situation he said…

That was a closed meeting.

How does the hon. member arrive at that conclusion? My hon. leader said—

He went on to say—

I say this to the hon. member Prof. Olivier as well. He says we are racists. Sir, since when is it the norm that love for one’s own is racism? The hon. member for Waterberg then said—

That is what the hon. member for Waterberg said, and it was a flashing light. However, the hon. the Minister speaks about “the courage of a mouse”. At a meeting of the Transvaal executive of the NP he did not want to vote for the motion of confidence in and thanks to the hon. member for Waterberg, at the time the leader of the NP in the Transvaal, on this very aspect.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member not circumventing your ruling?

Sir, to this day we still do not know what objection the hon. the Minister had to these words of the hon. member for Waterberg. Sir, only the gong saved the hon. the Minister from being turfed out of the NP executive in the Transvaal. When I asked the hon. the Minister in last year’s labour debate what he actually had against the speech made by the hon. member for Waterberg, his reaction was that he did not reply to a person who knew nothing about labour matters. That is how he treats hon. members in this House, Sir.

Sir, allow me to touch on a few more matters only. Perhaps in his heart of hearts and perhaps also in his conscience it will cause those rigid National guidelines which he himself adhered to so zealously in bygone days to stir. The one is self-determination for the Whites, in the labour sphere as well. That is all that the hon. member for Langlaagte wished to bring home to the hon. the Minister: Self-determination for the Whites in the labour sphere as well. Self-determination is not automatically recognized or guaranteed. Associated with this is the striving to maintain one’s own identity, and listen now to what Mr. Harry Oppenheimer had to say about this according to The Star of 15 October 1977—

I wonder whether hon. members opposite are still prepared to fight for their identity. But among them it is apparently a pubertal phenomenon. According to “Ouboet” Wimpie it is a pubertal phenomenon. Out of this desire to maintain one’s own identity flows the need to terminate urgently the tendency on the part of the Government in the direction of a so-called labour holism, and a return to a policy of labour preference within the geographic areas of the various peoples. Such a system must be underpinned by a system of creative withdrawal of foreign labour from one another’s territories.

In regard to the hon. the Minister’s challenge on our policy, we say that according to the system of labour preference the members of each nation enjoy preference in all labour matters in the geographic area of that nation, including preference in respect of bargaining, worker protection and employment. But we can debate this matter further when the Minister’s Vote is debated at a later stage during this session, that is to say if he is still in our midst at the time.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? He has now defended his leader very well and praised him for the right decision which he allegedly took. Does the hon. member and the colleagues in his party not think that they should now make a magnanimous gesture, take their leader’s hand and resign as well?

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs that we would gladly welcome his coming to help with the canvassing in Soutpansberg. [Interjections.]

Order!

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to turn once again to the hon. the Minister of Manpower. This afternoon the hon. the Minister deviated a little from his unshakable attitude in regard to overtime work, and particularly in regard to work on Sundays. He became a little more phlegmatic in comparison with his inexorable attitude yesterday. What we put to him during the Committee Stage, however, was that he should reconsider clause 8 of the Bill. He would also do well to reconsider clause 10. Then I ask the hon. the Minister, with tears in my eyes, why the same wording which we find in clause 8 cannot also be used in clause 10. Surely it is so self-evident. When someone wants the consent of a person to work on Sunday, one cannot rely solely on the inspector. It is true that the inspector will not make a decision without having obtained the previous consent of the employee. Then why does the hon. the Minister not say so? Why does he not say so in connection with such a sensitive matter as work on Sunday?

I just wish to put it to the hon. the Minister of Manpower that his explanation and his conduct here in the House in regard to work on Sunday is going to elicit a very negative reaction from the voters of Soutpansberg one of these days. [Interjections.] With these words, Mr. Speaker, we support, to our regret, the Third Reading of this Bill. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I should like to remind the hon. member for Brakpan of the NP’s programme of principles. It is a programme of principles which was subscribed to for many years by the hon. member for Brakpan. I am not going to occupy the time of the House this afternoon by quoting article 1 of the NP’s programme of principles. However, I want to ask the hon. member for Brakpan, when he goes home this evening—and I think he still has the NP’s programme of principles in his possession—to read article 1 of that programme of principles. Then he must measure his conscience against article 1 of the NP’s programme of principles. [Interjections.] We must please not become excited about this matter now.

Surely the hon. member for Baberton still remembers—it was not all that long ago— how he became scared stiff of the HNP. How many times did he not say, as recently as 1979, that he feared for his future in his own constituency? [Interjections.] I found it so interesting that when it was necessary to negotiate with the HNP, the choice of the CP fell upon the hon. member for Baberton to conduct those negotiations. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I should now like to come back to the Bill. I wish to refer to the last remark made by the hon. member for Brakpan, and I shall let that suffice. My reason for referring to that remark of the hon. member for Brakpan is that it is relevant in the discussion of this legislation, because it was concerned with work on Sunday. As far as I know, the hon. member for Brakpan never rose in this house to raise any objections to a single provision in any Act or ordinance concerning work on Sundays. [Interjections.] When he goes home tonight, the hon. member for Brakpan would do well to read Act. No. 28 of 1896. It is one of President Kruger’s laws pertaining to Sunday observance. The hon. member would do well to go and read it.

There is still one matter on which I wish to take the hon. member for Brakpan, as well as all his hon. colleagues in the CP, to task. I want to tell them this afternoon, Sir, that when I address the hon. the Prime Minister of a country’s government or any Minister of a country’s government, I have to accord him that honour at least. He is Prime Minister of the country in which I live and this hon. Minister is Minister of Manpower of the Republic of South Africa. The way in which hon. members of the CP acted in this House was such that more than one of them was requested to leave this Chamber. It does not redound to the credit of that party, nor this House, nor our country. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Jeppe need not be concerned. I may call him Koos if he is not careful! That hon. member in the back benches reminds me a lot of an old-fashioned bedroom as we knew it years ago. The hon. member will know what I am referring to.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: What does an old-fashioned bedroom have to do with this Bill?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Jeppe should go back in time a little to the old-fashioned bedroom. He knows about everything that was in that bedroom. [Interjections.]

I now want to return to the hon. member for Brakpan. That hon. member referred reproachfully to the hon. Minister of Manpower this afternoon. I just want to tell the hon. member that—

I hope the hon. member will remember that for the rest of his life.

The Basic Conditions of Employment Bill of 1983 will turn out to be a milestone along the way for labour legislation in the Republic of South Africa. Labour legislation is a process on which the Government is engaged. If we now ask ourselves: What gave rise to the legislation we are discussing this afternoon, we shall see that in 1956 an in-depth study was made of labour legislation in this country. Since then the situation has changed radically as far as labour legislation is concerned. It is this hon. Minister of Manpower who instructed that an in-depth investigation be instituted in respect of manpower legislation in our country. This afternoon I want to tell those hon. members, who are very worked up, that legislation is being placed on the Statute Book which will protect all workers in the Republic of South Africa as never before. The legislation before us this afternoon comprises the consolidation of two Acts. However, it is not merely the consolidation of Act 75 of 1964, the Shops and Offices Act and the Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act, Act no. 22 of 1941, but it also goes a great deal further. With the exception of a few groups, this legislation affects most of the sectors of the economy of our country.

If we consider what is being included in this legislation, we must note, in the very first place—this is to my mind the most important aspect—that this legislation is going to afford the worker the necessary protection. It is not merely a question of the protection of the worker but of the employer as well. After all, in this legislation it is being very clearly defined what hours may be worked, what overtime may be paid and what overtime may be worked.

The Bill also prohibits intimidation. In the Bill provision is also being made for a worker to have the right at all times—this of course applies to an employer as well—if a dispute between the inspector and the worker concerned should arise, to appeal to the Director-General. In the Bill the Minister is also being granted a discretion to be able to act without restrictions, as he sees fit, in respect of the delegation of powers to any person. He is being given the discretion to delegate power because we cannot, in the time in which we are living, become entangled in unnecessary red tape. We are in fact moving away from this. However, the necessary protection in still being made inherent for every party in this legislation because employee as well as employer still have the right to appeal to the Minister in terms of the Bill. We also note in the legislation that there is a movement away from differences on the basis of sex, race or colour.

What gave rise to a Bill such as this? Surely we know that the position in the Republic in South Africa has changed drastically since those days. Let us take as an example one of the chain stores, and it makes no difference whether one takes a chain store in Pretoria, Cape Town or any other place for that matter. One finds that there is a work force which in many cases consists of representatives of all the respective groups in our country. Can one imagine an exception being made in respect of the Bill in favour of one specific group?

The situation as it has been up to the present, caused unhappiness. It contributed to dissatisfaction. These are things of which we must take notice and eliminate. We must ensure that there is happiness, because this unhappiness contributed to frustration on the part of many people in this country. We cannot afford frustrated people. We are sitting in this House with a small group of hon. members who are frustrated, and everyone knows what effect that is having. With all the earnestness at my disposal I wish to emphasize this afternoon that a frustrated person can never be a productive person.

I want to conclude with a few observations. Economic growth and development is a prerequisite for the maintenance of our physical preparedness. That is why research into and the utilization of manpower is of the utmost importance to the security of our country. If we achieve success it could influence our position in Africa and stregthen our position in the outside world. We must not try to evade a willingness to maintain labour peace by not doing away with protective measures as this becomes necessary. We must not lapse into the old clichés of saying that this or that should be protected; it is South Africa that should be protected. If we do that, and do so by way of legislation such as we have at present in this House, everyone in this country is being protected. I believe and I am convinced that the Bill will contribute to labour peace and tranquillity in a beautiful country.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Witbank must please forgive me if I do not react to his speech, because I want to return this hon. House—perhaps at a very fitting moment—from this fraternal quarrel to the peaceful, hygienic, calm atmosphere which one finds in a hospital. [Interjections.] Perhaps one can say that we are now going from Waterberg to the hospital bed, or from Waterkloof to the “patientskloof”.

I think that it is fitting at this stage to pause for a moment to see what effect the envisaged legislation will have on employees performing medical or health services. It is a pity that the hon. the Minister did not accept the very good amendments we on this side of the House moved yesterday, because I feel that as a result of the envisaged legislation, serious problems may be created in future.

Are you still supporting it, Marius?

We see in the explanatory memorandum that the position of farm labourers and domestic workers remains unchanged because they are being excluded from the scope of application of the legislation—I should like hon. members to note this—as a result of the particular circumstances which characterize the employer-employee relationship in these sectors. This is quite in order, but I think this statement can be made with the same necessity and the same force in connection with hospital workers. The explanatory memorandum also states that there is no reason why the basic conditions of employment for the proposed legislation should not be complied with in respect of employees who perform medical or health services, and they are consequently excluded. However, during the debate—especially in the Committee Stage—the hon. the Minister repeatedly said that they could obtain exemption. I find it difficult to understand where it is stated in this memorandum that there is no justification for their exclusion. I should very much like to know from the hon. the Minister how he can say that they can ask for exemption, while it is said that there is no justification for it. As far as I am concerned, there is a discrepancy here.

In terms of the proposed legislation there will be different conditions of employment for different groups within one profession. The employees in the State hospitals have their own service contract, while the employees in private hospitals will, in terms of this legislation, have a different service contract. If we look closely at the situation, we see that it actually means that employees in private hospitals will be able to work 46 hours per week, whereas in the State hospitals they are not restricted to a certain number of hours per week. For example, their hours may vary from one week to another. Let us mention the example that was raised yesterday. In many of the State hospitals the employees—the nurses—work six 12-hour shifts and, as I pointed out yesterday, they do so for a good reason. In the State hospitals they will be allowed to do it, but no longer in the private hospitals, although they do the same work under the same circumstances. As regards shift-work, shifts of eight hours are worked in private hospitals, while three hours longer, i.e. 11 hours in all, may be worked. However, in State hospitals shifts last for 12 hours. These 12-hour shifts have been in existence for years. This suits the hospital and contributes to good order.

Then I just wish to refer to Sundays and public holidays. The nurse in the State hospital is now going to work on Sundays and public holidays without receiving overtime payment, while the nurse in the private hospital will in fact be getting overtime payment if she works on those days. I cannot understand why, in terms of this proposed legislation, a distinction is being drawn between the health workers at the two types of hospital.

Yesterday the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Durban North talked about nurses who became tired. Are the nurses in the State hospitals allowed to become tired but not the nurses in the private hospitals? After all, the nurses in State hospitals are already working 12-hour shifts.

With a 40-hour week.

I think that as usual the hon. member did not üsten. In State hospitals, six night-shifts of 12 hours are already being worked. This gives a total of 72 hours. Are they then not going to get tired? They are already working those hours. [Interjections.] I do not want to enter into a debate with the hon. member for Durban North now. He had better go into the matter further. Then he will find out that he is wrong. Work in the hospital is fixed at a number of hours per week, but it can go over from one week to the next. It is rather on the basis of a month or a longer period, because it is impossible to confine it to one week.

I also want to refer to Sundays. The nurse in the State hospital must work on a Sunday just as if it is an ordinary day, but for the nurse in the private hospital it is overtime.

The hon. member for Durban North talked about the exploitation of nurses. Are the nurses working at the State hospitals exploited, because when they work on Sundays or public holidays they do not receive overtime payment for doing so? The argument put forward by the hon. member for Durban North is therefore absolutely ridiculous and not applicable.

I take it that the hon. the Minister will grant exemption to this particular group. However, suppose the private hospitals do not ask for exemption and that they raise their fees. What is the nurse at the State hospital now going to do if she finds that she can go and work in a private hospital? This is what worries me. In the first place, she will work shorter shifts and, in the second place, she will be paid extra for overtime on Sundays and public holidays. As I see it, the conditions of employment are going to differ to such a degree that an enormous number of nurses will go to the private sector from State hospitals. We do not want that. That is why I want to say that I do not believe that the private hospitals will do that. I think they are responsible people. However, all day yesterday we talked about the fact that they could get exemption. [Interjections.] When I am talking the truth, that hon. Whip wants me to sit down.

Make a Third Reading speech, man.

It is a Third Reading speech. I am replying to what was said in the Committee Stage. I think I have the right to do this.

I think the hon. the Minister realizes what I am talking about. I am not doing it to make trouble. I see a problem. Accordingly I ask the hon. the Minister to consider it. If private hospitals experience staff shortages and do not ask for extension, but raise their fees so that they can pay nurses more and can appoint additional nurses, it will mean that nurses, as well as other employees, working at State hospitals will be lured to private hospitals because of the more attractive conditions of employment. There are shorter hours and shorter shifts, overtime payment on Sundays and public holidays and there is also more overtime available. I think it is an important point and that is why I want to ask the hon. the Minister to look at this matter again. I think that if the amendments were accepted, all the problems could have been solved.

Mr. Speaker, if I have counted correctly we have just heard the same arguments from the hon. member for Parktown the third time.

And you still do not understand them.

No, I really do not understand them. There are other things I also do not understand. The hon. member’s repeated representations on this matter reminded me of the story of an hon. member who once by way of interjection said of another hon. member: “Your brain is in neutral; now your tongue is idling.”

Yours is in reverse.

The hon. member said that I did not understand his arguments. I really did not understand him. I do not understand his arguments either because this Bill was published for general information on 31 July 1981. What is more, the hon. the Minister invited all interested bodies and persons to comment. I do not know whether the private hospitals, the nursing association of the private hospitals, the staff of private hospitals or the owners of private hospitals addressed representations to the hon. the Minister or the department on this matter. I doubt it. If it is true that these people about whom the hon. member is so concerned have not between 1981 and now addressed representations on this matter, I quite agree with him that I cannot understand it. In that case I do not understand him either.

One thing we can certainly not afford in our country is to introduce legislation that prohibits people from working. The two Acts now being consolidated in this legislation placed prohibitions on people working. The circumstances were such that provisions in those Acts were simply ignored.

In Vanderbijlpark a nursery school was opened—I hope it still exists—specifically with the aim of teaching toddlers during the day and acting as a crèche in the afternoons and at night. I think at one stage it was the only crèche of its kind in the country. By operating as a crèche in the evenings it gave the fathers and mothers of small children the opportunity to work at night so that they could look after their children during the day. I do not think the hon. member for Langlaagte and the hon. member for Germiston District are all that well-informed on what is going on in the industrial world nowadays. There are factories where women— attractive, elegant women—are working as crane drivers. And the cranes used at Iscor in Pretoria are not quite the same as those used in the Cape Town docks.

Never!

Let us by means of this Bill remove any impediment there may be, any prohibition there may be, which is preventing people from working, from our legislation. We cannot by legislative means prohibit people in this country from working. This country cannot afford it. At the same time it is also surely the duty of the authorities, although one does not want to prohibit a worker from working, to protect the worker, and I think this legislation does so extremely well. This legislation succeeds in removing the impediments which existed in the labour field, and at the same time it has built-in protection for that employee against his employer, not that the workers in this country need protection against their employers. But just as is the case in any country, it is probably also true that there are unscrupulous employers here against whom the worker must be protected.

In conclusion I think that the provisions in the Shops and Offices Act, in terms of which women were not allowed to work after 18h00, was one of the factors which lead to the provincial ordinances on shopping hours. These ordinances on shopping hours, and working on Sundays are now not under discussion. They have not kept pace with the needs of modern society. I think the amendments in this Bill now make it possible for our provinces to revise their ordinances on shopping hours.

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with our parliamentary system, the effects of the principles of the Second Reading are, during the Third Reading debate, considered in terms of their practical impact. Of course, there are a number of approaches one could adopt to any piece of legislation, and to this one in particular. I think that all employers and employees have a particular interest in this Bill. We as legislators also approach this from a particular angle. Then there are a number of other people who are also going to study it, particularly if one studies labour matters clinically and scientifically from an academic point of view. In the simple—I do not wish to use the word “primitive”, since it does not always have a positive connotation—pattern of human society the labour aspect, as well as that of basic conditions of employment, are extremely simple; this is in stark contrast to what we have experienced over the past century or two in respect of a modern, technical and highly person-oriented industrial society. Sir, it is common knowledge that this is the situation we have seen developing in the large metropolitan areas during the past few centuries. This particular development was so important, that we have had people like Karl Marx and other philosophers who unleashed powerful revolutionary forces, and those forces and examples have left a lasting impression on modern society.

During the course of the debate on Monday the hon. member for Pinelands had the following to say (Hansard, 7 February)—

Mr. Speaker, these words of the hon. member for Pinelands are disturbing, and I shall furnish a few reasons why I find them so. Allow me to repeat one sentence from the hon. member’s speech—

Sir, the hon. member has singled out one aspect of the problems surrrounding labour relations in South Africa, and let met tell him that the factor he singled out, is correct; I agree with that. But, Sir, there are many other factors in South Africa which we must take into account when we consider this situation. The aspect which the hon. member for Pinelands singled out is an extremely important one; it is important to him since it fits in with his political philosophy and his political ideals. But there is one factor, together with a number of other factors, which the PFP ignores completely, and that is that there is a diversity of national groups in South Africa. This is the one aspect which the hon. member and the PFP, with their basic philosophy have to ignore if their ideals are to become reality in South Africa.

The PFP, steeped in liberalism as we understand it in the context of the South African political terminology, are adept at stating only one side of reality—a word which has appeared fairly frequently in our debates recently—and they do not only do this in South Africa. All over the world where liberalism is active and functioning, they go about it in the same way—by singling out one factor and emphasizing it. This, then, is one disturbing aspect of the hon. member’s standpoint, viz. the fact that the supporters of the liberal philosophy in South Africa always only single out this one factor.

But there are other disturbing aspects of the standpoint of the hon. member which would occur to any normal person. One other disturbing aspect is that there are leaders, leaders of national groups, in South Africa who do not realize that when one makes use of individuals from another ethnic community within one’s economic system and labour dispensation, the possibility exists—and here I agree with the hon. member for Pinelands—the possibility exists, and not only as a possibility, but as reality too, that political agitators or people who simply desire political control will use the position they have acquired in the other man’s country for their own political gain. In South Africa in particular, this could lead to a situation in which, if one capitulated in the labour sphere, one’s political opponents, or those who sought one’s political downfall, would demand so much from one, that eventually one would have to forfeit one’s political sovereignty.

I wish to give two examples to illustrate this. Let us go back to the Old Testament and consider the presence of the Israelites in Egypt, as it was then. At the time this was one of the things the Egyptians, too, claimed, viz. that a group of people, an alien nation, were living within their borders and that they were becoming a threat to them. This was one of the reasons why the Pharaohs acted as they did.

But they were not a threat, after all.

Nevertheless, this was one of the reasons for the Pharaohs acting as they did. But for the sake of the hon. member for Yeoville I shall not go into that any further. Let us consider the situation in America, at the role of the so-called Black minorities in America. The origins of those minorities are precisely the same, groups of people imported for the sake of their labour and who ultimately created political problems. I merely mention these two examples.

My problem with the so-called Cape liberal Nats was that they only emphasized one factor. I was never a member of the labour group of the NP, but I nevertheless showed a normal interest in it, like any other member. The problem in South Africa, too, is that people of other population groups have been drawn into the White labour sphere and eventually became the basic reason for the enormous problem with regard to population groups that we are facing, and the threat which certain national groups see in it. I was present on an occasion when Dr. Verwoerd said that the struggle of a people for its survival is a perpetual struggle. I agree with that wise man’s words of wisdom and I should like to add my own modicum of wisdom, viz. that I am of the opinion that in the struggle of a people to survive, it must have maximum control over each facet of its way of life. This should be the ambition of every nation. Over the past few decades, in contrast to the liberal wing of the NP, I have consistently maintained that when one has a society consisting of a variety of facets, one should retain the maximum degree of sovereignty over every facet of one’s own national group. This gave rise to a considerable degree of tension between the left and right wings of the NP. An integrated or open facet within a people’s way of life eventually costs it its self-determination with regard to that particular facet. This is a categorical statement I am making now. Hence the clash in this debate in the reply of the hon. the Minister to the Second Reading of this Bill. The hon. the Minister’s vehement attack on the hon. the leader of the CP has two causes: The one is personal, the other is based on principle.

However, before discussing that, further, I just wish to point out that this is my standpoint as a conservative and as a nationalist. I was not simply a member of the NP; I am a nationalist. [Interjections.] There is a difference between a nationalist and a member of the NP. I am a professing nationalist, and the same principles I adhered to earlier—despite what some hon. member would say— are the principles the NP adhered to, the principles of a nationalist. I continue to stand by those same principles.

However, when one considers the situation in respect of the peoples in South Africa, and when one looks at its historical origins, it is true that the Whites made use of non-White labour right from the outset. If I could turn the clock back—which unfortunately is not possible—I could have told the people of earlier times that one does not make use of other people’s labour in such a way as ultimately to endanger one’s own survival. In reply, too, to what the hon. member Prof. Olivier had to say, I wish to make it clear that as far as the CP is concerned, we accept this situation. I believe that in the South African context, the presence of the White man is not solely a curse to the Black people, as in the rest of Africa—or, rather, as the liberals put it—rather, the presence of the Whites in the whole of Africa is a blessing to the Black people; it has always been a blessing to the Black peoples of Africa. I wish to make it clear to the hon. member Prof. Olivier that this is my standpoint. I must say that one could hardly expect someone like the hon. member Prof. Olivier simply to sit and listen to the speech of an opponent and then, on the basis of a lot of arguments and clichés, to draw his own inference.

The situation in South Africa is such that many individuals—thousands, tens of thousands, millions—belonging to other population groups work in White South Africa. I speak of White South Africa, and I am not ashamed to use that term. I believe that regardless of the race, colour or religion of that individual working here, the best provision must be made for him within his family context, as for his family and his community, his tribe and his nation. That is my principle. I therefore wish to put it to the hon. member Prof. Olivier that this is how I want it to be. I should like provision to be made for this in all future legislation. I shall support this, and the CP will also support it.

I wish to put it to hon. members of the ruling NP that this has been my standpoint, that this has always been the standed point we in the NP have adopted, viz. that despite the historic coming together of a variety of nations—people from the First World and from the Third World—and despite the practical and historic problems relating to this, for example, a disparity as far as salaries and wages are concerned, workers, whether they come from Swaziland, Venda or wherever, whose labour we in the White area need, ought to be contented workers. We should come to an agreement with them in terms of which they may be contented, not only as individuals, but also in their family context, their tribal context, their national context, etc. I do not see the matter, as the hon. member for Innesdal contended the other day—and I do not wish to misquote him—as being merely a pool of individuals. This is not my view of mankind. This is not simply an accumulation of individuals, and the CP, based on its principle, acknowledges ethnic diversity. This is one of the basic differences between the conservative person or the nationalist and the liberal view like that of the hon. member for Pinelands. To me it is not simply a question of the individual or the human being alone. I see him in his family context, and I also wish to say to the hon. member for Pinelands that I am just as concerned about the question of the breaking up of families and everything that entails. There are hon. members in this House who were in my class when I was still a lecturer many years ago. I often said that I could not see how a White woman could be taken away from her family to go and work, and that a Black woman be taken out of her family context to look after the White woman’s children. Here one has a disruption of the White family unit as the family unit of the Blacks, the Indians or the Coloureds. I do not support this. However, I do say that there is no easy solution in a modern society where the woman has a particular role in the economic structure— but one does, after all, state one’s principles and ideals in a political party. Therefore in reply to Prof. Olivier I wish to reiterate that the CP is not a party born to sit in the Opposition benches. [Interjections.] Hon. members may not agree with me, but my ideal is the continued existence of my people and peaceful existence here in South Africa with complete and sovereign control over myself. While saying this, I wish to add that we are not influenced by hatred or prejudice in our point of departure and in our view of Blacks or Coloureds or Indians. I know that when we come to power we too shall have to take our place in the international world with all its existing international labour problems and with all the propaganda there will still be against us. The CP is not unfamiliar with the outside world and with how things are in other countries in relation to South Africa.

I now wish to return to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister was one of the first members of Parliament I met. That was many years ago. We did not begin our careers recently. I wish to say to the hon. the Minister that these things are just as unpleasant to me—this struggle between people, particularly people who were once friends. However, there are certain fixed principles I believe in and which I stand by and I shall argue them to the best of my ability. At times I have become angry and often I become short-tempered, because these matters make one hot under the collar. I met the hon. the Minister for the first time in a suburb in Pretoria when I was a young theology student visiting there. Today I say to the hon. the Minister that I still stand by those same principles I stood by when I met him for the first time. I have not changed. Another chapter in the history of this country has been written since the death of Dr. Verwoerd and there is a great deal more in the dialogue between the NP and the CP today than many people are aware of. [Interjections.] That hon. member opposite says that these are a lot of frustrated people sitting here. The hon. member is free to say that. He may gain a temporary advantage by doing so. I just wish to say to the hon. member for Witbank that there is no frustration in our hearts. If we are, in fact, frustrated this afternoon, it is for other reasons which we shall spell out in due course. I wish to say that after the first discussion I had with the hon. the Minister the first time I noticed a change in approach, a shift in principles, was when the hon. the Minister became a member of the board of directors of Nasionale Pers. Yesterday, with the disappearance of Die Transvaler as a morning newspaper, many people in the Transvaal thought long and hard about what had happened in this regard.

Order! I have allowed the hon. member to digress considerably, but I must ask him to come back to the Bill.

Sir, I thank you and I shall abide by your ruling.

Nasionale Pers will be there long after you have gone.

I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that I have a few shares in it, and they first had to approve me before I could obtain the shares. Sir, I wish to comply with your ruling and I do not wish to be led astray by the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications.

I carefully read and reread the reply of the hon. the Minister of Manpower to the Second Reading debate after listening to him. We in the CP have been charged with not having the courage of a mouse, with not being prepared to stand up and debate our standpoints in this House. He made those accusations, and all I am doing is to reply to that charge which the hon. the Minister levelled at us. We cannot simply allow this accusation to pass unchallenged, since this Bill stands within the framework of a broader labour situation, and the labour situation in turn is connected with society at large.

I do not know what the hon. the Minister is going to do about that challenge he issued. We are not making any conditions, but I think that since the hon. the Minister has issued such a challenge, he should also resign his Cabinet post on moral grounds.

And for the sake of South Africa.

We have not asked who should stand where, but what about the possibility of Randfontein, Pogietersrus or Lydenburg? I am giving the hon. the Minister three seats to think about.

The difference between the hon. the Minister and this side of the House—the hon. the Minister said that we just sat there and approved everything—lies in this fact: The political philosophy of the NP until 22 February last year was the political philosophy of no mixed Parliament…

Order! I have given my ruling and the hon. member said that he would abide by it, but if the hon. member does not do so, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

I shall make haste to resume my seat.

The difference between the hon. the Minister and the CP is, in principle, a difference in respect of the view of the labour situation in Southern Africa as contained in the view of the various solutions to the problem of a constitutional dispensation in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. members who took part in the discussion of the measure before this House, covered the ground fairly thoroughly, and discussed what had to be discussed, and for that reason I think there are only a few aspects that we on this side of the House need to touch on, here at the end of this debate.

The hon. member prof. Olivier kicked off on behalf of the Official Opposition, and I agree with him that this is extremely sophisticated and advanced legislation. It is at this stage that one asks oneself why hon. members on that side of the House ostensibly had so much sympathy with the so-called codes that have been dished up to us from time to time—the pseudo, well-intentioned Sullivan and Euromark Codes that are dished up tous and for which the hon. member for Pinelands has such a great affinity. If we are agreed that when we come to an umbrella-type code for conditions of service for all those persons who cannot stipulate their own conditions of service by means of an industrial council agreement, this is good legislation. I think we should also be unanimous when it comes to the extraneous attacks on the South African labour situation and when the experts or so-called experts from overseas try to prescribe to us how we should really treat our people. Surely the hon. member for Houghton is aware of the fact that wherever she goes—from platform to platform abroad, or from discussion to discussion—reference is almost without exception made to the labour situation and the conditions of service position in South Africa. With a piece of legislation such as this, which the hon. member prof. Olivier has also praised, I believe that we shall in fact be able to sell something like this to objective people abroad, even without any need for the Opposition to support the Government.

They will not need to, because this is sound and objective legislation.

However, the hon. member for Parktown made an appeal here for private hospitals and private clinics.

And patients.

Am I correct—the hon. member must tell me if I am wrong—in thinking that the hon. member was requesting total exemption from the provisions of this legislation.

No.

The hon. member says that he did not advocate that. [Interjections.] If the hon. member did not advocate that, then what was his speech all about? After all the hon. the Minister stated that there was the possibility for exemption in respect of certain of the provisions of this legislation.

You did not listen.

Yes, I did. I am just trying to find out how many investments that hon. member has in private hospitals and how much money that hon. member has already made out of private clinics.

That is absolutely untrue.

No, wait a moment. I am not saying that it is true or untrue. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal explanation: I think the hon. member is trying to say that I have investments or shares in private hospitals. [Interjections.] I should like to make it quite clear here that I have no such shares in private hospitals. [Interjections.]

If the hon. member says he does not have shares in them then he does not, but if he does not have shares in them why is he then opposed to our prescribing in legislation that these employees should be given a testimonial? Why is he opposed to that? [Interjections.] What does the hon. member have against our prescribing a minimum of 14 days leave? What does the hon. member have against a period of two weeks?

Nothing.

Then I still do not understand what the speech the hon. member made today was all about. Does the hon. member have something against the 30 days’ sick leave.

No.

Then I honestly do not know why the hon. member stood up here and specifically addressed this House on this. [Interjections.] I accept that the hon. member meant well. It would seem as if the hon. member actually wanted us to improve the conditions of service—perhaps he wanted a little more leave for these employees, because he said they work day and night.

I now want to refer briefly to the hon. member for Brakpan. [Interjections.] I was surprised at the behaviour of this hon. member during the third reading debate. [Interjections.] If I must judge the hon. member for Brakpan’s behaviour today in the light of his behaviour during the no-confidence debate when he addressed the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development across the floor of this House with total suspicion, I must say that this is a facet of that hon. member’s personality that I am unacquainted with. I am not used to that hon. member behaving in such a way. [Interjections.] Something must have gone wrong with the hon. member.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member Mr. Theunissen should rather keep quiet. He was brought here through the goodwill of this side of the House and at present he has no responsibility. The hon. member for Brakpan still has a responsibility to certain voters, but that hon. member has no such responsibility. So I think he should just keep quiet. He should resign. His electorate will not re-elect him.

I want to get back to the hon. member for Brakpan. He referred to a certain meeting he attended in Pretoria. He was invited there to state certain of his misgivings to people in the industry, trade union leaders. The hon. member said he thought the entire labour group of the NP had been invited. That is correct: They were. He went on to say that only he and two other people turned up. That is also true. However, is the hon. member now blaming the hon. the Minister because he and the other two members who turned up were the only ones who intimated that they wanted to speak? Surely it is not a charge to lay at the door of the Minister when three members of the group say that they would like to be better informed because they still do not know exactly what is going on and the Minister arranged a meeting. Now the hon. member blames this on the Minister across the floor of this House as if he had committed a deadly sin. I do not think it behoves the hon. member for Brakpan to seize upon something like this, which was arranged for his benefit and for the benefit of his voters, and then to say he did not understand.

That was part of the brain-washing.

If the hon. member wants to admit that he can be brain-washed he should not blame that on someone else.

It was an attempt at brain-washing.

If the hon. member wants to talk about short memories, he must point a finger at someone else. I do not think it is necessary to point a finger at us. I do not think it befits the hon. member either. He served on that group with me and others for many years. We pondered together on the problems of the labour situation in South Africa. I want to say this to his credit. I think that together we also succeeded in finding certain solutions. But then we must not, because we are no longer in the same party, today malign the solutions we achieved together. I do not think it befits a debate of this nature.

Then the hon. member for Brakpan—and he is a trained jurist—comes along and says they support this Bill with regret. What do I tell my voters if I say that I agreed with an hon. member or with a measure but that I did so with regret? Surely then I am not agreeing with it. Must we not deduce from the behaviour of certain of those hon. members in the NP over a long period that they sat with us and agreed with us “with regret”? [Interjections.] That is what I must listen to here today. I do not want to say it is false. I am not using the word “false”.

You are just being hypocritical.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

Sir, I withdraw it.

Refering briefly to the speech of the hon. member for Rissik, I want to point out in the first place that he had a discussion with the hon. member for Pinelands. I can accept that these two gentlemen have something in common. Both of them have a certain educational background which probably makes it easier for them to communicate with each other than it is for an ordinary mortal member to communicate with a former clergyman. One thing struck me in the hon. member for Rissik’s speech today. What did the hon. member say? He referred to “my endeavour” and “my interpretation” and said that this had caused tension within the ranks of the NP and then he went on to refer to the principles in which he believed. I think the hon. member came to this House today with arrogant egotism. When what is involved is a Bill that has to control the conditions of service of thousands of people in South Africa, the hon. member has the presumption to speak only of himself and his own views. He has absolutely no interest in the fact that the Bill we are finalizing today affects the weal and woe and interests of many thousands of workers outside this House. I want to put it to the hon. member for consideration that some of those workers are even Whites. Some of them live in Pretoria and some of them five in the Free State. Some of them even live in and around Heilbron.

It is important to them for there to be an orderly community. It is also important to them for there to be orderliness in the work situation. That is why it is important to the Government for legislation of this nature to be depoliticized as far as possible. I believe that we have succeeded in this, because we have now decreased the amount of labour legislation and this is consolidating legislation to establish a measure for Blacks, Coloureds, Asians and Whites—on whose behalf the hon. member makes such a fuss— that will be in the interests of everyone. That is why I take pleasure in supporting the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I had no intention in taking part in this Third Reading because I understand there are about three or four minutes left before the debate comes to an end. I must say one feels a little left out sometimes when you have to listen to long and involved debates which ought to be on labour legislation but which are nothing else than disagreements between the CP and the party of the hon. the Minister of Manpower. I do not want to get involved in that at all.

I do want to respond to the hon. member who has just sat down and also to the hon. member for Rissik who has asked me to be in the Chamber so that he could vent his spleen on me. I want to say immediately that as far as the codes are concerned I think that labour codes have and can serve a purpose. We have consistently maintained that until such time as a broad labour code is part and parcel of our law there will be room for codes. I stand by that.

[Inaudible.]

That is right. That is why we support the present legislation before us. I want to say to the hon. member for Rissik that I am quite amazed that he takes the Third Reading of an entirely different Bill to attck me for what I have said on the Labour Relations Bill. That has nothing to do with the Bill before the House. Nothing at all. We are now talking about basic conditions and we are already into the Third Reading.

I want to say immediately that the hon. member is quite incorrect when he says that we selectively emphasize one particular aspect. The harsh reality of South Africa is that there are a great number of people who are without political rights. He should know from his own history that he refused to be pressed under and oppressed for a very long time. He should know that. Therefore he knows also that he used every possible weapon in education, in the work place, in trade unions, in the market place—every available opportunity—to make absolutely sure that he had his place in the sun. That is exactly what is going to happen with the vast majority of people who live in South Africa. That is the only point I made. Therefore I reminded the hon. the Minister in the House that it is important for political rights to be dealt with so that they do not bedevil labour relations. I stand by that. The hon. member suggests and constantly talks about “die volk”. Who is “die volk”? Is it only the Afrikaners? He speaks only of his own “volk”. And he talks only of the Afrikaner. But there are workers who fall under the basic conditions of this Bill who happen to be English-speaking or who happen to be of Portuguese descent. Must we now discriminate against them as well in order to safeguard the interests of one narrow section? Of course not! There is another thing. The word “employee” means somebody who works, works on the basis of merit and not on the basis of ethnicity. People ought to be promoted on the factory floor and in the work-place and should be cared for in safety and in every other way, not because they belong to a particular “volk”, whether that “volk” be English or Afrikaans or whether they be Black or White. It ought to be on the basis of the fact that they are employees. We should look after the workers of South Africa and not only after one particular section. I take the strongest exception at the hon. member coming in at this late stage of the debate and giving a long harangue about one particular group of workers. The situation of the workers of South Africa is improved in terms of this Bill and therefore it is ludicrous for those hon. members to get up and speak again and again as if they were opposing the Bill and then at the very end saying that they will reluctantly support it. We have no doubt about it.

The PFP supports the Third Reading of the Bill as we supported the Second Reading. We have made one request for a change and I hope the hon. the Minister is going to look at that. We are set on that course. But as far as the workers are concerned, we believe that conditions of work must apply to all.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. members on this side of the House who spoke during the third reading, viz. the hon. members for Roodeplaat, Hercules and Overvaal, for their contributions. In fact, I have nothing to add to what the hon. members have said. Nor do I have much to add to what the other hon. members have said. I should just like to make a remark about the hon. member for Parktown.

That hon. member argued at length yesterday concerning two points and came back to them again today. I do not think we should try to take that argument any further across the floor of this House. I think that this matter can be excluded. The hon. member should approach the department in order to determine why the definition has been phrased in the way it has. I do want to point out to the hon. member that in the nature of things, State hospitals fall under the Commission for Administration. This commission has its own sets of rules for the public sector, and these rules cannot really be compared with those that apply in the private sector. Accordingly, if there is a difference between private and State hospitals, it must be rectified in other ways. It cannot be done by means of the Bill.

The other point is that when there are special circumstances relating to a profession, e.g. the hon. member’s profession, then we consider the merits of the case. The Act provides that exemptions may be granted. Accordingly, it is possible to do so in this instance as well. However, we cannot include in the Act just one of the many bodies concerned. If we do, then we must do this for all of them. I think that the sensible way of doing this is to have enabling legislation such as this, to enable it to be dealt with in this way.

The hon. members of the CP attacked me, and the hon. member for Brakpan said that the country could not afford me as a Minister. Let us leave that to Soutpansberg to decide on. [Interjections.] Let us leave it for the voters to decide on in the next election.

It is a very serious matter to say that a Minister does not fit in here and that he is a danger to the country. Let everyone resign. I undertake to go and speak in each of the constituencies. It is very interesting, Mr. Speaker, that because the hon. members of the CP hate me, they attack me.

Who started all this?

Yes, Mr. Speaker, because they hate me, they attack me. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, do you know what an interesting phenomenon this is? Because they hate me, they attack me, but because I am right, they agree with me. They voted in favour of this legislation, and they are going to do so again now. [Interjections.] Voluntarily, albeit under protest, they agree with this side of the House. They did say that it went against the grain to do so, but that they had to do so because we were right. [Interjections.] Have you ever seen anything like it before? Because we are right, they agree with us. The hon. member for Rissik said that there was a big difference between the NP and the CP. Of course there is a big difference. The difference is this. For three or four years we passed legislation in this House together about which we were all unanimous. I still stand by it. However, hon. members of the CP are now in difficulties. Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? It is because I asked their leader whether he still stood by the legislation of the past few years. I did not run away. I state clearly that we still stand by it. However, I again ask the hon. the leader of the CP whether he still stands by the legislation which we have decided on together over the past few years. [Interjections.]

You see, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the leader cannot reply in the affirmative. The difference between us is that someone has moved away, and it is them. Even now they are not prepared to say that they still stand by the legislation we passed here together. [Interjections.] However, I do not want to spend too much time on this aspect.

According to the hon. member for Brakpan, I allegedly said in this House that we would oblige the trade unions to register. That is untrue. Of course it is entirely untrue. The truth, what we have always said and what we still must and will say, is that we must make it sufficiently attractive to them. Everything in the legislation is geared to making it attractive for them.

That is not the truth.

However, we did not say we would compel them to register. What foolish man would compel a trade union to register? What we can do is to make it attractive enough. The legislation incorporates measures which …

That is not true.

Mr. Speaker, there we have it now. The legislation incorporates measures to make registration attractive. The mere fact that hon. members of the CP are sitting and looking at me now and do not know what this is all about …

You yourself do not know what it is all about.

The problem is that those hon. members themselves no longer know what decisions they helped to take when that legislation was passed in this House. They do not know what they helped to decide on. [Interjections.] That is why the hon. member for Langlaagte has just made that remark. However, I put it to him that what the hon. member for Brakpan said, is not the truth. If it is the truth, in what law does it appear? If it is true, where is it stated?

You were to have introduced it this year.

Mr. Speaker, those hon. members really understand very little of these matters. Now the hon. member for Brakpan has also attacked me in connection with Marble Hall. He contends that they almost threw me out of the head committee. Is that not interesting, Mr. Speaker? See where I am standing, and see where they are sitting. [Interjections.] See where they are sitting? I say here and now that they will only be sitting there for this term. They are all on their way out. [Interjections.]

They are all on their way out. [Interjections.]

Then, too, the hon. member for Rissik spoke about self-determination. He said that we were excluding self-determination for the workers. That is what he said. Once again I must say that the hon. member does not know what this is all about. I want to ask him whether he still agrees about the two important components of the concept of self-determination in the field of labour. What are those two components? I am tempted to tell them that they do not even know that. They do not even know that. [Interjections.] I ask the hon. the leader of the CP whether he knows what they are. If he knows, he must tell me. [Interjections.] He does not know. [Interjections.] He need only put it in two words. Why does he not tell me? It is because he does not know what they are. The hon. the leader of the CP does not know what this is all about. [Interjections.] I ask the hon. the leader of the CP whether he stands by the autonomy of trade unions.

Since when does that comprise self-determination of a nation?

Self-determination of a nation? We are speaking about the workers now. [Interjections.] Let us also talk about the self-determination of the workers now. I now ask him whether he still stands by the autonomy of trade unions. He helped to decide on that. I ask him: Does he still stand by that? [Interjections.]

Order!

One of the cornerstones of the self-determination of the worker is the autonomy of the trade union. That is part and parcel of the policy of this party. It is incorporated in its legislation. Once again, I ask that hon. member, because he helped to make it: Does he still stand by the autonomy of trade unions? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Brakpan launched an attack on me. Do you know what he said? He said that what we were doing was destroying the self-determination of the worker. I repeat my question to his leader: Does he agree with him? If he agrees with him, does he still agree that we recognize the autonomy of trade unions, which he helped decide on? [Interjections] So much, then, for the hon. member for Waterberg! So much for the leader of the party! He does not have the courage to tell us here that he still stands by the autonomy of trade unions. [Interjections.]

There is a second principle that we have incorporated in our legislation, and that is the freedom of association. [Interjections.] Do you know, Sir, during the latest election when he stood in Waterberg, the hon. member asked me whether I would give him some of the pamphlets about the freedom of association so that he could distribute them among his people. I understand that—he could not explain it, and therefore I had to give him the pamphlets! [Interjections.] I now wish to put this question to him. Is he still in favour of the freedom of association of the worker of South Africa? [Interjections.] I repeat my question: Does he still stand by the principle of the freedom of association for the worker of South Africa? [Interjections.] He does not know what this is about. That is our problem. In the first instance, that hon. member does not know what this is all about, and if he does know he is too afraid to say it.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, when the House adjourned yesterday evening I was explaining my problem to the hon. the Minister in connection with this clause which provides as follows—

And so it continues. I just want to make the point that in terms of clause 25 an inquest is held, after the death of a person, but then the clause goes on to provide—

If an inquiry must take place at which the inspector must also be present and in respect of which the inspector must submit a separate report in terms of section 25(2), this seems to me to be duplication and an unnecessary detaining of that inspector at that inquiry. Yesterday evening the hon. the Minister said he thought I saw a sinister ulterior motive in this. However, this is not a matter of sinisterness; it is merely that the inspector can receive a copy of the magistrate’s findings and evidence from the clerk of the court. It is therefore not necessary for the inspector to attend the inquiry and to submit a separate report on it. It is with a view to this that I asked what the necessity for clause 25 was.

Mr. Chairman, there can be three possibilities. The one possibility is that the magistrate holds his inquest and the inspector holds his inquiry a day before the time or on the same day or a day after the inquest. In that case they have nothing to do with each other; they each submit their own report. The second possibility is that the inspector and the magistrate hold their inquiries simultaneously. As the hon. member pointed out, the magistrate presides and the inspector sits next to him. He listens to the proceedings and is satisfied. They then submit their reports. The third possibility is that the magistrate and the inspector sit together and that owing to the technical nature of the case, the magistrate is perhaps dependent on the advice of the inspector. There may therefore be circumstances—there are examples of this—which result in the magistrate wanting the opportunity to obtain technical aid and advice from the inspector while they are together. We are trying to word the legislation in such a way that it provides for all three possibilities, because all three occur in practice.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 28:

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

The reason for this amendment is that occasional review of the duties imposed on the employer with regard to these activities has to be facilitated.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 35:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Clause 35(5) provides as follows—

In connection with this matter I pointed out to the hon. the Minister in my Second Reading speech that it would be unfair to exclude the jurisdiction of a magistrate’s court in respect of the validity of such a regulation, so that a magistrate would not be competent to declare such a regulation to be ulta vires. The practice is for a magistrate to be competent to do so.

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. member please indicate what clause he is now discussing?

Clause 35(5). [Interjections.] I do not think it is consistent with democracy in South Africa for an employer or an employee not to be entitled to approach the magistrate’s court for a judgement on the validity of a regulation. Hon. members are aware of the costs involved in taking a case before the Supreme Court and should such costs be incurred merely to have an unfair regulation or an unreasonable regulation invalidated? It is the practice for magistrate’s courts to decide on this. It may be argued that these regulations are of a highly technical nature and may perhaps fall outside the scope of the matters on which magistrates frequently have to pass judgment. However, I want to point out to the hon. the Minister a practice which exists in the Department of Justice. When a complex civil case or a complex trial case has to be tried in a local magistrate’s court, experts are sent from head offices, for example from the Rand. One can send a magistrate from Johannesburg to Brakpan, Benoni or elsewhere to deal with a complex technical matter. Therefore we do not have the problem that it will be too difficult or of too technical a nature for a magistrate’s court to be able to pass judgment on a regulation.

Under the circumstances I therefore move that this provision be omitted.

Mr. Chairman, I sympathize with the hon. member’s argument. We raised the same argument ourselves and tried to clear up the problem amongst ourselves. I can therefore give the hon. member the assurance that we did not merely write this into the legislation without consultation on the matter. It is of course a fact that there is a long procedure which has to be followed in this connection and that it is of a highly technical nature. The process begins with the technical committee and goes through four or five stages before it may eventually reach the magistrate, and it is all of a highly technical nature. We feel it would not be fair to expect the magistrate to give a decisive answer in this highly technical sphere. If perhaps very strong opinions had existed in this connection in favour of what the hon. member said, and the argument on the other side had been weaker, I may have been able to concede. However, I do not feel at liberty to do so.

However, I shall give the hon. member the undertaking that I shall again discuss this matter with the relevant bodies, and if it at all appears that a reason exist for us to do what the hon. member has asked, we shall do so when the Act is next amended.

Mr. Chairman, in view of what the hon. the Minister has just said, I withdraw my amendment. I accept his undertaking.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Section 22 of the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, No. 56 of 1972, limits the amounts for which authorized insurers are liable in the case of people who are injured or killed as a result of the negligent driving of the vehicles in which they were being conveyed. An exception was made in the case of members of the Defence Force who are given a lift by motorists while proceeding on authorized leave or returning to their bases from such leave. In such cases the motorist is fully covered for the amount of compensation for which insurers may be liable.

The intention behind this coverage is to encourage motorists to give lifts to members of the Defence Force who go on leave, in order that they may reach their destinations as soon as possible without wasting time by using public transport. This measure is not, however, having the desired effect because it is embarrassing for the motorist to begin by inquiring from a member of the Defence Force whether he is on authorized leave. Furthermore, the motorist may expose himself to common law claims if a member of the Defence Force were to falsely pretend to be on authorized leave. Consequently the Automobile Association of South Africa has addressed representations to the department to reconsider this problem.

The solution is to delete the present requirement that a member of the Defence Force is fully covered only when he is on authorized leave and to provide that all members of the Defence Force dressed in uniform are covered when accepting a lift from motorists. However, this solution also creates problems.

For example, a member of the Defence Force who has to travel through the TBVC countries to reach his destination is sometimes prohibited form doing so in uniform because by doing so he may violate the sovereignty of such a country. In the case of East London, nearly all the main routes of the city go through independent States and if wearing a uniform should be made compulsory the provisions of the Act would be of no use to members of the Defence Force in such cases. This is frequently the case in other regions too. Under these circumstances the S.A. Defence Force is prepared to grant permission for a member of the Defence Force to travel in civilian dress.

Firstly, then, it is for this type of case that clause 1 makes provision. Although when the member of the Defence Force travels in civilian dress the motorist would still have to ascertain whether the member of the Defence Force is on authorized leave, this should not create major problems in practice. A large percentage of these types of trip are arranged by the “Bel-en-ry-na” organization, that has given the department the assurance that they ensure that members of the Defence Force for whom lifts are organized are in fact proceeding on or returning from authorized leave.

For the rest, the amendment proposed in clause 1 is intended to provide full coverage in terms of the Act to all members of the Defence Force dressed in a Defence Force uniform when given lifts by motorists, whether they are on authorized leave as presently required by section 22 or not. This proposed amendment also safeguards the motorist against a claim from a person who has falsely led the motorist to believe that he is a member of the Defence Force.

I trust that the motoring public will react positively when this amendment comes into effect.

†Clause 2, which provides for the amendment of section 25(1) of the Act to the effect that the medical report forming part of the prescribed claim form must be completed by a prescribed person or persons, results from a recent court action in which it was ruled that regulation 16(1)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Regulations, 1972, was ultra vires the Act on the grounds that section 25(1) does not provide that the medical report should be completed by a prescribed person as is required by the regulation. This regulation requires the medical report to be completed by the medical practitioner who treated the injured person for the injuries sustained by him in the accident in question.

Clause 3 is a consequential amendment arising from clause 2.

*There are eight Bills here which we want the House to deal with. I realize that the Opposition have studied the Bills and found that they contain nothing contentious. I thank them in advance for making it possible to deal with all the stages simultaneously. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the hon. the Minister’s Bill which will follow this one we have no difficulty with the Bill which the hon. the Minister has just introduced. However, I do not want the hon. the Minister to get too excited and to imagine that he will have the same easy passage with the succeeding legislation which will come before the House.

This is a Bill, as the hon. the Minister has told us, which extends the cover given to an owner or driver of a vehicle who gives a lift to or conveys a person who is rendering military service, proceeding on leave or returning from leave during the period of his service. It also excepts from the limited liability provided for in section 22 of the Act the conveyance of any person wearing a uniform of the S.A. Defence Force during his period of service, or in circumstances where the owner or driver of a vechicle believes upon reasonable grounds that he was a person rendering service or undergoing training and was dressed in such uniform. It is a Bill therefore which will obviously facilitate the lot of servicemen and of drivers giving them a lift and the result ought to be to the advantage of our national servicemen and people in the S.A. Defence Force in seeking to be conveyed by members of the public during their period of service. In those circumstances we regard this Bill as an improvement which is going to help the situation and we on these benches will give it our support.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Berea rightly said, this is not a contentious Bill and for that reason I am not going to elaborate on why it is a good amending Bill. I do, however, wish to pause at one or two points. Considerable relief has been afforded those men who will travel through the TBV countries, as well as all Defence Force men, whether on authorized leave or not, who will now also be covered in this manner.

I want to dwell for a moment on the hon. the Minister’s reference to the “Bel-en-ry-na” organization. This is an organization consisting of women in the various larger towns and centres of our country who render a voluntary service to our men in uniform. Those ladies sacrifice their own time, sometimes at a great cost, and they make these sacrifices for our men on the road to ensure that they reach their destinations quickly. On behalf of this side of the House—and I think I am speaking on behalf of all the parties in this House—I should like to express our sincere thanks and appreciation to this organization. It has come to my knowledge that there is great uncertainty among motorists about the “Bel-en-ry-na” organization because many motorists, having phoned these women to offer lifts, expect that remuneration is involved. That, of course, is not the case. It is a completely voluntary organization. While thanking these women who perform this enormous task for our men, I cannot omit to thank the SABC, too, for their contribution in facilitating the arrangements made by this organization to bring the “troopies” and the motorists together. The same applies to the newspapers. Information is regularly published in the various newspapers in the country. On behalf of all in this House, I should like to express our thanks and appreciation to all three of these bodies for their contribution in making it as easy as possible for the man defending our country’s borders to reach his final destination.

With that I support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the CP supports the principle in the Bill aimed at encouraging motorists to offer lifts to members of the Defence Force who are hitch-hiking. Of course, it is a ptiy that it should ever be necessary for a member of the Defence Force to hitch-hike, since there are many reckless drivers on our roads these days. In fact it has become deadly dangerous to hitch-hike nowadays. There is also profound disquiet about the number of accidents in which Defence Force men hitch-hiking on our roads are involved. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister, to provide comfortable and full transport to the Defence Force men to and from their homes, wherever possible, in co-operation with the Defence Force. I know this is not always possible. That is why I say “wherever possible”.

The Bill also proposes that section 22 be amended by deleting the requirement that the motorist has to ask the member of the Defence Force whether he is on authorized leave. I am pleased that this section is being amended as proposed, since in the past it has often caused embarrassment.

I hope I have understood the hon. the Minister correctly—perhaps he could just give me an indication—that in cases where the motorist is under the impression that he is giving a lift to a Defence Force man— someone, for example, who wears a part of the uniform of the Defence Force or who indicates that he is a Defence Force man—the motorist would also be protected if it should appear later that he had given the motorist the wrong impression. We are considering the case, for example, of countries such as Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei where soldiers of the South African Defence Force are not allowed to move around in uniform. They have to wear civilian clothes. In that case, if one should meet someone who indicates that he is a member of the Defence Force, he has to be asked whether he is on authorized leave. However, if he should give the motorist the wrong impression, for example by presenting a forged document to the effect that he is on authorized leave, the motorist will be protected in that case, too.

The rest of the Bill, including the second principle contained therein—the question of the practice which has been adhered to the years and which, if I am not mistaken, was ruled ultra vires by the Supreme Court last year—also meets with our approval. Therefore provision is now being made in the Bill for the hon. the Minister to determine who will be responsible for compiling the medical report when such a person has been involved in a car accident and has been injured or killed. From this side of the House, too, we should just like to welcome the fact that clarity has now been afforded in this respect as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the NRP to express our support of this Bill.

I must admit, however, that when this Bill was first tabled and I looked at the implications of it I began to wonder how many of our motorists were, until now anyway, unaware of the legislation as it exists today especially in regard to their liability in the event of an accident. I am one who always stops to pick up a serviceman. There have been times in my life when I too was a serviceman, and when I also hitch-hiked. I remember what it was like to stand by the side of the road trying to get a lift in order to get to where I was going as soon as possible. Sometimes it is far more convenient to hitch a lift when one wants to get home quickly because one has a short pass and because the public transportation is not as convenient as it could be, or because it does not reach the place one wants to go to, especially if one comes from an out-of-the-way area. Therefore one can understand the need on the part of a serviceman, whether he is doing his national service or whether he is in the Permanent Force, to hitch-hike in order to take the best advantage of his leave pass.

For these, and other reasons I believe that most South Africans who feel for our servicemen will stop to give them lifts. The point that concerns me, however, is how many of those motorists are aware of the fact that if they pick up a serviceman who is not officially on leave, and an accident occurs, they are liable for any injuries caused to that person because the Act as it stands at present does not cover him.

If, on the other hand, motorists are aware of these facts, it may result in a certain degree of reluctance on their part to pick up servicemen because, as has been said, it causes them embarrassment to ask a serviceman whether or not he is officially on leave. Therefore we welcome these provisions because they now clarify the position, and the motoring public can now rest assured that when they pick up a serviceman who is in uniform they can assume that he is officially on leave and that they are therefore covered by the third party insurance.

The problem of servicemen in civvies hitch-hiking through the TBVC countries is one with which we will have to live, and for this reason I have two appeals to make. The first appeal is to the Press, which includes the SABC. The other appeal is one that is possibly meant for the Defence Force. Regarding the first appeal, I believe that the Press, and the SABC should give this measure a lot of publicity in order to inform the motoring public these new provisions.

The suggestion I have in respect of the Defence Force is one which may not be viable in practice, however I leave them to apply their minds to it. I have noticed that many servicemen hitch-hikers wear a safety band, a fluorescent safety band. My suggestion is that when a serviceman goes on leave, when he has an official pass, he also be issued with a special type of safety band which clearly indicates that he is officially on leave. If he is going through one of the TBVC countries, even though he is not in uniform, he could still wear this particular band so that people will know that he is on leave. I do not know whether this is a viable suggestion, however, should it prove to be so, it might make it easier for our servicemen to obtain lifts. I believe that we should do all in our power to assist our servicemen. I also agree with the comments made by the hon. member for Kimberley South about the SABC and I also want to thank the SABC for the admirable work they do in assisting servicemen in this regard.

As I have said, we will be supporting this Bill through all its stages.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Berea for his remarks. As he said, this legislation is in the interests of our national servicemen and we are always sympathetic in this regard. I want to thank him for his support.

*The hon. member for Kimberley South referred to the “Bel-en-ry-na” organizations. These women are doing a very fine job. The hon. member also said that he wanted to thank the media and the Press. Sir, it happens very seldom in this House that the Press receives any thanks! If hon. members deliver bad speeches and the Press report them correctly they are furious! I want to thank the hon. member for thanking these people, because these are the people who help us to propagate the service of the “Bel-en-ry-na” organizations, bearing in mind that these women do the work free of charge. I thank the hon. member for Kimberley South.

The hon. member for De Aar put a question about part of a uniform. The important point is that it must be possible to identify such a person as a member of the Defence Force, and that is very easy. The hon. member argued that there could possibly be people who produced forged documents. Such cases are not necessarily covered automatically. However, it happens very seldom. In the Republic of South Africa one is quite safe. If a person should give such a person a lift there would not be any problems. If such a person were to travel through the TBVC countries and such member had only identified himself and an accident were to take place, such a person would be covered fully by the insurance.

What would happen if he showed the motorist forged documents?

Well, then he would not be covered.

Would the motorist then not be covered?

No, it applies only when a person is involved in an accident and he is not covered under the Defence Force as a person who is a member of the Defence Force. This concerns members of the Defence Force only.

May I ask a question? Let us consider the case of a member of the Defence Force who is in Transkei, for example. He may be wearing private clothes because he is on unauthorized leave. Accordingly he shows the motorist a false document. I want to ask whether the motorist would be covered in the event of a claim being made in terms of third party insurance.

Mr. Speaker, the matter at issue is the coverage of the man who was given a lift by that motorist and who told the motorist that he was a member of the Defence Force. In that case he does not have this type of cover; if he lied and he was not a member of the Defence Force and he lost his leg in the accident, he would not be covered in terms of the insurance scheme for a member of the Defence Force. A motorist can drive wherever he wants to and give anyone a lift, but then the motorist himself takes the risk in the event of an accident taking place. If a motorist can prove that a man lied to him, that motorist is not held responsible.

† The hon. member for Amanzimototi asked whether the public knows the details of the scheme. That is very important. That is the reason why we have asked the media and the Press to publicize this matter as they have done in the past. I am sure that some motorists do not know that they are permitted to give a man in uniform a lift and that they will be covered. However, I do think we must give more publicity to this matter.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The purpose of this Bill is to introduce essential amendments to the Road Transportation Act, 1977. Some of the amendments that are being proposed are of a purely technical nature, but as will be explained in due course, more drastic amendments are also being proposed to combat malpractices in the transport industry.

I want to emphasize from the outset that I still subscribe to the objectives of the Van Breda Commission of Inquiry, on which the principal Act was based, i.e. to move gradually towards freer competition between the transport media. However, it is being found in practice that although there are large numbers of haulers who act in a responsible manner by adhering strictly to the provisions of the Act, there are also too many of those who concentrate on finding and exploiting loopholes in the Act, to their own advantage and to the detriment of the industry as a whole. Ingenious methods are being used to circumvent the Act, and this is contributing to unauthorized and consequently unhealthy competition. The primary aim of the Bill is to put a stop to these malpractices.

† I now wish to discuss some of the amendments contained in the Bill.

In terms of the existing definition of a “decentralized industry” only decentralized industries situated within areas which have been declared decentralized areas in terms of Act 74 of 1977 or in terms of laws governing road transportation in self-governing territories benefit from the concessions made in favour of decentralized industries in the Act. As industrial development in Southern Africa, including independent Black States, is actively encouraged by the Government, it is proposed to amend the definition of “decentralized industry” in order that industrialists in those States may also benefit from the concessions granted to decentralized industries in Act 74 of 1977 provided they are situated in areas declared as such in terms of laws governing road transportation in the countries concerned.

The definition of “road transportation” is being misused by certain bus operators. In view of the fact that the traffic ordinances of the various provincial administrations regard a person having possession of a vehicle by virtue of a hire agreement for a period longer than 12 months as the owner of that vehicle, such a person does not require a public permit if he transports persons for reward. This interpretation negates the purpose of the Act to a great extent. The proposed amendment to the existing definition of “road transportation” will counteract this practice.

It will be recalled that during the parliamentary session of 1979 section 1(2)(1) was amended to provide for the phasing out of goods vehicles which are used in terms of that section. This amendment was necessary to prevent further abuse of section 1(2)(1). Goods vehicles which can obviously carry more than 1 000 kg were derated in such a manner that they ostensibly conformed to the requirements of section 1(2)(1).

The first reaction when these malpractices became evident was to delete section 1(2)(1). However, when the capital outlay in acquiring these vehicles was taken into account, it was decided that discussions should first be held with interested parties in an attempt to resolve the matter. During the discussions it was agreed that should it be necessary to amend section 1(2)(1), provision should, in all fairness, be made for a phasing out period during which those hauliers who were using vehicles in terms of the said section could orientate themselves by either ceasing operations or by applying for the necessary road carrier permits. A phasing out period which would have lapsed on 31 December 1981 was considered reasonable at that stage.

As three years have elapsed since the amended section 1(2)(1) came into operation, it is now considered that sufficient time has been granted to these hauliers to phase out their vehicles. It should be mentioned that a committee consisting of members of the Department of Transport, organized commerce and industry, the road transportation associations and the S.A. Transport Services was appointed by me at the beginning of last year to investigate the matter. The committee recommended to me that permits issued in terms of section 1(2)(1) should lapse on 31 December 1983. This recommendation I accepted.

*There are certain persons in the road transportation industry who are trying to make it as difficult as possible for law enforcement officers to do their work. Goods containers are loaded on the vehicles in such a way that law enforcement officers cannot open the doors of the containers. This means that the officers concerned cannot inspect the goods. In this way, illegal transportation can take place at the expense of other existing transport facilities. For this reason, it is being proposed that the Act be amended to authorize the Minister to prohibit, by notice in the Gazette, the transportation of goods containers that have been loaded on a goods vehicle in a specified manner.

In terms of section 4(3), the various provincial administrations and municipalities with a population of not less that 20 000 persons must be consulted before people are appointed as members of the local road transportation boards. Section 4(3)(b), in particular, is creating very great problems for the department. Since there are various municipalities situated within the areas of the various local road transportation boards, it is difficult to consult each of these municipalities about the appointment of board members. Furthermore, appointments are complicated by the fact that where several local authorities are involved, agreement cannot always be reached about which person should be nominated, and this happens because self-interest naturally plays an important role. Delays arising in this way may contribute to the disruption of the activities of local transportation boards. For this reason, unfortunately, there is no alternative but to delete the section concerned ip its entirety, because there is no justification for eliminating only the consultation with municipalities.

It is being proposed in the Bill that the chairman of the National Transport Commission, or a member thereof, be authorized to consider applications for condonation of the late filing of an appeal, or the suspension or setting aside of a decision of a local transportation board, without hearing any interested party beforehand. This practice has always been followed in the past. It is now being found, however, that interdicts are being requested in cases where this procedure is followed.

Because of the scope of the activities of the National Transport Commission, it is impracticable to hear interested parties when it comes to requests for condonation of the late filing of an appeal, or the suspension or setting aside of a decision by a local road transportation board. Therefore we have no alternative but to introduce this proposed amendment. However, it is also based on court rulings in which the procedure followed by the National Transport Commission, as set out above, has been accepted.

The proposed amendments to the effect that the National Transport Commission and a local road transportation board cannot consider applications for public and private permits in respects of a motor vehicle if a public or private permit has already been issued to any other person in respect of that motor vehicle, is necessitated by certain malpractices in the road transportation industry. For example, when a haulier knows that another haulier will object to his application for a public permit for the transportation of a certain commodity, he registers his vehicles in his own name, as well as in the name of the person for whom he wants to undertake the transportation. A private permit is then applied for in the name of the latter, and in this way, not only is the publication of the application prevented, but the provisions of section 15 are also circumvented. In this way, therefore, it is impossible to exercise proper control over public transport.

I know that the hon. member for Berea is going to oppose this point, because he has already received a telex message from the road transportation organizations. They sent me a copy. However, it is staggering to see the irregularities and fraud committed in this connection, where a vehicle is registered in the names of two persons or where one man registers a vehicle for two purposes.

Hendrik, Koos says that if you resign, he will resign too.

Koos who? You should say “the hon. member”. [Interjections.]

If more than one person is in possession of a public permit in respect of the same vehicle, it is not possible to provide a proper service to the public, especially in the case of passenger services. Problems are also being experienced with the implementation of the Act because officers cannot readily ascertain who the owner of the vehicle is.

† The amendment of section 25, as contained in clause 13, is necessary as a result of malpractices which take place with permits. Many of the permits are no longer used for the purpose for which they were originally issued, in that hauliers purposely interpret their authorities to suit their requirements. Sir, we have found that most of the people guilty of these malpractices are supporters of the PFP. [Interjections.] The proposed amendment makes it absolutely clear that the National Transport Commission or a local road transportation board can amend a permit for reasons not linked only to fuel economy without being confronted unnecessarily with court actions based on technical grounds.

Section 26 provides for the award of compensation in cases where permits are withdrawn as a result of the introduction of rail services. Provision should also be made to compensate a holder of a permit authorizing the conveyance of persons between certain places if a rail service is introduced on the same route operated by that holder and if his permit is not amended or withdrawn. Clause 14 is being included for this purpose. I think that will receive everyone’s support.

Although the National Transport Commission or a local road transportation board can refuse to consider an application that has mainly the same object as an application by the same person refused during the preceding six months, it is found in practice that applicants frequently resubmit such applications with insignificant changes or, alternatively, that the application is submitted in the name of a third party in order to circumvent the requirements of the section. Time is also frequently wasted adjudicating trivial applications or objections.

*Long-term planning, especially with regard to the development and planning of national roads, requires statistics to be kept concerning the nature and volume of the heavy traffic on our roads and the nature and volume of the goods transported. Provisions is therefore being made for both the registration of hauliers and the keeping and submission of statistics.

Since illegal transportation and malpractices are increasing at an alarming rate, it has become essential to take stronger action. As will be apparent from the Bill, the fine and the term of imprisonment that can be imposed are being increased, among other things. This step even received support from the road transportation industry. In terms of another amendment which is intended to combat illegal transportation, persons whose documents contain incorrect descriptions of their goods can be found guilty of an offence as well.

It has also become essential to provide the means of prohibiting transport across the borders when this is necessary in the interests of South Africa. For that reason, provision is being made for the State President to issue such proclamations.

At the moment, road transportation agreements can only be entered into with countries bordering on the Republic. It could be in the interests of South Africa also to enter into road transportation agreements with countries situated further away from the Republic. The existing legislation provides for adjoining countries, but as we have found, we may want to enter into a contract with a country such as Malawi, and Malawi does not border on our country.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister, in his introductory speech, has sought to justify many of the amendments contained in this Bill by stressing that what he is trying to do is to combat malpractices in terms of the existing Act. As such the Bill contains a number of amendments to the Road Transportation Act. Some of these are an improvement but most are not. The Act itself, as the hon. the Minister will know, is a controversial piece of legislation. The Act, and its implementation in practice, really constitutes a variety of mixed blessings for those of the private sector who are involved in road transportation and is constantly the source of controversial debate. The Act is in many ways a necessary evil. It is necessary in order to bring some sort of regulation into the operation and in order to provide protection for those who operate in this field. However, it is often seen as evil in that in its implementation it can be unnecessarily irksome and restrictive as far as the private operators are concerned and overly protective of State enterprise in the transport field. In these circumstances there must be a very fine balance between justifiable and necessary protection and unjustifiable and unfair restrictions in any sort of overview of the legislation and how it is implemented. It is against that background that we have looked at this amending Bill. One must ask oneself whether it will improve the present Act or whether its cumulative effect will be to impose further unfair restrictions on the private sector. That is the one question which we have considered.

Secondly, one must also ask whether the amending Bill measures up to the declared policy of the hon. the Prime Minister and the Cabinet that they want to support and promote the free enterprise system in South Africa and the private sector in our economy. These are considerations which obviously must affect our judgment in considering any amendment to the Road Transportation Act. I must say that although there are some improvements, which I shall comment upon later, the overall thrust of the Bill is to make the Act much more restrictive to the disadvantage of the private sector. The overall effect is to make the Act far more in conflict with the free enterprise system than it is at the present time. We believe that it is unfortunate that this could be so. We believe the Bill has been ill-considered. It should really be withdrawn and its provisions and effect on the private sector reassessed. Although it contains a number of amendments which can be dealt with in detail at the Committee Stage, and although a few of them are an improvement on the present situation, we believe that on balance the cumulative effect of these amendments is bad. We are therefore going to vote against the Second Reading. The bad provisions in the Bill in our view far outweigh the good provisions.

Let us look at some of the restrictions contained in the Bill. There is the restriction relating to the use of vehicles with a carrying capacity of less than 1 000 kg. The Act, as it stands now, provides that these vehicles can be exempted under authority of a public permit which may be issued by the commission or a board subject to certain conditions after the commencement of the amending Act in 1979. This Bill says that those permits can be issued under authority of a permit which was issued after 1979 or any subsequent date which has been stipulated. The practice has been—this becomes clear when one talks to the Chambers of Commerce and the people who are involved in this matter—that the boards have always been reluctant in the past to grant such permits. The Chambers of Commerce indicate that the amendment of this provision in the Bill will effectively, for example, put an end to services such as inter-city express deliveries which are an essential part of business activities in most of the urban areas of South Africa. If one takes the Natal situation between Pietermaritzburg and Durban and the Transvaal situation between Johannesburg and Pretoria, one realizes that these are essential services for anybody involved in business activities. The hon. the Minister’s department cannot compete with the private sector in regard to these inter-city deliveries because they deliver goods at the door and provide an express and essential service. This is going to effectively put an end to that because of the amendment contained in this provision and because of the attitude in the past of the commission and the boards to this sort of commercial activity.

The other restrictive condition which we find offensive is the extended powers given to the Minister in clause 2 of the Bill. It is so worded as to give unrestricted authority to the Minister to prohibit the conveyance of almost anything.

Even cigarettes to Delmas.

Yes, even cigarettes to Delmas. If one looks at that provision the Minister may now in terms of the Bill prohibit the conveyance of goods which are loaded on a goods vehicle in a specific manner on a specific date notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any permit which was issued in terms of the Act. In other words, someone could have gone through all the procedure of obtaining a permit to operate in terms of the Act, but the Minister can prohibit the conveyance of types of goods that are loaded in a particular manner. This could mean that the Minister could prohibit the conveyance of goods in a container. The hon. the Minister has said in his introductory speech that there have been malpractices in this regard, but the fact is that he is again going for an overkill. He is looking for malpractices, but he is arrogating unrestricted authority to interfere with a permit that has already been issued. This puts the private operator in an impossible position when a Minister has a power of this kind which we believe is totally unreasonable and totally contrary to the spirit that should exist in allowing transport operators to operate. Having gone through the right procedure and having been given a permit they need to be able to operate without the Minister sitting over them with the power to withdraw that permit that has been issued.

Then there is a further restriction that we find offensive and that is the provision which removes the requirement that the Minister appoint two board members on the recommendation of the provincial administrator or the city council. The hon. the Minister has given some reason this afternoon as to why this should be so, but the fact of the matter is that this was a very useful link with the two major authorities in any large city, the province on the one hand and the city council on the other. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister’s reasons are the only reasons why he has introduced this provision. We know of the unfortunate situation which arose in Durban quite recently where the hon. the Minister burnt his fingers and also burnt a lot of the taxpayers’ money by appointing someone who was not recommended by the city council. He was taken to court and had to settle that action at the expense of his department and of the South African taxpayer. The fact of the matter is that if one wants a board to operate with a greater sense of authority, it is extremely important that a large local authority at least have the right to recommend one of its members to be a member of that board. I regard this as a provision that is also not in the spirit of seeking co-operation from the local authorities concerned and for that matter from the public sector.

A further restriction that we find offensive is the provision contained in clause 6 which states that the commission or a board shall not consider an application in respect of a motor vehicle with regard to which a private permit or a public permit has already been issued to some person other than the applicant. Again, the hon. the Minister has indicated that he has introduced this in order to combat malpractices. However, the fact of the matter is that the effect of this will mean that carriers will be effectively prevented from negotiating to fill a return journey where otherwise two vehicles would be required to move in opposite directions, each returning empty. They will be unable to do it because of the insertion of the words “other than the applicant”. It also prevents the joint use of a vehicle by related companies in the interests of economy, which has been a practice in the past. The related companies have combined and have used one vehicle together in order to economize. This I would say is in direct conflict with all the measures to conserve fuel because operators are going to have to use double the vehicles whereas in the past, as at the present time, it has been possible for people to combine and to use a single vehicle. But by inserting this provision people will be compelled to use more than one vehicle, and this is going to be not only an irksome restriction on the part of the private operator but also totally contrary to the interests of conserving fuel in South Africa and to the economy itself.

Then there is a further provision in clause 13 of the Bill which is restrictive and offensive and which states that if the commission or a board for any other reason (including the promotion of economy in the use of petroleum fuel), deems it necessary, it may of its own accord cancel or vary any conditions attaching to a permit which has been issued. Here the emphasis is taken away from the existing Act where the emphasis was placed on the promotion of economy in the use of fuel. Here we have a situation where powers can be taken to interfere again with a permit that has already been issued, after due consideration of all the relevant factors, because the provision states that they can do it for any reason and the emphasis is placed on the words “any reason”. It therefore opens it very wide for the board to vary or alter any permit if it in its own wisdom decides to do so after that permit has been issued.

Again it places the private operator in an impossible position because he has a sword of Damocles hanging over his head even after he has gone through the procedure for a permit to be issued. We find that that sort of restriction too is something which is certainly not an improvement in regard to the operation of the Act at the present time. Then, of course, there is the proposal which the hon. the Minister has partially dealt with in his introductory speech, the proposal relating to the procedure which can be followed in terms of section 8 of the original Act, relating to appeals against the board’s decisions. The provision here provides that the chairman of the commission or the board may, in his discretion, consider an application for condonation and other matters relating to the filing of an appeal without giving prior notice or hearing to an interested party. Whatever the technical reasons are which the hon. the Minister has given us in his introductory speech, this is contrary to all accepted legal principles. It is quite impossible—it should in fact be impossible—for any statutory body or any court to pronounce on a situation without either giving notice that it is going to do so or without allowing interested parties a hearing. We believe this is a totally bad principle, which should never be allowed into the Road Transportation Act.

Then on the question of the increased penalties, which, I believe, would probably be better dealt with during the Committee Stage, I should like to state that we have objections to the excessive increase in the penalties, and we will move amendments in that regard. We will also lodge our objection to the removal of the discretion of the court. I do not know why the hon. the Minister, in legislation of this nature, has to prescribe to the courts of South Africa what they should do in certain circumstances. I believe that offences, whether they are first, second or third offences, that come before a court should be left to the good judgment of the court to prescribe what the penalty should be. All these are objections we have. The hon. the Minister, in his introductory speech, said that the amendments were of a technical nature. They may be technical, Mr. Speaker, but they are nevertheless amendments and restrictions which are not going to make this any more popular an Act than it is at the present time. The indications, not only from one’s own reading of the Bill, in regard to the restrictions, but also from reaction one has had, not only from the Public Carriers Association but also from Chambers of Commerce—the hon. the Minister says he has consulted with Chambers of Commerce; he certainly has not listened to them—are that they are horrified at the extent of the further restrictions that are going to be placed on transport operators in South Africa if this Bill goes through in its present form.

Then, I did say there were certain improvements. Allow me to gladden the hon. the Minister’s heart by dealing for a moment with some of these improvements. The first one relates to the insertion of a new provision relating to the conveyance of exempted goods to and from the borders of any countries of the Customs Union Agreement or any countries that have entered into an agreement with the Republic of South Africa with regard to the conveyance of exempted goods. This is surely an interesting provision, and the hon. the Minister was totally ungenerous when he dealt with this in his introductory speech because he did not give credit where credit was due. One’s mind goes back—and the hon. the Minister must think back too—to the debate which took place in this House two years ago, when I and other hon. members of the Opposition drew attention to this very issue. The hon. the Minister then, at that stage when he introduced that Bill in 1981, introduced an amendment to provide for a new subsection 1(2)(z) to protect local operators in respect of exempted goods. It is interesting to look back on the debate which took place here in the House on 14 August 1981. On that occasion the hon. the Minister said, and I quote (Hansard, Vol. 94, col. 958)—

This was, of course, to give protection to local operators. The more intelligent comment to this, Mr. Speaker, came from myself. [Interjections.] Responding to the hon. the Minister I said, and I quote (col. 959)—

That is the way it went.

I also want to refer to what the hon. member for Roodeplaat had to say in this regard. In a patriotic speech that he made, he waxed very eloquent in defending the right of South Africans to have this right alone, the right of permits for exempted goods. In column 962 of the Hansard of 14 August 1981 he had this to say—

He then went on to say that we have to ensure that—

So the debate went on.

We debated the matter again at the Committee Stage and once again I drew attention to the problem. I said there were going to be problems and then the hon. the Minister had the following to say during the Committee Stage at column 1475—

That is the hon. member for Berea—

That is why I said that the hon. the Minister was less than generous when he brought in this provision in introducing this Bill this afternoon. Quite clearly, what we said two years ago has been proved correct and the hon. the Minister has been compelled to amend the legislation in order to provide for the situation in the satellite States of the Republic.

You are not always wrong; sometimes you are right.

It is interesting to note, Sir, that in legislation of this nature, the only improvement that I have been able to describe is an improvement which we suggested two years ago. It has taken the hon. the Minister two years to find an improvement to the Road Transportation Act and then it had to be at the suggestion of the official Opposition.

There are a few further minor improvements. There is also the question of decentralized industries along the same lines. Once again the hon. the Minister has included decentralized industries in the independent States. There are also one or two further improvements relating to spare parts and so on. However, in general terms, the Bill contains so many objectionable restrictions which constitute further assaults on the public sector that we just cannot support it. It is almost as though the hon. the Minister, in view of the desperate straits in which his department finds itself financially, has deliberately decided to make a raid upon all the rights of private transport operators in South Africa. This is the picture that comes through when one looks at this type of amending legislation which the hon. the Minister has introduced this afternoon. For these reasons, therefore, we are going to oppose the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, before I come to the hon. member for Berea, who does not support this Bill, I should like to reply to the hon. member Mr. Theunissen. Since we are talking about where we stand in this House, I want to tell the hon. member Mr. Theunissen that he was elected by the members of the NP on the ticket, so to speak, of the sentiment that his constituency had been delimited.

Order! What legislation is the hon. member discussing now?

The Road Transportation Amendment Bill, Sir.

I should be glad if the hon. member would confine himself to that.

I thought he was talking about perishable products. [Interjections.]

I just want to tell the hon. member for Bryanston that he is the perishable product. I shall come back to the hon. member Mr. Theunissen in due course.

The hon. member for Berea said he did not support the legislation because the picture it painted was wrong. I want to tell him that the picture may be wrong, but I think there are two or three points that are in fact important because the legislation does rectify certain things. The most important of these points is that the hon. member for Berea said that to some extent, the individual involved in road transportation was being deprived of his freedom by this measure. I want to say to the hon. member that the party which is in power at the moment fully realizes the consequences, as well as the fact that road transportation is rather important.

Firstly, I want to point out that the total investment in the transport sector of South Africa is estimated at R60 000 million. In the case of road transportation, it is round about R10 000 million. Looking at these figures we realize that we cannot be casual in our approach to statutory amendments of this nature, because one-sixth of the total investment in the transport sector is in a particular mode of transport. I want to emphasize the fact that road transportation plays a particularly important role when it comes to regional development. Especially when we talk about the potential which regional development has for the country, and particularly about the possibilities that are being created for the development of certain areas, road transportation is certainly one of the factors that can have a very beneficial effect.

The various modes of transport in our country complement one another, but they are also in competition with one another. We must regard road transportation as being in competition with other forms of transport; it does not exist in isolation. Within the road transportation industry, we have two further activities which are very clearly defined in the 1977 legislation, namely in the first place, the private permit, and, in the second place, the public permit. These two permits are also in competition with each other, because people are free to transport their own goods.

The principle of free competition receives a reasonable amount of attention in the legislation, especially when we come to the problem that the Van Breda Commission, on which the legislation was based, spelt out very clearly that the legislation as such should allow greater freedom and competition. This was in fact the spirit of the new Road Transportation Act which we now wish to amend.

The most important point, in my opinion, is that the Van Breda Commission very clearly stated: Greater freedom, but not greater chaos. At the moment, quite a number of abuses are being perpetrated under the present Road Transportation Act, and now we are trying by means of the Bill to eliminate those abuses. I agree with the hon. member for Berea that one should consider these points very carefully, because one may prejudice the existing permit holder. However, when we consider the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech, I believe we realize that adequate provision is being made for the permit holder to continue his transport operations in the way which his permit allows.

When one considers the permit system, and the nature of those permits, one thinks of certain practical examples. It is on the basis of such practical examples that I believe that clause 18 of the Bill is an improvement because it contains a better definition of the principle of section 35 of the principal Act. Clause 13 makes it possible to consider factors other than fuel. Fuel is important and it does play a role, but there are other factors as well. At the moment, it happens that people obtain a permit and then provide transport services in terms of that permit. After a certain period, however, they interpret that permit in a way which suits them, and this is something we must guard against.

Here I am thinking in particular of a permit for the transport of switch-gear, which is now being interpreted by certain people as authorizing them to transport reels of cables. They argue that those cables will eventually be connected to switch-gear in any case, and for that reason the permit authorizes them to transport such cables. However, this was not the original intention when application was made for a permit.

The best example I have come across concerns a permit for the transport of plant and equipment. The permit holders then say that these are plants of the kind that grows, and therefore they transport such plants. We cannot allow such behaviour any longer when it comes to road transportation.

I want to go further and say that it is all very well to advocate free competition in this House, but surely this free competition must take place within the rules, i.e. in the spirit in which a permit is issued. In terms of Government policy, existing legislation has to be modernized, and consequently it is essential that the legislation be examined on a regular basis and that improvements be effected. I think these amendments are improvements. No matter what the hon. member for Berea says, I think there are things which should be even more closely defined. Here I am thinking in particular of clause 14, which provides for the insertion of section 26A into the principal Act. I believe that at this stage there is merit in the contention that when new railway transportation facilities for passengers are announced, the permits issued after the date of the announcement should not be taken into consideration when compensation has to be paid.

I think this principle should be extended, in the light of what is happening in many cases. When a railway service is introduced, people apply on a large scale for permission to expand their bus passenger services. When it comes to negotiations for compensation as a result of the curtailment of bus services, a whole number of permits are then added, as a result of which this matter is aggravated and the price which has to be negotiated is increased.

The offences referred to in this connection are serious, and objections are being raised to clause 2 in particular. Personally I regard clause 2 as an important provision, because that clause provides to some extent for the elimination of one of the abuses that are prevalent at the moment, i.e. the transportation of containers which are loaded in such a manner that no one can get at their contents. I want to request the hon. the Minister to give us the statistics in this connection, if he has any such statistics with him. Could he please indicate what has been happening at road blocks over the past three or four months? What percentage of the vehicles stopped were on the road without any permits—i.e. completely ignoring the Act—and what percentage of vehicles did have permits, but were carrying goods completely different from those provided for in the permits? I think it is correct that there should be certain directions, because it is in line with international standards that goods should be loaded in such a way that inspectors have access to them. Otherwise the implementation of the Act becomes a farce. In other words, if we cannot look at the permit to see where the goods are going and what the person is allowed to transport in terms of the permit, we may just as well abolish the laws.

I want to come back now to the Van Breda Commission, and I hope the Chief Whip of the NP, who is the father of that report, will also participate in this debate to take us back to the original spirit of the recommendations in the Van Breda report on which the whole piece of legislation is based. I am asking for this so that we may not become confused with regard to the Act, the Van Breda report and the spirit of total freedom which is advocated. I do not want to quote here from the telex messages we have all received. I shall regard the telex messages as confidential at this stage, but I just want to mention that the spirit which can be observed in these messages arises from the spirit which one finds in a certain publication, the Road Transportation magazine of January 1983, which dealt with this specific aspect. The PCA or Public Carriers’ Association basically represents all road transportation organizations in South Africa. It is an umbrella body. I should like to quote the chairman, one Mr. Norris—

I read further—

I am sorry to say that when suspicion is aroused concerning matters such as these even before the legislation has been tabled, feelings begin to run high against this legislation. Feelings are running so high that the chief spokesman on Transport affairs of the official Opposition is going to vote against the legislation at the end of the debate. I do want to request him to reconsider the matter. He rightly conceded that the Bill had some good points as well. Let us rather concentrate, then, on the one or two points on which we are not in agreement. I think there is a reasonable possibility that if we thrash out the points we disagree about in the Committee Stage, he will change his mind.

When the economy was booming, the question of the situation of road transportation was not so pressing. Then we were all doing very well. However, when the economy began to slump and we were all fighting for goods, it was suddenly brought home to us what the situation in respect road transportation was. If the 1981 growth rate of 8% had been maintained, it would not have been necessary to make these amendments, because then one could have allowed the contraventions of the Act to continue because there would have been enough work for people to come in at low tariffs. However, the situation is the same as that of the American airlines. They all clamoured for deregulation while the economy was growing in America. However, when deregulation had been introduced and there was a downturn in the economy, they all wanted regulations again, as well as subsidies. We must just be careful not to fall into the same trap as America, for in America the battle between the road carriers is so fierce that they are even shooting one another on the highways. [Interjections.] No, I shall not shoot the Progs.

Although according to the hon. the Minister, as spelt out in his introductory speech, the primary aim of the Bill is to put a stop to the malpractices, I do want to ask that when the legislation is amended again, it should be taken a little further so as to combat yet another malpractice, i.e. the peddling of permits. At the moment it is found that the ratio between supply and demand in road transportation is fairly balanced. Although the Act provides for anyone who discontinues his transport operations to return his permits to the road transportation board concerned within 10 days—this is contained in regulation 14—that part of the Act and the regulation are regularly contravened. What is the result? Someone else buys those permits. I have experience of this. In November last year, a certain company in Natal closed down. The company had 12 permits for the transportation of refrigerated goods. Those permits were individually sold to 12 different hauliers for enormous amounts varying between R25 000 and R30 000 a permit. The result is that in the end, we have 12 individual hauliers fighting for the same goods. Worst of all, at the moment, is the fact that once a haulier has one permit, he goes back to the road transportation board and asks for his one permit to be increased to 14. Eventually one finds, therefore, that the 12 permits have multiplied to 100, while the goods to be transported have not increased. Therefore I feel that that part of the Act should also be more strictly enforced so that supply and demand with regard to permits can be more evenly balanced.

I should like to react to clause 13. It is said that clause 13 is causing problems and that by means of that clause, in conjunction with clause 19, we are inflicting a heavy penalty on certain people. I want to point out to the hon. member for Berea that it is very clearly stated at the end of the Bill, in clause 25, that it will come into operation by proclamation so that the necessary amendments to the regulations may first be made. In terms of the Act as it reads at the moment, the vehicle and goods of people with three convictions may be confiscated. This is a very good idea, therefore, in the sense that as far as offences are concerned, those people who have already committed almost their full quota can start with a clean slate when this legislation comes into operation. I am glad that the hon. the Minister has provided for us not to add up all the people’s former sins and include them in the new legislation. I want to express very clearly my dissatisfaction with the criticism that has been engendered with regard to that one small point because people read only the clause concerned and not the entire Bill. They concentrate only on the clause concerned. All previous convictions up to and including two are ignored, in terms of this legislation, and people start with a clean slate, and as from that moment the new penalties will also come into operation. Much of the opposition against this legislation is based on that misconception.

There are some other factors as well that should be pointed out, but I shall content myself with this. I want to make the request to the hon. the Minister that as far as road transportation is concerned, the Government, as well as the Department of Transport Affairs, should start computerizing all permits in South Africa as soon as possible. That process must be accelerated. If the permits have been computerized, it will be so much easier to exercise control. If necessary, the Government could even decide that as from a given date, all permits will be abolished and replaced by new ones. The new permits should, in the first place, be associated with a registered vehicle, and secondly, the registered vehicle should have a certificate of roadworthiness. If this is not done, we are going to have the problem that is being experienced at the moment, where people have a large number of permits while they do not even have any vehicles. When they do have vehicles, the problem sometimes arises that the vehicles are not operational and sometimes do not even have wheels. I feel that it has become essential for us to obtain the co-operation of the industry. The people who are worst off at the moment are those people who already have permits.

They are not the people who engage in transport operations outside the system.

There has been a campaign against the sentences and the confiscation after a third conviction. I still maintain that people who have not broken the law have no need to fear this sentence. The people who are afraid of the sentence are precisely those people who are breaking the law. I hope the hon. the Minister will let us have the figures in this connection. Hon. members will be surprised to see those figures.

In conclusion I just want to say that I was elected to this House in terms of section 40(1)(c) of our Constitution. Now I challenge the hon. member Mr. Theunissen—my voters are here, his are not—to resign, as the hon. the Minister of Manpower has done. Then we shall see where he gets his supporters from.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I, too, was one of the supporters at the time of the election of that hon. nominated member.

This afternoon I want to tell the hon. the Minister that it is true that his department always offers that little something extra. This legislation has been drafted in a way which makes it impossible for anyone in this House to oppose the legislation in its entirety. It is possible for one to say that one does not like the hon. the Minister or another hon. speaker, but as far as the Bill itself is concerned, it is clear that it has been drafted in a way …

If you are telling me that you do not like me as the Minister concerned, you are lying.

Sir, I do like the hon. the Minister. I know he is still going to become the Leader of the House. I have no problems in that regard.

This Bill seeks to amend the Road Transportation Act, 1977. Certain expressions are being deleted and others are being further defined. The foundation laid in 1977 sought the introduction of free enterprise so as to afford road transportation the opportunity of participating in this system. I think this was a concession of the part of the Transport Service which at the time were, one could almost say, totally in control of transport in this country. At that time they brought these carriers into this field of operation in which they were able to share with the Transport Services in a very good period of road transportation.

Today I want to say that some of those carriers absolutely abused the concessions which were made to them. When one drafts a Bill and one sits with the lawyers of companies around a table negotiating about some clause for days on end, and those people maintain that they need a one-ton truck for conveying spare parts so as to enable them to repair a vehicle which has had a breakdown on the road or to fetch an injured worker lying in the open veld, one ultimately concedes to their request. But what does this type of company do? It circumvents the Act by converting that one-ton truck to give it another two metres of space and in addition attaches a trailer, which amounts to a total abuse of the concession it has been granted. And what does it do then? It starts a so-called express service, an express service with television sets, for example, and as such enters into competition with other contractors which it has not been authorized to do. A Government cannot allow practices like these to happen. The intentions of those people were not sincere and I would not have given them the three years’ concession, the three years which they were given and which terminate at the end of 1983. I would not have granted that concession for the reason that they knowingly and wilfully contravened an Act in that they professed to have had a completely different object in mind with that one-ton truck.

There is a clause in this Bill which bothers me, and as I know the hon. the Minister he will give it his attention. Clause 2 provides that the Minister may, after the publication of the relevant notice in the Gazette, prescribe in what way a goods vehicle is to be loaded. The capacity of goods vehicles differs from vehicle to vehicle. I am in full agreement with the department that we should know what load a vehicle is carrying. We must know what it is conveying. I do think it is very practical, however, first to load a goods vehicle by using cranes and then to stop it on a main road and to require that the doors can be opened easily so as to allow one to see everything inside the vehicle.

They are carrying containers.

Yes, containers. I know they are carrying containers. I know the entire story of containerization. The problem with those containers is, of course, their tremendous mass, which makes it extremely difficult to handle them. It is for this reason that I am asking for the inspection to be carried out on the spot where the container is loaded as well as at the point where the container is unloaded. If there is a reasonable suspicion that a carrier is conveying something it ought not to be conveying, a different line of action should be followed. We should rather devise another method instead of simply passing legislation in terms of which anyone may be stopped anywhere and on any section of the road to have his vehicle inspected.

You want us to leave a loophole a mile wide.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mossel Bay evidently does not realize that the hon. member for Klip River had already been nominated for the office of Deputy Chairman of Committees. So the hon. member may as well keep quiet. [Interjections.]

I said you wanted to leave a loophole a mile wide.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay may just as well keep quiet now. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister understands why I am making this plea. As a matter of fact, I also know that the department is not perfectly satisfied with this state of affairs. The department itself would like to have a different method. Why should the department have to send inspectors to stop one of these enormous vehicles somewhere in the middle of nowhere, to carry out the inspection? Moreover, the inspectors normally need heavy loading equipment for unloading and opening the containers to be inspected. Some large goods vehicles even convey two or three heavy containers on top of one another. How are the inspectors to handle them without loading equipment? The entire system is simply not a practical one. That is why I am asking for the inspection to be carried out at the point of departure or at the point of unloading. If necessary, the fines for offenders could even be increased. I have no objection to that being done. So let us see whether we cannot prevent the perpetuation of this impractical system.

As I have already said, I do not believe it is necessary to stop those heavy vehicles en route to their destination. Nor do I believe that it is necessary to amend section 8(3) of the principal Act so as to make provision for the evaluation of applications on the basis of the documents before the National Transport Commission. The National Transport Commission needs only the relevant documentation. Moreover, I believe that the Commission is so busy that it would not be possible for the Commission to see various people. However, we should not put an end to people consulting one another in South Africa. After all, the Government has now decided to set out on the road of consultation, consociation and all kinds of similar things. So allow people to have the necessary say, allow them to put their side of the matter, and let us not act arbitrarily when it comes to the activities of ordinary citizens. Consequently we should allow them the opportunity to state their case as well.

A further important point, I believe, is the following. Since such a large number of applications are being received at present, the fee payable by applicants for permits could possibly be increased. In my opinion it would be justified to do so. We should, however, always afford people the opportunity to apply.

It is also being proposed to amend section 25 of the principal Act so as to empower the National Transport Commission or the local road transportation board to amend a permit in suitable cases. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he could show me examples of such amended permits. What kind of charges are effected to such a permit? I should be very pleased if the hon. the Minister could tell me how often this actually happens. In how many cases would it actually be necessary to effect these changes to these permits?

In clause 14 provision is being made for the payment of compensation for losses suffered by bus services, the permits of which are withdrawn or amended in consequence of train services becoming available. One can understand that this has to be done. We think of a place such as Mitchell’s Plain, for example. If one has a bus service in operation for thousands of people in that area and a railway service is provided at a later date, one must understand that the bus service has in fact been rendering a carrierr service for which it has to be compensated. I should like to know what formula is going to be used for compensating these people. Will compensation be paid on an annual basis or on an once-only basis? We should like to know from the hon. the Minister the exact formula according to which compensation will be paid to these people.

I think that on the whole the road transportation service in South Africa is receiving fair treatment from the hon. the Minister. In contrast to what many people are saying today, our experience has been that the hon. the Minister and his department really go out of their way to bring about freer competition in this sector. I think, however, that it is necessary to repeat today—when people are in the wrong they must know it—that the abuse of the concessions by a whole number of these people in recent times, has necessitated the introduction of stricter legislation. The amendments being effected to this legislation by a series of clauses have been necessitated by people who have not complied with the provisions of the Act or who have not, at any rate, acted in keeping with the spirit of those provisions.

We want to wish the hon. the Minister and his department a very good year. To the department, and particularly to the employees of the Department of Transport, we want to say: Thank you very much for the patience you have always displayed and for the very courteous treatment we as members of the public have always received when we want information in connection with matters which were not clear to us.

Mr. Speaker, I think it was a pleasant change for everyone in this House to have listened to a reasonably calm, I could almost say, subdued speech from that side of the House. I want to tell the hon. member for Langlaagte that today, if we look back over a number of recent debates, he cut a much finer figure and created a much better impression by having spoken in this way in contrast to a violent outburst and methods testifying to uncontrolled conduct. I want to congratulate him on a quite balanced approach and I also want to thank him for the measure of support he has given this measure. At a later stage I shall come back to certain matters which the hon. member raised.

I want to point out, in the first place, that these amendments are not based on theoretical considerations but have to be effected in consequence of problems being experienced in practice. The amendments serve to promote road transportation in our country in general and to promote this very important service in particular.

In dealing with this matter, the hon. member for Berea is fond of expressing himself at length on the concept of “free competition” with reference to the transport system. During the discussion of the Transport Vote last year he also dealt with this matter. Consequently I am pleased that the hon. the Minister referred to that in his Second Reading speech and made the statement that freer competition in the transport system was being pursued as an objective. We welcome this because this service is such an important facet of the economy. I believe the hon. member for Berea who has a special knowledge of this matter will concede that the totally free market system is in actual fact a theoretical concept only. Especially in a country such as South Africa with its special circumstances, I do not believe it is realistic to go so far as to say in respect of a service such as our road transportation services, that one can establish a system of completely free competition.

Since these measures are largely aimed at preventing the circumvention of certain provisions of the Act, they are of practical value. They are important even to the bodies for which the hon. member for Berea pleaded. They are in the interest of the service run by the authorities but they are also in the interest of those bodies in the private sector since the people who circumvent the Act, contribute to unhealthy competition; in other words, certain of these measures protect entrepreneurs in this industry against one another. Therefore competition can take place which is free in a certain sense, even within the rules applicable to this activity. Free competition can take place on a sound basis only if it is conducted according to specific norms.

Certain of the measures will also contribute to bringing about a safer service. I think it is general knowledge that a tremendous number of accidents caused by commercial vehicles occur annually. There probably are many explanations for this being so; these vehicles are virtually on the roads full-time, and they often move under difficult circumstances with heavy loads. However, when we compare figures, we see that South Africa’s accident rate, as far as heavy commercial vehicles are concerned, compares unfavourably with that of other countries. I believe that these measures will contribute to restricting overloading and other malpractices to some extent.

The hon. member for Langlaagte referred to the measure which provides that loads conveyed in containers shall be loaded in such a way as to make it possible for the law enforcement officers to carry out proper inspections. I do not think that the solution offered by the hon. member will in fact promote proper and efficient law enforcement since it will be difficult to exercise control by means of inspections during loading and unloading operations. In my opinion it is perfectly practical and possible for loads to be loaded in such a way in containers that it will in fact be possible for law enforcement officers to carry out the necessary inspections on the roads.

Moreover, I believe that the road-block system which is gaining in popularity is making a very important contribution to decreasing cases of abuse on our roads. Such roadblocks could make a major contribution to keeping this evil within limits. It is definitely essential that there should regularly be such road-blocks.

The hon. member Dr. Welgemoed discussed several of these clauses. He dealt with them in depth. He had obviously made a fine study of the matter and dealt with these aspects with conviction. The hon. member for Berea also raised a whole number of matters. He even expressed himself in strong language as follows: “The department made a raid on the public sector.” [Interjections.] I think that is putting it rather strongly. The hon. member for Berea did not motivate it properly. If he were implying thereby that the relevant officers who have to perform this service should not do their duty, I am afraid that we on this side of the House cannot agree with him.

I was talking about the rights.

Even as far as the rights are concerned, I do not think that is a fair statement, because the very object of these measures is to restrict attempts at circumvention being experienced in practice. In the interest of an efficient service it is definitely necessary to have these measures. I think the measures proposed by the hon. the Minister in this Bill ought to be welcomed, because, as has already been said, this is a particularly important facet of the economic life in this country. Consequently it is essential for this service to be run in an efficient way, in the interest of all concerned. There is the transportation of goods by road, there is the transportation of passengers by bus and by taxi and there are other road transportation services. Consequently it affects the lives of all the people in the country. I believe that if this measure is applied properly it will make an important contribution to improving the efficiency of that service. Having regard to the principle of free competition, I do not believe that we are at odds as regards the matter of endeavouring to give the private sector more of an opportunity to have an important share and to participate actively in the various sectors of economic life. The fact remains, however, that even if this is brought about to a larger extent, it has to happen in accordance with certain rules and regulations. This measure merely seeks to ensure that the private sector will have a share in this important activity in accordance with certain rules and regulations and that the circumvention which is being experienced will be restricted.

Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with the hon. member for Welkom that transport is a very important facet of our entire economy. In fact, I think it was the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed who said that the total investment in transport in South Africa amounts to R60 billion, of which some R10 billion is invested in the road transport business. This means that another R50 billion is invested in other forms of transport. I should like to submit that most of that is invested in the S.A. Railways.

A lot has been said today about competition, the need for the free enterprise system, the need for efficiency and the need for an Act which will promote these matters in our economy. It is for this reason that, when we reconvene and carry on this debate—I certainly cannot do it this afternoon—I want to present a view to the hon. the Minister of which I sincerely hope he will take cognizance. The hon. the Minister is a very successful businessman. I would say he probably owns one of South Africa’s biggest and most efficient and modern farming operations. I should like to submit to him that his operation has become as large as it has because of its efficiency, because of the economic way in which he manages it and because, basically, he is a very good entrepreneur who believes in the profit motive and wants to make sure that his business will not fail.

That is enough. Now smack him! [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister has brought to the House a Bill which, let us face it, contains a number of clauses which we in this party can accept and which we in fact welcome. I have done an analysis of them. There are about nine clauses involving technical matters and the updating of the present Act. Then there are about three which introduce real improvements to the Act. I refer, for instance, to clauses 1(f), (g) and (k) which allow certain businesses in the course of their activities to carry their own tools or to transport goods they have to repair from their clients’ premises to their own business premises.