Mr. Victor, I move—

It was my privilege to propose his predecessor. You will therefore permit me to refer briefly to him as well. Speakers are deemed great on the basis of the decisions they take and the rulings they give. Hannes du Toit ensured a permanent place for himself among the great Speakers by taking a great decision, a decision that concerned himself. In that way he made the biggest sacrifice to the Chair, and also to this House.

Johan Greeff, on the other hand, possesses the qualities to emulate this example of selflessness because he, too, has never been self-seeking. That he, like the Prime Minister, was born in the Free State is merely coincidental. Also, it is merely a coincidence if one is born in the Free State. [Interjections.] It was in the Cape that he really came into his own.

Hear, hear!

At Stellenbosch he graduated in law and at Aliwal North he achieved very high distinction practising as an attorney. With him, then, we return to the tradition of having a lawyer in the Chair. It was at Aliwal North that he built up his impressive record of public service. On 9 May 1973 he was elected as MPC for Aliwal, and within one year he was elected MP, on 24 April 1974.

In passing, the North Eastern Cape will probably not soon win the Sport Pienaar cup, but it is true that that region can produce Speakers. On being elected today he, with Mr. van Coller and Mr. Jan Loots, both of Queenstown, will be the third Speaker to hail from that small area of our country. Despite his background of success and his undeniable ability, he has never put himself forward, he has never even aspired to a managerial post in a study group in our own organization. I think that his later appointment to the Select Committee on Public Accounts and, in 1979, to the Commission for Co-operation and Development—a commission in which he served with the greatest distinction—was also unobtrusively done.

However, it was in 1982, on his appointment as Deputy Speaker, that his colleagues could begin to appreciate his special quality. He has a robust frame and a robust voice, and when he takes the Chair, no one questions his authority. Hon. members can ask the hon. member for Jeppe about that. Johan Greeff can give one marching orders and in the same breath, call one back to give one new marching orders, and in the same breath, call one back so that one can leave with a message. [Interjections.] At the same time he protects the hon. member for Jeppe so that we other hon. members in this House may not call him “Koos”. [Interjections.]

Great Speakers are born, not made. With Johan Greeff we have the certain knowledge that he is cut out for this high office. One cannot help feeling that as far as this matter is concerned he is a man in a thousand. He has that rare quality of personality that enables him to consort sincerely and unfeignedly with all his colleagues. Nevertheless he has the ability to cut himself off, to be almost aloof, without, however, being haughty. One of the greatest demands set by the office of Speaker is the inevitable loneliness it creates for the occupant of that office. If there is one person in this House who is capable of adjusting to this admirably then it is this very candidate.

Mr. Victor, I wish to conclude by singling out two of his finest characteristics—his love and his loyalty. In public life all of us men try hard to project the image of the loving spouse, with greater or lesser success. However the special bond of love between Johan and his wonderful wife Lilian is so genuine as to be one of the attractive facets of our parliamentary life. It is for this very reason that as a couple they enjoy so much respect and affection in our ranks. If there had been time I should very much have liked to tell a few anecdotes in this regard, particularly about the day’s trip he once undertook in Germany in order to buy Lilian a coffee cup to make up an incomplete set belonging to her. As it happens, he eventually bought her a full set. To demonstrate the high regard for his exceptional personal loyalty, he has never—and I emphasize “never”—permitted ambition to drive him to tread on his predecessor’s heels, not even after the heavy blow to his health—this morning it is going to be Hannes du Toit himself who will await the Speaker at his rooms to be the first to wish him all of the best on the demanding road ahead.

In this period of our constitutional development, political dividing lines are being drawn more clearly and the political debate in this House is becoming noticeably more acrimonious. A firm hand to control that dialogue is an urgent necessity. I am convinced that in Johan Greeff we have found that authority today. Everyone for whom the dignity of this House is a matter of importance, will wish him an eminently successful term.

Mr. Victor, it is an exceptional pleasure for me to second the motion of the hon. member for Tygervallei.

There being no other proposal, the Secretary called upon Mr. J. W. Greeff to indicate whether he accepted the nomination.

Mr. Victor, I am pleased to submit in all humility to the choice of the House of Assembly.

Thereupon the Secretary declared Mr. J. W. Greeff duly elected.

Mr. A. van Breda and Dr. H. M. J. van Rensburg (Mossel Bay) conducted Mr. J. W. Greeff to the Chair.

Hon. members of the House of Assembly, you will appreciate that this day on which you have elected me to the office of Speaker of the House of Assembly heralds a new stage and a new phase in my life. My experience of almost nine years in this House permits me to appreciate to the full the great honour you have done me in electing me to this office. However I must also tell you that I am also fully aware of the great and responsible task you have placed upon my shoulders. I accept that responsibility in the spirit of the words of Abraham Lincoln when he was elected President of America for the first time—

† I see myself today as another link in a chain stretching back to 1910 when the first Speaker of the Union Parliament was elected. One can even go back to a period before that when Christoffel Josephus Brand was elected Speaker of the Cape House of Assembly in 1854.

As I see it, the immediate future will probably be more important for the office of Speaker than the past because we stand on the threshold of important constitutional changes in this country, changes which will in their very nature affect the office of Speaker, making the position of Speaker more exacting and more demanding.

*I also realize how important it is that I, as presiding officer, should have the confidence not only of the Government but also of the official Opposition and of each of the opposition parties in this House, and I emphasize the word “must”. In that spirit, then, I wish to give you the assurance that I shall do my best, as far as humanly possible, to act at all times in an objective, impartial and just manner in this House. I in turn call upon you, in all humility, to support me in my difficult task by having one aim in mind in everything that you as hon. members say or do both within and outside this House, and that is: Am I promoting the honour and prestige of the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa?

I wish you pleasant debating. This House would be a very dismal place if there were no witticisms.

Hear, hear!

However, those witticisms, almost like that “hear, hear” must be true witticisms. This House would be a dismal place without humour, but that humour must be healthy and good. In my opinion this House would be a better place if hon. members were to make an effort to avoid as far as possible making disparaging remarks about other hon. members. I am serious about this matter. I say disparaging remarks about other hon. members, and why do I say that? Because each one of you, as you sit here, is an honourable member of this House.

May God grant that my co-operation with all of you will be cordial.

Mr. Speaker, the fact that you have been elected unanimously to this high office attests to the place you have already carved out for yourself in the relatively short period you have been acting as Deputy Speaker. The fact that you were also witness this morning to an almost poetic tribute from a Sandvelder to a Free Stater, proves that one cannot really speak about anything without referring to the Free State.

Hear, hear!

I cordially congratulate you in that capacity as well.

You and all who occupy the Chair with you, have a formidable task. The fact that we all at once have three new incumbents of the offices associated with the Chair, simply goes to show how rapidly political events succeed one another in South Africa. This makes South Africa’s politics extremely interesting. I heartily congratulate you on behalf of the Government and on behalf of this side of the House. I am sure that I speak on behalf of all the other sides of this House as well, even if it is by way of exception, when I say that we extend our best wishes to you. We also wish your wife, who has already won a place in all our hearts, every success.

May all go well with you in the years ahead. We shall try to obey you and if we do not—well, you still have the final say!

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party I extend my sincere congratulations to you on being elected to this high office. You and I became members of this House at the same time and it would be presumptuous of me to tell you how important the post is which you now occupy and how dependent we as members of this House are on your sound judgment.

I think it is indicative of the confidence you have inspired in all the members of this House in this short period that you have been unanimously elected as Speaker. May you be blessed with wisdom, patience and in particular with a calm temperament. Your position is probably one of the most difficult in Parliament. I wish to assure you on behalf of my party that you can count on our full co-operation in maintaining the dignity and the honour of this House. May you be richly blessed in your tenure of this office.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Conservative Party it is a great privilege to congratulate you sincerely on your unanimous election as Speaker. We in these ranks have not the least doubt that you are cut out for this great task and that you are fully capable of performing it.

I hope you will permit me to tell this House from a somewhat personal point of view that yours truly standing here now had the privilege of being in the Latin class with Mr. Speaker at Stellenbosch. However, he took it far further than yours truly, particularly as far as earning in respect of legal matters is concerned. Mr. Speaker, our heartiest congratulations go to you and your charming wife.

Secondly, I should like to say that when you were in the Chair in your capacity as Deputy Speaker, we were all extremely impressed with the competence with which you occupied the Chair in a fair, but also in a firm way, even if some of us were reprimanded at times. We should like to assure you that we have great confidence in your leadership and in your rulings. We wish you the utmost wisdom, composure and fortitude. I can assure you that we on this side of the House will support you wholeheartedly and that we shall abide by your rulings.

Allow me to express my personal appreciation for a particular standpoint you adopted while you were speaking. I refer to your dependence on the Almighty. We should like to support you in this and we shall remember you in our prayers. We should like to leave with you something I once encountered that was said by a great man. He said that he was so big that when he knelt, he could touch the sky. We wish you everything of the best.

Mr. Speaker, I want to convey to you the congratulations of my party as well and wish you everything of the very best for the future in this high office.

† We in this party have also had the privilege of getting to know you in your capacity as Deputy Speaker for the short time you held that post. We know already that you are a person with the qualities and abilities needed, not only as the presiding officer of this House, but also as the highest officer and the one who speaks for this Parliament. In both your presiding position and as Speaker representing the House we are confident that you will be, as you have shown yourself able to be, a worthy successor to the great Speakers of the past. It is my privilege to offer to you the fullest support and co-operation of all the members on these benches in the difficult task which is yours. We congratulate you.

Hon. members, I should like to thank the hon. the Prime Minister most sincerely for the kind words he addressed to my wife and myself. While I was listening to the words of the Sandvelder to whom he referred, I decided that I would order the police to go and look for the man the Sandvelder was talking about. I should like to thank the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. the Leader of the CP and the hon. the Leader of the NRP most sincerely for their kind words of congratulation, and I do so on behalf of my wife as well.

I should like to express my gratitude to my predecessor, with whom I have been friends for many years, for the close co-operation which existed between him and me as Deputy Speaker. I should like to wish him many fruitful years in this House and I hope that his health will improve in time.

Finally, I wish to express my gratitude to my proposer and to my seconder. I am profoundly grateful. I appreciated the humour in the speech of the hon. member for Tygervallei and I can assure the hon. member that the entire House appreciated it.

I shall always try to be worthy of the confidence you have reposed in me.

I have to report that after the House had suspended proceedings this morning, I proceeded to Tuynhuys, accompanied by the Prime Minister, Ministers, the Leader of the Opposition and other honourable members, where we were received by the State President, to whom I presented myself pursuant to the Standing Orders of this House. The State President then congratulated me on my election.

Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate on this Bill was adjourned on Thursday afternoon I had just finished telling the hon. the Minister that there were certain provisions in this Bill with which we could agree; certain clauses concerning technical matters, and also updating certain other provisions contained in other Statutes passed by this House. There are also certain clauses which do improve the legislation as it presently stands.

There are seven clauses and subsections, however, which, we in the NRP believe, give cause for great concern. Firstly we believe that certain of the clauses impinge upon the rights of existing permit-holders, rights which have been granted to them on which they have built their businesses. Secondly, there are certain provisions which, we believe, place unreasonable restrictions on the free enterprise system in South Africa. Thirdly, we believe that there are certain clauses which, once they are implemented, will involve increased costs by forcing inefficiencies upon the road transport industry. Because of this they will also add to inflationary spiral. This is why the NRP believes it cannot support this Bill.

I should like the hon. the Minister to understand clearly what I am saying. We consider that the hon. the Minister is ill advised to bring this provision to the House, and I appeal to him, after what I have said, seriously to consider withdrawing this Bill because I believe it is going to do incalculable damage to the road transport industry in South Africa. Therefore I move the following amendment—

Mr. Speaker, I want the hon. the Minister to tell us whether he really believes in consultation with the private sector when it comes to drafting legislation which has to be discussed in this House. Has he consulted commerce and industry, and the road transport industry regarding the provisions that are contained in this Bill? If he has consulted these bodies I want him to tell us why he is pushing these provisions through the House at the present time, against the advice of many of the organizations in the private sector, who have made representations to the hon. the Minister in various manners. I happen to know that the hon. member for Berea, and also hon. members of the NP, have received telexes in this regard from the Public Carriers Association. I remember the hon. member for Berea referred to them on Thursday last week. He also referred to a telex he received from Assocom. Late Friday we receive a telex from the Transport Consultative Committee. Has the hon. the Minister a full understanding of exactly who is represented on the Transport Consultative Committee? The Steel and Engineering Industries Federation of South Africa is a member, the Chamber of Mines, the SCI, Assocom, AHI, Bifsa, the Public Carriers Association, MIF, SAFCEC, FRTA, NATTO, the S.A. Road Federation, Sapoa, SASAFAA, and UPTA. All of these organizations represent an extremely broad spectrum of the whole economic sector of South Africa. These people are members of the Transport Consultative Committee which met with the hon. the Minister and his officials in regard to the provision of this Bill. They asked that certain of them be either withdrawn or amended. However, the hon. the Minister has not taken cognizance of their appeals at all in this regard. He has introduced this Bill and he is just pushing these amendments through this hon. House and I should like to know from the hon. the Minister why he is doing it. I want to ask the hon. the Minister why he is at this time forcing, bulldozing these provisions through this House. I know why he is doing this. I believe the answer to this question can be summed up in the headline which appeared in The Natal Mercury on 7 September 1982, viz. “The battle for road transport”. That is what these provisions are all about. I should like to quote from this article which appeared in The Natal Mercury. It states, inter alia—

Further on in this report it is stated—

I could continue in this way because there is a great deal of information contained in this report. I should like, however, to mention just this one further paragraph—

It goes on to state—

That is one article. I want now also to quote from Sunday Tribune of 31 October 1982 under the headline: “State hogging road transport business”. It states here, inter alia—

It goes on to talk about the tension that is involved between the State and the private operators and also how they are being harassed by the S.A. Railway Police. I want to submit to the hon. the Minister that the main reason for this Bill is that SATS is losing money as a result of the high-rated traffic leaving rail and going onto road. As I have said, the SATS now wants to muscle into the road transportation business. As the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs is responsible for the Railways and for road transportation, he has decided to alter the Road Transportation Act to suit his SATS. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister. As I indicated on Thursday, he is an entrepreneur and a very successful businessman and farmer, and he understands the principles of free enterprise. This legislation—I am going to expand on this further—is going to have a bad and detrimental effect on the South African economy; in fact, it is going to lower the efficiency of transportation.

What about the 250 000 people who are employed in the SATS?

One cannot look after people by running up costs because of running an inefficient business. This is one of the reasons why our country is suffering from inflation: The productive side of our economy is not efficient and economical enough. What I am actually saying to the hon. the Minister is that this legislation is going to lower the efficiency of transportation to the lowest denominator in South Africa, which is the SATS. These provisions are going to reduce the utilization of road transport vehicles owned by the private sector to the levels which exist in the SATS at the present time, levels to which I referred extensively and exhaustively last year during the budget debates on the SATS. The low utilization of vehicles, rolling stock and all capital items of the SATS, is now going to spread to the private sector of the road transportation businesses because of certain of the provisions contained in the Bill.

I want to warn the hon. the Minister that the effect of these provisions is going to be— I repeat—extremely detrimental to the South African economy. Road transportation is a major cost item in production. Transport in general is a necessary evil. I have spoken about it in the past as being a parasite which feeds on the wealth creating sectors of our economy. I put it to the hon. the Minister if he can produce his products on his farm and he does not have to pay heavy transport costs, his products will get to the public at a much lower cost for them. Therefore it is essential that transport costs should be kept to a minimum. Transport is a means to an end; it is not an end in itself. I should like to put it to the hon. the Minister that the SATS believes that it is an end in itself instead of a means to an end. [Interjections.] I believe that because of the economic realities tranpsort must be efficiently run, but, as I shall now point out to the hon. the Minister, the provisions of the Bill will cause inefficiency in road transportation.

The first objection which we have is to clause 1(e) which amends subsection 1(2)(1) of the existing Act by phasing out the so-called 1-ton express delivery van by the end of 31 December 1983. The history of this little bit of legislation has been mentioned by other hon. members on Thursday. I was a member of the Road Transportation Commission way back in 1975 or 1976—I forget the exact date—and the spirit of that commission was that there should be deregulation in regard to road transport. It was because of this spirit of the commission that it was decided to deregulate 1-ton vehicles in that in future they would not need to have a permit in order to be operated on the roads. This created a loophole in which entrepreneurs quickly saw an advantage. They took 3-ton vehicles, derated the axles to 1-ton and then started what they called the express parcel delivery service. We know that in 1979 in order to try to partially block this loophole an amendment was enacted to require these operators to have special permits.

Now, in 1983, the hon. the Minister wants to phase this out altogether. I realize that the hon. the Minister may have law enforcement problems as far as these so-called one-ton vehicles are concerned, and therefore we can accept the need for the permits to be readily available on the vehicle for inspection by a law-enforcement officer. It is for this reason that we can accept the first part of the amending provision covered by lines 46 to 51 of this clause of the Bill, but to the phasing-out of this service we say “No”. The hon. the Minister must not allow this to happen. [Interjections.] Why do we say this? Well, if the hon. the Minister had only listened to the TCC, the Transport Consultative Committee, which represents all the organizations I have mentioned, and also to Assocom, he would know the reasons why, and that is that this service is urgently needed by industry and commerce in South Africa. The Railways can never provide this service. We are indeed prepared to accept the first part of this clause, but the second part—that relating to the phasing-out—we reject totally. I am therefore going to move an amendment during the Committee Stage. Even if it means altering another clause, let the hon. the Minister assure this House that in future road transportation boards will grant permits for this type of service to the private sector. If the hon. the Minister does not do this, hon. members can rest assured that the South African economy is going to have to face added costs because the Railways will never be able to provide this service. [Interjections.]

In regard to the railways operating at a loss, let me quote from a letter to the Mercury on 1.11.82 in which the writer says—

What a crazy economy! The Post Office can deliver the parcel for R1, but it costs the Railways R2,85. [Interjections.] I have copies here of correspondence I conducted with the hon. the Minister regarding a projector bulb that was imported from the United States. It was flown half-way round the world in a suitable package. It arrived in Johannesburg and was checked by the agents in South Africa. The bulb was found to be usable and functioning correctly. It was then put back into its original packaging, and then placed in a much larger polystyrene package, wrapped and marked “Fragile”. It was then delivered by rail to a cinema in De Aar. I have the hon. the Minister’s letter here, so he knows about this. What happened? This projector bulb, which had travelled undamaged half-way around the world, was smashed to smithereens on the South African railways. [Interjections.] It is for these reasons that the private sector—commerce and industry—want the inter-city express parcel post service, with delivery by these vans, and as I have said, the hon. the Minister must ensure that this is not dispensed with. [Interjections.]

My time is running out, but let me just tell the hon. the Minister that the members of his transport group have received the same telexes from the TCC, Assocom and the Public Carriers’ Association that we have. Let me give the hon. the Minister one final quote on this issue. I want to quote from The Business Times of 24.10.82, an article in which it is stated—

I appeal to the hon. the Minister to reconsider his position on this. As I have said, the SATS will never be able to provide this service, and because of this I intend—as I have said—to move an amendment in the Committee Stage.

The second objection we have involves clause 2. This has a bearing on the proposed new section 2(gA) of the Act and concerns the loading of vehicles. Let me tell the hon. the Minister that he and his hon. collegues must not come and tell this hon. House that the main reason for these amendments is to assist in law enforcement. I can understand that if the road hauliers load their containers onto their semis in such a manner that law-enforcement officers cannot get to the doors to inspect them, there is indeed a problem, but to give the hon. the Minister the powers contained in these provisions is, I believe, going just a bit too far. It is for this reason that we believe that an amendment could be introduced here to the effect that any of these regulations should be drawn up in consultation with the Public Carriers’ Association. One wants to assist the law enforcement agencies, but one certainly does not want to grant the powers he has here, because it means that some officer or some member of his staff can pass regulations which will impose tremendous burdens on the transport industry. I believe he should consider the amendment we will put at a later stage. I should like the hon. the Minister to look at the telexes he has received in regard to the Transport Consultative Committee’s, Assocom’s and the PCA’s objections to this particular clause.

The third objection we have concerns clause 3 which deals with the appointment of transportation board members. Here the hon. the Minister has decided to withdraw having to consult the administrators of the provinces and local authorities before appointing members to the board. What is happening to the Government? Instead of consulting with people, they are withdrawing provisions which at the moment call for consultation. We believe that this attitude on the part of the Government is wrong. We believe that, because the hon. the Minister’s department ran into trouble in Durban, they are altering the law to suit their ends rather than to suit what is right and correct for South Africa.

The fourth objection, which is the most serious objection, concerns clauses 6, 8 and 17, all of which concern the rights of carriers to have duplicate permits for the same vehicle. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that this is one of the most serious implications of this Bill, because it is going to create tremendous inefficiency in the operations of the private sector. The hon. the Minister is a practising farmer and knows what the full utilization of his land, his machines and his tractors means. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that these provisions are going to force operators almost to halve the usage of their vehicles. Now, why do I say that? I do not have time to go into great detail, but let me say briefly what it means. Let us assume that if I as a Durban business man want to haul my goods on my personally-owned semi-trailer, I can at present apply for a private permit, and having obtained it, I can load my goods on to the semi-trailer and I can ask the hon. the Minister, if we assume he is a public road haulier, i.e. a public carrier, to use his truck-tractor to haul my “semi” up to Johannesburg to deliver my goods. On the return journey the hon. the Minister, if he is a public carrier, can with his own public permit use my trailer to haul another load back to Durban. In this way the road transportation business in South Africa can get a high utilization factor for its vehicles. Because these three clauses, prohibit the use of more than one permit on a vehicle however, in future many of the semitrailers operating on South African roads will be running empty on their return journeys. Now why is this? Because these private sector people are giving the road transport organization of the SATS too much of a run for their money. This is what it means. It means that the private sector is so efficient that the hon. the Minister now has to impose certain restrictions on the utilization of their vehicles so as to raise their costs to enable the Minister to compete with the private sector. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister is aware of all the opposition from the Public Carriers’ Association, the Transport Consultative Committee and Assocom in this regard and I believe he should listen to them.

There is one aspect of road transportation which I believe needs clearing up. I refer to the operations of what are termed permit or transport brokers. These people are not interested in operating vehicles. They are only interested in obtaining permits which they then hawk around to the public carriers. We believe that this is not good for the industry. If the hon. the Minister wants to chop out that side of the transport industry, we will give him a measure of support, but when it comes to the operation of transport vehicles, I am afraid we cannot support anything the hon. the Minister does which reduces the efficiency of those vehicles.

The fifth objection we have concerns clause 13 which will enable the transportation boards to withdraw permits for any reason whatsoever. When this was first introduced, it was introduced as a measure to promote fuel economy. The emphasis now has been changed. The hon. the Minister will now be given wider arbitrary powers and this plays into the hands of the S.A. Transport Services monopoly. Here again the fears of TCC, PCA and Assocom have been expressed to the hon. the Minister but, I am afraid, he has ignored their representations.

The next objection we have concerns clause 15. People who are operating vehicles for which they do not require permits will now in terms of these provisions, if some Government department decides to do so, be forced to keep records and provide information etc. I want to ask the hon. the Minister: For what purpose?

In the USA where they are fighting inflation Pres. Reagan has talked about and is attempting to deregulate the transport industry. They are trying to remove the restrictions which the bureaucracies have placed upon the private sector. Here, all of a sudden, this hon. Minister comes with legislation which is going to require more paperwork. He as a farmer knows how many forms, questionnaires and censuses have to be filled in by farmers. This provision is now going to force many people, including farmers, who do not even require to have permits to provide certain information. For what? The excuse is that this information is required for planning, for the building of roads. I as an engineer do not go along with.

Sir, I believe I have run out of time despite the fact that I was using my time very efficiently! It is because of these reasons that I have moved the amendment which I read out earlier.

Mr. Speaker, there have been many occasions in the past when I have sat on benches at sports fields and screamed my lungs out for the Border. May, I as one Borderite to another congratulate you on your elevation to your position and may I also say that I do not think I can wish you better than that you may be as long lived as the previous Speaker from the Border area.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti has made an extremely responsible speech and showed a very positive attitude towards this legislation and towards South Africa, because the way to be positive in this legislation is to defeat it. Without doubt, as the hon. member for Amanzimtoti and the hon. member for Berea have said, this legislation will lead to increased costs and therefore to greater inflation. It is also a denial of free enterprise.

One area where I would perhaps disagree with the hon. member for Amanzimtoti is that he says that the S.A. Transport Services are blaming their losses on the high-rated traffic being taken away by road transport. The reasons for the S.A. Transport Services losses are very much more varied than that. It was interesting that the S.A. Airways who obviously do not have this competition still succeed in budgeting for a loss of R83 million in the course of one year. The hon. the Minister interjected and asked the hon. member for Amanzimtoti what he was going to do with the quarter of a million employees of the S.A. Transport Services. I think that is a very irresponsible attitude. Does the hon. the Minister believe that the 250 000 employees of the S.A. Transport Services are not employable anywhere else? Is that what he is suggesting? I suggest that we are short to this day of skilled labour in this country. If the employees of the S.A. Transport Services are worth their salt and qualify as skilled labour they should easily be able to get jobs.

I want to refer to the manifesto of the Communist Party which was drawn up by Karl Marx in 1848. The manifesto suggests that capitalism has to be taken over, and to accomplish this aim various methods are advocated. One of those methods is the centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. That is precisely what is being proposed in this Bill regarding transportation. It is placing greater control of transport matters into the hands of the State through its appointed boards and mechanisms of control.

Hendrik is a commissar.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member for Berea says that I am a communist.

Order! Did the hon. member for Berea say that?

No, Sir, I said he was a commissar.

The hon. member may proceed.

This situation is all the more extraordinary in view of the fact that our present Prime Minister has committed this Government to free enterprise. Here we apparently have a government that by word of mouth of their own Prime Minister is committed to free enterprise. In fact I can even quote from a speech that the hon. the Prime Minister made at the Good Hope Centre on 12 November 1981 in which he said—

I submit that the Road Transportation Act is one of those defects and that this particular Bill, instead of improving that defect, makes it considerably worse. I think that road transport is a particularly clear case in point, with regard to the free enterprise system. It is, after all, the transport of goods for a price from A to B. Price, obviously, is a very important factor, as is speed, care and reliability and service. Everybody has a different motivation in life. Some people would prefer a good price at the expense of service. Others will pay anything to get the particular service that they require, particularly with regard to speed or, as the hon. member for Amanzimtoti has said, care in handling.

The nature of transport as such, as I have said, makes it particularly susceptible to control by the normal mechanisms of the free enterprise system. Perhaps I could quote Dr. Andreas Wassenaar, a South African who will certainly be known to the hon. the Minister. He has said—

We submit that those are very true words. Any service that is a monopoly, whether that service is State-owned or provided by the private sector, becomes inefficient because once there is a monopoly many of the motivations motivating the private sector disappear totally out of the window. They have a monopoly and that service therefore becomes inefficient. I am not saying that this only applies to the public sector and to outfits such as the SATS. It also equally applies to the private sector. The motivation and the profit incentive has disappeared and therefore inefficiencies proliferate.

Against this background, that I have tried to sketch of transport in relation to free enterprise, I want to quote the hon. the Minister who during his budget speech on 3 March 1982 (Hansard, col.2004) said—

We can applaud this, Sir. We have no problem with S.A. Transport Services competing with the private sector if they compete on an equal basis. So, if the hon. the Minister by his statement had meant that the S.A. Transport Services were going to be more efficient, offer a better service, provide the customer with the sort of service he wants, then we have no problem with it. But if that keener competition is going to be expanded as far as S.A. Transport Services are concerned by ministerial regulation, by the strengthening of laws and the servere restriction of permits, then I believe the hon. the Minister will be guilty of perpetuating inefficiencies at the cost of the South African economy. And this, Sir, is undoubtedly what is happening in terms of this Bill. It is an advancement of what one might call “creeping socialism” on the part of the Government.

The hon. member for Berea already commented on specific clauses of this Bill. Let me refer to one in order to illustrate how this “creeping socialism” is continually advancing. I refer to clause 13. This clause has to do with the varying of permits for any reason. To illustrate my case I want to refer to Rauties’ Transport in Johannesburg. Let me quote from the Financial Mail of 16 April 1982—

By that stroke of a bureaucratic pen this operation has been cut from being a nationwide business to being a local one. The Financial Mail goes on to report that a Rauties’ spokesman cited constant harassment from the Railway Police for alledgedly operating outside its permitted area. He claimed that 80 charges were laid against the company, all of which were withdrawn before the Johannesburg road transportation board began its investigations.

At the hearing that was held in Johannesburg we start finding out what perhaps was the real reason behind this case, because at that hearing the chairman of the road transport board, Mr. Jack Nel, stated that—

In fact, I think it was indeed a very clear indication of this. First of all, as one can see from this, the fight is not being carried on in the market place by means of prices, an efficient service, etc., the prime factors determining the winner. It is being fought out in the road transportation board by means of regulations, regulations which are becoming even more onerous as a result of the legislation we are considering.

Sir, the bureaucratic burden that is being imposed on transport operators is illustrated by yet another example, namely that of L and L Transport. Last year this firm had to apply for a temporary permit for every trip. Well, every application takes time and effort. It has been estimated by some hauliers that it could cost up to R700 a week applying for permits from the road transportation board, and what about the return trip? As the hon. member for Amanzimtoti has said, it leads to inefficiency because there are empty legs resulting from lack of permits. People take goods to a certain point and have to return empty because of the lack of the necessary permits. And what about the waste of fuel in the face of South Africa’s foreign exchange situation?

Express Road Deliveries is another case in point. This service is of benefit to companies and individuals. Because it was to their advantage they supported that service. The service prospered and it prospered only because it was of benefit to the public and the private sector. What has happened now? Big Brother has stepped in and said: “No more. We are stopping it altogether”. And hence clause 1(e). “To the devil” it seems to say, “with the wishes of the private sector and the best interests of the economy”. Big Brother must be protected from the effects of his own inefficiencies. He cannot compete in the open market, so we have to protect him.

I submit that the SATS cannot offer a comparable service, and that the removal of the private sector’s right to participate is bad for the economy, and is an example of the socialism of the NP. We are told that commerce is against the Bill. We are told that the Public’s Carriers’ Association and many others are also against this Bill. We have already indicated that we will vote against this Bill. We can happily go along with the amendment of the NRP, as moved by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. I do believe, however, that we should, with sincerity, ask this House to reject this Bill so that further consultation can take place and so that the Bill can go back onto the Order Paper in an altered and improved form.

Mr. Speaker, basically the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central devoted his entire speech to an attack on the S.A. Transport Services and on road transport services provided by the Department of Transport. One gained the impression that the hon. member wanted to get his own back on someone, presumably the Railway workers who do not want to vote for the Progs.

Who is bringing politics into transport matters now? [Interjections.]

That also explains his complete lack of sympathy for the problems of the S.A. Transport Services and for the problems of the Railway workers. [Interjections.] The contents of the hon. member’s speech, as far as a positive contribution to the improvement of legislation was concerned, had absolutely no substance. [Interjections.] The hon. member must forgive me for not reacting further to what he said. In a nutshell I think one can say that the hon. member is of the opinion that this legislation will have a negative effect on private enterprise and that the hon. member feels that as far as possible we must avoid either interfering in private enterprise or extending the interests of the S.A. Transport Services.

If this is the attitude of the official Opposition and of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central there is basically nothing we can debate. His views do not tally with those of hon. members on this side of the House. Unfortunately for the hon. member his party does not govern the country, nor does it have a responsibility towards transport in South Africa in general. It is all too easy to maintain that the Department of Transport is now trying to play “Big Brother”, that it makes its own laws, that it lays down its own rules and regulations, and is therefore unassailable. Of course I do not believe that the governing party is above all criticism. That cannot be the case. However, criticism must at least be positive.

After all, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is aware that, over many decades, the road transport service of the S.A. Transport Services has provided the only mode of transport to the most inhospitable regions of the country, places with very poor connection routes. It was the only link between those remote areas and our large cities and large industrial areas.

However, that is all I want to say about the hon. member. At the same time, however, I cannot neglect to mention the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. The hon. member stood up and it sounded to me as if he was making a party rally speech. [Interjections.] After about a minute the hon. member rattled off a string of abbreviations here which made me think that he may have left his speech in his office. The further he went the more convinced I became that he had not prepared a speech because the hon. member did nothing more than quote two newspapers to us. The hon. member did not refer to the legislation. [Interjections.] Yes, the hon. member referred to the Natal newspapers. I do not hold that against him. The hon. member was referring to his own country’s newspapers. However, the hon. member had little confidence in the amendment which he moved. During this Second Reading stage he moves an amendment. Well, he belongs to a great party and I suppose a great party can do that sort of thing. However, the hon. member had so much self-confidence that he immediately afterwards gave notice of an amendment that he was going to move during the Committee Stage. If one has any confidence in one’s own amendment at the Second Reading, why give notice at this early juncture of an amendment during the Committee Stage?

The hon. member told us that an electric light bulb that had been transported half way around the world by other transport organizations was crushed somewhere in South Africa by our Railways before it could be delivered. That is all the hon. member had to say about the S.A. Railways. He was totally negative. The hon. member did not have a positive word to say about what the S.A. Railways and the Road Transport Services have done for South Africa and for the development of our economy. I should like to put the following question to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. He made a great fuss here about certain statistics that had to be kept up to date because the hon. the Minister is now stipulating in this legislation that data on vehicles has to be kept up to date so that it can also be used for research purposes. Would that hon. member have something against it if in terms of that specific provision in the legislation the hon. the Minister were to reach an agreement with a body such as the CSIR to, for example, to keep a central vehicle system or register so that all data on vehicles could be kept up to date on that register? Would the hon. member’s party be opposed to that? After all, the hon. member claims to be an engineer, but he is opposed to statistics being kept for research purposes. He as an engineer said it did not matter whether or not the Department of Transport knew how many vehicles made use of a specific road. [Interjections.] The hon. member asked: Why more paperwork? Why must those statistics be kept? Surely one cannot govern a country like that. It is just not possible to neglect in a disorderly way a very important sector of the economy of South Africa—the road communication system, the bridges, the tunnels—as far as research is concerned, so that one cannot plan ahead in respect of such matters. It is just not possible.

The two hon. members did not refer to the legislation at all. Surely this is not a negative piece of legislation. This is a positive piece of legislation. [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the NRP also realized now that the hon. member for Amanzimtoti did not discuss anything remotely connected with the legislation. [Interjections.] No, only the negative aspects. Let us consider the one-ton pick-up truck. [Interjections.] That hon. member can make his speech later. He can then improve on the speech of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. I can understand that he is feeling ashamed of that speech. This entire matter surrounding the thousand kilogram pick-up truck or the old one-ton pick-up truck has been going through a phasing-out period for over three years now. The excepts the hon. member for Amanzimtoti quoted from bodies who had sent telegrams and telexes were probably reasonably true. But what are the facts? Surely this does not mean that we are now going to do away with the express service. That is not true and it is surely not right to represent it in that way. All we are now providing in this legislation is that everyone shall be treated equally. After all, we know there were abuses as far as the one-ton pick-up truck was concerned. I do not want to go into the details again. The point is that we are not doing away with it. All that happens now is that these people apply for a public permit. What at present applies to owners and lessees of heavy duty vehicles will in future also apply to owners of smaller vehicles. What does one do? One applies to the road transportation board for a permit for a one-ton pick-up truck or for an express service in the same way as one applies for the other services. One of the aspects the road transportation board must go into is whether there is a need for such a service. The question is whether it is in the interests of the people. Let us assume it is an express service between Johannesburg and Pretoria. In such a case the board considers not only the interests of the people in either Johannesburg or Pretoria, but also the interests of the people along the route being followed. If it is therefore possible to convince the road transportation board that there is such a need and that the Railways or the Road Transport Service of the S.A. Transport Services cannot provide the specific service, the applicant usually gets his permit.

One of the telexes requested that the hon. the Minister should give instructions to the road transportation board on how to deal with such applications. However, this is an autonomous body. I cannot understand why the hon. member for Amanzimtoti did not mention this. The question is whether or not the Minister should be given the authority to be able to prescribe the road transportation board how to deal with an application. This positive aspect was not mentioned by the hon. member who introduced an amendment here. Consequently we are not committing a murder if we do away with the almost automatic registration of the one-ton pick-up truck.

In the second place there is the authority granted to the Minister to determine by regulation how goods should not be packed onto a vehicle. This is a practical problem, because when the law enforcement officials undertake inspections of goods being transported, they frequently find that the containers loaded onto a vehicle by crane have been packed in such a way that they cannot be opened. How does the law enforcement official then know what is being transported? How does he know whether exemption has been granted for the transportation of the relevant articles. That is all that is involved.

The question is now asked: Why do you not then define the concept of “container”? Unfortunately one runs into insuperable difficulties the moment one has to define a technicality like this, because soon the shape of the containers as such changes and then one must amend the Act again. I should like to indicate how one can find oneself in difficulties with this sort of thing. Let us consider what is being exempted. Amongst other things firewood is exempted—this is the wood one uses to make a braai—but what does the inspector find? The man with the exemption transports matches; after all this is firewood! Another transport contractor had an exemption to transport furniture. The question arose whether the top part, the seat, of a toilet, could be described as furniture, because that was in fact what he was transporting. It is therefore extremely difficult always to define everything in an attempt to make matters watertight. It is just not possible. I now come to the matter about which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central was so concerned: Consultation with a local government or the Administrator in cases where there are over 20 000 residents. How can one ascertain whether there are not perhaps 19 999 residents; or 20 001? Let us suppose there is a road transportation board for the Cape Peninsula. Here we have the City Council of Cape Town and to the north there are the town councils of Bellville, Parow, Goodwood and Pinelands. Who must we now consult? Let us suppose that Acacia Park is part of Goodwood, and for six months of the year Acacia Park is full of officials and MPs which means that Goodwood has over 20 000 residents. Six months later the officials and the MPs have left and Goodwood therefore has less than 20 000 residents. From this one can see the absurdities one can be faced with. If one refers to residents, what about Guguletu, Nyanga and Langa? Are the people living there residents? What about Crossroads? Under what authority does it fall; who must one consult in that case? The worst of the matter is that if Bellville were, for example, to recommend a Nationalist …

Which it is extremely likely to do.

… which it is likely to do, yes, Pinelands were to recommend a Prog and Guguletu were to recommend a Black man because he belongs to Inkatha, the hon. the Minister would eventually have to decide. He would have to choose one of them and immediately one is placing the hon. the Minister in an almost impossible position, and if one of these local governments has not been consulted, the appointment is invalid. No, I want to put it to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti that the hon. the Minister will in fact consult people. Of course he will! He will constantly consult the bodies concerned, but when one finds that it is impossible to apply an existing legal provision, I believe it is essential that the fact be amended so that it can work better. For that reason I cannot agree that the hon. the Minister should even consider the amendment of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti—as supported by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central—let alone accept it. I take pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the CP has already indicated that it supports the Second Reading of this Bill. At the beginning of a session every year, however, we spend so much time debating Bills we agree on that we do not have enough time at the end of the session to discuss Bills we do not agree on. For this reason I do not intend to take up much time this afternoon.

What I do find very interesting—and here I want to agree with the hon. member for Roodeplaat—is the provision of clause 3 which seeks to delete section 4(3) of the Act. This is a provision in terms of which the hon. the Minister is compelled when appointing local transportation boards, to consult local authorities and the Administrator. The reason given for this is that it is extremely difficult to consult these people, that it is extremely difficult to reach consensus. However, we are now moving closer to a new dispensation of consensus politics, but in one of the first Bills of the session in which consensus politics is involved, the hon. the Minister says it does not work in practice. [Interjection.] Then it is simply said: Let us do away with the necessity to reach consensus. [Interjections.] The provisions of the legislation does not say the hon. the Minister shall appoint someone in consultation with these people. He need merely ask their opinion, and the competent Minister then has the authority to appoint whoever is recommended. He need not accept those people’s recommendations. He need only consult them. I admit that it is difficult to reach consensus, and I foresee that it may sometimes be impossible to reach consensus, but for such a minor matter as an appointment to a transportation board, the hon. the Minister says he is experiencing insurmountable problems in reaching consensus. [Interjections.] I can just imagine what would happen if this hon. Minister were to become State President under the new dispensation. Perhaps he would then do away with all of us because he would say that it was impossible to reach consensus. Perhaps he would then say he did not want to consult anybody and would rather decide for himself. We should just like a reply from the hon. the Minister in this connection.

Other than that we take pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Barberton … [Interjections.] It is very difficult to reach consensus with Progs. With Coloureds it is much easier. [Interjections.] That was my problem, but we will get to those matters. I can clearly see—as the hon. member for Berea said—that this is a clause Bill, in the sense that every clause will be opposed.

† It is not necessary for me to go, in detail, into matters he has raised thus far. We differ on certain points such as that in connection with the 1-ton bakkie. We are not going to take away the 1-ton bakkie. As the hon. member for Roodeplaat explained, however, one is simply going to have to have a permit now in order to operate a 1-ton bakkie. [Interjections.] In the past one did not have to have one. [Interjections.] Certain things were exaggerated. He said people would now be compelled to use two vehicles. All the clauses in this Bill are acceptable to people who operate legally, but they are not acceptable to people who want to side-step this legislation.

Are you calling the Public Carriers’ Association …

All of them agreed with me. They wanted protection for themselves. The people who are in the transport business and for whom it is a way of life feel there should be certain regulations.

Are the Chambers of Commerce acting illegally?

It is a matter of consultation, etc, but the people agree; they only disagree with us about the procedure we are following.

The hon. member Dr. Welgemoed asked how many contraventions there had been over the past six months. From July to December there were 3 657 cases of people transporting goods without permits. Those cases were picked up by only 42 transport inspectors—and now I am not talking about the railway police. There were 1 508 cases of transport of goods contrary to permits. In Pretoria there were a total of 843, in Bloemfontein 688, in East London 118, in Port Elizabeth 368, in Durban 768, in Ladysmith 305, in Potchefstroom 375, in Johannesburg 1 085 and in Cape Town 615. There is a money shortage in South Africa and everybody wants to find a way to make a few dollars. The number of lorries in our country is increasing alarmingly.

I repeat: We do not want to get at the haulier who operates legally. We want to get at the man who, time after time, deliberately gets around the Act. The hon. member for Langlaagte may differ from me politically, but he knows the transport industry. He pointed out precisely what the problem was with the 1-ton bakkic. The owner who increases the load area of such a bakkie and then still attaches a trailer, is deliberately getting around the Act.

† The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central said: “Let the quarter of a million railway workers find other jobs.” Those were his words. Is that the attitude of the PFP?

That is a great over-simplification.

“Let the quarter of a million people on the Railways find themselves other jobs”. Those were his words. They are in Hansard.

*I never play politics with transport …

Oh, come on!

He asked: What is happening in South Africa? There are some things in the communist system that are acceptable to me.

Ah!

There are. I can point to certain aspects of the communist system which are acceptable to me, but as a whole the system is totally objectionable to me.

Like the security laws.

The aim of the Communist Party is to protect the transport industry. What has happened in America? The law was not enforced and the transport services were in total chaos. In this regard one cannot talk about private enterprise. The hon. member said that the S.A. Airways, that does not experience this competition, showed a loss of R83 million. He then hammered at the concept of private enterprise. However, what do Swissair and several other overseas airways do? They own 50% of some hotels. Swissair even has interests in Nestlé and in Ciba-Geigy, which produces a weedkiller for agriculture. Give the S.A. Transport Services the right to acquire shares and to bedevil free enterprise in our country.

At a loss too.

No, then we shall make profits. “What you lose on the swing, you gain on the merry-go-round”. However, we say that we are exclusively a transport business.

I do not want to discuss every point. From his point of view, the hon. member for Berea put his case very well.

† I want to tell the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central that the matter of Rautie’s is still sub judice. They went to court and I cannot reply to the matters he raised with the aid of a newspaper cutting.

*The hon. member for Roodeplaat is correct: We must have records and statistics. When the country is in a depression, we have to be able to say how many lorries enter the country annually. Everyone pushes for a transport permit. One must also have a record when one plans a road system for the future. I therefore agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Roodeplaat.

The hon. member for Welkom raised a very important matter. He said that these very measures protected the competitors from each other. Hauliers are busy cutting each other’s throats while the man who is at present in the industry must get this type of protection.

† The hon. member for Amanzimtoti raised several points and asked whether I believe in consultation. I can give the hon. member the undertaking that, for example in terms of clause 2, regulations will be drafted after consultation with the Public Haulier’s Association. It is therefore not a matter of doing things without consulting people.

Well, the consultation hasn’t helped much on this Bill.

There is nobody in South Africa today who is prepared to transport mealies, for example. Let met ask the hon. member: Must we increase the transport costs of mealies?

*Now he is as quiet as a mouse, because we are now talking about food. We transport mealies at 3½ cents per ton per kilometre today. The private carrier will certainly not do this.

I believe you should reduce the input cost to the farmer.

We transport maize today at 3,5 cents per ton per kilometre. There is no private haulier who is prepared to do that. They only want to pick out the eyes while the S.A. Transport Services must be left with the uneconomic part of the job.

*I shall reply more fully to hon. members’ questions in the Committee Stage. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti became angry for the first time this afternoon. Nevertheless, he is still a nice chap. It is just that he had a bad weekend and is not quite himself today.

† We want to eliminate irregularities and malpractices. That is the main idea with this legislation.

*We do not want to cause difficulties for anybody. Five years ago the S.A. Railways undertook 55% of all transportation work. Today the S.A. Transport Services undertake only 42% of the total transportation work. There has therefore been a shift to the private sector. Good luck to them. However, this business is an international task. The S.A. Transport Services employ a quarter of a million people and if we were to allow more and more transport work to be undertaken by the private sector and were to be left with only the uneconomic transport work—those goods which the private sector do not want to transport—our losses are just going to increase. In the first week of January this year the S.A. Transport Services suffered a loss of R30 million.

You must cut your costs.

Ons het ’n depressie in hierdie land. One only has to look at the position in the Cape Town docks. On some days there are only two ships berthed. There are depressing economic problems in Europe and business activities have come almost to a standstill. There is a negative growth rate.

You should make chairs. They are going to become scarce.

And you should start making coffins.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether a time of depression is not the very time to try to reduce infrastructure costs, such as transport, rather than to push it up by additional restrictions.

The Opposition wants to allow people to buy lorries left, right and centre without there being enough work for everybody. We want to protect people, for instance the person who buys a lorry out of savings and who then cannot get transport work to do. We have thousands of lorries running in South Africa and the operators want us to protect them against newcomers and people operating illegally.

*I think we shall discuss the Bill very thoroughly in the Committee Stage and I believe that I shall convince hon. members. However, there are some matters about which I cannot make concessions. About other aspects I am prepared to make concessions if hon. members come forward with reasonable suggestions.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Hon. members know that the serious shortage of money in the National Road Fund has been debated on several occasions in this House over the past few years.

The National Transport Commission is caught up in a struggle against inflation, erosion of the purchasing power of the rand, the escalating cost of road building and the constantly increasing prices of commodities—to maintain the national road system and to try to keep pace with development.

In order to keep the Road Fund solvent, the National Roads Act, 1971, had to be amended during the second parliamentary session of 1981, so that the National Transport Commission could even borrow funds, because at that stage there was no question of an increased levy being granted in aid of the Road Fund.

To summarize briefly: We need funds to proceed with or commence the following extremely urgent road projects, i.e.—

We proceeded to make representations to the Cabinet for additional funds so as to keep the wolf from the door. On 23 March 1982, the Cabinet approved the imposition of an additional levy of 0,609 cents a litre over a broad spectrum on all consumers of petroleum products, excluding agricultural, marine and heating fuel, in aid of the National Road Fund. Approval was also granted for this levy to apply for a period of five years with effect from 1 April 1983.

After intensive negotiations with the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs, the Office of the Commissioner of Customs and Excise and the oil companies, it became apparent, because of several practical problems, that the additional levy could not be added to the existing customs or excise duty provided for under section 2(1)(a) of the Act, nor to the Equalization Fund levy, but that it would have to be dealt with as a separate levy to be collected by the oil companies in aid of the Road Fund. That is why we are considering this measure today.

Proceeding from the premise that the levy would be payable mainly by road users, the decision was taken to limit it to petrol and diesel. Kerosene and residual fuel oil are being excluded because after the agreed exemptions have been taken into account, there will be almost no road users to whom the levy will be applicable. The cost and trouble involved in collecting the levy would be out of proportion to the proceeds.

† All users of petrol, including the Government, will pay the levy. In the case of users of diesel fuel, the persons liable for payment of the levy will be mentioned in the notice contemplated in clause 1. Identification of such users of diesel fuel will be strictly in accordance with tariff headings and descriptions used by the Commissioner for Customs and Excise in the Customs and Excise Act, 1964. This will greatly facilitate the collection of the levy by the oil companies since they will apply definitions that are familiar to them.

Since the introduction of the levy is primarily aimed at the road user, the following are examples of the use of diesel that will in the notice be excluded from payment—

These exemptions will also be formulated strictly in accordance with the tariff headings and descriptions used in the schedules to the Customs and Excise Act. Hon. members who wish to get a clearer picture of users of diesel we intend excluding in the notice, can refer to customs tariff heading 27.10 of item 410.04 of schedule 4 to the Customs and Excise Act, 1964, and to the corresponding excise items in schedule 6 of the Act. The only exception to these exemptions will be diesel for use in certain passenger buses.

The collection of the levy will be a fairly complex matter and therefore no exemptions that cannot be easily formulated in terms of the Customs Act can be considered. The Government will also only enjoy the benefits of the exemptions granted to other users.

*The price structures of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs and of the oil companies are based on a rounding-off method of two decimals of a cent, while the retail price at the pump works with one decimal. Rounding off the figure to one decimal would greatly facilitate matters for the filling stations. The funds to be provided by this levy are only intended to complete or finance certain indispensable projects. I therefore intend, in consultation with the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs, to lay down a figure of 0,7 cents a litre. It is expected that this increase in aid of the National Road Fund will not detract from the anticipated petrol price reduction at the pump which the hon. the Prime Minister has envisaged. Hon. members will notice that in terms of clause 2, this amendment will come into operation on 1 April 1983. Because of administrative and other problems that have arisen in the meantime, it is no longer certain that this date will be adhered to. Consequently I shall move in the Committee Stage that the Act be put into operation by proclamation in the Gazette. If this date of commencement is postponed for a considerable time because of factors beyond our control, it may mean that I shall have to try to negotiate a higher figure than 7 cents a litre with my colleagues. At this stage, however, I cannot elaborate on this, since my remarks would be purely speculative.

Diesel fuel provided to the State for use in diesel locomotives cannot be excluded from the levy at the point of supply, as a result of provisions in the Customs and Excise Act and the proposed notice. Therefore paragraph (f) of the proposed section 2(1A) provides for a refund from the Road Fund in such cases.

† We are very grateful that the oil companies have agreed to collect the levy on behalf of the National Road Fund. But although they can quite conveniently not collect from the States of Lesotho, Botswana, Swaziland and the territory of South West Africa (the port and settlement of Walvis Bay is excluded from the Republic in this matter for administrative reasons), we could unfortunately not apply exactly the same procedure in respect of the sovereign States of Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei. The reason for this is that a full tanker may criss-cross the unmarked boundary between the Republic and a sovereign independent State several times on a delivery round and the driver can definitely not know in which territory or State he finds himself at certain times. Although every effort will be made to apply the law as best we can, provision has nevertheless been made in the proposed paragraph (g) to pay to the Governments of the TBVC countries the net proceeds of the levy on any petrol or diesel sold for consumption in those States. Even to attempt to refund the end users in those States 0,7 cents on every litre of petrol or diesel they bought at pumps there for consumption, would be an impossible task. In this respect I owe the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information a word of thanks for negotiating with the Governments of the TBVC countries and for prevailing on them to apply whatever moneys may come their way in this manner, for the improvement of their roads. This, I think, testifies to good neighbourliness.

This amending Bill is based largely on the provisions of the State Oil Fund Act, 1977 (Act 38 of 1977), and the penal provisions are more or less the same, since we are dealing with a sensitive matter and a very strategically important commodity, namely fuel, without which we will not have the transport to use the roads we propose to establish.

Mr. Speaker, only referring to the last little bit of the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech, I observe he states this measure testifies to good neighbourliness. I must confess that good neighbourliness is particularly important in South Africa right now, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition pointed out in his speech during the no-confidence debate, particularly as South Africa seems to be getting more and more neighbours every year with new homelands becoming independent.

On the whole I confess that I am somewhat astonished at the calibre of the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech, because it doesn’t really seem to give the reason behind the Bill now in front of us. It seems to give a lot of reasons why there could be 0,7 cents per litre extracted from the users of petrol. That is not what the Bill says, however. Not at all. The hon. the Minister has referred to methods of collection and to how the whole situation will be handled. That is not, however, what this Bill says.

This Parliament has to judge this Bill, I believe, by what is contained in it, and not by what is contained in the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech. When one looks at what is actually in this Bill, I believe a far more serious picture emerges. A feature of this Parliament, and of most parliaments throughout the world, is the control of funds. I think, arguably, this is perhaps the most important function of a parliament; this very control of funds. It may and does in fact impose taxes, levies and duties upon the public it represents. These for the most part are imposed by the budget and many hours are set aside for the budget debate. We sit here hour after hour and day after day debating the imposition of taxes upon the South African public and how that money is to be spent. If we did not do this, Parliament would wither and die. Parliament also has the right to audit and inspect these funds and call for reports and evidence that the funds have been properly spent. For that reason we have the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

Finally, however, Parliament has another right and that is the right, if it is sufficiently foolish, to abandon the right of control and place it in the hands of one or a few men. That is what is happening in this particular Bill and to this we are totally opposed. We perceive this Bill to be ill-conceived, ill judged and ill thought out. We do not believe that it is a credit to the hon. the Minister because this Bill gives that hon. Minister, with the concurrence of the Ministers of Mineral and Energy Affairs and Finance, the right to impose a levy, any levy, on every litre of petrol or distillate fuel from petrol sold in the Republic without having to come back to this House. There is no limitation on the amount of that levy. It can be 20c, 30c or, 7c a litre. It is not stated in the Bill how much that levy is to be. What is more, in terms of the provisions of this very Bill before us today, this can be done in total secrecy and this secrecy is ensured by imposing fines or periods of imprisonment of up to two years. I do not think that that power is justified by the motivation given to us by the hon. the Minister in his speech. The objective for which the funds are to be collected may indeed be meritorious and desirable. However, this method of collecting the money is certainly neither meritorious nor desirable. Let’s face it: We are already taxing the motorist in this country extremely heavily. This also happens in other countries of the world although in some countries it is not as bad. Therefore, when one looks at what is being extracted from the poor motoring public one sees that on every litre of petrol this Government takes 23,041 cents. That amount has to be multiplied by some six billion litres of fuel that are involved; in fact, it is in excess of that figure. The increase in the cost of fuel over the past four years has been probably the largest single factor affecting the economy and more specifically the inflation rate. We on these benches believe it would be totally irresponsible to add to the fuel price and consequently the inflation rate at this stage. In terms of this Bill we are giving these hon. Ministers— two of them are sitting in the House at the moment—carte blanche to do that very thing. We are saying here in Parliament assembled that we are prepared to allow these Ministers to make extremely adverse decisions which will badly affect the economy without having to come to this House for justification or for any reason whatsoever. What is more, as I have already said, they can do this in complete secrecy.

I think we should consider for a moment the reason for this levy. Basically it is to support our road building and maintenance programmes. However, when I notice what the hon. the Minister had to say in his speech it would appear to be more for the support of our road building programme than our road maintenance programme. I say this because in his speech he made no mention of road maintenance although he referred to Du Toit’s Kloof tunnel—to which a former hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, I think it was, referred in somewhat uncomplimentary terms in the ’seventies—the Johannesburg South national ring road and various other new projects that are in progress. These are projects which he cited in justification for his need for more money. He did not mention a road maintenance programme. No one can deny that our roads are the arteries of our South African life system and their economic and social importance is of major significance. This expenditure on our national roads is funded at the moment by charging the road using public 2,354 cents per litre of petrol sold. In 1981-’82 we sold some 6 520 million litres of petrol and thus collected in excess of R153,6 million for the National Road Fund. This was 9% higher than the R140 million collected the previous year.

It is a very large sum of money that we are already spending on our road systems—R153 million. It is not a stable or stationary figure, because it increases year by year as our sales of fuel increase as a result of expansion of the economy. As I have said, between 1980-’81 and 1981-’82 there was an increase of 9% in the funds made available. With this money we build very fine roads that are a great credit to our country. I wonder, however, at times whether we do not overdo it and whether we can afford this expense. Have we our priorities in this regard right?

At the beginning of this very session I motored from Port Elizabeth to Cape Town on the N2. I travelled on a mixture of very, very good new roads and I also travelled on the older section, roads that are tarred and have been there for some considerable time. Both types of road were comfortable, they were fast and there was very little traffic on them. The old road was not quite as fast as the new one because one got stuck behind a heavy vehicle from time to time and because of various switch backs one could not see far enough ahead. Perhaps for five minutes one had to sit behind a heavy vehicle that was travelling 20 or 40 km slower. That, however, was no great imposition on me. At Great Brak River there is a beautiful new dual carriage way which costs no less than R14,7 million, but while driving along it I looked at it and at the obvious tremendous sums of money that had been spent on building it and I thought of the many South African citizens who are legally in an urban area and exist in shacks because of a lack of housing.

When one looks at the figure of R153 million spent on national roads and realizes that in that very 1981-’82 year only R81 500 000 was budgeted to be added to the capital of the National Housing Fund for the provision of dwellings for Blacks, then suddenly the R153 million spent on roads seem to be a very large figure indeed. It certainly is more than adequate to provide for the maintenance of our road network.

It is patently obvious that we need to construct new roads, and obviously in doing this, one has to ensure a reasonably steady flow of funds. There are many ways of funding that flow. We know that right now there is a Select Committee of the House sitting on a possible method of funding roads—the toll system. Almost all of these methods of funding, however, are unsatisfactory and perhaps the tax on petrol is the least unsatisfactory of all these methods because it does ensure that the user of the road pays for that road. I think also in fairness one must point out that many of the users of those roads— many urban motorists in other words—do not venture on to the national road system at all; therefore perhaps they are over-contributing to the system. If we are to tax the motorist in this way, I believe the hon. Minister should come to this House for approval for a specific number of cents per litre and justify the need for it. This is more or less what he has done in this Bill. He has come along with a figure of 0,7 cents per litre. I think that a figure of 0,646 cents—the figure I worked out—might be a better figure, because that would take it to a round figure of 3 cents per litre, if one wants to talk in round figures. Perhaps this side of the House could approve a measure of this nature, but that is not what the hon. the Minister is seeking in this Bill. He is not seeking to add 0,7 cents. He is seeking to add any figure he, together with his colleagues, sees fit and is seeking to do it, if he so wishes, in complete secrecy. I do not believe that this House should grant him that right. I believe this House would be foolish to do so.

Let me therefore sum up. We oppose giving the hon. the Minister the power he seeks, and we are also opposed to any measure that could increase the price of petrol at this time, and this measure could indeed do so, depending on how the hon. the Minister and his colleagues saw the situation. This measure could certainly increase the price of petrol, and we therefore recommend strongly to this House that in its own interests, and therefore the interests of the South African public, it should oppose this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised and shocked by the attitude of the official Opposition to this amending Bill. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, gave me the impression that he still did not recognize the advantages of a sound road system. I had not thought that at this stage it would still be necessary to tell people that one needs funds in order to have better roads, since better roads are such a sound way of saving, that the advantages cannot be calculated in terms of rands and cents alone. During the course of my speech I should like to deal with certain aspects which have been mentioned here. I shall not emphasize the negative aspects of this amending Bill. I intend emphasizing the positive aspects.

The hon. member spoke about the city dwellers who do not make use of national roads. However, this is not what is at issue. Who uses national roads? Is it not those very people what the previous Bill was concerned with, the people for whom the Bill creates the maximum amount of benefits? As I have said, I shall go into further detail later in my speech. However, I am extremely disappointed in the attitude of the official Opposition.

This amending Bill has resulted from the announcement by the Cabinet last year approving an additional 0,609 cents on petroleum products. It resulted from this. And why was it necessary? I think that hon. member would do well to listen now. In this country we have an acute shortage of funds for our National Road Fund, and it is precisely as a result of this serious shortage that this Bill became necessary, why this Bill is before this House today. The unhealthy financial position of the National Road Fund has been debated a number of times in this House, and the hon. the Minister did so once again today. I think the time has come for us to take cognizance of the implications of this shortage. It has an extremely detrimental effect on our road building programmes, since it causes essential programmes to be delayed. However, a shortage of funds also means that we cannot plan ahead thoroughly or properly. It even becomes impossible to plan ahead. The hon. member may also be interested to know that the roadbuilding and construction companies in our country—we are a small country in comparison with other countries and we have few of these large companies—spend a great deal of their capital outlay on the provision of the equipment, machinery and implements they require. These people train staff to give them the necessary expertise to do that work. If there are not sufficient funds and there is therefore not sufficient work, these firms go under and they even go bankrupt. Once such a firm is out of the market, it is almost impossible to re-enter it as a result of the tremendously high cost of machinery and implements. If there is one firm less, there is less competition for those remaining. In other words, we are eliminating healthy competition in this way, and in this field healthy competition is essential.

Furthermore, the National Transport Commission has to contend with many problems. The National Transport Commission also has to contend with inflation and with the reduced purchasing power of the monetary unit. It is true that road building costs increase by 25% annually, whereas the revenue of the National Road Fund, the amount due to the Fund, only increases from 6% to 8%. The result is that they have to contend with an annual decrease in their revenue of 18%.

Apart from the increased cost of new road works, the cost of maintenance on routes with high traffic loads is increasing tremendously, particularly where those routes have now come to the end of their designed life span. If the funds are not available, the maintenance work cannot be done in time, and this then leads to the deterioration of those existing roads.

When the National Roads Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1971, the National Transport Commission became a fine, fully-fledged road building authority and they introduced a fine network of roads which they had planned, roads which would have been completed by the end of this century. However, factors entered the picture over which we had no control and over which the hon. member opposite had no control either. There was a fuel crisis, and that fuel crisis upset all calculations, all estimates and all future plans. The National Transport Commission had to amend its policy drastically due to a shortage of funds. Hence some of the old deproclaimed national roads have been reproclaimed and improved in order to delay the construction of the national freeway system. One should ask oneself whether this is desirable in a country such as this one. Of what use is it if we produce but we cannot get the products to the market? The question is whether we can afford to have any delays at all in respect of our national road system. An effective transport system is of the utmost importance for the prosperity, the comfort and the welfare of any society. In addition, a freeway—the hon. member should listen to this—is the largest single fuel saver. There is no more effective way of saving fuel than by having good roads.

There is rail transport. [Interjections.]

It was Thomas McDonald who, as commissioner of the bureau of public roads in the USA, made an important statement which I should like to quote. He said—

He means the USA—

The economic development of any country necessarily depends on the effectiveness of its transport system, for which the first and foremost requirement is a proper and well-planned network of roads. We should ask ourselves whether we should not regard the improvement of our road system as one of our highest priorities in this country. For this purpose we should be prepared to dig deep into our own pockets.

In 1981 we in this House amended the National Roads Act of 1971, so that the National Transport Commission could borrow funds at a time when there was no question of a higher levy. It is true that loans which are granted assist in solving the problem temporarily, but loans also have to be repaid. The only solution is to increase the levy on fuel on a small scale, as is the case here. It is a well-known fact that the cost of the provision of a proper road infrastructure only represents 15% of the total expenditure, while the remaining 85% represents expenditure on the maintenance of vehicles. A small increase in the price of fuel would only have a slight influence on the cost of road transport, but it would be of great value to the road user.

The Cabinet decided as far back as 1982 to grant a levy of 0,609c per litre on the broad basis, the details of which we may discuss in the Committee Stage. In order to deal with this as a separate levy, its collection will be handled by the oil companies and we are very grateful to them for this.

It is also important to note that the levy only applies to road users and is confined to petrol and diesel. All consumers of petrol, including the State, will have to pay the levy. We can thrash out the details at a later stage.

The National Road Fund urgently requires funds to continue with its road building activities. The hon. the Minister has just been referring to these urgent schemes, and I ask hon. members whether they agree with the hon. the Minister and me that it is essential to continue with the building of the Du Toitskloof tunnel. One cannot imagine for a moment that it is not essential. Anyone who is familiar with the road between Pretoria and Warmbaths would agree with me that we cannot delay any longer the creation of the necessary infrastructure on that road in order to meet the demand, during peak periods in particular. Anyone who used that road will know that there are times when an impossible situation exists on that road. I could go further and mention the Johannesburg ring road as well. This is something which should have been there long ago, but as a result of a shortage of funds it could not be built. However, we cannot delay any longer and the necessary funds must be made available. I could continue in this way, repeating the schemes which the hon. the Minister has already mentioned.

I now come to another extremely important aspect which I feel should be raised in this House today. I should like to draw the attention of this House to the fact that when the National Road Fund was established in 1935, it was awarded approximately 17% of the total cost of fuel. Today it is scarcely 4%, less than a quarter of what it was. I do not like putting it in such strong terms, but the Road Fund is really running at a loss, and we connot afford this.

Just like the Government.

I give that hon. member credit for a great deal more sense than is evident in that remark. The time has come for a fixed percentage of the cost of fuel to be paid to the National Road Fund. This is the idea I wish to put to hon. members. It should not be a fixed amount. It should not be 3 cents or 3,5 cents. It should be a fixed percentage. The price of fuel may fluctuate. It may rise or fall. However, it must be a fixed percentage which is paid to the National Road Fund, i.e. regardless of the price of fuel. This would be a fair and reasonable method of keeping the National Road Fund solvent, regardless of the price of fuel. I should like the hon. the Minister to know that he will have the support of this side of the House, and, I believe, the support of many of the hon. members on the opposite side of the House as well, if he can convince the responsible organizations, viz., the Treasury and the Cabinet, that we are dealing here with a priority which is extremely important to South Africa, its people and its prosperity, and that is to have a solvent National Road Fund with sufficient funds to build the roads we have planned, the roads we need, the roads which will assist not only in developing South Africa further, but also in making the country it can be and which, to a large extent, it already is, viz. the leader on the continent of Africa.

We can discuss the details of this amending Bill during the Committee Stage, but the idea which is the principle contained in the Bill, viz. that the National Road Fund should be strengthened and that we need the funds to build our roads, is a sound idea, since this is extremely important to our country in all respects. I am aware that there are other priorities as well. I am aware that defence, for example, makes tremendous demands. The hon. member has just mentioned that there are people who do not have proper housing. I agree with him. However, we should sit and think for a moment about what good roads mean to us, so that we do not lag behind on that score. This should remain one of our priorities. I therefore take pleasure in supporting this Bill wholeheartedly from this side of the House, and I congratulate the hon. the Minister on it.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill which is before the House has its advantages, but it has a few disadvantages as well, and we must take these into consideration in debating the Bill. I do not wish to reply in any detail to the hon. member for Kempton Park. I am in full agreement with many of the arguments he advanced, especially in respect of benefits. The purpose of this amending Bill is to obtain additional funds for the National Road Fund. It is not necessary to argue about the need for a good road network in the Republic. That need exists, and because it exists, it has to be met. This need has gradually become an embarrassment for the National Road Fund, because it does not have sufficient funds available today to meet the existing need, a growing need. The need for an effective network of roads for the Republic of South Africa does not have to be debated. I believe it is axiomatic. The Republic of South Africa occupies a very large area of land. It is a big country, in which the various centres are separated by great distances. All these centres have to be connected with one another by means of a very effective road network; for a variety of reasons, of course. This is a country which is still growing in every respect, a developing country, a country with development facets in virtually every respect. We have only to refer to agriculture, industry, mining, tourism, and so many other facets which indicate that we are engaged in a development programme which requires an effective transport system.

Furthermore, we have a growing population. The number of vehicles is increasing. Whether they are being used for private or for industrial purposes, it is a fact that there is a growing population which requires more and more transport, and to be able to meet those requirements, we need a road system which is constantly expanding and which has to be improved all the time.

I believe it is also important that we should emphasize the fact that in our present situation it is also essential and in the interest of our country’s defence that we should have an effective network of roads in the Republic of South Africa. However, a good network of roads makes great demands on our financial resources. The money must be available, otherwise we cannot meet this need—the need for good and effective roads in the country. In addition, costs are constantly rising. The cost of building a road a few years ago actually cannot be compared with the cost of building it today because road-building costs have risen enormously. Because of this very fact, the need for more money is so much greater.

However, it is not only a question of building a road or of providing an effective road system throughout the Republic of South Africa; what is also important is that the type of vehicle on the roads, and heavy vehicles in particular, have increased enormously. The heavier the vehicle, the more solid the road has to be, and the more expensive the building of such a road. These prerequisites for an effective road system— and in referring to them, I associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Kempton Park—require that extra money be found for this purpose in some way. It is true that another commission is at present investigating the possibility of obtaining extra money. However, this is another method which is going to be tried in order to obtain that extra money. Therefore it is essential that extra money be obtained.

Apart from these advantages which I have just referred to, however, I want to mention a few other matters which are creating certain problems for me, matters which seem to me to be somewhat detrimental. I would like to concentrate on a few of these, and I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister could give us some specific replies in this connection, because we on this side of the House are going to support the Second Reading of this Bill. On the basis of the replies we expect from the hon. the Minister, we should then like to express certain thoughts and to make certain suggestions during the Committee Stage, if it is necessary and if the hon. the Minister’s replies do not satisfy us.

The first matter I want to mention is related to the following quotation from the hon. the Minister’s speech, namely—

In other words, here the statement is made that this levy will be payable by the road users. The hon. the Minister also said—

If the road user is going to bear the cost of this additional levy, it seems to me that it is going to be somewhat difficult for the hon. the Minister not to increase the price at the pump. My question is this—and it is a very reasonable one: Is it the hon. the Minister’s intention that this levy will be passed on to the road user, or are the petrol companies— the people who have to provide for this in terms of clause 1—going to absorb those costs? This is an important question to us on this side of the House, and therefore it is also important to us that the hon. the Minister should reply to it. I just want to say in passing that we on these benches greatly appreciate the fact that the hon. the Minister has excluded agriculture from the levy in terms of this legislation. I accept that the hon. the Minister is excluding agriculture in its entirety; that it will not only refer to certain bona fide matters, but that agriculture is being excluded in its entirety, and for this I want to thank him very sincerely on behalf of the farmers of this country.

The next matter I want to mention is one which is causing me some concern. The hon. the Minister spoke of an increase of 0,7 cents. This is the increase he has in mind. Under point 10 of his speech, however, he opened the door a little and said he was not very sure that he was going to keep to that amount. It may be higher. It is a matter of concern to us that the door is being opened here to the possibility of a higher amount. We have no idea of what such a higher amount may be. Therefore I want to ask the hon. the Minister to try to fix a definite amount for us. I think the hon. member for Kempton Park expressed a very good idea in this connection. He should fix a definite amount so that we may know that this is the amount we are voting for and which we are accepting, so that we may justify this amount to the public outside. I am simply worried about the fact that if one does not fix a specific amount and if the door is left wide open, we may sooner or later be faced with a levy which may be so high that if one had known in advance what it would be, one would not have opened the door or voted for such a matter.

With these few words I want to pledge the support of this side of the House for this legislation, provided that the hon. the Minister can give us satisfactory replies to these few questions.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that all parties in this House agree that there is a tremendous need for good roads. Anyone driving a vehicle will appreciate that statement. Even if one is only the driver of one’s own private motor car …

Or Harley Davidson.

… or Harley Davidson, as my hon. friend says, to be able to drive on good roads, roads that are free of potholes and devoid of unnecessary bends and so forth, is a pleasurable and enjoyable experience and, most of all, it is a far safer experience than driving on roads which are in a very bad state of repair. Also, if one operates a business which involves using one’s vehicles on the roads, one then really appreciates the fact that good roads reduce one’s operating costs. The hon. member for Kempton Park quoted Thomas MacDonald, the ex-Secretary for Transport of the USA many years ago. I believe that the hon. member has quoted Thomas MacDonald before, but we are indebted to him for using that quotation because what was said is absolutely true and correct, i.e. that a country’s economic development depends to a very large extent on the ability of its people and businesses who are active in the economy to move around the country efficiently and economically. Therefore I believe that we in these benches can support the hon. the Minister’s reasons for wanting to obtain more funds for the National Roads Fund.

This is especially so in the light of the recent cut-backs of which we have heard. My people on the Upper South Coast were very concerned when these cut-backs were first announced and it was said that the N3 freeway being constructed south from Durban would be affected. The N3 is a very busy highway, especially during holiday periods. Sections of the national road are at the present time very dangerous and over the past few years local authorities have held many meetings trying to find ways and means of cutting down the hazards on certain stretches of road until the freeway is eventually completed. When they heard that the programme for the construction of the freeway might be cut, they immediately contacted me and the Natal Provincial Council appealing for something to be done so that the schedule should not be altered. This they did because of the need that they clearly felt and for which they had appealed for funds in years gone by.

We are therefore very sympathetic towards the hon. the Minister in this regard. We appreciate that costs have escalated tremendously. I think this very fact should once again emphasize the effect inflation is having on our economy. I want the hon. the Minister to understand my concern about inflation, the effects of inflation and inflationary costs not only on the construction of roads, but also on the operating costs of vehicles using our roads. Here I refer to the Bill which we discussed earlier on today.

The fact that we have to cut the national roads construction programme at this particular time when we are experiencing a recession again is a very bad thing because we know that many people are unemployed and we certainly need to create jobs. It is for this reason that we welcome any way in which jobs can be created by expanding the construction of roads.

I want to remind the hon. the Minister that in debates on this subject during the last few years, I asked the hon. the Minister and also his predecessor when we were debating the change in the rate of the existing levy from which the National Road Fund obtains its money, whether that levy was high enough. I mention this because I want the hon. the Minister to appreciate that we understand the need for good roads and we appreciate the problems which his department has, at present in obtaining sufficient funds to maintain its construction programme. If I remember correctly, during the transport debate last year I asked whether or not there was some means of raising funds other than a levy, and in fact I received a very nice letter from the hon. the Minister saying that other possibilities had been investigated. [Interjections.] I should therefore like to repeat that we support the hon. the Minister in his desire to obtain more funds, and a levy on road users is, I believe, a fair method, because then one is taxing the people who are actually benefiting from the roads.

The hon. the Minister and other hon. members may recall that in the last few months the United States Congress passed a similar Bill imposing an extra levy on the price of fuel, the money to be raised in this manner to be used entirely for the repair of existing freeways in the national freeway system and also for the construction of still better roads. I should, however, like to draw to the hon. the Minister’s attention the fact that—as we heard on the news just recently—many of the truckers in the United States went on strike because of this increased levy. The reason for this was that there is a very serious recession in the United States, and the private truckers, the individual truckers, complained that this levy was increasing their costs, making it very difficult for them to survive. There were demonstrations, and regrettably—as we heard on the radio just yesterday, I think it was—one person was killed, many trucks were burned and there were many injured. I raise this matter to illustrate to the hon. the Minister the effect that the cost of operating vehicles has on the private trucking sector. It was all very well for the President of the United States, Mr. Reagan to say, as he did, that the truckers did not need to worry about the levy, because all they had to do was to put up their tariffs and pass the increased amount on to the users of their vehicles. With all due respect to the President of the United States, I think he misunderstood the position of the individual truckers, because they are in competition with one another, and the competition is so fierce at the present time, because of the recession, that to have asked them to simply increase their rates was simply to have missed the point altogether. [Interjections.] I use this as an illustration to the hon. the Minister to indicate why we are so opposed to increasing the cost of the operation of the trucks of private hauliers on our national roads.

Having said that, let me add that I found it very difficult to follow the reasoning of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. He brought up the subject of housing in this particular debate. [Interjection.] He asked, in fact, why we should be spending R153 million on national roads when there are so many people who do not have decent housing. That is, of course, the sort of woollyheaded thinking we get from these bleeding-heart liberals. [Interjections.] They always allow this bleeding heart of theirs to cloud their thinking … [Interjections] … to the extent that they think they will get a lot of public support by appealing to the State to give something away to the poor people who are suffering. They fail to realize, however, that before one can give money away, that money has to be earned, and the one way to earn money in any economy is to have good, fast, efficient and economic transportation. One has to build up the production side of one’s country, the wealth-creating side of a country, before any nation, company or individual can afford to be charitable. [Interjections.] That is something that the liberals in this world just cannot see, or else they are trying to bluff the public. [Interjections.] That is all it is. They are trying to offer the public something for nothing, and regrettably too many members of the general public fall for this bluff.

Is this your acceptance speech for the NP?

With that kind of thinking I believe that those people prostitute economic good sense for votes. [Interjections.] That is what they do. Any politician who offers the public something for nothing is prostituting good economic sense.

They are prostitutes.

Yes, they are economic prostitutes. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Would you kindly ask the hon. the Minister and that hon. member to retract that disgusting reflection?

Order! The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Sir. [Interjections.]

To summarize this particular aspect of the debate, I want to say to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central that, when we have built up our economy to the extent that we have got the funds with which to be charitable or to build the houses which we accept the people need, then we will be able to undertake that knowing that we are doing so on a firm foundation. We will then not end up the way so many countries in Africa and in South and Central America today have ended up, spending money they do not really have and which they have borrowed. One thinks of Mexico, Brazil, Argentine and virtually the whole of Africa. Those countries have borrowed money or printed money in order to give things away to the people for nothing and at the present time the whole economy of those nations is teetering on a knife’s edge.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he is aware that the budget deficit in the USA as a percentage of its gross domestic product is greater than that of even Mexico, Argentine and many African States? [Interjections.]

No, I was not aware of that.

Oh, good heavens! We thought you knew everything.

The USA is running a deficit today of something like R200 billion because the American Congress refuses to cut Government expenditure on the sort of welfare state actions I have been talking about despite the appeals by the President for them to do so.

Having said that we support the hon. the Minister’s desire for increased funds for national roads, I regret to say that we cannot support him in respect of this particular Bill, because we cannot support the methods he is planning to employ. [Interjections.] The hon. members of the PFP are very much aware that over the past few years I in particular have argued with consecutive Ministers of Transport including the present Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning about levies and taxation. In fact, I was very fortunate to receive from the former Minister of Transport, who is presently the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, a very nice dictionary which he sent me in an effort to prove to me that a levy is not a tax. We in this party are very clear in our stand that this form of taxation where money is extracted from the public to be used by a Government department has to be approved by this legislative body. We are totally opposed to giving the hon. the Minister the power to willy-nilly at the request of his department put up levies which are going to impose a burden on the public. That is a basic principle of this party and of Parliament and it is for this reason that we cannot support this Bill.

Secondly, we disagree with the secrecy provision in this Bill to the effect that the amounts of money collected, and from whom, and so on, shall not be disclosed, etc. and that there shall be penalties in the event of anyone doing so. We disagree with this entirely. We are talking here about a national road fund. Why there should be any secrecy about this I do not know. The hon. the Minister may say that our enemies may be able to determine from the amount of money collected for diesel, petrol, etc. the volume and source of our petroleum imports, but I believe they already know much of this information. I believe this attitude of the hon. the Minister just does not wash when it comes to the principles involved here, namely that Parliament should approve an increase in any tax or levy and that the public have a right to know how, where and when that money is being spent. For these reasons, despite the fact that we sympathize with the National Transport Commission, I am afraid we cannot support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, problems in connection with road financing are of course not peculiar to the situation in South Africa. World-wide, in every developed country, there is the problem of trying to find a formula in order to finance roads. One can look at current events in the United Kingdom and in most of the developed countries where exactly the same search is going on to find some ideal system of financing national roads. Certainly in this country those responsible for road financing will complain that they are hamstrung because of the lack of certainty and their inability to plan as a result of the uncertainty relating to the availability of funds. This is a problem which is going to be with us for a long time to come. It applies not only in connection with the construction of new roads but also in connection with the maintenance of existing roads.

It is true, despite what the hon. member for Amanzimtoti has said, that all over the world the question of priorities in the national budget often tends to relegate the financial requirements of road construction and maintenance to one of relatively minor importance. I think any responsible Government—perhaps not the NRP, because their speakers suggested that priorities should not come into it at all—looking at the allocation of funds would look at priorities such as defence, housing, education and other priorities. Roads, I fear, would not be one of the top priorities. It may be in the NRP calendar, but in any responsible overview of the situation one would certainly look at other priorities before one would look at road construction and maintenance, however necessary a road network is. In that respect I cannot agree with the hon. member for Kempton Park who said that roads should be one of the highest priorities. I agree that there is a need for funds for roads but I do not believe that one could say that it should be one of the highest priorities. This, in fact, is what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central was saying when he made his remarks this afternoon. It is particularly the case in South Africa where, for one reason or another, we have a number of other priorities which I believe is more important than the question of the financing of roads. However, this is a matter which is a problem.

There is general consensus on the whole principle of road-user charges. Certainly there is need for road-user charges for the maintenance of roads, if not for the construction of roads. I think this is a principle which is universally accepted. However, even in this sphere a line has to be drawn somewhere. There have been calls for a long time now from industry, commerce and others for a review of the whole taxation burden on road users as part of an overall reassessment of the country’s transport policy. This is what has been asked for.

The hon. the Minister knows it and he has had representations from the private sector asking for a total review, a total reassessment, of the whole taxation system as far as road users are concerned. I believe there is a need for an equitable and efficient system of user charges which will ensure that every mode of transport makes a proportional contribution to the national transport infrastructure. This can only come about if there is a thorough reassessment of the whole system which, I believe, should be made by the department in consultation with the private sector. This is not happening. Instead the hon. the Minister comes with a Bill which gives him the discretion, with the concurrence certainly of two of his colleagues, to impose a levy on fuel for the purpose of adding to the National Road Fund. I believe that this ad hoc provision, simply introduced a Bill of this kind with its potentially far-reaching powers to try to solve the problem, again highlights the need for a complete reassessment of the situation. As important as that may be, what we are doing here is that we are giving the Minister carte blanche at any time to impose a levy on fuel, and I believe that this is totally bad in principle. This is our viewpoint and this is why we are opposed to the measure. We accept that there is a need for funds to be made available for roads, but we believe again that the Government is coming along with a measure of this kind where the Minister takes unto himself complete power in terms of the Bill to impose a levy on particular people at any particular time and Parliament has no control over the matter whatsoever. There is already far too big a tax burden on fuel in South Africa. The hon. member for Kempton Park—and here I agree with him—drew a comparison between what was 17 cents some time ago, an amount that went from the fuel tax for the direct purpose of building national roads, and the present 4 cents. I think one must look at that. I believe the road user is already overburdened by inroads which are undertaken by other sections on what we pay for fuel in South Africa. I believe that if we are going to look at roads and at the use of roads as a method of financing, there is certainly a case to be made out that of the tax paid on fuel a greater percentage be used for the building of roads. However, we are dealing now with a Bill like this with the potential added levy to be imposed, a levy that could come. Although the hon. the Minister in his speech talks in terms of what he believes is going to be the effect of it, the fact of the matter is that once he has this power there is a potential for an addition in the price of fuel notwithstanding what Government policy is at the present time in this regard. One only has to look at the provision of clause 1 which states that the Minister may impose a levy on every litre of fuel which is sold or supplied to any person at any point in the Republic for consumption, and it then states that he must issue a notice. But if one looks at this, there is no upper limit on the levy that may be imposed. There is no requirement to report back to Parliament. Notice of the levy may be served secretly on the classes of people concerned and there may be no disclosure of the amount that is recovered from the levy. This is all totally unsatisfactory. The Minister may also prescribe for what purpose the fuel may be used with regard to particular classes of vehicles. Therefore, all in all, I believe that the Bill is a bad Bill. I believe that we are being asked to meet a particular situation. Instead of being asked to subscribe to a planned reassessment of the need for planning on a decent scale over a period for our road requirements, we are being asked here to give the Minister almost a blank cheque or power at any time to impose an additional levy on the public. We are also taking away from Parliament the right to review the situation. We believe that in principle this is a Bill which no Opposition party can possibly support.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central says that we are overdoing our road building in South Africa. Last week a delegation consisting of the MECs of Natal came to see me because they felt that the Government does not give them enough money to build certain very important roads. For the next three years we have voted R44 million for Natal only to maintain their present roads, not for building any new roads. The hon. member admitted that we increased the revenue of the Road Building Fund by 9% because of the increased consumption of fuel, but he still wants the old 2,35 cents per litre.

I give the hon. member for Kempton Park 10 out of 10 for his speech because in 1934, when this Act was introduced in Parliament, our revenue was 14% from each gallon of petrol. Now it is 4%.

*So the situation has deteriorated for us. We have gone the way of the Progs. We are on the slippery slope. Our descent is gradual and dangerous. [Interjections.] When we examine the existing need in South Africa, however, what do we see? The hon. member for Berea must remember that a delegation from the Johannesburg City Council also came to see me.

At Uncle Charlie’s and at other points of access to Johannesburg, according to CSIR surveys, R100 million’s worth of fuel goes to waste every year only because of cars that are standing still with their engines idling. These are bottlenecks in our big cities, where traffic jams form during peak hours. One has only to go and look at the situation at Uncle Charlie’s at 07h00 on a week-day. Then try to reach the Johannesburg city centre from Uncle Charlie’s by 07h30. It is totally impossible.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central says we are spending too much money on road building programmes. He should repeat those statements when we are talking to delegates from the Johannesburg City Council. He should say then that we are spending too much money on road building programmes. I advise the hon. member to go for a drive between Johannesburg and Warmbaths on a Saturday. On that freeway—it is also the road to Lebowa—there are innumerable vans, microbuses and other motor vehicles. All of a sudden one comes to the end of the freeway, and then all those vehicles have to travel along a single lane all the way through Warmbaths. Often there is congestion of traffic over a distance of about 2 km. All the vehicles are standing still; not one can move an inch. The hon. member should go there; then he can talk about this again.

Should we discontinue the work on the Dutoitskloof tunnel? I ask whether we should go on wasting fuel by crossing the mountain at Dutoitskloof?

Go by train!

Then the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central alleges that our roads are too luxurious and that we are spending too much money on our road building programmes. How is one to understand that?

But I said take the train!

The hon. member for Kempton Park mentioned a few figures which I believe were very important. I thank the hon. member for his contribution. There are contractors who employ people who are involved in the road building programme— engineers and other trained people—who simply leave to go and work somewhere else. It will be very difficult for us to get them back. We received R153 million for road building last year.

† The hon. member for Berea says the Minister is going to be given carte blanche. What about the hon. the Minister of Finance? He can impose levies without consulting Parliament. He can do that at any time. When he uses his powers as Minister of Finance to impose levies or to increase taxes without consulting Parliament those hon. members do not complain. [Interjections.] Of course, it is true that he must come back and report to Parliament. That is quite right. [Interjections.] All I say is that this levy of 0,7 cents a litre will be imposed now and will not be increased later. It will therefore not have any effect on the consumer price of petrol. [Interjections.]

*The hon. member for Koedoespoort asked me some quite reasonable questions. The hon. member made a positive contribution. He rightly asked why the price was not going up; who was going to absorb the cost. That is a very reasonable question. In the Equalization Fund, in the total amount levied on fuel, a contribution is being included with regard to Sasol 2 and Sasol 3. There are also certain corrections that have to be made. The possibility also exists of a further drop in price of oil in the world market, which means that we shall be able to absorb this 0,7 cents per litre without requiring it to be paid by the consumer himself. The hon. member also asked whether the amount might be higher. I do not foresee, if we receive this amount of 0,7 cents a litre, that we shall increase the amount. We have a programme we must proceed with. The hon. member himself also knows that in …

What is the magic of this 0,7 cents?

It is related to contracts we initially entered into with regard to the roads at Middelburg, Warmbaths, Koedoespoort, Lady Frere, Harrismith, Van Reenen, roads in Natal, etc. The cost of these would be covered by this amount if we proceeded with the road building programme.

[Inaudible.]

Because we are able to peg down the tenders at this point and to say that we are not going any further than the preliminary stages. The irony of it all, however, is that we are now paying 2,3 cents per litre of petrol for the building and maintenance of roads. But what is the price of fuel? In the Transvaal it is already almost 60 cents per litre. Therefore this levy is a mere fraction of the price of fuel. I am convinced that the motorist in South Africa would be quite prepared to contribute this amount of 0,7 cents per litre from his own pocket if only he could have a road so that he could get to his work without having to struggle through bottlenecks where he has to waste his fuel for hours.

However, I shall notify the Johannesburg City Council, the Pretoria City Council and the Durban City Council that the PFP is delaying the road building programme in South Africa. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central says: “We are overdoing the road building programme in South Africa.” How on earth can anyone make a statement like that? I think he should be examined by a psychiatrist. [Interjections.] There is something wrong when a man makes such a statement in this House.

† The hon. member for Amanzimtoti started off his speech very well indeed. You know, Sir, I like that hon. member. I think that if he would change his name to Koekemoer or something like that we could make him a candidate in Waterberg! [Interjections.] The hon. member said that we must have good roads but, he asked: How can we give this Minister the power to increase the levy willy-nilly?

Not without parliamentary approval.

Does the hon. member not trust me?

No! [Interjections.] I trust you but I do not know anything about who might succeed you.

Well, I can tell the hon. member that for the next 12 months it will be 0,7 cents. [Interjections.] However, if necessary, and if I am pressurized by the Natal Executive Council to build certain roads, I can always go to the Cabinet and say to them: Let us increase it by a further 0,3 cents.

I would prefer the hon. the Minister to come to Parliament.

We must build the roads. Sir, a road through the mountains which formerly cost half a million rand per km now costs R1 million per km. These costs continue to rise. Nevertheless, the hon. member for Berea says that road building in South Africa is not a priority. Those were the words he used a few minutes ago. He said that public roads in South Africa were not a priority.

That is the second time the hon. the Minister has taken something out of context. [Interjections.]

Did he not say that public roads were not a priority?

Is Defence not a greater priority?

Yes, but the hon. member said that roads were not a priority.

He did not say that. [Interjections.]

Very well, let us settle this matter. Let us say it is not a high priority. However, hon. members must not become confused. If people want houses to be built, they have to approach the hon. the Minister of Finance for tax money for additional housing. However, it is a totally different story to tell someone that with a levy of 0,7 cents on a litre, an additional road will be provided. Why confuse the two things? House-building is a priority but we cannot approach a motorist and ask him for a cent on a litre in order to build houses. That is impossible. One cannot do such a thing. Is the hon. member for Berea opposed to the imposition of a further 0,7 cents per litre for the purpose of building roads?

No, but put it in the Bill then.

Really, Sir, I think we should now vote on this Bill.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

We are dealing here with a Bill which is intended to replace an Act which has been in force since 10 July 1926 and which has subsequently been amended on only four occasions to adapt it to changing circumstances. It is a good example of a measure which has succeeded for almost 60 years in meeting most demands made upon it by the changing times.

In the light of the Government’s policy to restrict Government participation in the private sector as far as possible, this Bill constitutes an attempt to place an Act on the Statute Book which will preserve the positive aspects of the past, while at the same time, it is hoped, making an active contribution towards streamlining the regulation of the exportation of perishable products from the Republic.

It would be interesting to dwell on the circumstances which led to the passing of the present Act, as well as its predecessor, the Fruit Export Control Act No. 12 of 1925, which was only in force for a very short time, but hon. members had better read the history of this in Hansard for themselves.

Arising from a Cabinet decision in connection with the identification of spheres which would benefit from being subjected to an investigation of their function—a continuation of rationalization—I requested the Commission for Administration to have such an investigation conducted by the Perishable Products Export Control Board. The investigation has been completed and I have accepted the recommendations arising from it.

† The investigation covered a wide field. I want to highlight only a few aspects. Firstly it had to be established whether the continued existence of the board as a creature of statute was still warranted. It was established that the bigger exporters of perishable products, e.g. the citrus and deciduous fruit industries, might be able to perform the functions which are at present performed by the board. The smaller exporters would, however, not be in the same fortunate position, with the result that these industries would be harmed. This could be to the detriment of the country as a whole.

It was found that there was still a real need for a central body that could organize the export of perishable products and that could also supervise this function. This central body—the board—must exercise its powers outside the normal sphere of central government institutions. It must, nevertheless, be linked to a ministerial authority since it must perform its functions in terms of an Act of Parliament. The latter is deemed essential to ensure the co-operation of all exporters of perishable products. To reach this goal, the composition of the board must be changed and greater autonomy must be conferred on it.

A further question was whether the board should not rather be linked to the Department of Agriculture when looking at the products, the export of which it supervises. The link which the Minister of Transport Affairs has with the board is a historical one. It stems from the unwillingness of the then Minister of Agriculture to introduce the 1925 and 1926 Acts in Parliament. The link is also justified by the fact that the problems that may arise from the performance, by the board, of its functions are usually not linked to different perishable products as such, but to the way in which these products are conveyed or to the use of port facilities. These areas are within the domain of the Minister of Transport Affairs. This historical link is therefore still justified.

*To achieve as far as possible the object of involving the private sector, it was recommended that the board be composed of members nominated by the respective participating partners and appointed by the Minister. On the basis of current export volumes, the proposed board will probably be composed as follows: One representative for each of the following six export groups, viz. citrus fruit, deciduous fruit, meat, fish, eggs and poultry and avocado pears. The additional members provided for by clause 4(1)(b) will come from the citrus and deciduous fruit producers groups. The remaining two members provided for in clause 4 are self-explanatory. The board will consist of 10 members, therefore, with the possibility of an eleventh member, as provided for in clause 4(3).

Furthermore, the board is being given full autonomy with regard to all aspects relating to the board’s functions as well as in staff matters—the remuneration, benefits, etc., of the board’s staff—and financial matters such as approving a budget and obtaining revenue. As far as these matters are concerned, therefore, the board will resemble a statutory body functioning on the principles of a private enterprise.

Because the board has to be established by legislation, for various reasons—to invest it with coercive powers, for example—the role of the authorities cannot be totally restricted. For this reason, the board is required to report to Parliament on its activities through the Minister of Transport Affairs every year. It has also been recommended that certain powers should be retained by the Minister, such as the appointment and dismissal of members of the board, the making of regulations and the hearing of appeals against decisions of the board.

From this it is clear, therefore, that the Minister will exercise less control, but will nevertheless retain control over the crucial aspects. If the board envisaged in this Bill functions in a responsible manner, therefore, Government interference should be kept to an absolute minimum. I am sure the Opposition will support this, because we have considerably reduced interference by the State, something they are always asking for. I propose that the Bill should not even be committed.

Mr. Speaker, this seemingly innocuous Bill seeks to consolidate the Perishable Products Control Act introduced into this House on 21 May 1926, some 57 years ago. At that time South Africa was starting to become an exporting country and was developing markets in Europe which was crying out for food. South Africa, as one of the members of the British Empire at the time, was seeking to become one of the principal suppliers of perishable products to Great Britain and Europe in general. In 1982 South Africa exported 1 961 000 cubic metres of perishable food products to countries all over the world. Great Britain is today only one of the few countries to which we export. We export to various countries all over the world.

The composition of our perishable products exported today is as follows: Deciduous fruit accounts for 43% of our exports of perishable products, citrus 47%, fish 3%, meat 2%, eggs and poultry 2%, avocado pears 1% and all others 2%. By contrast, in 1925 citrus accounted for some 80% of all exports while deciduous fruit at that time accounted for only 16%. The total tonnage was a minimal amount compared with today.

This Bill before us today is not without great significance. It marks, in legislative terms, the beginning of the Government’s handing back to private enterprise the power it took away from it in the original Bill of 1926 when it interfered with the free-market economy and set up the first of a vast number of control boards to market agricultural products. I intend to deal at a later stage with the debate that took place in the House at the time.

I should like to deal with the individual clauses of the Bill and compare it with the original Bill which was passed in 1926. The first clause contains definitions. These have changed quite considerably in the light of the changes in conveyance we have in South Africa. An “exporter”, defined for the first time, means “any person who despatches or conveys a perishable product by ship out of the Republic …” and “export group” is any “association of exporters”. The products mentioned now are vegetables, fruit, flowers, butter, deep-frozen foods, eggs, cheese, fish, meat and any other product the Minister may designate. The next two definitions are of very great importance. The definition of “port” is as follows—

The definition of “ship” also includes aircraft. I shall deal with these definitions later.

Clause 2 deals with the continued existence of the Perishable Products Export Control Board as it is. For the first time, in clause 3, the object of the board is clearly defined. The object of the board shall be to bring about the orderly and efficient export of perishable products from the Republic.

It is when we come to clause 4 that we see what the trouble was many years ago. When one looks at section 1 of the old Act one sees that a Perishable Products Export Control Board was established to which three ordinary members were appointed by the Government, one of whom had to be the chairman, and also three representatives, one from the citrus industry, one from the deciduous industry and one from the eggs and poultry industry. The original Bill was strongly contested in Parliament in 1926. The Second Reading had an all-night sitting and the House adjourned at 3.50 am. The Committee Stage started at midnight the following day and was adjourned at 5.30 in the morning on 1 June 1926.

For eggs and bacon?

A predecessor of mine, advocate Leslie Blackwell, MP for Bezuidenhout, was kicked out of the House in the early hours of the morning for telling the Chairman of Committees that he was not fit to occupy the Chair. He withdrew his words the following afternoon. The Committee Stage took another whole afternoon.

One must ask oneself what was the cause of this long and acrimonious debate, one of the longest debates that has ever taken place in this House on an economic subject. First of all, the hon. the Minister has mentioned that this measure now falls under the Minister of Transport Affairs. What he did not tell the House was that the fruit farmers in 1926 did not want the original Bill and that is why General Kemp, the then Minister of Agriculture, ducked the issue and passed it over to Charlie Malan who was the Minister of Railways at the time.

The present Minister of Transport Affairs was previously the Minister of Agriculture. Fortunately he does not have this problem today and he can easily wear two hats. In fact he is so swollen-headed that he can wear them both easily enough.

The main dispute at that time arose over the composition of the board, namely that the Government was appointing a majority of persons to control an industry while the producer representatives would be in the minority and therefore it would be a Government controlled body. I should like to read from Hansard what was said at that particular time. Sir Thomas Smartt said—

Sir Thomas Smartt also said—

Mr. Jagger said—

That situation has not changed. Mr. Krige said that these three appointments “were jobs for pals” and that the principle of the Bill was that the board of control was a Government body. Mr. Coulter, the MP for Cape Town Gardens, said—

These were prophetic words because that is exactly what has happened in the ensuing 50 years since that particular time. There have been a plethora of control boards under the Marketing Act which have interfered with the free economy of South Africa. The 1926 Bill was for the first time a major deviation from the free market economy to a Government-controlled economy.

Clause 4 fortunately, to the credit of the Government, is what changes the legislation completely. Six persons are selected. They have been named, namely from the citrus, deciduous fruit, advocados, fish and meat and eggs and poultry industries. Those are the six biggest exporters, as I have mentioned before. In addition, citrus and deciduous will be represented by one person each because they both export more than 20% of the total. Therefore, in addition another member comes from the Citrus Board and another from the Deciduous Fruit Board. There is one from the S.A. Agricultural Union, one member who is designated by the Minister and one additional person nominated by the board. I believe that an additional person should be appointed to the board, namely a person nominated by the South African Foreign Trade Organization. This is an excellent organization which has helped to promote exports from South Africa. I intend moving an amendment to that effect and I hope and trust that the hon. the Minister will accept it.

When one looks at the Estimates of Expenditure for 1982-’83 one sees under Industries, Commerce and Tourism contributions to the South African Foreign Trade Organization to help finance it as an individual export marketing organization to the amount of R300 000. Therefore they are recognized by Parliament. In addition—and I shall speak about this later—expenses in connection with air freight on perishable produce amount to R2,4 million per year. I feel that if the hon. the Minister would grant Safto a place on the board it would fulfil a very useful purpose because they certainly have their finger on the pulse of exports from this country.

R2 million is not 1% of the total turnover. It is a small percentage.

The R2,4 million is a subsidy that is granted on the export of perishable products by air. I just happened to mention that it comes under the expenditure and I shall deal with that particular point later on.

Clause 5 of the Bill deals with the qualifications of members of the board. Clause 6 deals with the Chairman and vice-chairman of the board and is not really important. Clause 7 deals with the tenure of office of members of the board. Clause 8 deals with vacancies on the board. Clause 9 deals with the remuneration and allowances of members of the board.

Are we dealing with the Committee Stage now?

It is when we come to clause 10 of the Bill, which deals with the functions of the board, that we get to a very, very important point. Clause 10 states that the board shall—and that means that it is in the imperative—

All ports includes airports as well as sea ports. The board shall also—

I want to say as one who has exported products from South Africa through the Perishable Products Export Control Board that they really do know what they are doing and they are to be complimented on what they have done for the export of perishable products from South Africa. Clause 10 (c) states that the board shall—

The board will then be able to book the necessary space. In terms of Clause 10 (d) they can also—

I shall deal with this matter later, but one of the problems that has existed up to the present time has been the fact that the board has not had the power to deal with this matter in respect of aircraft, and neither have the foreign airlines nor S.A. Airways been prepared to provide the board with this necessary information. Once this legislation has been passed, however, the board will have the power to ensure that all aircraft and airlines will furnish them with the information. They can enter into contracts for the provision of airport facilities and the handling of perishable products. When products have to be exported to a far-off destination or are merely sent locally the board can, for example, divert citrus to Cape Town instead of its going to Maputo if they deem it necessary. They can also carry out all sorts of other investigations.

Finally, and this is a very important point, the board can negotiate with the various shipping lines and particularly with the Conference Lines for freight rates for a whole year at a time. At the present moment, as the hon. the Minister knows, there happens to be a problem with regard to these freight rates.

The stipulation with regard to the powers of the board, I believe, represent a very good and a very important change in that the board is now allowed to appoint its own officials. It does not have to depend on the Minister or on anybody else in respect of how much anybody should be paid. The board can now make its own rules with regard to its own staff. Then there are also stipulations in connection with the meetings of the board and the appointment of a general manager. Then we come to a very important clause indeed. That is the clause dealing with the inaccurate estimate of shipping space requirements. That is clause 14 of the Bill. I quote—

It is quite correct that this stipulation should be introduced because there is normally more than enough time for a person to cancel if necessary.

A very unfortunate set of circumstances has, however, come about at Jan Smuts Airport. I am so pleased that this Bill has now been introduced because it will stop that unhealthy practice. I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs to this particularly unhealthy practice. Perishable products enjoy the privilege of a low tariff of 75 cents per kilogram. This unhealthy practice being conducted at Jan Smuts Airport is indeed very serious, and I appeal to the hon. the Minister to do something about it. As the hon. the Minister knows perishable products enjoy the privilege of a low tariff of 75 cents a kilogram. In addition there is a subsidy of 12 cents a kilogram granted by the Department of Industries, Commerce and Tourism, to an amount of R2,4 million a year. Other freight which is carried by air is normally transported at a tariff of approximately R2 a kilogram.

Let us take the case of one particular item, viz. corn on the cob. One particular forwarding agent and the exporter connected with him have booked all the freight on aircraft for a year in advance. No other person can obtain space for the conveyance of corn on the cob. It has happened on a number of occasions that the product of this forwarding agent has not been available, and that the S.A. Airways have scrambled around to find out whether other forwarding agents who have been crying for space for the transport of corn on the cob have any such product available. Usually this happens on the day before or on the day on which the aircraft is due to leave. More often than not the product is not physically available, which means that that particular space is not taken up.

That is not the basic problem, however. The hon. the Minister can have my assurance that neither the exporter nor the forwarding agent has ever been called upon to pay for their inaccurate estimate of shipping space requirements. This can result in a loss to the S.A. Airways of between R7 000 and R10 000 per trip every time this happens. I am so delighted because this Bill now means that the Perishable Products Export Control Board will be able to arrange for transport by air of perishable products. Furthermore it means that everybody will have a fair chance to be able to export their products, while the present practice will cease, the practice of booking space in advance for a whole year without anybody else being given the opportunity of obtaining freight space for their products.

What is the name of that exporter?

I am not going to mention that. I am willing to discuss it with the hon. the Minister in private.

I must have his name.

I shall give it to the hon. the Minister in private.

Now that the board will control the export of all perishable products by air, sea and road this unsavoury practice will cease. In addition the flower trade will possibly have to be represented on the board because flowers constitute a very big export from South Africa.

Clause 17 deals with the imposition of levies. Clause 25 and all the other remaining clauses are of an administrative nature, and I do not wish to deal with them in particular.

In conclusion, I wish to deal with clause 25 that deals with regulations and clause 26 which deals with the repeal of various Acts but states that the regulations issued in terms of the present Act are not repealed but will remain in force. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister and to the Perishable Products Export Control Board that simultaneously with the coming into operation of this Bill, all such regulations be codified and simplified and then re-enacted in the Government Gazette on the same day so as to avoid any confusion and to make it unnecessary for people to consult old legislation in order to ascertain which regulations are still of force and effect.

We on this side of the House will support this Bill fully in all its stages. For the first time it entrenches the fact that the exporters themselves, whether private enterprise or co-operative, will run their own business. The free market economy will now be able to play its rightful role in South Africa. As the hon. the Minister has stated, Government interference will no longer play a part. All the hon. the Minister will have to do is keep a watchful eye on the proceedings and possibly appoint one member from the Department of Transport because he has the right to designate such a member.

In 1926—57 years ago—this legislation was acrimoniously debated across the floor of this House. The first Nationalist Government sought to introduce Government control over the free market economy. After 57 years another Nationalist Government has realized the folly of its predecessor. On the other hand, the business world must realize that the Government cannot always solve its problem. In order to have an effective free market economy, private enterprise must effectively run its own affairs with the Government playing the role of referee rather than participant.

Some years ago I attended a convention of businessmen in the USA which was addressed by President Reagan on the question of a free market economy. The President spoke about the elimination of the role of interference by Government. He complained that too many businessmen were wont to run to Washington to ask the Government to solve their problems. The President said that they came in hordes to Washington, and I think our Ministers have the same difficulty. Mr. Reagan made one very important statement. He told the businessmen that were there—

This Bill starts to eliminate Government participation slowly but surely from all aspects of life in South Africa. Reform is on its way as the Government relinquishes its grip and once again allows the people of South Africa to run their own businesses. I sincerely trust that this will apply in respect of many other pieces of legislation in the future.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to follow the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He has given us an excellent overview of this legislation as it is now as well as it was in 1926. The hon. member also pointed out certain pitfalls. I am very pleased that he has accepted this new Bill but I regret the fact that he brought politics into the end of what I considered to be a very good speech.

*Mr. Speaker, when the provisions of this Bill are compared with the provisions of the Act which it is replacing, then there is absolutely no doubt that this legislation is an improvement and that, just like the present Act, it will remain on the Statute Book for many years to come with only minor amendments. The export of perishable products is a large and important industry and it is therefore just as important for the regulation of exports to receive the best attention. This Bill also establishes the framework within which the relevant industries want to regulate and co-ordinate exports. This ushers in a period of essentially free and autonomous boards. It does not mean that the Government has no further interest in such a board. On the contrary, the importance of the Government’s involvement is quite clearly spelt out in the legislation. However, there is the great difference that the legislation is tangible proof of the Government’s intention to limit government participation in the private sector wherever possible.

It is very important that the regulation of the export of perishables should be as streamlined as possible and that the industry itself should be involved in regulating this, while the smaller exporters should still be protected. The co-ordinating body created by this industry meets these requirements in all respects. The body charged with co-ordinating exports should also be able to make its authority and influence felt outside the sphere of the central Government, but it must still be linked to ministerial authority and therefore to the Act of Parliament in order to obtain the co-operation of exporters. In this regard, too, the legislation meets the requirements.

The planned board which will consist of ten or at not more than eleven members is constituted in a democratic manner. The participating partners nominate their representatives on a proportional basis, and the Minister appoints the members. Provision is also made in the legislation to adapt representation to future exports. The board acts autonomously with regard to aspects concerning functional activities as well as in staff matters, but always in the knowledge that the Minister is keeping a watchful eye on it and that the role of the Government has not been restricted. For example the board is also required to report annually to Parliament. Government intervention is restricted to a minimum as long as the board functions within the established framework with the necessary responsibility.

It is also interesting that the existing Perishable Products Exports Control Board introduced in terms of Act 53 of 1926, continues to exist as a juristic person. The legislation defines the duties and composition of the board in detail. The tenure of office of members of the board may not exceed three years, and provision is made for the appointment of temporary members wherever the Minister deems this expedient. It should also be noted that the board itself is responsible for raising funds and that there is therefore no financial assistance from the Government. The functions of the board are so defined that there are no restrictions on the actions of the board within the scope of its directives. The functions of the board are also wide enough not to be a hindrance.

The legislation also makes provision for an aggrieved person to apply to the Minister, and the Minister has the authority to give a decision. The levies the Perishable Products Export Control Board may impose are subject to audit, and the board must bear the costs of such audits. The audited statements are to be submitted to Parliament annually.

Provision is made for the making of regulations by the Minister after consultation with the board.

I am satisfied that this is carefully considered legislation, which will in all respects meet the demands that the export of perishable products will make on it. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his staff on this excellent piece of legislation and draw particular attention to the very apt short title of the Bill.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider the word “ruimte” (“accommodation” in the English text) in clause 10(b).

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to give the hon. the Minister an elucidation of his own legislation, much less to deal with the Committee Stage together with the Second Reading. However, I should just like to bring one small matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister. It is a matter which, from personal experience, I consider to be most topical and important.

In the main this legislation contains all the principles of Act No. 53 of 1926. We are grateful for the commission of inquiry which found that this Board had a right to exist, even if it is with a little interference from the Government. We are also glad—irrespective of what other people say—that the hon. the Minister retained certain powers, such as those of appointment, the right of appeal and the making of regulations. Experience has taught us that it is in fact necessary for us to have this co-operation between State bodies and other interested parties, as well as a good understanding between the parties involved. We have also had experience of every man running his own business in his own way, but we do not allow ourselves to be easily put off by this.

The matter I should very much like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister is that of the importance of the export of vegetables. I have personally been involved in this for many years, inter alia, in the matter of the subsidy paid on air freight. It is just a pity that at one stage it ground to a halt. I have first-hand knowledge of orders of R1 million and more, inter alia, one order for green beans to the value of R1 million which could not be accepted by South African producers and their representatives because there was uncertainty about space and because no assurance could be given that the beans could be delivered to the European markets at a specified time. If we wanted to use special freight aircraft for this purpose the excuse was always that there would not be return freight from Europe. This legislation is trying to adjust to new circumstances and as such it is my opinion that the hon. the Minister’s efficient Administration should now give careful consideration to whether we cannot introduce special freight aircraft that can bring return freight from abroad so that it is not only possible for the tariff on perishable products—I am now referring specifically to vegatables—to be reduced by getting a return freight from Europe to South Africa, but also to ensure that the South African producers are able to organize their activities to fit in with specific times, specific dates and specific seasons so that they can capture new markets. I can give the hon. the Minister the assurance that these markets do exist. It is true there is a little competition from the Middle Eastern countries, for example Israel, but I have been convinced for a long time of the fact that South Africa is predestined to become the food larder of Europe as regards the provision of food. We must therefore plan for this in good time. This matter of the production of fresh vegetables is topical and important, and it is more than worthwhile, in the interests of the farmers of South Africa, and in the interests of earning foreign exchange for our country, to go into this matter very thoroughly and in depth. We have found that overseas airline companies have space—a quarter ton, a half ton or more at a time—that one can book in advance. However, we are all only human and like to give preference to our fellow countrymen. An exporter who is therefore also an agent here for a distributor abroad, gets preference over us. We must rely on the South African Airways, and unfortunately the South African Airways has never had sufficient space. Why I should like to emphasize this point is the fact that statistics have proved that domestic freight transport by the South African Airways from the coastal cities to Johannesburg, etc. has increased considerably. I refuse to believe that we will not experience the same trend as far as the overseas service is concerned if we investigate the matter in all earnest.

It is a good thing if brothers can live in harmony and I want to tell the hon. the Minister that although he now belongs to the new Progressive Party and I belong to the old Nationalist Party, he must please consider this matter for the sake of the farming community. He can do so as a member of the new Progressive Party, viz., quickly, speedily and to the point.

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon. members for Bezuidenhout, Maraisburg and also North Rand, I believe there is very little more I can say this afternoon to emphasize the importance of the industry affected by this Bill. This concerns primarily an export industry and we are all very well aware of how important exports are to South Africa, especially at the present time when our future economic growth is to a very large extent going to be dependent upon exports. In fact, it has been said that our pull out of the recession should be export-led. It has been very interesting for me indeed to listen to these hon. members and to hear from their experience and from others exactly how the Perishable Products Export Control Board affects our export trade.

After examining this Bill, we in the NRP can happily say to the hon. the Minister that, unlike with the previous two Bills we debated this afternoon, we shall be supporting him in this regard. We believe that it definitely does improve the 1926 Act, especially in that it gives greater independence to the board, which consists mainly of members representing the private sector. We are pleased to see that there are provisions now for the appointment of a General Manager who will be directly responsible for the activities of the board and that there are also provisions such as one finds in clause 15 in terms of which people who have been aggrieved in any way can appeal to the Minister. We are also pleased to see that provision is made for the board to report annually to the Minister and to this House. Also, we are pleased to see that there are provisions to ensure that the accounts are correctly audited. In the past they were audited by the Auditor-General, but now they will be audited by private auditors. This should be so, because, after all, there is no public money involved here. The levies are levied by the board on its own members. We believe, therefore, that it is quite correct that private auditors should audit its accounts.

To summarize, this Bill provides a set of ground rules for the private sector to operate within a piece of legislation. I am happy to say that there is as little interference as possible by the State and I can assure the hon. the Minister that, whenever he comes to the House with legislation such as this which includes as little interference as possible by his department, he will have our support. Another thing is that it has been drawn up in consultation with the sectors of the export industry that are involved. For this reason we believe that this is very good legislation and, as I have said, it is our pleasure to support the hon. the Minister in regard to it.

Mr. Speaker, we thank the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, as well as the other parties on the other side of the House, for their support. As the hon. the Minister has indicated, the intention with this legislation is to preserve the positive aspects of the past and to streamline the legislation. The Commission for Administration quite rightly found that the continued existence of this board was justified. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout told us a few things about the history of the legislation. The legislation which preceded this Bill was introduced on 25 April 1925. Those were interesting times. At that time the Minister was the hon. C. W. Malan, the member for Humansdorp. The Speaker was Mr. E. G. Jansen and the Prime Minister was Gen. J. B. M. Hertzog. As hon. members know, his late son was on good terms with certain hon. members on the other side of the House.

Well-known figures in the Cabinet in those days were Dr. D. F. Malan and Mr. N. C. Havenga. One of our former State Presidents, the late Mr. C. R. Swart, was the member for Ladybrand. When the Bill was introduced in 1925, the Minister pointed out how important this industry had become to the country. A discussion then followed. The member for Paarl, Dr. De Jager, wanted to know from the Minister exactly how many fruit trees had already been planted in the country and how many were going to be planted every year, so that the outside world could know how much fruit could be expected from South Africa. Mr. Oost, the M.P. for Pretoria District (North), pointed out that the Transvaal was producing 70% of all citrus products and that they had also started to produce deciduous fruit. He pointed out that his constituency had taken the initiative in the production of deciduous fruit and he predicted that the Transvaal would soon surpass the Cape Province in the export of deciduous fruit.

Another member, Mr. Van Niekerk, believed that the Bill amounted to compulsory co-operation, and according to him this was a socialist principle. That was a curious view. It so happens that he was the MP for Waterberg.

Mr. Krige, the member for Caledon, told the House that fruit farming provided employment for our poor Whites and he advocated a school in his constituency where people could be trained to prune fruit trees and to pick and pack fruit and where they could be properly remunerated during their training, because the fruit farmers were paying up to £1 a day for this job.

Mr. Louw, the MP for Colesberg, objected vehemently to the export of fruit. He said that if we were going to export fruit, we would end up without any fruit for our own consumption, with the result that we would consult more pharmacists and doctors. He was opposed to it. General Smuts supported the legislation on behalf of the Opposition. I notice that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not in the House this afternoon to support the legislation himself.

I mention these facts so that hon. members can see how serious the debate was at that time. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has already pointed out how long the debate took and that the House sat all night. During the past ten years, the physical volume of agricultural production in South Africa has increased by more than 30%. We are one of the few food-exporting countries in the Western World today. Agriculture is an important earner of foreign exchange, and in this respect it is important to note that the board performs a very necessary function. The volume of perishable products that is exported has grown enormously of late, from 874 717 cubic metres in 1961 to 8 818 223 million cubic metres in 1981. This represents an increase of 109,65%. The provisions relating to the functions of the board have been adapted and expanded in this legislation to meet present-day needs. We on this side of the House would like to convey our sincere thanks to this board and its staff for the important work they do, and they have our best wishes in performing their great task.

I take pleasure in supporting the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was very well prepared. The hon. member was a supporter of the old United Party in the 1930s. He says that only now after 56 years, do we have the courage to amend this Act. Who governed this country in 1930? Why did the United Party, which he supported, not amend the Act?

I was not around.

The hon. member says that he was not around.

*Now the hon. member criticizes us for having the courage after 56 years to amend the Act.

But you introduced it in the first place.

But the hon. member’s kindred spirits, such as the hon. member for Houghton, were UP supporters. [Interjections.]

† The hon. member said that all that he was asking for was for the citrus to be diverted from the one port to the other. That is what is being done at the moment. The powers exist at the moment for the board to divert a load of citrus from for example Cape Town to Maputo. They already have the power; so I cannot see how the hon. member wants to change the Bill. The hon. member is quite right when he says that the export of deciduous fruit is 37% and that of citrus 47%. It is by far the largest. However, the one thing that upsets me, and this is a matter which I think we must investigate, is that a certain firm has the right to reserve one year’s space on an aircraft flying to Europe for corn on the cob and then does not use it. I am glad the hon. member said that he would give me the name of the firm in confidence so that I can go into the matter.

*The hon. member for Maraisburg also made a fine contribution. He has made a thorough study of the Statute Book.

The hon. member for North Rand spoke of the importance of export by air and about the green beans worth R1 million which could not be exported. Because there is not enough cargo space, a problem exists, and then the aircraft has to return with a cargo as well. For a Boeing 747 to fly three times to Paris or Frankfurt costs R1 million. That is the price of the fuel. Therefore it is not possible to reduce the air freight. But, as the hon. member suggests, the solution is to find a cargo for the return flight. The new committee can go into these matters. However, the hon. member spoilt a good speech by calling me a Prog. Call me anything, but do not call me a Prog. My children will never forgive me.

I am grateful to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, too, for his support of the Bill. The same applies to the hon. member for Eshowe, who has made a study of the whole matter. I thank him for his fine contribution. This is a historical piece of legislation. It took them four days and two nights to pass the original legislation. But today, if only I get a little co-operation, we can take all the stages within one hour. This goes to show how the standards of Ministers have improved since then.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

During the 1981 session, when the above-mentioned Marine Traffic Bill was introduced for passage into law, I explained in detail to this House why it was essential for the Republic to enact legislation in order to control marine traffic in the territorial waters of a costal state.

In order to refresh hon. members’ memories, I shall repeat briefly the factors which gave rise to this step. On 9 April 1963 South Africa became a signatory to the Convention of the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zones, which was concluded in Geneva in 1958. Inter alia, the convention makes provision for the way in which coastal States shall determine their territorial waters. It also contains a section dealing with the innocent passage of all ships through the territorial waters. The Territorial Waters Act, No. 87 of 1963, gave effect to the determination of the boundaries of the territorial sea. Until Act No. 2 of 1981 was passed by Parliament, there was no legislation making provision for the innocent passage of ships through the territorial waters of the Republic.

† It has become more and more frequent during the last few years that ships stopped or anchored in our territorial waters without entering a port. This may have been to effect repairs, but on the other hand many ships merely laid idle waiting for a cargo contract in another part of the world. In this way they evaded the payment of port dues and in many instances became a danger to navigation since some of these ships did not bother to inform or get permission from any authority to be laid-up or to be anchored at a certain spot. Apart from the danger to navigation that such a ship may pose, the possibility of inclement weather causing it to run aground is a very real one. This in turn may lead to pollution of the sea or beaches by oil.

*Last but not least, I do not have to elaborate on the need for the Republic to be able to take action in its own waters to ensure its security. We can do almost nothing to a ship which is equipped with electronic observation equipment which is lying idle in our waters.

As is customary the draft Bill was at the time circulated in advance to interested parties for comment. Only after the promulgation of the Bill as Act No. 2 of 1981, was the attention of the department drawn to the fact that section 2 of the Act was in contravention of the 1958 convention. Section 2, for example, restricts the right of foreign non-commercial ships to innocent passage through our territorial waters. This creates problems under international law and consequently it has been decided not to allow the Act to come into operation in its present form.

† It was also pointed out that a strict interpretation of section 8 could put any ship carrying a medical officer and medical supplies at risk. In addition, ships carrying cargo of pharmaceutical materials might appear to contravene the Act. To accommodate the above views it was decided to prepare this amending Bill in order that Act No. 2 of 1981 can come into operation. At the same time the opportunity was used to effect a few other minor amendments.

*Mr. Speaker, if this amending Bill is passed and when Act No. 2 of 1981, as amended by this measure, is subsequently promulgated by proclamation, the Republic will be far better able to take action in peace-time against ships which constitute a threat to us. The introduction of this legislation is considered to be essential. Those who were consulted about this in advance, such as the Navy, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information, the Maritime Law Association and the Society of Master Mariners, support it.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first Bill amending the original Act since it was placed on the Statute Book in 1981, the first legislation in South Africa regulating marine traffic within our territorial waters. Looking at the Bill it appears in general to be an improvement. Many of its provisions are consequential upon changes in names and nomenclature, as well as changes in other legislation affecting the operation and the implementation of the original Act.

In the first place the amendments to the definition clause appear to be an improvement. A notable improvement is also to be found in clause 5. It prohibits immobilizing or the laying-up of a ship within our territorial waters without the permission of the Minister. As such this is an improvement on the existing provision. These amendments give the existing sections some teeth in that the Minister may require the master or owner or such a ship to find security for the recovery of any costs incurred by the Minister in enforcing any of the conditions relating to the laying-up of the ship. This would appear to be an improvement in giving effect to the provisions. It also provides that no person shall stop or anchor a ship within our territorial waters without the main engine being kept in readiness for immediate use, which also appears to be yet another improvement. Of course, clause 7 and clause 8 of the Bill deal with the question of when a passage is deemed to be innocent. This extends powers relating to drug abuse on any ship within our territorial waters.

Unlike some of the other Bills we have discussed this afternoon, in general terms the hon. the Minister seems to be on to a winner. It is a better Bill and will therefore have the support of the official Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, we thank the official Opposition for their support for this Bill. In the discussion of the Second Reading of this Bill it is also of importance, as in the case of the previous Bill, the Second Reading of which we have just disposed of, that we take cognizance of the historical background to this legislation. Then it is also necessary that we should remember that the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zones was concluded in Geneva in 1958. In 1963 South Africa became a signatory to that Convention. In the same year we had the Territorial Waters Act—Act No. 87, 1963— and subsequently, in 1981, we had the Marine Traffic Act—Act No. 2, 1981.

It is interesting to note that in the aforesaid 1981 Act, in section 2, the following provision occurs, and I quote—

It should be noted that in the aforesaid section a prohibition is placed on the right of innocent passage of some ships, viz. foreign ships, submarines or other underwater vessels not used for commercial purposes. When one notes the prohibition which is placed on some ships in terms of section 2 of the aforesaid 1981 Act, it is necessary at the same time to note the provisions of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zones, which was concluded in Geneva in 1958, and to which the Republic of South Africa became a signatory on 9 April 1963.

In article 14 of the Convention it is provided as follows—

That is as far as I wish to quote from the provisions of article 14 of the Convention of Geneva.

Article 15 of the said Convention provides inter alia as follows—

When, in view of the provisions of article 14 and article 15 of the Convention of Geneva, 1958, we now take into consideration the arrangement in regard to innocent passage through the territorial waters of every State, it is very clear that section 2 of the 1981 Act is in conflict with the provisions of articles 14 and 15 of the Geneva Convention. Therefore it is only fit and proper that the aforesaid Act should be amended, as it is in fact the intention to do now, and as is also being proposed should be done.

Consequently, Mr. Speaker, it is only fitting that, together with the amendment of the existing impediment on the innocent passage of ships through the territorial waters of South Africa, we effect other amendments as well which will serve to make the legislation in its entirety more streamlined. For that reason we gladly support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we in the Conservative Party gladly support this Bill. I am very grateful that the hon. the Minister introduced this Bill because it contains a few clauses which are very good and which no person with even the slightest feeling of reasonableness can oppose. We wish to bring the application of our legislation in this connection into line with that of other countries in the world.

Certain provisions of the legislation are very closely complementary to other statutory provisions passed by this House on previous occasions. That is precisely why I am very grateful, especially since it is being provided that when the Minister suspects that anyone on board a ship is in possession of drugs, he can prevent the ship from mooring at any port in this country, and besides that, can also take other steps against that person. We know what dangers such drugs constitute to our country and we also know how many people have been utterly ruined as a result of drug abuse, something which is on the increase all over the world. If people who are trafficking in drugs and make use of shipping know about this legislation, they will be far more careful.

The Bill also fits in very neatly with Act 65 of 1974 and Act 41 of 1971 providing for a prohibition on the trafficking in and possession of dependence-forming drugs and to impose on certain persons the obligation to report certain information in regard to certain actions in connection with such drugs to the Police. This is very welcome.

The proposed section 8A makes it possible for the Minister, if he suspects on reasonable grounds that the provisions of the Act are being contravened, to take firm action himself in this connection. He may clamp down on any person who contravenes, and may even prohibit the ship on which such a person finds himself from mooring at any port in this country. This is a major step in the right direction, because we must remember that people who traffic in drugs of this kind can very easily bring a nation to its knees.

Since we are today making use of the container system, these dangerous substances may even be hidden in containers. This means that the Minister’s task of implementing the provisions of the legislation is made extremely difficult because goods can be hidden in such a way that one is scarcely able to see or get to them. However, it is probably true that we still have people abroad who can give us information that a specific ship which has left for our country has drugs on board. We also know that it is very difficult to inspect the containers on board a foreign ship because the danger is always there that one may create an international incident, which is something one would not like to happen. Nevertheless I do believe that this will not happen.

In the interests of South Africa and its people in every sphere, we on this side of the House support this fine piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise also to inform the hon. the Minister that the NRP will be supporting this legislation as well. As has already been said, it is a very clearly defined piece of legislation. Other hon. members have already discussed the really important clauses in the Bill and therefore I do not have much to say about it. If I have any criticism at all, it is to criticize the hon. the Minister or his predecessor for having introduced the Bill in the first place without having fully researched it in regard to the implications of the Geneva Convention. It is a pity that we have had to wait until now to have these amendments effected so that they can be promulgated.

There are, however, two points I wish to stress—the hon. member for Nigel has already referred to them—and those are the effects of clause 5 which involves the laying-up of a ship in our territorial waters and clause 8 which involves the question of the illicit drug traffic. Both of these matters are of very serious concern. In the case of the laying-up of ships, as the hon. the Minister said in his speech, these vessels can in the first place present a danger to other traffic and can also result in shipwreck along our coastline with the resulting pollution which occurs. This is something we have continually to be on the look-out for. I am concerned as to whether or not we have the power to enforce the provisions of this clause. I know that in other countries there is a coastguard to keep an eye on this sort of thing and I wonder simply whether we are adequately equipped to do this work.

In regard to clause 8 which concerns the traffic in illegal drugs, I think this is a very serious matter indeed. Hardly a week goes by when we do not read of narcotics or habit-forming drugs being smuggled into the country and people being arrested for doing so. We know what has happened along the American coastline especially in Florida where there is a tremendous traffic in drugs from the Caribbean area and South America. I sincerely hope the hon. the Minister will be able to assure us that the authorities have this matter under control. I know they have the power but I sincerely hope that they have the law-enforcement agencies available to them to ensure that these provisions can be put into effect.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Berea for his support.

We have come to know the hon. member for Kimberley North as a person who makes a study of a matter. He prepared himself very well and mentioned many interesting things to us. I also thank the hon. member for Nigel for his support.

† The hon. member for Amanzimtoti asked whether we had the necessary equipment. I cannot say that we have everything that we need. However we shall give attention to the points he raised, especially in regard to the question of pollution. I thank hon. members for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members know, a new era was reached with the promulgation of the South African Transport Services Act, 1981 (Act 65 of 1981), in that the name of the South African Railways and Harbours was changed to South African Transport Services. This change in name necessitated numerous consequential amendments in existing Transport Services’ legislation.

With this in mind, it has been decided to take the opportunity at the same time to revise and modernize the Railways and Harbours Service Act, 1960 (Act 22 of 1960), in respect of which 23 Amendment Acts are already in existence.

Particulars of the various clauses are discussed in the explanatory memorandum and I shall, therefore, confine my comments to some of the more important aspects where new principles are at stake.

In terms of existing legislation, the powers of appointment of employees are vested in the State President who may delegate these powers by regulation. As the view is held that the State President should not be burdened with the appointment of persons in positions lower than that of General Manager, provision is made in the Bill for the State President’s powers in this respect to be transferred to the Minister of Transport Affairs.

*Provision is being made for increasing the amounts which employees may be fined for specific contraventions—in certain cases fines have not been increased since 1912.

Another important aspect is the machinery which exists for negotiations between the S.A. Transport Services and its employees. At the request of the Federal Council of Staff Associations of the S.A. Transport Services a task group was appointed, with a view to the elimination of specific deficiencies, to institute an investigation into the possible restructuring of the Advisory Council on Conditions of Service, together with the adjustment of existing statutory provisions in connection with the arbitration machinery of the S.A. Transport Services.

From the investigation it appeared that the aforesaid advisory council no longer warranted its existence as a permanent institution and that issues could be dealt with more rapidly and more effectively by a smaller council on an ad hoc basis.

This is also the case when a dispute between the S.A. Transport Services and a staff association or associations has to be settled, which involves great expenditure in terms of the present procedure and in addition is time consuming. Experience has also shown here that a one-man commission is able to settle a dispute just as rapidly and effectively.

The Bill provides that the machinery for negotiations between the S.A. Transport Services and its employees will be placed on a sound basis and become more streamlined.

Several provisions are merely of a consequential nature.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time S.A. Transport Services matters are being raised this session and it is also, I think, the correct time to congratulate the new General Manager on his appointment, not least because the Bill introduces an amendment allowing him to be the only employee of the S.A. Transport Services to be appointed by the State President. Of course, he holds a very high office as a result.

Sir, I think this is a suitable time to propose, with your leave, the adjournment of the debate. I therefore move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.