laid upon the Table the Second Report of the Select Committee on the Arms and Ammunition Amendment Bill, 1982.

Report, proceedings and evidence to be printed.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I should just like to pass a few brief comments. What will the results of this legislation be? I believe it can only be construed as good legislation. It will affect the workers of South Africa in hundreds and thousands of different places well. They will actually work in safer and better conditions. Therefore one must welcome this legislation.

What has been the attitude of the official Opposition during the debate on this Bill? I think hon. members have done their homework; they have been constructive; they have attempted to improve the Bill. A lot of thought has gone into this attempt. We have also had access during this debate to people of considerable experience in the workplace. Then, I believe, one must also ask what the attitude of the hon. the Minister has been. I think the attitude of the hon. the Minister can only be described as negative. [Interjections.] I can only describe the hon. the Minister’s attitude as negative. It has been possible for him, I submit, to accept many of the amendments moved by hon. members of the Opposition. His attitude, however, was that none of them was any good. That is extremely unlikely. It is a pity because there is considerable respect for the hon. the Minister of Manpower in this field. It is a pity that a debate like this should create a feeling of sterility because there is no receptivity, no feeling other than that one is talking against a blank wall. The legislation is good but the hon. the Minister is absolutely inflexible and unyielding. There have been some very good amendments moved by hon. members of the PFP, amendments which could only have made good legislation better.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I have to record a certain degree of regret at the attitude of the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, we thank the Opposition for their support for the Bill. The whole debate has been interesting. At least two of the Opposition parties argued against the envisaged legislation, yet eventually voted in favour of it.

What I found interesting during the course of the debate on the Bill under discussion was the reaction we had from the ranks of the CP. They did not really want to come out with the accusation, although the hon. member for Langlaagte did mention it in the end. What their accusation amounts to is that we on this side of the House have abandoned apartheid, that we are leaving the workers of South Africa in the lurch. I want to make it quite clear to the hon. member for Langlaagte that we on this side of the House …

… Still stand by apartheid.

… will never leave the worker in the lurch.

Do you still stand by apartheid?

Apartheid? Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Langlaagte wants to know if we still stand by apartheid. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon. member an interesting piece of history. The hon. the Prime Minister and I are the only people still left in this House who helped to draw up the NP’s colour policy.

Do you still stand by it?

In so far as it serves our purpose we still stand by it. However, unlike hon. members of the CP we do not make a god of apartheid. Our norm is the Christian philosophy. [Interjections.] That is the norm of this nation and we stand by it. In fact, this also becomes clear from the legislation under discussion. Our norm is the Christian norm, the norm of love, the norm of live and let live. On that norm the policy of the NP is built.

Mr. Speaker, we have now, in the Third Reading stage of this Bill, reached the stage at which we can sit back and calmly consider the effect and the results of this legislation. During the Second Reading and the Committee Stage we had the privilege of being able to listen to the arguments and reasoning of several hon. members of this House as to why they supported this legislation, why they proposed certain amendments, and why they were of the opinion that this legislation should not be made applicable to certain categories of farmers and to certain categories of employers and employees.

As is the right of all Opposition parties, the CP also voiced its misgivings in regard to certain provisions of the Bill. Through the hon. member for Brakpan, the CP also moved and debated certain amendments. Other hon. members of this House did the same. A very important point made by the CP was that it would not be desirable to make this legislation applicable to the agricultural industry. We adopted our standpoint because we believe that the agricultural industry is a unique industry and that the practical implementation of this legislation would imply certain undesirable consequences for the South African farmer. It was clear to us that the legislation was actually intended for the factory workshop, the industrial sector and the building industry, to mention but a few. As a matter of fact, this legislation is not specifically applicable to the mining industry or factories where explosives are manufactured either. One asks oneself: Why not? It is of course because those industries are also unique industries, industries sui generis.

When we examine certain of the important provisions contained in the legislation to make the practical implementation of the legislation effective, there are, for example, the appointment of safety representatives, their functions and the establishment of safety committees. When one examines the wide powers that the Minister can exercise, in terms of clause 13, in connection with prohibitions and particularly when one examines the serious implications that clause 17 has for the South African farmer—as I also pointed out in my Second Reading speech— then one arrives once again at the inevitable conclusion that this legislation is not intended for and should not be applied to the South African farmer. It was really incomprehensible to me why the hon. the Minister, when he replied to the Second Reading debate, attacked the CP in an almost unrestrained way. The hon. the Minister simply saw our contribution to the debate through politically tinted spectacles. Today I want to tell the hon. the Minister that if one wants to serve the interests of the South African farmer, one cannot see these interests through politically tinted spectacles. When one examines the effect and the possible consequences of this legislation, then one is astounded when one thinks of the storm the hon. the Minister caused here in this House in this debate when he dealt with the CP’s contribution, a contribution we made not for political ends but in the interests of the South African farmer. Today I want to say that it was unnecessary and that it is clear to me that the hon. the Minister did not have the interests of the South African farmer in mind. The hon. the Minister had other matters in mind. You will remember that when we dealt with the previous legislation, the hon. the Minister became very pugnacious. I maintain that he had a political fight in mind and not a fight in the interests of the South African farmer. Seen in retrospect it is clear to everyone that the hon. the Minister was already preparing himself for the coming by-election in Soutpansberg and the defeat he is going to suffer there. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister grew angry, and I just want to tell him that he was not in the House on Friday afternoon when the hon. member for Albany offered some very good advice here. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that it would do us good to consider that advice. The hon. member said one must not become angry. He said: “If you are in the right, you need not be angry, and if you are in the wrong you have no right to be angry”. That is why I am telling the hon. the Minister that he was wrong to become angry and make certain representations of the standpoints of the CP.

In his reply to the Second Reading debate the hon. the Minister, for example, insinuated that the CP wanted to suggest that the South African farmer was unfeeling towards his workers. Of course that is absolutely untrue. It is untrue and a far-fetched disregard for the truth because what I in fact said in my Second Reading speech, when I referred to this, was, inter alia, (Hansard 8 February 1983, col. 562)—

The hon. the Minister was unreasonable and we really take exception to the fact that the hon. the Minister made such incorrect representations of the CP’s standpoint. The misgivings we voiced regarding the possible delays that the strict application of certain provisions of the Act could cause for the farmer and the losses he could suffer and the very high fines that could be imposed on him if these provisions were not met were not even mentioned by the hon. the Minister. He did not dispute or deny our objections. I maintain that through his incorrect deduction that the farmers are unfeeling and do not care about their workers, the hon. the Minister insulted the South African farmer. [Interjections.]

When the hon. the Minister is guilty of such behaviour I maintain he is being faithful to the new motto of the NP: The truth, the whole truth and everything but the truth! [Interjections.]

In this Third Reading debate, I repeat that to apply this legislation to the agricultural industry is not in the interests of the South African farmer. The hon. the Minister accused us in the CP of imagining that we speak for the South African farmer. That is another half-truth; it is not the whole truth, because we do not imagine that we speak for the South African farmer. We want to tell the hon. the Minister that we know we speak for the South African farmer! That is something the hon. the Minister will find out for himself one of these days in Soutpansberg! In the introduction to the explanatory memorandum on the Machinery and Occupational Safety Bill the hon. the Minister himself said—

Surely this is an admission that in the past agriculture was not really and fully involved in the Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act. Nevertheless the hon. the Minister incorrectly maintained in the course of his Second Reading speech that agriculture was in fact included in the Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act, 1941. Surely that is not true. Once again the hon. the Minister was not telling the whole truth. Agriculture was only involved in the 1941 Act to a very limited extent.

We repeat that the application of the legislation of the agricultural industry is not in the interests of agriculture. We want to emphasize our previous request: The hon. the Minister should rather introduce special legislation in which, with due regard to the unique occupational restraints of the farmer and his employees, provision is made for the protection of the health and safety of the South African farmer’s employees and for the general safety of the machinery with which the South African farmer has to work. For this reason we really regret that the hon. the Minister scaled down our contribution, to such an extent as though we were speaking in the interests of the South African farmer. We did this in all sincerity and we should like the hon. the Minister to accept this.

Mr. Speaker, all the hon. member Mr. Theunissen actually did was to repeat the arguments the CP put forward during the Second Reading debate.

The first aspect raised by the hon. member was that because this legislation did not apply to mines or factories manufacturing explosives, it should not apply to farmers either. Yet the reason why this legislation does not apply to such cases is given in the explanatory memorandum where it is clearly stated that this legislation does not apply to these cases because legislation already exists to cover them. What legislation is there to protect the safety of a farm worker? The hon. the Minister has already stated that the CP’s statement that the farmers do not want this legislation is incorrect—in the first place because it is in accordance with the facts. The hon. the Minister indicated how the farming industry had been involved in this legislation, how the farmers had been consulted. The hon. member maintained that the hon. the Minister of Manpower did not consult the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, but the hon. the Minister said he did in fact consult the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. However, the hon. the member repeated his standpoint and said that farming should be excluded from the provisions of this legislation. Why should farmers not also look after the safety of their workers? That hon. member was in fact suggesting that the farmers do not have the safety of their workers at heart, and in that regard the hon. member was telling an untruth, because that is not the case. That is all the hon. the Minister said to that hon. member. He said that by spreading such a rumour that hon. member was insulting the farmers, and I fully endorse that statement of the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Walmer said this was good legislation and I agree with him. However, it is not only I who agree with him. The employees of South Africa also agree with him that it is good legislation. However, he spoiled his statement by saying that the hon. the Minister was so inflexible, but the hon. the Minister was in fact so inflexible because he had introduced good legislation in this House. After all the hon. the Minister cannot allow this piece of legislation to be watered down by proposals of the PFP. The hon. the Minister cannot allow this legislation to be weakened by the acceptance of proposals of the PFP. This legislation is very good legislation which has the support of all the trade unions in South Africa. The legislation was submitted to them for their approval. I myself spoke to certain trade unions in Port Elizabeth and those people are most anxious for this legislation to be placed on the Statute Book and for their interests not to be frustrated by some of the amendments proposed by the official Opposition.

I referred to this legislation as the magna carta of safety legislation for the worker. I think this is true. We are now discussing the effect of the application of this legislation and I can say with a clear conscience that this legislation is establishing standards for the safety of the worker, it is establishing the machinery so that the safety of the worker can really come into its own and so that the employee can also participate by acting in his own interests and ensuring that the necessary standards of safety are maintained.

Mr. Speaker, the NRP’s attitude was made very clear during the Second Reading and in the Committee Stages of this Bill. We consider that the Bill in its final form at the Third Reading stage is in fact good legislation and will cater for the safety of workers in an environment in which there is now a proposed devolution of decision-making from the management to the workers. We are certain that the workers themselves will welcome this innovation. In addition to that there are some other very important and positive aspects of this Bill in relation to the standards to be set for equipment used. I am sure that both the purchasers of that equipment and the workers who have to use it will welcome the provisions of this Bill.

Then we come to the vexed question of whether the agricultural sector is now for the first time included in the provisions of this Bill or whether it was exempted from them before. That is the argument that is going on between the members of the CP and those of the NP, both of which parties are already starting to warm up for the fight in the three by-elections. Obviously both parties would like to be seen by the public in those areas as the great defenders of the rights of farmers. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we in this party were under the impression that the provisions of the Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act were not applicable to the farming community and that this Bill now brings them within the orbit of safety legislation. I had a fairly lengthy discussion with the Director General of the hon. the Minister’s department who gave me the assurance that certain aspects of the Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act were in fact applicable to the farming community with specific reference to the utilization of machinery and, in particular, excavation for building work. Whether the farmers knew that or not. I am not sure, but certainly we have had an opinion from the S.A. Agricultural Union that it now recognizes that this Bill will cover the agricultural sector. What is more interesting is that they have no complaint against being included under the provisions of this Bill, except that the Minister and his department must take a pragmatic view of the difficulties farmers may experience because of their inclusion under the majority of the provisions in this Bill. Therefore we welcome the assurance the Minister gave us in the Committee Stage, an assurance that is on record, that he will see to it that the agricultural sector will be represented on the technical committees established in terms of this Bill. Therefore the voice of the farmer will be heard when it comes to the application of the provisions of this Bill and any regulations which go with it. With those comments I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that in this present form we welcome this Bill and will be giving it our full support at the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, we have come to the end of a series of legislative measures introduced in this House by the hon. the Minister of Manpower this year, and the hon. the Minister will probably be recorded in the annals of the history of this country as the person who made epoch-making history with regard to labour measures. He will probably also be recorded in the political annals as the person who was the cause of the election contest of the century.

When one considers what the hon. member for Walmer and other hon. member of the PFP had to say about this very important legislation in the Second Reading debate and in the Committee Stage, one gains the impression that the official Opposition knows only one language when it comes to labour legislation or when it comes to the rights of employees, namely: What about the Black people? As far as the PFP is concerned, there is only one type of worker of importance in the country, and that is the Black worker. The PFP went so far that when we were discussing the building of national roads, an hon. member of that party asked why we did not rather build houses for Blacks. As though Black people do not also make use of national roads! That is why the White, Coloured and Asian employees of South Africa have rejected that party and its policy. That is why even Inkatha has rejected the policies of the PFP. The PFP takes a one-sided look at all legislation, including this legislation. The legislation at present before this House is making history in South Africa. There are not many countries in the world that can boast of legislation of such a sophisticated nature as this. This is pioneering work.

Let us consider another party, the young party, the CP. What is their concern? They are only concerned about one employee.

We are concerned about the White man.

They are only concerned about the White employee. The hon. member for Langlaagte said there are no other employees who ought to have rights in South Africa.

I said you were neglecting the White worker.

The hon. member for Langlaagte said here across the floor of this House that only the White man was of concern to them. The White worker in South Africa votes for the Nationalists. Why? The White worker votes for the National Party because the NP has a proud record that over the years it has always looked after the interests of the White worker, as it has also looked after the interests of all other workers. The other colour groups in the country do not even have a choice as to who governs the country. After all, over the years the NP has proved that it has a record for looking after the interests of all the workers of South Africa, whether they be black or lily white. The Black employee is dependent on the White employee in South Africa, and we cannot get away from that. However, the Whites cannot keep an economy the size of ours running on their own, even if they work 24 hours a day. We shall simply have to accept this.

I do not want to go further into the agriculture story the hon. member Mr. Theunissen dragged into this House. However, I want to ask the hon. member why he ran away from his own farming community. He ran away from the Transvaal. He did not have the guts to look those people in the eyes any longer. They detest him.

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

No, Sir. I know what I am talking about. The hon. member may as well resume his seat. I held three meetings in the Great Marico area. They do not want to see the hon. member there. He ran away. Do hon. members know why he ran away? He no longer had a constituency. These voters sitting here elected him and now we reject him. I want him to know we reject him. I want him to know that the farmers of the Western Transvaal also reject him. I want to ask the hon. member to make a speech at Great Marico. They are going to laugh at him because he ran away.

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

Order! Is the hon. member prepared to answer a question?

No, Sir, not from an hon. member who does not belong here. That hon. member returned by the grace and through the goodwill of this side of the House, but what did he do today? Today he tried to put words into the mouth of the hon. the Minister as if the hon. the Minister through this legislation had no sympathy with the farmers. That is disgraceful. It is not true, and the hon. member knows it is not true. The hon. member will simply have to seek refuge in the Free State.

Please!

That is where he is now living. That is where he fled to.

I now want to return for a moment to the Bill we are now reading a Third Time. For the first time in South Africa’s legal history we are building up a safety structure from the factory floor to the highest authority in South Africa. This is a safety structure unique to our own legal history, because we are getting a safety committee on the factory floor, a committee that will work with inspectors affiliated to the Department of Manpower and we are drawing the line through to the advisory council in respect of occupational safety. Let us consider for a moment who will serve on this advisory council. On this advisory council there will be representatives of the Department of Manpower, of the Department of Health and Welfare, of employers and employees, in other words of employer organizations and trade unions, so that we shall therefore have a cross-section of representation on this advisory council. This council is being established so that it can advise the hon. the Minister and his department on the introduction of regulations to implement the provisions of this legislation. The powers of the inspectors were attacked by the PFP. After all, this is a new dispensation we are trying to create here, a dispensation in which the inspector should not be seen as a person with draconian powers, not as a person who wants to take action after an accident has taken place, but as a person who gives advice so that an accident can be prevented. Whether this is in the agricultural sector, or in the ordinary factory or wherever, we believe that this dispensation, as a new dispensation, must be given a chance. For this reason we should not only like to wish the hon. the Minister everything of the best with the legislation, but also everything of the best in the contest awaiting him.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Roodeplaat, who has just resumed his seat, gave us a foretaste of what is going to happen during the next couple of months till the contest between the NP and the CP is over. I assume the first part of his speech is the part he is going to deliver in Waterberg. That is the part where he attacks the PFP because all we can think about, according to him, is the Black workers. The second part is, of course, the part he is going to make in Waterkloof. Therefore we have already heard both his speeches, namely the Waterberg speech and the Waterkloof speech. In any case, the hon. member spoke a load of rubbish, because not one of the amendments proposed by the PFP had anything to do with race or colour. I shall return to this again at the end of my speech.

As we have already said, we welcome this legislation because there are a few far-reaching provisions, which it is to be hoped, will have a beneficial effect on the safety of employees. In the first place, employees are being given a say, through their representatives, in aspects of safety that affect them and in the safety committees. It is no longer left to the employers to give attention to this. The legislation in fact compels them to give their employees a say too. In the Committee Stage we pointed out that safety was an expensive aspect and that employers, as represented by management, may sometimes try to save on expenses in respect of safety matters, and that is why I regret that the hon. the Minister could not accept our amendment. This would have contributed to a decrease in the likelihood of confrontation and would also have prevented the department from becoming unnecessarily involved in disputes arising on the factory floor. In the second place, certain duties are now being delegated to the local authorities, and we wholeheartedly welcome this because it definitely entails several advantages. One is inclined, when one thinks of this legislation, to think in terms of a factory situation, but the legislation also applies to the building and construction industry, an industry which employs many thousands of people and where safety standards are constantly changing. In this regard a local representative, someone who is well-informed on local conditions, would be an improvement. After all, he knows the conditions, he knows all the contractors in his neighbourhood and he knows which of them are inclined to take chances. In my opinion, therefore, such delegation can only lead to improved implementation of the law. From my own experience I can attest to the fact that at a large housing project where 1 200 people were employed, over a period of 3½ years not a single inspector ever visited the site. There were, however, representatives of the local government, for example the clerk of works, who could have contributed to decreasing the number of accidents. Last year 30 000 cases had to be reported in terms of section 17. I really believe that through better implementation of the law, particularly in respect of the use of personal equipment, this figure could be drastically diminished.

The legislation also gives the department the authority to make regulations pertaining to specific matters. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that we are living in a time of rapid technological changes and that some of the regulations made under the old Act are therefore simply no longer applicable nowadays. We therefore ask the department not merely to transfer the old regulations as they stand, but to review them carefully in order to bring them up to date. The technical committees that can be appointed by the Safety Council can of course be of great assistance in this respect and accordingly I also call upon the Minister to see to it that as soon as the council has been established, a technical committee be established for the building and civil engineering industries, because if there is one sector that is really being adversely affected by slavish but haphazard implementation of the legislation, then it is this industry, particularly when it comes to the regulations controlling excavations. A more modern approach in this regard could have a tremendous effect on the provision of services etc.

Mr. Speaker, as regards the debate on this Bill in general, I agree with the hon. member for Walmer that the debate, particularly in the Committee stage, has been a sterile one. Sir, when you accept the office of Speaker you said that in view of the constitutional changes that are in the pipeline, a difficult task awaits you as Speaker. Of course this does not apply to you alone. A difficult task is awaiting every hon. member in this House. We shall be neglecting our duty if we allow the heat of the debate on constitutional changes to spill over into administrative matters affecting the daily affairs of the people of this country. We shall be neglecting our duty if, when we debate technical matters such as these, we do not avoid ideological reasoning. This also applies to the officials. It may be a tremendous feather in their cap to return to Pretoria and say that their Bill was accepted without amendments. But after all, it is not really such a terrible disgrace to admit that an amendment of the Opposition had to be accepted.

As far as the hon. the Minister is concerned, his attention was not, of course, on the matter under discussion. He was thinking of Soutpansberg. I just want to express the hope that he will not be like that living fossil from his part of the world, the baobab tree. They stand there behind the mountains, defying eternity. They develop tremendously thick trunks, that cannot be budged an inch. However, every year all they produce is a few small, sour berries. We hope the hon. the Minister will soon return to us.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the members of the PFP supported the legislation under discussion, and said it was very good legislation.

† I believe the hon. member for Walmer described this legislation as good. I agree with him. It is very good legislation.

*However, the hon. member for Grey-town is now complaining because their amendments were not accepted. Of course, one accepts an amendment when it is good. It goes without saying, as hon. members will know, that in the past few years I have frequently accepted amendments moved by the PFP. However, they were meaningful amendments, and not worthless ones. I cannot accept such amendments. I explained in great detail—and I hope that hon. members understood—why I could not accept their amendments. After all, I gave those hon. members my reasons for doing so.

The legislation under discussion is in any case, so to speak, law. The debate is over. I need not, therefore, discuss the details now. I want to give the hon. member for Grey-town the assurance that we shall of course undertake an investigation to see whether we cannot establish technical committees in certain industries. In this regard the hon. member referred to two industries, viz. the engineering industry and the building industry. These are two very important industries, two industries to which we shall probably have to give immediate attention with a view to the establishment of such committees. Of course, this does not apply only to those two industries, but to other industries as well. I therefore want to point out that in the normal course of events this will receive attention. Indeed, I am certain that the aforementioned two industries will probably be the first industries for which such technical committees will have to be established.

The hon. member Mr. Van Staden referred in his short speech to the approach of live and let live. I think what he actually meant was that everyone must be included in this legislation. This is also in fact the case.

I have something of a problem with the hon. member Mr. Theunissen. The hon. member again referred to the debate we conducted earlier on this Bill. He made a few unfriendly remarks. However, I leave the matter at that. But I want to ask the hon. member one thing. When he spoke about agriculture and the inclusion of the farming industry, what clause was he referring to? What clause was he referring to as the clause which included farmers, as he apparently wanted them included? [Interjections.] I just want to know what clause the hon. member was referring to. I believe the hon. member is a lawyer. What clause was he referring to? [Interjections.]

Oh, my goodness, Mr. Chairman, I am sorry; I had thought we could end this debate on a very quiet note. However, I shall continue to do my best to achieve this. I do, though, want to repeat what I said earlier. When the hon. member stands up in this House, he must at least know what he is talking about. He must at least be so good as to read the Bill.

It is you who cannot write. We are saddled with a Minister who cannot write.

I know why the hon. member cannot tell us which clause he was referring to. There is no clause containing any such provision. [Interjections.] There is no such clause; I do not know what clause the hon. member was referring to. The fact of the matter is that the hon. member … [Interjections.] What does the hon. member Mr. Theunissen say, and what are we deciding? We say that in these times we must look after the safety of our people. We went on to say that certain fields in which safety must be implemented by means of legislation, must be properly defined. We also said that machinery—whether belonging to a farmer or a factory—must be made sufficiently safe. However, the hon. member Mr. Theunissen asks that the farmers be excluded from this. We in turn argue that the farmers should not be excluded. After all, decisions are taken at agricultural congresses in terms of which I am asked to ensure that certain dangerous machines meet certain standards, precisely because they are dangerous. The implication of what the hon. member Mr. Theunissen says is that we must in fact introduce legislation which provides that machinery in industries must be safe but that we must introduce other legislation tomorrow in terms of which machinery used in agriculture must be made safe. However, we want to introduce one piece of legislation in terms of which all machinery will be made safe. After all, that makes sense. However, the hon. member Mr. Theunissen wants two pieces of legislation. We only want one piece of legislation.

The hon. member Mr. Theunissen, however, went on to make a few other remarks that were not quite correct. What are we asking the council to decide? We are telling the council to decide that certain sectors must be able to appoint safety representatives as well as safety committees to take care of general safety. Now, however, the hon. member has kicked up a fuss and has said he does not want this legislation to apply to farms, the farmers do not want to be included. If he had only read the legislation, he would have noticed that we do exclude agriculture. Why, then was he making such a fuss? [Interjections.]

I mentioned it as an example.

Oh no. The hon. member must not try any tricks now. The hon. member attacked me in an unfriendly way. I asked the hon. member a very simple question. I asked him in terms of which clause he attacked me and he could not tell me. He still cannot tell me. I want to give those hon. members a word of advice. When they stand up here to talk about these matters they must please know what they are talking about. They must not simply talk at random and pass insulting remarks. They are very wide of the mark. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon. member what the effect of this legislation will be. In respect of the sphere he was complaining of, we are not asking farmers to appoint safety committees. We are excluding them. The effect will also be that in the spheres in which we really want to be of assistance to agriculture, as well as all other spheres, farmers are included. We go on to provide that agricultural machinery must also be safe. We do not have a second piece of legislation to provide for this safety. We make their machinery safe in terms of this very same legislation. I should very much like to listen to that hon. member in the future. To tell the truth, I thought he and the hon. member for Brakpan would at least make meaningful contributions. I want to say to the hon. member Mr. Theunissen what I have on a previous occasion also said to the hon. member for Langlaagte. I told him that before he rose to speak, he should know what he wanted to talk about. He must not simply come and make a noise here. This House wants meaningful contributions and that hon. member is incapable of making a meaningful contribution. [Interjections.]

I just want to tell the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North that there is nothing I can add to what he said. What he said is correct, and hon. members can go and re-read it.

I also want to associate myself with a remark made by the hon. member for Roodeplaat. He said that for the first time we were trying to build a safety structure into our manufacturing industry in South Africa. We are now trying to do this and the effect of this will be that now for the first time there will be co-operation between employers and employees in the many factories of South Africa, very large and very complex factories, and that this meaningful co-operation will be established in the interests of safety on our factory floors. I think that in that sense this is indeed important legislation. I just want to tell the hon. member he made a meaningful statement.

As far as the technical committees are concerned, I think that I have replied to the hon. member for Greytown.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, we have now reached the Committee Stage. As I indicated during the debate on the Second Reading this is a Bill which really lends itself more to debate at Committee Stage. There are a number of amending provisions with which we should like to deal. We dealt with some of these matters during the Second Reading debate and I believe that the hon. the Minister owes us a greater explanation in respect of these matters.

In regard to this clause the one item which caused a great deal of concern and which I and other speakers raised during the Second Reading debate was subsection (e). This provision relates to the conveyance of goods by means of a goods vehicle of which the carrying capacity does not exceed 1 000 kg under authority of a public permit. The fear was expressed here that the effect of the amendment would be to exclude effectively the operation of light vehicles such as intercity delivery vehicles by inter-city services. This is a fear which has been expressed by Chambers of Commerce and by others since the publication of the Bill, and there still has not been a satisfactory reply as to what the effect will be, if this amendment goes through, on the functioning of these intercity services involving as they do light vehicles which are able to provide services almost on a door to door basis between these large centres of South Africa. The fear is that the provision, if amended, will be much more restrictive because as the provision reads at the moment, that is prior to the Bill—it is possible that a permit for a vehicle of this kind can be issued since the present wording is “may be issued”, but once the amendment is effected it will read “was issued” which means that we are closing the door in so far as the local boards are concerned relating to the issuing of permits for vehicles of this kind. It is far more restrictive and the fear has been expressed that it will deleteriously affect the operation of intercity bus services apart from anything else. We should like to have an explanation from the hon. the Minister in regard to this provision which, as I say, is of great importance to commerce and industry.

Many of the other provisions in clause 1 are improvements, but there is one subsection to which I referred during the Second Reading debate, which relates to the exemptions which are now written into the Act in regard to countries which are part of the Customs Union Agreement or other countries. I am referring to subsection (1) which in effect amends section 1(2)(zA) of the principal Act. I believe the amendment is an improvement. I think it does meet the needs of operators who want to operate from some of our satellite independent States, and as I indicated earlier, it is in fact the sort of amendment which we suggested was necessary some two years ago. The amendment talks about operating to and from the borders of any of the member countries of the Customs Union Agreement or of any of those countries or territories which have entered into an agreement with the Republic with regard to the conveyance of exempted goods. I wonder if the hon. the Minister would indicate during the course of this debate whether such agreements do exist and what countries are involved. It will be interesting to know whether agreements have been entered into between the Republic and any of our neighbouring States in regard to the conveyance of exempted goods in terms of the Act.

These then are some of the comments and some of the queries which I have in regard to clause 1, and I hope the hon. the Minister will respond accordingly.

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

This concerns the express delivery service which, at the present time, uses vehicles of 1-ton carrying capacity to deliver parcels by what is called an express delivery service between centres throughout South Africa. In motivating my amendment I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that the South African economy cannot do without this type of service. I want to quote from a telex message we received from Assocom in this regard—

It goes on to say that section 15(1)(b) could be used to enable private carriers to obtain permits in the normal manner in order to operate vehicles that would provide this essential inter-city express service. So much for Assocom. From the Transport Consultative Committee, which represents many organizations, associations and federations involving South African commerce and industry, there was the following—

That is the opinion of commerce and industry, and I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will take cognizance of that. My amendment seeks to exclude all the words after “officer” in line 51 up to and including “1983” in line 54. By this amendment I would like to see us achieve the deletion of the provisions which would prevent existing permit-holders from having their permits renewed, amended or transferred, and I should also like to prevent these permits expiring on 31 December 1983, as provided for in this clause, because if this clause goes through unamended, it means that this service will fall away as of 1 January of next year. Commerce and industry have stated categorically and repeatedly, however, that such a service is essential for the economy of South Africa. Either the hon. the Minister will get the S.A. Transport Services to provide this service—something I do not believe the S.A. Transport Services is capable of providing—or else he will concede my point that he should use other provisions in the Act to enable these operators to obtain permits in the normal manner. This is what I sincerely hope the hon. the Minister will do. I should like him to give this hon. House the assurance here this afternoon that if we allow this proposed provision in the Bill to go through, he will request or instruct the road transportation boards to start issuing permits in the normal manner to private carriers so that they can continue to operate this service.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to react to both previous speakers. Firstly I think that the amendment to clause 1 which appears on the Order Paper can be negatived, because it restores the status quo. I think the hon. the Minister would do well to negative it.

I want to ask the two hon. members who have already spoken whether they did their homework over the weekend and tried to find out how many of the vehicles of which the permits expire on 31 December 1983 were really 1-tonners, as the legislation describes, i.e. 1-tonners in their original manufactured form. The information I have at my disposal is that less than one-third of the vehicles which are being used are vehicles which, conforming to the terms of the original Act, were built to convey 1 000 kg. The other vehicles fall into the category of vehicles which are able to convey 1 000 kg. because of their technical specifications were altered. In this connection I wish to give two examples. The worst case I am aware of is that of a vehicle with a gross vehicle mass of 11 000 kg, which is now classified as a 1-tonner. That is the worst case I have come across. The vehicles tyres were changed so that it could pass as a 1-tonner in accordance with the ordinance. That is as bad as one can get. The loading capacity of these vehicles were not changed in any way. They still remain what they originally were. I think that this reference to a 1-tonner may advantageously be eliminated.

We are going to have another fight with the hon. members, particularly when we come to the clause in which not only fuel is taken into consideration, but other aspects as well. In this connection powers are being given to the National Transport Commission. On that clause we are again going to argue about the same point, but from a different angle. If only between a quarter and a third of the vehicles which are now being used comply with the original spirit of the prescriptions of the Van Breda Commission, why should we allow the other two-thirds in the same category.

I wish to refer to another point of criticism which was raised here. It was said that the hon. the Minister should state what was going to happen after 31 December 1983. I think the hon. the Minister had already made it very clear in his Second Reading speech that the people concerned will after that date apply for a permit in the normal way for which the Act and the regulations make provision. What is taken into consideration when a public permit is issued is clearly specified in the road transportation legislation. Under the relevant provisions of the Act these people may then apply for permits. Then, however, a certain obligation and onus rests on them as well as on the local road transportation board and, if they are dissatisfied there on the National Transport Commission, an obligation which they have to take into consideration. Surely it has been spelt out. Surely it is clear. Consequently when it is asked what is going to happen after 31 December, the reply is that that problem is already solved when one puts the old Act and the new legislation together.

A further point of importance is that at present provision is already being made in this legislation for the private permit holder, in terms of which he can be accommodated. Consequently I see no problem in respect of private permits. In addition these people are able to participate. This is also the opinion of the Chambers of Commerce and of Assocom to the question: What happens afterwards?

In respect of the few points that have been raised, I have therefore tried to indicate that the situation does not change. What does in fact happen is that the original situation, that of 1977, applies again. It is my honest opinion that I find it unfair that preference is being given to certain carriers. Preference is being given to the 1-ton people. Originally they did not have any permits. Then a statutory amendment was introduced to give them permits. Now we say that they have had from 1978 until 1983 in which to obtain a permit. The worst aspect of these 1-tonners is that, as practice has shown—I am addressing this idea to the two hon. members who spoke before me, one of whom said he was an engineer and will therefore understand what I am talking about—that the technical quality of the engines of those vehicles were of such a nature when they left the factory that most of the vehicles being used at present had to be fitted with stronger engines. Because they had to be fitted with stronger engines, larger vehicles had to be used and because larger vehicles were used, a larger carrying capacity was acquired. Hon. members heard the figures—they relate not only to this matter, but to the entire spectrum—pertaining to vehicles which were stopped during a 24 hour road block. I asked the question during the Second Reading and the hon. the Minister furnished the statistics yesterday as to how many contraventions there were. The problems apply not only in respect of the 1-tonners, but over the whole spectrum. All in all, therefore, one can say that adequate provision is being made in this legislation as well as in the original Act so that we can accommodate the abolition of the 1-tonners according to normal practice. In terms of that provision everyone will have another opportunity to undertake transport activities.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Berea spoke about the 1-ton bakkie, while the amendment of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti on clause 1 also deals with that. I tried to spell out this matter during the Second Reading. If Assocom made representations, I do not understand this because they served on the committee which made the recommendation. Whom are we protecting? Not only the S.A. Transport Services, but also the person who has a legal permit and who complains that he cannot make the grade because there are sharp operators—I do not want to use the word crooks—who are acting in an irregular way. The hon. member Dr. Welgemoed has already elucidated the matter.

† I can give the hon. member for Berea the assurance that door to door deliveries will not stop. We will still have it, but it will be legalized.

You must tell the boards that.

We are going to allow permits for people to operate one-ton bakkies. However, it must be done legally. At the moment anybody can operate a bakkie rendering door-to-door services and cutting prices. Some people are making a living out of that.

They call that free enterprise.

Yes, “free enterprise” is all very well, but if one is going to apply it in practice throughout, one must have regulations in some respects. I can mention numerous examples. One can preach free enterprise in the country, but then one must also remember that one could kill the S.A. Transport Services stone dead.

There must be free enterprise as long as one obeys regulations!

The hon. member wants to go the same way the Japanese railways went. The Japanese taxpayers have to pay billions of yen annually in subsidies for the railways because they put a stop to free enterprise because they saw that it was not working. In the end the railways are saddled with all the uneconomic transport work. This measure, however, is aimed at protecting a person with a legal permit and who makes his living out of transport work which the Railways cannot undertake. Those people say that they simply cannot compete any more. Some of them are doing it for a sideline.

In America there is no protection for the railways.

And what do their railways look like? Their railways are in a far more tattered state than that hon. member’s party.

† Unfortunately I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. He is an engineer and as a practical man and should therefore see the problem. He should not look at the telegrams and telexes he receives from Assocom; he should rather think for himself and be practical. We are not going to abolish the use of these bakkies, but we are only going to legalize it. That is why I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman, is the hon. Minister saying that those operators operating express delivery services today are operating illegally?

No. I am talking of the masses of people who operate one-ton bakkies without any permits. They are operating illegally.

Why do you then not prosecute them?

We do not have the power at the moment. We are getting the powers to prosecute them after the 31st December.

[Inaudible.]

We did not have the power. It was legal to have a one-ton bakkie. The hon. member for Langlaagte explained to the House that people fit bigger bodies on to one-ton bakkies to eventually increase capacity to three or four tons, although the small chassis stays the same. It is like a small women who is very fat. I do not know how to explain it.

The hon. member for Berea asked me a reasonable question about the other countries we wanted to add. At the moment we envisage that it is possible in future to have a country such as Malawi entering an agreement with us. At the moment the Act refers only to countries bordering on South Africa. However, it might be necessary to add a friendly country such as Malawi. That is the reason for this. [Interjections.] I will not say that we are going to exclude any country. It all depends on the business that we are going to do with them and their attitudes towards South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I can understand the hon. the Minister’s concern that he would like to see that the people who are operating this service—and here I also agree with the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed—are operating vehicles that are the right size and capacity, that they are safe, etc. However, one of the principles of civilized governing is that legislatures like this do not take away from people rights that have been given to them in terms of the law.

If operators who are operating at the present time are operating legally—because they have been issued permits—surely they must be entitled to continue? In the light of what the hon. the Minister has said, i.e. that he is not going to eliminate this service altogether, I want to get it very clearly decided in this House that the hon. the Minister will instruct his road transportation boards that where people are operating this service at the present time in terms of permits issued to them by the boards, that they will in fact be issued with permits so that they can continue operating as of 1 January 1984.

Mr. Chairman, I can give the hon. member that assurance. Bakkies operating in South Africa did not operate under a permit system in the past.

Not originally.

Not originally. The National Transport Commission and road transportation boards are autonomous bodies. I can give the hon. member the assurance that we shall not disrupt a service. We must have door-to-door deliveries. SATS cannot always do it. They need private enterprise to help them. I can give the hon. member the assurance that if people who are operating legally apply for a permit it will be granted because we cannot do without them. It is not a matter of disrupting the whole service. We must have those people. But we must stop the fly-by-nights. After a year has passed the hon. member will see that nothing outward has happened. He need not be upset about the whole thing.

Mr Chairman, I just want to emphasize the point that has been made. The hon. the Minister has suggested that one should not take too seriously the experiences of the Chamber of Commerce. This was one of the comments he made in reply to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. But one has got to take seriously the experiences of the Chamber of Commerce because these are the people who are directly involved from day to day and their committees are the people who have to appear before the various boards throughout the country and who have to suffer the sort of justice which is so often meted out by the hon. the Minister’s boards. I have had experience of appearing before a board, and frankly it is not a very pleasant experience. I can read a further representation from the Chamber of Commerce, and this is where again I would have hoped the hon. the Minister’s assurance is going to be channelled somewhere down to the people who are going to consider these matters. Another telex from the Chamber of Commerce, talking about the 1-ton vehicle concept and express delivery services, says—

This is what concerns them because they have had the experience where they have not received sympathy even prior to the operation of this particular section of the existing Act. It is therefore necessary for the hon. the Minister’s assurance to be doubly read out to the people concerned so that existing permit holders and people who want to conduct what is an essential service will be allowed to do so and that they will not just be turned down by the boards.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is necessary for us to see this matter in its correct perspective. The Van Breda Commission sat in 1979. That commission sought to help private enterprise as much as possible. The commission proceeded from the standpoint that any person wishing to render a service should apply for a permit. We realized at the time that difficulties would be experienced in applying regularly for a permit for 1-ton bakkies. Consequently we exempted them. But what happened then? A company was formed to convert the vehicle so as to render a quicker service. Admittedly it did not convey more than 1 ton, but the privileges which were granted in connection with the bakkie were totally abused. I agree with the hon. the Minister that we cannot argue that because of these people have built up a big business, although illegally, we should allow them to continue. They were given three years’ grace. In 1979 we told them that they were contravening the Act and were acting in an unethical way. They came to see the then Minister, Mr. Muller, and the Minister held talks with us. It was then decided that a period would be laid down within which the use of this bakkie should revert to the service originally requested.

Sir, I say that under no circumstances should we allow a law to be made which may be held in contempt by certain people. Therefore I ask the hon. the Minister to apply the legislation as it stands here.

Mr. Chairman, I can understand the approach of the hon. member for Langlaagte because he belongs to a party that does not want to progress. He says that we must stick by a law even if it has been passed many years ago.

We do not believe in local options.

Let me remind the hon. member that I too served on the Van Breda Commission. I agree with him when he says that that commission wanted to deregulate as far as possible. But none of the commissioners anticipated the entrepreneurial initiatives of our people and accordingly did not anticipate that they could use this “loop-hole” and derate a 3-ton vehicle to a 1-ton vehicle simply by reducing the size of its axle and by doing that provide a service which today—seven years later—is considered to be an essential service for commerce and industry. I appreciate the hon. the Minister saying that he is not going to take away rights from people. It is acknowledged that those people who operate an express service in terms of a permit obtained in terms of the 1979 amendment, must be protected. I am pleased therefore that the hon. the Minister has indicated that he will instruct road transportation boards to see to it that these people do not suffer.

The hon. the Minister yesterday wanted to know whether I trusted him. Sir, I think I will be in a far better position next session to answer that question after I have spoken to some of the express delivery people who are presently operating legally.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Berea may rest assured that we will not disrupt this business. The one-ton bakkie was introduced for deliveries Republic-wide. But at the moment people are running bakkies between Durban and Johannesburg for instance. The Chamber of Commerce was represented on this Committee. What about the Public Hauliers Association? Hon. members should speak to them, people within the business who make a living out of transport.

*The hon. member for Langlaagte summarized the whole matter very aptly. He made a good speech, in fact, so good I would have thought about making him, if had he stayed with us, an acting temporary deputy Minister of mine.

† The hon. member for Amanzimtoti can come back next year. I can give him the assurance that he can trust me. He can always trust a good Nationalist. As far as that is concerned he will never be disappointed.

Amendment negatived (New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, as I indicated in my Second Reading speech, we regard this provision as totally offensive one because it grants unreasonably extended powers to the hon. the Minister. Consequently we are totally opposed to it. The clause gives very wide powers to the hon. the Minister to “prohibit the conveyance of goods which are loaded on a goods vehicle in a specified manner from a specified date, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any permit …” which has already been issued to the carrier concerned. We believe this is totally unreasonable. When once a carrier has gone through all the prescribed procedure to obtain a permit for the conveyance of goods, it is quite wrong to give the Minister the power to intervene and circumscribe rights under that permit. We regard this to be an extension of powers which cannot be justified. The Minister in his Second Reading speech said that the department was concerned about people loading things into containers in a particular way. But I think there are other ways of dealing with that situation other than giving the hon. the Minister blanket powers in terms of which he may even stipulate that no person may convey goods by means of a container. This I think is going to put undue stress on the private sector in that it won’t know from one Minister to the next whether there is going to be ministerial intervention by making use of the extensive power this clause contains.

So we in these benches intend voting against the clause because we believe it is offensive and that it is quite wrong for a Minister to take unto himself powers of this nature.

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

We feel very much the same way as the hon. member for Berea in that we believe that this clause gives the Minister very, very wide powers. I should like to put it to the hon. the Minister that he must appreciate that he may approve certain regulations, and that someone somewhere down the line—we all know how bureaucracy operates—will attach a quite different interpretation to those very rules. I believe we should never lose sight of this fact. We should always bear in mind that ideas that we sometimes express in this House are interpreted and applied further down the line in a quite different fashion; those decisions of ours sometimes result in actions which we could never ever foresee. I have a number of examples of this happening, which I could use to illustrate my argument. I do not think, however, that this is the place to do it at the present time.

Having said that, I can also understand that the law enforcement agencies have difficulty at times in applying the law, particularly because they cannot get into the vehicle in order to carry out an inspection to establish what is actually carried. It is for this reason that, while on the one hand I am very much against the powers the hon. the Minister is asking for, I do have sympathy with the problems encountered by the law enforcement officers. That is why I have moved my amendment. I think this is a reasonable request because if the Department of Transport or the law enforcement agencies— the traffic police—believe that the way a vehicle is loaded prevents them from doing their job properly, is it not then the correct way to solve the problem for the department to go to the Public Carriers Association, which represents all these trucking firms, and, in consultation with them, to arrive at a set of regulations which will achieve what the hon. the Minister wishes should be achieved?

Should the hon. the Minister accept my amendment, I believe, it would alter the whole tone of this clause.

Mr. Chairman, both the hon. member for Berea and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti are opposed to the comprehensive terminology of this particular provision—if I may put it that way. The fact that reference to goods is being made here without a better definition of goods being given, so those two hon. members claim, gives the hon. the Minister too broad a discretion when it comes to the interpretation of what goods are. However, I wish to refer those hon. members to the actual wording of the clause concerned. What the clause in fact provides, is that the conveyance of certain goods may be prohibited from a specified date. Which goods are these? These are goods loaded in a specified manner, which the Minister or the inspector deems to be incorrect. What, then, is the hon. the Minister doing here now? The hon. the Minister is not prescribing how goods are to be loaded. That is certainly not prescribed in this clause. This clause stipulates how goods ought not to be loaded. Therefore the hon. the Minister is being empowered, in the light of past experience and problems, to amend this legislation in order to stipulate how goods ought not to be loaded. Therefore the provision is not prescriptive. It does not stipulate that a container ought necessarily to be loaded in a certain manner. The hon. the Minister says that he would rather consider having a container not loaded in such a manner that it cannot be inspected.

Of course, there are very good reasons for this. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti ought to know that—believe it or not—large amounts of dagga are conveyed illegally to other parts of South Africa from Natal, certain parts of Zululand and the Drakensberg area. One of the methods which can be used is to conceal dagga at the back of a container and close the container. The container is then loaded by means of a crane onto the heavy vehicle which has to transport it, and it takes only 24 hours or less to convey that container from there to any other large centre in South Africa. In this process it cannot be inspected, due to the way it has been loaded, and this creates a tremendous problem.

The same applies with regard to the transportation of hides, skins and trophies. Those of us who enjoy hunting and biltong, know how disappointed one sometimes is when one has shot a buck and then suddenly found that one is not allowed to transport that biltong or trophy across a certain border because foot and mouth disease is prevalent and because a certain red line has been drawn there. The hon. member for Walvis Bay can tell us that when one drives from Windhoek to South Africa there is a fence at Ariamsvlei. There the inspectors take one’s hides and kudu horns, regrettably one’s biltong too, and, if one is really unfortunate, one’s rifles as well. However, we are aware that tons of that biltong and many of those trophies do, in fact, get through. This is one of the reasons why it is essential to have a preventive instruction by way of regulation—since it is going to be easier than to insert it by way of legislation—so that one may amend it from time to time. I am convinced that the hon. the Minister will, in fact, consult those organizations the hon. member for Amanzimtoti had in mind. It would only be a foolish Minister who did not consult organizations which are important in this sphere of the economy of South Africa. Despite the fact that I readily concede that these are broad provisions, I do not think that we should tamper with them at this stage.

Mr. Chairman, on considering this clause one must agree that it is really very impractical to load and handle those heavy containers in such a way as to be able to inspect them properly. However, if one goes into this further, one must admit that one cannot restrict those who have to maintain law in this country. One may not restrict them. I am aware that this sounds extremely impractical. Earlier I suggested that the container should be inspected at the place of departure or at the place where it is unloaded. However, one finds that there are intervals in between. Ten of these containers are transported to Johannesburg, but two are unloaded at Germiston. Then one does not know where they are unloaded. Is it not possible to enter the destination of that load of containers on the consignment-note?

They also load them up along the way.

One tries to be helpful and to approach this matter in a practical way since it is really extremely difficult to load these goods in such a way that they can be properly inspected. However, I think it is necessary. I think we all realize that it is necessary for those who have to implement the laws of this country to have the right at all times to be able to inspect these loads which are being conveyed. I do not think an inspector would go out of his way to stop a goods vehicle without good reason, simply to create problems. There have to be sound reasons for placing this piece of legislation on the Statute Book. We know that the hon. the Minister and the department would certainly not implement it to the detriment of the carriers and others. This is simply an enabling measure. I ask them to make an effort to find other methods so that one could perhaps avoid this provision as it stands today. We are confident that the hon. the Minister—since he said such nice things about me just now—and the department will go into this matter to determine whether we cannot be a little more practical. I do not have the answer to this. The people who have to implement the laws, must have sufficient statutory powers to enable them to maintain order.

Mr. Chairman, I wish hon. members could go with me one night to see what happens at patrols which search goods vehicles. They would be amazed to see what they find. The hon. member for Roodeplaat rightly pointed out certain things. I do not know much about the dagga, but I do know about the meat, hides and skins and various other unexempted goods hidden in such loads. That is why we wish to facilitate the task of the people who have to implement the law. I want to put it this way to the hon. members for Berea and Amanzimtoti: If we should draw up regulations, when we publish the notice in respect of the definition of “container” in the Gazette, we shall invite the Public Carriers Association to discuss their problems with us and to iron them out with us. I cannot make provision in this legislation for inviting the Public Carriers Association, for they could change their name. However, I give the assurance that these people will have a say. I reiterate that by far the majority of these people convey goods legally. This legislation merely seeks to prevent illegality. Look, the Public Carriers Association is not my enemy, nor is Assocom. We discuss these matters, and I can give the assurance that hon. members may confront me in a year’s time if any problems have arisen. Those who have to implement the law will only be too pleased if we allow this legislation to pass as it stands. I therefore cannot accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has just said that he believes that most people conveying goods do so legally. Of course that is the case, and this is our objection to what the hon. the Minister is doing now. Despite the problems of the inspectors and the law enforcement people, I say that this is not what the law is for. Surely, the prime consideration must be the people in the private sector who make use of our roads to convey goods. The hon. the Minister is now, for the sake of making it easier for the law enforcement officers, for the sake of combating the people who are misusing the law, in fact penalizing the people who are using the system legally. He is making it more difficult for them, inhibiting them, restricting them and making their position impossible. This is the very reason why we believe that this sort of extended ministerial power is an absolute overkill. One is actually affecting and penalizing the people who are using the system legally because of one’s attempts to close loopholes in the law. It puts the private sector and operators in an untenable position, and we are not prepared to approve of this sort of power being given to the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, the law enforcement people know their customers. The hon. member should visit a road block. He will see that if a lorry of Cargo Carriers approaches, nobody can stop it. On and off they might have an inspection because these people operate a big business in a legal way.

*Believe it or not, there are people who have made a study of how to be sly. That is why we want this right, so that the work of the inspectors may be facilitated. I see no problem with that.

Amendment negatived (New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Chairman, the effect of this amendment, if it is carried, is that it will give the Minister unfettered powers to appoint whom he pleases to the local boards. The present position is that the Minister, when making appointments, is obliged after consultation to appoint a nominee of the Administrator or city council concerned. We believe that, if the Minister is relieved of the obligation to appoint at least two members on the recommendation of these two bodies, this is not going to add to the status of the board. I think that the fact of the matter is, as the hon. the Minister must realize, that to the public a local road transportation board very often consists of people they have never heard of. They are people who have been nominated by the Minister and they do not have to be trained people. I think if the hon. the Minister wants to give some sort of status to the board it is important that there be members on the board who at least are figures who might be known to the public in the area concerned. I think it adds generally to the status of the board rather than to have a board entirely nominated by the Minister without any obligation on him to look at other community interests. Very often it is a board of nominated people who are totally unknown to the public. This I think is a great disadvantage. I know the hon. the Minister gave some indication during his Second Reading speech when he said that it was sometimes difficult in the smaller local authority areas to have to consult with them, but I believe that generally the advantages—there may be problems and delays in getting recommendations from local authorities and the Administrator—far outweigh the disadvantages. I therefore appeal to the hon. the Minister not to change the present system because I do not think it will be in the interest of the status of the board to do so.

Mr. Chairman, we are going to vote against the clause for many of the same reasons which the hon. member for Berea has mentioned. I want to impress upon the hon. the Minister that it is extremely important that the road transportation boards should be held in very high regard. Regrettably this is not the case. In the eyes of many informed people in the transport business the road transportation boards do not rate very high. I want to quote from an article in The Mercury of 9 December 1982—

There is this talk that the RTBs are biased, etc. For the hon. the Minister to have come here today with this clause which is going to eliminate one of the examples which the hon. the Minister could hold up to the public as a reason why the board is not unbiased, is very unfortunate.

As the Act stands at present the Minister has to consult with the Administrator of a province and with the local authorities in the area in question before the board is appointed. This now is going to be eliminated. The Minister is just going to appoint the board, finish and klaar. I think this is very regrettable and is not going to do the image of the board any good.

For these reasons we are going to vote against the clause.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti discussed the prestige of the road transportation boards and pointed out that it was extremely important that these boards be respected by the general public. I find no fault with his standpoint in this regard. The hon. member for Berea went on to say that it would be a retrogressive step if the appointment of the members of the road transportation boards were to be done in a different way. However, it is important that interested parties and persons who are knowledgeable about transportation matters serve on these boards. Nevertheless one must also be practical. Often there are problems concerning the appointment of members to boards, boards of whatever nature, since interested organizations and bodies which make recommendations often are not in favour of the person who is appointed. Because different organizations are involved, it is, not in fact, possible for the Minister concerned to accept all the recommendations, and this, too, causes problems. From previous experience I know of cases where someone with a knowledge of the commercial world has had to be appointed to some body. Then one has the problem that there are different organizations in the commercial world and that the person who is appointed, the person deemed to be an expert, is a member of one of the organizations. Then the other organizations may be unhappy since they say that their opposition organization or sister organization is being represented, whereas they are not.

Nevertheless, I do think it is a sound arrangement that the Minister has to make the appointment, and I do not expect him to appoint someone who has no interest whatsoever in the matter, or who has no knowledge of the matters dealt with by the road transportation board. I think we should accept with confidence that this arrangement will yield better results in practice. It is understandable, and I can accept that local government, which has a considerable interest in transportation systems, would also like to be represented. However, there is the problem that in the region of a particular road transportation board there are various local authorities whose recommendations have to be considered or which have to be consulted, and this also creates problems. On the other hand, I think the arrangements as proposed in this particular clause will pose no problems whatsoever. Sometimes one sees problems in a proposed arrangement, but after it has been functioning for a number of years, one hears that there are no problems.

Everyone is happy with this now. In this case, too, the future will show that this arrangement will work and that it will pose no problems.

Mr. Chairman, the question put by the hon. member for Berea was replied to by the hon. member for Welkom, viz. that we are going to appoint people with the necessary knowledge. If one asks other bodies to nominate people, it is sometimes a case of “jobs for pals”. Then the man appointed is not the man you really want, the man with the practical knowledge. The same applies to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti.

What has happened in the case of Durban? In terms of the old Act we had to consult all municipalities. We want one man for Durban. We have to consult all municipalities with a population of more than 20 000. This meant that we had to consult Westville, Tongaat, Isipingo, Verulam, Queensburgh and Amanzimtoti. This made it an almost impossible task. To ask all those people to nominate one man is almost impossible. How does one sort the nominations? If the hon. member for Amanzimtoti resigns his seat, I shall appoint him to the road transportation board. He is just the man I am looking for. He is the right man for the job. [Interjections.]

Are you challenging him?

No, I am not challenging him. However, I am saying that he is the kind of person one wants on the road transportation board. He is the kind of man we appoint.

That is the kind of little job he deserves.

What are you saying! It is a “smart” job. [Interjections.] Unfortunately, I cannot do otherwise. However, I must add that when I look at the amendment of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, I draw the conclusion that we shall have to consult the United Municipal Executive, the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, the Federated Chamber of Industries, Assocom, etc. We shall do so, but we cannot include it in this legislation. We shall ask those people to assist us in nominating someone.

However, I think that what I have said now, ought to satisfy hon. members. I also thank the hon. member for Welkom; he explained the matter to us clearly.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, this is the clause which relates to a change in procedure in respect of appeals against a local board’s decision. During Second Reading I asked the hon. the Minister why it had been deemed necessary to depart from normal rules in regard to the hearing of appeals. I have not yet received a satisfactory answer. It may be quicker. However, that is not a satisfactory answer when, thinking again of how seriously one must take either a board’s decision or the commission’s review of the decision or appeal against a decision, one would hope that in both the hearing before a board and the hearing before a commission normal legal principles will apply. This at least would add to the stature, and people might think at any rate that they were getting a proper legal hearing before a board, and that after all argument is prepared they are normally represented by people. One would therefore hope that the normal rules of evidence and the normal rules of procedure applying at a hearing would obtain even in regard to an appeal in terms of this legislation. However, the hon. the Minister now comes to this House with what is a startling amendment. It simply says that in a case of applications before the commission for condonation of late filing, etc., the chairman of the commission may, in his discretion, consider an application without giving prior notice to or hearing the interested party. This is a totally bad provision, a provision which has no place in any legislation which purports to follow normal rules of hearing; normal legal procedure. Even to consider a matter like this without notifying an interested party, and without a hearing, is totally wrong.

We believe this is an offensive provision of this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, in terms of the present legislation we are simply legalizing the implementation of what we have always done in the past. In practice we have done all these things in the past. We are giving statutory force.

If the hon. member is interested, I can give him a clear explanation of the matter. In terms of section 8 (3) of the principal Act, the chairman of the National Transport Commission, or a member thereof nominated by the chairman, may decide with regard to applications for condonation of the late filing of a notice of appeal, the suspention or setting aside of a ruling of a local road tranportation board, etc. This decision has always been taken on the basis of the documents relating to the appeal, and no verbal representations by any party have ever been heard. In the past, verbal evidence has not been heard unless it become relevant if the hearing of an appeal. However, recently there has been an interdict against the granting of a request for suspension, since an interested party did not have the opportunity of opposing the application for suspension. This was a court interdict. In view of the fact that more than 500 appeals are received annually and a large percentage of them involve applications for condonation, suspension and the setting aside of decisions, it is deemed necessary that the applications mentioned be dealt with when the documents are considered. There are also unreported decisions of the Supreme Court in favour of the road transportation board and the National Transport Commission which support the amendment. We have already had verdicts supporting this legislation. As far as suspension is concerned, this is, in any event, an interim measure pending the hearing of an appeal. The proposed amendment therefore makes provision for the consideration of applications for condonation, suspension and the setting aside of decisions on the basis of documents which will be submitted. The advice of the law advisers—the hon. member for Berea is also a lawyer—was to do this because of previous experiences in the courts. I want to say to the hon. member for Berea that if he has trouble in his seat, we shall appoint him as law adviser to the department. The hon. member is a practical man, and I am sure that he will understand this explanation.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the following amendments to this clause—

1. (1) On page 10, in line 52, to omit “full” and to substitute “any material respect”;
2. (2) on page 10, in lines 54 to 58, to omit paragraph (bD).

The proposed new paragraph (bC) reads as follows—

I propose to omit the word “full” and to insert the words “any material respect”. I move this amendment, Sir, because many people who apply for a permit find that there is a long procedure involved. The board only meets certain days, there may be a queue, there may be delays but eventually the big day comes on which they have to appear before the board and I feel that if the word “full” is retained it may mean that applications are rejected because of the commission of very minor errors. Once again, if this happens I am afraid that the reputation of the transportation board will sink even lower. I feel that the inclusion of the words “any material respect” will enable people who may have made a slight mistake to have their application considered in any case. That is the first thought I wish to put to the hon. the Minister.

My second amendment deals with the proposed new paragraph (bD). As I told the hon. the Minister during the debate on the Second Reading, we are totally opposed to these provisions. In practice, we believe that these provisions coupled with those contained in clauses 8 and 17 are going to result in a decreased use of transport equipment in South Africa. The proposed new paragraph reads as follows—

As things stand at present, if I have my own business and in the course of conducting that business I have to transport goods from say the place where my business is situated to some other place, I can purchase a trailer or a vehicle and I can apply for a private permit in my name. Having obtained that permit I am legally entitled to transport my goods. As the position stands at present, if a public carrier who transports for profit and has a public permit to do so, because he is an entrepreneur and because he is active and dynamic suddenly finds that there is someone who wishes a certain load to be conveyed let us say from Durban, the place to which I haul my goods on my vehicle, that public carrier can come to me and say: I have a permit to transport goods. I should like to hire your vehicle with my public permit and use the vehicle so that when it returns to your town it does not return empty and can carry the load for which I have a permit. If this provision of the hon. the Minister is passed, it will mean in future that that private permit holder will have to return his vehicle to his place of business empty. This is what I was trying to put across yesterday during the Second Reading debate. I believe this particular clause is going to increase transport costs right across the transportation industry in South Africa. We are very, very much concerned about this.

The argument has been put that this will assist in the law-enforcement side of road transportation. I honestly cannot see it. One still has to stop the vehicle of that private permit holder. Then one has to check his permit. Law enforcement breaks down first of all when one is not able to stop enough vehicles and, secondly, if, after one has stopped vehicles, there is confusion as to which permit actually applies to the load. In any event, one first has to stop the vehicle. If one now limits one permit for that vehicle to an individual, it is not going to assist law enforcement. That is how I see it. It is only going to run up costs.

I appeal to the hon. the Minister to reconsider this. I am convinced that this is going to result in increased transport costs and therefore will add to inflation. I cannot help but feel that this provision is included to aid the SATS rather than really to effect efficient enforcement of the law.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to recall briefly what I said during the Second Reading debate. I said that the proposed paragraph (bD) was a fine example of the further restrictions placed on the private sector, restrictions which caused us to vote against the Second Reading and restrictions which are resented by private operators. It clearly is a wasteful provision. It can only be here to protect the SATS and to make the task of the private operator more difficult. I mentioned in the Second Reading that it is going to do all the things that the hon. member for Amanzimtoti has suggested it will do. It involves vehicles returning empty instead of being able to return with goods being shared by another operator. It will also obviously add to fuel consumption and fuel costs in South Africa. One cannot see any real reason why this provision should be brought in. It is a provision which is resented by the private operators and I should also like to appeal to the hon. the Minister, as I did during my Second Reading speech, to reconsider putting this provision in.

Mr. Chaircuted man, on a previous occasion there was uncertainty as to whose turn it was, but apparently this has now been better arranged.

The amendment of the hon. members of the Opposition has some degree of merit but unfortunately there are still problems. This is the spirit in which we set out when the hon. the Minister moved the Second Reading of the Bill. The problem is still that of the implementation of this legislation. Throughout, the spirit of the various clauses has been precisely that we are trying to facilitate the implementation of the law.

Just as in the case of the 1-ton truck, certain irregular practices are at present taking place in respect of the two permits for the same vehicle. The second part of the problem is that these are two different permits. In the one case it is a public permit and in the other, a private permit. It is true that there are certain vehicles which will be used less frequently. We must concede that this is undoubtedly so, but on the other hand, this will also have certain advantages when it comes to the implementation of the law. Hon. members will recall that I asked for the statistics, and those statistics were furnished. The hon. the Minister spelt out very clearly that the situation was an extremely unhealthy one. I think the hon. member for Berea has also said in the past that the implementation of the law in this manner cannot continue. The advantage of improved implementation of the law is that those people who have permits, the people who have to make a living from this, are, in fact, being given the opportunity of practising their trade. When all was well with the economy, it was easy for everyone. Now that things are bad, there is a certain amount of pressure. However, I greatly regret to say that this pressure has not only been exerted by the industry or by the few people who own the vehicles. I have every sympathy with Assocom’s standpoint, since it is Assocom’s people that have the advantage of using their vehicles for a dual purpose, but let us consider the carrier. The problem arises with regard to the carrier. It is also necessary for him to be able to transport goods both ways.

Although some merit may be found in some of these Opposition amendments, a person who, in terms of section 12, cannot convey goods with a private permit, may apply for a public permit, which then solves this problem. It will make the implementation of the law so much easier if such an arrangement is effected within the law.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to reply to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, who wants to change the words “in full” in the proposed subsection (2)(bC). At present it is provided in regulation 3 of the Road Transportation Regulations that the National Transport Commission or a road transportation board may not consider an application for the renewal, amendment or transfer of a public permit before the application has not been completed in full. However, there is no provision in the Act which empowers the Transport Commission or the road transportation board to refuse to consider an application for a public permit if the application which is submitted has not been completed in full. The proposed amendment now rectifies the matter. We cannot concede this point.

Furthermore, the hon. member referred to the question of two permits for one truck.

† Does he know that in Natal the other day we had two small private companies with permits for one and the same bus? The irregularities that take place are unbelievable!

*I have respect for the arguments of the hon. member for Berea and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, but I think the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed replied clearly to their requests in connection with the elimination of irregularities. All that hon. members must do is put themselves in the place of the haulier, a person who has to make a living in an honest way, but who has to compete with these dual permits. A truck haulier who conveys freight in one direction naturally wants to convey legal goods in the opposite direction so that there are no trucks running empty. I can also indicate that the applicant for more than one permit may apply to the respective local road transport boards.

† Forget about Assocom. Go and ask the haulier himself, the person making a living out of this, whether he agrees with this.

But they are the ones who have approached us.

They do not want the double registration of one lorry. That is not what they are asking for.

*It is a circumvention of our regulations, and let it be to the advantage of the South African Transport Services if it must. The transport services have had to relinquish an increasing number of services. As I said, at one stage five years ago we conveyed 55% per train, while we are now—that is what I said—conveying 45%. However, the figure is now 41%. That just shows you how the volume of road transportation has increased! Enormously! The road to Durban is being driven to pieces. I am opposed when I levy 0,7 cents per litre to repair that road. Those hon. members, however, want the damage to that road to continue. We must make a choice now, believe me!

Then there is something wrong with your rail service.

Amendment (1) negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Amendment (2) put and the Committee divided:

We in these benches are opposed to the provisions of this clause for the same reasons that we were opposed to the provisions of clause 6(bD). We believe again that these provisions place unreasonable restrictions on the private sector and operators. Although I have listened to the hon. the Minister’s reply to the debate on the previous clause I want to say to him again that I do not believe that he is aware of what he is doing with these amendments. In fact, what he is doing is to make what is already an unpopular Act an ever so much more unpopular Act as far as the commercial world in South Africa is concerned. It is not going to make it easier. It is going to make it much more difficult for private operators and people in the private sector. That is why we are opposed to this clause.

Mr. Chairman, for very much the same reasons that we opposed clause 6, we shall be opposing this clause, as I mentioned at that time. The hon. the Minister said that the larger carriers are not objecting to these provisions, but then I want to know who is.

It is the monopolies.

We believe in the free enterprise system and we also believe in the small businessman. We believe that we should open up the way for the small businessman because that is where the fire is in the belly of the man who is trying to make something out of his life. These provisions are going to make it more difficult for the small businessman. The big fat cats, who run huge fleets of trucks as the hon. the Minister himself said, are often not even stopped at roadblocks because everything is hunky dory and fine for them. But what about the small businessman who is trying to get started so that he too can make a way in life? I am very sorry that the hon. the Minister made that comment. The hon. member Dr. Welgemoed admitted, and I am glad he did so, that these provisions are going to decrease the utlization of road transportation vhicles.

No.

He admitted it. It is recorded in Hansard now. It is for these reasons that we are opposing this clause.

Mr. Chairman, according to the argument advanced by hon. members of the Opposition, clause 8 contains the same principles as clause 6. What the hon. the Minister said in connection with clause 6 applies to clause 8 as well, except that here it is even worse, because it is specifically provided here that a vehicle which already has a permit is not allowed to carry a further permit. The proposed subsection (6) reads as follows—

As I have already said, vehicles may be under-utilized as a result of this matter. In the first instance, this may lead to better utilization because the owner of the vehicle can hire out his services. In this case he can hire out his services to that person without a second permit having to be issued. Therefore I think that the motion of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, as it appears on page 64 of the Order Paper, should be rejected. Provision can be made for a computer to control this matter, in accordance with the request I made during the Second Reading Stage. There is only one registration number, as the hon. the Minister rightly remarked. To whom is that permit granted? The registration number and the permit number must go together. If we allow that here, it goes back to clause 6, which has already been approved. This would create the possibility of malpractices. Therefore I think that clauses 6 and 8 should be read together. It should not simply be argued that because clause 6 has been agreed to, clause 8 can be negatived.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Berea is quite right. Clause 6 is the same as clause 8. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti is concerned about the small businessman. I too am concerned about him. If a small businessman applies for a licence, if there is a need to grant him that licence and he is prepared to do it legally, he will receive a permit to do the transport work. During the past five years the number of private trucks has increased tremendously. And to whose benefit? It has been to the benefit of private enterprise in competition with SATS.

My conscience is clear and we can now put this clause to the vote.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause 13:

Mr. Chairman, we are opposed to this clause, which gives the commission or the board authority of its own accord to cancel or to alter any condition or requirement in respect of a permit already issued. The situation in terms of the Act, before this Bill is passed, is that the commission or the board may of their own accord cancel or alter any condition attached to a permit for any reason including the promotion of the economy and the use of fuel. That is already bad enough. The effect of this amending legislation, however, will be to change the emphasis and to say that the commission or board may, for any reason, do any of these already mentioned things. Then, almost as an afterthought, the promotion of the economy and the use of petroleum fuel are included. In fact we are now giving the commission or board the power for any reason whatsoever to alter a permit or to cancel if after it has been granted.

As we have already indicated in connection with previous clauses, we believe this is totally unnecessary, totally inequitable, totally unreasonable. In respect of private operators, people who have obtained permits, who have gone through the right procedure to obtain a permit, to allow the board or the commission, for any reason in its own discretion to alter that permit, is totally beyond all reason and we are vigorously opposed to such a provision.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Berea is very upset about this provision that a permit may be cancelled or varied by the road transportation board. I concede that the way the hon. member put it, it seems like a drastic provision that a permit or a concession which a person has already obtained for a particular purpose can be cancelled. I do believe, though, that it is logical to infer that this will only be done in exceptional cases or circumstances. I take it that it will only happen when a mistake has been made in issuing such a permit or in cases where information has been furnished and the merits of the particular application have been evaluated on the basis of that, and it subsequently appears, or can perhaps be ascertained, that the information or the particulars provided were not correct.

I believe that it is indeed essential that the case of such a person, who has obtained the privilege of a permit on the basis of false information or because of a mistaken approach to or consideration of his application, should be subject to reconsideration by the board. As I have already said, I do not believe that this will happen very often. In all likelihood it will happen only under extremely unusual circumstances, circumstances which justify such a step. For that reason, I believe, we should not see this matter in such a serious light. This will not be general practice, and it will not happen very often. I do not believe that a board which evaluates a matter objectively would penalize a person without good reason. I really believe that there are cases in which it is necessary that the board should have the right to cancel such a permit when circumstances justify this.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Welkom has summed up the whole matter correctly. In the past, provision was made for permits to be cancelled for purposes of fuel conservation. Now it will be possible to do this not only for purposes of fuel conservation, but for other reasons as well, and I should like to mention an example. We are building a railway line at the moment, which will be completed by July, between Mabopane and Belle Ombre Station in Pretoria. Should those buses run along the same route as the railway Une? We must have the right to cancel those permits and to come to an agreement with those operators. We have the provision in terms of which we can now compensate such a person if he is operating a bus service and a train service is then introduced. In my opinion, this is a purely practical matter. We shall not cancel a permit in order to prejudice a man and we shall compensate him if it can be proved that he has suffered a loss.

Mr. Chairman, the example given by the hon. the Minister refers to the wrong clause. It is not relevant to the clause we are discussing at the moment.

The next clause deals with the question of compensation.

Yes. The hon. the Minister therefore has the right in terms of two other provisions, the old 26 and the new 26A, to cancel those permits. Therefore he must not use the wrong example in this case.

Mr. Chairman, the old Act provided that permits could be cancelled for purposes of fuel conservation. This is now being amended and it will now be possible to cancel a permit for other reasons as well.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to the hon. the Minister that the example he used was not in line with the provisions of clause 13. I want to ask him whether he can give us any example other than that of fuel which would in fact be relevant to the discussion of this clause.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Greytown is simply being difficult. If the hon. member for Greytown would read this clause, he would find that it does not contain any amendment. It is simply a rearrangement of words. [Interjections.] If one even counted the words, one would come to the conclusion that there is no difference. The hon. member for Berea said that they felt very strongly about the provisions of this clause. I do not know why the hon. member should feel strongly about them, because he cannot feel strongly about the amendment in the clause. He may feel strongly about the provision, i.e. the original provision which is now being amended. However, that is not what we are concerned with in the Committee Stage. In the Committee Stage we are concerned with the amendment of the principal Act. Therefore I think that the hon. member for Berea raised this objection tongue in cheek, because he is an experienced parliamentarian—otherwise he would not have been sitting there—and he knows what it is all about. The principle contained in this clause was accepted when the Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1977. At the Second Reading of this Bill, the principle was reaffirmed, and the only provisions that can be debated are contained in the part of this clause that is underlined. If we compare this provision with what we are removing from the existing provision, the words between brackets, then only one thought occurs to me, and that is that the permit can be cancelled for any reason, and not only for purposes of fuel conservation. Therefore I think that the argument about the examples used by the hon. the Minister is not relevant either. There was some confusion in the past about the wording of this provision, and that is why an attempt is now being made to improve it.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

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

Order! I regret that I have to point out to the hon. member that if he wishes to address the House at this stage, he can only address the House on the question as to whether the clause should be negatived.

In that case I shall discuss the proposal that the existing clause be negatived and replaced by the clause as printed in my amendment. I do so for the simple reason that the existing clause is intended to enable operators to claim compensation when a railway line has been established. I assume that if a person is aware that his business will be of short duration, he will have provided for that in planning that business. If it is suddenly made possible for a person to claim, however, it means that such a person’s claim will be approved in spite of the fact that such a person has already made the necessary provision. I know that the hon. the Minister could now mention the examples he used under the previous clause in this connection, as being relevant to the clause we are discussing at the moment. If he wants to mention that example, he is free to do so, but then I do want to ask him a question. Who are the directors of that company operating the bus service which he can quote to me as an example?

Mr. Chairman, I regret that I cannot accept that amendment. The hon. member asks who the directors of that company are. The example I mentioned remains valid. When that railway line has been completed, the directors of the company operating the bus service will be the EDC and Bophuthatswana Bus Services. These are the people who are operating a bus service there at the moment. This is an established fact. Any fool knows that.

The hon. member now wants to change the period. That would create major problems, however, because it could take years before a railway service is introduced, although railway construction legislation has already been passed. A claimant, who has to expand his bus service in the meantime, would be unnecessarily restricted by this in his claim. Therefore I cannot accept the amendment.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 15:

Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief. We have the same objection to paragraph (b) of this clause that we had to previous provisions. It clothes the board with powers which are far too wide. The provision means that a permit can in fact be withdrawn even if that permit has been issued. This is in terms of a decision announced by the board. The board may at a later stage decide that it should have come to a different decision to that announced. We believe that this is an entirely objectionable amendment. I am referring particularly to the amendment contained in the latter part of the proposed new paragraph (h). On the same grounds on which we opposed similar provisions we oppose this one.

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

In terms of paragraph (c) the Minister wants it introduced as a requirement under the Act that those persons who are at the present time not considered to be in road transportation, i.e. those people who do not need permits, should in future be required to keep and provide records for the Minister or any other State department. We feel that this could be termed rampant bureaucracy. We should like to know exactly why all this information is to be required.

One must look at who is covered by these provisions. I have a list of them here, taken from the Act. For instance, it involves farmers. I quote from section 1(2) of the Act—

It goes on—

There is a whole list here. I quote another example—

There is a whole list of transport operations concerning which the Minister may now in terms of this amendment of his require the people concerned to keep records—

As I say, we cannot understand the reason why all these people are now going to be burdened with more forms to be filled out. One hon. member said during the Second Reading debate that it was because the engineers designing the roads want the information. For heaven’s sake!

What are traffic counters for?

Yes, there are traffic counters and there are teams of engineers and their assistants who go out to inspect particular areas and determine what is required according to the movement of traffic.

I should like to sumbit that this provision is going to give the SATS a very good idea of every other person’s business in South Africa, for example what they are transporting, how many labourers they are moving about, etc. Everybody in South Africa who uses a vehicle for certain purposes is going to have the threat hanging over him that at any time some person in the Department of Transport can ask for this information and, as he will have the law behind him, one will not be able to do anything about it. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister. We—and also the farmers—get so many forms to fill out that I sometimes wonder where all the paper eventually ends up. This is very inflationary. Who is going to process all this information? Where are all the funds going to come from? We will have to raise taxes in order to keep all the people employed. I regret to say that we cannot see the need for this.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is necessary to deal with the argument of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti at any length, because the principle contained in this clause was discussed in detail during the Second Reading debate. The hon. member got emotional again, just as he did in his introductory speech at Second Reading. I think that was quite unnecessary. I do not believe that either the department or the hon. Minister wishes to create any more paper work, red tape or drudgery for anyone by means of legislation. None of us is very fond of paper-work, office work, records or statistics.

I think the hon. member is quite right in referring to farmers in particular. My own father was a farmer and I can remember quite well that forms never got much further than the living-room table. Today, however, we are living in modern times, and it is essential to plan ahead. I do not think the hon. member can get away from that. Surely his training has shown him the need to plan ahead. It is true that by means of rationalization, we are trying to centralize control over as many as possible of the functions whch were sometimes performed in a very diffuse and unco-ordinated manner by various departments or sections of a department. That is why the Department of Transport Affairs is approaching the House with this proposal and is asking for the opportunity to proceed with this by way of regulation, so that one could perhaps think of a central road register or road transport bureau. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister when the regulations are drawn up, there should be consultation over a broad spectrum with interested parties. I also want to request that the regulations be published in advance so that those who have an interest in them can make the necessary representations. The regulations should not be promulgated in an autocratic manner. I feel that it is essential that this provision be inserted into the clause.

Mr. Chairman, we have a road traffic bureau being run by the CSIR. The hon. member is aware of that. I am also against paper-work and red tape, especially when one is a farmer.

*I want to tell the hon. member that statistics are necessary for a variety of reasons, such as the formulation of an effective transport policy and the establishment of the road traffic bureau of the CSIR. The hon. member must remember that we are living in the age of the computer and it is therefore not necessary to do all the work by hand. I give the hon. member the assurance that before any regulations are made in terms of this clause, the department will give serious attention to the question of putting it into operation with the least possible disruption for hauliers. Interested parties will be consulted before these regulations are made. That is exactly what the hon. member for Roodeplaat said.

I want to tell the hon. member, however, that I share his concern about adding to the existing amount of work, but we must have some means of obtaining statistics. In the State of Texas in the US, statistics can be obtained from a computer, for example, how many eighteen-wheel trucks and how many mechanical horses are in operation. They have all those particulars on their computers and that is a help to them in the road building programme. I do not foresee that we are going to experience the major problems which the hon. member predicts. However, if it is going to cause a lot of red tape, we can refrain from promulgating the regulation.

Amendment negatived (New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause 16 negatived.

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

Amendment of section 31 of Act 74 of 1977, as amended by section 18 of Act 91 of 1980.

16. Section 31 of the principal Act is hereby amended—

1. (a) by the substitution for paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of the following paragraph:
2. “(d) being the holder of a permit authorizing the conveyance of goods, contravenes any prohibition contained in a notice published in the Gazette under section 2(f), [or] (g) or (gA); or”,
3. (b) by the insertion after the said paragraph (d) of the following paragraphs:
4. “(e) being the holder of a permit or undertaking conveyance which is excluded in terms of section 1(2) from the definition of ‘road transportation’, contravenes any prohibition contained in a proclamation contemplated in section 43(1)(d) or (e); or
5. (f) being the holder of a permit, makes that permit available to any other person to undertake road transportation not authorized under this Act,”; and
6. (c) by the substitution for paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of the following paragraph:
7. “(a) shall not be convicted under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) in respect of any contravention of or failure to comply with a provision, condition or requirement of his permit if adherence to or compliance with the provision, condition or requirement in question would have constituted the offence contemplated in paragraph (d) or (e) of that subsection;”.

Mr. Chairman, I should like the hon. the Minister to motivate his amendment. We have problems with this clause, problems which are similar to the problems which we had with the provisions of clause 6 which mitigate against people being able to share permits. For that reason we are opposed to the clause as it stands.

Mr. Chairman, the reason for this amendment is merely to insert the words “or (gA)” which were omitted when the original Bill was printed.

*The word “or” in the proposed paragraph (d) of subsection (a) of clause 16 is now being deleted and replaced by “or (gA)”. I do not see any problem with that. The hon. member got a big fright when he saw that the whole clause was being moved again. However, it is only for the sake of that one word.

New Clause agreed to.

Clause 17:

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

This amendment is consequential upon the amendments moved to clauses 6 and 8. Once again it is to prevent a vehicle from possessing two permits. We have dealt with this a number of times already and I therefore do not intend to waste the time of the Committee any longer.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal with the clause while the hon. the Minister considers the amendment moved by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. Up to now the hon. the Minister has not accepted one single amendment moved by this side of the House on matters of principle or on the working of the Act. I now want to make a direct appeal to him in the name of good English to accept an amendment. The provision, if one looks at the proposed new section 33(1)(h), reads as follows—

I do not know who drafted that but it is totally inelegant. I am not sure that the Afrikaans is even more elegant because it talks about “’n geskrif maak”. I do not know if that is any better than the English. Certainly, to talk about “making a writing” in English, does not make any sense. One should talk about preparing a document, not making a writing. In the interest of elegant draftsmanship I should ask the hon. the Minister to give consideration to putting this into decent English.

I therefore move the following amendment—

Mr. Chairman, I believe this to be a very reasonable request. [Interjections.] For the sake of good English I am prepared to accept the hon. member’s amendment.

*I shall see to it that the wording is corrected in the final draft of the legislation.

You see, Mr. Speaker, when we still had the Senate, one could always undertake to rectify certain shortcomings in Bills in the Other Place.

Now we can simply rectify them in one of the other two chambers. [Interjections.]

As I said, Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment of the hon. member for Berea in order to correct the language in which the provision is worded. A Minister likes to accept amendments, of course. However, every amendment to this Bill that has been moved by hon. members of the Opposition has watered down its spirit and character. For that reason I have not been able to accept them. It is not that I wish to be unobliging. I accept the hon. member’s amendment. Of course, it simply corrects the language. In my opinion, however, the Afrikaans should remain as it is. According to my knowledge of Afrikaans, it is correct. So this is merely a textual correction in the English text.

Amendment moved by Mr. R. A. F. Swart agreed to.

Amendment moved by Mr. G. S. Bartlett negatived (New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 18:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments—

1. (1) On page 18, in line 10, to omit “R10 000” and to substitute “R5 000”;
2. (2) on page 18, in line 11, to omit “two years or to both such fine and such imprisonment” and to substitute “one year”.

I have moved these amendments for the simple reason that there is a total lack of consistency in respect of the penalties provided for in various pieces of legislation passed by this House. In this Bill, for example, the penalty, which was previously a fine of R1 000 or imprisonment for one year, is to be altered now to a fine of R10 000 and/or imprisonment for two years. Well, I have heard of inflation in terms of money, but I have really never heard of inflation in terms of time before. To put it differently, this Bill suggests that a road transporter with a criminal disposition values prison accommodation at a maximum of R10 000 for two years. In other words, he is prepared to pay R13,70 a day for prison accommodation. Perhaps I could put it in another way. This carrier would rather pay R13,70 a day to stay out of prison.

This hon. Minister, however, has already shown his disregard for the free enterprise system. In some instances he even gives them no choice at all. They have to pay their fine and go to prison as well. In one of the previous Bills discussed here in the House— the Bill dealing with perishable products— the penalty prescribed is a fine of R5 000 or three years imprisonment; in other words, R4,56 a day. Does the hon. the Minister now propose to ensure that the people who transgress these provisions will find themselves in a worse type of gaol where the accommodation is worth only R4,56 per day? Is he perhaps saying that the exporters of perishable products who have a criminal tendency only value staying in their own homes at R4,56 a day whereas criminal transporters like to live in their own homes at a cost of R13,70 per day? I think that the inconsistency in this regard must surely be evident. Logic will also tell us that an exporter of perishable products with such a criminal tendency must be somebody with a fairly high social standing because he would have had to have been overseas and to have made contacts there. I think that in the case of such a person, just the stigma of being imprisoned whether it be for six months or three years will be very much the same. I can hardly see two hardened common criminals who have often seen the inside of a gaol coming out of prison and plotting to export frozen granadilla juice to California or committing some similar sort of horrible crime. However, the inconsistency is not only apparent with regard to this particular department. Here we have several transport Bills and in each one the penalty is different in respect of a transgression of what can be termed more or less technicalities in terms of the various pieces of legislation. In the legislation dealing with machinery and occupational safety, provision is made for a fine of R1 000 or imprisonment for one year if a regulation is violated and a fine of R2 000 or imprisonment for a period of one year for infringement of any of the provisions of the Bill. In this case we are dealing with people who play with the safety and the lives of others in an attempt, for instance, to cut costs in respect of safety measures.

Let us take the question of national parks. Any person who commits some or other horrible crime in regard to any animal other than a rhinoceros or an elephant is liable to a fine of R2 000 or imprisonment for a period of two years. However, for the same crime in regard to an elephant or a rhinoceros, the fine is R10 000 or imprisonment for a period of two years. In general, therefore, I would suggest that there could be a great deal more consistency with regard to penalties. I would suggest that a period of one year be the maximum gaol penalty for most violations of a technical nature and that any fine imposed be proportional to the potential gain if any specific regulation or provision in the legislation is violated.

Specifically then with regard to this department I ask that a departmental committee investigate each matter thoroughly before legislation is introduced into this House so as to bring the penalties into line with each other. As this is the first Committee Stage in which we have discussed the question of penalties, I hope that the hon. the Minister will accept my amendment in which case the penalty provisions provided for in the other pieces of legislation can then be brought into line with each other.

Mr. Chairman, a great deal was said during the debate on the Second Reading and also now during this Committee Stage about the problems being experienced in regard to law enforcement. I think that seven years have elapsed since the Act was first passed and, in view of the tremendous increase in inflation, one would expect that the time had arrived for the amount of the fine to be increased. I know, of course, that inflation has certainly not increased ten times during this period. Nevertheless I can see the need to increase the penalties as far as the fines are concerned because there are many abuses of the legislation at the present time. There are many irregularities in this regard and I do believe that these should be stopped. In many instances there is a great deal to be gained as far as road transportation is concerned. I can remember some years ago when a particular haulier had a long-term contract for the haul of a particular product and, whereas his vehicle should have been hauling 24 tons, he was often hauling well over 30 tons and on some occasions 35 tons. We know what that does to roads. The fines which were imposed upon him were just brushed aside as far as he was concerned. He gave instructions to carry on hauling because he had a contract to meet. The fines did not mean a thing to him. In the meantime the roads were all broken up. I do feel that the maximum penalty should be increased. R10 000 may be considered high but we are prepared to go along with that.

One must remember that this is the maximum. It does not necessarily mean that every person who has committed an offence is in fact going to be fined R10 000.

When it comes to the second amendment—the one that increases the period of imprisonment from one to two years— I am afraid we cannot go along with the hon. the Minister. We are going to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Greytown. It is almost as if we are starting to equate this kind of offence with that of robbing a bank or of manslaughter. I think that the increase to two years is unwarranted and, for this reason, we shall support the amendment of the hon. member for Greytown.

Mr. Chairman, the Opposition parties have both failed to see the importance of clause 18, because this fine has not yet proved to be a deterrent. The same applies to the period of imprisonment of one year. It is quite correct to suggest that inflation has played a role, and therefore we must allow a certain amount for that. When we have done this and the amount has been allowed, we come to the second question, i.e. does that amount serve as a deterrent with regard to the offence concerned? When we listen to what has happened and to the debate which has been conducted here, we must conclude, in my opinion, that it is not sufficient. Therefore the clause provides for two variables which require adjustments to be made at the same time, i.e. firstly, inflation, and, secondly, the deterrent to committing an offence.

I want to emphasize that “not exceeding” surely means that this is the maximum amount. Surely it is in the discretion of the court—no one is removing that discretion— to impose a smaller fine or a shorter term of imprisonment. The provision does not say that it has to be R10 000 or two years. Under those circumstances, I believe, the clause provides for penalties which can serve as a deterrent with regard to a crime which is being committed at the moment.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the first statement made by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, i.e. that R10 000 is not unreasonable. The hon. member Dr. Welgemoed has made it clear that the maximum period is two years and that this has to serve as a deterrent.

† The hon. members are prepared to increase the fine of R1 000 to R10 000, but they are not prepared to even double the term of imprisonment from one to two years. Well, I cannot see why we cannot make it two years.

How many people have you gaoled for one year so far?

I do not know whether we have ever goaled anybody. It is a deterrent. From now on we are going to goal them.

Mr. Chairman, in the old Act it was either the one or the other, but now it is either the one or the other or both, and this makes it an even more drastic provision than merely the increase in each of the penalties separately. I take it that the hon. the Minister was listening when I said that we should have some consistency in the whole matter. Why, for example, is the penalty provided for in the Perishable Products Export Control Bill a period of three years—R5 000 or three years? Why is it that the people who export perishable products are capable of committing greater sins than people who commit offences in terms of the Road Transportation Act? I think that law enforcement will be much easier in the case of perishable products, because there one can only export through a limited number of channels. In that case, however, the penalty is three years’ imprisonment or a fine of R5 000. I am simply asking for some consistency with regard to penalties. I think it was a very good question which the hon. member for Durban North asked. Has anybody ever been jailed? I do not think so. Usually there has been the choice of a fine, and that fine has been very low, only R1 000. I know one can earn R1 000 with only one illegal trip. In other words, people were quite prepared to break the law, because they could earn the R1 000 fine with one weekend’s unauthorized transport.

I agree therefore, that R10 000 is not too high, perhaps, in the light of the amount of money one can make by contravening the Act, but I do want to ask the hon. the Minister to see to it that the Act is better enforced. A period of imprisonment of one year is in fact enough and I hope we can now proceed to lay down a consistent period to get away from the present ad hoc approach.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the hon. member’s idea, because there is an anomaly in the sense that the penalty in the legislation on perishable products is three years or R5 000. As I have said, however, it is a deterrent. By all means let us bring about uniformity among all the Acts, but even if the period were two or three years— remember, this is a maximum period—a magistrate would not easily give a man more than three months or six months, depending on how frequently he commits the same offence. There is a confiscation provision too, of course, and confiscation is punishment enough in itself. So I think we can see to it that we achieve uniformity in this connection in future, but let us pass this legislation in its present form.

Amendment (1) negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (2) negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause 19:

Mr. Chairman, as I indicated during the Second Reading debate, we in these benches are opposed to this provision because it removes the discretion of the law courts. I can find no reason— nor has the hon. the Minister given any reason— for this. In the case of a first, second or third conviction for even a serious offence, why is it to be made obligatory—the word “shall” is used—for the courts to declare the motor vehicles used in such transportation forfeitable, etc.? Why must we prescribe to the law courts? Time and time again in this House, in fact in this country, we pay tribute to the calibre of our superior courts in South Africa. So why, in legislation of this kind, must we bind the courts by making it imperative that they adopt a particular course when imposing sentence? We believe that it is a bad provision in that it circumscribes the authority of the courts. We shall therefore oppose the clause.

What about the calibre of the lower courts?

Mr. Chairman, the question has been decided with the law advisers. The provision refers to a man who has been convicted three times—please note, three times. My advisers said that this was a good provision as we simply had to confiscate the motor vehicle of the man who did not want to listen. If he has been convicted three times, I think that is sufficient warning and one may tell him: “I am not taking your children; I am only taking your truck”.

Mr. Chairman, this provision is really going to clamp down on the people who consistently abuse the Act. I can understand why this is perhaps required. One can consider, for argument’s sake, antipoaching regulations, for example those applied in Natal by the Natal Parks Board. Until they imposed the confiscation of the vehicle and the weapons involved, the penalties were not really felt much by those who were doing the poaching. However, the moment that came in, it assisted greatly in enforcing the law. For this reason, when someone consistently breaks the law, he should eventually get the chop so to speak.

However, I think a degree of discretion should be applied here. There may be instances where the owners of vehicles and so on are not very clear in their minds as to what may be going on. For instance, drivers may be conveying goods that are not authorized by employers; consignors mislead carriers in describing the goods the carriers convey; owners of goods are misled by carriers in respect of permits; and one finds complex interpretations of authorities on permits— there is this confusion as to the interpretation of the permits. A further consideration is that lessors are sometimes not aware of the actions of vehicle lessees. Is one then going to take the vehicle away from the lessor, for example Rent-A-Bakide or Rent-A-Truck? A sixth example is ambiguous permit interpretations by legal experts. It should be very clear, but there are these ambiguous interpretations. A final example I should just like to submit to the Minister is that of multiple convictions arising out of one event which effectively could put carriers out of business entirely.

While we can go along with the need to clamp down, I sincerely hope that this does not mean that, where this sort of event occurs, the people who are involved indirectly are going to suffer. I just mention this here so that it will be recorded in Hansard that under these circumstances some discretion should perhaps be exercised by the magistrate or the court. Perhaps the hon. the Minister would like to comment on this.

Mr. Chairman, at the outset I wish to tell the hon. member for Amanzimtoti that of all his submissions as well as his proposed amendment, the reservations which he is now raising are what I have the most sympathy for. I want to give an example. It could happen that a transport contractor has 50 or 60 heavy duty vehicles on the road and that three of them commit contraventions on different occasions. Three different drivers could have been involved in these contraventions, or they could have been committed in three different provinces. Then I foresee that confiscation would probably be hard on such an owner or such a hirer of vehicles. In such a case I think that this is a very strict provision. However, this provision did not come out of the blue. It is not a case that this should be considered to be bloodthirsty legislation because the department, or the hon. Minister or someone in the transport study group felt that there were a few people in this specific sector of the economy who were making too much money. It is a case of it simply not being possible, by way of the penal provisions which have been available up to now, to deter people sufficiently from committing these contraventions one, two, three or more times, even repeatedly. Although one can sympathize and say that one would not like to deprive a person of his own vehicle or his hired vehicle, with load and all, it is nevertheless a fact—hon. members of the Opposition who participated in this debate are aware of this—that the existing deterrents were inadequate. I know it can now be said that the death sentence for murder has still not eliminated the crime of murder. That is also true. However, two of these extremes are not going to bring us a solution in this case. Although one has sympathy, this provision must be given a chance, and consequently we will not be able to accept the amendment as proposed by the hon. member for Berea.

Clause agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, before moving the amendments that stand in my name on the Order Paper, I would like to take issue with the hon. the Minister on his reply to the Second Reading in which he made a number of statements which were more distinguished for their clarity than their truth. This particular syndrome started in the debate on the Road Transportation Amendment Bill. In that particular debate he said, and I quote from the unrevised copy of his Hansard—

That is a complete fabrication. I said nothing of the kind. I have the Hansard in front of me of what I said on that particular occasion, and it reads as follows—

On no occasion did I say “Let the 250 000 railway workers find other jobs”. That would be a patently stupid statement to make and I most certainly did not make it. That hon. Minister, as the hon. member for Houghton said, is sly. He is twisting words.

You made a mistake.

I did not make a mistake. I would suggest that the hon. the Minister owes an apology both to me and to this House. I would suggest that what he said about me was a deliberate falsification.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member entitled to say that it was a deliberate falsification?

The hon. member may not say that.

Mr. Chairman, I accept your ruling and withdraw the words “deliberate falsification”.

The Minister must apologize.

That you can forget. I shall not apologize.

The hon. member must withdraw those words unconditionally.

I have already done so, Mr. Chairman. I said I withdraw the words “deliberate falsification”.

The hon. member may proceed.

You said you were against the railway workers.

Allow me to take the matter further. The hon. the Minister continued in this regard in his Second Reading speech on this particular Bill by saying—

Mr. Chairman, I said no such thing. Once again the hon. the Minister is misrepresenting words that he imputes to me in this House. On the same theme he goes on to say—

I certainly did not say that. He also said—

Order! Is the hon. member talking to his amendments on clause 1?

No, Sir. As the first speaker at the Committee Stage I am discussing the Second Reading of the Bill which, as I understand, I am entitled to do.

The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The hon. the Minister continued to make these false assertions by saying—

The words that I in fact used in my Second Reading speech were as follows—

This is nowhere near the words that the hon. the Minister imputes to me. He goes on further in the same debate by then imputing certain words to the hon. member for Berea, words which in fact were not used by that hon. member. Hiding behind the smokescreen that the hon. the Minister himself put up, he did not answer the points that were made from the Opposition benches with regard to this particular clause. He did not answer why it was that he needed permission to be able to impose any levy. As I said, he originally justified a levy of 0,7c per litre. Sir, that is not what is in this clause. This clause says that the Minister can impose a levy on every litre of petrol. It does not say how much. Why does this hon. the Minister, acting in conjunction with his colleague, need the permission of this House, of this Bill, to impose any levy? If the hon. the Minister really means what he says, then I suggest he accepts the amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

I then went on to talk about the secrecy provisions being invoked by this Bill, but the hon. the Minister did not see fit to reply to that either. He went off in a great tirade about things I was supposed to have said but did not say while he did not answer any specific points.

Accordingly I move as an amendment—

This amendment means that, if it is accepted, every time the Minister wishes to impose a levy he has to publish it in the Gazette, and I believe in the interest of openness and of the public knowing what the Minister is exacting from them in terms of levies on petrol, that should be done because once it is in the Gazette it is public knowledge and not something being done secretively behind the back of the public.

Secondly, I move as an amendment—

The hon. the Minister has told us that it is his intention to impose a levy of 0,7 cents per litre and has indicated that that will be sufficient to get our road building programme back on track. If this is in fact his intention, why cannot he accept my amendment and stipulate that it will be 0,7 cents per litre? The only reason why he does not want to is that it must be his intention at a later stage to increase it. There again if this amendment is accepted we peg the Minister to an increase of only 0,7 cents per litre. If the hon. the Minister should then find, at a later date, that this amount should be increased, why cannot he then come back to Parliament? It needs only a short amending Bill which would not require much trouble to draw up.

Thirdly, I want to move as an amendment—

By this provision we are giving the hon. the Minister a blank cheque to do what he likes. Therefore we would like to see this omitted.

Mr. Chairman, I have made my party’s attitude very clear during the Second Reading. The main reason for our opposition to this provision is, firstly, that we do not believe in granting the Minister the power to at his discretion impose a levy on any section of our public and, secondly, we are against the secrecy provisions in this Bill. For these reasons we will be supporting the amendments of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central.

There is one further question I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. I am not clear on this at all in my own mind. This relates to paragraph (f) on page 4. It provides that any State department or Provincial Administration and others from whom a levy has been collected in terms of this subsection—

The way I see this is that the hon. the Minister does not want people who operate a diesel locomotive—and I assume it is a diesel locomotive on rails—to pay this levy because, after all, this levy is in respect of roads. If I am correct in saying this I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a question. Surely that sort of concession should also be granted to any private person, any private company or any public company who may be operating their own railway line. Is that not true?

Yes, that is true.

Yes, but it does not say so. Although it does not say so I believe they should also be excluded.

They are excluded.

All right, the hon. the Minister says they are excluded.

Farmers and those people are all excluded.

I am satisfied then. I just wanted to query that. I thank the hon. the Minister for stating clearly that they are excluded. We will nevertheless be supporting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central.

Mr Chairman, yesterday, during the Second Reading debate, we said that we would support the Bill if the hon. the Minister was able to give a satisfactory reply to a certain question which I put to him. I wish to put that question to him again, and ask him to give us a specific reply to it now. The hon. the Minister said yesterday that the road user would have to contribute this levy. After the hon. the Minister had subsequently said in his speech that the levy was not expected to entail a higher price at the fuel pump, I put my question to him. Now I ask him again specifically how it is going to be possible to introduce an increase which is not going to be passed on to the consumer at the fuel pump? Is that money going to come out of the Equalization Fund? How is the hon. the Minister going to reconcile the two?

If he can give us the assurance that it is not going to be passed on to the consumer at the fuel pump, he will satisfy us. The second question which I put to him was the following: He said that the levy would not be increased beyond 0,7 cents per litre. I now want to know whether he will give us the assurance that if the amount is increased beyond 0,7 cents, that increased amount will not be passed on to the consumer either, but will in fact come out of the Equalization Fund.

Mr. Chairman, I really cannot foresee the hon. the Minister accepting the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. The wording which the hon. member wants deleted is in reality in line with section 1(1)(a) of the State Oil Fund Act—Act No. 38, 1977. In addition it is after all important to have both methods of notification, whether in the Gazette or by way of direct notification to a person—in this case the oil company—at one’s disposal. Consequently I really cannot understand what objection the hon. member has to this wording as it now stands.

In the second place the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central stated in his speech that the amount of 0,7 cents per litre may not be exceeded, because a step of that nature would be unacceptable to him. However, the hon. member must concede that at this stage it is impossible for the Minister to place a ceiling on the amount of the levy.

After all, that is not possible. The circumstances which we might have to face in future will surely determine what that amount should be. The fact that the amount of the levy may no longer be specifically laid down in legislation is also derived from section 1(1)(a) of the State Oil Fund Act, Act No. 38 of 1977. Consequently it is no new principle. Quite a number of the statutory provisions included in this Bill are in fact modelled on that Act. The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs—and this is the point I wish to emphasize very strongly—does not have a free hand to determine the levy as he pleases. He must do so in consultation and after discussion with two of his colleagues, in the first place the hon. the Minister of Finance, and in the second place the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. Both must be consulted and only when they have fully investigated the matter can they arrive at a joint determination of the need. There is no reason whatsoever why the hon. member should be worried that the hon. the Minister may exceed his powers. The determining of a levy, now or in future, is going to be a well-considered action. I hope that this reply will also satisfy the hon. member for Koedoespoort.

In the third place the question of confidentiality has also been questioned. We are dealing here with a very sensitive product and surely it goes without saying that in our circumstances we should be very careful and that we should include this form of confidentiality in this legislation, otherwise we could be doing something here which would subsequently be to our detriment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central has a strange characteristic. He is impulsive. He says certain things and then is sorry for saying them later on. He said yesterday: Let the Railway workers find other jobs because we are short of skilled labourers.

Certainly not. I have my Hansard here in front of me.

What the hon. member said boils down in any event to the fact that they should find other jobs.

No.

The hon. member was able to read what he said in the Transvaal papers of this morning. The hon. member had the fright of his life! [Interjections.]

I have not even seen the Transvaal newspapers.

The problem of the hon. member is that he is not sympathetically disposed towards the Railway workers of South Africa. That is precisely what the position is. [Interjections.] The hon. member said that I was false. However, I am not false.

No, I said that the hon. the Minister was falsifying.

Well, the hon. member can play with words …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is it parliamentary to say that the hon. the Minister was “falsifying”?

Order! The hon. member has already withdrawn it once. Has he repeated it?

No, Sir. I did say it earlier and, as you know, Sir, I did withdraw it.

Representatives of all the city councils came to me to plead for extra money for road building. What must I tell those people? I am prepared to give them 1 cent a litre but I am unable even to get 0,7 cents per litre out of the official Opposition. That is an absolute fact. We are wasting millions of rand worth of fuel daily trying to enter Johannesburg. I am going to tell the city council that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central supported by the official Opposition are opposed to the building of roads. [Interjections.] That is a fact, Sir. They are fighting an increase of 0,7 cents per litre and they are fighting it tooth and nail. Why are they opposing it?

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Is the hon. the Minister being serious in what he is saying or is he only trying to be humorous? If the hon. the Minister is being humorous, then we can forgive him. However, if he is being serious, then we are becoming very worried about him.

Sir, the hon member for Yeoville must help them, I know, because they are in trouble. Hon. members opposite are going to oppose this clause. Why? Because I am asking for an increase of 0,7 cents per litre.

No, the hon. the Minister is asking for a blank cheque and we do not give blank cheques.

At the moment it will, not be more than 0,7 cents.

*The hon. member for Koedoespoort repeated what I said yesterday: This 0,7 cent is not going to be paid by the public. It is not going to have any effect on the fuel price. Towards the end of the year it could happen that costs rise and there is an upswing again … [Interjections.] … with cars queueing up without being able to get into the metropolitan complexes, because the Uncle Charlie by-pass and the South Rand ring road— there are so many roads around Johannesburg; just ask the hon. member for Langlaagte—would not be able to handle the traffic.

We are not worried about Uncle Charlie; we are worried about Uncle Hendrik.

Everybody knows of the problems being experienced there. Just ask the poor, struggling man how he is going to get into Johannesburg.

Yes, in his big car. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. the Minister the opportunity to proceed with his speech.

Yes, Sir, but he talks about poor men with big cars. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti does not want to grant me the power to impose a levy, but the hon. member for Kempton Park has already replied to him. He says that I must get the co-operation of the hon. the Minister of Finance and that of the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. Once we have the support of those two hon. Ministers we must re-approach the Cabinet and then we shall have good reasons. I have introduced many pieces of legislation into this House.

*I have never piloted through a bad Bill, but this one is the best of all. One who votes against this one should have his head read; there is something wrong with him.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. the Minister says that the man who votes against this Bill needs his head read. Is this a parliamentary expression since some hon. members have already voted against the Bill?

Sir, I withdraw that remark.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has just clearly indicated to us that he does not see this money as belonging to the public; he sees this money as belonging to the Minister of Finance and his other Cabinet colleagues, but this levy is not something which the Cabinet can look upon as theirs so that they can raise it to 0,7 cents or 1,5 cents. This is the public’s money and this is why we oppose the Bill. This is also the reason why we are supporting the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central; he wants to limit the amount to 0,7 cents. The hon. the Minister was incorrect when he said that the Opposition did not want to allow him to impose a levy of 0,7 cents. In fact, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central clearly stated that there should be a levy which should not exceed 0,7 cents. The hon. the Minister missed the whole point which we put forward, and that is that we do not believe that he, the hon. the Minister of Finance and the entire Cabinet should have the power to impose levies upon the public.

They must come back to Parliament.

Yes, they must come back to Parliament, as my hon. colleague from Umhlanga says. That is why we oppose the Bill. We are not against the construction of roads or against the way in which the hon. the Minister is raising funds.

Mr. Chairman, I begin to believe that when one is dealing with this hon. Minister it is absolutely essential that one has with one one’s Hansard of what was said in the past. He has now in his reply made the statement that he is going to tell everybody that the official Opposition is not prepared to agree to even 0,7 cents …

Order! I have allowed the hon. member to address the Committee on the broad principle of this Bill, but he is not allowed to do it a second time.

Sir, actually I am on the amendment and, if I may crave your indulgence, you will see that what I am talking about is the hon. the Minister’s statement that this side of the Committee is not prepared to accept even 0,7 cents per litre. That, however, is the absolute crux of my amendment.

The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. It is my amendment that is on the Order Paper specifying 0,7 cents per litre, not his. It is in fact the proposal of this side of the House that 0,7 cents per litre should be the figure. I want to refer the hon. the Minister in this regard to my Second Reading speech where I said—

I said even at the Second Reading stage that if he came with a specific amount, we could perhaps approve it, but the hon. the Minister has not come with a specific amount.

The hon. member for Kempton Park, who also spoke, suggested that it would be quite in order to leave the control of these tremendous funds in the hands of three men. I want to point out that, in fact, the control of funds is the function of this Parliament. It is not the function of any one individual, any two individuals or even any three individuals, but it is the function of this Parliament to control funds. We are talking here about funds raised on a tremendous volume of petrol. For 1981-’82 the volume of petrol sold was 6 528 million litres. If one puts 0,1 of a cent on that, one arrives at a figure of over R6 million. We are therefore talking about enormous sums. This House is now giving the Minister the right to levy any number of cents per litre on this enormous volume. Genuinely, Sir, we do not believe that this is right.

I should like the hon. the Minister to test our bona fides. He has made allegations that we will not accept 0,7 cents per litre. Let him then accept our amendment and then let us see whether we vote for it or not.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a question. The question is this: If the NRP supports this clause, is he prepared to guarantee the Natal Provincial Council all the money they require for road building? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I think we have decided not to understand one another. It was only yesterday that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central came here and said we should get our priorities straight, and asked: “Why these expensive road building programmes?” He made an entire speech opposing them. My argument was that the hon. the Minister of Finance may decide at any time, in the middle of the year for example, to increase sales tax to 7%. He can take any decision at any time in regard to taxation.

I do not think that that is right. I do not think he has carte blanche.

No, he can come to Parliament next year and say that he has found a reason to increase taxation suddenly. Now I can come forward next year and say that I have found a reason to increase the 0,7 cents to 0,8 cents. However, the hon. member’s entire argument was that road building should not be a priority.

No, that is not true.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.