Mr. Speaker, in the past three weeks I have heard a wide variety of opinions concerning the Budget which I introduced in this House on 31st March. These diverse opinions came from a wide variety of people. They came from people inside and outside this House. They came from economists and from businessmen. They came from agricultural and workers’ organizations. They came from experts and from persons who are not really experts. Looking at all of them, we find that we have here a chaos of totally divergent and contrasting opinions. But if, out of all the numerous views, I have to select one which gives the pithiest description of the nature and the character of the Budget, the honour must go to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The day after the Budget was introduced the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made a statement to the Argus which saw the Budget in principle as “the Budget we did not want”, or the Budget which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party had not wanted.

Which the people had not wanted.

All of a sudden the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has now become the people! The hon. the Opposition was totally confounded by the Budget with which they were presented on 31st March. It was very clear that they had received a Budget which they had not hoped for and which they had not expected at all. This appeared the most clearly from the performance of my hon. friend the member for Parktown when he had to reply to the Budget the day it was presented here. The hon. member for Parktown was totally confounded. I have never yet seen the hon. member, who is a good debater, struggle as he did that day. He had, of course, expected a different Budget and he had prepared a speech which would have been suitable for that Budget, but which was not at all appropriate on this occasion. Nevertheless, plucky as he is, he proceeded with the prepared speech. To show that he was, after all, conversant with what had been said that day, he seized upon this and touched upon that and made all sorts of muddled statements. The hon. member carried on just like a ballet dancer and jumped from one point to another. If I may put it this way, he danced to a tune the orchestra was not playing. I felt very sorry for the hon. member. But I was not the only one who felt sorry for him; the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also felt sorry for him. That is why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition quite unconventionally published a statement in the Argus the next day. Everyone who read that statement could infer from it what I have just stated, namely that this Budget is a difficult one for the hon. members opposite because they did not expect it and because it is one which they do not like.

In the first place the hon. members had expected, as had been written during the preceding three months, that this Budget would be the harshest and toughest South Africa had known since 1910. They had expected that the people of South Africa would be doubly chastised. How disappointed they were to find that the Budget was much milder and more lenient than had been predicted! They had been deprived of the opportunity to go outside and tell the people about the harsh and heartless Budget of a merciless Government. If they do it nonetheless, as they apparently still want to—and they have done it too—the people will in any case very soon discover what the true position is.

Ask Connie what he said at Witbank.

There is a second reason why the hon. members do not like this Budget. This is the magnitude of the benefits granted to the lower-income groups in this Budget. Seldom has a Budget been introduced in this House which benefited the infirm, the dependants, the aged and the less well-to-do as much as does this very Budget. This Budget has brought benefits to both social and civil pensioners.

Ten cents a day.

This Budget has brought the old-age pensioners an increase of R3 a month, which has raised their pension to R38 a month. That hon. member who talks about ten cents a day must bear in mind that when this Government took over from his Government in 1948, the war veterans were receiving R10 a month as against the R38 a month they are receiving today. Hon. members on that side of the House are not people who should talk about these matters. This Budget has also brought a relaxation of the means test in respect of almost all pensioners. War pensions have been improved. There are also improvements in respect of attendants’ allowances, childrens’ allowances and pensions for miners’ widows. Estate duty has been eased. There are also housing benefits for 53 000 families. R25 million has been given to the Land Bank. The wool farmers have received assistance to the amount of R7 million. There are a large number of similar examples which I can mention to hon. members of what this Budget has brought the middle- and lower-income groups. If hon. members would go through the Budget, they would find that the assistance to the lower-income groups and pensioners amounts to no less than R141 million and that the assistance to the farmers amounts to no less than R143 million. Included in this are, for instance, amounts such as R26 million for wheat farmers, R15 million for artificial fertilizer for farmers, R30 million for maize farmers, R6 million for interest equalization funds, R7 million for the wool industry, which I have mentioned, and a further R20 million for assistance to farmers. In all, assistance to the amount of R143 million is being rendered to the farmers.

But these amounts, by which thousands of the less well-to-do among our people are benefited, do not count with hon. members on that side of the House. No, they merely made a few oblique references to them. One or two hon. members on that side of the House said: “Of course, we are thankful for it.” Then the matter was left at that. They are not interested in these things. The lot of the less privileged, which has been so strongly high-lighted in this Budget, is of lesser importance as far as they are concerned. It is interesting that the hon. member for Umbilo, who has spoken on pensions at every Budget as far as I can remember, was as quiet as a mouse in this debate, because he could say nothing against these matters. No, the Opposition had not expected that the Government would, under the present difficult circumstances, still be able to produce a Budget with so many benefits for so large a section of our population.

The interest of hon. members on that side of the House lies elsewhere. Their interest does not lie with these less well-to-do people. Their interest is entirely concentrated on the rich, as appears from the words they used, namely that this Budget is intended “to soak the rich”. I shall return to this to demonstrate that hon. members on that side of the House launched their attacks on this Budget chiefly because they believe that it imposes heavier and excessive taxes upon the rich in our country. The issue here is not the benefits to our poor, but the benefits to the rich, who have, in their opinion, been prejudiced.

†This, Mr. Speaker, brings me to what is regarded as the real core of the Budget, namely its taxation proposals. I read in one of last Sunday’s papers that the hon. member for Parktown had made one of his customary statements to the Press. The latest statement he made appeared in a newspaper last Sunday under the heading, “Emdin slams Diederichs. Tax surge shock after R5 000 p.a.” In regard to this Press statement of his and also in regard to the speech he made in this House, I must again indicate that the hon. member is primarily interested in those taxpayers whose incomes exceed R5 000 per annum and not in the benefits which are granted in the Budget to those who are earning less than that amount. In addition I wish to point out that the figures quoted by my hon. friend are, to say the least, misleading and do not give the true picture of the real state of affairs. This is so because in the first place, in comparing this year’s proposed tax with last year’s, he omits to say that the increase which the citizen has to pay this year compared with last year, consists to a greater extent of an increase in the tax itself. I think that hon. members in the savings levy rather than an increase on the other side of the House must agree that there is a vast difference between tax and savings levies.

This brings me to another aspect of the hon. member on the other side’s policy in regard to the fighting of inflation. In previous debates I have asked particularly the hon. member for Parktown whether he also believes in monetary and fiscal policies in the fight against inflation or in revitalizing a sagging economy. As far as I can recall, the answer was in the affirmative. It must be in the affirmative, because as far as I know all countries of the world make use of monetary and fiscal policies to fight inflation or to revitalize the economy. They make use of monetary measures in the form of restriction of credit and furthermore they make use of fiscal methods like higher taxation, all with the intention of withdrawing money from circulation.

And then spending it again!

The hon. member seems to agree with me. If hon. members on that side of the House agree that fiscal methods are required in the fight against inflation, why do they criticize me when I increase taxation to a small extent and when I increase savings levies? The whole battle during the last few days over this Budget was in regard to the higher savings levy and to the slightly higher taxation as a part of the battle against inflation. They always fight against me, and ask why do I not restrain inflation in this country, but when I do take steps in this regard, I do not find anything but criticism from the other side of the House. I want to know where the hon. gentlemen get the right to say on the one hand that this Budget is not a deflationary budget.

It is not.

Then the hon. member says again that it is not a deflationary budget, but they do criticize the anti-inflationary measures which are contained in this Budget, particularly the measures against consumption, which is generally regarded as the main cause of inflation. The hon. member also criticized me in regard to taxation and the marginal rates for taxation. The hon. gentleman said in his Press statement and also in the House, that I have gone back on my policy enunciated in my Budget Speech of 1969, of lowering the marginal rates of taxation of the higher income groups, and particularly to eliminate the tax bulge. The hon. members really do not know what they are talking about. The hon. members who say these things have not done their homework properly. Let us look at the actual state of affairs. They are attacking me for going back on my word and going back to a position prior to the 1969 Budget. That hon. friend said that I am going back even further than that. The hon. member conveniently failed to mention that before the 1969 Budget the basic marginal rate of 66,8 per cent was payable on an amount of R18 000, whereas, under the proposed scales in this Budget, the marginal rate at R18 000 is only 41,8 per cent. There is a vast difference between 41,8 per cent and 66,8 per cent. Let me repeat it. Under the old system a man earning R18 000 was taxed at the marginal rate of 66,8 per cent and in my proposals in this Budget a man earning R18 000 is taxed at the marginal rate of only 41,8 per cent, a difference of 25 per cent. And then the hon. member says that I am going back to the pre-1969 scales of taxation.

Plus the sales tax.

Yes. I will come to this in a moment. [Interjections.] Hon. members will not laugh in this cynical way after I have read out to them a few figures. Let us look at the actual figures to see what is being done in regard to taxation. Let us look at what the position was before 1969 and what it is under the present taxation. Let us take the case of a married man with two children earning R5 000 per annum. Before 1969 he paid R431 in tax including a loan levy of R41. Under my present proposals he will pay R343, including a loan levy of R35. I am sorry to quote all these figures, but I think it is necessary to put them on record. A man earning R7 000 per annum, and hon. members must listen to this, paid R1 159 which included a loan levy of R114 under the old system. Under the present proposed system he will only pay R704 in taxation of which R79 is in respect of savings levies. Under the old system a man earning R9 000 per annum paid R2 140 in taxation, but under the proposed system he will only pay R1 202. So I can go on to show that these hon. gentlemen did not do their homework properly. I can quote further figures. In terms of the 1969 Budget, relief was granted to the man earning R9 000 to the extent of R1 054. Now the tax of such a man will be increased by R116. He received relief of R1 054 and his tax is now increased by only R116. In spite of this, members opposite say that I have gone back to the pre-1969 taxation scales. I could carry on for a whole day to show that the hon. gentlemen opposite really did not know what they were talking about.

What I am going to say now is hard to believe. Let us go back for one moment to the tax philosophy of hon. members on the other side and let us see for ourselves whether they really have a tax policy and a tax philosophy. Let us go back to the 1969 debate. In 1969 when I introduced a new system of taxation lowering the high rates of taxation in the higher and middle income groups, what did the chief spokesman of the United Party then say? He said: “I accuse the Government of introducing a rich man’s Budget in that the well-to-do would benefit substantially by the decrease in direct taxation.” He criticized me and said that it was a rich man’s Budget. But I want to go further. The hon. member for Pinetown said: “This Budget is making the rich man richer and the poor man poorer.” Now I come to the main spokesman on the other side of the House, the hon. member for Parktwon. He said: “The tax measures will benefit the upper income groups. For them it is a champagne Budget, which will spark off a share market boom. The rich are getting richer free of tax. The worshipper of mammon make obeisance to the hon. the Minister.” These are the hon. gentlemen who have the audacity of coming to this House and attacking me, saying that I am going back on my word and increasing taxation, that I am “soaking the rich”.

One of the main attacks of the hon. members on the other side of the House is always to say that under this present Government in the last 22 years the economy has not flourished as it should have flourished and that the standard of living of the country had not increased as it should have increased. Every day we heard in these Budget debates how badly the poor worker, the labouring people, fare under the administration of the present Government. I want to make the statement today that never did the worker have it as good as today.

Ha, ha!

I want to prove to my hon. friend from the Transkei that from 1948 to 1970, according to statistics, the living standards of all these workers have risen considerably. Again I want to mention figures for the sake of the record. According to the statistics obtainable for 1948 to 1970 there was an increase in the cost-of-living index of 99,8 per cent. Let us put it at 100 per cent. Now, how do the wages or the salaries of the workers compare with this 100 per cent rise in the cost-of-living index? Let us take a few examples. Those working in the mines and quarries in 1948 had a wage of R1 175. In 1970 the wage was R4 253. There was an increase of 262 per cent. What does it mean? An increase in the cost of living of 100 per cent and a wage increase of 262 per cent—a real increase of 81,2 per cent. I can go to the gold mines. There was an increase of 243 per cent and a real increase of 71,8 per cent. I can go on to manufacturing industry. They had a real increase of 107,2 per cent. The workers in the food industry had a real increase of 102,8 per cent, and those in the textile industry 116,3 per cent.

Are those Europeans and non-Europeans?

No, these are the European figures. But the hon. member must not think he will find a way out here. We are talking about the voters; they are talking about the voters all the time. I will show them that they are always talking about the taxpayer in this country who has to pay so much tax. They must not try and run away. In the chemical industry there was a real increase of 80 per cent. As regards the non-metal industry, there was a 95 per cent increase, while the figure for the metal products industry is 133 per cent and that of the machinery industry 131,7 per cent. So I could go on. You know, Sir, almost the worst figure of all was that for the public authorities. The real increase in respect of the Government and Provincial Administrations was only 40 per cent.

But the hon. members not only always say that the workers in this country are doing badly, whereas I could disprove it now with figures from the Department of Statistics. They are always telling the world everything in South Africa is as bad as it possibly can be, and that business is on the downgrade in South Africa. Let me tell hon. members that during the past week-end only from one paper, the Sunday Times, I took four different references to the economic and business conditions in South Africa. Here is one of them—

Here is another one; “Cut to measure centres flourish”, and another one “steel furniture market grows 25 per cent a year”. Here is yet another one—

South Africa’s light engineering industry is expected to top R1 113 million this year, an increase of 15 per cent on the output for 1969, or 7,5 per cent per year.

Why did the revenue from companies drop?

The hon. member should not be in such a hurry—he might get an answer to his question. Here is another quote: “Ackermans picks up R929 000”. These quotes are taken from only one edition of a newspaper, quotes showing how the country has advanced and how business is growing. The hon. member has asked about the profits of companies. Here I have the latest edition of the Financial Mail and I take it hon. members opposite believe what is written in the Financial Mail. This is a paper which has always been very critical, and very negative but despite that attitude there is an article in this issue under the heading “A crumb for comfort—industrial profits continue to grow at a healthy rate in 1970 … While it may be encouraging to note that profits gained 15,8 per cent in 1970 over 1969 …”. This then is the reply to the hon. gentleman about profits. Profits in these companies grew by 15,8 per cent in 1970.

Go on with your quotation.

Yes, certainly. It reads—

In a special survey of the Financial Mail one can find the same thing—

What is the date of that?

April 16th—four days ago. Mr. Speaker, under economic conditions like these the most sensitive barometer might be the Stock Exchange. So let us see what the Stock Exchange reports. [Interjections.] I say “under economic conditions like these” the most sensitive criterion might be the Stock Exchange. The Financial Editor of the Cape Times on the 17th April reported—

In the Argus of last night there was an article also by its financial editor:

Now, Mr. Speaker, if all the prophecies of hon. members opposite that the country was going downhill continually, had become true, why should there then be life on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange? [Interjections.] But why should it rise and why should the opinion be expressed that the turning point may have arrived? [Interjections.] Hon. members should give me an opportunity to make my point. There is another paragraph in this particular paper wherein it is pointed out that the Government’s monetary and fiscal measures aimed at suppressing inflation “appeared to be working well”. Therefore, if everything is going so badly with the country economically, why then do we not find an increase in the number of bankruptcies and insolvencies? Let me give hon. members just the total number of insolvencies since 1966. In 1966 there were 774, in 1967 there were 698, in 1968 there were 682, in 1969 there were 641—in other words, the total is coming down every year in spite of the so-called bad economic condition painted by hon. members opposite. In 1970, up to July, the number of insolvencies was 302. These were the insolvencies, despite the increase in the population and despite the increase of people going into business. Despite all that the number is decreasing year after year.

*That hon. members did not like this Budget is understandable for another reason—this Budget does not offer a solution to the problems of this country in the sole form, as they want it, of labour.

Not only labour.

Well, then I am sorry that this debate is over for I would very much have liked to have seen hon. members opposite being afforded an opportunity of explaining to us what their policy in respect of inflation actually is, that is, apart from the question of labour. Throughout this entire debate, hon. members opposite produced nothing along these lines. All they had to say was that labour should be increased; then all our problems would be solved. At the time of the Part Appropriation last February I put a question to which I have still not received a reply. I pointed out to them at the time that there are countries with an abundance of labour which are nevertheless also saddled with an inflation problem—inter alia, Italy, Britain and America.

I replied to that during the Third Reading debate on the Part Appropriation Bill.

Nor have they furnished an explanation of the fact that although there was an abundance of Bantu labour from 1945 to 1948, i.e. when they were governing—in fact there was unemployment—when the soldiers returned from the front and there was money, they were unable at the time to solve the problem of inflation.

Mr. Speaker, what I find so surprising is that the hon. members on that side do not want to take the trouble to make, once and for all, an extensive analysis of the problem of inflation in this House. They must not merely tell us that we must accommodate the inflation problem by means of the greater utilization of Bantu labour. Let them make a comprehensive analysis for us here of the problem of inflation and all its implications and complications. Let me just put a few questions to them: The Opposition have never told us how they want to incorporate the increased number of Bantu. They have never told us how they are able to solve the shortage of skilled workers through the greater utilization of Bantu. They have perhaps stated here and there that they are going to consult the trade unions, but they have not said whether they are going to consult the left-wing or the right-wing trade unions. They have not told us, if they should consult the left-wing trade unions, what protection they are going to afford the Whites. They have never given us any proof that their solution will combat inflation; they have never proved to us that their solution will bring satisfaction and happiness to the workers; they have never given us a reply to the question of work reservation. No, Sir, I get the impression that this introduction of non-White labour into industry, as they want to do it, is to serve a purpose other than a purely economic one. The hon. member for Yeoville is not present at the moment. Yesterday he waxed very eloquent about this problem. He quoted from the speech made by a Stellenbosch economist, Mr. De Vries, Mr. De Vries who has recently been quoted so extensively by hon. members on the opposite side. I find it strange that the hon. member for Yeoville did not read out this sentence as well. Mr. De Vries says—

But now you must listen, Sir—

Now hon. members on that side have absolutely nothing to say. The hon. member for Yeoville quoted Mr. De Vries here as an example of a clear-thinking economist. I wonder whether it is also the opinion of hon. members on that side that the solution lies in “creating job uncertainty amongst the Whites … and we can only do this by allowing non-Whites to do jobs at present being done by Whites”.

Mr. Speaker, I come now to a few general questions in regard to certain features of this Budget. In the first place I want to refer to the accusation of over-taxation, an accusation which has been completely refuted by the figures I have just mentioned.

What about the excise duty?

That hon. member has just made a joke now for the other hon. members to laugh at. Sir, it is being said that this Budget is allegedly inflationary. It has been said by many hon. members on that side of the House. The hon. member for Parktown was one of them. He and other members alleged that this Budget is inflationary and that it will supposedly lead to demands for higher wages. The hon. member for Parktown referred to last year’s Budget and pointed out that we are concluding this Budget with a deficit. He expressed his regret at the fact that we in South Africa should conclude a revenue estimate with a deficit. I also regretted that, but I can encourage the hon. member by saying that our figures now present a different picture. Hon. members know that if one presents a Budget on 31st March, you are working with figures which are approximately four to five weeks old. You do not have the correct figures. As it happened a large amount of money entered the Treasury towards the last week of March. The position is now that we can tell you what the latest position on 31st March was.

The latest figures indicate that receipts in respect of inland revenue are R26,3 million higher than the previous estimate; that customs and excise is R0,7 million lower than the previous estimate, and that the expenditure of the Government is R11,5 million lower than the previous estimate. In other words, I can now reassure my friends that we are no longer concluding with a deficit, but with a revenue surplus of R1,7 million.

As far as this year’s Budget is concerned, the hon. members, and particularly the hon. member for Constantia, said that this Budget is an inflationary one as a result of the R150 million we are borrowing from abroad. Yes, that in itself is inflationary, but the result is that the capital market in South Africa is to a larger extent than being left to local entrepreneurs. In spite of what my friend said the other day, there is a shortage, a scarcity, of capital in South Africa. If the Government had wanted to meet all its needs by means of loans made on the local market, it would in the first place have left little capital for other entrepreneurs who need capital, and in the second place the Government would have had to offer interest rates which would have disrupted the entire interest rate pattern from its context. It is for that reason that we feel that in spite of the fact that this R150 million has an inflationary character, it is nevertheless in the country’s interest to allow it in so that the local capital can to a greater extent be used for local industrial development. But I also want to inform the hon. members that of that R150 million which is being borrowed by the State from abroad, a very large portion of it will go back again in the form of payments by the State. I am just mentioning the interest payments which cost many millions. I am mentioning that additional amount of more than R20 million which is being paid in the form of interest this year. I am also mentioning the R20 million which is going to the I.M.F. I have been asked here what amount of the imports to South Africa are for the Government and Government bodies. In the past year R51,5 million was for the Government, the Railways and the Post Office. We were unable to obtain the figures for the corporations, but it was R51.5 million for the first-mentioned organizations. Defence is not included here, but I think the hon. member will understand that we prefer not to mention those figures.

That brings me to the hon. member for Constantia, who said that “in the present circumstances it is not advisable to finance capital expenditure to such an extent from current revenue; the Government should rather seek its funds in the capital market”. Sir, the point I did in fact make, was that we were making use of current expenditure partially in order to curb consumption, to reduce the consumption by the people and in that way combat inflation.

It puts prices and costs up.

I cannot hear what the hon. member is saying. In addition, as I have already mentioned, we do not have sufficient capital in this country to meet all the requirements of a growing population and a growing country. In the third place we are making use, not so much of increased taxation, but of increased loan levies which are paid back to the people. This Budget also encourages saving. Saving is not only anti-inflationary, but saving brings us the capital we need for future growth.

The hon. members on the opposite side kept on saying that this Budget did not promote industrial growth. I wonder why the hon. members have such short memories. Do hon. members not know that there is in our tax system an in-built method of promoting industrial growth? Do hon. members not know that in the Budget of six, seven months ago I announced new measures for promoting our industrial growth? Must we with every budget always announce new accumulating measures for the promotion of industries in our country? Do hon. members not know that, to mention an example, if a person spends RIO000 to purchase a machine for an industry, he receives an investment allowance of R1 500, an initial allowance of R1 500, and a wear-and-tear allowance of R850? Altogether this comes to R3 850. If an industrialist buys such a machine, a tremendous amount is, as it were, being given to him as a cash donation to encourage him to revitalize his industry. In this Budget R16,5 million is being set aside for that industrial purpose.

The measures we announced for industrial development in the homelands, which will be expanded even further, stimulates industrial growth and will continue to do so. Exemption from certain taxes is going to stimulate industry. Above all, the infrastructure of a country is the greatest and most important requirement for its industrial development. A country cannot develop unless it has the infrastructure which makes industrial growth possible. That is what makes it necessary that the industrial growth of a country should occasionally slow down for a while, so that the Government has an opportunity to bring its industrial structure up to the level it ought to be on.

I want to tell hon. members what the Budget has done for the infrastructure of our country. We have made a calculation. Of the total Budget of R3 436 700 000, after R42,3 million has been transferred to Bantu education, an amount of R1 580 607 000 is being made available for the infrastructure. R628 million is being made available for the economic aspect. For the more social aspect, R952 million has been proposed for the infrastructure. I want to mention a few examples: Loans to Railways, R168 million; Postal Administration, R50 million; State Water schemes, R101,5 million; educational institutions, R7.5 million; hospital and schools, R84 million; housing and slum clearance, R54 million. So I can go on to show that in this Budget an amount of approximately R1 600 million is being made available for the expansion of the infrastructure.

I again wish to say something now which hon. members on that side will not like. I just want to draw one comparison, because I think that one is enough, to show the difference between the former Government of the hon. members on the opposite side and our Government this year. It is in the field of education. Will hon. members believe that in the year 1948-’49, when we took over from them, the expenditure on education for Whites was R47,4 million, while the expenditure for education of Whites in this Budget this year amounts to R398.4 million? That is an increase of 740 per cent. [Interjections.] Let us now look at the figures in respect of Whites plus Coloured persons. The United Party’s expenditure in respect of all of them was R64 million, while ours is R537 million.

I just want to refer in passing to the “incompetence” about which hon. members on that side of the House had such a lot to say. They spoke of the incompetence of a National Party Government. Let us now pause for a moment and draw a comparison between the National Party Government and the various provinces. Since 1948 the expenditure of the National Party Government has increased by 460 per cent. The expenditure of the Natal Provincial Administration, which is run by the United Party, increased by 539 per cent. It is very interesting to see that the United Party governed Provincial Administration in Natal showed the highest growth in expenditure, i.e. 539 per cent, and that the National Party province, the Free State, showed the smallest growth in expenditure. [Interjections.] There is a great deal of squawking when one throws a stone into a fowl-run.

Hon. members on that side of the House accused us of having done nothing in respect of exports. My time is limited, but I just want to point out that last year I announced a considerable accommodation for exporters, if only exporters would make use of it. I want to mention the example that if an exporter spends, say, R10 000 on promoting exports, he can deduct between R15 000 to R20 000, depending on his export achievements, from his taxable income. In other words, of that R10 000 the State will pay between 60 and 80 per cent. This was announced last year in August. It is now coming into operation. There are also certain intersest subsidies to promote exports. This year it will cost us R1 100 000.

In the third place, this Budget curbs consumption. One of the reasons for our poor export achievement, is that our consumer spending in South Africa is too high. If we curb consumption, we will have more available for exports.

†I now want to turn to certain more technical matters. These matters have been raised in this House mostly by the hon. member for Parktown. Although they are technical, they are of great importance and I want to elucidate some of the matters raised by the hon. member.

The first matter concerns the new system of loan levy on company dividends. Questions have been put to me outside this House and a whole host of inquiries have been made in regard to the actual meaning of this new loan levy on company dividends. The hon. member for Parktown raised this question, but I must say that he has not been quality of associating himself with the wild guesses that the Government will collect about R100 million to R200 million from this source, The hon. member will appreciate that it is not possible to explain and discuss the technical aspects of income tax legislation in a Budget speech. There will be ample opportunity for that when the Income Tax Bill is introduced. My Department and I, too, have had numerous inquiries as to how the measure is to be applied. Accordingly, I gladly give the House further details in this regard.

As can be deduced from the taxation proposals which I tabled, the Income Tax Act will be amended to include dividends in the taxable income of companies for purposes of the levy. It follows that the expenses incurred in the production of such dividends will be allowed as a deduction against the gross dividend receipts. In addition a company will be allowed to deduct from the dividends received in any tax year, the dividends distributed during the same tax year to another company which is not exempted from the levy. The effect of the latter deduction will be that companies who conduct their affairs by means of a series of companies will not be liable for the levy on dividends passing from one company to another if the dividends are declared during the same tax year. My estimate that the new loan levy at 7½ per cent will produce R20 million during the 1971-’72 financial year, remains unaltered. It is very important to state that companies whose financial years end shortly should note that to qualify for the deduction, the dividends should be declared in the same tax year as they are received.

Another matter which is of great interest to many people is the fringe benefits. In the course of my Budget speech I mentioned some general tax matters arising from the Franzsen Commission’s report. One of the points I raised was the question of fringe benefits and the commission’s alarm at the growing tendency to use such benefits as a means of avoiding tax. I agree with the commission’s views and I stated earlier on that I have instructed my department to make a further investigation into the scope of these practices and to determine what misuse was being made of them. In his speech the hon. member for Parktown, while agreeing with the principle that these fringe benefits should be subjected to tax, drew attention to certain difficult areas in the fringe benefits field. I accept his well-meant remarks, which I think were intended as a guide to my department in the investigation which they are undertaking at present. I do, however, wish to clear up a point which he has raised and which may be misconstrued. He mentioned the “problem of benefits under economic and sub-economic schemes, which are looked after by my friend, the hon. the Minister of Community Development. How will he deal with these benefits”? As the hon. member must surely know, the only benefits the Income Tax Act, as it stands, seeks to tax are those arising from employment or from the holding of an office. The principle remains, as it is additional remuneration paid by means of fringe benefits which we are seeking to tax. Benefits under economic or sub-economic schemes, run by the Government or local authorities, are not affected as they do not arise from employment of the holding of an office. I can assure the hon. member that we will be very circumspect and that we will not seek to cause pinpricks, but we must combat schemes for tax evasion or avoidance especially by means of large tax-free benefits where they are reserved for the selected few and are not available as ordinary taxable remuneration to the large body of employees.

Another very important point is a matter which has been raised about abatements instead of rebates. The hon. member for Parktown criticized the proposed system of deductions from income to be allowed to taxpayers in the place of the existing system of rebates from tax. He laid particular stress on the diminution of the abatements as the income of a taxpayer increases beyond R5 000 until they disappear entirely at varying income levels depending on the number of children and other abateable items such as dependants and insurance, details of which will be given in the Income Tax Bill.

As the hon. member knows, a system of reducing abatements is not foreign to the South African tax structure and it was in fact enforced up to 1940. In that year, for example, the abatements were £400 for a married and a single taxpayer, and £100 for each child. The sum total of the abatements was reduced by £1 for every £10 by which a married taxpayer’s taxable income exceeded £600 and £1 for every £1 by which an unmarried person’s taxable income exceeded £400. There is a very good reason for this measure. It is a firm principle in the levying of tax on income that the amount payable by a taxpayer must be commensurate to his ability to pay, having regard to his family circumstances. This is reiterated in the first report of the Franzsen Commission in dealing with the question of abatements. It must be stressed that whether you deduct a rebate from tax or an abatement from income it is not done as a means of compensating a taxpayer for actual expenditure incurred in the upkeep of his household. It is only to bring his tax in line with his taxpaying ability.

The system of abatements, where deductions are made from income, would naturally be more favourable the higher one’s income goes, as deductions would be equal to the taxpayer’s marginal rate of tax. Thus an abatement of R450 for a child would mean a tax relief of R45 where the taxpayer is in the R2 000 to R3 000 income category with a 10 per cent marginal rate. That would give a taxpayer in the over R28 000 income category with a 60 per cent basic marginal tax rate relief to an amount of R270. Having regard to the ability to pay principle, this advantage to the high income groups cannot be justified if one takes into consideration that in relation to income the support of a child weighs more heavily on the lower and middle income groups and that such support requires a smaller portion of the income of a person in the high income group, thus having a smaller effect on his ability to pay. The necessity for relief therefore diminishes as income increases. In other words, the bigger the income, the smaller the relative need for tax relief to adjust the tax payable according to the taxpayer’s ability to pay.

Finally I wish to make it very clear that contributions to pension and retirement annuity funds are deductible expenses against income and do not fall for inclusion under abatements. Such contributions will continue to be allowed as deductions and are not in the least affected by the proposed abatement system.

in this connection I also want to make an announcement in regard to the new premium bonds the hon. member for Parktown was being a little hasty when he attacked me just after my Budget speech because I had not yet given any details about the premium bonds, although I had said in my Budget speech that the matter was being investigated and that I would say more in this connection later. In the Budget speech I said that a further announcement in regard to the State’s new means of saving, the premium bond, would be made. I decided to accept most of the recommendations of the Lodder Committee in regard to the conditions of these bonds, namely a minimum investment of R500 for a period of seven years and a bonus of 2 per cent payable if the bond has not been paid back before the end of the fifth year, and 4½ per cent if it is paid back at the end of the seventh year. The bond will not be repayable during the first year. In addition, the Government decided that the interest and bonus on these bonds should be completely tax-free. With a view to that the interest rate must of course be slightly lower than proposed by the committee. The interest rate will consequently be 5¾ per cent per annum for the first two years, 6½ per cent for the following three years, and 7 per cent for the last two years. The maximum investment for any individual, that is to say a tax unit, will be R40 000, regardless of any investment in other tax-free bonds. I think that this bond will be particularly attractive as a long-term investment for the higher income groups. It is hoped that the bond will be available in about two months, and a further announcement will in due course be made in the Press.

Now I come to another matter of great importance. The hon. member for Park-town and other hon. members have often in this House touched upon the matter of Government expenditure. In an earlier debate the hon. member for Parktown asked the strange question, whether the State can spend a rand to better effect than the individual. This is a question which we know is often posed in the economy when taxes are questioned, i.e. whether the Government can spend money to better effect than the individual. Usually the answer is “no, the individual can spend to better effect, and that is why he may not be taxed severely”. I want to say that the question the hon. member and others asked is a strange question. It is a question which casts doubt on the right of a state to tax a nation. My hon. friend knows that not long ago a new party originated in France, the Poullardists, and that that party declared themselves to be completely opposed to income tax. They gained quite a large following and subsequently disappeared. Those people gave out that taxation was not only unnecessary, but virtually anathema, because the individual could do everything better.

Now I want to concede that as far as personal matters are concerned, the individual can decide for himself to better effect than the State. There is a circle of interests where the individual is best able to take decisions in regard to his own financial affairs. But I do want to put this question to hon. members: Is there not also a common sphere, where the individual cannot see to his own needs, but where he needs the establishment of the State to provide the necessary facilities for him? Now I want to ask the hon. member this question: Will the individual pay the salaries of public servants? Will the individual give us schools, universities and training institutions? Will the individual supply us with postal and communication systems? Will the individual be able to see to our Railways, air services and road building in South Africa? I am not talking about a large country like America. Will the individual supply us with hospitals and other similar institutions? Will the individual see to the order and the security of the country? Will the individual give us courts of law? Will the individual provide us with police? Will the individual maintain the South African Army? Merely to ask these questions, shows how dangerous that question of my hon. friend is, i.e. whether the State can spend money to better effect than the individual. It proves to you that there is a tremendous sphere where only the State can spend the money.

Sir, I now come to another matter. I want to refer to the hon. member for Hill-brow. I am very sorry, but I thought at first that I should ignore the conduct of the hon. member for Hillbrow last week, as it was in fact ignored by most important newspapers. But I do nevertheless think that it is necessary to refer to that conduct. Hon. members who have been in this House with me for almost 23 years will know that it has never been in my custom to be personal in any respect. We have had hard and tough fights across the floor of this House where we pitted argument against argument for the sake of a cause in which we all believed. I think hon. members will agree that I have, to the best of my ability, tried never to be narrowly personal. But the hon. member for Hillbrow’s conduct forces me today to say things which I hope I will never again have to say in this House. In the speech which the hon. member made in this House last week, he was not speaking here with the purpose of making a contribution to the debate or of presenting facts and arguments with which to satisfy this House, but he came along here to place his own person in the foreground and to make an impression on his own behalf in this House. Of course the hon. member said unfavourable things about me and about the Budget. That, however, was not to my mind the most important aspect of his speech. The most important aspect of his speech was that he wanted to show us and his people what a wonderful person, what an excellent debater he is. That is why one cannot call his effort a speech. I want to describe it as an oratorical display, as a demagogic exhibition, an exaggerated and self-satisfied performance for the purpose of creating an impression for himself. One often reads in the newspapers and hears even here in the lobby, that the hon. member for Hillbrow is aspiring to the leadership of his party in the Transvaal and even to the leadership of my hon. friend here. I want to tell him that anyone who wants to be a leader of that party, must be a person who will also, at least, have the respect of this side of the House as well, otherwise he cannot be a leader. Well, if I want to use the impression the hon. member made on this side of the House as a yardstick for an assessment of his acceptability as leader for the other side of the House, then his chances are really less than poor … [Interjections.] I am sorry that I have been forced to say these words. But I hope that these words will prevent him from becoming the greatest political playboy this House has ever known.

Why do you not answer his arguments?

I now come to another matter which was raised by several members on the other side, i.e. the question of the provinces. This was raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, by the hon. member for Green Point, by the hon. member for Von Brandis, by the hon. member for Gardens and others. I hope hon. members will realize that there is no time now for me to go thoroughly into this matter. It will be fully discussed when the relevant Bill is presented to the House. But I should like to refer briefly to a number of points raised. It has been stated that many of the recommendations of the report have been rejected. Of course, the Government is never bound to accept all the recommendations of any report. All the recommendations of the Franzsen Commission were not accepted either. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Pinetown even pleaded with me not to accept certain of those recommendations. The problem of the relationship between the Central Government, the provinces and local authorities will be studied continuously and if we consider it desirable to bring about other improvements we shall certainly do so in future.

By the hon. member for Green Point, I think, it was alleged that the autonomy of the provinces was being eroded. No proof has been advanced for this general and vague statement.

Oh no.

That is somewhat naïve.

It is true that the provinces’s power to impose income tax as a percentage of Government income tax receipts as well as a personal or individual tax have been taken away and instead grants will be made to the provinces according to a certain new formula. But this does not mean that the activities of the provinces have been significantly impaired. Over the last 60 years the activities and the powers of the provinces have changed from time to time. New powers have been given to and old powers have been taken away from them. These proposals, which we have now laid upon the Table in White Papers, have been arrived at after long study and long discussions between the parties concerned and also with Prof. Schumann and Mr. Borckenhagen, and I am happy to be able to state in this House that both Prof. Schumann and Mr. Borckenhagen are very satisfied with the contents of the White Papers. I have letters to prove that.

The third question which has been asked by hon. members is whether the Administrators will still come cap in hand every year to the Minister for the necessary funds. I must admit here that one of my most difficult tasks every year and that of every Minister of Finance in South Africa over several years in the past has been to decide, when the Administrators come at the beginning of the year to ask for more money to finance their programmes, what amount to give to the provinces, without any formula which met the requirements of the situation. Every year we had to give the provinces extra-statutory amounts or subsidies without any fixed basis on which to calculate those subsidies. With the formula now proposed, which has been carefully worked out, we sincerely trust that we have found a method to calculate the grants to the provinces in such an objective way that no decision of an arbitrary nature will be necessary. Of course, Mr. Speaker, we all are human beings; we are all fallible, and it is quite impossible under constantly changing circumstances to devise a method of calculation which is completely infallible. In any case I do not believe that the Administrators will have to come cap in hand to me every year. If in the course of time we do find that the formula does not meet the requirements we shall naturally not hesitate to make the necessary amendments.

The last question put to me was with regard to the provision of capital funds to the provinces. My reply is that this question is a very difficult and a very complex one and one which is still being studied by my department. For the time being the capital requirements of the provinces will be determined largely by the provinces themselves under the close scrutiny of the Treasury. We hope that in the next year or two a new procedure will be introduced in regard to capital funds, consisting essentially of an extension of the new subsidy formula proposed in the White Paper. I do not think that I need go into greater detail on this matter; we shall have an opportunity of discussing it in detail later on.

Sir, the hon. member for Pinetown discussed the recommendations of the Franzsen Commission. He was perturbed about certain of the recommendations. I want to tell my hon. friend that the recommendations contained in the Franzsen report referred to the financial structure of South Africa and that they make certain proposals in regard to changes in our financial structure. The Government has not yet considered this third report, but having appointed a commission to investigate the capital structure in all the provinces the Government will certainly study these proposals and make its decisions public as soon as possible. I want to emphasize that these recommendations which my hon. friend talks about are recommendations in respect of not only foreign financial institutions but also South African financial institutions. They do not apply to other companies. The hon. member has mentioned the chemical industry, the paper industry, and the textile industry. These particular industries or companies do not fall under the recommendations of the Franzsen Commission’s report. I want to say here again that it is not our intention, although we still have to investigate the recommendations on financial companies, to restrict foreign capital investment in the sphere of secondary industry in this country. I have always said in this House that we welcome foreign capital for many reasons and we shall continue with that policy of welcoming foreign capital in this country.

*I now come to the last thought. It was a very interesting side of the debate we had here last week, i.e. the comparison of the economy of South Africa with the economy of the U.S.A. and of the United Kingdom. It was very interesting that whereas in the past hon. members opposite always took Japan as an example, they now came forward with the idea that we in South Africa should look to Great Britain, the United States and Rhodesia in order to see what a good economy is. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke in the first place of Rhodesia. I think the hon. the Leader will pardon me if I do not refer to Rhodesia. I think the hon. member will understand that the economy of Rhodesia is in a position which cannot be compared at all. I may just say one thing. It is interesting that in Rhodesia, where there is free utilization of non-White labour, there is a shortage of 4,1 per cent in respect of skilled workers, while we have a shortage of 4,8 per cent. They do have a smaller shortage of skilled workers, but they nevertheless have a shortage, in spite of their labour policy.

Hon. members referred to Britain and said how wonderful the economy of Britain was, and asked why we did not model our economy on theirs. Let me now refer to the economy of Britian, and hon. members can find all this in The Economist of 3rd April of this year. The percentage increase in the real gross product between 1969 and 1970 was 1,7. Ours was more than 5 per cent. Between the first half of 1970 and the first half of 1971 the expected growth rate was only 1.3 per cent. The Budget which they have just introduced, is intended to make a target growth rate of 3 per cent possible over the next year without stimulating renewed demand inflation. Unemployment was 15,8 per cent higher in March, 1971. Retail prices were 8,5 per cent higher in February, 1971, than in February, 1970. This is the economy of Britain; unemployment, a larger balance of trade deficit, virtually no growth rate, higher cost of living. And hon. members opposite want to compare the economy of South Africa with that economy!

Hon. members went further and wanted to compare the economy of South Africa with that of America. They ask why we are not like America. Do the hon. members not know that the American economy is in an extremely critical position today? Do they not know that there is unemployment? Do they not know that the American Budget showed a large deficit? Do they not know that America has an enormous balance of payments deficit, that consumption has dropped there, that there is a declining growth rate, and that the American Government is now stimulating the economy because it is displaying a downward trend? Do they not know that the balance of payments deficit of America in 1970 was 10,7 billion dollars, and that it was 4 billion dollars in the first quarter of this year? Do they not know that America can simply build up balance of payments deficits, while we in South Africa may not do so?

I want to conclude by making the following observation: I do not want to say that the world economy and the finances of the world are in a critical situation today, but the fact remains that America is today building up an enormous foreign balance of payments deficit as a result of its economic position, and is pumping tens of billions of dollars into the European market. This is one of the main causes of the present world inflation. I am afraid the day may come when the European states will no longer want to receive or to hold those dollars. Then we shall see a first-class crisis in world finance. I am sorry that hon. members opposite have so little insight that they expect to be able to take over the economic policies of Britain and the United States for South Africa when they come into power. Now we know where we stand with those hon. members. Now we know what to expect from them if they should come into power. Now we know what their economic criteria are. The economy of South Africa, which particularly in the last decade has become one of the soundest economies in the entire world, is rejected by them. It is not good enough for the United Party. The economy of Britain and the economy of the United States, which are regarded as two of the most vulnerable economies in the entire world, are now the ideal of the United Party. I can only say: If these are the economies they want, the people will say of them: “You are the party we do not want.”

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

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—98: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Jager, P. R.; De Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Gerdener, T. J. A.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Palm, P. D.; Pelser. P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rail, J. J.; Rail, J. W.; Rail, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, J. E. Potgieter, P. C. Roux and W. L. D. M. Venter.

Noes—42: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Cillie, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

(Committee Stage)

Schedules I to 4:

Revenue Vote No. 3.—“House of Assembly”, R1 550 000:

Mr. Chairman, I understand that the Speaker of the House of Assembly quite recently agreed to a change in the designation of the service staff here. Up to now they have been designated as messengers of the House of Assembly. Hon. members will undoubtedly agree with me that the full-time staff, who render excellent services in this House are in fact not messengers. They are people who perform highly responsible services here. They are people who are comparable to the staff of other Parliaments in the Western world, people who render us a most important service. I understand that the junior staff members will in future be known as service officers. The more senior members will be called senior service officers, and then there will be the chief service officer. The Afrikaans designations for these will be “hoofdiensbeampte” in the case of the chief service officer, “adjunk-hoofdiensbeampte” in the case of the deputy chief service officer, and then there will be the “diensbeamptes”.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to avail myself of this opportunity to signify my agreement with this decision. I want to express my confidence that this decision will be seen as a token of appreciation on the part of the House of Assembly for the services rendered to us by these full-time staff members.

Vote put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, this is new legislation which is intended for the protection of purchasers of land which is sold on instalments. The legislation is introduced not only for their protection, but also for their benefit. We therefore support this legislation, but at this stage I wish to place on record that we are disappointed that the hon. the Minister has not seen fit to accept our amendment whereby we wanted to bring within the provisions of this Bill the State departments and the various provincial administrations which are being excluded in terms of clause 2 (b). This matter was argued in the Committee Stage and I do not wish to go into this any further, except to say that we are disappointed that he is persisting in this attitude, because we believe that in addition to measures for their protection against prejudice, the Bill does contain many new previsions which create new rights and benefits for purchasers of land on instalments. They do not have these rights and benefits at present and we believe that purchasers of land on instalment from State departments should enjoy these rights and benefits in the same way as purchasers from private sellers.

I would also like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the various sub-sections of clause 11. This is the cession clause, and here again I do not wish to go into the details because they were discussed in the Committee Stage. However, we do think that this is a complicated clause; it is a new clause. We do think that it is a clause which should be watched carefully so far as its practical operation is concerned. I would like to urge the hon. the Minister to do this and to be prepared to introduce amendments if necessary. Because of its complications this clause could give rise to considerable litigation and it is unfair to purchasers to have to create new law through litigation. Certain problems may arise in practice and therefore it would be better for the Minister to make a careful note of this and to be prepared to introduce amendments speedily if any problems were to arise, rather than to leave it to purchasers to create expensive new law through litigation.

The hon. member for Musgrave began by saying that he was disappointed in me because I had not accepted his amendment to clause 2. My philosophy in connection with national affairs and administrative matters and that of the hon. member are so divergent that I should feel uneasy if he were to tell me that he was satisfied with me. Consequently I am quite convinced that the attitude I adopted was the right one.

I want to ask that I now be granted the opportunity just to say a few words in connection with the procedure followed with this legislation. As I said in the Second Reading debate, this is a matter that was advertised. It aroused widespread interest. An interdepartmental committee was also appointed to investigate the whole matter. Representations and memoranda were submitted by a wide range of interests and persons. After all the representations had been dealt with, the Bill was drafted. Although a need had arisen for legislation of this nature, it goes without saying that there were divergent interests as well. There were the interests of the people who purchase and whom we would like to protect, and then there were also the interests of developers, the people who sell. Under the circumstances it goes without saying that there were conflicting interests and opinions in the negotiations. After all this we produced this Bill, which is really a compromise among the various attitudes which were adopted. I made it very clear here that I do not regard this legislation as containing any political implications at all. In fact, I addressed an invitation to hon. members to express their opinions freely on any clause. I expressly asked the hon. the Leader of the House to allow us some time before the Committee Stage in order to negotiate about this matter. Several hon. members made representations for the appointment of a Select Committee. Personally I had very grave misgivings about this, because if such a committee had been appointed, we might never have been able to place this legislation on the Statute Book, as it might have been postponed for heaven knows how long. As a result of the time we had at our disposal there was a free and informal discussion between members of my Department of Commerce, under which this legislation falls, and hon. members on both sides of the House. It is because of this that I should like to show the hon. member for Musgrave that our sole object with this legislation, after the free discussion of this matter between me and my department and hon. members, is to place something on the Statute Book which will protect the purchaser in general and which will, at the same time, be fair to all the parties affected by it. At the conclusion of this debate I should like to avail myself of the opportunity to thank hon. members on both sides of the House for their positive co-operation in placing on the Statute Book something about which we agree to such a large extent as we do about the legislation as it is before the House at present. Furthermore, I should like to give the hon. member for Musgrave the assurance that the particular clause to which he referred, i.e. clause 11, as regards the one point concerning the interest which a cessionary can refuse to pay to the cedent in cases where the transfer duty receipt is not handed over, as well as other points, will again be carefully examined by my department and myself. If it becomes necessary and if there are ambiguities we shall try to rectify them in the Other Place. I honestly believe that, except for the complaint which the hon. member for Musgrave still has in connection with State departments, we are basically in agreement concerning this legislation, and that we have achieved something positive in this connection.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill arises mainly out of the Cabinet decision on the recommendations as contained in the White Papers on the reports of the Borckenhagen, Schumann and Marais Commissions of Inquiry, and provision is consequently being made in it for the construction and control of national roads by the National Transport Commission and for other essential matters. Briefly, the object is to invest the Commission with the necessary powers so that, as an autonomous, central road authority, it may be enabled to devise, develop, maintain and protect the Republic’s national freeway system so that national freeways may continue to be permanent assets to the country. The Provincial Administrations were consulted throughout the process and are conversant with the Cabinet’s attitude in regard to the matter. On several occasions detailed discussions were held with the various executive committees and the roads departments of the provinces in order to iron out matters and so that the take-over of national roads by the proposed central road authority could take place as smoothly as possible.

On this occasion I should like to state frankly that the spirit of mutual cooperation prevailed throughout the discussions and that the interests of the country were always put first. The provinces definitely deserve the highest praise and appreciation for this, as well as for their undertakings to co-operate closely in future with the new central road authority. One trusts that these few facts will squash once and for all the distasteful statements and unjustified criticism and accusations of which certain uninformed and irresponsible persons delivered themselves on other occasions and laid at the door of the provinces. I must point out that I personally, together with the officials of our department, negotiated in a very friendly manner with all the provinces. In addition I want to point out that during the preparation of these White Papers, to which I have referred, drafts were circulated to the provinces as well as to the Association of Local Authorities. Then I want to put the question—I shall deal with it later on—of whether we can in fact circulate such information to organizations if it is going to be used before the White Papers are tabled here. Later on, if further questions are asked, I shall provide proof that White Papers in draft form which had been circulated in a confidential capacity, were used wrongly in public.

Can you prove that?

I can prove it. I have the evidence here.

Now I want to deal very briefly with the other legal aspects which had to be taken into account when a start was made with the preparation of this Bill. Section 84 (1) (h) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act provides that subject to the provisions of this Act, the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act and the assent of the State President, a provincial council may make ordinances in relation to roads, outspans, points and bridges, other than bridges connecting two provinces. Section 85 of the Constitution provides that any ordinance made by a provincial council shall have effect in and for the province as long and as far only as it is not repugnant to any Act of Parliament.

Paragraph 10 of Part B of the First Schedule to the Transkei Constitution Act, 1963, (Act No. 48 of 1963), which is referred to in section 37 (1) (a) of Act No. 48 of 1963, read in conjunction with section 39 (f) of that Act, provides that the Transkeian Legislative Assembly shall have no power to make laws, inter alia, in regard to roads which have been declared to be national roads, in the cases referred to in section 37 (1) (a) of Act No. 48 of 1963, and national roads in general in the cases referred to in section 39 (f) of Act No. 48 of 1963.

Section 17 of the National Roads Act, 1935, (Act No. 42 of 1935), provides that no provision of Act No. 42 of 1935 shall be construed as empowering the National Transport Commission save as provided in section 10 quat, to construct, reconstruct, repair or maintain any road. Section 10 quat of Act No. 42 of 1935 provides inter alia, that the commission itself may construct, reconstruct, repair or maintain or cause such work to be done, at the cost of the National Road Fund, in respect of any bridge connecting two provinces which is situated on a declared national road.

The proposed statutory provisions and their joint practical effect may consequently be summarized as follows—

1. (a) The Constitution confers only permissive powers on a provincial council in order to make ordinances in respect of roads within the jurisdiction of that province. In other words, such a council is not compelled to make such ordinances.
2. (b) The legislative power of Parliament is, therefore, not being curtailed at all under section 84 (1) (8) of the Constitution, and consequently Parliament has the power to make laws in respect of roads and related matters.
3. (c) The Transkei Constitution Act withholds from the Transkeian Legislative Assembly the power of making laws on national roads. Consequently the legislative power of Parliament in regard to national roads is therefore not being curtailed either under the provisions of the Transkei Constitution Act, and therefore Parliament has the power to make laws on national roads in the Transkei. Indeed, section I of the Transkei Constitution Act provides that the Transkei is a self-governing territory within the Republic South Africa.
4. (d) Only the existing National Roads Act prohibits the Commission from constructing and maintaining roads, but invests it at the same time with jurisdiction to construct and maintain inter-provincial bridges itself, or to cause it to be done.

From the foregoing it follows logically that Parliament would remain within the scope of either the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act or the Transkeian Constitution Act if it established a central road organization for national roads outside provincial or Transkeian context by means of suitable legislation having force of law in all four provinces and in the Transkei.

As I have briefly indicated before, the National Roads Bill, 1971, is aimed at extending the powers, duties and functions of the commission in regard to roads to such an extent that, as a fully-fledged central-road authority, it will have the necessary jurisdiction to establish, develop and maintain a national freeways system for the Republic.

Of necessity adequate provision had to be made as regards the commission’s commitments in respect of the completion of current work, as well as the completion of specific sections of old national roads, special roads, urban roads and roads which are financed by the Treasury but do not and will not form an integral part of the national freeways system.

In the preparation of the Bill, certain existing statutory principles necessarily had to be taken into account, and consequently the Bill derives its provisions from the principles contained in—

1. (a) the National Roads Act, 1935 (Act 42 of 1935);
2. (b) the Transport (Co-ordination) Act, 1948 (Act 44 of 1948), as far as road matters are concerned;
3. (c) the Advertising on Roads and Ribbon Development Act, 1940 (Act 21 of 1940);
4. (d) the relevant provisions of the Expropriation Act, 1965 (Act 55 of 1965), and the Railway Expropriation Act, 1955 (Act 37 of 1955);
5. (e) several principles contained in the Road Ordinances of certain provinces; and
6. (f) other essential principles and instruments so that the commission may be properly equipped to carry out its powers, duties and functions as an independent and autonomous road authority with the greatest measure of efficiency.

Only certain provisions and principles could be taken from Act No. 42 of 1935, because it never contained the powers, duties and functions of a road authority. After all, an amendment to the existing National Roads Act will amount to new legislation. For that reason the said Act is being repealed in terms of this Bill.

From the Advertising on Roads and Ribbon Development Act only the essential principles were taken and adapted and improved in order to protect the national freeways system. It is suitably amended in the Schedule by the deletion in it of all matters relating to national roads, so that the Administrators concerned, as the controlling authority, may, in regard to roads under their control, go on implementing it without any interference, as is the case at present.

The functions of the commission in respect of roads are being removed from the Transport (Co-ordination) Act and included in this Bill.

Furthermore, it is envisaged to consolidate, and it is essential to do so, all the relevant provisions in this Bill so that only one statutory instrument is created for the purpose of making provision for the construction and maintenance of national roads and for the National Transport Commission as the central road authority.

Hon. members have an explanatory memorandum on the Bill before them, and in order to save time, I am not going to deal seprately with the provisions of each clause. However, where hon. members desire more information on a particular clause, I shall of course furnish it gladly.

At this stage I just want to mention that I shall move a few minor amendments at the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, the most remarkable thing which the hon. the Deputy Minister disclosed in his Second Reading introductory speech is that the White Paper, before it was laid on the Table of this House, had apparently been circulated confidentially to certain persons. If I may say so, Sir, this is a most unusual procedure. Surely, it is either to be circulated or not to be circulated at all and, surely, the White Paper should first be laid upon the Table of this House. Will the hon. gentleman tell us, when he replies to this debate, to whom he circulated it privately and confidentially and why, and how he justifies this, when he lays the report itself upon the Table of this House together with the White Paper, but before he laid it upon the Table of this House he has confidentially circulated it to other people? If he had confidentially circulated some thoughts or some proposals or suggestions in order to get the views of certain people, such as the local authorities which he mentioned amongst others, then one could understand it, but to circulate the White Paper itself, containing the decision…

It was in draft form.

Was it any different from the White Paper which has been laid on the Table of this House? That is what we would like to know. I did not hear the hon. gentleman talk about a “konsepwitskrif”; he talked about “die Witskrif” and he said it had been confidentially circulated and that the confidence had in fact been leaked out; he was very cross about it and he offered to tell us about it if we had anything to say about it. That is what I understood him to say.

That is what he said.

That is what he did say. Perhaps he will explain why he has been so contemptuous of this House—and the hon. gentleman is.

I will.

Does he admit that he has been contemptuous of this House?

Carry on.

Sir, if ever one heard a lame excuse from a Minister speaking in this Parliament, the sovereign Parliament of the Republic of South Africa, it is his excuse that the Bill, after all, is not against the Constitution. Of course, it is not against the Constitution. There is no subject upon which this Parliament may not legislate—none whatsoever. The fact is that section 85 of the Constitution gives the provinces the power to legislate upon certain matters, gives them an original jurisdiction. But there is nothing therein contained which prevents this Parliament from legislating upon the same thing or from legislating the provincial councils out of existence. I must say that this is not legislating the provincial councils out of existence, but it is part of the pattern of the emasculation of the power of the provincial councils. The other lame excuse that the hon. the Deputy Minister made for the introduction of this Bill was something about the Transkei being what he described as a self-governing territory within the borders of the Republic. Now, is he suggesting that the reason for the powers being adopted in this Bill is that the Transkei is quite unable to make roads of the standard required by the National Roads Board? Is that what he is trying to say? I do not know why he mentioned it unless he was saying that the power is being given to the Commission to build roads, which they never had before, because in the Transkei there are neither the engineers nor the skilled manpower, nor the wherewithal to make them. If that is so, then he should confine the power to such so-called self-governing territories within the Republic.

Now, this flows, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, from the Borckenhagen and Schumann Commissions. One of the things that also struck me about the hon. the Deputy Minister’s speech was that he did not deal at all with the provisions of the Bill. He did not motivate what is in the Bill. He did not indicate that some of it is the same as in the old Act which is being repealed here, and that some things have been changed. All he said was that we have had a White Paper. I must say that it is one of the features of the Department of Transport that they do issue White Papers and it is a practice much to be commended, but if I may say so, this is not a very helpful White Paper. It states the obvious. If anyone can read and reads the clauses of the Bill, he will get no help from the White Paper. For example, in clause 5 (3) it says the provision obliges the Commission to cause record to be held of the proceedings at each meeting. Apart from the fact that it is not English, it is self-evident. If you read that subsection, then you will see that that is what it says, although one may record it somewhat differently oneself if one were writing it in English. It says that under subsection (1) of clause 6 provision is made for the written delegation of powers of the commission to a member or officer of the commission. Really, Sir, if one can read one does not need to have this sort of explanation.

It was drawn up for the Minister, of course.

The difficulty is that even the Minister felt it was unnecessary to read it out. Surely when we have a White Paper, we must have some sort of motivation in it; it is an explanatory memorandum. It should explain why the Bill is before us at all. It should surely indicate that this is as a result of the Government decisions on the Borckenhagen and Schumann reports. It should indicate which clauses of the Bill are from existing legislation or vary from that legislation, what the difference is, and why, etc. However, be that as it may. So much for the Deputy Minister’s introduction of the Bill and his explanation. If it is in the White Paper, then thank you very much, but we have read the Bill and it does not help us at all.

If that is so, why do you thank me for the White Paper?

To be courteous.

Then I accept your courtesy.

Sir, it must be fairly obvious that we are opposed to this Bill. As I have said, it is further evidence of the Government’s determination to remove from the provinces every whit of power they have and to concentrate it in the hands of the Central Government. Up to this stage the provinces have had the right to build National roads.

They still have the right.

No, Sir, I shall indicate that this is just what this Bill does. They have the right to do so if the Commission decides to give it to them, and they have only such rights, as I shall indicate, as the Commission decides to give them. Once this Bill becomes law they will no longer have the right to do so unless the Commission gives them permission. The hon. the Deputy Minister surely knows better than to say that. In 1935, when the National Roads Act was passed, it was provided that there should be a Central Commission which would plan the national roads, which one might describe as the highways between the provinces and between the bigger cities. It was also decided that there should be a central commission which would plan those roads and which would decide upon where they would go, to what specifications they should be built, and so on. It was, however, for the provinces to build them. In the Act it was specifically provided that the provinces should have the right to build those roads, as was their right in terms of the Constitution in any event. That right could have been taken away by an Act of this Parliament, but it was not. It was also decided that the moneys collected in respect of that fund should be divided amongst the provinces according to certain percentages. It was decided that a certain percentage of the moneys in the fund would go to each province according to a figure which was put in the Act. That provision has also gone, and there is no guarantee whatsoever that one province will get one cent from this Commission in respect of national roads. It now depends entirely upon the decision of the Commission.

Let us have a look at the report of the Schumann Commission. What happened, Sir? Evidence was given by all the provinces. In paragraph 686, under the heading “summary of Proposals to Eliminate Overlapping”, we find the following report on the evidence given in this regard—

Then, Sir, we have the evidence from the other side, the Central Government side. Paragraph 687 summarizes this evidence and states—

That is the view of the body and the officials who are now going to be empowered to undertake the construction of national roads in future. Then, if one looks at page 101, Paragraph 712 of the Schumann Report, one finds under chapter XXII, “Findings and recommendations of your Commission” on the “Overlapping of functions and better co-ordination of road construction and maintenance” the following:

Let me say, in parenthesis, that the principles were that the planning should be done by the commission and that the building should be done by the provinces. To continue:

I stress the word “assist”, Mr. Speaker.

which they themselves have put in italics—

This is still the Schumann Commission report. Then if one looks at page 102, paragraph 715, it says:

When was this report dated, Sir? So long ago!—

That was recommended as a matter of urgency. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister, when he replies, will indicate to us what has been done about it.

Do you want another commission?

This is the Schumann Commission. We are concerned here now with the building of national roads.

He has never heard of it.

He has heard of Witbank.

Yes. “My heart is in Witbank, my heart is not here. My heart is in Witbank a-chasing the ‘kiesers’,” to parody Burns. Let us return to the Schumann Report. Then one finds on the same page, paragraph 717, the following recommendation. I will not read it all. I shall just read paragraph (3) (b), which says:

The National Council for Roads shall be given no powers to itself to construct or maintain any road, to own or maintain any road plant or to enter into any contract in connection with road construction or maintenance or the purchase of plant; …

That is the recommendation. It is not recommended that the position should remain, but, specifically, that the National Council for Roads shall not be given the power to construct or maintain roads, or to own or maintain any road plant, or to enter into any contract. It is specifically recommended that they shall not do so and that the status quo shall remain. They find it to be fundamentally sound that the provinces should do the road building. But, no, this is not good enough for the Government. As far as the Government is concerned, this Bill is now introduced. But to give the Government credit, they did produce a White Paper in which the reasons were set out why they were not prepared to accept this part of the Schumann Commission’s proposals. If one looks at the reasons as set out in the White Paper, one finds on page 13, in paragraph 24, the following on the recommendations of the Schumann Commission:

Which are on page 13 and which we will examine—

It reads further:

Then those parts of the recommendation which are accepted, are set out. But the Schumann Commission’s recommendations do not stand separately, they stand together. The basis of this recommendation of the Schumann Commission was that the National Transport Commission should not have the power to build roads, but that the provinces should retain the power to build roads and that they should be the only agencies for the building of roads.

Do you know of the Marais Commission?

Yes, one only has to read the report to see what the Marais Commission reported. I am talking about what the Schumann Commission reported on what it was charged to do. That was their recommendation. Typically, the Government picks out the one recommendation which it likes, or several that it likes and rejects the others. But I say they all stand together.

But let us see what reasons are given and why it is that the power to build roads should be taken over from the provinces. The first reason is that “such a central organization would be able to introduce uniformity into the expropriation of ground for national road purposes. At the moment, expropriation is handled by the provinces, each according to his own ordinances and procedures. The current lack of uniformity gives rise to much discontent”. Quite right, it should be uniform. There are some provisions in some provinces which cause an unfair application of the law, as opposed to the expropriation as carried out in the other provinces. That is quite right, but we do not need to have a central national commission to take over the building of roads in order to provide uniformity as to the expropriation of ground. The manner in which you provide for the expropriation of ground is by legislation, in the manner in which we are dealing with it in this Bill. Ground cannot be expropriated unless there is lawful authority, to do so. That is the first reason that really does not mean anything at all. In fact, this reason is so stupid that it is provided in this Bill that the powers of expropriation may in fact be delegated to the provincial administrations. What does this reason mean? What does reason number (1) on page 13 of the White Paper mean when you can actually delegate die power of expropriation to the provinces? It has nothing to do with the uniformity. Uniformity can be provided for by legislation. Anyway, that is the first reason and I shall come back to expropriation.

The second reason given for the takeover of the building of roads by the National Commission is that “it will be possible to exercise direct and therefore more effective control over the expenditure of funds from the National Roads Fund. The Schumann Commission itself declares that ‘once the assistance was given, it appears to your Commission that it followed that the Central Government should have powers to ensure that the funds it provides should be properly spent’ This is also perfectly true, but it is no reason why they should take it further. If there is some difficulty about the supervision and if there is some difficulty about having some control to ensure the money is properly spent, surely this is a matter of negotiation and a matter of relationships between the one and the other. That is what the Schumann Commission is suggesting when it says in paragraph 715 that it wanted a commission to be appointed urgently to look into the whole question of this relationship. It should be a commission of experts in engineering and management who could get management consultants’ advice to look into this problem. You must inevitably get friction, as Prof. Schumann says there was friction between the Provincial Administrations and the National Commission, where there is an overlapping of functions. This happens when there are engineers on the one side who want to do this and engineers on, the spot who want to do something else. Obviously, where you have thinking people, you always have, or should have, a friction of ideas. That is a healthy thing. If the Schumann Commission’s recommendation had been accepted this thing could have been ironed out. It is a matter of co-operation and consultation between professional men who have been trained in road building engineering. That is no reason whatsoever for rejecting the main recommendation in this regard of the Schumann Report. The main recommendation is not that the provinces should continue to build roads, but that the National Commission should not be empowered to build roads.

Then they give a third reason, and this reason is somewhat related to the second reason. I quote from the White Paper, page 13—

When you employ a contractor to construct something, he constructs it surely according to certain specifications as agreed in the contract. It is his duty to supervise that, because in the end an inspection is carried out, and if it does not measure up to the conditions and the specifications, then he loses his contract. This is again a matter of supervision, a matter of co-operation between professional men at different levels. Then I quote the fourth reason that is given for the take-over or for giving the power of building roads to the commission:

I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he seriously thinks that his department is going to be in a better position than the provincial administrations in respect of the skilled manpower like engineers, and everything that goes with it, to construct roads? I really cannot understand it. The only reason why many of these roads could have been built by provincial administrations is that they have put them out to private contractors.

They cannot even locate the roads in the Transkei because they do not have the staff.

Yes, there you have it. If the hon. the Deputy Minister really believes that this is a serious reason for doing this and if he really believes that he is going to do it without private contractors I would very much appreciate his telling us how he thinks he is going to do it. The simple fact of the matter is that he is not going to be able to do it.

The fifth reason given is that the “uniform technical requirements and standards can be effectively applied when the construction of national freeways is handled by one instead of four separate administrations”. Surely, this is also a lot of nonsense. Surely, it is the commission itself which lays down the standards, the specifications and the requirements? This is all part of the contract, of the handing over. The sixth reason is that “it will be possible to exercise better control over the nature and weight (axle load) of vehicles using national roads”. I think one must really be bankrupt for reasons if this is now offered as a reason. How on earth do you exercise better control over the nature and weight, the axle load of vehicles, using national roads except through a traffic police force? This is how you do it. How else can you do it except through a traffic police force? On the same page one finds the following: “It has already been agreed with the provinces that they will in future exercise the following functions on behalf of the central road building organization on an agency basis ...” The third one is “the exercising of traffic control on all national roads”. How bankrupt have they become looking for reasons! The only way you can enforce it is by traffic police and the traffic police will be in the employ of each of the provincial administrations.

But the real reason comes last. No 7 gives the reason why it must be taken over by the commission and why provinces shall not have the right to build such roads. It reads: “Protracted negotiations and differences of opinion with the provinces over the location of national roads, routes, etc., will be restricted to a minimum.” Is this not typical of this Government? Is this not typical of the arrogance that they cannot even brook discussion and differences of opinion? These are differences of opinion between professional people. Who knows best where to route a road? Engineers know best how to route a road. But who knows best? The engineer sitting in Pretoria employed by the commission or the engineer who has experience every day of his life of the terrain and the other difficulties and the other engineering aspects that have to be taken into account in that province and area where he works? But no, there will be “protracted negotiations and differences”. It would indeed be unheard of if there were not differences. But what is he afraid of? Surely the provincial authorities and provincial road departments and engineers know far more about the difficulties from their experience and contact with other local bodies than is ever going to be known in the lofty portals of the commission’s office in Pretoria. The hon. the Deputy Minister seems to agree.

That will be the day.

Do you mean that the chaps in Pretoria know more than the local engineers?

Of course they know more.

“Of course they know more”, says the hon. the Deputy Minister. There it is. Because there are protracted negotiations and differences of opinion with provinces over the location, they must take the power away from the provinces and give it to the National Commission. This, unfortunately, is the attitude, the attitude of arrogance. They will brook no differences, not even on a professional level. And yet, in clause 4 of this Bill it is envisaged that there shall be consultation with the provinces and with the Administrator before a national road is declared about where it is to be declared. What kind of consultation is this going to be? Consultation in law means merely that you approach someone. You say “look, I want to do this—what do you think?” It seems that if the province thinks something different, this Government is just going to say, “well, never mind about that—seeing that there is a difference of opinion I am just going to go on”, because the discussions might be protracted. No, Sir, it does not auger very well, as regards the application of this Bill, especially clause 4 as far as the consultation with the provinces is concerned, if reason No. 7 is the reason for taking the power away.

Much of this Bill is a rehash of the old Act, parts of the Advertising on Roads and Ribbon Development Act and the National Roads and Transport (Co-ordination) Amendment Act. Much of it is exactly the same. It is slightly differently worded, added to here and there and subtracted from here and there. What has happened now, is that the provinces no longer have the exclusive right to build a road. They now do it merely as the agents of the commission. They do it at the will of the commission. They will do it on the conditions laid down by the commission, which has to be done by agreement. The commission may delegate to the provinces. But it will do it on the conditions laid down by the commission, the Central Government. If there is any difficulty, there is now a whip. If there is any difference of opinion, what is going to happen? They are going to say “Right, take it or leave it”. So the province is going to be forced to take it, if it wants to build that national road. This is what is happening.

I said it is a very good thing that compensation should be uniform. There will be other contributions in this field during this debate. I want to say that during the Committee Stage we are going to deal with this question further. We are going to propose certain amendments in this regard. However, together with the arrogance I have mentioned, is clause 25 of this Bill. This clause provides for the limitation or prescription of action. Considering all the powers there are of expropriation and all the other things that can be done upon a person’s land in respect of his premises under the law, any action that one has in respect of such an act for compensation will, in terms of clause 25 of this Bill, be prescribed within 90 days—three months, Sir! You have to give notice within 30 days of the event. You have to wait another 30 days before you issue summons. And then, 90 days later—just less than three months— your right is prescribed in law. You may not then thereafter sue the commission for the damages you suffered as a result of the act which has caused you this damage on your property.

What is wrong with that?

I will tell you what is wrong with it. The hon. the Deputy Minister should have done his homework. I will tell him what is wrong with that and I will put it in the form of a question: Why should the right to bring an action for compensation against a local authority or a provincial administration be two years and against the Road Transportation Commission 90 days? Why? What difference is there? They are both performing acts in respect of the public. They perform the same sort of acts as the local authorities and the same sort of acts as the provincial administrations. If damage is done by a provincial administration in respect of a road for provincial purposes, which the province has the right to construct, then your right is only prescribed after two years; in other words, you have two years within which to bring your action. But if it is this new commission, with its new power under this hon. Deputy Minister, then you have only 90 days. How does the hon. the Deputy Minister justify that? Let me help him with his homework, Sir. Let me tell him that a Bill was introduced last year—the Limitation of Legal Proceedings (Provincial and Local Authorities) Bill —which originally did provide precisely what is provided for here, namely that you had to give notice within 30 days, you had to wait 30 days before you issued summons and then your action was prescribed within 90 days. Sir, that Bill went to a Select Committee of this House and it emerged from the Select Committee with the unanimous recommendation that you only have to give your notice within 90 days, that you have to wait 90 days before you can issue summons and that the claim is prescribed only after 24 months or two years. That was the recommendation of the Select Committee of this House. It was unanimous and it was accepted by the hon. the Minister of Justice. That is the law today; it is now an Act of Parliament. There is no reason whatsoever why the period should not be exactly the same in respect of the National Transport Commission. We will move an amendment in the Committee Stage, of which we give notice now, that clause 25 be amended so that its provisions can coincide with the provisions in respect of local authorities and provincial administrations.

As I have indicated earlier, there is no guarantee whatsoever in this Bill that any province will get any sum as was guaranteed before in respect of national roads. There was such a guarantee, as the hon. the Deputy Minister knows. In 1935 a guarantee was written into the Act as to what percentage of the fund each of the provinces was to get. Now it is dependent entirely on the conditions laid down by and the views of the Central Government. Sir, what is so distressing about this Bill is that not only do they strip the provinces of their powers but they use the big stick to impose their will upon them Sir, there are many other points which will be dealt with by other hon. members. I think I have said enough to indicate why we on this side cannot possibly support this Bill. We will therefore oppose it and vote against it at this stage.

The hon. member for Durban North began by saying that the explanatory memorandum which the hon. the Deputy Minister tabled in connection with this legislation was not really very helpful. If one had read the Bill it was not necessary to have the memorandum. I listened very carefully to the hon. member’s speech and I want to tell him that he was not very helpful either. After he had spoken at great length about this explanatory memorandum, and had taken two drinks of water while he was doing so, he began firstly to quote copiously from the Schumann Commission’s report. When that story dried up he took the White Paper and quoted that, with interim comments about each statement, but he did not mention a single reason of his own as to why they are opposed to the Bill. Sir, if I or any other hon. member want to know what is contained in these documents, it is not necessary for him to read them out to us; we can do so ourselves. He was therefore not very helpful by not telling us specifically what the United Party’s objection to this Bill is. When the hon. member got to the end of that story he dealt with one clause that we could very easily and profitably have discussed in the Committee Stage. At the same time he implied that there was only one principle at stake. Provision must, in any case, be made for the general matters for which provision is being made in the Bill, whoever the authority may be who is going to deal with and control these affairs. The hon. member saw fit to speak about that. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that he was going to move certain amendments in respect of certain clauses. I do not know whether this is one of the clauses that is going to be amended, and I am therefore not going to react to that.

Sir, the real and only question involved here is that legal authorization is now being given beyond all doubt to the Central Government, to the National Transport Commission, so that they themselves may build roads; so that they may establish a fully-fledged road construction organization. As far as that is concerned, of course, the hon. member came along here with the old story, which has been done to death as far as this kind of legislation is concerned, that here we are supposedly again depriving the provinces of their powers; that we are stripping them of those powers.

That is correct.

The hon. member simply repeats that parrot cry. It is the old, old story that we hear time and again when we are dealing with this kind of legislation. Sir, I just want to say this to the hon. member and to hon. members of the Opposition: This Parliament is the authority in the country which rules the country, and any powers that any other bodies have, whether it be the provinces or the local authorities, or whoever the case may be, they obtain from this Parliament. The fact that certain functions were entrusted to the provincial councils in 1910 does not mean that they have to perform those functions forever. It is not right and proper that a function which in 1910 was a provincial one should, of necessity, still be so today.

We know what happened as far as education is concerned. Education was one of the most important functions entrusted to the provinces in 1910 and yet this Parliament, in its wisdom, has thought it necessary from time to time to transfer certain sections of education to the Central Government. For example, it took away from them Coloured, Indian and Bantu education, which was a provincial function in 1910. The hon. member says that it is such a hallowed matter; that the Constitution of 1910 provided that the provinces should be the road construction authority, and here we come along again and strip the provinces of one of their powers. It is true that the provinces have, since 1910, been regarded as the road construction authority, but at a very early stage, as far back as the 1910’s the provinces realized that the task entrusted to them was too big for them to handle, and the hon. member ought to know that. The provinces soon realized that if they had to build roads with the finances at their disposal—and in 1910 no additional financial provision was made for this—no roads would be built. That is why the provinces so quickly experienced difficulties. As far back as 1915 a province such as the Cape, which has the largest surface area, experienced difficulties to such an extent that it appointed the Jagger Commission to investigate the problem, and subsequently commission upon commission followed in order to iron out these problems. But what I want to emphasize is that over the years more and more of the provinces’ responsibilities in respect of the building of roads has been transferred to the Central Government. The Central Government has increasingly carried the financial burden in this connection. The Central Government has also carried the heaviest burden.

The fact is that the burden of road building, apart from the physical process of building the roads, gradually shifted over to the Central Government. This is the pattern that developed over the years. The Borckenhagen Commission investigated this matter and found that over the years a radical change had occurred in respect of our entire transport pattern. You have their findings in their report. I shall quote to you the relevant paragraph from the report, i.e. that of the Borckenhagen Commission—

Without being an expert on transport matters, any person interested in this question can say today that we in South Africa, with its large surface area and wide expanses, have a very fine network of local roads. The second point we can make is that with the industrial development, the industrial explosion there has been in South Africa in recent decades, the volume of heavy traffic has increased to such an extent that our roads are no longer equal to the task for which they were initially built, particularly not our main arterial roads. In recent times a new problem has also cropped up, and that is the problem of increasing congestion, the traffic congestion in our large urban complexes. Because the Government, the Department of Transport, is aware of these new trends in the pattern of road traffic in South Africa, the Minister of Transport appointed the Marais Commission in 1965, to investigate the co-ordination of transport in South Africa; and the Marais Commission recommended that the National Road Fund should, in the future, chiefly aim at a national freeway system for the Republic, and that the control of the national freeway system in all its phases should rest with the central organization. In addition the commission recommended that certain existing national roads, which do not fit into the freeway system, should be transferred to the provinces. The Government accepted these recommendations forming the background of the legislation we are dealing with here today. And about this question of a separate road construction organization for the Central Government, the Chief Engineer of the Roads Division of the Department of Transport held very definite views. I should like to quote from the report of the Schumann Commission what he said in this connection. You will find it in paragraph 680. There the Chief Engineer of the National Roads Division of the Department of Transport states—

Then he continues—

I say that this evidence and the report of the Borckenhagen Commission form the background of the legislation we are dealing with today. With this legislation, with this newly to be established road construction organization, we shall be entering on a new dispensation. I grant as much, because there has been the general view that according to section 84 (1) of the Constitution only the provinces have the right to build roads in South Africa. This general view has been accepted up to now. The hon. member for Durban North still acts on the assumption that this is so. Legal opinion was obtained in this connection, indicating that the Central Government does have the legal right to build roads. But what is now contemplated in his legislation is to place it beyond all doubt that the Central Government will in the future have the right to build roads, and the National Roads Act will also have to be amended in this connection. In other words, in addition to the full financial responsibility which the Central Government has in the past accepted through the National Transport Commission in respect of the building of national roads, we now come along with this legislation and we give the control of the physical aspect of their construction to the body which has the full financial responsibility. You will find the reasons—and I am not going to go into them—in paragraph 23 of the White Paper, whose paragraphs the hon. member for Durban Point also quoted one by one. I just want to add that a brief review of the chief recommendations of the Schumann Commission in this connection is necessary.

There are actually three main recommendations. In the first place the Schumann Commission finds that there is unnecessary and undesirable overlapping in the implementation of functions. In the second place a need exists for better co-ordination in the planning of roads; and in the third place the commission has found that the principle according to which the Central Government supplies the funds and the provincial authorities build the roads, is a sound one. That is why the Schumann Commission also suggested that a body, i.e. the National Council for Roads, should be established with, as its chief function, the planning of a road network for the Republic, but this body which they have proposed, which must obtain statutory recognition, may not build the roads itself, may not own machinery and may not negotiate contracts. In other words, in this way they are trying to eliminate the friction that developed in the past by taking the powers away from this statutory body. But this is specifically the crux of the whole matter, this question of the supervision of the funds which one gives someone else to spend on one’s own behalf, the question of inspection. The commission accepts that there must be such inspection. In paragraph 711 of the commission’s report it is stated—

This is specifically where all the problems arise; all the discord and all the overlapping develops in respect of this question of inspection. Let me just quote to you briefly what the provinces have to say about this matter. The hon. member for Durban North says that it is a very healthy state of affairs that there should be a clash of ideas. Sir, the provinces do not say so. I should like to quote to you from paragraph 677 in order to indicate what the provinces had to say about this. This is what the Cape Province had to say—

We must now remember that the provincial professional officers are not the officers of the provinces. These are consulting engineers which they hired for this work. This results in discord. I should like to quote further from paragraph 677 of the report to indicate what the Transvaal had to say. The paragraph reads, inter alia, as follows—

This is specifically the kind of thing the hon. member for Durban North recommends, because he thinks there will be a sound relationship between the provinces and the Central Government’s officers if there is this clash of ideas.

For anyone who doubts it, let me say that there has never been any misunderstanding about the fact that there would be such inspection. The provinces knew it from the start, because at the time, when he submitted the legislation to this House, the Minister said in his Second Reading speech that the National Road Board will have to convince itself of the fact that the work has been done properly before it pays the money out to the provinces. Apart from this evidence, which the Schumann Commission had at its disposal, the commission nevertheless decided in its wisdom that it wanted the present state of affairs to continue unchanged. Now that entire question is left hanging. What is the commission’s solution for this time-consuming overlapping, the trouble and the problems developing in respect of the alignment of roads, when agreement cannot be reached about the positioning of a road and what farmers, for example, must be compensated? It is not as easy as the hon. member for Durban North would have us believe. Endless friction and bitterness develop, and there are people who suffer losses as a result of these delays that take place. Roads are announced, and then it takes a quarter of a century before proper finality is reached about the alignment. What is the commission’s solution to this problem? It states in paragraph 715 that the problem exists, but that it has no control over it and no solution for it either. Paragraph 715 of the commission’s report reads, inter alia, as follows:

What is its solution for this problem? It states—

Another commission! This commission therefore states that specific problems do exist and that they do not have any plan of campaign, but they recommend that the Government appoints another commission to see whether it will arrive at some plan of action. That will not work. It has not worked in the past. In 1953 the Minister of Transport appointed such a departmental commission. That commission did, it is true, have slightly wider terms of reference, and had to investigate, inter alia, the spending of the funds from the Road Fund. The commission of 1953 had no success, although it was appointed for the same purposes as the committee now being suggested by this commission, and about which the hon. member for Durban North made such a fuss.

That is the gist of the whole matter, and the commission has no solution for it. I now just want to point out that the new road construction organization which is being established is not such a terrible innovation. It ought not to change the powers of the provinces radically. On the contrary, it is laid down in the Bill, and stated very clearly in the White Paper, that there will be the closest co-operation between the provinces and the Government, the Central Road Construction Organization, in this connection. What is more, I may tell hon. members that the provinces are not going to build fewer roads than in the past. They are going to build more, because they are going to have better financing than in the past. The maintenance, improvement and the reconstruction of national roads constitute one of the biggest tasks in present-day road construction. This very task is now being entrusted to the provinces by the system of the deproclamation of existing national roads. They are going to be paid for that by the State. This task of the maintenance, the improvement and the reconstruction of roads has, in the past, tied the commission’s hands to such an extent that they could not get down to their actual task. Now, according to the new system, this task is going to be entrusted to the provinces. The existing national roads, Which do not form a part of the new freeway system, will be deproclaimed. The provinces are not only going to build these roads, they are also going to maintain them. Thus the National Transport Commission will have its hands free to carry out its main purpose, i.e. the planning, the building and the control of a new national freeway system for the Republic.

An agreement has been reached, in addition, with the provinces to the effect that they will carry out certain road construction services for the National Transport Commission on an agency basis. This will only embrace the tasks they themselves can handle departmentally. If departmentally they themselves can build parts of national roads of the national freeway system in their area, they may do so. They will be financed for that by the National Transport Commission. But they will no longer be allowed to conclude contracts for the building of those roads. There must also be supervision so that friction and that sort of thing can be avoided. I consider it a good thing that clarity has now been reached and that we know who is responsible for the building of these roads and who is responsible for the building of those roads. When the hon. member for Durban North says that the provinces will no longer build roads in the future, he is surely speaking absolute nonsense! Who is going to build all the divisional roads hereabouts in the platteland? The provinces are going to build more roads than in the past. The only difference is that they are going to be financed on a better and more scientific basis than in the past. There is simply going to be less friction and a much quicker implementation of the road construction system than in the past. We are going to obtain many more and much better results in respect of national road building than in the past.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Parow who has just resumed his seat, I think, has done a disservice to himself and to his reputation in this House through the manner in which he snatched at certain quotations and attempted to leave impressions which are not borne out by the report itself.

I should like to start off by drawing the hon. member’s attention to the fact that he quoted paragraph 680 of the Schumann Commission’s report. He indicated that this was the finding of the Commission, whereas in fact, what he quoted were the views of the chief engineer of the National Roads Division, not even the views of the National Roads Department itself. If the hon. member had been frank with the House, he would have read paragraph 679 which is the actual recommendation of the Department of Transport itself. In order to get the record clear, I want to read this paragraph in contra-distinction to what the hon. member for Parow read, namely the views of one individual of that Department.

I said it was the chief engineer’s evidence that I was reading.

The hon. member has had his turn to speak. He should listen to what I have to say.

If the hon. member had read this paragraph as well, there would have been no problem in finding out what really the recommendations were. Paragraph 679 reads as follows:

That is the recommendation which the Department of Transport itself has made. I think the hon. the Minister, in his brevity in introducing this motion, also did not fulfil his duty to this House by saying where this thought came from. The only place I can find it in this report is in the view of the chief engineer of the Department of National Roads.

Let me go further. The hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. member for Parow will have us believe that the provinces are quite happy with this set-up. I should like to read the summary of the proposals which is given in paragraph 686. This again is a paragraph which the hon. member overlooked. It reads as follows:

That is the summary in this report. Where do we get this nonsense that this is welcomed by any of the provincial councils?

One thing which the hon. member for Parow did mention and which, I think, is very vital to this discussion today, is the fact that there have been radical changes in the needs for roads, the type of roads the network of roads and the demand for road transport. One would have hoped that, the department having had the report of this commission in its hands for all these years and being aware of these radical changes and the pressure demands, I might say, for an improvement in our road network, we would have had a Bill before us today which would have indicated some modern thinking in dealing with the various problems that arise in regard to our road network. We on this side of the House have frequently referred to this matter …

Do you want me to say in the Bill the type of road we want to build?

If the hon. the Minister will bear with me, I will point out when I come to the Bill itself, where he has not provided for such a network. We on this side of the House have frequently suggested new thinking in relation to transport services. In this House we had a private member’s motion which was moved by the hon. member for Durban Point in February, 1969. In that motion he asked that urgent attention should be given to the requirements of twentieth century cities in regard to cheaper and more efficient mass transportation needs and other related matters. This included the subsidization of urban authorities and financial assistance to provincial and local authorities. That was two years ago. These discussions have taken place, but we see no evidence of any dynamic planning, and certainly no framework for any dynamic planning in the Bill which is before us this evening. One is left with the question—and I believe it is a justifiable question—whether it is intended to maintain the provincial system. If it is, then many aspects of this legislation before us are quite unnecessary. The Minister and the Commission under this Bill, takes power to plan and control the construction of national roads and then the Minister adds the pious provision that he may delegate those powers to the provinces. If he is going to delegate them to the provinces, why does he not leave the original responsibility with the provinces? It can be for one reason only, and it is that this Government will not brook any measure of criticism of its ideas or of its dictates as to what is good for the whole of the country. The hon. the Minister cannot have it both ways. If it is right to be able to delegate all the construction work, the maintenance work and the management work of the national roads to the provinces, why should it be taken away first and then be re-delegated back to the provinces?

I am concerned with other aspects of this Bill. The White Paper which we have on this Bill has made it clear that the National Transport Commission is being re-constituted as it now exists. When I deal with the National Road Fund which is to operate and be available for the work of this Commission, I wonder whether there is a sufficiency of funds in this fund actually to meet the demands. I also wonder whether enough is being allocated for that particular fund. I would like to remind hon. members of the latest figures I have available, which were issued on the 28th February, 1969. According to these figures, the motoring public of South Africa contributed during the year 1967-’68 by way of customs and excise, duties and other taxation in respect of vehicles, motor parts, tyres, accessories, petrol, diesel and other fuel, a total of R144 971 437 to the national revenue fund. The hon. the Minister will remember that of that amount, only R44 106 000 was made available in 1967-’68 to the National Transport Commission, now the National Transport Fund. In other words, approximately 30 per cent only of the revenue derived directly from the motoring public was used for that purpose. Now, I put the question to the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he believes that this fund as constituted and with the contributions which are mentioned in this particular Bill, is going to be sufficient and strong enough to be able to fulfil its responsibilities, which are …

Are you only referring to the National Road Fund?

Yes, I am referring to this amount of 8 cents.

It has nothing to do with the provinces.

No, the National Road Fund. After all, the National Road Fund is now going to pay the province. The National Road Fund will pay for construction work in the provinces. The hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. the Minister of Finance have then not said the same.

The National Road Fund will only be used in the construction of national roads.

Even if that is so, I still want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether this 30 per cent in respect of 1967-’68 is a sufficient contribution from the total revenue derived from motorists to that particular fund. The Schumann Commission’s report deals with this matter, and perhaps I can refer the hon. the Deputy Minister to it. On page 103 reference is made to the amount available for the National Road Fund. On that page there is a table which indicates the proportion of money received from Customs and Excise duty paid into the National Roads Fund. In 1950 the amount was 68,32 per cent of the total income from motorists which was put into the National Roads Fund. That percentage has gone down over the years until we find that in 1968 the figure is as low as 30 per cent; only 30 per cent of that income was made available to the National Roads Fund. The recommendations of the commission itself appear in paragraph 729. The following is stated:

I believe that if the hon. the Deputy Minister has in mind this Bill functioning and working, there will have to be a move in that direction, away from the limitation of the contributions to that National Fund. When one thinks of the fact that national roads will now be deproclaimed when new freeways are contemplated under this particular legislation and that the administrations will be left to maintain and to reconstruct these national roads, it is well that we should remind ourselves of the mileages which exist at present. Again these figures are not up to date. We find that in the Cape Province the figure is 4 369 miles of national roads, the Transvaal 1 384 miles, the Orange Free State 1 128 miles and in Natal 1 053 miles. To leave this mileage under this dispensation in the hands of the provinces to maintain and reconstruct, is a matter which has to be considered. I understand that the Cape itself, when we look at this figure of R44 million which is available from revenue in the National Road Fund, estimates that the maintenance will cost something to the tune of R3 million per annum and the reconstruction an amount of R8 million per annum. This does not include provincial roads. One must also have a look at the cost of constructing national roads. I understand that the cost does vary considerably in the different parts of the country. Whereas in the Cape Province the cost of a double-carriageway is approximately R400 000 per mile, the cost in Natal is as much as R1 million per mile and even above that in certain areas. I mention these figures because I do not think the hon. the Deputy Minister in coming forward with this Bill has really gone sufficiently into what is demanded in the year 1971, namely new thinking and new planning.

You did not read the White Paper.

I have read the White Paper.

I am talking about the White Paper issued by the hon. the Minister of Finance.

Yes, I have read it. I want to ask the hon. the Minister something. The first question with which I dealt here, is whether he is satisfied that the formula which is included in this Bill is going to provide sufficient funds for the National Road Fund.

This Bill is intended to eliminate certain problems. We understand from the Minister that, if necessary, we can eliminate problems which exist with regard to road building at the present time. I want to read to the hon. the Deputy Minister the provisions of clause 2 (4) (a):

The commission may further, at its discretion and subject to such conditions as it may deem fit, from the fund—

1. (a) defray the cost, or part of the cost, incurred by an Administrator or local authority in connection with a road or other works which in the opinion of the commission have become necessary as a result of the construction of a national road;

This conflicts with what one finds in the explanatory memorandum; because the explanatory memorandum on page 2 reads:

Now I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question. What does he envisage, for instance, when a road reaches the boundary of a local authority? Let us take for convenience’s sake, the road to Cape Town. When the national road is constructed, at some stage or other it reaches the boundary of a local authority. Does the Government continue to accept any responsibility for the feeding out of that traffic into the city and the urban area from the time that the national road stops on the boundary of a city, or is that aspect not covered by this provision of the Bill? The word used in this clause to which I referred, is “discretion”. What is the policy which is intended? I think it may be necessary to amend this particular clause when we have had some information from the hon. the Deputy Minister as to the policy which he wishes to apply in regard to that particular aspect.

Clause 5 of the Bill before us contains some provisions as regards the powers of the commission. I want to deal for a moment with clause 5 (I) (c) which reads:

But if one goes further, one will find that, although that power is given to the commission in regard to national roads, clause 5 (1) (1), provides that the commission shall have power—

Now, Sir, what is intended? Is the commission to function purely in regard to the construction of national roads, or is it to be a super body, which can, with the authority of the Minister, deal with roads, right down to local authority roads, if the Minister so wishes. One finds with a provision of that sort that one has this conflict of thinking. It is no good the hon. member for Parow or anybody else saying that this commission is going to be concerned only with national roads, because the powers in this Bill are legion. They go far beyond the mere planning and construction of national roads. It is true that in terms of clause 6 the commission may delegate in writing to the Administrator of a province certain powers, if the commission itself does not wish to exercise those powers, but when those powers are delegated, they are delegated to the province not as a legislative body, in which capacity it can decide what is good and how certain things should be done according to the wishes of the province. This is in fact our main objection to this legislation, because these powers are delegated to the province concerned merely as a road construction unit.

The hon. the Deputy Minister referred to leakages which occurred regarding his White Paper, which apparently annoyed him. Sir, this plan of the Government to introduce this legislation is nothing new. It has been no secret. I have before me the South African Road Federation’s newsletter of February, 1969. I want to read what they said—

The article then goes on to deal with the question of contemplated savings and the Federation in this bulletin expresses grave doubt as to whether there will be any saving.

Are we now to take the Minister seriously when he says he is going to establish a road construction unit on a national basis? If he is, then I must ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to be good enough to tell us where and how he is going to obtain the staff for such a unit. The latest report of the Provincial Roads Engineer of some two years ago, indicates that there were 87 vacancies amongst engineers and technicians.

Which provincial engineer?

This is the Cape Provincial Engineer. The report states:

Sir, that is the factual position and it has deteriorated between the end of 1968 and the present time. Now this Government wishes to create another road construction unit, with all the posts, as there must be, for highly technical personnel. Where are we going, Sir? One must surely realize that a highly trained roads engineer can more advantageously be used over a whole network, such as the provincial networks, than if he is involved here or there on what might be new planned national roads. I cannot believe that it is going to be possible to establish such an organization. The report of the Schumann Commission makes it quite clear what the attitude of the department is. Paragraph 679 the report of the Schumann Commission makes it quite clear that the Government’s own department of Transport says that the last thing that they must do is to create a road construction unit under the Central Government. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to deal with these matters and at least give us some reply.

I want to conclude with one final point on the question of regulations. There is an extraordinary provision in clause 19 of this Bill, and I want to know whether the hon. the Deputy Minister is wedded to the wording which he has included here. In terms of clause 19—

It goes on to say that it may contain any provision that may be contained in an ordinance of a provincial council with legislative power in regard to that matter. In other words, the commission, in terms of these regulations, is going to override the provincial authorities and can make regulations which will override the decisions and the legislation of a provincial council. That is the power which is given here, Sir. If the commission feels that the Provincial Council of one of the provinces has been unwise in passing certain laws or in adopting certain road traffic regulations, this commission can legislate over the authority of the Provincial Council. Sir, when one looks at this point together with the others which have been mentioned, one realizes that it is ridiculous to say that this Bill is not usurping the rights of the provincial councils and that it is not reducing the provincial councils to what I have referred to before in this House during this session, namely to mere factotums of the Central Government. It is for those reasons that we oppose this legislation this afternoon.

Sir, at the very end of the hon. member for Green Point’s argument he left off where the hon. member for Durban North had begun with his argument. Their objection to the Bill is apparently simply that a central organization is going to be built up. Sir, I want to refer to certain things that both those hon. members said that gave the impression that they have not kept pace at all with the previous developments that have led to this stage of legislation we now have before the House and that they are even less familiar with precisely what is envisaged here and what is proposed for the future.

The hon. member for Durban North was totally confused about a recommendation of the commission. Referring to the recommendation of the commission in paragraph 717 (3) (b), he completely confused the National Council for Roads, a new body proposed by the commission, with the National Transport Commission which is an existing body. In the White Paper the Government states very clearly that they do not accept that recommendation that a National Council for Roads, as the commission calls it, should be established. The hon. member for Durban North is completely confused when he sees those two as one and the same thing. His entire argument therefore lapses.

The hon. member for Green Point raised certain matters here that do deserve a reply. Firstly he referred to funds for the national roads and funds allocated in terms of this legislation. But if he were to look at the Act, he would see under clause 2 (1) (b) that funds allocated to the National Road Fund, can also from time to time be allocated by this Parliament to this organization. In other words, not only funds from the existing National Road Fund, but also funds which, from time to time, are made available by this Parliament to the National Road Fund are all available for this purpose. I think the hon. member failed to see that.

Sir, the hon. member for Green Point said that they were so looking forward to “new planning”. They hoped that something new, something big would develop here. But what does the House have before it today? Today it has before it a piece of legislation embodying all the possibilities of new development. The House specifically has before it a piece of legislation establishing a totally new concept. The House has before it a piece of legislation which is going to bring about the maximum co-ordination and streamlining in the building of roads. If there has ever been a new concept then it is specifically this one. I cannot understand the hon. member for Green Point’s objections in this connection. He says that they want a new dispensation; here they have it. I cannot see what his problem is. He made another fatal mistake by speaking of “a road construction unit”. He speaks about a construction unit that is now going to be established, but if the hon. member had only taken the basic trouble of determining the facts he would have found that it was in no way at all the intention of the Act or of the Department to establish a construction unit.

Sir, this is an enabling Act. If he had taken the basic trouble of just establishing the facts for himself, he would have seen that in complete accordance with the commission’s recommendation, no duplicating construction unit, as he calls it, is going to be established, but that here there is now a totally different approach to road building. I should like to reply to both hon. members from the Marais Commission’s report (R.P. 32-’69), which explains the background to this legislation very clearly, and which gave us a very clear formulation of the problem. I must unfortunately quote at some length from it, because they gathered extensive evidence about this fact. Sir, I refer to paragraph 449 of the Marais Commission’s report. There the chairman of the NTC gave evidence before the commission. He did so in some detail and I must unfortunately quote this at some length—

And now we come to the most important aspect—

Sir, what takes place in practice today as far as national road building is concerned? At present a national road is being built through my constituency, past Middelburg, and I therefore know what I am talking about in this connection. The National Transport Commission’s engineers are handling certain aspects of that, and then, in terms of the previous Act, this is transferred to the provinces. The provinces in turn call for tenders. They appoint consulting engineers and they call for tenders. Sir, I am now going to quote to you, from the commission’s report, the statement of the NTC which comments on this long-winded procedure in the clearest terms. Referring to the 95 per cent the commission states further—

The planning is therefore with the Department, where it belongs—

The provinces are therefore unable at present, according to the evidence furnished before the Marais commission, to carry out what is expected of them in terms of the existing Act. For example—

The hon. member for Green Point has referred to the staff shortage in the provinces, and for that very reason the provinces are unable to carry out this task, and they are not in a position to provide staff to carry out the task. It goes further—

Can you see what the present cumbersome procedure is? Consulting engineers are appointed by the provinces after a national road has been proclaimed. They now furnish the province with a certain report. That report in turn goes to the Division of National Roads of the Department of Transport. The only task and function the province is carrying out at present in the construction of national roads is merely to serve as a transmission channel from the consulting engineers to the Division of National Roads which frequently, according to the evidence furnished before the commission, must examine this and make changes. Now come the next steps. After the suggestions have eventually been approved by the NTC, another cumbersome procedure is followed in respect of the call for tenders by the provinces for construction work by contractors, and supervision by consulting engineers. Sir, can you now see how many interests become involved in this matter? The NTC has now approved the suggestions for the national road. Now tenders are called for in their turn by the province and no longer by the NTC. The construction work, again, is undertaken by contractors, and not by the province, and then eventually the supervision is done by consulting engineers. Today there are four groups of people engaged in a to-and-fro football game in the construction of national roads for the country. That is essentially the position. That is the evidence furnished before the Marais commission. I am sure that the hon. member for Green Point, who advanced an argument here against this matter, does in fact see that it is an unhealthy and undesirable procedure. It is surely a state of affairs that cannot continue. Sir, it has become important for this big country of ours that our freeway system should be completed speedily. I do not want to tire you with statistics about the accident rate and the desirability of better roads, etc. I just want to refer very briefly to some statistics which indicate how rapidly the requirements with respect to roads are expanding. I come to the Marais commission’s report again, in which they refer to the growth in the economy, the total vehicle mileage and the expenditure on roads. From that it is very clear that the expenditure on roads in our country has increased twice as rapidly as the economy itself has done. In other words, financially the Central Government and the National Transport Commission have done their duty in providing the money, and if shortcomings do consequently exist, they exist elsewhere, and this is what this legislation aims at solving.

If we look at the figures for the contributions of transport, we see that if we take 100 as the norm for 1958, in 1960 it was already 494 and in 1966 it was 622, a growth rate, therefore, of 6 per cent. When we look at the total gross domestic product, this has also increased at 6 per cent over the same period. But if we look at the total number of vehicle miles for that period, this has increased by 9 per cent. The number of miles travelled on our roads therefore increases more rapidly than the country’s national product does. But the total estimated expenditure on roads over the same period increased by 12 per cent. This is double the national product.

But now we come to another problem. This concerns the actual increase in roads according to statistics made available by the Marais Commission, and once again I take the period they mention here and their statistics from 1960 to 1965. In that period national roads evidenced a total growth rate per annum of 2,9 per cent. You must remember, Sir, that the total number of vehicle miles has increased by 9 per cent, but national roads, over the same period, increased by 2,9 per cent. Over the same period provincial roads increased by 0,1 per cent. The total growth, therefore, of all roads in the country was 0,2 per cent over the same period. The only conclusion one can therefore come to is that the rapid increase in traffic— and the commission reaches the same conclusion—does not keep pace with the requirements imposed on our roads; or rather, that it increases out of proportion with what can be achieved in respect of our roads and our road building programme.

The Marais Commission went further and made certain recommendations, to which I want to refer. They come to this conclusion in paragraph 450 of their report—

And then the Marais Commission mentions a series of facts of importance to them—

With the provinces at present building national roads, no uniform policy exists in respect of the various provinces that are still working on the one centralized national road system. That is what the commission found. It also found that—

1. (b) The methods adopted for the planning of roads generally are not all that can be desired.

The planning, therefore, which is again referred back to the consulting engineers and which is not done by the provinces themselves either, the Marais Commission finds is not all that can be desired, and in addition—

1. (c) The varying systems applied in the expropriation of land for road purposes …

I believe that that problem is adequately solved in the legislation which the House has before it at present. Then they say that the result is that proper control cannot be exercised over the spending of amounts allocated from the National Roads Fund. Sir, I have indicated to you that there is an increase in spending at a rate of 12 per cent. The Marais Commission nevertheless finds that in spite of this constant increase at that high rate, the spending of the money is not all that can be desired because there are too many authorities involved in the building of roads. They say that adequate supervision cannot be exercised by the provincial administrations because of the fact that certain functions with respect to road building have, in part, shifted to the National Transport Commission’s technical staff and secondly, to consulting engineers who are employed to do detailed planning and then also, on the other hand, to private contractors to whom the actual building work is entrusted. Sir, I have now indicated how all these various sections are involved, and that this is time-consuming and a waste of money. The Marais Commission then comes to a conclusion which is of very great and fundamental importance to us. After it had heard evidence from the National Transport Commission and other witnesses, the Marais Commission came to the conclusion in paragraph 453 (c) that—

I think that this is the clearest pronouncement we could possibly get about this matter. With due regard to the task of the Marais Commission, which made a special investigation of the subject of traffic, I think that these are the most authoritative pronouncements and opinions we can obtain in this respect.

The legislation before the House also has a history. The reason for it can be traced back quite a distance into the past. When the late Mr. Basie van Rensburg was still Deputy Minister of Transport, he gave this House an indication in 1967 of certain of the problems and of possible solutions. I quote from Hansard of 1967 when he said, inter alia, the following—

As far back as 1967 there was, consequently, an indication on the part of the then Deputy Minister of Transport that the road system was obsolete and that work had to be undertaken on them with drastic urgency. This commission came to the conclusion that, with the existing system and present methods, the money is not being used as desired, and that it is very clear from statistics that we cannot keep pace with the requirements imposed on the road system. That is why hon. Deputy Minister van Rensburg said further at the time—

As far back as 1967 it was, therefore, already clear that the old, existing system could not be continued with if we were desirous of catching up on the backlog in respect of our national roads.

We read almost every day in our newspapers about road accidents, and we hear about them almost daily on the radio. The subject has already been debated thoroughly and in depth in this House. One of the big problems our country is saddled with is the fact that a number of people, equal to the number of the inhabitants of the town from which you, Mr. Speaker, come are killed on our roads annually. Scientists and researchers are all agreed that adequate roads constitute one of the best methods for combating the death rate on the roads. It is an expensive and a lengthy process, but if we are in earnest about our road system in South Africa, with the national road network through our country, and if we want to increase this to the standards necessary for carrying the next generation’s traffic, we must simply break away from the old restrictions which we find ourselves subject to at present. We must then simply find new measures and apply modern and accelerated, streamlined methods. I believe that this legislation before the House this afternoon will succeed in that object. That is why it is a great pleasure for me to welcome this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we have just listened to the hon. member for Middelburg. I do not know whether he ever was a member of the Provincial Council.

Yes, I was.

I do not know whether the position in the Transvaal was different from the Cape.

No, I was a member of the Natal Provincial Council.

Listening to the hon. member’s statement on the roads position at the present moment and the necessity for this particular Bill, it would seem as if there is absolutely no confidence in the building of roads by our provincial administrations.

Much has been made of the reports of the Borckenhagen and the Schumann Commissions. We have also been referred to the results of the Marais Commission’s report. This is a report that was rejected by the hon. the Minister of Transport to a large degree. It is good to know that they have resuscitated this particular report and extracted certain portions of it. Today we stand in this House at the cross-roads regarding the road building programme in our country. There is a necessity for providing modern roads which will comply with the high standards that are required by modern transport. Mr. Speaker, the Bill before us is like the curate’s egg; it is good in parts. The part of this Bill which we do not like, is that part which undermines the function of the provincial councils and their road building programmes.

I listened to the hon. member for Parow. He was a member of the provincial council. I think he can well remember the very good work that was done by the Provincial Administration of the Cape Province, the largest province, as far as roads are concerned. The hon. member for Middelburg made much of the overlapping of the various functions of the National Transport Commission in regard to the building of roads. One would think that it would take a life-time to travel from Pretoria to Cape Town. I can say that there is the closest liaison as far as road building is concerned. Over the years research has been undertaken by the various provinces. I can speak for the Cape Province. The research that was done in regard to the building of roads, was very thorough. I think the engineers of the National Transport Commission must have learned a great deal from the engineers here in the Cape. I can give hon. members the assurance that there was very close liaison between these two bodies. There was not much red tape before a road could actually be built.

The design and building of a road takes a long time. Surveying must be done on land and from the air to establish the least costly route that should be taken. The best people to undertake this, are the local engineers who know the conditions of their area. That is what happens. Then the costs are worked out. The original idea was for the provinces to have their own construction units. This was very costly. It was found that better progress could be made by having this work done under contract by the various construction companies. That is the position that obtains today. Even if the National Transport Commission takes over the building of roads today, that is what will happen. Up to now the National Transport Commission has not had the power to build any roads. This Bill, however, now gives them that power. But what will really happen is that the provinces will still build the roads, because the National Transport Commission does not have the machinery to do that. It will take them years to recruit the necessary staff in og-1er to carry out the functions outlined in this Bill. The hon. the Minister made an interjection and said that the power given to the National Transport Commission under this Bill concerns only national roads. The hon. member for Green Point pointed out that the provisions of clause 5 (1) (1) go much further than that. Under this particular clause they can build any road. They can build a road here in the suburbs of Cape Town if they wish to do so. The National Transport Commission is given tremendous powers under this particular Bill.

Listening to the hon. member for Middelburg, one would get the idea that there was no co-operation between the provincial administrations and the National Transport Commission as far as the provincial road system is concerned. Notwithstanding the evidence produced in the report of the Marais Commission as far as uniformity of our road systems is concerned, the basic requirements for the building of roads in this country, are to a large degree standardized. They are of a very high standard.

Hon. members must not forget that over the years our engineers have been forced to build tarred roads. The demand was for a tarred road from one point to the other. This demand was because they wanted to get rid of the Road dust. However, they realized at the time when they were building these roads that the foundation which they were giving these roads will not be able to carry the extra weight of heavy vehicles. That problem was drawn to the attention of the various provinces. They told us that they will build those roads, but that only a certain amount of transport can use that road and that the time will come when a road of very much higher standard will have to be built so that it can cope with the heavier traffic. Today the Government has realized, and the country is realizing that all these roads which we have in our country must be built to a very much higher standard and to a higher axle weight in order to take very much heavier transport. The provinces are aware of that position and they know about the experience we had with the famous Witbank Road which failed under the strain of the heavy vehicles which carried coal over this road. The provinces and the provincial road engineers are well aware of what the position is. Therefore, this Government is not going to be any better off by introducing this particular Bill. The roads are not going to be built any faster, because a road can only be built as fast as the funds are made available and according to the manpower available.

I was mentioning the question of the siting of new roads. The tendency in the speeches which have been made today, is that the building of national roads should be entirely left to the National Road Commission. I would like to go back to the position at present. I am thinking of an example such as the national road which goes through the Tsitsikamma Forest at the present moment. Believe it or not, a new road is being deigned and it will take another route. We know what happened when they cut the previous new road through the Tsitsikamma Forest and the effect it had on the virgin forests. One wonders whether, if there had been no consultation with the provinces, what the effect would have been. Today a new road is being built there. Other speakers on this side of the House will tell of the other difficulties which are being experienced when national roads are built through various areas.

To build a road you have to have the personnel, the machinery and the knowhow. However, before you can get these things, you must have the finance. You must have the finance and therefore we must look at this particular Bill. Let us go back into the history of our national roads in this country. One remembers that there was a time when we had the most terrible roads in this country. At that time a campaign was launched and in every advertisement in the newspapers the words “We want good roads” appeared at the bottom of the advertisements. This was done to such an extent that the Government of the time woke up and realized that something had to be done. In the beginning they decided not to build our roads on a national basis, but to build them on a provincial basis to a high gravel standard. One can remember that the Orange Free State was the first province where the roads were to a fairly high gravel standard. As a matter of fact, travelling in the Free State was the envy of every motorist. Then, Mr. Speaker, the Government of the day realized that some-ting would have to be done on a national basis. But the money was just not available. They then decided that the road user must pay for it. One still remembers that when the original Bill was introduced in this House, a levy of 3 pennies per gallon was placed on petrol in order to pay for the building of these roads, that is on a gravel standard. Only later did they decide to bring them to a black-top standard. These roads had comparatively no foundation. The important thing was to get blacktop roads. I do not think that they thought very much about foundations in those days. The necessity of having double-lane roads was also not thought of at that stage. Engineers thought that it might come in future, but not at that stage. In order to finance those roads a ratio was worked out for the different provinces and it was provided in a Bill that the Cape would get 50 per cent from this particular fund, the Transvaal 25 per cent, Natal 22½ per cent and the Orange Free State 22 per cent. This would assist them in the building of the roads.

Annually?

Yes. The hon. the Deputy Minister will see this in the old Bill. Following upon the increase to 6 cents per gallon of petrol one sees in the Estimates that last year an amount of R56 250 000 was allocated to this particular fund. Under the present Bill this amount will be increased to R67 500 000 as a result of the increase of 8 cents per gallon of petrol to this Fund. That is a lot of money and one realizes that this new system of national road contraction—we are not against national roads being constructed—-will take away the provincial control in the building of these roads. We have the know-how in the provinces and to think that we are going to achieve anything by handing it over to a central commission is all wrong.

I now come to the financing of these roads. When one reads clause 2, one wonders where the provinces are going to get the money from to build provincial roads. Is it going to come out of this bulk amount the hon. the Minister of Finance is going to give the provinces? Will they have to budget for that amount? What is going to happen to the cities? Let us take a city like Johannesburg where they are now talking about building an underground communication system which I understand is going to cost something like R500 million. Where are they going to raise the money? At the present moment the Government grabs quite a lot of money from motorists. At the present time the motorist pay§ 9,8 cents excise duty and, 9,8 cents customs duty on one gallon of petrol and also 8 cents to the National Road Fund. That is the amount of money the Government gets in indirect taxation on a gallon of petrol. Only 8 cents goes to the National Roads Fund. When some people talk glibly that local authorities, like city councils and so on, can put a tax on petrol in order to meet their expenses they are talking nonsense. This is a matter the Government has to give consideration to. Roads cannot be built unless (a) you have the personnel, (b) the know-how and (c) the most important, the money. What the Government had not told us—I have listened to the hon. the Deputy Minister this afternoon—is how the provinces are going to continue building the roads and maintaining the present roads, and how the cities are going to continue building their throughways and various other connection roads to the national roads. Other speakers will discuss the position of the limited access roads in the platteland and the acquisition of ground through the various farms.

There is another conflict in this particular Bill that has not been mentioned here, namely in Clause 19. At the present time, in the provinces we have a Traffic Law Co-ordinating Committee, which coordinates all our traffic laws. But under this particular provision the Minister is going to take unto himself the power through the commission to make his own traffic laws as far as the national roads are concerned. In the case of conflict with the traffic laws as put forward by our traffic bureaux, his laws will prevail. It says here that the conditions of his particular laws for these roads will prevail. That is the position. We have now a National Roads Commission which not only is going to control and build these roads, but it is also going to lay down the traffic laws appertaining to these roads, notwithstanding any other traffic regulations or laws that prevail at the present moment under the local authorities. One finds this conflict throughout the Bill. As the hon. member for Green Point said, the tendency is to undermine what is left to the Provincial Council at the present moment.

We can be very proud of the road system in this country today; but we can lay that at the door of the Provincial Councils and their road engineers, who have built up this very high standard of road building that we have today. To think that by the introduction of this particular measure and the appointment of the National Transport Commission to build all these roads, more roads are going to be built in this country, is a mistaken idea. All these roads throughout our country, through our cities and provinces, will still have to be built. The Government will have to find the money. At the moment the Government has pruned the provinces’ taxation, resources and certainly, the cities cannot find the money. The Government just cannot rely on the eight cents they are going to get for their national roads. When the Minister replies, we would like to hear how he intends, not only financing the national roads through this particular fund by means of the eight cents per gallon, but assisting the provinces as far as their roads are concerned, as well as the cities. It would be very interesting to hear how the Government intends doing that.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.