Mr Speaker, as in previous years I have decided once again to call a Joint Sitting of Parliament shortly before it adjourns to give my views on a few matters of national importance.

So far this year, this session of Parliament has been characterised by positive and important legislation and renewal to the benefit of all our population communities.

Initially this renewal took place especially in the economic sphere. In the social sphere a major effort was made in conjunction with the private sector to bring about a massive reconstruction effort to uplift backward areas and communities.

In the constitutional sphere as well, planning and deliberation continued. An example of this is the Promotion of Constitutional Development Bill, which is to be read for the second time during a joint meeting tomorrow.

Further steps are also being envisaged for the attention of Parliament. That is why it is being contemplated that Parliament shall meet again for a short while as a continuation of this session later in the year.

Parliamentary procedures are time-consuming, but they remain the safest way to take South Africa further on the road ahead.

The executive authority

In certain circles derogatory references are sometimes made about there being no members of the Ministers’ Councils of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates in the Cabinet at present.

I, personally, am in favour of the other two Houses being represented on the Cabinet, as is in fact the case with Ministers’ Committees. In fact hon members will recall that I adopted a standpoint on this matter during the debate on the State President’s Vote.

Among other things I indicated that representatives of the Black communities, too, should be entrusted with ministerial responsibilities in respect of matters affecting their population communities. I hope, as far as these matters are concerned, that we will be able to make progress before the end of the year.

National security

At present South Africa founds itself in one of the most important development phases in its history—a phase in which the Government has committed itself to the orderly development and broadening of democracy.

However, democracy cannot be promoted in conditions of disorderliness, subversion and violence. The emergency measures of the past two years have contributed, as far as the general security situation is concerned, towards the creation of a situation of greater stability within the country. Even radical and revolutionary groups have had to concede openly that they have suffered severe set-backs.

In spite of the visible decline in unrest-related incidents, there is a high underlying climate of revolution which—if the state of emergency were to be lifted now—could lead to an escalation of unrest. In addition there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the radicals and revolutionaries are planning an intensified onslaught in the second half of 1988, which is to include hard intimidation and violence and will inter alia be aimed at disrupting the country-wide municipal elections.

These forces fear the orderly development of democracy in South Africa. Their thirst for political power entails an all-or-nothing approach. They do not wish to give peaceful constitutional change a chance to succeed. They challenge democratic development in South Africa and the free democratic rights of all South Africans.

The changed circumstances brought about by the emergency measures, which have restricted the capability of the radicals in respect of mass manipulation and intimidation, have also led to new methods being applied to change the status quo and influence the course of the democratic process. I have to warn all South Africans that a new process of subversion is developing which is more sophisticated and unorthodox than the onslaught this country has experienced so far.

As a result of the successful actions by the authorities against revolutionary activities, the ANC/SACP alliance has decided to adapt its tactics for pursuing the “struggle” without relinquishing violence. This new dimension of the onslaught is directed at gaining greater political acceptability for the revolutionary forces at home and abroad. Efforts are to be directed in particular at trying to unite the interests of various internal groups in an extra-parliamentary process to establish an alternative movement for radical political change in this country.

†Attempts at division

Over the past eighteen months another facet of the campaign against us has become increasingly evident. It is an attempt to sow division in the ranks of patriotic and responsible South Africans. The Government has irrefutable evidence that it is the stated intention of these radical and revolutionary movements to try to engender discord and dissent among South Africans.

There are a number of focal points in this development. Firstly, there are attempts to weaken the unity and dedication of responsible South Africans. Secondly, there are attempts to involve more South Africans in the activities of radical groups and forces that wish to destroy civilised values in our country. Thirdly, there are attempts to enhance the profile and the credibility of the radical and revolutionary movements in order to draw recruits for their activities. Fourthly, we are witnessing the increasing establishment of movements and organisations under the guise of freedom and democracy with the aim of undermining the real efforts of broadening democracy in South Africa.

It is universally known that Marxists and revolutionaries use the word “democracy” to describe their atheistic and materialistic system of autocratic, one-party dictatorship. No one in the Western and democratic world would describe the Soviet Union system as democratic. Yet, some of these same people blandly accept that the aim of the ANC/SACP alliance is to implement a true democratic and free economic system in South Africa. How naïve can one be!

Responsible South Africans are not deluded by these transparent attempts to sow discord among the loyal citizens of our country. The Government and the people of South Africa will not succumb to these attempts to drag our country down to the misery into which so many African states have already sunk.

As far as the international community is concerned we are witnessing increasing attempts to interfere in our domestic affairs, to isolate South Africa and to increase pressure on us.

It is the Government’s declared policy to protect our peoples and the integrity of our borders. The overwhelming majority of our citizens support our security forces in this endeavour.

*It is inter alia for the reasons I have now dealt with here that the Government has had no choice but to extend the state of emergency for a further period. I wish to emphasise that it is not the Government’s wish to continue the state of emergency. In fact, before its reimposition, serious consideration was given to whether it could not be lifted now. It is the Government’s aim that conditions will so change that the state of emergency may indeed be lifted.

In addition to the shift of emphasis in the nature of the activities of the revolutionary groups, foreign endeavours to isolate the RSA internationally have increased substantially.

Together with this a variety of underhand methods are being used to interfere in South Africa’s domestic affairs. They are thwarting the orderly and democratic development required in accordance with South Africa’s needs and demands.

When President Reagan and Mr Gorbachev held talks in Moscow a while ago I found a direct statement Mr Gorbachev made very interesting. He told President Reagan that they were of course able to hold talks, but that there was one matter on which they could not hold talks, and that was that Russia would not allow intervention in its internal affairs. The same Russia, however, exports weapons to enable other people to bring the internal affairs of South Africa to a head.

Foreign initiatives and efforts enticing the Government willy-nilly into the snare of negotiating with revolutionary groups appear to be the order of the day. Various alternative constitutional models are being researched, the nature of the so-called post-apartheid South Africa is being spelt out and conferences convened world-wide to expose naïve South Africans to the so-called political flexibility of the revolutionary forces.

Terrorism

Now one also finds ridiculous attempts being made to brand South Africa a terrorist state. This is absolute nonsense. South Africa, in truth, is the only state in Southern Africa which does act effectively against terrorism. To declare South Africa’s actions against terrorists to be terrorism is to call a fireman an arsonist. These attempts at branding us will not deter us from acting against all who are guilty of terrorism.

In recent days the Minister of Law and Order has released details of successes achieved in the struggle against terrorists who tried to infiltrate the country. I am grateful to be able to disclose additional information about further successes today.

Our security forces have uncovered a terrorist den of iniquity. Firstly several persons have been arrested or detained recently in connection with several sensational incidents of terrorism in the recent past. They include ANC terrorists trained both locally and abroad.

These incidents include: The explosions at the Sterland complex and the planting of several limpet mines in Pretoria; hand-grenade attacks and explosions in Mamelodi, Kagiso and Atteridgeville; limpet mines at various railway stations; and the murder of three Black members of the SAP detective division in Atteridgeville.

Secondly, some of those detained have already disclosed valuable information about other ANC terrorists involved in incidents of terrorism.

Thirdly, several caches of weapons have been pointed out to the security forces. In the process, large quantities of weapons, ammunition, limpet mines and hand-grenades have been found.

Fourthly, valuable documents and other revealing information of considerable value to the continued struggle against terrorism have been found.

I wish to congratulate all the members of our security forces on these and other brilliant achievements in the fight against terrorism. Here and there a bomb explodes, but we should not become panic-stricken when this happens. Bombs are not only exploding in South Africa. They are also exploding in London, in Northern Ireland, in Paris, in Central and South America and in the Far East. They should simply make us more determined to pursue our ideals and help realise the best for all our communities.

Terrorism is a world-wide phenomenon, because there is a struggle between order and chaos in the world and South Africa is on the side of order. The civilised and orderly international community cannot wage a successful struggle against terrorism and disorder without the part being played by South Africa in Southern Africa.

†Offer to participate in peaceful process

In this regard I wish to make another appeal today. I wish to repeat my offer to security prisoners and those who have left the country for whatever reason: Reject and abandon violence and turn your backs on godless Marxism and destructive radicalism. If you prove your sincerity in this regard, you will find the Government’s approach to be reasonable. Take note of what has happened in many states on this continent that have been brought to their knees by such destructive policies and ideologies.

If the ANC wishes to talk to us, it should lay down its arms; cease its acts of terrorism; refrain from detonating bombs which kill and maim innocent civilians; stop the brutal murder and mutilation of people in the Black townships; and cut its ties with international Communism. Then they may return to South Africa to participate in the peaceful search for solutions, to build the economy and improve social conditions.

Foreign involvement

We will be able to achieve this if we are left alone by foreign meddlers who know little and care even less about South Africa and her peoples. Steps are being taken against us by those who are motivated by revolutionary ideals; who wish to exploit South Africa’s problems to mask their own; and who try to promote and protect their trade and other self-interests.

South Africa has no desire to take part in sanctions and boycotts. We wish to trade; to participate in sporting events; to engage in cultural and scientific activities; and to conduct normal relations with our neighbours, for the benefit of our region.

Southern Africa

We acknowledge our responsibility towards South Africa. Our responsibility, however, also reaches beyond our borders, to those states and nations with which we share the common interests of peace and progress in our region.

Cuban forces in Angola

In this context the whole question of a total Cuban withdrawal from Angola has become increasingly relevant. The Government views in a serious light the recent substantial build-up of Cuban forces in the border area adjoining South West Africa. This is causing a serious disturbance of the balance of forces in Southern Angola. If they persist with this aggressive behaviour, it may threaten the security of the entire subcontinent.

This build-up is not only provocative, but also completely unnecessary. It cannot be regarded as a purely localised issue, but is a threat to South Africa’s flanks in the light of her particular geographic position in Southern Africa. It also raises the question of whether Angola has any control whatsoever over the 50 000 foreign troops on its soil. The Cuban build-up of troops is in direct contradiction to the search for peaceful solutions to the problems of the South-Western subcontinent.

Since January this year these forces have increased rapidly by some 12 000 troops. Their equipment now includes T64 and other tanks, MiG 23 fighter aircraft, as well as sophisticated anti-aircraft and radar systems. They have also completed the upgrading of two landing strips in South-Western Angola, immediately to the north of the South West African border.

South Africa cannot stand by and allow this development to take place without taking the necessary precautions. I wish to assure the parents and families of all the members of our security forces that we shall not expose them to unnecessary risk and danger. South Africa remains ready to continue the negotiations on a total withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola.

I urge the countries in Africa, as well as the Western countries, to join us in a common effort to remove all the foreign troops from Southern Africa. Once they are gone, the entire situation in Southern Africa should change for the better. If, however, the world persists with its present attitude, viz of accusing the Republic of South Africa of maintaining an illegal presence in South West Africa, while we are expected to bear the financial burden of developing that territory, and of continuing to turn a blind eye to the presence of Cuban troops in Angola, then the results could well be disastrous.

The Government, which is at present preparing next year’s Budget, will have seriously to reconsider the entire question of its financial assistance to South West Africa. We have already informed South West Africa administratively of this position, and today I informed the Administrator-General accordingly, asking him to convey the message to the transitional government.

If the world continues to demand that we withdraw our troops from Northern South West Africa, I have to spell out the possible result. Northern South West Africa could become the battlefield between ourselves and foreign intruders. I have raised these issues with foreign leaders, and nothing has happened. All that did happen was that accusations followed accusations.

In connection with these and other issues there is continuous contact between myself and other African leaders. On several occasions during the past few months I have met and held in-depth discussions here in Cape Town with highly placed representatives of several African countries.

South Africa’s approach to peace and development is a positive one. I am convinced that the people of Africa desire their leaders to give the highest priority to co-operation so that the quality of life in Africa may improve.

Socio-economic development

It is also the Government’s firm intention to continue with the promotion of stability and growth over a wide field in our country.

It is widely known that the South African economy has been subjected to particularly negative influences from abroad in recent years. During the course of the past year the Government addressed these issues in a wide-ranging and determined manner.

In the social field the Government has intensified its efforts to uplift all our communities. It has done this in education, training, social services, health and housing, in pursuit of our goal of social contentment for all in South Africa.

These developments, of which many take place with the full co-operation of members of the private sector, are part of a process of growth which will later contribute increasingly to our economic and social development.

The Public Service

Today I also wish to pay a compliment to all the members of the public sector who serve South Africa well. The public sector represents 16% of the economically active population of this country. This compares favourably with the figures for other Western countries. It is a vast corps of loyal and dedicated people which serves the South African nation well. A breakdown of functional activities indicates that 10% of these people are involved in regulation, 20% in protection and a massive 70% in development.

South Africa is proud of its public servants, including the thousands of dedicated teachers and educationists who contribute so much every day towards the education and training of our youth. We thank them for this.

Clean administration

When I became Prime Minister ten years ago, it was my stated intention to strive for clean administration. I wish to repeat this intention today, for it is my view that effective government has to be supported by a clean and honest administration. The fact that we do not always succeed in every way does not detract from our sincere desire to achieve clean and honest administration. This is also a way in which to foster stability in our country.

*Constitutional guidelines

Stability also has to be ensured by continuous progress in respect of constitutional development. In this connection the Government’s basic guidelines are known to hon members.

Broadly stated, the Government has committed itself to an evolutionary process of development to broaden democracy. This implies a democratic dispensation which offers the various communities of our population a voice and share in the legislative and executive institutions on the various levels of government.

Furthermore the Government believes that the particular nature of our population structure requires certain measures for the protection of groups.

Group security

To promote group security, the Government favours, among other things the protection of a community life of every group as far as this is practicable; the maintenance of the self-determination of every group or community on as many levels as possible; and the effective protection of minority groups and rights on the basis of equality of opportunity and non-domination by any group of any of the others.

/Structures and deliberation

Now we are faced with the challenge of further developing structures and processes to facilitate the realisation of our constitutional goals. They include the goals of self-determination, participation and deliberation. We cannot conduct our politics in isolation from one another. We have to share our views, our ideals and our perceptions of the future.

These structures will have to be based on the acceptance of the plural nature of our society. One man, one vote systems have failed in Africa, particularly in plural societies. Africa is a graveyard of failed experiments with Western models and systems rammed down its throat. They simply do not work in Africa.

* The basis of confidence

On the basis of good neighbourliness we may face the future with confidence.

We may certainly expect resistance from several quarters. Such resistance is proof of the fear that we might succeed in South Africa, that we might succeed in broadening democracy and in accommodating groups and communities in peace. We can succeed, just as we succeeded in the past, when we entered the fray and realised great achievements for South Africa.

Most South Africans are opposed to certain things and in favour of certain other things. South Africa is opposed to sanctions—predominantly so; to violence—and we are predominantly opposed to violence; to foreign intervention—and we are predominantly opposed to foreign intervention.

South Africa is in favour of freedom, and we are predominantly in favour of freedom. We are often accused of inhibiting freedom, but where in Africa is there a country with greater freedom of religion, with religious leaders who are free to undermine the interests of the Church, the community and even the country as is the case here? In what country is there greater freedom before the law? Where is there a country in which there is greater freedom, and even irresponsibility in the case of some members, of the media? In what country are there more elected leaders and political parties in all communities than in South Africa? Those who would criticise us should answer these questions first.

South Africa is in favour of self discipline and balance. South Africa is also in favour of optimism. We do not want to listen to jeremiads all day about how badly things are going in our country. We want to look forward with optimism and confidence and build our future.

We must not doubt. We must not despair. We must not let the fears of others become our fears. We are aware of the threats. We are aware that plans are being plotted. We are aware of the actions being launched against us. After all, this is not the first time that this has happened to our country and its people, but we have advanced through conflict because we have kept our faith.

Our optimism about the future is not built on sand. There are a few secrets for our success. I want to mention them. In the first place our strength is vested in our patriotism, inspired leadership, balanced decisions, a sense of mission and common sense.

Secondly, it is built on the desire among South Africans to work together. It is frequently alleged that we are a deeply divided society. But it is true that South Africans are broadly united in respect of most fundamental matters. If we concentrate on these and co-operate with one another and tackle the challenges one by one we shall take South Africa into a good future.

It is thirdly, and especially, based on the rock of our faith in God. We do not say that God is only on our side. Sometimes we are accused of wanting to have God on our side. In our endeavours to pursue justice, fairness, freedom and peace, we wish only to be on God’s side.

Let us now join hands on this basis, and make South Africa a land of hope for all those who call this beautiful land their fatherland. Let us also do so for those who share our region and our interests beyond our borders. On this basis we can serve South Africa with our sacrifices and dedication, with our powers and talents, and with the common effort towards fine ideals for the future.

If we had the will; if those political parties that believe in democracy have the will; if the leaders of political parties who believe in democracy have the will to join hands and in spite of our differences seek points of agreement, then we must succeed. This afternoon I want to tell this Joint Meeting with all the earnestness I have at my disposal that if one of us stands in the way of a better South Africa he must make way for those who are able to help establish a better South Africa. If we do not trust one another and if we do not want to help one another, we do not have the right to hinder one another.

The Joint Sitting rose at 17h37.

Order! I have to announce that Mr Speaker has received a Message from the State President calling a joint sitting, as follows:

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, as will be seen from the long title of the Bill under discussion, the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill of 1988 seeks to achieve a number of objectives.

Firstly this measure seeks to implement certain recommendations of the Margo Commission which have been adopted by the Government. Secondly it envisages making provision for a moratorium with a view to enabling certain groups of companies to reorganise their structures. A third objective of this measure is to pave the way for the introduction of value-added tax. Fourthly it envisages making provision for certain tax-avoidance counter-measures. Fifthly the legislation under discussion envisages increasing the fines payable in regard to certain offences in terms of the Stamp Duties Act. Sixthly the legislation envisages introducing certain administrative amendments to the Sales Tax Act and, in the seventh place, brushing up the provisions of the respective revenue acts.

Hon members have been provided with a comprehensive Explanatory Memorandum on the Bill but, as is customary, I intend to focus special attention on certain aspects of the proposed legislation, not necessarily in the order of importance.

Estate duty

In the White Paper tabled on 16 March the Government reacted to many of the most important recommendations of the Margo Commission. It will be remembered that the commission recommended, amongst other things, that taxation on donations and estate duty be replaced by a single rate of duty, ie capital transfer tax. That recommendation was accepted by the Government.

In the Budget speech, however, it was pointed out that it would take several months to draw up the legislation and that considerable interim relief would consequently be granted in respect of the two forms of taxation. In the case of tax on donations the limit in regard to periodic donations would be increased to R10 000 per year, whilst in the case of estate duty the present wide range of deductions would be replaced by a single amount deduction of R1 million. At the same time the rate for both taxes would be changed to a single rate of duty of 15%.

The draft legislation implements those proposals in so far as they relate to estate duty and will, if it is enacted, grant considerable relief in regard to estates. A table in which particulars are furnished of the relief which can be expected will be made available to interested parties. The amendments relating to taxation on donations affecting inter vivos donations will be inserted in the Income Tax Act. Provision has simultaneously been made for an exemption in regard to donations to retirement villages which have been exempted from income tax in terms of section 10 (1) (cF), inserted in the Income Tax Act last year.

Moratorium

A further important concession announced in the Budget Speech relates to the rationalisation of the structure of groups of companies. In many cases the number of companies in a group could drastically be reduced if it were not for the serious tax implications. In certain circumstances rationalisation could result in millions of rands having to be paid by way of transfer duties or stamp duties and could, moreover, have an adverse effect as far as income tax was concerned.

Consequently few groups have proceeded with large-scale rationalisation schemes, continuing instead with schemes which were far from ideal and which gave rise to unnecessary costs, not only for them, but also for Inland Revenue which had to deal with more returns and registers than was actually necessary.

The proposed moratorium, which will be applicable from the date of the First Reading of the Bill until 30 June 1989, will grant groups of companies the opportunity they have been advocating for many years now. It is hoped that this moderate concession will be used for the purpose for which it is intended, ie to increase commercial efficiency, and that no group will be guilty of having abused the privilege.

Stamp duty

As will be noticed, many of the amendments are of lesser importance. There are, however, four matters which are significant, and they are:

Fines

The fines prescribed for various offences in terms of this Act were determined many years ago—in the case of some of them in 1911—and have not kept pace with inflation. An attempt has therefore been made to bring the penalty into line with the offence.

Exemptions

As far back as one can remember, it has been possible to transfer a deceased person’s immovable property to an heir without the payment of transfer duty. For some inexplicable reason a similar exemption was not applicable to the transfer of marketable securities from a deceased person to an heir. The Bill now makes provision for such an exemption. This is a moderate concession which should be welcomed by everyone.

†Debit entries

The Margo Commission was in favour of the abolition of various taxes including stamp duty. It added, however, that if the Government did not see its way clear to abolishing stamp duties at this stage, it should extend the duty payable under item 6 of the First Schedule to the Act to the transmission accounts of building societies and Post Office Telebank facilities.

Since the abolition of stamp duty cannot be considered at this stage, the Government has accepted the alternative recommendation. The Bill provides the necessary legal machinery for the extension of the scope of the duty. The building societies and the Post Office have been consulted and have given their full co-operation in this matter. For this I would like to record my grateful thanks.

Tax avoidance

In spite of the many provisions that have been included in various laws during the past few years, tax avoidance continues, and stamp duty is no exception. Various provisions have therefore been included in the Bill which will make the task of the tax avoider more difficult.

Value-added tax

The decision to replace sales tax with a conventional invoice-based VAT was announced by the hon the State President when he opened Parliament on 5 February 1988. Preparations for the introduction of VAT are proceeding and draft legislation will be published during the parliamentary recess. The final VAT Bill cannot be submitted to Parliament until early next year, but certain vital steps must be taken well before that Bill becomes law. The most important of those steps will be the registration of persons carrying on business as suppliers of goods or services. Clause 46 of the Bill therefore empowers the Commissioner for Inland Revenue to compile a register for the purposes of VAT and to call upon persons to supply information for that purpose.

Sales tax

Although VAT is to be introduced next year, the administration of the Sales Tax Act must go on in the normal way. At the same time, the way must be paved for the introduction of VAT. In the latter connection it was announced on 4 May 1988, as part of the credit restriction package, that the allowance in respect of outstanding debts would be phased out over the period ending on 31 March 1989. The proposal is that as from the end of July 1988 the present allowance of 50% of outstanding debts will be reduced by five percentage points per month. Clause 38 of the Bill gives effect to this proposal.

Since that announcement was made, it has been represented to the hon the Minister of Finance that this proposal may cause considerable hardship in cases in which the terms of repayment of the debt extend over a period of 24 months or more. The Commissioner for Inland Revenue has therefore been asked to consider requests for the payment over a period longer than nine months of the sales tax owing in respect of outstanding debtors. Individual requests for relief should not be directed to receivers of revenue. Such requests should instead be made on a group basis by representative organisations. No request for relief will be considered where the terms granted by the vendor to the debtor are for a period shorter than 12 months.

The remaining provisions relating to sales tax are of an administrative nature and their purpose is explained in the memorandum.

Finally, hon members will note that the Bill contains a fair number of clauses which are aimed at tidying up the revenue laws and getting rid of obsolete provisions which clutter up the various Acts and no longer serve a useful purpose.

For the most part the provisions of the Bill are not contentious and will, I am sure—in particular those provisions which provide a generous reduction in the burden of taxation—enjoy the full support of hon members.

Mr Chairman, we should like to express our thanks to the officials of the department for the explanatory memorandum on the legislation before us which we received in fairly good time. We were therefore able to scrutinise the Bill thoroughly.

In the short time at my disposal I want to refer to only a few matters to which the hon the Minister also alluded in his speech. I want to refer in particular to the very important announcement and proposal which is now included in clause 48 of the Bill. This is related to the rationalisation of groups of companies and the concession which they are now being granted for a period to 30 June of next year to put that rationalisation into operation in the interests of the improved administration of their own companies without running the risk of paying enormous sums in the form of transfer and stamp duties.

The hon the Minister rightly mentioned that representations had been received for a long time from the private sector on the possibility of bringing about such rationalisation. It is in the interests of the economy in general that this concession is now being made in clause 48 and we support it wholeheartedly.

I should like to make an appeal to the farming industry in this regard. At present we are faced with the practical situation that there are many farmers who operate a farming enterprise in their private capacity—if I may express it like that. An example is that of a man who, as a farmer, has a farm in his own name. It also happens that one has farming companies. If such a farming company wishes to sell a property which is largely its only asset, one finds in practice that that company does not sell the farm. In order to avoid paying transfer duty, it sells shares in the private company.

One now encounters a practical situation in that a farmer who buys such a private company has two taxation entities—as a person, because he also farms as a person on that one farm, and as a company because the other farm belongs to a company. This has practical implications for the management of that farming enterprise, which is usually integrated in any case. It actually belongs to only one man. I am sure that this can and must create problems for the Receiver of Revenue because it is not always possible to make a thorough evaluation of the division of income and expenditure in respect of the farmer as an individual and the farming activities of the company.

I therefore wish to suggest, because I consider it essential—I do not want to introduce a motion in this regard but I wish to propose—that the hon the Minister and his department also examine this problem. It is desirable that at a later stage—next year or whenever—an attempt be made to provide for these cases as well. Just as rationalisation is desirable in the case of groups of companies, it is equally desirable in these cases which I have just mentioned. We should therefore appreciate it very much indeed if this could receive attention.

The next matter to which I want to refer briefly and to which the hon the Minister also alluded is the question of the Margo Commission’s recommendations on estate duty and tax on donations. We are satisfied with the interim measure which now applies to the amount of the dutiable estate which may be deducted for taxation purposes. The amount of R1 million is fair under the circumstances. As a result of the current rate of inflation however, which we hope will decline at some time or other, it will almost be essential to adjust that sum annually in future. I do not know whether it would be desirable to amend the legislation every year to increase the deductible amount annually, but we are in any event awaiting the new legislation to which the hon the Minister alluded.

Another matter that I want to mention is the preparations or the paving of the way for the introduction of VAT, which I assume will be put into operation next year. In this specific regard, I am referring to clauses 38 and 46 of the present Bill. Both provisions are indicative of the final decision which the Government took to substitute VAT for GST at the beginning of April 1986. This is the deduction which the private sector is making and also the deduction which one may make from the Bill before us.

As regards the provisions of clause 38, the concession in respect of credit sales accorded to vendors will now be phased out gradually over the next nine months. We are not dealing with a new tax here—it would be ridiculous to say it was a new tax—but in effect the provision, as we now find it in the clause, means that the payment of collections to the Treasury is going to be accelerated. This is a bonus amount which the hon the Minister of Finance will already be receiving in the current financial year, which he would otherwise not have received. I do not even wish to hazard a guess at the possible amount involved. The fact remains that the payment of that tax places an additional burden on vendors. It also benefits the hon the Minister of Finance’s position because he now receives accelerated payments, compared with what the position would have been if GST had been continued with.

I should appreciate hearing from the hon the Minister whether it is the final decision of the Government to introduce VAT on 1 April 1989. It is being said that we are in a hurry to introduce VAT and I wish to direct a word of warning to the Government. I think we should learn from the experience of other countries. We conducted a few enquiries and I was informed that the country which had made the transition in the most successful way was New Zealand.

If one examines what the New Zealanders did in this regard, one sees, as I have been informed, that they issued a White Paper as early as March 1985 on their so-called Goods and Services Act. This was made public and the private sector was asked to make submissions to them on the practical implementation and introduction of the new taxation system. I have been informed that no fewer than 1 459 submissions were made in New Zealand on this subject. Subsequently a panel of experts was formed for drawing up a final submission. This was done in August 1985. After they had sifted through all the submissions and made a single one, they requested further submissions. These final submissions were presented to the New Zealand equivalent of our joint committee, their so-called Finance and Expenditure Select Committee, for final consideration and recommendation in September 1985.

The final Bill was only passed on 3 December 1985, that is approximately a full nine months after the first White Paper was issued. The important aspect, however, is that New Zealand, in spite of the fact that the final Bill was passed on 3 December 1985, started implementing VAT only on 1 October 1986, therefore almost nine months after the final legislation had been passed. This is why I am concerned that we might be acting too hastily as regards this matter in South Africa. Up to this stage it is not yet clear and we have not yet been told what the Government’s final decisions on VAT are. Will there be exemptions? Will there be zero ratings in some cases, as they say? I am thinking of farming in particular.

Do we have the expertise at this stage on the part of the government and also of private enterprise to get the new system off the ground as early as April of next year? If the Government can give us that assurance, we should like to accept it. I am concerned about one matter, however. There must be very much closer liaison between the Government and the private sector, far more information must be supplied and people must be informed on precisely what is awaiting them when the new legislation commences. In view of South Africa’s exceptional circumstances, I think that it is a very good decision to substitute VAT for GST. As we all know, in our particular conditions evasion of GST on a massive scale was possible. This evasion will now be curbed to a great extent.

I wish to warn once again, however, that we are concerned about the practical institution of this system. It is absolutely essential that the new system proceed smoothly and without obstacles from the date on which it comes into operation.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon member for Barberton for supporting this Bill. I do not wish to differ with him on much of what he said but, as regards the matter of VAT and its application, it is not merely a question of massive evasion which would cause a person to wish to institute the new taxation system as soon as possible. There is also the matter of the effect it has on the ordinary South African citizen and the contribution he has to make in the form of indirect taxation, which has frequently be described as being far too high. If there could be some relief to the consumer from the 12% sales tax, I think it is the Government’s duty to put this tax into operation as soon as it is feasible.

The hon member mentioned that there were other countries which had already applied this system. He cited the example of New Zealand. This form of taxation has been in operation in the United Kingdom for many years of course. I think that the Margo Commission, which investigated this taxation system, certainly also went to confer with countries like the UK.

I do not believe that the Government will act overhastily or intends to act that way. There must be a cut-off point in any case when we switch from one form of taxation to the other. There are certain other Margo taxation proposals which are being studied by certain commissions. I hope, for my part that we shall not delay any further than the date in April which was set as the original target.

I want to say something about a different aspect of this Bill, namely the number of concessions which are made in it. As the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance told us, these are concessions which in many respects are very generous. I am thinking in particular of the concession to which the hon member for Barberton also referred, namely that in respect of estate duty, which came into operation on 16 March this year. This type of concession is welcome. Although an estate with a value of R1 million is no longer a very large one nowadays as a result of inflation and other factors, most estates will nevertheless fall within the R1 million limit. One would like to point out that this concession is one of many which is being made by the Government during the current financial year.

It is so frequently said that this Government no longer concerns itself with the interests of the ordinary man and no longer cares for less affluent people. [Interjections.] If one examines the legislation before us, however, one finds that all those allegations are refuted. This tendency will be pursued in legislation which is to be introduced in Parliament later, for example that on income tax.

Heirs to smaller estates will benefit through this concession which is now being made, namely that R1 million of the value of an estate may be deducted before the 15% levy will apply to it. At the same time—in this respect I wish to associate myself with the hon member for Barberton—although I do not want to propose that we adjust this amount of R1 million annually, I do wish to suggest that this be examined periodically.

If one studies the legislation on stamp duty and amendments to it, one finds that amounts representing fines have been increased appreciably. This simply shows how the value of money can depreciate over a period of a number of years. It would therefore be of great significance if we could obtain the assurance from the hon the Deputy Minister, who is involved with this legislation, that there may be periodic adjustments as regards the value of estates which may be exempted from estate duty.

Not long ago an R1 million estate was a large one; nowadays it is no longer large. If the rate of inflation decreases even to 10% and below in the immediate future, this increase in the value of estates will continue its upward trend. Unless we therefore make the upward adjustment to the R1 million amount periodically, an increasing number of estates will fall outside the R1 million exemption limit. Then beneficiaries who inherit immovable property or even an ordinary business estate will be in the same difficulty in which heirs were previously, which was that, in consequence of estate duty, assets had to be sold or large mortgage bonds taken up to be able to settle estate duty.

As I have said, the rest of this Bill contains good amendments. It is good legislation and I therefore take pleasure in supporting this Reading of the Bill.

Mr Chairman, in following the hon member for Kuruman I wish to mention that I noted his comments regarding the concessions of duty contained in this Bill. We concede that they are in fact there and we also welcome them. We also note, however, that there is still some bad news to come in the legislation that will be dealt with later in this session. There is always good news and bad news. There is, however, certainly quite a lot in this Bill for which we have to be thankful and which we support.

I would like to deal with some of the clauses contained herein. Much has been said by both the hon member for Barberton and the hon member for Kuruman regarding the concessions on estate duty. We believe that the general principle is that the present system of estate duty is to be replaced by a capital transfer tax. This is to be combined with a gift tax imposed on dispositions of property for no or inadequate consideration.

To date, the tax rules regarding trusts have enabled the avoidance of duty through generation-skipping devices. The revised system closes this gap and further simplifies the duty. The questions of death duties and donations tax are treated as a whole. We believe that is correct and we support this fact. The fact that the duty is to be applied at a flat rate of 15% and that there is a single abatement of R1 million is a simplification. I also support what has been said by the two previous speakers that with the ravages of inflation this figure will have to be looked at on a regular basis. We sincerely hope that this will be done.

In his extended Budget Speech the hon the Minister of Finance gave an example of the substantial reduction which will accrue as a result of this change. This is an exceptionally generous concession which we welcome.

At the same time, I would like to reiterate something that has been raised by the hon member for Yeoville before and that is that consideration should nevertheless still be given to allowing an additional exemption. This relates to investments in Government stock. The hon member has pleaded for this, the reasoning being to encourage investments in Government stock which would be in the interests and to the benefit of the country as a whole. Obviously such an exemption would have to be conditional in order to avoid abuse, but I mention it as being something that I believe is still worthy of consideration.

Clause 46 of the Bill establishes the preliminary procedure to be adopted for converting from a general sales tax system to a value added tax system, namely the establishing of a register and the allocation of registration numbers. This is obviously a procedural requirement to establish a VAT base. The accuracy of this base is imperative to ensure that everyone liable for VAT will in fact be registered and that penalties will be imposed for failure to register. I merely want to make the comment that I believe that due to the importance of this, possibly the fine not exceeding R200 for failure to register is a bit light under the circumstances.

In addition, we appreciate that conversion from a GST system to a VAT system is a complex process for both the revenue authorities and the taxpayers. An enormous amount of education, preparatory work and revision of recording systems will be necessary in order to ensure that the system does not go off at half-cock. We appreciate and endorse what the hon member for Barberton said earlier. It is essential that this work be allowed to be done properly and that sufficient time be allowed for the system to be implemented smoothly. We note that the process has now started. I understood that attempts were going to be made for the Bill to be published during the recess, but it would appear that there is some delay. All we would say from our side of the House is that because of the importance of this new tax system’s being implemented smoothly, sufficient time be allowed for everyone to understand it and prepare themselves accordingly.

Leading on from clause 46 I would also like to deal with clause 38 which also deals with the GST/VAT system and refers to the gradual phasing out of the debtors’ allowance in terms of the existing Sales Tax Act. The intention is to cushion the cash flow effects of withdrawing this allowance which will not exist at all under the new VAT system. In terms of the phased withdrawal the allowance will cease to exist after nine monthly tax paying periods.

There can be little doubt that should this allowance be withdrawn in one accounting period, this will have an enormously negative effect on the cash flow of companies and of taxpayers. We note further what the hon the Deputy Minister said in his speech earlier regarding the possibility of some relief for companies where their sales are on terms in excess of 12 months. This allowance was always based on the principle that the taxpayer should not have to pay over sales tax relating to sales for which he had not received payment. In other words, the taxpayer is not expected to finance the payment of tax which is in fact due by his customers, and we have always supported that principle. It was first adopted when sales tax was introduced at 4% and, obviously the motivation for such allowance became even greater when the tax rate was increased to 12%.

I would merely like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister why he now wishes to withdraw this allowance altogether. In the memorandum to this Bill it is stated, and I quote:

Phasing out certainly reduces the pain but we would argue that the allowance should be retained in terms of the principle I have previously recounted of not having to finance tax payments before goods sold have been paid for.

I am not aware of any technical reason why this deduction should not continue to be allowed even after the transition from GST to VAT. The calculation of the deduction would be identical to that pertaining to the present GST system, and the argument that other countries applying an invoice-based VAT system do not have a debtors’ allowance is not I believe a particularly convincing one. I am aware of VAT systems that are based on cash receipts as opposed to recorded sales. This concession was considered necessary under the GST system in order to ease the financial burden of the taxpayer, and we would argue that it is equally necessary now on all credit sales, irrespective of the term, and would like to hear the hon the Deputy Minister’s comments on this matter.

The final clause I wish to deal with is clause 48. This clause allows for a temporary exemption from stamp and transfer duties in order to facilitate a scheme for the rationalisation of a group of companies. It further deals with the assessment for income tax purposes on the implementation of such a scheme. This relief is warmly welcomed as it addresses the issue of cumbersome and unnecessary administration. There are many, many groups of companies the structures of which have evolved over time and for which there is no sound economic base. They weave a complex web of inter-group structures which are irrational, difficult to comprehend and possibly only give pleasure and work to accountants and lawyers.

Efforts to simplify, while obviously being desirable, have not been pursued due to the liability for stamp and transfer duties on shares and immovable property which result. This clause allows a breathing space of one year and will be an enormous inducement to companies to restructure on a sound basis without attracting the payment of such duties.

The Bill provides for various conditions to be met in order to ensure that the rationalisation scheme is genuine and not merely an attempt to avoid the payment of duty. The sole or main object of the scheme must be the achievement of substantial and enduring savings of operational expenditure or, alternatively, it must have substantial and enduring operational or administrative advantages. In addition, details of the scheme must be submitted to the Commissioner who will issue an exemption certificate in the appropriate circumstances.

For all the above reasons this legislation is welcomed and we sincerely hope that many groups of companies will avail themselves of the opportunities that this now offers them.

The only question we would ask, is why this exemption is not allowed on an ongoing basis. I know it is never prudent to look a gift horse in the mouth. It nevertheless seems that provided the controls are met and provided that each scheme is vetted by the Commissioner, there is no reason why this exemption should not be ongoing for legitimate rationalisation schemes. If this is not allowed I have no doubt that in 5 or 10 years’ time there will be a similar need to review the situation and allow similar exemptions. Companies are notorious for evolving complex group structures, the need for which eventually passes, and they are then left with a costly administrative nightmare. Nevertheless, we believe this opportunity is to be welcomed and used wherever possible to rationalise unwieldy group structures.

Save for these comments, Mr Chairman, we support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of this side of the House I want to thank the hon member for Pinelands very much for his party’s support of the Bill under discussion.

It is very clear that this is a very comprehensive piece of legislation. In the first place I should like to refer to clause 7, in terms of which the linguistic contradiction between “boerderyonderneming” and “farming operations” in section 1 of the Estate Duty Act, 1955, is removed. This thoroughly clarifies the obscurity which was created owing to the obvious difference between the English and Afrikaans text of the Act mentioned. In the same way in clause 7 the term “billike markwaarde” in section 1 of the Afrikaans text of the Estate Duty Act is brought into line with the wording of the corresponding English text by the insertion in the English text of “fair market value”. Existing problems which were created by the differences mentioned are now thoroughly obviated and the use of language in both Afrikaans the and the English text of the said Act appears to be the same.

It is important, however, that we take cognisance of the matter of estate duty. A considerable amount has already been said here this afternoon about estate duty and the advantages it holds for agriculture. Nevertheless I also wish to associate myself with speakers who have already participated in the debate and point out specifically the importance of the concession in this regard in the measure under discussion.

The SA Agricultural Union has carried out the Government’s policy for many years as regards owner-occupants and owner-farmers—the so-called family farming operation as we know it. There have been appeals in favour of the maximum number of economically independent farmers and, to achieve this objective, it is absolutely essential for us to make the acquisition of property by heirs as fair as possible. I think that it is specifically against this background that the SA Agricultural Union may express great appreciation—and we on this side of the House too of course—for what the Government is doing in this respect.

It may be argued with justification that an R1 million estate is no longer a large one in today’s terms. Nevertheless the Government’s policy makes provision in this respect for the fair agricultural value of a farming unit to form the keystone of valuations of this nature.

Hon members will also note that the Margo Commission initially recommended that the economic or market value should be recognised. With agriculture in mind, the Government came to the conclusion in its decision on estate duty that it should be the fair agricultural value which applied. I think that this adjustment, in terms of which provision is made enabling the Land Bank to deal with valuations of agricultural property, offers great advantages to agriculture. I should therefore like to express my thanks to the hon the Deputy Minister for this concession.

I should also like to associate myself with previous speakers, among others the hon member for Kuruman and the hon member for Barberton. The hon member for Barberton said that note would have to be taken of inflation from time to time and the role which this factor played in valuation. On the other hand, it is necessary to note that the hon the Minister of Finance announced in his Budget Speech earlier this year that periodic adjustments could be made to this figure by way of regulation.

I should also like to refer to clause 44, which amends paragraph 9(b) of Schedule 7 to the Sales Tax Act, 1978. This amendment brings the Sales Tax Act in line with the Marketing Act, 1988, in that the definitions of various types of milk powder are brought into line with each other in both pieces of legislation.

There are numerous other similar examples of rectification which are due to be effected by the current measure. I may also refer to clause 40, by which a new section 48A is to be inserted in the Sales Tax Act after section 48. The new provision contained in this reads that the BLS countries, South West Africa and all other countries which once formed part of the Republic of South Africa may be involved in agreements specifically to make GST arrangements of such a nature that we are able to accommodate the countries involved and eliminate unfair competition there.

Certain provisions are also made as regards registration for the levy of value-added tax, as previous speakers have already said. I therefore consider the measure before us to be generally to the advantage of the taxpayer in South Africa. In consequence, I should like to support the measure most strongly on behalf of this side of the House.

Mr Chairman, I thank hon members for the support that they have given this Bill. I think that interesting contributions were made and new ideas were expressed.

I am beginning with the hon member for Barberton, who highlighted the problem of a farmer who had taken over shares of a company while continuing to run his own farm. The hon member wanted to know how such a farmer could be helped to get his books in order again. That is a matter that we are prepared to look into, and I think that in time we can get in touch with the hon member again and see whether, when we submit another Bill next year, there is any possibility of making such an adjustment.

Much was said about estate duty. All the hon members who participated in the debate mentioned this. I think that the concession for which provision has been made for is substantial. I do not believe that everyone is aware of the extent of the concession. The Commissioner for Inland Revenue mentioned a few figures in order to indicate this.

If a person died and was survived by his wife and two children, an estate of R500 000 entailed that his estate duty amounted to R4 000. If he was survived by his two children only, the duty amounted to R15 000, while it is now RO. An estate of R1 million, in the first case, amounted to duty of R90 000, and in the second to R116 000, while it is now R0. An estate of R1,5 million entailed a duty of R248 000 in the first case, and R283 000 in the second, while it now amounts to R75 000. An estate of R2 million entailed the duty of R423 000 in the first case, and R458 000 in the second, while it would now amount to only R150 000.

In this regard I also want to refer to the concession that has been made in the case of homes for the aged which are run on an non-profit basis. I think that we would do well to look into this matter as well. While we are now making provision for the exemption from income tax of such organisations that provide accommodation for the aged or retired people on a non-profit basis, I think that we must see it in the same light as the concessions with regard to estate duty, since this is also greatly to the advantage of our people.

The officials are working very hard with regard to the implementation of VAT. We shall begin drawing up the necessary legislation soon, and if everything goes well, I believe that the Bill will have been drawn up by the end of August. We shall then have it published.

I believe that the date of April is being questioned. One must remember that we have quite a number of examples of this type of taxation. The IMF is also prepared to help us at various stages in the drawing up and implementation of the new system. I think that if we can have the legislation ready by the end of August, we can give interested parties the opportunity to submit their comments during September and October. One must remember that we have an efficient administration that is dealing with our sales tax at the moment, and of course, one would want to use that administration in the same way when we change over to VAT.

I agree with hon members that we should not rush into a system before we have informed our people correctly; that would be a fatal mistake. On the other hand, as the hon members for Barberton and Pinelands know, if one postpones and draws something out, it is simply never drawn up or implemented.

Let us aim at April as the date. At any rate, as we progress, we shall be able to see whether it is possible to get it through in time.

The hon member for Kuruman also dealt with the matter of VAT and said that we could learn from other countries. I should like to mention to the hon member that at this moment, two of our senior officials are in London, and will be leaving for Brussels and Bonn next week to look at the systems in Europe.

The hon member for Barberton and the hon member for Kuruman mentioned the possibility of an adjustment in regard to estate duty. I think it is a very good point, because we must not remain static. We have an inflation rate of 13%, and one will have to be realistic. In my opinion, adjustments will have to be made in the course of time.

†The hon member for Pinelands mentioned the question of exempting Government stock in regard to estate duty, but we must remember that we have here a very generous allowance of R1 million. We must accept that. The experience of the Receiver of Revenue is that people buy Government stock just before they pass away, and that their families resell it immediately afterwards.

The hon member also discussed VAT and the debtors’ allowance, which was also mentioned by various other hon members. I would like to explain to the hon member for Pinelands that the debtors’ allowance is really unique to South Africa. There is only one state in the USA making use of a kind of debtors’ allowance.

When it came to a VAT, we could not find any country using or allowing a debtors’ allowance. When one analyses the experience we have had with the debtors’ allowance, one sees that we expected R200 million and are now discovering that it is going to be far more than that, because people include in the value products or additional services in respect of which it is extremely difficult to prove that they are not part of the hire-purchase package. In a way, they blow it up and make use of this 50% allowance to benefit themselves. That is the reason why we expect to receive far more than R200 million.

Another aspect I would like to mention to the hon member is that at this stage we would like to collect most of this money—one could call relief—over nine months, but we are prepared, as I mentioned in my speech, to discuss this with various organised bodies. The furniture industry, for example, operates over a period of 24 months, so we may adjust in order to accommodate them. We do not want to be unfair, because we understand their position.

I would also like to point out that this debtors’ allowance has to be seen together with the economic restraint on credit. Drawing in more than R200 million from people selling on credit must be a limiting factor on extending credit in the next nine months.

The hon member also mentioned the moratorium, and the possibility of extending it or having it permanently in our system. I think we have to evaluate it first, and give it a chance for a year. If we discover no abuses, I think there will be nothing wrong with investigating the possibility later on of having it as a permanent part of our system.

*I also want to thank the hon member for Cradock for his contribution. I believe that that definition of agriculture, with regard to the difference between the English and Afrikaans versions, caused a good deal of trouble, and I think everyone was glad when it was corrected. This also pertains to the whole question of agricultural value, and these adjustments are making it much easier for agriculture.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a first time.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, it is a particular privilege for me to be able to introduce the Second Reading debate on this amending Bill today. This Act has already been amended ten times, and each time very prominent people participated in the debate. I should like to express my thanks to the Joint Committee on Private Bills, as well as my particular thanks to the chairman of the Joint Committee on Finance for the fact that they unanimously agreed to this amending Bill and recommended it.

This amending Bill is the type of legislation that is not easy to get through Parliament nowadays because, unlike any other legislation, it is referred to two joint committees while other legislation is able to gain sufficient support in one joint committee in order to be submitted for a second reading.

This society was run as a bank with no shareholders and no shares. Its inability to expand the bank’s business by issuing shares and the restrictions placed on it by the reserve fund requirements and other provisions of the Act, created serious problems for the society when it came to competing with the banks.

After serious consideration of ways and means to relieve the bank of its problems permanently, and after consultation with the Registrar of Banks, the board of directors of the society, in conjunction with Finance Bank, Limited, registered a company by the name of Cape of Good Hope Bank, Limited, in terms of the Companies Act, Act 61 of 1973, and in terms of the Banks Act, 1965. The society and Finance Bank are the shareholders.

In terms of an agreement between the board of directors of the society and Finance Bank, which was ratified at a meeting held on 27 February 1986, all the assets and liabilities of the society were transferred to the Cape of Good Hope Bank in exchange for shares in that company. Therefore, the society ceased to be a banker on 1 April 1986 after having served the community of Cape Town and environs for 155 years in that capacity.

Although it ceased to be a banker, the society wishes to remain in existence as a charitable organisation with the view to using profits that are made from its funds mainly for charitable purposes.

Briefly, the objectives of the Bill are firstly, to make provision for the continued existence of the society as a corporate body under the name of Cape of Good Hope Society; secondly, to abolish the objectives and functions of the society with regard to its status as a banking institution, and to replace them as far as is necessary with objectives and functions that are relevant to its new status as a charitable body; thirdly, to abolish the provisions and references pertaining to the previous business of the society as a bank, including the references to the Banks Act, 1965, and the Registrar of Banks; and fourthly, to increase the authorised amounts of donations for charitable purposes from a maximum of 10% to a minimum of 75% of the profits.

Furthermore, provision will also be made for determining the number of directors; reducing the minimum number of members from 100 to 50; abolishing the requirement that members must be male persons—this should have been abolished long ago; making the Companies Act, 1973, inapplicable to the society, except by proclamation; exempting the society from the payment of income tax; and repealing of certain obsolete provisions.

Furthermore, there is the transfer of assets etc, and I should like to motivate it as follows: Over the years the bank has supported on average of 150 bodies by means of contributions. The type of institutions that were supported by them, include the following: the executive committee of the ACVV, Cape Town; Boy Scouts of SA; Boys’ Town, SA; the Bible Society of SA; the Church of the Province of SA; the Rachel Swart Fund; the South African National Council for the Aged; the Voortrekkers; Mfesane Welfare Association; Moslem Education Benefit Society; NG Bantu Mission, Peninsula; NG Church, Maitland; Orangia Jewish Children’s Home; St Johannes Heim; Simon van der Stel Foundation; the Greyladies Association; the Holy Cross Centre; Union of Jewish Women; Nyanga Welfare Centre; Sisters Incorporated; the Nannie House and Leliebloem House. Those are only some of the 150 institutions that were supported.

†The Cape of Good Hope Savings Bank is the oldest general bank in South Africa; older by far than any commercial bank. It was established in Cape Town in 1831. On Monday, 8 November 1830, at a private meeting attended by two judges and other respectable inhabitants of Cape Town, it was decided that a new bank be forthwith established in the Cape Colony for receiving deposits from tradesmen, mechanics, labourers, servants, children and others; that deposits of no less than sixpence—5 cents—should be received, which would not be entitled to interest until they amounted to 12s 6d. Interest would be limited to 4% per annum or halfpenny per month for every 12s 6d deposited.

Accordingly the bank commenced business on 25 June 1831 in a double storeyed house at the upper end of St George’s Street. The bank originally opened for business twice a week, namely on Tuesdays from 11 am until 1 pm, and Saturdays from 5 pm until 7 pm in winter, and from 6 pm until 8 pm in the evening in summer. The deposits which were received within the first five days amounted to R5 000.

Mr Chairman, I think I should tell you this because I have not heard of love more supreme than in this story. During this century we had the love affair between the Duke of Windsor and Mrs Simpson, but this one was equally impressive, to my mind.

One of the bank’s early depositors was Francina, a freed slave who saved all her money with the bank to pay for the freedom of David, a slave with whom she was in love and wished to marry. David’s freedom price was fixed at 1 300 rixdollars. When she had managed to save 800 rixdollars, love compelled her to approach David’s master and to offer herself as his slave for the balance of 500 rixdollars. Her wish was granted and she and David married. At that stage a rixdollar was worth about 1s 6d amounting to about 15 cents.

Strict discipline was imposed upon the members of the bank to perform such services as determined by the board. Consequently, a year later, in accordance with this rule, Mr J Fairbairn, who was also one of the founders of the South African Mutual Life Assurance Society, was fined one shilling, because he was ill and did not perform his duty. The requirement for members to attend at the bank to perform certain duties still exists, but the fines have now been abolished, and only if a member did not attend on three consecutive occasions would he cease to be a member of the bank.

*Mr Chairman, I think this bank is one of the institutions that we have in the Cape that makes the Cape what it is, and for that reason I should like to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House shall support the Cape of Good Hope Savings Bank Society Amendment Bill. [Interjections.] Many thanks. [Interjections.] We do not wish to elaborate any further on the matter.

The hon member for Vasco made a fine speech in which he listed all those aspects of the Bill of which he approved. We agree with him. I should merely like to touch upon a few points in the Bill which I found interesting.

In the first place we should like to congratulate the compilers of the Bill. I think it is a fine, well-compiled document. We should like to congratulate them on the Bill. The first thing that strikes one is that, for the first time, women will now be members of this society as well. We know that the savings in this country lie predominantly in the hands of the widows, because we know that many husbands are worth much more to their wives dead than alive.

Another point which strikes us is that the number of directors has been reduced from five to three, and that they will not be remunerated for their services. This is a fine gesture on the part of the directors. We should support them because it is a benevolent society. [Interjections.]

Surely the hon member means “charitable”.

“Benevolent” appears in the document, and that is why I use this word. The society will utilise its profits for charitable and benevolent purposes.

We were initially concerned about the pension fund, but finality was reached on the matter. We are satisfied that the pension fund of people previously in the employ of this society, and who will now fall under a new one, will be dealt with fairly. However, what we find particularly striking is the fact that this society wishes to retain the name Cape of Good Hope Society. The hon members will gather that we greatly appreciate this small touch of conservatism. [Interjections.]

Speaking of the Cape of Good Hope, I should nevertheless like to mention that something happened here in the Cape of Good Hope last Thursday evening which no doubt everyone in this House finds repugnant. I am referring to the bomb which exploded at a political meeting. That is the bad news. The good news, however, is that there is good hope here in the fairest Cape after all, because if we can believe Die Burger—and for the sake of this article we shall grant it some credibility—there were 140 members at this meeting who wanted to establish a CP branch in Sea Point. There really is still a possibility for good hope in the Cape, and still a possibility for much good hope in South Africa if this is the case. [Interjections.]

We support this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, following on the previous hon member I would merely like to add that I do not think he ended on a note which necessarily represented good hope for many of us here in the Cape. [Interjections.] That is certainly so.

In supporting this Bill, I wish to pay credit to the members of the Cape of Good Hope Savings Bank Society. Many of them are well-known Cape professional men and businessmen, and I personally have had much pleasure in doing business with them and with their institution. They represent an institution of repute which has served the Cape and the broader community for 155 years. In addition, as a benevolent society, they have provided funds for many worthwhile projects—some of which have been mentioned today—and charities. I am also pleased to note that the society desires to continue as a benevolent institution, and I would like to wish them well in that regard.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to follow on the hon member for Pinelands and to agree with all of what he said.

*I think I must also briefly reply to the hon member for Delmas and explain to him that the reason why we talk about the Cape of Good Hope is that we have no CP members in this province. [Interjections.] Nor do I think we shall soon have any.

†To get back to this Bill, I think it provides for the continued existence of the Cape of Good Hope Savings Bank as a benevolent society. In the preamble it is stated that in deference to its long and honourable history it will remain in existence as a body corporate to enable it to render benevolent, charitable and similar services under the name of the Cape of Good Hope Society.

It has been mentioned that the history of this bank goes back a long way. It was founded in 1831, before the freedom of slaves and before the beginnings of the Great Trek. That was merely 21 years after the world’s pioneer savings bank was founded in Dumfriesshire, Scotland by the father of savings banks, the Rev Dr Henry Duncan of Ruth well Parish.

This savings bank also had its famous clergy pioneers, the Rev Dr Philip and the Rev Mr Innes, father of the future Chief Justice Sir James Rose-Innes. Another pioneer manager was Maximilian Thalwitzer who was to start the first Jewish congregation in South Africa. We read in the history of the bank of the first bond granted to Mr I W Morrison on the security of the first mortgage on his house in St George’s Street. We also read of a Mr Commissary Horne who did not obtain a loan of R300 “on the security of a sixth mortgage on his house in Bree Street”.

This society consists of members and directors. Membership is regarded as an honour and is obtained by election by existing members. The only qualification is that the member must live within 150 kilometres of Cape Town. Over the years generations of certain families have served as members. In this regard we look at names like Hofmeyer, Hablutzel and Brand. On the board today we have the hon John de Villiers who is the son of the chairman of the National Convention who features so prominently in a painting in the members’ dining-room.

Over the years the bank has played a special role in the affairs of the members of the Coloured community. In certain areas it was known as “Die Slamse Bank”. It was traditional in some families to open a savings account with the bank on the birth of a child.

We are also pleased to see that lady members are now allowed. Those of us who believe in equal rights for women will welcome this.

Unfortunately modern electronic technology has increased economies of scale and a traditional Cape institution has become part of history. I think that our decision today to keep the name of the Cape of Good Hope Society alive, will remind us of our heritage.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon members for Delmas, Pinelands and Wynberg for their support.

I should like to refer briefly to the point made by the hon member for Delmas concerning the pension fund. I agree with him. We are all glad that the matter has been finalised. I also condemn vehemently the bomb explosion. But I should like to put a question to the hon member. I accept his statement that he had read in Die Burger that there were 140 people who had wanted to establish a CP branch. However, the people living in Sea Point and its vicinity are asking who this crowd was who were driving cars with registration numbers from outside the Peninsula. The hon member will have to inform me some time or other.

I should like to thank the hon member for Wynberg for his lucid exposition of the historical background.

While the senior officials and directors of the bank are present here today, I should like to tell them that a bank which can grant a sixth mortgage and survive for 155 years deserves all our congratulations, best wishes and support, and we wish them every success.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, during the debate on the South African Roads Board Bill we as the Official Opposition expressed our opposition to the modus operandi of the Government as regards its legislative package concerning transport affairs. In the memorandum submitted to the Joint Committee on Transport and Communication by the Department of Transport, the department indicates that the Transport Deregulation Bill lays down the fundamental principles upon which the entire proposed new dispensation with regard to transport will be based. This is the instrument by means of which the transition from the existing situation to the new policy of the Government will be achieved.

It makes provision for, inter alia, the repeal of the Transport (Co-ordination) Act, 1948, and the Road Transportation Act, 1977. The CP has already indicated that it is unacceptable that this legislation be passed, since it will change the entire transport system before there is any clarity as to what the new system will entail, or whether the contemplated system is attainable or an improvement on the old system. We have already pointed out the complex system of cross-references in the various transport Bills, even though these Bills are not at present before the joint committee, and most of them have not yet been adequately discussed or finalised by the joint committee. And yet the Government is already asking Parliament to agree to the Transport Deregulation Bill, by means of which a new deregulated dispensation can be put into operation. The South African Roads Board Bill and the Transport Advisory Board Bill have already been passed.

The Road Traffic Bill, which makes provision for, inter alia, a new system for goods transportation, has not yet come before the joint committee, and the discussion of this Bill is still in an initial stage. Neither is the legislation on passenger transport before the joint committee. This Bill will create a new system for passenger transport in accordance with the guidelines of the Department of Transport. The Government’s modus operandi is resulting in the new Bills being discussed overhastily and in an inappropriate order on the joint committee and in Parliament, and it has resulted in an unacceptable form of legislation in the Transport Deregulation Bill. It entails inter alia the repeal of the Transport (Co-ordination) Act, but nevertheless refers to a considerable number of the sections of that Act. In other words, the Act is repealed, but instead of including in one of the new Bills those provisions which will continue to be in force in future, they continue to refer to the repealed Act. I am referring here to clause 4(1) and clause 2(7). On the other hand, in terms of clause 5(3), the Minister’s authority to determine the commencement of parts of the new measures or the measures as a whole is too far-reaching.

In view of these aforementioned reasons the CP is not prepared to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I am utterly amazed at the ignorance shown here by the hon member for Nigel. He blandly made the statement that the Road Traffic Bill had not been tabled in the joint committee. That shows one how out of touch these people are. I must be quite frank and say that I wonder whether one should even bother to reply to them.

It is amazing that these people have the opportunity to reach consensus round a table but that they say because they do not have the packet of Bills they are not prepared to discuss them.

Order! I would prefer it if the hon member did not refer to hon members as “these people”.

These hon members, Mr Chairman, say that because the whole packet of Bills has not been tabled they are not prepared to discuss it and they are not even going to vote on it. I would, however, seriously like to know how in heaven’s name super-intelligent people like these think they can handle four or five Bills simultaneously. Maybe they are super-people—I do not know—but I do not think they could have handled that.

They have a super-policy!

Yes, a super-policy which is going to get us nowhere. Let us be quite frank about that. One must ask the question whether these people are really interested in progress in South Africa or reaching consensus. I do not believe they are, with respect, Mr Chairman.

Consensus is nonsense, man!

Consensus is nonsense, Mr Chairman; there we have it from the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

One cannot govern with consensus!

What do we assume from that, Mr Chairman? We are being told that if this party comes to power they will change the Constitution through this House. They know it is impossible because the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has just said that they do not believe in consensus. I therefore want to ask the question how they are going to change it. Through the barrel of a gun? I do not know.

I just want to make one last statement. It was Rollo May who said:

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: If I understood the hon member correctly, he implied that the CP believes that it will achieve its objectives “through the barrel of a gun”, and I want to suggest that that is not permissible.

No, Mr Chairman.

Order! The way I understood the hon member, that was not what he said. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I want to come back to what Rollo May said. He said:

Who are you quoting?

Rollo May.

You should have said so earlier.

I said it right at the beginning but you did not have your ears open, chum—the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central … [Interjections.]

One must understand that the Government’s transport policy is undergoing a complete change. This has arisen from recommendations by the National Transport Policy Study Steering Committee as set out in the White Paper on National Transport Policy. The Bill before us lays the foundation for the abolition of economic regulation as it is applied at present and to replace it with a quality system. This Bill, therefore, can in fact be called a law of abrogation. Existing transport legislation is to be changed, as are structures, in order to deregulate the transport industry whilst at the same time retaining a new system of standards which will improve road and transport operator safety in South Africa.

Another important facet is that the new transport policy is to enable easier access to the road transport market, which must mean much more scope for private initiative in the provision of road and transport services, and this is also in line with Government policy of greater encouragement of small business development in transport.

This is the second of a series of Bills which will consolidate transport legislation with certain stated objectives, the first being that economic transport decisions should as far as possible be left to the market-place so that the market-place will determine what is to be transported, how it is to be transported, at what cost and by whom.

Let us not be under any misapprehensions. There are going to be many stresses and strains in the process towards a more market-oriented transport system which must be responsive to customers’ needs. In the long term, however, this can only benefit the economy and the peoples of South Africa.

Furthermore, one will have to be very careful that strict quality control is exercised during the period when the deregulation process is being implemented. What I am saying is that during this process changes must only take place in a responsible manner with as little disruption as possible to the market. This will only be possible with the quality control system applying to all facets of the industry, namely drivers, freight, vehicles and road safety. In this regard I just want to refer in passing to the kombi-taxi position which is of real concern to many people, but this matter is a subject for further discussion under another Bill.

The department will have a vital role to play in the planning and organising of support structures and administrative procedures, but of cardinal importance will be the personnel to manage the quality control system.

In this case, serious financial commitment by the State as well as by the industry will be required, as will be adequate time for the phasing in of the new system. Thereupon, in my opinion, will rest the success or the failure of this new legislation.

Be that as it may, we must proceed with deregulation and phase it in as soon as possible. Equally, Sir—this is the flip side of the coin—cross-subsidisation must be phased out at the same rate.

Coming now to the Bill itself in greater detail, I should point out that some 29 of the 70 organisations consulted made comment on this Bill, which, in my opinion, led to the draft Bill being amended from its original form. Before proceeding with the Bill I wish to pay tribute to our chairman, the hon member for Primrose, who is not here today, for his patience and diplomacy as chairman. Equally so, Sir, allow me also to commend the officials of the department for their assistance and advice to the joint committee, without which, I believe, this Bill would still have been with that committee.

Some of the amendments to the Bill were to the long title, which were consequential upon the scrapping of the original clause 6. Insofar as clause 3 is concerned, which deals with the transfer of certain functions of the National Transport Commission to the SA Roads Board and for the continuation of that commission to perform certain functions, I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister how he sees the future of the NTC. It appears that this commission will in future only deal with the licensing of air services. If this is the case, will cognisance be taken of the Margo Commission of Inquiry into Civil Aviation? In this regard it is important to note that in Mr Justice Margo’s opinion there is a conflict of interests between SA Airways and other operators, with the resultant loss of confidence by the private industry in the independence of the NTC and in its ability to divorce itself from the claims of the national carrier in coming to decisions.

Clause 5, which was also amended, makes provision for the deregulation of road transportation by way of repeal, and by stages which will be regulated in terms of the Road Traffic Act. In other words, the execution of the new policy will be phased in within a particular area according to an improved execution programme over a period of time, with reference to any class of road transportation, any person or goods or class of person or goods and any kind and class of vehicle. This will hopefully ensure that deregulation will take place in an orderly manner, and with as little disruption as possible to the industry and the market place.

Clause 6 deals with agreements with other governments, and here it must be emphasised that any vehicle entering the Republic from a “foreign state” will be subject to the laws of this land, and must abide by those laws. It is clear that no advantage is contemplated or will be given in this regard.

Finally, clause 7 which deals with regulations that can be made by the Minister was amended.

Mr Chairman, I have much pleasure in supporting this Bill because it paves the way for free enterprise to operate under a system to which most of us in this House subscribe, and to the execution of which the Government has committed itself as far as possible.

Mr Chairman, we in the PFP will also be supporting this Bill. I must say we actually believe the Bill came from the joint committee in a far better state than when it first came before the committee. I believe the amendments that have been brought about by the committee are worthwhile, and that in fact the real debate on this Bill has been held in private in the joint committee.

I believe this tends to be the practice in Parliament, in terms of the new Rules, and I wonder whether we should not consider having the joint committees made more public than they are.

There is no doubt that the real debate on any Bill takes place in that joint committee and that, by the time we come to the House, stances have been adopted and matters sorted out and the Bill then becomes the subject of far less debate in the House than was previously the case before we had these joint committees.

The Bill before the House is a deregulation Bill, and this party has been calling for deregulation for a long time. Of course, deregulation goes hand in hand with privatisation. The first thing we should note from this Bill is that while we welcome deregulation we continue to urge the hon the Minister to pursue the privatisation aspect of the equation at a far swifter pace. I think we actually need to congratulate the hon the Minister, and this is not something I do lightly. However, during his tenure of office he has effected a number of improvements, particularly as far as the SATS are concerned. The other day, while travelling on the SAA, I was waited upon by a Black air hostess for the very first time. I consider that a great step forward and I give the hon the Minister credit not only for that, but also for removing discrimination from the staff practices of the SATS. Then, too, we have the suburban train service in the Western Cape which has been integrated, and we understand that that is going to continue.

However, when we come to deregulation and privatisation, I think that now that we have this deregulation Bill in front of us we need a faster pace to be set by the hon the Minister in relation to privatisation, and particularly in regard to road transportation which is chiefly the subject of this Bill. It deals primarily with the road transportation of both goods and passengers and not with very much else. When we look at this Bill, we must understand that the SATS are still running a passenger and goods service on our roads which competes with the private sector. Government money is required to do this and, basically, they cannot go insolvent, although, when one looks at some of the things that have happened recently, one begins to wonder. Basically, however, it is not right that where the private sector can provide the service to the public that is required, the SATS should continue to compete with them. Particularly in regard to road transportation services, therefore, I would urge a far swifter move towards privatisation than we have seen up to now.

Coming to the Bill itself, we find that it takes away but then puts back again to some extent. The Transport Co-ordination Act of 1948 is repealed but, notwithstanding that fact, they continue with the National Transport Commission. This did not form part of the recommendations of the National Transport Policy Study—that the NTC should continue as such—and this is one of the features of this Bill with which we are not completely happy. There was a fair amount of evidence to this effect given to the joint committee as well.

Another aspect of this Bill with which we are also not completely happy is the fact that we do not know when it is to be implemented. It will be implemented piecemeal over a period of time, but that period of time is totally in the hands of the department and the hon the Minister. Therefore, I should like to urge the hon the Deputy Minister, who is present here for this debate, to proceed with the implementation of the principles contained in this Bill at the earliest possible moment. I appreciate the fact that there are certain difficulties and that there are other Bills that have to come before this House. However, to introduce this Bill is one thing; to implement it is another, and the sooner this Bill is implemented, the greater the advantage to South Africa—to road transportation in particular and to the economy in general.

Another clause in the Bill that was altered—this was also mentioned by the hon member for South Coast—is the clause relating to the power to make regulations. I think the joint committee did its job very well in this regard in that it reduced considerably the power to make regulations as originally proposed in the Bill, and this we welcome very much indeed.

There is one final point I should like to make in relation to this Bill which is one that worries me considerably. We are aware that we have always had four provinces in South Africa which, to quite a large extent, have made their own road regulations, ordinances and so forth. This has led to a patchwork situation where one has various ordinances applying in various provinces.

The Bill before us and the Road Traffic Bill are doing away with this. We are going to have one transport system for the Republic of South Africa, something which we welcome, but—and this is a big “but”—there are areas within the boundaries of South Africa where that is not going to apply. That is because in this Bill we deal with what is called a “territory”, which is defined as follows:

A territory is therefore a self-governing portion of South Africa. In terms of their constitutions, these self-governing territories apparently have the right to make their own rules and regulations as regards roads and road transport. Some have not exercised that right yet, but others have taken advantage of that position.

This means that despite the passage of this Bill and of the Road Traffic Bill, there can be different systems operating in various areas of South Africa within its overall boundaries, and I do not think this is desirable. I do not think that the National Transport Policy Study people or the hon the Minister’s own department consider it desirable, but it is something that we have inherited from the Department of Development Planning in the constitutions of the self-governing territories. The joint committee’s report draws attention to this, and I think the members of the committee were reasonably at one that it should at least be looked at, something which I would urge the hon the Deputy Minister to do.

However, we will be supporting the Bill.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to follow the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central.

†We on this side of the House wish to thank the hon member and his party for their support of the legislation before the House. I know that the hon member has a few problems with certain clauses, but I would agree with him that the legislation came out of the joint committee much improved. I therefore also agree with him that this shows the value of the joint committee system used by Parliament, in that consensus can be achieved in those committees and better proposals brought before the various Houses for consideration.

*I am therefore dumbfounded by the standpoint of the Official Opposition with regard to the discussions concerning the Transport Deregulation Bill which we are debating here today. [Interjections.] I think I must agree with the hon member for South Coast who said that one could hardly react to this.

A point that should be clearly made is that my colleagues on the joint committee and I—and no doubt not only us—have serious reservations about the quality of the contributions made by the Official Opposition on the joint committee in connection with a matter as important as transport and the transport industry. [Interjections.]

I should merely like to consider a few aspects, and subsequently in my speech I shall also address the problem in connection with this legislation raised by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central.

Many ideas were exchanged and a great deal of comment obtained concerning the effective and orderly change-over to a deregulated, high quality transportation system. This is the one point about which many people in the private sector who have had discussions with the industry are concerned, and one can hardly blame them. However, in all the contributions to the discussion and in the comments heard by the joint committee no valid objections to the legislation were raised. Everyone agreed that deregulation was necessary, and that we should learn from the lessons of other countries that have switched over to such a transportation system, so as not to repeat their mistakes.

We do appreciate that there will be concern about such a change-over. That is why it is important to take note—and I take up the point of my colleague the hon member for South Coast—that it is the Government’s declared policy that deregulation should take place according to an approved, planned implementation program.

The implementation of the new system will be dealt with carefully so as to confine any possible disruption of the economy in the transportation sector to a minimum. In implementing the new system, the freight transportation policy will have to be brought into line with the national policy as regards the desirability of competition and the provision of easier entry to the road transportation market, and there will be opportunity for private enterprise, and small business development will be encouraged in the creation of a framework for a more effective and cheaper transportation system in the country.

I should like to draw the hon members attention to the abolition of the road transportation permit system, which will save the country more than an estimated R60 million annually in direct expenditure in connection with applications for permits. The indirect saving is estimated to be more than R1 000 million per annum.

The next objective envisaged by the legislation is the co-ordination of transportation in Southern Africa. The proposed Act provides that agreements with other countries, and with those territories referred to by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central, shall be concluded between the heads of state of the countries and territories concerned.

In order to achieve co-ordination in Southern Africa, transportation across national and territorial borders should be examined. Should we apply unilateral deregulation in South Africa, the problem could arise that unroadworthy vehicles and incompetent drivers who register in neighbouring states may be used for haulage work in the Republic. The other problem which could arise is that cross-border traffic may be hampered as a result of the lack of uniformity in the transportation systems which may be in force in the respective countries.

The Government’s objective is to extend the high quality road transportation systems as set out in the proposed Road Transportation Bill, as widely as possible so that the aforesaid system can be applied in Southern Africa. This will ensure that the standards of vehicles, drivers and operators are the same everywhere. To achieve this objective, clause 7 of the Transport Deregulation Bill provides that the State President may enter into agreements with the government of another country or territory, in terms of which arrangements may be made with such a government for the control and regulation of transportation of persons or goods between the Republic of South Africa and that country or territory.

The aim is therefore to ensure uniformity in standards, and not necessarily to have exactly the same types of operators’ cards or professional driving permits. However, we cannot prescribe to any independent state—whether it be one of the TBVC states, a self-governing territory, one of the BLS countries, or any other neighbouring state—how they should regulate road traffic or transportation.

Therefore, although it is our objective to have uniformity and a high quality system throughout South Africa, the present permit system does not necessarily have to be abandoned, and perhaps an amended quality system can be introduced. These details will depend on the success of our negotiations with the various states. In this regard, I should like to assure the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central that, since he expressed his confidence in the consensus method adopted on the select committees, he may also have confidence in the outcome of these negotiations. I believe we shall be able to solve his problem in this way.

The conditions of the Customs Union’s agreements also contribute to this. However, we should make sure in all cases that hauliers from the neighbouring states are not placed in a more favourable position than our own. In this regard, Customs Union agreements too are of the utmost importance.

The TBVC and BLS countries are members of the Customs Union, and are therefore parties to the Customs Union agreement. In terms of section 15 of the said agreement, no party shall treat the other parties’ hauliers less favourably than its own. This means, therefore, that we too may not treat the hauliers of other countries less favourably than those of our own country.

Liaison with the TBVC and BLS countries has already occurred in this regard, and the TBVC countries have already indicated that they are in favour of uniform road traffic legislation in Southern Africa. They will co-operate in the passing of similar legislation. Similar negotiations are at present being entered into with the self-governing territories. The sooner the Bill is finalised and implemented in Southern Africa the sooner we will be able to negotiate with a view to the conclusion of bilateral and multilateral agreements.

With this as background and taking the aforementioned into consideration, we regard the Transport Deregulation Bill as a key piece of legislation for the introduction of a new market orientated transport policy in South Africa. The implementation of this legislation is the first urgent step in the implementation of this policy. For this reason it is a great privilege for me to support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to follow on the hon member for De Aar, as I think he has emphasised the importance of this particular piece of legislation.

The road transport industry is a very substantial industry in South Africa, and for many years it has been hampered and restricted, not only by the monopoly of the SATS, previously the SA Railways, but also by monopolies created by the existing legislation as well as the earlier legislation, the Act of 1930.

The effect of road transportation legislation up to the present day and the reasoning behind it have been the protection of the SATS. The argument was that the SATS, as it is called today, provided certain essential services. They plied their trade along uneconomic routes and therefore had to be protected in the economic part of the transportation trade in order to be able to set off their losses against profits. The result was that it was not only the SATS that was protected by this legislation, but also any existing user, any person who got in first and who established himself in a particular field or transported a particular type of goods, provided he could satisfy the board that he could still provide that service. Everybody else who wanted to enter into competition with these people was virtually eliminated.

I can remember very clearly when the 1977 legislation came through because I was deeply involved in road transportation work in those days. We were all very hopeful when the parliamentary committee took a very strong line in favour of free enterprise that the 1977 legislation would return road transportation to the field of free enterprise and would do away with the monopolies and the protection of the SATS. To a certain extent the 1977 legislation was very welcome and very effective, particularly insofar as it affected the small entrepreneur. Certain exemptions were granted in respect of small vehicles and the nine-person taxis. The informal sector certainly benefited greatly from the 1977 legislation.

However, the serious haulier, the man who travelled long distances and who wanted to make a business out of road transportation, did not gain very much benefit from the 1977 legislation. There were certain categories of exempted goods which were introduced at that stage, as well as certain exempted areas, but all the same, he still had to go to the road transportation board if he wished to operate either as a new entrepreneur or in a new field.

The onus was on him to establish that the person who was doing the job at that moment could not do it either economically or effectively. That is a very difficult thing to establish, particularly in the commercial world where one does not always have access to all the financial details of one’s competitor and where, for very obvious reasons, he is not prepared to disclose them.

I believe that if this legislation is passed in the spirit of what is spelt out in the White Paper on National Transport Policy we will have a very fine piece of legislation. All the free enterprise principles, the principles of free competition, the pitfalls of protectionism and the massive cost to the State in this sort of bureaucracy in which we are involved are highlighted in this White Paper. It would appear that the legislation intends following that theme. However, like the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central I am somewhat worried about the way clause 5 is worded as to how the deregulation is to take place. I appreciate that it is necessary, where a road transportation structure such as we have in the country at the moment exists, to do it in an orderly fashion. However, at the same time I sincerely hope that, in deregulating, the hon the Minister is not going to be overcome by a sense of protectionism towards existing interest groups, particularly towards the SATS. That temptation will always be there. In whatever he does, he must pay very careful attention to the sentiments expressed in the White Paper, because if he allows himself to formulate his own thoughts and policies on how to deregulate and who should be protected and who should not, then the whole purpose of this legislation will be frustrated.

I was particularly worried by the word which the hon member for South Coast used, and which I have repeated. That is the use of the word “orderly”. When the NP uses the word, it usually connotes something entirely different from orderly. [Interjections.] When one talks about an orderly resettlement of people or an orderly this or orderly that, it usually means something in line with classic NP thinking. I only hope that when we go about our orderly deregulation of the road transportation services, we will be removed from that type of situation. [Interjections.] I have pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Nigel, as the main speaker on the opposition side, tabulated the reasons why the hon members could not support this legislation. He said that they had already indicated in the past that it was not clear how we were going to apply this legislation with regard to the new transport policy in South Africa. There were ostensibly cross-references both to legislation that had been adopted and to legislation that still had to come. The hon member regards this as overhasty discussion, and they find the manner in which we are dealing with these matters unacceptable. However, I want to remind the hon member that he is not the first speaker on transport. Last year the Official Opposition had the hon member for Soutpansberg as the speaker on transport. He spoke to us a little in the House on Thursday, 20 August. Inter alia he launched an attack on the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs because he was so slow in submitting this new legislation.

He said:

A few lines further the hon member said:

We already have legislation regarding the Transport Advisory Board on the Statute Book. We also have the South African Road Council Act on the Statute Book. We are now introducing deregulation of transport, and hon members already have the Road Traffic Bill in their possession. Consequently a large proportion of this legislation has already been passed or is ready for discussion.

Then the hon member for Soutpansberg said:

If the hon member for Soutpansberg was so worried about the implementation of the recommendations of the White Paper, it amazes me that hon members on that side now want to delay the matter even further. Surely the hon member ought to know that this is drastic legislation, because it is new legislation and it requires a great deal of negotiation and discussion with interested parties outside the House and by means of the joint committee in order to place this legislation on the Statute Book. This is in no way overhasty action.

I told hon members in the past that we should have liked to have kept this legislation in one package. In the past, hon members complained that we were not coming forward with the package. However, when we come forward with parts of the package, hon members of the Official Opposition are also dissatisfied with those various components of the package.

The real reason is that hon members on that side of the House are opposed to the deregulation and privatisation of the transport industry in South Africa. They do not want to give the small businessmen a chance. Furthermore, it seems to me that hon members want us to continue with that system that we had in the past—it was an unsatisfactory system—whereby people had to apply for permits to the local road transportation boards. They could appeal, if they wanted to, to the National Transport Commission. It was an unsatisfactory system. As the hon member for De Aar indicated, it cost the carriers approximately R60 million per year.

We want to make competition freer by means of deregulation and we want to replace it with high quality systems. Hon members on that side of the House are apparently opposed to this system which seeks to give more and more people in South Africa the opportunity to become owners and entrepreneurs. They are opposed to giving the small businessmen an opportunity. Whether he is White, Black or Coloured, they are opposed to giving him a chance as well. That is the reason for the opposition.

I have told those hon members in the past—I am repeating it here today—that they must be honest and tell us that that is their standpoint. They must not come and talk nonsense here and say that we are not introducing the package and that the legislation is back to front.

The Official Opposition must state their attitude clearly and I think that they are adopting an unfair attitude towards the changes that we are envisaging to our whole transport industry in South Africa.

†I think the hon member for South Coast has replied adequately to the spokesman of the Official Opposition. He also made the point that the transition period should be carefully managed. Of course the hon member is perfectly right. I said that in another House just a few minutes ago when they pointed out to me that the transition period should also be a trial period. That should of course be the approach of the Department of Transport.

The quality systems must be carefully and properly applied. I repeat that we agree completely with that. We have a special project team for that. The phasing out of cross-subsidisation is essential. It is also essential for fair competition in South Africa.

The hon member also wanted to know what the position of the NTC would be. In the beginning it will lose only the functions which will be transferred to the South African Roads Board. The National Transport Commission will be shaped as the functions change. Eventually, when only civil aviation functions are left and the investigation into civil aviation legislation has been completed, we shall probably have a Civil Aviation Board. It has been envisaged that the National Transport Commission will eventually phase itself out.

We certainly appreciate the support of the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. He made the point that a better Bill came out of the joint committee than that originally submitted to them. That is of course the whole purpose of the joint committee. The hon member asked whether more of the discussion should not be made public. I cannot express myself on that particular issue at the moment. He also made the good point that the pace of privatisation should now be faster.

*Approximately nine months ago, the hon the Minister announced that we would extend the radius of exempted areas to 300 km. This has already been done and after deregulation of course, privatisation will receive far more attention.

†The hon member also spoke about the future of the NTC. The power that this commission will have in regard to the provisions of this particular legislation will be of a transitional nature. The hon member wants a clean break because, according to him, the White Paper envisaged that the NTC should go immediately. We would like to do that but the fact is that we are dealing with a highly complex situation and a detailed implementation plan is being worked out.

The practical considerations will have to dictate the pace of the movement from the old to the new system.

The hon member also made the point about the various systems operating in South Africa, the countries around us and within our own territories as envisaged in the Bill. The unification of the four provincial Road Traffic Ordinances is the first step. We intend striving for maximum coordination throughout Southern Africa and that is why we are going to proceed with the Road Traffic Bill which will also be a step forward in trying to find consensus and to have a uniform system, but obviously we must have a uniform system among ourselves before we can expect the other independent states around South Africa to come in with us as well.

I think the hon member for De Aar has clearly indicated to the hon member that as far as the Toll Union and the Customs Union are concerned we have to be very, very careful how we approach the situation.

*I am now going to conclude by thanking the hon member for De Aar for his support in this regard.

For the most part the hon member for Groote Schuur raised the points that had been raised by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central, and he raised objections to orderly deregulation.

†He says he is not satisfied with our definition of orderly deregulation. I want to say that we are aware of the criticism and fear expressed in many circles that deregulation in the transport industry could bring about chaos and the lowering of standards. We have a duty, however, to ensure that deregulation will not have worse effects than those we are experiencing with regulation. Those involved have nothing to fear. Strict law enforcement of the quality systems as it applies to the operator, the driver and the vehicle will ensure road safety, and the Department of Transport knows that deregulation in many parts of the world also brought with it regrettable side effects. We want to avoid them. For that reason we attach great importance to the gradual phasing in of the process and to strict law enforcement. The implementation of deregulation must therefore go hand in hand with proper quality control, and that is my answer to the hon member for Groote Schuur.

*Sir, thank you very much for the opportunity to introduce and support this legislation.

Debate concluded.

Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time.

Division demanded.

Declaration of votes:

Mr Chairman, it is very clear from what the hon the Deputy Minister has just said that this is drastic legislation. I believe that, when the nature of legislation is at all drastic, a thorough and in-depth discussion is that much more justified. That is why the CP repeats that this is a legislation which we consider is being passed overhastily. As in the case of various others Bills, something like this is unacceptable to us. A comprehensive discussion of all proposed legislation in package form would, as far as we are concerned at least, represent the only meaningful way of discussing such legislation.

Since the present transport system is in its entirety going to change, the CP insists that there should be greater clarity on the question of whether the new system is a real improvement on the old one, without the relevant Bills having been discussed thoroughly.

On the joint committee, discussion on the transport of freight and the conveyance of passengers, for example, is either in the initial stage of discussion or not finalised yet. In spite of this, the Government is already seeking the approval of Parliament for the envisaged legislation on the deregulation of transport.

Under such circumstances the CP cannot support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, after one has listened to the arguments by the CP there can be no doubt in one’s mind that the CP are against a free economy, or for that matter, against free enterprise. [Interjections.] In my opinion they fear the competition they will have to face in a completely free economy because they know in their own hearts that with this and other pending legislation the days of baasskap are over.

In future the Whites will have to compete on an even basis, which goes for the State as well, and there are going to be losers—some of them White. I believe this Bill lays the foundation for equal participation by all South Africans, and therein lies the rub. The CP, by implication, do not want equal participation; on the contrary, they still wish to retain their privileged position, irrespective of the effects their attitude will have upon our country and its future.

To share or to give are anathema to the CP, especially if they have to give to or share with people who are not White. Their views, I believe, cannot be accepted. This Bill before the House is contrary to their wishes, yet we on this side of the House see this Bill as the dawning of a new era in our history—an era in which we are visibly showing that we want all the peoples of South Africa to be able to participate in our economy and to reap the rewards of risk in business.

We support the Bill because it represents part of the process of reform—reform which we cannot hold back. To do so would be to betray the trust so many voters placed in the NP at the last elections. The CP would do well to think of what Oscar Wilde said:

We on this side of the House support the Bill.

Order! I should like to draw the attention of hon members to the fact that the object of declarations of vote is to indicate why hon members are voting for or against a specific Bill. Hon members cannot use this to make a further speech with a political purport. I believe that would defeat the entire purpose of a declaration of vote. I believe hon members must restrict themselves entirely to why they are voting for or against a measure.

The House divided:

AYES—100: Alant, T G; Andrew, K M; Barnard, M S; Bekker, H J; Bosman, J F; Botha, J C G; Botma, M C; Brazelle, J A; Camerer, S M; Chait, E J; Christophers, D; Clase, P J; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; De Beer, S J; De Klerk, F W; De Pontes, P; Delport, J T; Dilley, L H M; Du Plessis, B J; Durr, K D S; Edwards, B V; Eglin, C W; Farrell, P J; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Geldenhuys, B L; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Hardingham, R W; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Heyns, J H; Hugo, P F; Hulley, R R; Hunter, J E L; Jager, R; Jooste, J A; Jordaan, A L; King, T J; Kruger, T A P; Le Roux, D E T; Lemmer, J J; Lorimer, R J; Louw, E v d M; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Malcomess, D J N; Malherbe, G J; Marais, G; Marais, P G; Maré, P L; Maree, J W; Maree, M D; Matthee, P A; Meyer, A T; Myburgh, G B; Niemann, J J; Odendaal, W A; Olivier, N J J; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Radue, R J; Retief, J L; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schutte, D P A; Smit, F P; Smit, H A; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Soal, P G; Steyn, D W; Streicher, D M; Suzman, H; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Swart, R A F; Van de Vyver, J H; Van der Merwe, A S; Van der Walt, A T; Van Deventer, F J; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Niekerk, A I; Van Niekerk, W A; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Wyk, J A; Van Zyl, J G; Venter, A A; Viljoen, G v N; Walsh, J J; Wentzel, J J G.

Tellers: Blanché, J P I; Golden, S G A; Kritzinger, W T; Ligthelm, C J; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Thompson, A G.

NOES—17: De Jager, C D; De Ville, J R; Gerber, A; Hartzenberg, F; Jacobs, S C; Langley, T; Mentz, M J; Nolte, D G H; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Schoeman, C B; Treurnicht, A P; Uys, C; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, W J D.

Tellers: Le Roux, F J; Snyman, W J.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Order! I have to announce that Mr Speaker has received a Message from the State President calling a joint sitting, as follows:

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I should like to begin with these few comments for the general information of hon members.

The Transport Deregulation Bill is an important instrument in the implementation of the Government’s policy concerning the deregulation of the road transportation industry. Deregulation is the process by which regulations laid down by the State for transactions which may hamper economic development are abolished, so that only the minimum of regulation is retained. Although one must accept that a certain degree of regulation is necessary, such regulation should not restrict healthy economic development and competition. For that reason the approach to regulation should be aimed more directly at the promotion of economic activities, and not so much at the control thereof, and there should be greater reliance on natural market mechanisms and selfregulation.

†Mr Chairman, at the present stage the Government controls the transport market as regards the transportation of goods and persons by road by means of a system of permits …[Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must please lower their voices. The hon the Minister may proceed.

At present this control is exercised in terms of the Road Transportation Act of 1977. One of the problematic aspects of the relevant legislation is undoubtedly the fact that entry to the transport market is regulated on a commodity basis. This definitely makes matters difficult for carriers in the private sector.

According to the new policy, proper consideration has been given to steps which are necessary for the transition from the restrictive permit system to the envisaged quality system. The Transport Deregulation Bill was formulated against the background of the principles I have mentioned. The Bill is an essential instrument by which transition from the existing system to the new system will be effected. It provides inter alia for the reorganisation of transport and for the international co-ordination of transport.

*Another important characteristic contained in the Bill is that clause 5 makes it possible to implement the deregulation of road transportation with reference to any class or classes of road transportation; any person or goods, class, or classes of persons or goods which are conveyed by means of road transportation; road transportation within a specific area or within specific areas in the Republic; or any kind or class of motor vehicle or kinds or classes of motor vehicles used in road transportation.

In terms of the purport of the White Paper on National Transport Policy, the permit system prescribed by the Road Transportation Act, 1977, will be replaced by the road transportation quality system as contained in the Road Traffic Bill which will regulate the transportation of goods.

†The proposed Passenger Transport Bill, which has not yet been tabled, will regulate the transportation of persons. Here it is important to note that clause 5 of the Transport Deregulation Bill contains important provisos, namely that new legislation on road traffic should first be accepted before deregulation of goods transport takes place; and that the envisaged legislation on passenger transport first be accepted before passenger transport can be deregulated.

Government decided that the process of deregulation should be phased in according to an approved implementation programme to ensure that the deregulation of road transport is effected in an orderly manner and that the disruption of the economy and the road transportation industry is kept to the minimum.

*Clause 6 of the Bill provides that any agreement may be entered into with the government of another country or territory whereby arrangements are made for the control and regulation of the transportation of persons or goods between the Republic and that particular country or territory. Obviously the objective here is to strive for co-ordination and co-operation on a basis of uniform standards.

In terms of clause 7(1) regulations can be made to give effect to the provisions of any agreement entered into in terms of clause 6.

Clause 2 of the Bill repeals the Transport (Coordination) Act, 1948, but the National Transport Commission will continue to exist as part of the transitional arrangements. The NTC will gradually be relieved of its functions as progress is made with the deregulation process in respect of the regulation of road transportation. At this stage the NTC will relinquish only those functions which it performs in terms of the National Roads Act, 1971, the Urban Transport Act and the National Road Safety Act, to the South African Roads Board. This is provided in clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill.

In conclusion I should like to emphasise that the Transport Deregulation Bill is intended as an instrument to regulate the orderly and flexible transition of existing systems to the new quality-based systems of transporting goods and persons. The transport system is an extremely important subsystem of our country’s economy. That is why one will have to implement the new dispensation carefully and step by step. In that respect this Bill is indispensable.

Mr Chairman, this Bill, the Transport Deregulation Bill, 1988, must be seen as part of a package of transport legislation which will have to be passed by this Parliament.

The South African Roads Board Bill was recently discussed and passed in this House. This Bill is part of the recommendation of the steering committee of the National Transport Policy Study Group, as contained in the White Paper on the National Transport Policy for the Republic of South Africa.

The Bill provides inter alia that the Minister can repeal the Road Transportation Act, No 74 of 1977. The objective of this Act is to regulate the transportation of passengers and goods by means of a permit. When this Bill is promulgated as an Act, Act No 74 of 1977 will be abolished.

The Bill further provides that the Transport (Co-ordination) Act, 1948, also be repealed, but that the National Transport Commission will continue to exist. Numerous clauses of this Bill were changed during the discussions in the standing committee. If we look at the long title of the Bill inter alia we will see that it is also envisaged to change the long title of the Act. As the hon the Minister said, clause 2 is being changed, and clauses 6 and 8 are being deleted in toto. With regard to clause 6, I should like to mention that the old clause 6 provided that negotiations could take place between the BSL countries as well as the TBVC countries. It also provided that a uniform policy be implemented with references to transportation from the Republic to the various homelands and independent countries so that the service rendered would not be lacking in quality and so that people in the Republic who could not pass the road quality test could not go to the homelands in order to obtain their certificates.

This Bill was discussed comprehensively in its entirety by the standing committee. As I said, clauses 6 and 8 are being scrapped in toto.

Clause 8 provides for bilateral agreements to be entered into, but these agreements can be entered into only by the State President. As head of State, the hon the State President can enter into agreements with other countries in order to establish a uniform transport policy for the Republic as well as for Southern Africa.

As the hon the Minister said, a very important aspect of this Bill is that it should be seen in conjunction with the Bill which has reference to passengers as well as the Bill which has reference to traffic. These Bills form a whole package, and one cannot deal properly with one Bill without taking the others into consideration. As I said, however, we have dealt with the South African Roads Board Bill in this House, and those of us who served on this standing committee support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, we conducted many discussions about the Bill in question, and we received thick piles of memoranda. The transport policy is undergoing a large-scale change at the moment. I should like to sketch a brief picture of what is actually happening.

A national transport policy study has been undertaken for the past few years to investigate and make recommendations about a revised transport policy for South Africa which corresponds with our present circumstances and policy. The objectives stated in this study are the following among others, viz to ensure a safe and reliable transport service for the country; to place consumer choice first and to promote effective competition; to encourage private initiative and reduce regulation and administrative expenses in the interests of the taxpayer, and lastly, to promote the co-ordination of transport and to encourage the participation of all population groups.

In order to effect these policy objectives, new legislation was necessary. Two new Acts have already been passed, viz the Transport Advisory Council Act, 1987, and the South African Roads Board Act, 1988. A further three pieces of legislation still have to be passed, however, viz the Transport Deregulation Bill which is before the House today, the Road Traffic Bill which has been tabled and is being dealt with by the Joint Committee on Transport and Communications, and lastly, the Passenger Transport Bill which is being checked by the legal advisers at the moment.

In this connection I merely want to add that in our opinion this legislation forms a package and that consequently we would have liked to have dealt with it as such. For some or other reason this was not done, however. Nevertheless I want to express my thanks and appreciation to the department which accommodated us to a great extent and supplied us with excellent and enlightening information. I also want to convey my sincere thanks to those who gave evidence and sent us memoranda for the interest they displayed.

In my opinion the Transport Deregulation Bill, which is before this House today, is essentially abolition legislation, and not creative legislation. The other legislation to which I referred is creative legislation, by means of which a new transport system is being established. The Bill under discussion provides for the transfer of certain functions with regard to national roads and urban transport to the new SA Roads Board. Clause 5 of the Transport Deregulation Bill is of particular interest, since it makes the flexible repeal of the existing Road Transportation Act possible. The Road Transportation Act is the existing Act according to which the regulation of the transportation of persons and goods takes place by means of a permit system at present. The flexible deregulation for which clause 5 provides is absolutely essential to ensure that there is an orderly transition from the old system to the new system.

The provisos in clause 5 are also very important, however, and provide that deregulation cannot summarily take place. Before goods transport can be deregulated, the new Road Transportation Bill has to be passed by Parliament, and before passenger transport can be deregulated, the envisaged Passenger Transport Act has to be passed.

We shall therefore have an opportunity, before deregulation takes place, to study and debate thoroughly the relevant Bills in which the quality system is contained. The Transport Deregulation Bill is a cornerstone in the legislation which is necessary in order to move from the old system to the new system. It is a pleasure to support the proposed Bill, but nevertheless I want to emphasise that the whole process of implementing it must be handled very carefully.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon members for Vredendal and Wuppertal very sincerely for their contributions as well as for their support.

I should like to place on record that it is clear, with reference to the amendments that have been proposed, that the standing committee did good work and that the legislation was discussed in depth. The amendments that have been effected are really an improvement. I thank the members of the standing committee for that.

The hon member for Vredendal referred to a package of legislation. He mentioned the separate Acts that are necessary to complete this package. In due course those Acts will be placed on the Statute Book. It is not possible to do all these things simultaneously; this is how legislation is passed from time to time.

The hon member also referred to the proviso which exists. Until such time as the two pieces of legislation that deal with goods and passenger transport have been placed on the Statute Book, the Bill that we are passing today will not in fact be used.

In conclusion I want to say that this Bill actually only provides for an orderly transition—a way in which one can ensure quality and be fair and reasonable to the people in that industry. It is a question, therefore, of moving from a permit order to a qualitative order.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I want to say immediately that I cannot compete with the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs; I shall deal with my own legislation—for the sake of the hon member next to me! [Interjections.]

Perhaps it is important for me to single out a few aspects of the Bill—in a form different from that of the customary Second Reading speech. In my opinion this Bill represents a very important step in achieving certain adaptation or reform objectives. In the first place legislation that regulates home ownership by Blacks is being rationalised. Secondly the Bill enables local authorities to extend the Government’s programme of deregulation to the management of and control over townships which belong to the Black communities. Thirdly the Bill will elevate the status of Black local authorities.

I should like to deal with these objectives in turn. The Government has committed itself to legal reform in the true sense of the word. Apart from the continued research on legal reform which is done by the South African Law Commission, every department has received instructions from the Government to make a close investigation of the laws it administers in order to repeal transitory, obsolete and discriminatory legislation, as well as specific Acts which cover the same ground as general Acts. The largest part of this work has been completed—also in my own department.

I can merely remind hon members that when influx control was abolished in 1986, a total of 31 Parliamentary Acts and more than 700 subordinate Acts, proclamations and Government notices were either repealed or became obsolete because the enabling Acts had been repealed by that specific amending Bill.

Acts with reference to the Black community’s obtaining immovable property have been rationalised to a great extent. The prohibition on obtaining right of ownership on immovable property was raised in 1986. Leasehold rights have been placed on a sound basis. Full right of ownership on land within their own areas of jurisdiction has been entrusted to the Black local authorities. Earlier this year an Act was passed to facilitate the opening of township registers, which in turn will facilitate the obtaining of right of ownership. Consequently the Bill is a further step in the process of rationalising the relevant legislation.

It has become clear that the kind of home ownership in question must be brought in line with the general practice of leasehold and right of ownership in our country as soon as possible.

I pointed out that in the second place the Bill enables the Government to extend its programme of deregulation to the management of and control over townships which belong to the Black communities.

The rights that are addressed in this Bill are restricted by regulations made in 1986, which regulate every facet of township life imaginable—from commerce to cemeteries. These regulations cannot be repealed while they are necessary to regulate property rights. It will be possible to deregulate as soon as these regulations are repealed. The Bill provides for the repeal of the specific regulations. The repeal of these regulations is just as important as, if not more than, the conversion of rights of occupation into leasehold.

In the present circumstances the regulations place too many restrictions on Black entrepreneurs and owners. These regulations make them subject to bureaucratic discretion in that an applicant for business rights has to be a “suitable and appropriate person”. Health and building requirements are too strict on the one hand, and so vague on the other that they could give rise to abuse by officials as well as to endless red tape.

Above all, the regulations do not make sufficient provision for the stimulation of the informal sector in our business world.

It is common knowledge that a comprehensive informal business sector has developed in our townships for Black communities. It is estimated that in 1980, despite attempts at control, there were 800 000 informal business enterprises which made up 30% to 40% of all economic activity in the townships. I think this is also important with reference to the employment of the communities.

Informal economic activities must be stimulated in conformity with the Government’s policy of socio-economic reform, because this is cheap and is the most natural way of creating employment for our people.

Naturally trade and commerce cannot take place in a juridical vacuum or vacuums in a modern economy. Obviously there will have to be control measures, depending on the requirements of the communities involved.

I indicated that in the third place the Bill will elevate the status of Black local authorities. I say this because the amendment of the regulations in question will grant the local authorities the authority to adopt and implement regulations on local government affairs themselves. This is in line with the Government’s policy of granting local communities the greatest possible degree of autonomy, also with regard to these communities.

The Bill must also be seen in a historic perspective. Hon members know that for many years Blacks were permitted to purchase houses and business premises in townships. After the NP came into power in 1948, extensive housing projects for Black communities were launched throughout the country.

People soon realised that the Government would not be capable of achieving this on its own. The Black Building Workers Act was passed in 1951, in terms of which the then Minister of Labour could make any arrangements he thought fit to provide Blacks with training so that they could build homes for themselves. The training of Black builders by virtue of that Act was a significant factor in the provision of housing in the early fifties.

The housing needs of the time also required the full utilisation of the self-help principle, however. Consequently the Government instituted the site-and-service scheme in 1955 as an extension of other housing schemes in order to resolve the prevailing housing crisis as economically and quickly as possible. The objective was to utilise every possible material and human resource. By means of the site-and-service scheme, serviced plots on which Blacks could build their own homes were provided in planned and surveyed townships. They were encouraged to build their own homes. Some of those houses still exist today and would be the subject of the rights dealt with in the Bill before us.

The housing schemes developed and expanded. The incentive of 30-year lease, with the prospect of renewal, was made available to owner-builders. On the basis of this assurance, valuable properties were erected by Black owner-builders. Further details are unnecessary for the present purposes. This scheme received renewed impetus in 1966, however, from both a legal and a socio-economic point of view.

The Housing Act of that year authorised local authorities to erect houses and sell the occupation rights, or to advance money to people to build their own homes on sites allocated to them by the local authority. Regulations which prescribed the process of negotiation and conditions were announced in 1968.

More recent events are better known: 99-year leasehold was accepted in 1984 and improved lifelong leasehold or full right of ownership in 1986. In the process, over a period of four decades, thousands of Black people either bought homes or built them with their own hands. This Bill is intended to rationalise the rights of all these home owners and businessmen, who in the same way bought commercial sites or shops and other buildings for commercial purposes on sites allocated to them.

I should now like to turn briefly to the content of the Bill. In essence three main aspects are broached, viz: The conversion of occupational rights of residences, commercial premises and buildings to leasehold; the replacement of permits for the renting of homes and commercial premises by means of ordinary rental contracts; and the repeal of a comprehensive set of regulations which regulates the weal and woe of the residents of the relevant townships at the moment.

Unfortunately the conversion of the existing rights to leasehold cannot be effected by a stroke of the pen, because leasehold implies the establishment of a specific form of right with regard to land. Consequently the Bill proposes a certain procedure for the conversion of occupational rights to leasehold. The leasehold can then be converted by virtue of existing legislation to full right of ownership.

Provincial governments administer township development and housing for Black communities. The provincial secretaries or their assignees have therefore been appointed to take the initiative of effecting the conversion. Apart from the owners who will now get right of ownership on their own properties in a simple way and without its costing them anything, other categories of residents will be affected, viz residents who still rent their houses in terms of permits; the residents of homes to whom accommodation is provided by virtue of permits; and people who rent commercial premises.

The regulations in terms of which the permits are issued are going to be repealed and when the new legislation takes effect, the holders of these permits will be treated as lessees of the relevant local authorities in terms of ordinary rental agreements with the retention of all the rights they had in terms of the regulations. Commercial regulations, which are peculiar to Black townships, are included in the regulations under discussion. They were a stumbling block for a considerable period and representations for the repeal of these regulations were received from organised business organisations. Their repeal, as envisaged by the Bill, would stimulate both formal and informal business enterprises in the townships.

The regulations that are to be repealed were originally promulgated in terms of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, No 25 of 1945.

After this explanation, I think hon members will have some idea of what the Bill is all about.

Mr Chairman, as this is my first opportunity to address this House since the arrival of our two new LP members of Parliament I should like to congratulate them on their success in the by-elections and also to remind them that as members of the LP they are members of a team which is accustomed to dealing with the needs, both short-term and long-term, of the constituents out there. They can rest assured that, unlike the people they defeated so convincingly, they are part of a team which will not let them down and will not let their constituents down. [Interjections.]

I feel duty-bound, before coming to the details of the Bill, to mention that the standing committee has had to be rearranged for reasons best known to the hon the Minister and that we are losing as chairman the hon member for Mossel Bay. It would be unwise for me—and certainly in bad taste—not to refer to the sterling service rendered by the hon member for Mossel Bay as chairman of that standing committee. As far as politics was concerned, we in the LP and that hon member of the NP were poles apart. However, in terms of respect, in terms of a healthy working relationship, in terms of arriving at consensus and in terms of thinking of the interests of the country at large rather than the interests of either his party or our party, we have only salutory words to convey to that hon member through this House. We will definitely feel the loss of this hon member as chairman of the committee and, at the moment, we cannot conceive of how he will be replaced.

What does the Minister say?

The hon the Minister will get his turn to speak.

†As far as the Bill itself is concerned I must say that we are happy about the reform measures which are being taken in respect of security of tenure. The hon the Minister has already indicated the general purposes of the Bill. The first one is the repeal of regulations. I should like to dwell on that subject for a while. Anyone who looks at the Schedule and in particular at the regulations which are being repealed must of necessity ask himself why these regulations were made in the first instance. Why was there a need to have such horrendous regulations in the first place? We look forward to the day when we will have uniform ownership rights for all people in this country—uniform not only in the practical day-to-day de facto situation but also in the de jure situation where one law will apply to all citizens of the country regardless of race, tribe, group affiliation or any other consideration.

As the hon the Minister said, the Bill also grants certain permit holders either leasehold rights or rights of tenancy. I must mention immediately that all these provisions which are being changed relate to security of tenure. We as a party feel the need to champion security of tenure for all the people who dare to call themselves South Africans.

The repeal of the regulations has to go hand in hand with a transitional provision at law. In other words, some sort of legal arrangement has to be made in order to serve the people in the interim period while the regulations are being repealed in toto. This is our perspective in regard to these matters and for this reason in particular we welcome this Bill.

I wonder if those hon members can bear with me for a little while. This is the type of work that they do not seem to be dealing with and these matters do not really concern them. I am referring to matters such as housing …

Mr Chairman, I should like to know from the hon member whether he supports the idea of freehold rights for everybody. If he supports it, why does he now stop and support leasehold rights only?

Mr Chairman, it really surprises me that the hon member for Border, apart from not doing his homework, does not listen either. The hon the Minister covered that very point a few minutes ago. I also referred to it. I would suggest that when that hon member gets hold of Hansard, he must sit down and read it carefully. He is an intelligent man.

What do you say?

Order! The hon member is replying to the hon member for Border. The hon member for Border must please give him the opportunity to do so.

Mr Chairman, you must explain that to the hon member as well, because he does not understand it. [Interjections.]

†This matter is extremely close to me as I have been dealing with Black affairs—as it is commonly referred to—in Parliament for the past four years. This concerns the development of housing for Black people as an interim measure. We know that the day will come when housing in this country is going to be seen for what it really is and not as Black, Coloured or other housing. In the meantime, however, we are not arrogant enough to deny Black people—as they are being called today—the right to build their own homes and the right to have security of tenure. The same applies in the case of business rights.

I must refer to the Urban Foundation’s recommendations and its criticism of this Bill. I should like to point out—for the sake of hon members who do not know—that the Urban Foundation set out quite a number of criticisms and recommendations. With the assistance of officials like Mr Hitchie and Dr Bekker—whom I must mention by name—all the points raised by the Urban Foundation were accommodated in this Bill. Arising out of their recommendations, certain further recommendations were in fact made to the Urban Foundation. Therefore their points were adequately met. For this reason I regarded it necessary to name these two gentlemen.

I am sure that with a little Bill of this nature which has such tremendous importance, I must leave something to say to my Deputy Leader otherwise I will have to discuss matters further with him outside. Having said these things, I must say that we fully support this Bill and that we are looking forward to further reform of this nature.

Mr Chairman, I rise to … [Interjections.] After the hon members have quietened down I shall speak. I do not need any assistance from the floor; I am a capable man. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Haarlem is quite capable of making his own speech.

Mr Chairman, I rise to support this legislation. There were queries from the hon members in the Official Opposition. From the outset we stood for freehold rights. We made it quite plain that we wanted freehold rights for everyone in South Africa. They should now help us, because we have said over and over again that we are striving for the total repeal of the Group Areas Act. Once that has been accomplished our problem will have been solved. I feel we have not come here to fight and I want to appeal to those hon members to attend the standing committee meetings and then make a contribution. [Interjections.]

The Bill in its original form was not acceptable to us as a party. We sat for days on this Bill, and one of the first things we focused on was the inquiry as to rights of leasehold. We said from the outset that the secretary has the right to ask that an inquiry be held as regards giving certain people rights as well as land. We felt it should be done over a wider field so that other people like developers can be called in to assist, because we have a big problem in respect of land for people in South Africa who are not White. As a consequence of that, land is a problem and that is why we said that this should be done.

The other clause we dealt with related to appeals. In terms of the original Bill, parties who considered themselves aggrieved could appeal to the Administrator and that was final. We objected to that and said we would like people to go to court. We wanted the court to take a decision, because we felt that would be fair to everybody concerned. We felt that the Administrator would be placed in an invidious position when he had to take a decision, because in nine out of ten cases he has to uphold the actions of his personnel. There was no likelihood that he would be able to deviate in any respect. As a consequence of our objection people now have a right to go to court, like anyone else, if they are not satisfied with the decision of the Administrator. We have more or less spelt out what people have to do. If hon members were to read the amendments, they would see that the procedure is as clear as daylight. The normal course will be followed.

We received submissions from the Small Business Development Corporation as well as from the Urban Foundation. As the hon member for Wentworth pointed out; we did examine their submissions. From the start we were unhappy about what had been pointed out to us in the comments and we felt that these people had to be given their rights. The secretariat then went back to the departments and came back with an amendment which was accepted by everyone in the committee.

I think the most important clause in this entire Bill is clause 6. It is a very important clause, because all the objections, and the motivation for those objections, which were submitted to us by the Small Business Development Corporation and the Urban Foundation dealt with clause 6. The Urban Foundation was active in the Black areas and they had the best knowledge as to which clauses would have caused problems. On the strength of their knowledge they submitted objections. The department then went back to the Urban Foundation as well as to the Small Business Development Corporation and incorporated all their recommendations in this Bill. As far as those objections were concerned, then, all the people from the public sector had been accommodated.

If hon members were to look at the Schedule on page 13 of the Bill they would see how many Government Notices have been repealed as a consequence of this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I would like to give my other hon colleagues some time to discuss the Bill and so I shall now sit down.

Mr Chairman, what we are dealing with here is a Bill which converts the provisions contained in certain Acts to leasehold. In terms of the Black Communities Development Act, Blacks in towns and cities had certain rights. In terms of this Act, as well as certain regulations, they could erect their own homes. They could also rent or even buy houses from the former development boards. Businessmen could also hire or purchase business premises, whereas dealers could erect buildings themselves or, if they preferred, buy buildings from the development boards. However, this was contradictory with the principle of erecting buildings on land which did not belong to a person. In actual fact, therefore, these people did not have the right to erect buildings on land which did not belong to them. In terms of law, a building which is erected on a certain piece of land is the property of the landowner. This means that the buildings which people had built with their hard-earned money remained the property of the landowner. Other people did not buy or erect buildings, but rented buildings. These rights of occupation were regulated, however, in a way which was not in keeping with present views.

The purpose of the Bill before the House today is in fact to repeal the restrictive regulations. Other hon members have referred to the fact that a total of 33 Government notices are being repealed in the Schedule to the Act. This is nothing but red tape. In the past one had to work through no fewer than 33 Government Notices ultimately to get to the crux of the matter.

Provision is made in the new Bill for the conversion, free of charge, of the occupational rights of the so-called owners to a more comprehensive leasehold tenure. Those who are renting their homes and business premises in terms of the old regulations at present will be dealt with in terms of the normal laws of the land. Existing obligations, such as rental taxation, will continue to exist until an agreement has been reached between the secretary and the lessee. Hon members also pointed out that clause 6 was the actual problem in the relevant Bill. Everyone involved in this agreed with the committee, however, that this clause had to be changed. The clause in question was in fact changed drastically. We obtained the views of the SBDC as well as the Urban Foundation and were informed thoroughly on certain objections. The SBDC and the Urban Foundation made certain proposals to us. We used these proposals as guidelines and included certain recommendations in the Bill which were eventually agreed to by the hon the Minister and his advisors.

I want to read the English rendition of this:

This merely means that nothing will prevent a lessee from continuing his rental agreement according to the terms which were agreed upon until such time as new arrangements have been made. Provision is therefore being made for the lessee. He will not be worse off than before the implementation of this legislation. The intention is to improve things in terms of this Bill. We must note, after all, that the lessee will not be worse off than previously.

I have said that the recommendations made by the Urban Foundation and the Small Business Development Corporation have been accommodated in this legislation. This applies in respect of all their objections. Consequently it is a pleasure for us to support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, the Official Opposition never ceases to amaze me. They come to this Chamber and ask us the questions. Yet the system makes provision for them to attend committee meetings and to sort out the problems there. [Interjections.] They choose not to attend those meetings. Therefore, it is their business if they want to be ill-informed and show their ignorance in the presence of other hon members here and members of the public who have come to witness what happens in Parliament. Sir, we are not going to make any headway with an opposition party like this. An opposition party has to play the role of watchdog, but this opposition party neither comes to the Chamber, nor ever finds the time to attend committee meetings.

Speak for yourself!

It is their right to be represented on the committee and—this is also their right—they have been allowed to participate in the debate in this Chamber. However, they have not taken advantage of this because they have no contribution to make. [Interjections.]

Sir, I do not want to spoil this hon Minister’s week, because in my opinion this is an important week in the history of South Africa. While we have not reached the ideal situation or the end objective, we are certainly making progress. We are moving closer towards the objective which we hold so dear. Therefore, I want to congratulate the hon the Minister on the achievements thus far. May they encourage him to greater heights. It has been no easy task; in fact, I would hate to be in the hon the Minister’s shoes. I do not want to go into the background but all of us know that he has been the initiator of the tricameral system which, of course, has been criticised from both sides of this House. However, both sides of this House have seen fit to use the system in order to attain their ultimate objectives. We say thank you that we at least have the right to do that. We have the right to come here and differ with the Government. Therefore, I hope it will go well with the hon the Minister during the rest of the week.

As far as this legislation is concerned, the ideal would be the scrapping of the Group Areas Act. While that ideal is not attainable as yet, I want to assure the hon the Minister that nobody in this Chamber is going to rest until we have buried the Group Areas Act. We have enough ministers in this Chamber—I am not talking about Cabinet Ministers but about ministers of religion—who will be able to perform the last rites with regard to the Group Areas Act.

I want to tell hon members in this Chamber who do not understand the system that a Bill is published before it is discussed in a joint committee and that any hon member who wishes to make an input, raise an objection or make a contribution to the improvement of that legislation has the right to do so. None of these avenues has been followed by hon members of the Official Opposition, but there have been objections and inputs from people outside Parliament. The Official Opposition, therefore, have not exercised any rights, except that of coming to this Chamber as obstructionists. [Interjections.] I want to say without any fear of contradiction—and the hon the Minister may confirm this if he wants to—that the role of the ruling party in this Chamber is to go to committee meetings as a constructive opposition, in order to make a constructive contribution. [Interjections.] Without our presence there this Bill would not have assumed the form it now has. Now it is conforming …

[Inaudible.]

Order!

Sir, I know how to handle that hon member!

Order! The hon member must not tell me what to do. If the hon member Mr Muller wants to make a speech, he must request that we put his name on the list of speakers; then he will get an opportunity to make a speech. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, that hon member is not capable of making a speech in this House.

Mr Chairman, that is a reflection on the hon member’s ability.

But that is the truth, Sir. The the hon member’s track record is proof of that. How many speeches has that hon member made in this House? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Toekomsrus has referred to a speech as such and has actually used the word as a noun. The hon member may therefore proceed.

Sir, I want to place on record the contribution of the Urban Foundation to the rewriting of this Bill. They have made a valuable contribution and in the end we were all grateful for their contribution. We are now beginning to make Black people home owners and we are also in the process, by virtue of this legislation, of making Black people home builders.

*We are beginning to make people feel that they are part of the greater South Africa. I want to emphasise that we are beginning to involve the majority of South Africans.

†Blacks should feel that they are part of South Africa and hon members and I know that if we create Black home owners, we will alleviate the greater problem which is confronting Blacks in this country. Hon members are aware of the fact that the unrest in the townships is the cause of the Black people’s being regulated. Moreover, the greater majority of Black people are lessees of property. There were no problems with those who owned their homes. We must, therefore, move away from overregulating people in this country. The fact that 33 regulations have been deleted in this piece of legislation proves this point, as the hon member for Grassy Park has said. I want to say without any fear of contradiction that we are overregulated in this country and that people’s lives are affected unnecessarily by some of these regulations.

*As soon as that dawns on the Government I shall rise here to tell the hon the Minister that he is one of the best men we have.

Mr Chairman, I want to say immediately that I appreciate hon members’ support of the Bill. I want to add that it is a pleasure to hear that for a change the hon member for Toekomsrus is supporting the legislation. [Interjections.] Permit me to make a few comments with reference to the discussion of this Bill.

Why do have joint committees? We have these committees so that the respective parties and Houses can weigh up their standpoints against one another. They have to see eye to eye. There is no point in talking about the work of the committees if one does not talk in the committees themselves, because that is too easy. The Bill we are discussing today is an example once again of how different standpoints can be reconciled within a joint committee if we have to strive for a common objective.

†I believe that is the essence of what we are discussing here this afternoon. I have listened to the hon member of Wentworth who started the debate this afternoon. He could ask why all these regulations were necessary and that would mean discussing this with hindsight. I do not believe that is the important question. The question is whether at a specific time in the history of a country people have the courage to change what they think needs to be changed. I think hon members will agree with me that that is a fair approach. I believe the joint committee succeeded in attaining that very essential objective. Therefore, I do not think we need to argue about that point. It is important enough in itself.

When are we dropping the group areas?

I will give the hon member a chance to discuss legislation on the Group Areas Act when the time comes. [Interjections.] Let me say this. I am not going to run away from it, but I would like to suggest that when we discuss it we do so rationally and not emotionally. [Interjections.] Fine. I do not want to take it further now. All I want to say is that although we may have opposing and conflicting philosophies, we must allow the other party to propound what he believes is the best for the country …[Interjections.]

The second point I would like to make is that all hon members who spoke—the hon members for Haarlem, Grassy Park and Toekomsrus—stressed one point in their discussion and that is that reform or adaptation is not a single event; it is a process. If I think back over the four years since this Parliament was established, I can tell hon members we can take pride in what we have attained, notwithstanding our different philosophies and policies. I believe that augurs well for the future of our country.

*If we cannot manage it here, the people at large are never going to manage it. Reform is a time-consuming process, but I dare say it is the most durable process of change, because the benefits of reform last longest.

†I also want to commend the work done by the joint committee and I share the view of all hon members who spoke in this regard about the leadership of my hon colleague, Dr Van Rensburg, as chairman of this committee. I believe he did sterling work and I share that view with all other hon members.

*Of course hon members who stay behind have a special responsibility, and that is to make it just as easy for his successor as they did for Dr Van Rensburg. The hon member for Toekomsrus will understand exactly what I mean by this.

†It is true that the Bill was changed, but I would like to point out that the submissions of the Urban Foundation were directed at one very important facet, and that was to ensure that the holders of rights—in this case of leasehold rights—should not have fewer rights after the Bill has been promulgated than before. That was, I believe, also the objective of the Bill.

*I also want to thank the officials sincerely for their hard work. I often have more sympathy with the officials than with the members of Parliament, because they often have to try to achieve consensus while we are arguing with one another. In my opinion the most important thing in the end is that the legislation before us must give people more certainty. When legislation gives people more certainty and rights, we must support it. The rights we are talking about here are those with regard to property, and naturally this has an important stabilising effect on communities. People then have a right that they want to protect. The more we can succeed in making this right universal for all communities, the more we shall progress.

I thank hon members sincerely for their support of the legislation. I appreciate it, because I think the Bill is a step in the right direction.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I just want to make a short statement about the Bill.

The development of local government has resulted in the promulgation, amendment or repeal of several laws on local government affairs in the past few years. Thus, the Rural Areas Act (House of Representatives), Act 9 of 1987, was promulgated whereas the Rural Coloured Areas Act, Act 24 of 1963, and the Community Councils Act, Act 125 of 1977, were repealed.

The said Acts, with those mentioned in clause 1 of this Bill, resulted in the definition of “local authority” in section 1 of the Promotion of Local Government Affairs Act, Act 91 of 1983, hereinafter referred to as the principal Act, having to be amended. Regional services councils are local government institutions on the same level as local authorities and fulfil the same functions for and render the same services to local governments. For that reason regional services councils are included in the definition of “local authority” in section 1 of the principal Act.

However, regional services councils do not have representation on the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs—the leading institution for such matters. Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill afford regional services councils representation on the co-ordinating council as well as on the action committee of the council.

†The administrative work connected to the functions of the co-ordinating council, municipal development boards, the Demarcation boards and committees of these boards, is being performed by officials of the Department of Development Planning in terms of section 16 of the principal Act.

Due to this rigid provision, no officials of other bodies in the Public Service may be utilised for this purpose, although in some cases it may be more economical to do so without forfeiting efficiency.

Clause 4 of the Bill makes the Act more flexible and enables other officials in the Public Service to perform these administrative duties. This amendment may affect savings by limiting the travels which officials from Pretoria would otherwise have to undertake countrywide.

This Bill has no direct financial or political implications but will promote efficiency, especially in respect of the functioning of the Co-ordinating Council and its Action Committee. I therefore suggest that we all endorse the provisions of this Bill.

Mr Chairman, for political reasons it is not wise for me to be seen to be in agreement with the hon the Minister too often. [Interjections.]

That is a good sign.

I appreciate the fact that you, Sir, understand what I am getting at. [Interjections.]

I hear a lot of laughter from the Opposition benches and I hope they realize what they are laughing at. The issue at stake is far more important than political manoeuvering and petty political considerations. This is a good amending Bill. It has no political connotations other than a few small technical details, most of which constitute a change in definition or of an administrative nature.

We dubbed this legislation the “Charlie Green Amendment Bill” because the provisions in this Bill arose out of a prior discussion in the same standing committee in a different context in connection with a different Bill. On that occasion the hon member for Haarlem was so adamant with regard to representation on the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs, that his viewpoints were accommodated in this Bill. For this reason I find it surprising that I am listed to speak on this Bill instead of the hon member for Haarlem. I think he had something to do with this.

Other than the actual accommodation of the Regional Services Council Association in the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs, the third main set of provisions allows for members, other than members of the public service, to take part in administrative work in the provinces. This means that officials from Pretoria do not necessarily have to fly all over the country to handle minor official administrative duties. In fact, people from the provinces can be used for this purpose.

In giving my full support to this measure, I should like to comment briefly on a reference made to the Group Areas Act by an interjector earlier on. Much has been said in regard to the Group Areas Act. We had the insistence of the LP that this Act be scrapped. It has a bearing on certain provisions which are hidden in this Bill and no one can deny that the regional services councils rest upon local government structures. Local government structures in turn rest upon the Group Areas Act and the implementation thereof.

Our people are compartmentalised in racial cocoons all over the country. As an interim stage this de facto situation of necessity has to be accommodated in local government. The hon member for Haarlem has a lot of faith in the regional services councils. I believe that it works very well in the Cape and in the Transvaal. I have been told that we should look forward to the implementation of regional services councils in Natal as well. If what is being said in regard to the regional services councils and the institution thereof in the Cape Province and the Transvaal is true, I certainly look forward to the institution thereof in Natal.

We cannot regard the regional services councils as anything other than an interim measure towards the ultimate of direct representation on a third-tier level of government. We therefore accept the provisions of the amending Bill against the backdrop of the total provisions of the regional services councils. I have no reservations in giving our full support to this Bill.

Order! Before I call upon the hon member for Toekomsrus to speak, I want to congratulate the hon member for Wentworth. I was on the point of calling him to order, but he was clever enough to come back to the Bill by discussing one of its clauses. He put it very well indeed.

Mr Chairman, the Bill before us is basically of a technical nature. It aims to amend the technical problems we experience in actually applying the legislation. The memorandum on the objects of this Bill states—

I want to say that the whole concept in regard to the present structure of local government is outdated. Until we reach normality, we will always experience these technical problems. I realise the hon the Minister does not like this type of tune, but unfortunately these are the problems of the country. I am pleading that we should move towards a normal situation.

As far as the second point on the memorandum is concerned, while all three Houses have been instrumental in creating regional services councils, the regional services councils—the brainchild of the hon the Minister—have to be given representation. This Bill makes provision for that.

The point I have to concentrate on, however, is point 3 of the memorandum, viz the whole question of demarcation. We have to make it possible for people to exercise their right to vote. That is not always possible under the present legislation. I want to use this opportunity, therefore, to make an appeal to the hon the Minister, because we still have time before the October elections to see to it that everyone who lives in a specific area has a right to cast a vote in that area. We have seen this and the hon members in the Official Opposition are aware of this because they have participated in by-elections. They know what problems are experienced in connection with elections. People come to one on the day of the election. They are bona fide residents of a particular area and they have proof of the fact that they belong there. Those people should have every right to vote there. However, they are denied the right to vote because some official somewhere or some machine somewhere omitted to place them on the voters’ roll.

I believe, moreover, that when it comes to municipal elections, the officials in the polling booths—whatever their party affiliation may be—are people who know the people who want to vote. That is why I think the mere fact that a person identifies himself by means of the necessary documentation should entitle him to exercise his right to vote. After all, the right to vote is paramount; the right to vote is sacred. We do not have the right to deny anyone the right to vote. The hon the Minister will agree with me, because it is his argument that I am advancing. Everyone in this country has the right to vote. We are not saying that everybody’s vote carries the same value, because different values are placed on different votes, but everybody should have the right to vote in this country in some way or another. I am asking the hon the Minister please just to make it possible for everyone to exercise that right to vote.

Mr Chairman, allow me to say immediately that I am not going to be tempted into replying to the observations which the hon member for Wentworth made when he was solicited by an interjection from the other side. The hon member will understand why I say that. I am a lawyer by profession and I have learnt that it is very dangerous to be solicited. [Interjections.] Therefore, if the hon member will just bear with me, I shall not react to those remarks. I am getting up merely to say that I thank the hon members for their support of the provisions of this Bill.

The hon member for Toekomsrus made an observation to which I should like to react for just a moment. He spoke about the voters’ roll. What he said was true. I believe that the legislation we have and indeed should have is and should be of such a nature that it gives an opportunity to all people who are entitled to vote to have their vote recorded. On the other hand, it is not possible to do that in an orderly manner unless there are voters’ rolls which have been properly constituted, and that is something which it is not possible to do on polling day.

What we will do, however, is to try to amend regulations so as to make it possible, first of all, to ensure that people can register. Secondly, we want to make it possible to ensure that once people have registered they can in fact cast their vote, and we want to make it as easy as possible for them to do so.

Finally, when they want to cast their vote, they must satisfy the official about their identity. However, our aim is not to make it too difficult for any person who wants to vote. In the final analysis this Bill is, as hon members have indicated, of a very technical nature. There is therefore no reason to argue about the Group Areas Act when discussing a Bill of such a technical nature.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, the objective of the Bill under discussion is to provide for the continued existence of the society as a juristic person under the name The Cape of Good Hope Society. In addition the Bill has the objective of ending the status of the society as a banking institution.

The society is going to cease to be a banker, but will continue to exist as a benevolent institution with a view to utilising profits, earned from its funds, mainly for benevolent, charitable and similar services.

This Bill is ushering in a new era in the history of one of the oldest banks in South Africa. The bank was established in 1831 when Sir Lowry Cole was the governor at the Cape. Since then the bank has served the population faithfully and in a very competent way. Over the years the bank has provided mainly for the needs of the small man. This bank is generally known as the “Slamse Bank” in the Cape. In the past the bank handed 10% of its profits each year to charitable, auxiliary and educational institutions.

The latest list of donations includes the following inter alia: The Armsorgkommissie of the DR Church, the Arthritis Foundation, the Athlone Senior Secondary School, the Boy Scouts of South Africa (Cape Western Area), the Bybelgenootskap van Suid-Afrika, the Cape Town Eisteddfod, the Church of Ascension, the Church of the Province of South Africa, the deputy mayoress’s child welfare market, die SA National Council of the Aged, the Good Hope Bank Bursaries, the Heathfield Pre-School Centre, the Hospital Welfare and Muslim Education Fund, the Mfesane Welfare Association, the Moslem Education Benefit Society, the NG Bantoesending Skiereiland, the Opleidingskool vir Christelik-maatskaplike Kleurlingwerkers, the Oranjia Jewish Children’s Home, the Ravensmead Management Committee, the St John’s Ambulance Association (Cape Town Centre), the SA Diabetes Association, the SA Legion (Cape Town branch), the Girl Guides Association (Cape West), the Holy Cross Centre, the Leprosy Mission (Southern Africa), the Methodist Church of South Africa, the University of South Africa, the Volkskerk van Afrika (Elsies River) and the Nyanga Welfare Centre. These are only 30 of the 147 beneficiaries of donations from the Good Hope Savings Bank Society.

I said earlier that this bank provided in particular for the smaller man. Even slaves made use of this banking institution to save money. I found out among other things that a certain Fransina, a released slave, had saved 1 300 rix-dollars to buy off her friend, a slave named David, from a farmer, Jakob van Rheenen. This happened on 17 November 1831. I want to quote from a little magazine published by the Cape of Good Hope Savings Bank Society on the occasion of its 150th birthday. It contains a brief history of the bank. I quote as follows:

We can deduce from this that our own community has had a long and proud alliance with the Cape of Good Hope Savings Bank Society.

The society has received the approval of the Registrar of Banks to become a benevolent organisation, and we should like to support this wholeheartedly.

According to the reply of the Registrar of Banks to their request in this connection, however, an amendment to the legislation was necessary to delete the concept “bank” from the present Act. I should like to quote from this letter:

Sir, the society therefore ceased to be a banker in 1986, after having served the community of Cape Town and the surrounding area in this capacity for 155 years. Instead of this it became a 20% shareholder in a new banking institution, Finansbank, which is better equipped to continue, expand and develop the business of the bank.

The Bill before the House also provides for the determination of the number of directors, the abolition of the requirement that only male persons can become members of the board, the exemption of the society from the payment of income tax and the repeal of certain obsolete provisions.

In conclusion I want to point out that section 23 of the principal Act has been amended in order to amend the rules and regulations of the Amalgamated Pension Fund of the society and to ensure that the transfer is not to the detriment of employees or former employees and their dependants.

As a result of this, the control over the fund is being transferred to the recently established Cape of Good Hope Bank Limited Pension Fund which was established on 9 April 1987. This Bill is bringing a glorious era to an end, but nevertheless we support the measure without any reservations.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Order! I have to announce that Mr Speaker has received a Message from the State President calling a joint sitting, as follows:

Mr Chairman, I know it has now become the practice that it is not necessary to move the Second Reading of a Bill formally and to make a speech explaining the Bill. However, Sir, I think this is such an important piece of legislation that I would nevertheless like to make certain remarks in order to clarify the whole situation.

The Transport Deregulation Bill is an important instrument in the implementation of the Government’s policy regarding the deregulation of the road transport industry. Deregulation is the process whereby the measures prescribed by the State for the regulation of transactions which to any degree hamper economic development are removed and only the minimum of regulation is instituted.

Although it is accepted that a degree of regulation is indeed necessary, such regulation must not inhibit healthy economic development and competition. For this reason the approach to regulation must mainly emphasise the promotion of economic activities and be less directed towards their control, while greater dependence is placed on natural market mechanisms and self-regulation.

At the moment the Government controls the transport market in relation to the transportation of goods and persons by road, by means of a system of permits. At present this control is exercised in terms of the Road Transportation Act of 1977. One of the problematic aspects of the relevant legislation is undoubtedly the fact that entry to the transport market is regulated on a commodity basis. This definitely makes matters difficult for carriers in the private sector. According to the new policy, proper consideration has been given to steps which are necessary for the transition from the restrictive permit system to the envisaged quality system.

The Bill under discussion was formulated against the background of the principles I have mentioned. This Bill is an essential instrument by which transition from the existing system to the new system will be effected. It provides inter alia for the reorganisation of transport and for the international co-ordination of transport.

Another important feature contained in clause 5 of the Bill is that it makes it possible to implement the deregulation of road transportation in relation to the following: Any class or classes of road transportation; any person or goods or class or classes of persons or goods conveyed by means of road transportation; road transportation within a particular area or within particular areas in the Republic; or any kind or class of motor vehicle or kinds or classes of motor vehicles used in road transportation.

In terms of the purport of the White Paper on National Transport Policy, the permit system prescribed by the Road Transportation Act, 1977, will be substituted by the road transport quality system as contained in the Road Traffic Bill which will regulate the transportation of goods. The proposed Passenger Transport Bill which has not yet been tabled will regulate the transportation of persons.

It is important to note that clause 5 of the Transport Deregulation Bill contains important provisos, namely: That new legislation on road traffic should first be accepted before deregulation of goods transport takes place, and that the envisaged legislation on passenger transport first be accepted before passenger transport can be deregulated. The Government decided that the process of deregulation should be phased in according to an improved implementation programme to ensure that the deregulation of road transport is effected in an orderly manner and that the disruption of the economy and the road transportation industry is kept to the minimum.

Clause 6 of the Bill provides that an agreement may be entered into with the government of another country or territory, whereby arrangements are made for the control and regulation of the transportation of persons or goods between the Republic and that country or territory. The purpose of this is, of course, to strive towards co-ordination and co-operation on a basis of uniform standards. Regulations may be made in terms of clause 7(1) to give effect to the provisions of any agreement entered into in terms of clause 6.

I wish to refer to clause 2 of the Bill once more. The Transport (Co-ordination) Act, 1948, is being repealed, but as part of the transition measures, the National Transport Commission will continue to exist. The National Transport Commission will gradually be relieved of its functions as the deregulation process regarding the regulation of road transport progresses. At present the National Transport Commission will only relinquish those functions which it performs in terms of the National Roads Act, 1971, the Urban Transport Act, 1977, and the National Road Safety Act, 1972. These powers will be delegated to the South African Roads Board. This is provided for in clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill.

I would like to emphasise that the Transport Deregulation Bill is intended as an instrument to bring about an orderly and flexible transition from the existing system to the new quality-based system of transport of goods and persons. The transport system is an extremely important subsystem of this country. For that reason the implementation of the new dispensation will have to be carefully and gradually proceeded with. To this end this Bill under discussion is indispensable.

One is aware of the criticism and fear expressed in many circles, that deregulation in the transport system could bring about chaos and also the lowering of standards. One often hears views expressed that road safety could be affected, that lives and property could be endangered. The Government has a duty to ensure that deregulation would not have worse effects than we are experiencing with regulation at present.

Those involved in the transport industry, such as the Public Carriers Association and Napto, have absolutely nothing to fear. They are maintaining high standards of vehicle quality and operator and driver efficiency. They have a distinct advantage over those others coming onto the market as a result of deregulation. I believe they are in the race already, because they have proved themselves. They just have to stay ahead in the driver’s seat.

Deregulation as a method to minimise Government interference in road transport and to allow easier entry into the market, will not determine the quality of road transport. The other measures envisaged will bring that about. Strict law enforcement of the transport quality system, as it would apply to the operator, driver and vehicle, would ensure road safety.

The Department of Transport knows that in many parts of the world deregulation also brought regrettable side-effects. We want to avoid that. For that reason we place great importance on the gradual phasing in of the process and on strict law enforcement. The implementation of deregulation must go hand in hand with proper quality control.

Lastly, we support deregulation, but we do not support hooliganism and/or lack of self-discipline on our roads, because we believe that too much is at stake. When we change things, we do it for the sake of trying to improve things in the country.

Mr Chairman, this Bill stems from the recommendations made by the National Transport Policy Study Steering Committee, as set out in the White Paper on National Transport Policy. It embodies the implementation of some of these recommendations which have been accepted by the Government and which are necessary to lay the foundation for the abolition of economic regulation as it is applied at present, and the substitution thereof by a quality system.

An important recommendation contained in the White Paper is that the permit system to which road transportation in the Republic is subject at present, be abolished as soon as certain financial inequities connected with involvement of the SATS in road transportation have been phased out and the road passenger and road freight quality systems have been implemented.

Furthermore, provision is made in the Bill for the continued application of Act 74 of 1977 in respect of road transportation which is undertaken from the Republic to another country or territory or from another country or territory over the territory of the Republic by means of motor vehicles registered outside the Republic. However, provision is also made for the conclusion of agreements with the governments of countries or territories according to which arrangements may be made for the control and regulation of the transportation of persons and goods between points within the Republic and points within those countries or territories.

In addition, the Bill makes provision for the Transport (Co-ordination) Act, Act 44 of 1948, to be repealed. The powers, functions and duties which are conferred upon the National Transport Commission by or under the National Roads Act, Act 54 of 1971, the National Road Safety Act, Act 9 of 1972 and the Urban Transport Act, Act 78 of 1977, will be exercised by the South African Road Board. Furthermore, movable or immovable property which, by virtue of these Acts referred to, have been acquired by the National Transport Commission, will be vested in the South African Roads Board.

In conclusion, the Bill makes provision for the continued existence of the National Transport Commission, consisting of as many members as the Minister may, from time to time, determine. Apart from the number of members, the Minister is empowered to reduce certain functions of the National Transport Commission and systematically to take away functions of the National Transport Commission until it no longer has any functions.

The joint committee effected a number of amendments and went through many memoranda and also heard oral evidence. The Passenger Transport Bill of 1988, which goes hand in hand with the present Bill, was submitted for comment to approximately 70 organisations.

Finally, I want to record my thanks and appreciation to the chairman of the joint committee and the Director-General and his staff for all the assistance given to us at the joint committee meetings.

Mr Chairman, I think that the hon the Deputy Minister has very ably amplified the contents of this Bill, as has the hon member for Umzinto. I am very pleased to see that the hon the Minister is in motion and that his administrative staff are really in action. Only last week we discussed the Roads Board Bill here, which is interrelated with this Transport Deregulation Bill and the Road Traffic Bill which is coming to this House shortly. The speed with which these Bills are coming to this House only goes to show that this hon Minister is really moving. We would like to see this Bill put into action as soon as possible.

We know very well the role played by the Local Road Transportation Board and the harm and the hatred it has caused in the past to operators as well as hauliers and road passenger services, and we are looking forward with a great deal of hope to the demise of this Road Transportation Board and the entrance of this new dimension in the transport business. The Bill provides for the opening up of opportunities and makes it easier for new operators entering the market. This is done with a view to ensuring the fairness of competition, which is a very healthy thing.

Deregulation and privatisation will certainly be of great advantage to South Africa, not only in the distant but also in the immediate future. With this we feel that the move adopted by the National Transport Commission has certainly been in the right direction.

This Bill also entitles the hon the Minister to deregulate transport and transfer certain functions of the National Transport Commission to the SA Roads Board. Of course the hon the Minister should be very pleased about that, because it will certainly relieve the National Transport Commission in respect of its contributions.

As I have just mentioned, with the new system which is going to be put into operation it is important for quality control and safety that these Bills be enacted. From opposition side there is no doubt that this will be so with regard to the operators as well as the department. We fully support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, this Bill also emanates from the policy study carried out by the National Study Steering Committee, which was duly approved by Parliament in 1987. This Bill repeals the Transport (Co-ordination) Act of 1948 and it provides for the continued functioning of the National Transport Commission. However, various functions and duties of the National Transport Commission will be transferred to the South African Roads Board. Thereby the South African Roads Board becomes another statutory board under the Department of Transport.

The Bill also makes provision for certain of its immovable properties registered in the name of the National Transport Commission to vest in the South African Roads Board. There will be a gradual transfer of property and assets and one of the conditions of this transfer will be that the South African Roads Board will not be called upon to pay any transfer duty or any fees insofar as the transfer of those assets from the National Transport Commission to the South African Roads Board is concerned.

The other Acts that will be repealed are the National Roads Act of 1971, the National Road Safety Act of 1972 and the Urban Transport Act of 1977. Immediately after this Bill has been approved as an Act, all the functions and duties involved will be conferred upon the South African Roads Board.

I think the hon the Deputy Minister of Transport Affairs has fully explained all the provisions of this Bill. It is the policy of the Department of Transport, in order to update all the Bills, to introduce a new set of Bills. I think this is, in effect, a very good Bill insofar as deregulation is concerned. We in the Peoples Party of South Africa have no objection whatsoever to approving this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I listened carefully to what the hon the Deputy Minister had to say about the Bill. Let me say at once that although I do not agree with the hon the Deputy Minister in many respects, I do not disbelieve a word of what he said this afternoon. I am satisfied that the hon the Deputy Minister did not in any way mislead this House because, of course, it is known that anyone who misleads a House of Parliament is thrown out immediately unless, of course, he is dealing with scum.

There are no scum in this House and we naturally accept the assurances given to us by the hon the Deputy Minister of Transport Affairs. As I say, I am certain that he will never attempt to tell any lie in any Chamber in this tricameral Parliament, no matter what issue he is discussing at any particular time, unlike certain other gentlemen in other respects.

Up to 1948 we did have segregation in the field of transportation. Those of us who come from Durban know that there was segregation. However, there was no segregation at all in the Cape. It was in 1948, when the Nationalists came to power, that they introduced segregation holus bolus throughout the country. They made it compulsory and thereby generated so much inter-racial friction which resulted in so much hatred on the part of those who where not White directed against the Whites that it has done the country immeasurable harm. That was an example of overregulation. Overregulation of any kind is stupid, and that kind of overregulation was stupid. It did tremendous harm to the country, and now we have deregulation.

What happened was that in Chatsworth, which to a large extent was developed as a result of the removal of populations from Cato Manor and other parts of Durban, due to the implementation of the Group Areas Act, a railway line was placed on the spine, almost at one end of Chatsworth, with the result that motor bus transportation became more and more necessary. However, the Railways administration kept objecting to additional permits being granted to the private operators and as a result of matters having being taken to court on numerous occasions, the notorious section 28 of Act 74 of 1977 was passed. In terms of that section the Local Road Transportation Board in Durban and the National Transport Commission endeavoured to remove all the privately owned buses in Chatsworth.

This eventually resulted in the important case of Bangtoo vs The National Transport Commission. Had it not been for the judgment of the two judges, Henning and Leon, in the Natal Provincial Division, every one of those private buses would have been removed from Chatsworth and the public would have been made to suffer tremendous hardship due to overregulation. The sad part of it is that a part of this overregulation has since then limited the number of passenger transport buses which may be used in that area, as a consequence of which the public still suffers a disability. Once deregulation is implemented properly and privatisation comes into effect satisfactorily, the public will benefit.

South Korea is one of the economic giants of the world today and in terms of motor carrier transportation, there are no stringent regulations. Anyone who can afford the price of a bus, provided that he satisfies police regulations, is entitled to operate a bus or a taxi, or whatever. What do we have? We have a different kind of situation. We have the kind of situation where in terms of section 28 the Chetty brothers of Pietermaritzburg were robbed of their birthright. Their bus transportation undertaking was taken away and when they sought to apply for bus transportation into the new area of Northdale, into which they had moved, they were still robbed.

This is one of the ugly things that the Nationalist Government has done since it came to power. The Chetty brothers have, however, not yet received redress. Unfortunately not even this Bill will bring about that redress. I leave that to the conscience of the hon the Minister.

I am glad that the hon the Minister and his colleagues are moving away from the naked, wicked racism which has obsessed this country for the last 40 years. To the extent that they are moving away from racism, we shall support them. To the extent that privatisation is going to be accelerated, we shall support them.

South Africa is a country in which the ordinary entrepreneur must be given reasonable opportunity—albeit not free rein. South Africa is a country in which the shackles which have chained the entrepreneurs who are not White, must be removed. The Bill will go, to some extent, towards removing that.

Of course, a great deal of power will be vested in the hon the Minister and his Deputy Minister. We trust they will use that power sensibly and intelligently in order to promote further progress, and not to retard development in this country.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister has amplified the objectives of this Bill and I must admire the hon member for Reservoir Hills for referring to the defects of the present transportation regulations in the country.

This Transportation Deregulation Bill actually deregulates the existing transport regulations insofar as goods and passenger transport are concerned. This Bill, as one of a package consisting of a number of Bills as set out in the Government’s White Paper, completely overhauls the transportation system in South Africa. The policy is based on the Government’s broader principles and broader national goals, taking into account the political, social and economic developments in the country.

One of the Government’s prime objectives is the provision of co-ordinated, safe and reliable transport. The Bill purports to do the following. Firstly, the abolition of the permit system to which road transport is subject at present. Secondly, it encourages private enterprise and free competition by removing economic control, reducing administrative costs and minimising Government intervention. It furthers private initiative by encouraging small business development and participation in transport, including opportunities for all race groups.

The success of the whole operation will depend largely on the following principles. Firstly, the organisation of transport in relation to the freight and passenger policy within the new Government structures. May I mention at this stage, as was quite rightly mentioned by the hon member for Reservoir Hills, that this largely depends on the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister. Secondly, it removes restrictions on the question of who transports how much, what commodities, from where to where, by what mode and at what price. The costs of facilities and resources should be shared equally by the users. Public safety must be protected and operative quality should be ensured.

As far as passenger transport is concerned, the market should determine what passenger services are to be provided, by whom and the need for subsidised services. Here, however, I must sound a note of caution, namely that as regards the request for deregulation the Government must not overlook its obligation to those commuters who have been placed far away from their places of work in terms of the Government’s ideological policy of separate development. The transport costs and needs of such employees should be subsidised.

The co-ordination of transport in Southern Africa—between South Africa and the TBVC states, namely Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei, as well as Lesotho and Swaziland—is a very sensitive issue. I refer to co-ordination between the states. Co-operation across borders must be encouraged. Agreements should be mutual so that quality systems can be maintained.

Much has been said about this Bill. I believe that a start has been made and that it has been a good start for the transport industry in this country, particularly in respect of deregulation which affects the small businessman. He is being given an opportunity to operate and make a contribution, while making a profit for himself.

In the Bill transport quality systems are assured, and we hope that this whole exercise will benefit the country. I therefore welcome this Bill.

Mr Chairman, all the hon members on this side of the House fully support and welcome this Bill. In a country and in an age when one has a division of society into First and Third World situations, where one has the formal and informal sectors and where the Third World and the informal sector are stifled by regulations; where the giant grows and as a result of laws and regulations the entry of the small man is thwarted in his efforts to play a role in the economic upliftment of the country, such Bills are of vital importance.

I would not say that this is only a deregulation Bill or merely a matter of rationalisation. It is part and parcel of the reform processes in this country. I think that the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister of this department, together with all the officials, should be complimented on the speed with which this administration acted after Parliament passed the other Bill last week.

When I say that this is part and parcel of the reform movement, this deregulation exercise enables those who belong to the have-nots to play a vital role in the transport industry. The members of the Indian community also played a role in the opening up of South Africa, not only in the field of passenger transport but also in the field of goods transport. Some of the pioneers in this country who played a role in the opening up of South Africa from the East to the West in the field of passenger transport and also in respect of the delivery and marketing of goods and essential supplies in the remotest parts of South Africa, were members of the Indian community. Therefore when efforts were made by the State some 10 to 15 years ago to remove the small transport operator—mainly members of the Indian community—there was a giant reaction which resulted, as was stated in this House this afternoon, in the famous Bangtoo vs The National Transport Commission case.

We have had numerous complaints. Representations were made to the Minister of Transport and to the National Transport Commission in respect of the problems which our Indian transport operators were experiencing from time to time. I am glad that as a result of the efforts of the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs, the problems of our long-distance hauliers appear to be over.

Of course, we indicated that when one is considering an application for a permit, the ultimate and most important factor that must be taken into consideration is the comfort and the convenience of the public. I mentioned in this House two years ago that I was satisfied from the experiences that we had had in the resettlement townships, that applications for permits were not conceded on the basis of the convenience of the commuters. That is why the combi operator emerged in this country. There is no doubt about the fact that it was as a result of excessive regulation and the inability of the transport boards that were in charge of issuing permits that Blacks—especially in the townships—suffered to such an extent that they decided to provide the transport themselves for the convenience of the huge Black communities in this country.

I know that at the time we were subjected to exploitation. At the same time there were certain members of the legal profession who saw fertile ground in this to exploit the people. I am aware that certain members of the legal fraternity in my community fragmented associations. Rather than having one body, they had a unit 7 association, a unit 3 association, a unit 5A association and a unit 5B association so that they could charge very high fees. I am given to understand that the famous Bangtoo vs The National Transport Commission case was won by the Indian transport operators with costs. Ten years have elapsed since this famous case and I understand that the real operators do not know where the costs went.

[Inaudible.]

We are not asking for any comments. We are not asking anybody about who is wearing the cap. We are not casting any aspersions on any hon member of this House. [Interjections.] What I want to say is that there are some members of my community who were failures in the elections but they found the offices of the local transport board where they had breakfast, lunch and supper. They ate, drank and slept there, thriving on these people who did not have a Western education but who played a vital role in providing the much-needed transport for our people.

I want to issue a word of caution. Rationalisation is a good thing and so is deregulation, but one must remember the disadvantages of too much deregulation. In this incompatibility between too little freedom and much restraint will lie the cause of the subsequent history of this country. We do not want chaos. We do not want deregulation if it means the sacrifice of proper coordination. If we ask for excessive deregulation it will mean the survival of the fittest in this country. In the economic field the White giants are destroying the small men. The saving of South Africa depends on the extent to which we promote and encourage the small man in the informal sector and the people of the Third World to grow.

In the transport field especially, we have had bitter experiences with the giants. With deregulation the giants will continue to grow and the small man will be stifled. We stated at some stage that the small man could not survive because of excessive regulations.

I want to state our standpoint very clearly this afternoon. We do not want total deregulation. We want a situation where co-ordination in the transport industry, be it the transport of goods or persons, is an absolute necessity. We cannot sacrifice our effort to call for deregulation in order to promote the small man and we cannot engage in any exercise where he is destroyed altogether.

I want to place on record that I am glad the hon the Deputy Minister indicated that we are in a transition period. This transition period must not only be a transition from the era of too much regulation to the era of deregulation. This transition period must also be a period of trial. After this transition period we shall have to take stock to find out whether we are moving in the right direction.

Mr Chairman, I want to start off by referring to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council who was the last speaker. Not only did he positively support the legislation before us, but he also issued a word of caution here and there.

I also issued a word of caution in my speech. I said right from the outset that although we were very much in favour of deregulation, we certainly did not want to create chaos in South Africa. After all, we know of certain countries which have also started deregulation. They sometimes did this in a haphazard manner, with the result that there was a lowering of standards. We certainly do not want that to happen in South Africa.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council also told us that we should remember the disadvantages of too much regulation. We accept his words of warning. He also made the point that it was going to be the survival of the fittest. He expressed the fear that the giants would grow and the small entrepreneur would not progress as we would like him to do.

I believe that the giants in transport will not compete with the small man in the sense that the giant entrepreneur goes about his job by signing contracts. That is the first point. Secondly, there is not only one giant as far as transport is concerned. I think there are a number of giants that are undercutting one another. They are also competing against one another. However, the main objective of deregulation has been and will always be to bring in the small man.

The hon member for Springfield raised a point with regard to the old system of permits.

I never made a speech.

It was the hon member for Reservoir Hills!

I do not blame the hon the Deputy Minister for confusing us. We are very much alike!

The point is that people applied for permits. They could object to permits. One interested party could object to the application of a competitor. That gave rise to the situation where we were spending approximately R60 million to R80 million annually on court cases and legal fees in order to get hold of permits. Surely, when one is going to move away from that and see to it that everybody gets a chance to enter the transport market, the small man will obviously get a better chance that he has had up to now. Deregulation in this sense will be to the advantage of the small man.

He will not be able to contract for his price, because he will also get the small man to come to him to ask for his services. That will be done on the basis of negotiation. However, there will also be other smaller entrepreneurs in the field of transport and they will compete against each other. In the end there will be no restrictions as to how far and what they will be able to transport. I think in this sense the whole market situation will protect the small man, because he will not go for big contracts, and at the same time the giants will see to it that they get hold of the bigger contracts.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is perfectly right in saying that we should see to it that the transition period also becomes a trial period. Firstly, we can learn from the experience and the mistakes made by other countries, and at the same time, we can learn from our own mistakes, but we hope to eliminate mistakes as far as possible. I thank the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council for his remarks in this regard.

The hon member for Merebank also made the point about giving small businessmen a chance. I accept his advice in this regard. The hon member also made the point about people who are living far away from their places of employment and said that we should look at the possibility of subsidies. We have stated on numerous occasions that the idea is eventually to phase out the subsidy system, but at the same time subsidies will be paid—and this will be dealt with in other Bills which will come before this House later on—openly and at the lowest level of government, closest to the people of the country. It will not be done, as it is presently done, by the top level of government. Quite obviously representations will have to be made to the Administrators, but certainly, as long as the National Transport Commission has that power, it will look after subsidies.

I can therefore reply that as regards the continuation of the subsidies, this responsibility will be met. Initially stability will be maintained by way of firm contracts and when these contracts end, the intention is to have contracts concluded on the basis of competitive tender contracts. The hon member will get the details thereof when we deal with the Passenger Transport Bill at a later stage and he will then see how it will all work.

I have to a certain extent replied to the hon member for Reservoir Hills, but I was very glad to hear him say that he would not disbelieve the hon the Minister or the hon the Deputy Minister and that he accepted our assurances.

I wish I could say that of other people as well.

I want to thank the hon member. I want to tell him that we are in the very fortunate position that we have a White Paper with which to comply. We cannot go beyond that White Paper. We can perhaps do a little less than what the White Paper says. To a certain extent we therefore have a blueprint before the country when it comes to transport. We may, however, become enthusiastic about the situation and perhaps say a little too much, in the sense of giving one’s imagination free rein. Otherwise we have the White Paper, and as far as we possibly can, we are going to fulfil our commitment in the White Paper.

The hon member also raised the question of there being been no segregation before 1948 and overregulation afterwards, and that we are now moving away from racism. When the hon member makes the point that overregulation is stupid, I must tell him that circumstances also change. The Road Transportation Act was never aimed at being a racial regulation. What has happened is that the emphasis as regards modes of transport has shifted. As far as the alleged treatment of the Chetty Brothers is concerned, I would like to invite the hon member to submit details concerning this particular issue to me and we will go into this and see what we can do about it.

Thank you.

I thank the hon member for Reservoir Hills for his contribution in this regard.

The hon member for Havenside also made the point about the Local Road Transportation Boards and referred to this as the demise of the old system. He expressed the hope that it would open up new opportunities. I agree with the hon member because I do believe that this Transport Deregulation Bill will certainly open up more opportunities. I thank the hon member for his support. The hon member for Umzinto again explained to us in his normal efficient manner what the Bill entailed. He also paid tribute to the Joint Committee.

I would like to conclude by reiterating that this is a piece of legislation to which the joint committee paid considerable attention. Quite a number of good amendments were passed and I believe in clause 5 we have an example of what the committee was able to do, and in fact did. None of the provisions dealing with the quality system will come into operation unless certain laws are passed. I believe that that will give those who are involved in the industry the assurance that it will not come about in a haphazard manner, and secondly that they can trust this, because we have given them our bona fides by amending the Bill so that they will know that this will not come about without our having first passed the Passenger Transport Bill as well as the Road Traffic Bill.

I thank the hon member once again, and I believe it is an important piece of legislation that we are putting on the Statute Books. Certainly transport, in the end, will benefit from it. The moment we have all the other Bills passed we will see the whole picture evolve before our eyes and we will see that transport will occupy its rightful place.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, this Bill serves to bring about certain improvements with regard to housing for the Black communities. The entire Bill hinges on a particular aspect. I quote from the memorandum:

Mr Chairman, I think something of the order of 107 000 such leases have been affected. I think this will contribute towards the betterment of the Black community insofar as housing is concerned. We on this side of the House have no objection whatsoever to lending our approval to the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to enter the debate on this Bill by welcoming the Bill on behalf of this side of the House. As a matter of fact, Mr Chairman, I speak for you as a member of the committee. This piece of legislation which has been introduced, contains a large number of amendments aimed at bringing into line certain irregularities which have been occurring in so far as leasehold properties and other matters are concerned.

One very important factor emerges from this piece of legislation before us, namely that the provisions of the previous Bill were in conflict with the common law. One found that houses for Black people were built on land that was owned by a particular person and that the boards built the houses and leased them without having anything to do with land. One cannot divorce the land from the house; the two are part and parcel of the same package. This Bill is intended to address that issue. In so doing, it is stated in the memorandum to the Bill that:

This was a peculiar arrangement that was in conflict with the principle that buildings on land were part of the land and therefore the property of the landowner.

Therefore, this Bill really addresses that issue, and I think it is a welcome Bill. It has been established from surveys that have been conducted that there are some 271 000 such cases in our rural areas where these people are being affected. We hope that this Bill will now address those cases and that it will remove these difficulties to which these people are being subjected. We on this side of the House take pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, as has been said, this Bill, the Conversion of Certain Rights to Leasehold Bill, which pertains to the Black community, was subjected to very extensive discussion in the standing committee. Before I elaborate on one or two of the issues before us, I must compliment the officials of the department, through the hon the Minister, for agreeing to change very drastically some of the measures which came before us in the standing committee. This goes to show that consensus politics can work, although they do not really directly involve themselves, and I am glad that they were able to see that we were fighting for the rights of a community that was not represented either at standing committee level or in this Parliament. We wanted a Bill which would protect their rights.

The Urban Foundation and the Small Business Development Corporation also wrote in and raised objections to their legal right, even in terms of the old leasehold right, and for this reason major changes were made to the Bill. In fact, we had to adjourn at one particular stage to have the law advisers approve the changes that we made in the standing committee.

The ideal situation in this country would be not to go along amending regulations and bringing about new leasehold rights, but rather to give the Black community the same freehold property rights which every other community enjoys. At the present time, however, this Bill is intended to rectify an existing situation and in fact to make it more favourable towards the lessee. Therefore the hon the Minister wanted to do away with the regulations which existed and hon members will see that 29 notices which deal with regulations, are being repealed.

One of the main causes of concern was that it was felt that a lot of power was being given to the secretary who was going to investigate certain issues in respect of the affected sites. In this particular case it was agreed not to investigate only one area, but all the sites in the area concerned.

The other issue was—and this was a major change—that the Administrator’s decision was final. The Minister and his department agreed that appeals could now be made to the highest court if they did not agree with the Administrator’s decision. The Bill therefore again ensured that the rights of the Black community would be protected to a greater extent.

The other important issue raised by the Urban Foundation, who were not called in but were asked for their views on this issue—in fact, the standing committee with the officials went far beyond what the Urban Foundation really wanted—was protection of the existing right of the lessee. I think we have done tremendously well in that the following proviso is incorporated in clause 6(1) of the Bill:

This particular clause was of concern in that if the garnishee order issue—which is in another Bill—came about, it could be used as a vehicle. This clause now, in fact, protects the rights which they have.

The other question referred to delegation. It was pointed out that in all the previous laws that we had in this country the secretaries of the old departments had a lot of power. In this case the secretary may use his power unilaterally. It is entrenched in the Bill that in future he may only delegate some of the powers with the approval of the Administrator. Thus we have a protection clause in that particular section.

In all, I believe that in the circumstances the ideal would be that they should have the same rights as every other citizen in this country. Because we already have a leasehold system, and in order to get rid of all the old regulations and to make it easier for the lessee and lessor to operate, the hon the Minister wanted these changes to be effected in the hope that at some stage we would have an Act that would give them a much better right in this country. We on this side support the Bill. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, we always say that when the Government needs a hammering we are the people who administer it. When the Government does not deserve a hammering, however, we do not do it. In this case I am pleased to be able to say that the NP Government, in fact, is trying to undo an evil that started in 1926.

When the Urban Areas Act was passed, the NP Government was not in power. In 1926 the evil began. As a result of that original irregularity, to which the hon member for Mariannhill referred—it was a gross irregularity—it was made illegal for Black South Africans to own land in the urban areas. Only those who owned land at that stage could continue to hold and own their properties.

Therefore they were squatters, Mr Chairman, until, to begin with, they were granted so-called tenure and leasehold rights. In fact, these leasehold rights were not leasehold rights at all. They were merely, as the memorandum states, the right to erect dwellings upon land which belonged to, or was under the control of, the municipalities or, what used to be called in those days, the Native Administration Boards which later became the Administration Boards.

After the Soweto problem of 16 June 1976 the Urban Foundation was created. I think credit must be given here to three people—Harry Oppenheimer, Jan Steyn and Anton Rupert—who started a move, not at the political level but at a completely nonpolitical level, to try and help in the urbanisation of Black South Africans who were already living in the urban areas but who were denied freehold title.

As a consequence of that, various wrongful pieces of legislation have been repealed, and Black South Africans are now entitled to have freehold title, with the one terrible drawback that the Group Areas Act still militates against proper “free hold” title. It is freehold, but not “free” hold, in that the right of movement which is inalienable to any human being is denied by the Group Areas Act. Of course, however, that is another story.

The present story is that, as has been mentioned, there are some 271 000 South African citizens—decent, hardworking, law-abiding people—who own property, but do not own the land on which that property stands. The purpose of this Bill is to authorise the entitlement to leasehold of that land.

I trust that the hon the Deputy Minister, who is a reasonable, forward-looking young man—I shall not give him a label in case that label militates against him in another House of this Parliament—will have understanding. I know that he has compassion and consideration for the plight of the persons who are adversely affected. This Bill ought eventually to lead to freehold title of the land to which leasehold is going to be granted.

The Conversion of Certain Rights to Leasehold Bill is a one-off Bill. It will apply to those 271 000 people, and because of that, special arrangements have been made. Those Black South Africans, for purposes of getting the leasehold, will in fact enjoy certain advantages not available to other South Africans. However, because they were disadvantaged in the past, it is right that they should get those additional benefits. We therefore take great pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the White, Coloured and Indian communities are encouraging the site-and-service scheme at present as a result of the Government’s new policy in respect of financing housing in South Africa. However, there is one credit to our participation in the House of Delegates in the South African Parliament, and that is that we do not represent the interests of the Indian community only. We ensure that the cause of those who are not also represented in Parliament is also protected.

In 1951 the South African Parliament passed the Black Building Workers Act, the purpose of which was to train Black artisans in the building industry—as a result of the policy prevailing at the time—in their own townships. Therefore I want to say that the site-and-service scheme actually started in the Black townships. Of course, there—as is the case in respect of the Bill with which we are dealing—it was a question of the conversion of certain rights to leasehold.

What South Africa needs in its efforts to establish proper stability in this country and to counteract the revolutionary climate and also to fight communism, is what I would describe as a property-owning democracy. In 1951 the Black Building Workers Act was passed. Four years later, the Government encouraged the site-and-service scheme in the Black townships on a large scale. Owners were encouraged to build and they were given incentives such as a leasehold of 30 years with a right of renewal.

One of the most significant reform movements in this country since 28 August 1984 until the present day was the repeal of the influx control laws in 1986. As a result of this we had the Government’s White Paper on Orderly Urbanisation. I do not think this referred to Blacks only but it referred to orderly urbanisation for all the sectors of South Africa’s population. With this urbanisation programme one has to cater for the housing needs of all the sections of South Africa’s population on a basis of equality, irrespective of race, colour or creed.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills made reference to the fact that certain concessions will be given to the Black community because they were denied the right of leasehold for a considerable period of time. If there are going to be changes at no charge to the Black occupants of those dwellings, the members of other communities must not complain because they were not subjected to the disadvantages which members of the Black community were subjected to at the time.

The legal definition of a premises or a property is that it means the land and whatever is on the land. In our major urban areas one cannot construct a housing scheme for Indians next to a Black residential area. One could do that ten years ago but today one cannot plan and provide the infrastructure in areas where Blacks are residing because they want the type of facilities and housing that the other sectors of the South African population enjoy nowadays.

My colleague the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has just spoken in the House of Representatives on this particular Bill and I think it would be significant to quote parts of his speech. He stated this afternoon:

This last point is most important with respect to other Bills which we are discussing in this House. The hon the Minister said further:

The hon the Minister said further:

These local government bodies can then take the decisions in respect of the improvement of quality of life of the people they represent.

As I indicated earlier on, these people, amongst others, were the first to be given the opportunity to carry out this programme and to put into effect the site-and-service schemes which we are only now beginning to introduce into our townships. It is only fair that they do not reside in properties on a leasehold basis. The leasehold, as was stated this afternoon, should be converted to freehold.

Essentially the content of this Bill deals with certain aspects. Firstly, it deals with the conversion of the rights of occupation of dwellings, business premises and sites to leasehold; secondly, the substitution of permits for the renting of dwellings and business premises for ordinary agreements of lease and thirdly, the repeal of a comprehensive set of regulations which presently regulates the weal and woe of the inhabitants of the relevant townships.

This piece of legislation that we are dealing with is a consequence of Parliament’s decision to repeal the pass laws. After Parliament had repealed the pass laws, even the strongest adversaries of the Government—we even had a reaction from Dr Beyers Naude—commented that these reforms could not be dismissed as being merely cosmetic. The passing of this piece of legislation is an extension of the reform movement that is taking place in this country.

I have indicated that the reform movement should not only proceed in a constitutional direction. It should also proceed in a social, economic and educational direction. The overnight repeal of the influx laws changed the socio-economic pattern of the South African community, especially the Black community. However, repealing the pass laws while allowing other restraints to remain on the Statute Books, could make the repeal meaningless. It could also create frustration. By considering the change of this law this afternoon, we are making the repeal of the pass laws more meaningful and effective. We therefore support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I wish to thank the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, as well as other hon members for participating in this debate. I also wish to thank them for their support as far as this Bill is concerned.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council correctly referred to what the hon the Minister had said in the other House this afternoon with regard to this particular Bill. However, I would like to add one thing to what the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has said. This point has also been addressed in this Bill, and it deals with the question of the so-called informal sector.

In this Bill provision is made for the informal sector to develop and play its role in terms of the free enterprise system in South Africa as a whole. It is common knowledge that a comprehensive informal sector has already been developed in the townships. It was estimated that in 1986, for instance, despite attempts at control, there were 800 000 informal enterprises comprising 30% to 40% of all economic activity in the Black townships.

In terms of the present Government policy on socio-economic reform, informal economic activities must be stimulated, because they are an inexpensive and natural way of job creation. In a modern economy, commerce cannot only operate in a legal vacuum. There should naturally be essential control measures, depending on the needs of the communities concerned. I believe that whereas this issue is also addressed in this Bill, we can look forward to promoting the informal sector in the Black townships.

I would like to agree with the hon member for Reservoir Hills in this connection. He has apologised for not being present at the moment due to other business, but I would like to agree with him regarding the fact that through this Bill some 270 000 occupiers can acquire more rights concerning the occupation of their homes. I want to thank hon members for their support, especially the hon member Mr Thaver and the hon member for Mariannhill.

The hon member for Red Hill referred to what the standing committee did in this regard. I would like to add to what he has said and also express my thanks to the standing committee for the amendments introduced to clauses 2, 6 and 11, rephrasing them to provide that the rights of those who might possibly be affected are being protected in a proper way, and also for the fact that a statutory appeal has been introduced in clause 3.

I have already referred to what the hon member for Reservoir Hills said. May I just add, in connection with the point he made about the history of the measures being addressed here, that I think it is important to note that there was a time when the presence of Blacks in the Black townships was seen as a temporary one. Therefore in those days measures were related to their temporary presence. Once their permanence was accepted, of course, the picture changed. I believe what we have in front of us today is also confirmation of the fact that this is an important step towards full ownership in the final instance. In that regard, I agree with the hon member, but we must see this as an important interim step in order to promote the normalisation of the whole process.

It is agreed that the next step should be complete freehold. Unfortunately, that can only be done once the township registers have been opened to make it possible. In the meantime we had to take this step in order to expedite the process. I think this is therefore a very important step to provide for the rights of township residents and to improve their situation. I therefore believe we can all support this and I again thank hon members who participated for their support for this Bill this afternoon.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, this Bill is intended to provide that members of the Regional Services Council Association be represented in the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs and in the action committee of that Council; to provide for certain administrative work to be performed by officers in the public service; and to provide for matters connected therewith.

The Promotion of Local Government Affairs Act, 1983, has brought about tremendous change in the sphere of local government in South Africa and can therefore be regarded as one of the most important pieces of legislation in this field. The single most important fact is that in dealing with the establishment of the co-ordinating council, this has brought everybody concerned with local government around a table. This, to my mind, can be looked upon as a hallmark in the field of local government as well as in respect of reforms in this country. The mere fact that so many changes have been made already, that today we are again required to deal with proposed amendments, is indicative of the process of reform also at local government level. The draft Bill deals with a number of proposed changes to the definition of “local authority”, which have become necessary primarily because of new legislation for which my colleagues in the House of Assembly and the House of Representatives have been responsible in 1987.

Now that the regional services councils have become an established fact and have organised themselves into an association, it follows that that body must now also be allowed representation on the co-ordinating council. While there can be no argument about this, one begins to wonder whether it is becoming so big that its effectiveness as a representative body of local government might suffer. I think that this points towards rationalisation and hopefully the committee which is looking at uniform local government legislation at this moment, will come forward with recommendations which will result in a more rationalised local government structure in South Africa.

Lastly, the draft Bill deals with a proposed amendment which should improve the arrangements regarding the performance of administrative work, which I think speaks for itself, within the ambit of local government. The proposed amendments are necessary and in keeping with the advancement in local government spheres. With this I take this opportunity of fully supporting this measure.

Mr Chairman, as regards the Promotion of Local Government Affairs Amendment Bill, my party does not support separate local authorities along ethnic lines. We believe that all ratepayers and taxpayers should enjoy the same benefits on a common voters’ roll at local government level, and that is our principal stand.

However, this Bill is relevant to a previous Act of Parliament; Act 91 of 1983. Unfortunately we were not a party to this Act and therefore these amendments are consequential amendments and they are necessary to make that Act work properly.

Having said that, I want to refer to the first amendment, concerning the definition of “local authority”. It is well-known that today many little groups of LAC’s or management committees have suddenly become local authorities in terms of the definition. That is something which we cannot accept. We have opposed it before and we still do not support such a principle.

There also is a further amendment of the demarcation board for local authorities, where it is provided that public officers such as officers of the provincial administration will now be able to participate and administer demarcation in their area of jurisdiction. We do not oppose this Bill, as I said. In principle we do not support certain issues. However, this is only an amendment and we do not oppose it.

Mr Chairman, I also want to place on record that I have stated during a debate on the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning in this House that this side of the House also has no disagreement with hon members on that side of the House in respect of our directions in matters relating to local government. However, one cannot ignore the status quo. One cannot ignore the facts of history. At the same time, when we are prepared to accept a pragmatic and reformist approach, we cannot afford to be purists or pundits.

One of the finest exercises, notwithstanding the Government’s present policy towards local government, was the getting together of individuals and organisations from the first, second and third tiers of government, firstly in a non-statutory, loose arrangement. In this regard I want to place on record the Herculean task which the present hon Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning faced in trying to get people to accept that there were changes in this country and in trying to get together people who believed that changes were not taking place fast enough. One had two streams of opinion—the extremes—and fortunately, this exercise succeeded. The provincial administrations, the municipal associations, the provincial local authority associations, our LAC associations, the management committee associations, the other bodies, and the central Government finally brought into being a statutory body called the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs.

This particular Bill actually entails a consequential amendment whereby, when any new local government body is created, it is obvious that this new structure should be represented on the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs. Of course people sometimes complain, when one decides to define a local affairs committee as a local government body or local authority, that they are not really a local authority. However, I believe that recently some LAC members demanded of their municipalities that since they had passed a resolution introducing pensions for members of local authorities, they should also be regarded as local authorities. Therefore, it cuts both ways. There is thus a disadvantage to a certain extent, as well as an advantage. However, I think there are advantages in amending the definition to include these structures.

I want to say that we are in a transitional phase. As the hon the State President has indicated, there is no end to a reform process and there is no end to change. However, we must also concede that from the time when changes in the local authorities took place, there has been progress despite the fact that some hon members of this House opposed the Regional Services Councils Bill at that time.

I want to say that we are praying that the regional services councils in Natal will be established as quickly as possible because from the experiences that our hon colleagues are having in the Transvaal, we find that we are being placed in a disadvantageous position. We therefore want the regional services councils in Natal to be established as quickly as possible and I hope that with the arrival of the new hon Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning we shall at least have one or two regional services councils established in the province of Natal by December.

It is only logical that one cannot accommodate all the regional services councils in this very important body on which everyone from all race groups and representing all shades of opinion, is represented. There is a flow of ideas from the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs, and these ideas result in legislation being tabled in Parliament. They are not something which the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning decides upon himself.

Therefore, since this is a logical consequence of the creation of the regional services councils and since the status of certain local government bodies is being improved—I refer, for example, to Law No 1 of 1979, which was passed by the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council, and to the community councils established under the Community Councils Act, 1977—and is being altered, they may not necessarily satisfy our ideals from an ideological point of view, but they do nevertheless represent changes. They are improvements and therefore there is a need to define them as local authorities, particularly from the point of view of the hon the Minister of Finance giving enough money for them to qualify for pensions. [Interjections.] We welcome this Bill as an important step in our reform movement in this country.

Mr Chairman, again I should like to thank hon members for their support, especially the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, as well as my colleague the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture, and the hon member for Southern Natal. As far as the Bill itself is concerned, I took note of his opposition concerning certain relevant matters in terms of his principles and viewpoints on this matter.

As the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council indicated, in the first instance, clause 1 of this Bill deals mainly with consequential amendments that followed from amendments to other Bills at an earlier stage and the transfer of powers. Clause 2 refers to the closer co-ordination that should come about between the regional services councils and the local authorities through representation on the Co-ordinating Council and the Action Committee of the Co-ordinating Council. We believe that the perception that might have arisen, that the Regional Services Councils are a different level of authority, could be done away with. Representation for regional services councils on the Co-ordinating Council is a very important step and provision has to be made for such representation.

I think it is important to note, and I agree with the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, that the regional services councils are playing a very important role wherever they have been instituted. I should like to agree with him as far as his suggestions in connection with Natal are concerned. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council also knows what our problems are regarding the sensitivity of this issue in Natal. He has imposed a certain obligation on me in this regard and if he can assist in promoting the idea in Natal I would be grateful.

That refers to the amendments as far as clause 2 and consequently clause 3 are concerned. The amendment in clause 4 only provides for secretarial services to be rendered by government institutions other than the Department of Development and Planning. I think this will only make it easier, otherwise officials from the department might have to travel on numerous occasions to different places in the country to attend such meetings. It makes it easier in that regard if officials from other Government institutions can also provide those services. I thank hon members for their support.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill is a very lengthy one. It introduces amendments to the Marketable Securities Tax Act of 1948, the Transfer Duty Act of 1949, the Estate Duty Act of 1955, the Stamp Duties Act of 1968 and the Sales Tax Act of 1978.

There is a complete explanatory memorandum on this Bill, and if we were to deal with the 48 clauses it would take us the whole afternoon. I personally support the amendments; they are necessary and in keeping with the hon the Minister’s Budget Address and various amendments to taxation laws. This has become necessary, and we have no problem in supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, my colleague normally has a very easy passage in this House as far as these Bills are concerned, and this is simply because the proposed Bill is born out of the experience of the Ministry. Certain adjustments are necessary, as are certain improvements to and deletions from the Bill, particularly in view of the future taxation envisaged by the hon the Minister.

I do want to say that I recognise and acknowledge that the Ministry of Finance is very co-operative with the trust properties etc which are solely for religious and educational purposes. This is one of the very sincere and heartwarming aspects of communities which, from the very early days, formed trusts—educational and religious trusts—so that churches, temples, mosques and other religious places of worship could continue on their own steam, as it were.

Therefore the best opportunities in which these institutions or religious organisations indulged were in respect of the acquisition of property—property for the sole purpose of gaining rental return which would in turn look after the financial needs of religious institutions. Therefore I say that I am very appreciative of the fact that the Ministry continues to give recognition to the requirements of religious institutions.

When properties were first built, the trust owning these properties let them out to individuals or companies on a rental basis, that then traded in those properties. Therefore, in effect it is not the religious institution which is trading, but its tenants. Very recently there has been some very deep scrutiny of these institutions by the Commissioner for Inland Revenue—and quite rightly so.

However, where the bona fides of these institutions are unquestionable, I believe the Ministry should continue giving these exemptions from taxes under section 10(1) (f) or whatever to these institutions. I should like to make that particularly clear, since in these days of expenditure, in order to maintain religious institutions it is absolutely necessary that the properties of such institutions be exempt from tax.

I also wish to refer to properties held in trust as the result of an individual who has left properties in the will to heirs and others. Whilst I appreciate the exemption or the exclusion here to the effect that the heirs will receive these properties if they are not in any way paying for the inheritance, then these properties should go to the heirs without any reference to estate duties or transfer taxes. Whilst a person is living he has already made the donations or whatever to his heirs, and that is excluded. What happens invariably is that, because of incorrect wording of wills, difficulties are experienced. In the not-too-distant future I will speak to the Commissioner for Inland Revenue and explain this to him in a friendly manner. However, I am sure that he knows from experience what I am aiming at.

When property is left in terms of a will—a trust will—it is left by the benefactor for periods of 10 years or more to be kept in trust before it is transferred to the heirs. The will also provides that the administrator of that estate may continue in business in relation to that particular inheritance. That is, quite rightly, taxable. I do not find any fault with such an arrangement. However, where a benefactor has left—I am aware of such cases—a particular property for the benefit of religious or educational institutions, then those must also be exempt in terms of the financial legislation from payment of tax.

I think the explanatory memorandum is wide enough to cover the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill completely. We have no hesitation in supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, this Bill before us this afternoon implements certain recommendations of the Margo Commission. It makes provision for a moratorium for companies to allow them to reorganise and restructure the groupings in order to operate more efficiently.

There are a few observations that I would like to make with regard to some of these clauses. First of all I would like to thank the Commissioner for Inland Revenue for having given us the opportunity to discuss this piece of legislation with him. Taxation legislation normally does not go before joint committees but in this instance we had the opportunity of discussing our problems in this regard.

As far as business trusts and family trusts are concerned, I think this was dealt with very fairly by the hon the Minister of the Budget. I also want to make an appeal that certain family trusts which hold investments which are not of a business nature should be approved. I feel that this piece of legislation does not define a family trust properly. The hon the Minister of the Budget made an appeal for the exemption of certain religious organisations and I want to support him in this.

We know that the Estate Duty Act is being amended here. It is a matter of policy whether there will be disinvestment of Government stock. I am now referring to clause 8 of the Bill. However, on the basis of this legislation there may be some movement away from investment in Government stock to avoid certain taxation. I welcome the other clauses of the Bill. They are in line with certain recommendations made by the hon the Minister in his Budget speech.

What I fear, however, is the increase in penalties as far as stamp duty is concerned. I feel this is unnecessary. I am referring to clause 20 where the penalty is now being increased from R50 to R1 000. I know that the hon the Minister is going to say in his reply that this has been part of it since 1910. Sometimes, however, because of neglect, certain attorneys put stamp duties on certain contracts or documents. They are now going to be penalised from R50 up to R1 000. I feel this is a bit too steep.

I now come to the proposed increase in stamp duties on promissory notes. There, too, the penalty has been increased from R50 to R1 000. If a promissory note for R200 is not stamped in time, a penalty of up to R1 000 is payable. I think this is also very steep. As I have said, however, one has to take into account that since 1910 no changes have been made to these particular regulations.

I now come to the tax payable on debit entries posted to transmission accounts. I wonder if we are not bringing in a tax system which is only going to yield from a small base of R30 million. The banks and building societies will have to bear enormous administrative costs if we bring in this tremendous volume of work. I wonder if it was really necessary to introduce this. However, I am not going to oppose it.

I now come to the amendments to the Sales Tax Act. Clause 37 is particularly welcome. However, I also wonder if this was necessary at this stage, because we are going to do away with sales tax in 1989. We know that the hon the Minister has to pave the way for the eventual introduction of the VAT system. We must now open up a register so that we know how this particular tax system is going to work. This is welcomed.

However, as far as the debtors’ allowances are concerned, I have spoken about this at one stage. I felt it was absolutely wrong that … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill introduces amendments to certain taxation laws, as outlined by previous speakers. The amendments are aimed at easier administration, and this could be advantageous to taxpayers in various categories. It could also provide generous deductions in tax burdens.

I particularly welcome the provision with regard to the registration of persons carrying on business as suppliers of goods or services as a preliminary step towards the introduction of a value-added tax. I welcome this value-added tax, because the present GST has caused much pain and confusion. It has had psychological affects on the people who had to pay this form of tax. They have always paid GST with a certain amount of reluctance. We have also heard that these poor consumers who pay this tax, do not know whether the money goes directly to the State coffers.

However, with the introduction of this Bill, I hope that this new system will be expedited and that it will come into operation soon. I am sure the system of collection will be very thorough and easily administered. Direct payment to the Department of Inland Revenue will be made with fewer hassles. The consumer will not be confused or doubtful as to what he is paying. In fact, he will be satisfied that he is getting his money’s worth. This system does allow for that.

In terms of the Margo Commission, this Bill has been thoroughly researched. I am sure that this Bill will to a certain extent revolutionise taxation proposals in the country. As such, I welcome and support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I thank hon members on both sides of the House for their support of this Bill. I have never heard of anybody offering himself for the payment of more tax. There is not a single person who does not feel that in some way or another he pays too much tax. Therefore, the fact that we could handle this very sensitive issue in the way we did today is certainly, to me personally and to my advisers and staff, a matter of great comfort, because we are dealing with the interests of our country. We have to finance very wide-ranging services and limitless needs, and without raising tax in a fair way, there is no way we shall be able to meet the obligations we all feel towards the more needy and the suffering in our country. Therefore, from that point of view, I certainly thank hon members very sincerely.

A few issues of a more particular nature were raised and I will briefly respond to these. The hon the Minister of the Budget, and also the hon member for Laudium, referred to trusts. Here we must be very careful. I fully appreciate what the hon the Minister and the hon member said. We must do the one thing and not neglect the other. We must make it possible for this kind of arrangement to benefit religious and similar organisations which we would like to see supported. On the other hand, we must not allow it to be abused for other purposes. That fine line is always in danger when one gets creative tax consultants.

I would therefore respectfully like to suggest to the hon the Minister—and the hon member is certain welcome to join us—that we have a thorough discussion on the issue during the recess, on which occasion I shall call in the necessary experts or my advisers. I think we must have a decent discussion so as to make sure that we are not inhibiting the functioning of very laudable and worthwhile organisations in South Africa. However, at the same time we must also safeguard the interests of taxpayers. Of course, we have a unique opportunity in this country to spread the tax burden over a much wider base and to make possible fairer contributions by all people who are in a position to pay.

The hon member for Laudium also referred to the penalties. Unless penalties keep pace with present-day values of money, they do not serve as a deterrent. This is the whole question which is under consideration, namely that the penalties must serve as a deterrent to make sure that everybody pays what is due to be paid by them. I am afraid that while a R1 000 penalty is rather stiff, it will maybe help to concentrate minds sufficiently so as to avoid it. In any event, penalties have kept pace with inflation. Unfortunately, that is a part of life.

The hon member also referred to debit posts. That is a by-product of the computer system. It really involves no great administration; there I beg to differ with the hon member. It is something which one programmes once and thereafter it is in one’s system. It is merely a by-product. It involves no great expense and in fact it is very easy to do. The Margo Commission said that unless we are able to abolish them all, we should make them applicable to all. At this stage we cannot abolish them, and therefore it is only fair that we extend it and that others also enter in that very small cost of making this system possible.

The hon member also referred to debit allowances. I am afraid it is not possible, according to the advice I received, to have this debit allowance system operating under a value-added system. Therefore I have had representations from, for example, the furniture retailers organisation, and we listened to their representations with great sympathy. My response to them was simply that we have great sympathy and willingness to help solve their problems. There is no way that we can shield them from the implications of tax reform.

This is a very important point. With these tax reforms some people will pay more and other people will pay less. A lot of other people will pay differently from before; they are the people who will not pay more but they will pay differently. We can try to protect them against the ravages or the nasty implications thereof, but we cannot protect them against the ultimate effect of it because then we will be negating the whole implication of tax reform as such. In this respect we are really as fair as we can possibly be, I think.

I fully agree with the hon member for Merebank that the value-added system has more implications. Maybe from a certain point of view it is a greater administrative burden on commerce and industry, but from so many other points of view it is advantageous. Certainly, if I may say so, our staff is already overburdened as it is. For them to take on this new challenge will certainly be an exhausting exercise. Therefore we are not doing it for recreation or because we have a lack of challenges or excitement in the department. We are certainly doing it because we believe that is the best way for us to arrive at a tax system that has a greater potential for integrity and production as well as for productivity. A person paying in the end can then have much more security, feeling that the money he is paying is not going into the till of the dealer. As far as VAT is concerned, the little bit that remains to be “stolen”, if I may put it that way, is but a portion of the previous situation. Therefore the person paying at the point of sale can be sure that the majority of the funds probably have already gone into the coffers of the State. I conclude with these few remarks and I sincerely wish to thank hon members for their support in this regard.

First Reading debate concluded.

Bill read a first time.

Bill read a second time.

General Affairs:

1. Petition from J H Barnard of Durban, formerly in the employ of the Natal Education Department, praying that for pension purposes he be regarded as having been boarded as medically unfit or for other relief—(Presented by Mr M J Ellis).

Referred to the Joint Committee on Pensions.

Committee Report:

General Affairs:

1. Report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Development Aid on the National States Constitution Amendment Bill [B 88—88 (GA)], dated 20 June 1988, as follows:

The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Development Aid, having considered the subject of the National States Constitution Amendment Bill [B 88—88 (GA)], referred to it, begs to report the Bill without amendment.