Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, we cannot support this motion. We want to make it clear that we are of the opinion that the motion is in conflict with the provisions of the Constitution, in particular those of section 64. We understand the argument that a House can make its own procedural rules in terms of section 63, but section 64 (1)(b) of the Constitution, as amended this year, states emphatically—

These Rules were indeed agreed to in conjunction with the other two Houses. Although they were agreed to at separate meetings, I am of the opinion that in terms of the Constitution, one House cannot amend Rules on its own and adopt other Rules in the place of the Rules that were drawn up by three Houses in terms of the Constitution.

We have already indicated that we do not agree with these measures. We believe that they are not in accordance with section 64. In order to reconcile sections 64 and 63, it is clear that section 63 should have a bearing on own affairs and section 64 on general affairs. These Rules that apply for general affairs, cannot be unilaterally amended by any House. The reason for that, with all due respect, is that it would lead to chaos if each of the three Houses could draw up different Rules for the conduct of own affairs.

Order! Perhaps the hon member for Bethal could be of assistance. I would appreciate it. If I remember correctly, Mr Speaker allowed the debate to proceed. I think it was on a similar occasion also concerned with the suspension of Rule 3, which is again relevant here. Would the test then be that I should be satisfied that he was obviously wrong, or what would the test be that I should apply in order to differ with Mr Speaker?

Mr Chairman, I am not asking for your ruling in this regard; I did not raise a point of order, but merely stated our standpoint as to why we are unable to support this motion and in fact will vote against it.

Very well, I accept your standpoint.

Mr Chairman, the aim of this motion is clearly to affirm the letter and spirit of the Constitution. We argued this matter last week and in terms of section 63 this House is entitled to make the necessary procedural changes in respect of all matters before it. Section 64 merely makes Joint Rules possible, but it cannot neutralise the effect of section 63.

Parliament as an institution may not allow itself to be blackmailed. It is an institution built on the achievement of consensus, but consensus requires that all the Houses must at least consider the legislation concerned. That is not the case here. The other Houses had that opportunity, but did not make use of it, and for that reason the House of Assembly has no choice but to apply these Rules in this way.

Order! I want to appeal to the hon member for his help as well. I put a question to the hon member for Bethal. Would the hon member tell me what test I must apply, in view of the ruling that Mr Speaker has already given?

Mr Chairman, with all due respect, I want to suggest that the ruling has already been given by Mr Speaker, that it is applicable in this case and therefore that the precedent must be followed.

Order! That does not quite answer the question, but I understand the hon member’s answer.

Mr Chairman, it is not often that one agrees with members of the CP. [Interjections.] I also want to say at once that I do not question the ruling which Mr Speaker gave regarding the permissibility of the resolution. That is not what is at issue. What upsets hon members of this party and I is that this motion is symptomatic and in fact proof of the fact that justice is no longer being done to the original intention of the tricameral system, namely that it would function on the basis of consensus. The hon member for Bethal was right when he said that what was being done here was that the House of Assembly was deciding unilaterally to suspend a joint rule in favour of another rule.

The issue is not whether or not the House of Assembly has the right to do that. That is not relevant and Mr Speaker has already ruled that the resolution is in order. I want to tell hon members on that side in all honesty and seriousness that the principle underlying this resolution has tremendous implications. If one House unilaterally suspends a joint rule on which the three Houses have agreed, for whatever reasons, and substitutes other rules, every other House is entitled to do the same. Sir, as a lawyer you will know that once a precedent has been set it is virtually impossible to undo that precedent. In that sense I find it upsetting—and I am saying this in all honesty, sincerity and seriousness—that we have reached the stage where the House of Assembly feels itself obliged to resort to that kind of behaviour. This actually proves that the mechanism which allows the tricameral system to function smoothly is being removed. I am saying this in a spirit of goodwill and not in a spirit of condemnation. However, I merely want to point out the implications of what we are doing here. That is why I consider it tragic that the House of Assembly—perhaps it was compelled to do so, I shall not pursue this matter—has had to introduce this kind of measure unilaterally. If the Government still wants the tricameral system to work, it is its duty to create such a degree of consensus that this kind of measure will not be necessary.

Allow me to react briefly—I shall not take long— to some of the unkind remarks which the hon the Leader of the House addressed to me the other day during the previous discussion. My professor taught me a motto which has meant a great deal to me in my life, namely integer vitae scelerisque puris non aeget mauris. I do not have a guilty conscience about with whom I have discussed anything that goes on here in Parliament. I have never been so arrogant or deluded as to think that what I may say could persuade either this House of Assembly, or the Labour Party or anyone else to do something against their wishes and contrary to their own convictions. As far as I am concerned any member of this House and any member outside this House can come to me and ask me what my views of a matter are. If the hon the Leader of the House feels the need to ask me what my views of a matter are, what my analysis is and how I see the options, he is most welcome to do so.

I would never be so arrogant as to think that I could persuade the hon the Leader of the House to do something he himself is not convinced of. [Interjections.] However, I want to tell him in all honesty that I have never tried to persuade people to do things. The only function I have is to point out implications, options, etc, but I would not be so arrogant as to tell other hon members of Parliament or parties in Parliament what I think they should do. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon the Leader of the House that I think he did the hon member for Sea Point and I an injustice. I want to tell him that in all honesty.

I also want to say I think it is a tragic day that the House of Assembly has been placed in this position, namely that on its own, whatever the legal position may be, it has to set aside the rules three Houses have agreed to, to get out of this impasse we found ourselves in. Under these circumstances the House will surely be able to understand that we in this party cannot support the motion for the reasons I have mentioned.

Mr Chairman, the hon member Prof Olivier rightly referred to the implications of each House being able to abolish the Rules on its own, and replace them with its own Rules. I do not want to go into it any further; I agree wholeheartedly with his argument in that regard.

The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North said that Parliament could not allow itself to be blackmailed. Apparently that is the motivation behind the motion—it has been seen as a blackmail action from outside. One therefore counteracts it by abolishing one’s own Rules and replacing them with other Rules. However, the danger is that if there were to be tension between the Houses in future with regard to completely different Bills or whatever, a specific House, whether it be the House of Assembly or one of the other Houses, could interpret the conflict or the tension as a kind of blackmail action from the other Houses and then adopt exactly the same procedure, namely of changing the Rules, which would then have the implications the hon member Prof Olivier spelled out. We cannot support this and we shall therefore oppose the motion.

Mr Chairman, I listened attentively to the hon member Prof Olivier. In the first place I want to thank him very much for his kind offer of advice. I am rather particular when it come to my choice of advisors. I shall not take up any of his time. [Interjections.]

The hon member reminded me of the quote: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”. That party’s frustration regarding its lack of influence in White politics has for years now found expression in their trying to influence the other population groups outside Parliament. I am emphasizing the word trying. I did not say that they had succeeded in influencing the Labour Party or that the Labour Party did not take their own decision. However, this does not alter the fact that we on this side know that, in the tricameral system, members of that party are constantly undermining the consensus which has been reached, in the committees, outside the committees and wherever and whenever they can. [Interjections.] They are constantly inciting people and trying to find the majority they do not have here in the other Houses. That is part of their political style. The more the hon member protests that he is not arrogant, the more I tell him that it is bedded in their philosophy that they think that they actually know better than the elected leaders of the other population groups what is best for them. [Interjections.]

For decades they have stood here and told us what we must and must not do, instead of listening to the leaders. For decades they have stood here and said that the governments of the Black national states were worthless. They did not want to recognise the independence of those national states. They wanted to be the spokesmen for those population groups. Now those people have their own leaders, and the sooner they concentrate on the broadening of their own power base the longer they will survive. That is what they should do instead of meddling with the power bases of others. They do that frequently, and we have abundant evidence in that regard. The hon member can therefore keep on denying everything and insisting on his innocence; we know that that party is trying to manipulate the tricameral Parliament by gaining influence in the majorities in the other Houses.

Let us now turn to the crux of the argument we are repeating here this afternoon. Why was that resolution necessary, and why is this resolution necessary today?

The suspension of the Rules is necessary in this situation to allow this House to do its work. If an agreement was broken it was done by those persons who refused to discuss and dispose of an agenda. We all came from our constituencies to attend a session of Parliament. Two of the Houses refused to allow that session of Parliament to run its course. What is more, as a result of their refusal to participate in debates on matters which were legally on the Order Paper they placed the PFP, for example, in a position in which, by placing a single amendment to a Bill on the Order Paper, it could prevent this House from a adopting a final standpoint on that Bill.

But that is within the Rules!

The Rules which we have suspended provide—let me state this clearly and simply—that when an amendment to a Bill is moved here, the measure must be referred back to a joint committee. Secondly, this means that that joint committee cannot consider it until the debates have been disposed of in all three houses.

That is as it should be!

Yes, but now the other two Houses are refusing to do their duty and dispose of the debates. This means that we cannot refer that Bill back to the joint committee so that it can do its job and report back to this House. [Interjections.] This is a blocking of the democratic process. [Interjections.] In my opinion this is an abuse of technicalities to prevent us from finalising our agenda and letting the democratic process run its course. [Interjections.] That is why we took this exceptional step. I am as sorry as the hon members are that this was necessary. In any case we did not trample on or mangle the Rules. We did not jeopardise the agreement on how this Parliament would manage its affairs. It was jeopardised by that behaviour, and that required a reply from us.

In any case there were only two possible solutions—to do what we did or to adjourn this House now and let everyone go home. Those are the only two solutions. There is nothing in between. [Interjections.] Is that what the hon members wanted? Did the hon members want us, after a session of Parliament had been legally convened, to adjourn without having accomplished anything because people had refused, on the basis of technicalities, to consider Bills. [Interjections.]

You have done that in the past!

Secondly, we can ask whether anyone has been prejudiced by the resolution we have already adopted, as well as by the resolution under discussion. I submit that there has been no prejudice whatsoever. Why do I say that? The other two Houses can meet tomorrow and discuss these Bills. They can reject them in the strongest possible terms. They can in fact, in terms of the democratic right which the Constitution and the Rules gives them, in fact adopt a standpoint as democrats. For that reason no one is being prejudiced at all by this resolution. All we are ensuring is that this House does its work. If the hon members, as we see, do not want to do their work, we will excuse them in a moment when we carry on with our work. [Interjections.]

I merely want to the tell the hon members of the CP that I think it is wrong to argue that section 63 of the Constitution ostensibly only refers to own affairs. If that had been the intention it would have been stated expressly. Section 63 merely provides what is stated in it, ie that every House has the power to determine its rules.

The fact that section 64 of the Constitution, as amended, makes provision for Joint Rules, such as those which have now been formulated, and with which our debate is concerned, does not give the Standing Rules overriding legal force. The section merely defines what the three Houses, each acting on the strength of their own autonomy, would be able to do through co-operation, even if the section had not existed.

With a view to reform!

The Standing Rules still derive their validity as joint rules from the co-operation or an agreement between the Houses. I would like to see that agreement restored as soon as possible. I would like to see an undertaking between us that it will never be necessary to deal with a resolution such as the one dealt with the other day, and of which this resolution is in a certain sense an extension.

For that reason we must discuss how to prevent this happening again. But if steps are taken which attempt or envisage inhibiting the democratic functioning of the legislative process by means of technicalities, then those of us on this side of the House will take concerted steps to allow the democratic process to take its course.

I merely want to say that today’s resolution only has one specific effect, namely that as is usual at the end of a session we would have had to allow certain periods of time to elapse between stages, and all that this resolution actually envisages is that we can proceed at once, after the completion of the First Reading of a finance Bill, to deal with the Second Reading, and that it need not stand over to a later date. That is all. It is completely harmless. It does not prejudice anyone and we must stop making politics out of ordinary procedural steps which are again aimed at allowing us to complete our work quickly and properly.

I do not think it is necessary to allow declarations of vote. The bells may be rung.

[Inaudible.]

Order! No, the hon member may think so, but do I or do I not have a discretion?

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I have an idea—I do not have the Rule in front of me—that the normal practice is for a declaration of vote to be made after a division has been demanded.

No, this is actually a discretion which the presiding officer has, and I was under the impression that everyone had clearly stated their standpoints. I would like to have the ringing of the bells stopped and to afford the hon member an opportunity to do this.

Mr Chairman, may I address you on this, because the position is that in a normal debate both sides put their case fully too, and then there is still an opportunity for a declaration of vote.

That may be so. There you have the Rule in front of you.

The Rule states that if the required number of members support the demand for a division, the presiding officer may … No, that is quite correct.

That is correct. That point has now been settled, and under the circumstances I will afford the hon member the opportunity to make his declaration of vote.

Thank you very much, Mr Chairman, but I think it has now become a tradition …

Oh no. If that is the hon member’s attitude then I must tell him at once that that is not the reason why I am allowing him to do so. I retain the discretion—it vests in the presiding officer in terms of the Rules—and I am now exercising my discretion regarding his polite request that he may make a declaration of vote.

Mr Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity you have afforded me.

We are voting against this resolution of the hon Leader of the House because we say that it is immoral of the Government unilaterally to break these Rules, which were first agreed to by a joint meeting of the Committees on Standing Rules and Orders, and were then accepted by each House.

For the sake of Hansard I should like to say that the minutes of the report of the joint meeting of the Committees on Standing Rules and Orders read as follows:

Those Rules were accepted on the initiative of the Government.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May one redebate an issue in a declaration of vote?

Order! The hon member may not redebate the issue, but it is very difficult to say when one is and when one is not redebating an issue. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I shall proceed by saying that these Rules and the Constitution were laid down on the initiative of the NP Government. They persuaded the other Houses to accept the Constitution and the Standing Rules and Orders. As far as we are concerned it is irregular to break these Rules unilaterally. For that reason we are voting against this resolution.

Mr Chairman, the resolution before the House was necessitated, inter alia, by the suspension of business by at least one of the other Houses, although there was no valid reason not to go ahead with that business. For that reason it is a essential, in order to allow this House to continue with its business, to introduce this resolution. Mr Speaker has ruled that this resolution is competent. We have no ulterior motives. We merely want the democratic legislative process to run its course. For that reason those of us on this side of the House will again make this possible by voting for the resolution.

Mr Chairman, I am rising merely to say that in terms of the Rules I do not consider it necessary to add to what I have said.

The House divided:

AYES—110: Alant, T G; Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Badenhorst, P J; Bekker, H J; Bloomberg, S G; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J van R; Botha, J C G; Botma, M C; Brazelie, J A; Breytenbach, W N; Camerer, S M; Christophers, D; Clase, P J; Coetsee, H J; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; De Beer, L; De Klerk, F W; Delport, J T; De Pontes, P; De Villiers, D J; Du Plessis, P T C; Edwards, B V; Farrell, P J; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Geldenhuys, B L; Golden, S G A; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Heyns, J H; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; Jager, R; Jooste, J A; Jordaan, A L; King, T J; Kotzé, G J; Kriel, H J; Kruger, T A P; Lemmer, J J; Le Roux, D E T; Louw, E v d M; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Malherbe, G J; Marais, G; Marais, P G; Mare, P L; Maree, J W; Maree, M D; Matthee, J C; Matthee, P A; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, A T; Myburgh, G B; Nel, P J C; Niemann, J J; Nothnagel, A E; Odendaal, W A; Olivier, P J S; Oosthuizen, G C; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Rabie, J; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Retief, J L; Scheepers, J H L; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Schutte, D P A; Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Steenkamp, P J; Steyn, D W; Steyn, P T; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Van Breda, A; Van der Walt, A T; Van Deventer, F J; Van de Vyver, J H; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Heerden, F J; Van Niekerk, W A; Van Vuuren, L M J; Van Wyk, J A; Veldman, M H; Venter, A A; Viljoen, G v N; Vilonel, J J; Welgemoed, P J; Wentzel, J J G.

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

NOES—34: Andrew, K M; Burrows, R M; Coetzee, H J; Dalling, D J; De Jager, C D; De Ville, J R; Derby-Lewis, C J; Eglin, C W; Gastrow, P H P; Gerber, A; Hartzenberg, F; Hulley, R R; Jacobs, S C; Langley, T; Mentz, M J; Mulder, C P; Mulder, P W A; Nolte, D G H; Olivier, N J J; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Prinsloo, J J S; Schoeman, C B; Suzman, H; Swart, R A F; Uys, C; Van der Merwe, S S; Van Eck, J; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, W J D; Walsh, J J.

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

Mr Chairman, I find it very interesting that the PFP is leaving the Council Chamber now during the discussion of this Bill on which they have proposed amendments which appear on the Order Paper.

A question that occurs to me is: If an hon member wishes to move an amendment to a Bill in this House, his motive is surely to improve that legislation. Hon members of the PFP placed amendments to this Bill on the Order Paper and I then have to accept their bona fades that they regard them as an improvement on this proposed Bill. When they have to bring about those improvements, however, they neglect their responsibility and duty by walking out of this House. To want to bring government to a standstill in this country is not only indicative of a policy of boycott but of something which certainly tends toward a policy of sabotage.

Democracy works like this: If one loses on one point, one accepts the result that one has lost and then fights on other legislation or on another point. When a democrat loses on one point he does not boycott the entire democratic process so that it has to grind to a halt; he argues every point on merit. I consider this spirit of boycott as identification with the mentality of the Comrades who want to disrupt everything in this country and bring it to a standstill.

This is a short, relevant and understandable Bill but I should still like to dwell on certain aspects of it. The object of the Bill is to repeal the Slums Act, No 76 of 1979, in order to establish more uniform and practical procedures for the prevention and termination of nuisances or slums. The principle remains the same, which is that local authorities have to bear the responsibility of preventing and terminating such conditions.

One of the most important differences between the Bill and the current Act is that use will no longer be made of a slum clearance court. The slum clearance court is a quasi-judicial body which consists of a magistrate or retired magistrate and two people with knowledge of urban housing and health. The duty of this court is to decide whether a nuisance exists or not and then to serve the necessary notices for purposes of terminating such a nuisance.

The termination of nuisances is primarily the function and responsibility of local authorities and it is possible for local authorities to become more directly involved in the determination of nuisances. It has now been proposed that local authorities themselves should determine whether a condition constitutes a nuisance.

Slum clearance courts sit on an ad hoc basis whereas local authorities deal with questions concerning housing and health every day. Local authorities are also acquainted with all the relevant circumstances which apply in their area of jurisdiction and can therefore apply a broader perspective in judging a case than a slum clearance court. In addition, local authorities also have the necessary expertise on housing and health matters among their own ranks and are therefore in a very good position to judge soundly concerning conditions which constitute nuisances.

In terms of the current Act, certain requirements which are contained in a Schedule to the Act have to be taken into account when a nuisance is reported by the medical officer of a local authority. For instance, the Schedule prescribes the minimum requirements with which places of residence have to comply as well as the separation of sexes and the toilet and cooking facilities which have to be provided.

In consequence of this, local authorities have a duty to act if these requirements are not complied with. Circumstances and standards differ from area to area, however, and the Schedule has not been repeated in the Bill. The Bill is therefore less strict in this respect and makes provision for every local authority to be able to make regulations for its area of jurisdiction as regards such matters with the consent of the Minister.

We must realise that the maintenance of uniform standards is simply no longer practicable and feasible. Local authorities are therefore granted the option to make their own decisions on matters within their areas of jurisdiction. This is also in line with the Government’s policy of the devolution of power to third-tier government institutions.

Although the prevention and termination of nuisances is regarded as the primary task of local authorities, it may nevertheless occur in exceptional cases that the Government itself has to intervene. The Bill therefore makes provision for the Minister himself to be able to make regulations under certain circumstances if a local authority fails to do so. The Minister may also carry out the duties of a local authority if the local authority fails to do so. I want to repeat that this will happen only in circumstances under which a local authority fails to perform its duty and where circumstances necessitate that the State intervene.

The question has been asked whether the determination of a nuisance should be left to the discretion of a local authority. In this regard the regulations in terms of the Act must be borne in mind to serve as guidelines when such conditions have to be determined. Further, the definition of “nuisance” can be noted as being a condition which constitutes a threat to the health or safety of the occupants of any premises.

†A local authority can therefore not act arbitrarily when it identifies a nuisance. It has to take such a decision in the light of the health and/or safety of the occupants of a building or premises. The principle that local authorities must see to the well-being of the subjects is well-established in other legislation and ordinances. The provisions of the Bill, like the existing Act, further confirm this principle. The main object is the health and/or safety of people, and actions of local authorities must be regarded in that light.

This brings me to a further matter, namely the powers which the Bill confers upon local authorities. Some persons and bodies are concerned that too wide and discretionary powers are being conferred upon local authorities and that this will create the potential for inconsistent administration. If one were to assume that local authorities are not responsible bodies then there surely would be reason for concern. A local authority is, however, a responsible form of government, elected by its people and, at the end of the day, has to account for its activities and actions. It is entrusted with various important functions.

The Bill offers owners and occupants who feel aggrieved by actions taken by local authorities, the right to submit objections to such local authorities. Owners and occupants are also given a right of appeal to the Minister. In addition the Bill does not preclude owners or occupants from approaching the courts if they are not satisfied with the final decision. It must be remembered further that actions under the Bill are only aimed at owners who refuse to give their co-operation to remove nuisances on their premises. Again it must be stressed that actions have to be taken in the interests of the health and/or safety of the occupants of an area.

The Bill should not be seen in isolation. It is supplementary to existing health ordinances of local authorities and other legislation such as the Health Act, No 63 of 1977. The Bill’s provisions are, however, more effective and practicable in order to provide local authorities with an effective instrument to remove nuisances in problem areas. The Health Act has a very broad scope since it pertains to various health matters while the Bill specifically has in view the prevention and removal of nuisances on premises used for housing purposes.

I would like to deal with a further matter. The Bill places an obligation on local authorities not only to remove nuisances but also to prevent nuisances. The prevention of nuisances forms part and parcel of housing actions and urban renewal measures. In this regard the Government makes its contribution through the housing departments. The meaningful role of the private sector as far as housing is concerned cannot be overemphasised either. Its co-operation in this field is most heartening. The partnership between the Government and the private sector augurs well for the future.

Private ownership of houses is encouraged wherever possible. It is undoubtedly the best means of the prevention of nuisances.

*During meetings of the joint committee which discussed the Bill, certain informal proposals were made for its improvement. Some of the proposals were embodied in this Bill and commentson the Bill made by organisations received attention. So, for instance, as requested by the Association of South African Building Societies, local authorities are obliged to inform bondholders when they serve notices on owners to remove nuisances. In this way bondholders’ rights are afforded further protection, and this holds the added advantage that bondholders will now exert pressure on owners as well to maintain their properties properly and to regulate conditions on those properties in a fitting manner.

In conclusion I wish to express the hope that the Bill will be an effective instrument to combat nuisances so that dangerous and undesirable health and security conditions can be removed.

Mr Chairman, the turbulence in and around the NP during the past week has shown once again that with regard to its reform policy, the NP has started something that it can no longer control without biting the dust from time to time. [Interjections.]

The present handling of the legislation—by the suspension of Rules—is the result of a reform process which has failed, despite the warnings of the CP, and this will aggravate the conflict situation. [Interjections.] I should like to tell the hon the Minister that there is no point in being a democrat if one acts in an extremely undemocratic way by unilaterally suspending the Rules to save one’s own skin, as he explained to us here.

You are talking nonsense!

We are living in a time— “more than ever”, to use the NP’s slogan—and in the era of the Great Black Trek of the late eighties to White areas, and the occupation of these areas without a blow being struck, which is being permitted by a Government which has become weak in the knees. When I compare this with the Afrikaners’ Great Trek, their trek to the cities and the ensuing poor White question, their struggle against liberalism and the struggle against capitalism, I wonder whether this is the National Afrikaner of which I was a part before they weakened.

Are you not a capitalist?

Now that the trilogy of legislation, as originally proposed in the Group Areas Act, has been watered down and the so-called “teeth” of the legislation have been removed or rendered harmless, as was reported by Die Burger, we want to say it is not a question of “rendering it harmless”; it is a question of pulling teeth and creating the impression that the Act has false teeth, whereas in fact it is gaptoothed. That only happens when one’s partners give one a tooth-ache. [Interjections.] That is why I am actually surprised that we are proceeding with this Slums Bill today.

I make this observation with specific reference to the Urban Foundation’s comment on the Slums Bill. The Urban Foundation found it appropriate to link this Bill to the trilogy of legislation on group areas, and asked why the Slums Bill was being passed at this specific stage, at the same time as the other three Bills are being discussed.

It is no wonder, therefore, that the other two Houses have no interest in continuing to take part in the discussion of the Slums Bill, and were not even prepared to agree to the initial amendments which were proposed and which they supported.

My party finds it a great pity that the Slums Bill, which has nothing to do with group areas, is being linked to the proposed legislation, whereas the Urban Foundation made it clear in its commentary that the passing of the trilogy of legislation would aggravate slum conditions. The logical deduction is that the Urban Foundation is not prepared at this stage to assist in the prevention and removal of slum conditions in South Africa.

Since this Slums Bill will replace the existing Slums Act of 1979, which in turn is a consolidation of the Slums Act of 1934, the CP agrees in principle that it was necessary, particularly in the times we are living in, to consider new and better control measures with regard to slum conditions.

It is very clear that the existing Slums Act of 1979 has become obsolete, and that the administration and implementation of this Act is too cumbersome. Present-day conditions have largely contributed to the considerable incidence of urban degeneration, and although the existing Slums Act, 1979, is on the Statute Book, the mechanisms of implementing this Act have not kept up with present-day conditions. This Bill grants local authorities greater and more extensive powers, however, and that is to be welcomed.

We will all agree that the greater powers now being granted to local authorities are a good arrangement, because the local authority is best able to judge whether or not a slum condition is developing in its area of jurisdiction. With reference to the comment of the Administrators of the four provinces, it is striking that each of them reacted positively to the Bill and that they all agree that it is a considerable improvement on the existing Slums Act, 1979, because it does away with the cumbersome administration and implementation thereof.

The existing Slums Act, 1979, is cumbersome since a procedure determines that a medical health officer first has to submit a report about a nuisance to the local authority according to certain criteria. Subsequent to this he can make his recommendations, after which the report is submitted to a slum clearance court upon the recommendation of the local authority. As the hon the Minister said, these bodies consist of three members of whom one is a magistrate who acts as chairman, while the other two members are also appointed by the Minister and must have a reasonable knowledge of housing and matters with regard to health conditions.

This court takes cognisance of the arguments both in favour and against. The owner of the premises in question can therefore also be represented. The court then gives its judgment and decides whether or not the premises will be identified as a nuisance. If the court decides that the premises are a nuisance, a notice is served on the owner providing that the building must be repaired or demolished. This is a long and cumbersome procedure which seldom succeeds. This Bill grants the local authority the power to determine whether or not a nuisance exists and to take a decision on the necessary action to be taken in respect of clearing it up.

I am convinced, as I have said, that a local authority is best equipped to determine a nuisance, and to use the expertise of its council, its town engineer, its health division and its town planner to take the correct decision in the end.

The criteria for determining a nuisance are being facilitated in that the Bill provides that any condition which constitutes a threat to health or safety in the opinion of a local authority can be identified as a nuisance and the necessary steps can be taken to clean up such conditions.

There is another long procedure that can be followed to deal with overcrowding. The existing Act prescribes a long and cumbersome procedure which can be manipulated arbitrarily and can considerably delay a nuisance condition, to the great detriment of the environment. The new Bill prescribes a far more simplified procedure and still gives the affected persons the right to appeal to the Minister should they feel aggrieved.

The amendments of the hon the Minister, which appear on pages 471-73 of the Order Paper of 24 August as well as on pages 478-79 of the Order Paper of 25 August, were agreed to by the joint committee and are to be welcomed. Naturally the proceedings once again took place after suspension and in terms of Rule 69. The CP identified the deficiencies and, if the amendments had not been submitted and accepted, would have made recommendations for improvements, which would have related to what is contained in the amendments, during this debate in any case …

Oh, come now!

After all, there was no opportunity. The hon member knows that just as well as I do. [Interjections.]

A further improvement that we are proposing is the definition in clause 1(iii), viz the definition of a nuisance. I should like the hon the Minister to listen to this, because although the hon the Minister referred to it, I think it can still be improved upon. One must read the definition of a nuisance with clause 2(b) which provides as follows:

The Minister cannot request anything unless it has been determined that there is a nuisance. There can be a nuisance only if the local authority says there is one.

A local authority can in turn invalidate clause 2(b) merely by telling the Minister involved that it does not regard something he regards as a nuisance as such, and therefore ignoring his request.

Although this problem is partly obviated in the new amendment embodied in clause 12(1) in respect of neglect by the powers granted to the Minister in certain circumstances, the determination—I repeat, the determination—of a nuisance remains a problem that can be manipulated by local authorities to suit their own objectives.

That is why it is important that the Minister also judge whether or not there is a nuisance. We therefore recommend that clause 1(iii) be amended by adding the following four words, viz “of the Minister or” after the word “opinion” in line 18. In other words, the clause will read as follows:

We should like the hon the Minister to consider this clause, because we believe that our recommendation can improve the Bill.

We should like to support the provision in clause 10(1) that the local authority may with the consent of the Minister make regulations in respect of the area within its jurisdiction. Clause 10(3) provides that a local authority may be approached if it defeats the objectives of an Act and fails to make the regulations in terms of subsection (1). Clause 10(4) provides that if a local authority fails to make regulations, the Minister may do so in respect of that area of jurisdiction.

This is also the case in clause 11 which determines the powers of the Minister so that he may take action in respect of the local authority’s failure to take action or defeating the object of the Act. The CP regards these powers that are being granted to the Minister as important, and would not have been able to support the Bill had it not contained these provisions.

The CP is convinced that the Bill provides the owner as well as persons who contravene the Act with sufficient protection. Clause 3(3) and clause 5 deal with the rights and appeal of the owner, whereas clause 4 deals with the rights of the affected person.

Despite what the hon the Minister revealed in his comment a moment ago, I should like to address a request to the authorities concerned to give careful attention to the possible duplication of legislation as mentioned in the comment of the Administrator of the Orange Free State.

Chapter 4 of the Health Act, Act 63 of 1977, also regulates certain aspects that affect the Slums Act, and which could give rise to various functionaries acting in terms of different pieces of legislation. This leads to confusion and could also lead to duplication, and it is important to eliminate this. In my opinion attention should be given to this aspect.

I should like to recapitulate. The CP would like to support the argument that the existing Slums Act of 1979 is obsolete and that present-day problems must be addressed effectively. The CP supports the principle of local government and that local authorities should be better equipped to determine and clear up a nuisance condition. The CP supports the greater and extended powers granted to local authorities by the new Bill. Consequently the CP supports the desirability of new legislation. As has been indicated, we supported the principle and the desirability of new legislation in the joint committee, and the Slums Bill of 1988 has the CP’s support.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in following the hon member for Nigel and I also wish to thank him for his party’s support of this legislation. He referred to the submission which the Urban Foundation made to the committee and I shall also examine that fairly critically in a moment.

The observations which the hon member made about the Constitution that is now being placed under pressure as a result of the action of members of the other Houses were true, but we all know that the situation is being dealt with although perhaps not always in as elegant a manner as we would wish.

Nevertheless the hon member, together with the other members of the committee, took part in the interesting progress of this Bill in the joint committee. In June this year the committee discussed the principle as well as the individual clauses in an informal but most incisive manner. Arising from this, the committee itself moved certain amendments to which I shall refer later.

From its very nature, the legislation is extremely sensitive from the point of view of the other communities, and hon members of the other Houses initially had misgivings about both the principle and some aspects of the legislation. After discussion, and especially when it became apparent that this legislation had been drawn up after consultation with the administrations of the other Houses and the provincial authorities, as well as the fact that it would be treated as an own affairs Bill by the Ministers’ Councils concerned, the misgivings of these people changed to a very great extent, however, and they accepted this Bill with certain reservations, or at least displayed a standpoint in which they indicated that they would give it further thorough consideration.

The committee further agreed that we would not proceed overhastily and consequently we felt that we wanted submissions from interested parties, and we also called for comment. It is very important to note that the committee effected amendments to the legislation and that these amendments were finalised by legal draftsmen before any comment whatsoever was received from any organisation. The committee therefore brought about certain improvements of its own accord.

We met in Pretoria in July and at that stage there had been certain submissions—those of Assocom, the Urban Foundation, to which I have already referred, Mr Butlunder, as well as the provincial administrations. Unfortunately the attitude of the representatives of the other Houses at that stage was that they would not participate in any discussion and they merely requested a vote on aspects of desirability. In consequence the submissions and comment were not considered by the committee.

Fortunately the informal discussions were most comprehensive and amendments were moved by the committee which addressed many, if not all, of the objections or reservations expressed in the comment. The about-face in the attitude of the hon members of the House of Representatives in particular can only be interpreted as a further effort to delay and handicap the activities of Parliament. There was co-operation, as the hon member said—on an informal basis—and the product of this co-operation is embodied in the legislation before us. With few exceptions the leadership of the House of Representatives in particular endeavoured to project their inflexible attitude to other legislation onto this legislation, after a great deal of pressure had been exerted on their individual members.

In addition we also received comment from inter alia the Southern African Catholic Bishops’ Conference, the General Council of the Bar of South Africa, as well as the Association of Building Societies. All these representations were considered thoroughly. The result is that a very meaningful piece of legislation is before the House. I wish to congratulate the hon the Minister and also thank him for his approach in handling the proposals of the committee. I want to tell him that it testifies to sound judgment and excellent sensitivity.

I want to tell hon members briefly what new aspects the committee caused to be written into the legislation. Provision is now made in clause 7 for inspections by these inspectors during certain fixed hours, precisely because we wish to curtail the inspectors’ discretion and reduce the irritation factor in this way. We proposed further that we scrap the indemnity, as initially envisaged, which officers of the board were to be given. The reason for this is that we were of the opinion that local governing bodies should bear aspects of liability in mind and the possible exposure to claims for damages if they did not act with circumspection and were not represented by capable and responsible officers.

The insertion in clause 8(3) proposes a procedure which is similar to the idea of judgment by default in the magistrate’s court and its object is to provide a further measure to protect the owner.

Clause 9 provides for the service of documents by the sheriff. Once again we felt that there were serious implications for an owner and that he should at least be informed of the circumstances under which he was being charged.

As regards clause 10(2) which deals with drafting regulations, we made provision that negotiation should take place with local affairs and management committees specifically so that the allegation could not be made that the White authorities alone made regulations without the contributions of other inhabitants.

Clause 12 was changed to ensure that the hearing of appeals in terms of clause 5 may not be delegated by the Minister but that he himself may give a decision at the highest level.

Like the hon member for Nigel, I also wish to refer briefly to the Urban Foundation’s representation. I must say in all fairness that their representation obviously reached us before they were aware of the amendments which the Minister and we ourselves had in mind.

†The submission by the Urban Foundation is in my opinion of a very general nature and certain of the conclusions are open to disagreement or another interpretation. The submission blandly states that the legislation will not provide a framework for supporting delivery of adequate housing for the low-income communities. As a reason for this statement they allege that the security of tenure and property rights are not properly protected in view of the fact that the Slums Bill, as the hon member for Nigel said, goes hand in hand with the other Bills which have already been or still to be debated. I do not accept this statement because it is not correct. This particular Bill is not a housing Bill, and that is the point which they seem to make.

Furthermore, they submit that the selective opening of areas will aggravate slum conditions rather than reduce undesirable housing. This attitude is very much that of a person who expects unreasonableness rather than reasonableness contrary to the legal principles in this regard.

The memorandum goes on to state that the wide discretion given to local authorities could create the potential for inconsistent administration due to the fact that it is the subjective opinion of the relevant local authority as to whether a nuisance exists or not. This is precisely what the Bill seeks to do because outcries about the heavy hand of Pretoria are often heard. Here the Government is giving greater powers to the local authorities who will obviously deal with the issue in a subjective manner in the light of the demands and standards of that particular community. This does not mean that there will be inconsistencies but will, in fact, allow a community to regulate its own affairs in the light of its own standards.

The Foundation furthermore criticised the proposals on the basis that the officer to be designated to make the investigation and to compile the reports does not have to have any particular qualifications. However, in view of the fact that we scrapped the indemnity clause the committee was of the opinion that it would be far better to deal with this whole issue without being prescriptive because prudent local authorities will certainly see to it that properly qualified people do the investigations and submit their reports in accordance with the provisions of the Bill, otherwise they obviously will run the risk of having claims made against them.

The second main point raised by the Urban Foundation is that the abbreviation of measures for the recovery of costs detracts from the security of tenure and makes inroads into property rights. The argument is also advanced that the order of preference in regard to a sale in terms of the Bill is being changed. To some extent this is correct. However, this is no new principle as the rates and taxes of a local authority receive preference over the rights of bondholders in any case. As a matter of fact, a very similar provision is embodied in the Development and Housing Act—I think it is in section 37.

In conclusion I think it is important to note that the local authority in collaboration with all the relevant communities, will provide the final input regarding regulations. This will ensure that the individual requirements of each community will be met. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, although the hon the Minister said that he wanted to devolve the implementation of this Bill onto the local authority, something which one would welcome if only it were his intention, I should like to quote one sentence from his speech. I think it is correct that he said that the Minister himself could make regulations to take action against local authorities if local authorities failed to do the clearing up themselves.

That is the barb in the Bill before the House. I think that many people who are going to be affected by this Bill, including myself, have no faith in the Government’s opinion of what a nuisance is in terms of the Slums Bill.

But you are a nuisance, Jan!

Yes, there are many nuisances. We can talk about that some other time. [Interjections.]

The hon the State President, who as the responsible Minister at the time, personally declared District Six a White area, made it very clear that District Six was a slum area, and in order to do away with it, it had to be declared a White area. The Minister concerned must therefore not be surprised if people do not accept the Government’s bona fides, namely that it wants to clear up slum conditions, but at the same time wants to declare areas to be White areas.

Where do you get that from?

The hon the State President said quite recently that District Six had been declared a White area because it was a slum area. He defended that step quite recently. It shows that the NP’s idea of clearing up slums does have a racial connotation. I think that is why there is so much resistance to this Bill.

The Slums Bill cannot be regarded in isolation, but must be read together with the trilogy of group areas legislation which we are discussing in the House.

Why?

I shall come to that. This Bill is designed to curb overcrowding, inter alia in areas that have been declared free settlement areas. However, my contention is that the Government is creating overcrowding because only a few areas have been singled out to be thrown open. Let us take Hillbrow for example. If only one area in Johannesburg is going to be made available for people of other races, everyone who is living in overcrowded conditions is going to stream into that area. That is then going to cause overcrowding because an area is being created which cannot deal with it.

One must also place a question mark over the Government’s so-called concern with regard to overcrowding and slum conditions. For decades Black people have been allowed to live in the most unbelievably overcrowded, unhealthy and unhygienic conditions in residential areas. Nothing was ever done about that; it was allowed to continue. Because White areas are going to experience the same overcrowding, suddenly they are concerned about it. Over the years, the Government has been asked repeatedly to address the problem of overcrowding in the Black residential areas, because we said that that unhealthy situation, that overcrowding in Black areas, was sooner or later going to affect the White residential areas. We cannot escape that. That day of reckoning now lies ahead of us.

The Government would not listen, and now that it wants to create free settlement areas, it is suddenly being confronted with this problem. Why is it being expected that Black people should not allow overcrowding to take place in Hillbrow when they have basically been forced into overcrowded conditions in their own residential areas for decades?

Yesterday, in a remarkable speech, the hon member for Innesdal referred to the need to look at the division of land in terms of the Group Areas Act. Virtually the whole of South Africa has been classified a White group area in terms of this Act. The result was that a relatively small White population was able to spread itself over a large area, while a particularly large population of millions of Black people had to squeeze themselves into a small piece of land. I am not including the homelands. The result of this policy was extreme overcrowding in Black areas and underutilisation of White areas.

The Slums Bill which is before the House, will fail completely unless the division of land on a racial basis is addressed and the whole of South Africa becomes a free settlement area, not only a few areas. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it surprises me that the hon member for Claremont, who is so concerned about overcrowding and slum conditions, is actually objecting to our now bringing a law up to date, one which was in any event obsolete and difficult to enforce. Furthermore, the hon member is opposed to the powers of the Minister to act if a local authority fails to discharge its obligations in terms of the Act.

I believe that after what has happened during the past few days, not a single hon member in this House could object to provisions which are intended to make it possible for the Minister to take action when other parties wish to frustrate the business of the legislature.

I should like to express my appreciation today to the chairman of the joint committee for the competent manner in which he guided that committee. We heard that the committee discussed this legislation informally of its own accord, and that the amendments that are before us here today, were actually agreed to by the committee on a consensus basis. They reached consensus on this matter. The hon member for Uitenhage has already dealt with the separate clauses of the Bill. The most important aspect is actually the provision that a summary court order may be granted rather than action being taken without reference to the legal process. All objections that were subsequently raised were therefore anticipated in practice by the decisions which the committee itself took of its own accord.

The most important principle which is contained in this measure is that “nuisance” is not rigidly defined. The hon member for Groote Schuur, who is not present in the House at the moment, placed many amendments on the Order Paper. The only thing that he really did, was to reinstate the provisions of the old Schedule 3 in the principal Act with certain stricter requirements in the definition of “nuisance”. He sets far higher standards for habitation. Many of our colleagues, especially those in the new wing of the Parliament buildings, should perhaps be somewhat concerned about what the hon member for Groote Schuur proposed as a requirement in his amendments. He suggested a living space of 12,95 m² for someone over the age of 10 years. I understand that the offices of certain of our colleagues in the new wing only just qualify, at a size of approximately 1 m² more than what the hon member for Groote Schuur maintains represents a slum condition. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, it was not my intention to refer to the amendments of the hon member. He is not present here. Nevertheless, we know what his reasons were for placing them on the Order Paper. I am merely referring to them to show how difficult it is to lay down rigid guidelines with regard to what in fact constitutes a slum condition.

In the one provision that the hon member wants to have added to the previous Schedule 3 of the Act, he at least added a little of his own work, even if he practically repeated it as it was. It is very interesting to note what he considers to be a slum condition. According to him a slum condition is “any premises or part thereof so constructed or in such a state or so situated, dirty or verminous”. Mr Chairman, I have seen many slums in my life, but vermin is surely not one of the qualifications for a slum condition. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I believe that by that we have demonstrated that rigid definitions of what must be considered a slum condition are not possible, and that we should rather have faith in the particular local governments which have been elected and which know the circumstances. They themselves must determine what circumstances create a slum condition. Furthermore, I believe that we can have complete confidence that those elected authorities will act far more sympathetically towards their voters.

After further rationalisation by the legislature, every own affairs ministry will in future, in their legislation on development and housing, also be able to deal with the elimination of a nuisance or a slum condition and embody this in appropriate legislation. Therefore, I should like to support the present legislation, particularly because it does away with the previous cumbersome procedures and is an effective instrument for eliminatin g a nuisance.

Mr Chairman, I have an idea that I know only too well what the hon member for Nelspruit was referring to when he spoke about vermin. As I listened to the hon member for Claremont, I realised why he had adopted such a negative attitude towards this legislation. He could not thrive if there were no slum conditions.

I just want to draw the attention of the House to an article in Die Burger of 21 April this year, according to which Mr Myatasa, the mayor of Kaya Mandi, near Stellenbosch, referred to the hon member, and I want to quote from the article.

That is ancient history, Hennie.

The article states that Mr Myatasa sharply criticised Mr Jan van Eck because he allegedly persuaded an illiterate audience at an open-air meeting in Kaya Mandi to tip the contents of their rubbish bins into the streets of the township. [Interjections ] That is absolutely scandalous. I am telling you, Sir, that that hon member would be unable to continue with his kind of politics if we were to eliminate the slum conditions in South Africa on which he thrives if we ultimately succeed in cleaning up and regulating these conditions. [Interjections.]

The Flying Dutchman (vlieënde Hollander). [Interjections.]

Order! No, too many interjections are being made.

When we look at this legislation, it is general knowledge that this legislation is before us this afternoon as a result of a report from the President’s Council. I want to make it very clear this afternoon that the NP does not regard this legislation as a substitute for influx control. The NP is in favour of people being able to move freely within the borders of the Republic.

Why the squatter legislation?

What this National Government does stand for is orderly urbanisation for all people with these provisos: Firstly that the safety of people will be considered, and secondly that the health conditions of the inhabitants will be taken into account. We cannot allow 40 people to live in a room with one toilet. That is what that hon member wants. Then he thrives.

I am telling you that the best preventive measure for slum conditions is to encourage private homeownership. In order to do that, we will have to encourage private enterprise to invest in homeownership. I was again impressed during the past weekend when I drove through Kraaifontein and saw to what extent private enterprise had in fact got stuck in to provide people with accommodation during the past year.

Those are my people!

I want to congratulate the hon member for Wellington with what has been achieved there.

Furthermore, we will have to pay real attention to urban renewal measures. When I look at this report of the President’s Council, it is clear to me that we will also have to look at the external sociological factors. It is very clear to me, but because I do not have sufficient time I cannot dwell on it.

It is also clear to me, if I look at the report of the President’s Council on the urbanisation policy— I am referring to the President’s Council report No 3 of 1985—that there are other factors that will have to be subjected to incisive analysis.

If we look at the causes of urban decay it is very clear to me that the physical aging and the functional decay of an area gives rise to slum conditions.

Furthermore, it is clear to me that many owners neglect to upgrade buildings simply because it is no longer economically justifiable to do so. I have understanding and sympathy for that.

Abolish rent control.

We shall have to emphasise the preventive aspect of urban decay. We shall have to cultivate a greater awareness of conservation, and for this we shall have to make funds available, because we may not degrade this heritage in the process.

It is clear to me that there is only one authority that can implement this legislation, namely the local authority. This is very clear if one looks at the Strydom report. I am quoting from paragraph 89:

From this it is very clear to me that there is only one body for this task, namely the local authority.

The primary responsibility to end nuisances rests with the local community and local authority. Why? Firstly, they are directly involved in the circumstances of the community. They come into contact with them daily. They are familiar with the local conditions and usually possess the expertise to be able to judge. Usually such a local authority has good judgment. Furthermore, it is very clear to me that we are implementing the Government’s policy with this process of the devolution of power and that we are on the right track. I am convinced that local authorities cannot act arbitrarily, because they are bound by certain guidelines in terms of legislation. Ultimately, they will also be subject to tests.

I just want to ask the hon the Minister this afternoon whether attention has indeed been given to the matter in which, according to the report of the President’s Council, the Free State Municipal Association said that they were unable to support the proposed legislation owing to the fact that slum conditions could also occur in peri-urban areas and that they were not convinced that there would be a body which could exercise jurisdiction there.

They do not have slums in the Free State.

I should just like to know from the hon the Minister whether attention has been given to this facet.

Personally, I have no doubt of the necessity of this legislation. I am convinced that it is desirable in the interests of the entire community that this legislation should be placed on the Statute Book in an attempt to ultimately prevent and clear up slum conditions in their entirety.

Mr Chairman, in the first place I should like to thank all hon members who took part in this debate for their participation and also for the contribution which they made.

I want to start with the last speaker, the hon member for George, and thank him for the positive contribution which he made. The hon member said, and this is true, that the amendments to the old Slums Act and the new legislation which proceeded from it had certainly come a long way. It did not, as the Urban Foundation wants to allege, suddenly become part of the trilogy but resulted from the recommendations of the President’s Council. Nor was it suddenly decided on a haphazard basis that the Slums Act should be revised. On 5 October 1987 the hon the State President, regarding the interim period, said here in the House (Hansard: House of Assembly, 1987, col 6673):

He continued:

Surely this was said long ago and it is stale news by now. I agree with the hon member for George, particularly when he quoted from the Strydom Report, that attention has been given to this matter.

The hon member said that private ownership was the answer to slum conditions. I merely want to say that I endorse that statement wholeheartedly. It is the answer. The best preventive measure against the creation of slum conditions is individual ownership of dwellings.

The hon member made the point that local authorities were the obvious bodies to deal with slums. That is actually quite right because local authorities are certainly responsible to their voters. The fairness or unfairness, the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of their action will be assessed by their voters every time there is a municipal election. Consequently this places local authorities under discipline.

The hon member for George asked whether the proposed Slums Bill would apply to peri-urban areas. I do not wish to give a very definitive reply here but one can actually view the matter like this. There is a definition in the Bill of what a local authority is. If one looks at Act No 32 of 1961, a local government is described in it as municipal institutions, divisional council or other local institution of a similar nature.

Local government is defined very broadly. I think that this may be a matter which could be reconsidered but that one could perhaps deduce with reasonable grounds that this legislation will apply to peri-urban areas.

I should also like to refer to the hon member for Nelspruit. He alluded to the hon member for Groote Schuur’s amendments and also to vermin. It seems to me that the hon member for Groote Schuur imagined a mass of vermin when he moved these amendments.

I want to associate myself with his thanks and congratulations to the chairman of the committee, the hon member for Uitenhage, for the exceptional contribution which he made and the guidance which he provided.

I want to get to the hon member for Uitenhage. He aptly remarked that certain misgivings and problems which were raised in the informal discussions and which were addressed to the committee had been accommodated in the new legislation.

I want to make the following point again today. I think joint committees enable this Parliament to produce better legislation than ever before in its history because this is a piece of legislation emanating from a department and from a ministry and the joint committee can view that Bill from all angles. It can obtain contributions from elsewhere, it can consider it and reconsider it and, in that closed shop, removed from the flash of cameras and any need to play to the gallery, serious consideration can be given to what is in the best interests of the country.

This Bill which is now before the House of Assembly could perhaps have been a very much better piece of legislation today if the spirit of boycott had not manifested itself regarding its discussion. That is why one is so much more appreciative of those who had the sense of responsibility to remain seated and to take part in the work of the committee in order to come to this Parliament with a better piece of legislation than was originally handed to them.

The hon member also made a very important point here. Opponents of the Government, opponents of this entire new strategy and new world which we are entering as regards the settlement of people, free settlement areas and the entrenchment of the identity of existing residential areas, are doing their best to link this Slums Bill to the question of apartheid, group areas, etc. This legislation is actually a measure without colour connotations.

This Bill is aimed at the safety and health of people who live in an area. It is a Bill without colour connotations and it is not a Bill that is used to resettle certain people of colour. Surely there is merit in the application of this legislation and that is why I find it regrettable that this Bill is also dragged into the trilogy and that a so-called apartheid label is also being attached to it now.

This brings me to the hon member for Claremont. He said that he had no confidence in the Government’s opinion of what constituted a nuisance. I can only tell the hon member that, if I had had to classify him, he would not have fallen far outside the definition of a nuisance. The hon member tried to give a racial connotation to this Bill. He returned to District Six and tried to lay all overcrowding which takes place in this counry at the Government’s door. Then he also put forward the argument that we would now use this legislation to prevent Hillbrow from turning into a slum. Surely that is more or less what the hon member said. Is the hon member opposed to our applying the Act there?

[Inaudible.]

No, wait a bit, I am asking the hon member this question now. The hon member said that we would use this Act to prevent Hillbrow from deteriorating into a slum. Will the hon member support me if I use the Act to prevent Hillbrow from changing into a slum?

Open the entire country, then you need not …

No, I am not putting a question about the entire country. Surely this is fair. The hon member said that I intended using this legislation to prevent Hillbrow from changing into a slum. Surely it is fair for me to ask the hon member whether he and the little group of which he is now a member support me in that respect.

Order! No, it is not very fair. The hon the Minister cannot ask questions and hope to receive replies to them.

No, but I shall reply to him. I say that, if it should be necessary and if the local government does not act, I shall use that Act if there is trouble in Hillbrow. I am merely asking whether he will support me and the Johannesburg City Council.

He is somebody with a slum mentality and people like him want to attach a racial connotation to everything in this country to promote racial hatred and polarisation. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it in order in terms of the definition of a nuisance in the Bill for the hon the Minister to say that I have a slum mentality?

Order! I think the hon the Minister should be careful in his choice of words. I do not think he should refer to an hon member as a slum.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order …

Order! I am still occupied with this point of order. I want to request the hon the Minister to withdraw the reference to the hon member as a slum.

No, Sir, I do not wish to refer to the hon member as a slum at all. That was not my intention. I hope I did not use the word but, if I did, I withdraw it.

But he is a nuisance.

What I wanted to say was that the hon member’s mentality is slum-orientated. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon member whether he would not rather consider returning to Holland. [Interjections.] We have enough problems in this country and we are looking for people here who want to help solve the problems, and not help create them. We are looking for people who are part of the solution and not part of the cause of the problem in this country. [Interjections.]

It is you who are governing!

That hon member is part of the cause of the problems which arise in this country.

I want to come to the hon member for Nigel. I want to say very amicably that I hope I misunderstood the hon member. He said that when we were still firm Afrikaners …

Staunch Afrikaners!

… we battled against capitalism.

Liberalism and capitalism!

Does the hon member mean to say that the Afrikaner’s struggle was against capitalism in this country? Is the Afrikaner group to which he belongs fighting capitalism?

Capitalists and the new liberals!

The hon member spoke about the time when the Afrikaner was involved in a struggle against capitalism. [Interjections.]

My notes are here!

We can take a look at what they contain. If I heard the hon member correctly, I want to say that the Afrikaner has never been a person who has fought capitalism; on the contrary, he is an advocate of capitalism and the free enterprise system. [Interjections.]

That is not the point which I made!

I think, however, that the social-socialist influence of the AWB is dulling that hon member’s vision. [Interjections.] He is starting to use the language of social-socialism. The hon member’s spiritual leader, Mr Eugene Terre’Blanche, has an enormous influence on the hon member for Nigel. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon member that he must … [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, can the hon the Minister tell us what social-socialism is?

Social-socialism is a policy which is socialistic. It comes down to the policy which Hitler followed in Nazi Germany. That is social-socialism. [Interjections.] If the hon member wants to know exactly, he can read the AWB constitution—the previous one—then I need not explain. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Nigel said that the procedure was too cumbersome. I agree with the hon member on that. The hon member then put a question on the matter of when a local authority does not want to co-operate in declaring a slum a slum area. I think that is the crux of the matter. That is why the Minister is being granted the power and the Minister will only be able to exercise that power if the local authority does not find the area to be a slum.

That was not my question at all! You were sitting talking! You were not listening to me! [Interjections.] I was talking about the definition of a “nuisance”.

I do not want to quarrel with the hon member; I want to help him. The hon member doubts whether the Minister will be able to act if the local authority does not agree that it is a slum.

Not at all! Not in the least! You were not listening to me!

That is what I understood the hon member to say. [Interjections.]

I was talking about the definition of a “nuisance”!

Order! The hon member for Nigel does not have a turn to speak now.

Mr Chairman, what I want to say to the hon member …

I made a recommendation!

Order! The hon member for Nigel cannot continue like this while I have asked him to make fewer interjections. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, if I misunderstood the hon member, I am sorry but I could put no other construction on what he said. The hon member said that the Minister would possibly be unable to exercise all the powers of a local authority because that local authority was not prepared to declare an area a slum.

Not at all!

The answer to that is … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Nigel will make no further interjections now.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Do I now have to sit and listen to the hon the Minister accusing me of allegations that I did not make?

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the hon member said that he actually wanted to help to strengthen my hand. [Interjections.] I want to point out to the hon member that in terms of clause 2(a) and clause 3 the Minister may take over all the powers of a local authority and exercise them in the area of jurisdiction of that local authority. The refusal of a local authority to declare an area a slum area will in no way impede the removal of that nuisance because those powers are vested in the Minister in such a case. It will therefore definitely be possible to apply this legislation effectively in that connection. If the hon member has any doubts, I want to point out that this legislation will be discussed in a committee again and one can argue it further there. Nevertheless as I understood his question, I think that there is no problem in that regard. I shall let that suffice.

Mr Chairman, as early as 1983 the National Roads Act was amended to make the tolling of national roads possible. A Bill on toll roads was prepared at that time to be tabled during the 1987 session of Parliament. This was not done, however, because the legislation would largely have been a repetition of the National Roads Act.

It was decided therefore to amend the National Roads Act to make the privatisation of roads possible in preference to passing a Toll Road Act. On this occasion I wish to emphasise the Government’s commitment to privatisation and deregulation. The White Paper on this subject, which sets out the Government’s standpoint, was tabled in Parliament last year. The following advantages of privatisation were mentioned inter alia:

The design, planning and building of roads by the private sector for the public sector—and everything related to this, including maintenance— have already been the order of the day for some time. Consequently it is nothing new. In fact, as a result of the Government’s policy a vigorous construction industry has developed which is concentrating increasingly on road building and the competition in this industry is fierce and sound. The more we privatise, the more the industry is stimulated.

†In short, the business of the Government is government and not business, and this is very evident in the road building industry.

The demand for an efficient and extended national road network grows continually and there are large stretches of provincial roads which could and should really become national roads. Privatisation can provide national roads or improved national roads much sooner. It is also in line with the policy to recover the costs of services from those who actually derive the benefit of such services, and I think that is a very, very important point.

Let us now consider this legislation. This Bill is therefore part of the privatisation policy adopted by the Department of Transport and is in accordance with the White Paper. It provides for the conclusion of an agreement between the National Transport Commission and a concessionaire. In terms of the agreement the concessionaire finances, constructs, maintains and operates a section of a national road. The concessionaire is entitled to levy a toll in respect of that section of a national road. This toll is the subject of such an agreement and the amount of such toll shall be determined in accordance with terms and conditions set out in the agreement and which may, inter alia, differentiate between various classes of vehicles. The toll collected accrues to the concessionaire.

The agreement is effective for a period not exceeding 25 years from a date specified and contained in the agreement, and may be extended for a further period not exceeding 25 years. During this time the concessionaire performs the functions and has the necessary powers and duties of the commission with regard to the control of the road and is liable in respect of damage caused by usage of the road.

Let us consider State involvement. In terms of the agreements with the two consortia—ie Tollway and Tolcon—the State will become a partner in these ventures with a shareholding of up to 25%. The Government will also be represented by three directors on the board of each consortium to protect the public’s interest. There are various examples overseas of such public or private sector partnership, such as the Cofiroute Toll Road Company in France, which has been in operation for many years.

Other ways of government involvement in such private ventures overseas include government guarantees on loans taken up by private companies to finance projects. In the United States federal funds can now also be used by states to assist in the financing of toll roads, some provided and operated by either public or private toll authorities. In Malaysia the government ceded about 500 kilometres of road to a toll company for incorporation into a total toll road network of 1 000 kilometres in order to make the project viable.

The question of the tolling of existing roads has resulted in considerable public reaction and therefore I would like to elaborate on this subject. There is a limit to the level of toll tariffs which the public will accept. If the tariffs are set at this limit and multiplied by the traffic, the result is the gross income. If this is insufficient to meet all the costs, the project is not viable. One way of solving this problem is to add a portion of existing road to the project so that the income from tolling the existing road can supplement the previously calculated income to a level which makes the project viable. This is the reason for including existing sections of the N1 and the N3 in Tolcon’s project and the R77 and the temporary tolling—please note!—of the N13 in Tollway’s project. The other alternative would have been for the State to make a substantial financial contribution to the project to make it viable.

*In the case of Tollway, where the project links up with the Johannesburg road network and includes parts of it, there is a further reason. This is that the best open toll system must be chosen to obtain the maximum toll income—in other words, the minimum number of toll plazas must be located in the correct position to achieve that objective. In order to make the best choice, all possible alternatives are investigated. In this case the best alternative by far was not to locate the toll plaza on the M4 in the eventual system but to toll the traffic which will use the M4 by tolling the R77. Hon members who are acquainted with those arteries will know what I am talking about. The impact of this on the income from the project is such that the project would not be viable without the inclusion of the existing portion of the R77.

Concern has been expressed that the consortiums will make excessive profits at the expense of the public. The following mechanisms have been included in agreements in order to ensure an acceptable relationship between risk and remuneration for consortiums: Maximum toll tariffs have been fixed at 75% of the actual advantage which the toll road offers in comparison with the alternative route. Those of us who are already using toll roads know that this can happen and that it is a saving. Standards for road construction, maintenance and traffic density have been prescribed, not only to offer the paying road user an acceptable level of service but also to bring about the required long-term private sector investment in road infrastructure which will last beyond the duration of the concession. Three directors, nominated by the State, will form part of the board of each of the companies to safeguard the interests of the State and the public.

The following mechanisms which affect the distribution of profits have been included in agreements: Firstly, both companies have to be quoted on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange within the first ten years of the concession to enable the general public to have a share in the ownership of the companies and in any profits. Secondly, the State may acquire a shareholding of up to 25% in each company by the conversion of the tax which is paid into shares in accordance with a predetermined formula.

In spite of this, both companies will be subject to normal market forces and, where toll income is a function of both traffic volume and toll tariff, it is common knowledge that optimal income is obtained for a toll company at a tariff which is low enough to attract at least 80% of the corridor traffic for which the toll road is the logical route. The State will also derive benefit from these undertakings by means of the tax which will be paid by the consortiums.

Initially, owing to the negative cash flow position and until such time as accumulated losses can be extinguished by profits, neither Tollway nor Tolcon will pay any income tax. Based on parameters as set out on the date of the agreement, income tax projections for Tollway and Tolcon are as follows: Expectations are that Tollway’s first income tax will be payable in 1992 whereas Tolcon’s first income tax is expected to become payable in 1994.

The Income Tax Act will be amended to permit both companies to claim depreciation in respect of permanent works as a tax deduction for a 25-year period and as regards road surfaces and equipment for a period of eight years.

These amendments, as I have explained them, are required to give effect to the motions. Consequently I can say that this Bill opens doors to private sector participation in traffic affairs in this country and provides a mechanism by means of which road users make a fair contribution in return for the benefit they derive from road usage.

Mr Chairman, I should like to begin with a few introductory remarks. Firstly it is my opinion that the untenability of the present tricameral parliamentary system is, very ironically, best illustrated by the events in connection with this Bill. During the meetings of the joint committee in Pretoria on 2 and 3 August of this year the Coloured and Indian members, with the exception of one Coloured member and one Indian member, agreed with the NP throughout about the desirability and the provisions of the Bill. The majority even agreed with the NP to prevent the CP from asking questions on Tuesday, 3 August.

That is not true!

If that hon member says it is not true, he does not know what the truth is. That morning an official of the Department of Transport gave a lecture on important aspects of the envisaged privatised toll roads. Questions were subsequently asked by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. At one stage the Director-General of Transport furnished an explanation. Then, out of the blue, a Coloured member of the Labour Party moved to vote on the desirability of the Bill.

You were there the previous afternoon.

When I drew to the Chairman’s attention that I still wished to put certain questions—I merely want to make it clear that up to that point the CP had not been able to put any questions about that lecture …

[Inaudible.]

Order!

You are being a bit stroppy, aren’t you.

Order! When the Chair calls for order, the intention is for the hon member to obey and for interjections to cease. The hon member for Roodepoort may proceed.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member for Brakpan threaten the Chief Whip of Parliament in this case? [Interjections.]

No, Mr Chairman, I did not in any way threaten the Chief Whip of Parliament; I merely said he was being a bit stroppy. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Roodepoort may continue.

The chairman of the committee then informed me that at that stage he had a formal motion and that he on his part was not going to permit any questions to be put. I was then compelled to move a formal counter-motion, and what it amounted to was that I be given an opportunity to put questions. How ridiculous, in a so-called democratic institution, for the NP and its partners to deny another democratically elected representative the right to put questions. [Interjections.]

A vote was then taken, and with the exception of one Indian and one Coloured member, my colleague the hon member for Middelburg, and possibly the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central—I could not see exactly what he was doing—all the other hon members in the joint committee voted against my motion. What is more, the Coloured and Indian members then joined forces with the NP to muzzle the CP. Now, after the majority of Coloured and Indian members played that role, they are not only boycottin g all the other Bills, but also this Bill, for which they voted then and whose desirability they agreed to. What absolute comic irony! One can hardly have a better example of the futility of this system.

Secondly I just want to refer briefly to the strange conduct of the NP in regard to the agreements negotiated by the Government with two private consortiums in regard to these toll roads. The hon member for Primrose, who is the chairman of this committee, gave a ruling at the meeting of this committee that agreements would only be concluded in the committee room where hon members could examine them. Hon members were not permitted to make any copies of them. The hon member for Primrose also ruled that if a request where made to Mr Speaker to have his ruling set aside, the private contractors also had to be notified before copies were made available.

I think it can justifiably be said that here the chairman was playing a game of hide-and-seek as far as these agreements were concerned. On a previous occasion I made inquiries from the Department of Transport about the possibility of examining these agreements. I was informed that the agreements were possibly secret and that they could not be made available to me at that stage. I am not angry at the relevant official; I merely want to indicate what obstacles had to be overcome in an effort to examine these agreements.

Hon members may ask why we were so keen to examine the agreements. The answer is simply that the object of this Bill is to privatise toll roads and that the Bill has been drafted in such a way that it contains only the formal legal framework within which the toll system will be operated. If one looks at clause 4 of the Bill under discussion, which contains the new sections 9A and 9B, this is clearly apparent. The new section 9A(1) reads as follows:

The new subsection (4) also reads as follows:

The new section 9B(2) reads as follows:

It is therefore clear that the finer details about the operation of the toll system must be found in the agreements. One can compare them with regulation in terms of an Act; it is no use merely examining the Act. The finer details come from the agreements and the agreements alone. The importance of this was proved during the first meeting of the joint committee when the Director-General of Transport began with words to the effect that the Bill should be amended in accordance with the provisions of the agreements. After the whole to-do in the joint committee to which I referred, I nevertheless did have an opportunity to examine the agreements. That was after the meetings of the joint committee, and I am very grateful to those who allowed me to examine them. In the course of my speech I am consequently going to refer to them.

I merely want to add, for example, that the determination of the formula for the calculation of the toll fees is not prescribed in the Bill, being left solely to the agreement concluded between the State and the concessionaire. This cannot meet with the CP’s approval. There is no assurance in the Bill in connection with any restriction on the formula in terms of which toll fees are to be calculated. The formula or the tariff is determined in the agreement, and the contractors, i e the Government and the concessionaire, are not legally bound to subject themselves to a legal maximum.

I now want to come to the background to this Bill. In order to determine the advantages or disadvantages of the Bill, one must take a brief look at the background and at the Government’s motivation of the Bill. Section 9 of the present National Roads Act of 1971 was, as the hon the Deputy Minister pointed out, drafted in 1983. It makes provision for the National Transport Commission to declare national roads as toll roads and to operate them as such. This power is, inter alia, qualified by subsection 9(3). In terms of this subsection the commission is compelled to ensure that at the time the relevant toll road is announced—

The provision and maintenance of these roads is done from the National Road Fund. In turn this fund is maintained by a levy on fuel.

In terms of the Government’s policy relating to privatisation and deregulation, it was decided to transfer the financing, planning, design, construction, maintenance, rehabilitation and operation of toll roads to the private sector for a certain period in terms of so-called concession agreements. The financing of these projects on toll roads is no longer solely being done from the National Road Fund, but partly from the toll fee levied by the private bodies on the relevant roads. The CP is in favour of road users themselves being responsible for the roads they use. That is a fair principle. In principle, therefore, the CP has no objection to a toll system as such. As has repeatedly been said in this House, in principle the CP is not opposed to privatisation as such either. The privatisation of toll roads, however, cannot be supported in our set-up. We therefore cannot support this Bill because of the particular matter which is being privatised here and the way in which it is being done. In the course of the debate my hon colleagues will deal with the objections to this Bill. From an introductory point of view I am merely going to discuss a few of them.

Firstly, in terms of the concession agreements existing roads are being transferred to the concessionaires. Over the years road users have contributed millions of rands to the design, construction, maintenance, improvement and the operation of these roads by means of the fuel levy. To have these roads privatised now and to have toll fees paid, when there is not quid pro quo to the road user for his contributions, is unacceptable. It merely adds to the burden of the already overburdened road user.

In the contract with the Tollway Consortium is included, inter alia, 24 km of the existing R77 route between Heidelberg Road near Alberton and the P6-2 near Brakpan, as well as the existing N13 national route. In the agreement with the Tolcon Consortium a total of 254 km of existing road has been included in the toll system.

A second objection that goes hand in hand with this is that inadequate provision has been made for the maintenance of alternative routes. The existing section 9 of the National Roads Act imposes an obligation on the National Transport Commission to ensure that for every toll road an alternative route is provided or to ensure an alternative route which the commission itself controls or which is controlled by another road authority. In the agreements, and in the Bill under discussion, no provision is made for alternative routes by the concessionaires; on the contrary, in the agreement with Tolcon the following is stipulated, and I quote from clause 16.1. This is very important:

1. 16.1.1 will not construct or provide or, to the extent that it lies within the State’s power to prevent the same, permit the construction or provision of any single carriageway, two-lane tarred road or better which competes with the route or any part thereof unless there is a cogent need to provide transport by means of the aforegoing and, after discussion between the parties, Tolcon is unable or unwilling to satisfy such need by improving the toll road. If the State constructs or provides a competitive route in accordance with the provisions of this clause the State shall endeavour to avoid economic loss to Tolcon and prior to the exercise of such right the parties will negotiate in good faith to reach an acceptable alternative solution. Failing such solution and provided that Tolcon has complied with the standards and with its obligation to widen the road in respect of the relevant part of the route and is not in breach of this agreement, the State shall be obliged …

That is very illuminating—

[Interjections.] The construction of the alternative routes by the State is therefore completely discouraged by this provision in the agreement. If the alternative route were, in fact, constructed and were competitive with the toll road, the agreement provides that the State should compensate the concessionaire for any loss suffered as a result of the competition. [Interjections.]

It is also illuminating that the concessionaire himself must first be given a choice to absorb the traffic of such an alternative route by way of improvements made to the toll road. Only when the concessionaire does not see his way clear to doing that, may the State construct the alternative route. Then the State is compelled, in any event, to try to prevent the concessionaire from suffering financial losses. Once the concessionaire has met his normal obligations in respect of the toll road, in accordance with the agreement, the State is compelled to compensate the concessionaire for the loss of any traffic which preferred to make use of the alternative route. The money with which this compensation must be paid comes, of course, from the taxpayers’ pocket, as we know.

Clause 16.1.3 of the same contract is just as illuminating—actually even more far-reaching— because it affects existing alternative routes. Once again the clause must be read in conjunction with the preamble in clause 16.1, and the relevant portion reads as follows:

1. 16.1.3 will be entitled to provide or upgrade any road in existence at the date hereof unless the effect of such improvement or upgrading of such road will be to reduce the after tax income or increase the after tax loss of Tolcon, in which event the parties will negotiate in good faith to reach an acceptable solution.

Even in regard to existing alternative routes, this burden is therefore placed on the shoulders of the State. [Interjections.] This is the gist of the matter. For the sake of presenting a complete picture, I shall nevertheless refer to the rest of this provision so that I cannot be accused of quoting selectively. The rest concerns the gist of the matter. It merely reads:

The parties record that the State shall not be obliged to prevent certain types of road planning and improvement which have as at the date of signature of this agreement devolved upon provincial, regional or local authorities. Tolcon agrees that, notwithstanding the above, no compensation shall be payable to Tolcon in terms of this sub-clause if—

1. 16.1.3.1 the relevant part of the competitive route has a projected traffic flow exceeding a level of Service D as defined in the Highway Capacity Manual for 150 (one hundred and fifty) hours or more in any one calendar year; and
2. 16.1.3.2 the improved or upgraded road is no better than a single carriageway twolane road and is not improved or upgraded to a standard which exceeds the standards as defined in this agreement.

The gist of this provision is therefore that the upgrading or improvement of existing alternative routes by the State may definitely not present any competition to the toll road. If that were in fact to happen, the State would be compelled to pay compensation to the concessionaires.

That is scandalous! [Interjections.]

It is important to note that the Government is not up to date with its expenditure on the improvement, maintenance and upgrading of existing roads. [Interjections.] The hon the Deputy Minister would do well to pay attention, because this is an important matter. We should like to obtain the exact present-day figure from the hon the Deputy Minister—the amount by which the Government is in arrears in its expenditure on the upgrading, improvement and maintenance of existing roads.

In Business Day of 23 May of this year it is reported, and I quote:

In the same report the executive director of the SA Bitumen and Tar Association is reported as follows, and I quote again:

The position is therefore that the State will, of necessity, have to improve alternative routes and, where necessary, upgrade them owing to the existing backlog in road improvement. If it does so now, in accordance with the agreements it will have to compensate the concessionaires for any losses suffered in consequence of the resulting competition. This is a completely unhealthy and unacceptable state of affairs. [Interjections.] The CP is geared to ensuring that State monopolies are not simply replaced by private monopolies. Where State control is, in fact, necessary for strategic reasons, it is also our aim to maximise the benefits of such control as far as the taxpayer is concerned so that the average citizen will also benefit financially from such a situation.

In our view the conditions to which I have already referred point to a situation in which the Government, in its position of sole control of national roads, is not giving the taxpayer a better deal, since it is, in effect, establishing a more expensive and inconvenient system. We cannot support this system.

A further example of the financial disadvantage to road users in the proposed privatised system is to be found in clause 15.2.2 and 15.2.3 of the agreement with Tolcon on the determination of toll fees. In that clause it is provided, firstly, that the concessionaire can increase his toll tariffs by the amount of any sales tax, valued added tax or any other tax on toll revenue, apart from ordinary income tax, even if the toll tariffs exceed the toll tariff basically agreed to. At the moment the basic toll tariff amounts to a maximum of 75% of the saving brought about as a result of the use of the toll road, or such higher tariff as the State may authorise in writing. I refer to clause 15.2.1 and page 1 of Schedule 5.

If the State had tolled the roads itself, instead of privatising them, these forms of taxation, to which private undertakings are exclusively subject, would not have hit the road user.

Secondly, in clause 15.2.3, read in conjunction with clause 15.2.1, provision is specifically made for the possible increase in toll tariffs to more than 75% of the saving owing to the use of the toll road. In point of fact there is consequently no guarantee that at any given moment, in terms of an agreement between the Government and the relevant concessionaire, toll tariffs will not be increased to such an extent that it completely eliminates the financial benefits inherent in making use of the toll road.

Lastly I want to refer to another aspect, and that is the complete exclusion of the liability of the Government and the concessionaires in terms of the proposed new section 9A(5). It reads:

We cannot support this provision in the Bill. This means that if the concessionaire or the State can say that the concessionaire caused this damage, whether deliberately or owing to his negligence, as long as it was caused in the course of implementing the agreement, the specific party would go scot-free and no one could institute a claim against the State or the concessionaire. In our view such a provision does not belong in the legislation of a civilized country. Consequently for that reason, too, we cannot support this legislation.

I have only dealt with a few of the objections to the Bill. The others will be dealt with by my hon colleagues.

Mr Chairman, I should like to set one little matter straight here for the hon member for Roodepoort, who launched such an attack here on the chairman. He has every right to do so and I do not have a problem with that, but he must stick more closely to the truth when he does so.

The hon member for Wellington said that he had worked under a good chairman and I agree with that. What is interesting is that the hon member has a great talent for only attending a few minutes of a joint committee meeting and then leaving again. [Interjections.]

In any case I want to single out the hon member for Middelburg who was not there that afternoon either, but who came and apologized to me because he had to attend the funeral of a close friend of his.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question?

No, I shall not take a question from that hon member. He did not take the trouble to be on the joint committee, so why should I reply to his question?

You do not even know what the reason was.

I shall excuse the hon member for Middelburg in this debate, since he came and apologised because he had to attend a funeral.

I have here the minutes of what took place on Monday, 22 August, and Tuesday, 23 August. In the first place the hon member asked the Chairman whether he could have these documents. My ruling was that the documents could not be copied and distributed, but that they could be studied at any time by the members of the committee during the meetings of the committee, or in the offices of the Department of Transport.

This is a secret government!

However, the hon the Minister of Transport may, after he has received the permission of the other parties to the contracts—because there are two parties involved here—agree to copies of the contracts being made and distributed to members. This must be addressed to the hon the Minister because he is one of the parties and the hon the Minister must make arrangements—that was my ruling—with the other party. If the hon members were dissatisfied with that ruling I invited them to write to Mr Speaker, as the CP has done in the past in connection with me, and discuss the matter with him.

That was not good enough for the hon member. After lunch, when we had debated informally for many hours, the hon member was not present. He is entitled to be there or not be there. I am not quarrelling with the hon member about that. [Interjections.] The next morning, on the basis of the previous day’s discussion, I asked that one of the figures we had received—if the hon member had been there he would also have received that figure—should be enlarged and shown to us by means of an overhead projector and said that the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central could then ask his questions in detail while that enlargement of the figure was being discussed. Well, the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central asked his questions and when, in the opinion of everyone present there, the informal discussion was over, it was proposed that we should proceed with the formal discussion. I adopted the royal road of democracy and said we should vote on this, so that we abide by the decision, because I have found that when one is dealing with the CP it is always a good thing to have everything in writing because one will need it later. [Interjections ]

There were two further motions following on this proposal of the hon member for Wuppertal. The second motion was due by the hon member for Roodepoort, to the effect that we should continue with the informal discussion. The third motion was one by the hon member for Klipspruit West to the effect that the discussion should be suspended and postponed to a later date. I put each proposal to the respective Houses separately. The motion of the hon member for Klipspruit West was totally rejected, except for his own vote. The hon member for Roodepoort’s motion received only his vote and that of the hon member for Middelburg. The hon member for Wuppertal’s motion was accepted. We consequently proceeded to the formal discussion. The hon member for Roodepoort lost his temper, leapt to his feet, pulled the poor hon member for Middelburg out of his chair and dragged him out of the committee, saying that they were not going to participate any further.

That is not true!

Of course it is true. We were there.

He then issued a big statement to the Press. [Interjections.] Half of the story he issued was not quite true, because the Press telephoned me. There was not a joint vote, because there could not be one. The voting was conducted separately per House and this was totally rejected by the three Houses. It was also rejected by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central, because I have the minutes here and that hon member voted for the hon member for Wuppertal’s motion, namely that we should proceed to the formal discussion. I think it is a good thing for us to have these matters placed on record, because the hon members frequently do not attend the committee meetings and then work must be repeated. [Interjections.] If that is not wasting money then I would like to know what is.

Unfortunately this would seem to be the attitude of the CP in this regard. They expect us to do what they consider to be the right thing. I have a similar cutting here from Die Burger of 29 August regarding what happened at the CP Congress. They adopted the same attitude there on the basis of a number of things that were said. The deputy leader, the hon member for Lichtenburg, said:

The hon member adopted the same kind of attitude when we were there. Now is the time to discuss this and not yesterday. We sat for hours the previous day discussing this draft Bill informally.

I have nothing further to say about the hon member. The other aspects he raised will be dealt with by the hon the Minister …

You cannot!

… and other hon members will give attention to them.

In the few minutes remaining to me, I should like to come back to my speech. This is very important legislation, because in principle the Act is changing. A change has taken place in that the Government has proceeded to take a decision on White Papers in respect of transport, and of privatisation and deregulation, and to go ahead with this. This is the first instance of the Government starting to privatise an existing State-cumprivate enterprise.

The hon member said that in principle they were in favour of privatisation and deregulation, but now I want if placed on record here that to date they have repeatedly used those fine meaningless words, but have not yet supported a single proposal which the Government has made in this House to privatise or to deregulate.

Time and again they utter those fine, meaningless words, but to date they have not supported a single proposal which the Government has in this House to privatise or to deregulate. To date there has always been something they are opposed to. I have come to the conclusion that the CP is either in favour of this in principle only when it suits them, or they are not in favour of privatisation and deregulation at all, because the history of what they have done here to date, shows that they are totally opposed to it.

This is also in line with the new change in the policy in respect of roads. That was a very interesting question which the hon member asked. He asked what our deficit was. The quality of roads in South Africa, particularly the long distance routes, ranks among the best in the world, better than Australia’s, better than Japan’s, but let us look into the matter.

We must remember that there are approximately 85 000 kilometres of tarred roads and approximately 150 000 kilometres of gravel roads in this country, and that annually the State spends approximately R2,5 billion on road infrastructure, and that approximately five million vehicles travel on our roads in South Africa.

It is being said that there is a deficit. Figures of R30 billion have been quoted here. I do not think that can be true. I can never believe that we are R30 billion in arrears, because we would have to rebuild the entire road network if we wanted to spend R30 billion on this. I think that is nonsense, because there are also very good roads.

I do not want to dwell on this any longer, but I merely want to say that a traffic problem is a very serious problem, and we can look at the rest of the world to see what a traffic problem looks like, and what effect it has.

I want to ask the hon the Minister that we continue spending money on the building of roads, whether by the State or by the involvement of private enterprise. We shall have to continue to improve the quality of our road infrastructure, because this remains a very important lifeline and an important cost-generating effect.

I want to dwell here for a moment on a related aspect which is being dragged into the discussion of this legislation. This is the increase in heavy vehicle licence fees. I want to express my disappointment to certain of the organised institutions outside, particularly in the transport sector, which are making dreadful statements in their publications.

I now want to quote something I received in the post only this morning. It reads as follows:

I think we are all looking at this aspect. At the moment preliminary figures have been published, and I am quoting from Die Burger of 13 July in which the Administrator of the Cape gave the Cape’s figures, for example, and then asked:

I merely want to suggest that since this is being reconsidered—a final decision has not been taken—we should remain calm. I also want to ask that we continue to submit our requests, proposals and planning. Other hon members who will follow me will go further. While I am speaking I wish to express my thanks to the Administrators and the hon the Minister of Finance and his department, who are prepared to take another look at this aspect, who are prepared to discuss this again, because the final word has not yet been spoken on this.

While we are dealing with that, I also want to say this. I think we must look at a part of this cost increase, because it is true that up to now heavy vehicles have not carried their justifiable costs in respect of road infrastructure. This is an accepted principle. I think we must rectify this. Here is the opportunity, but I want to ask that we rectify this by adding something to the licence, and as far as possible, adding the rest to fuel, in particular because this brings the principle of consumer costs to the fore. When one travels one kilometre, one pays accordingly, and when someone else travels 100 000 kilometres, he pays accordingly. I want to make that request.

I want to come to another important point. The hon the Minister fully explained what this legislation involved. This Bill is very important. It contains very important clauses and subsections which the hon the Minister discussed here in his Second Reading speech.

However, I want to make the point that the entire financing of roads has changed. In future, as is the case for other Government expenditure, we are going to have to stand in the priority queue for national roads. The principle at issue in this Bill—we are not back with toll roads again, because that Act was piloted through many years ago, just after I came to Parliament—is whether this should be done through private enterprise and whether the State should continue doing it. These are the two important points we must debate here.

I want to ask that we adopt the principle of a reasonable price policy. Sometimes when I look at some of the tariff structures which are proposed, I am a little worried that they are a bit too high. However, this is still within the principle which the hon the Minister spelt out here, namely that it is within 75% of the saving. My request is that if possible, the consortiums and the concessionaires must make it even lower than the maximum of 75% which they are allowed.

The principle of toll financing was accepted many years ago. The only principle we must consider here—I am repeating this—is who must do this. That is what the debate is about. Under the policy of privatisation and deregulation and the White Paper on the National Transport Policy the Government is moving in the right direction by involving private enterprise in this.

I am appealing to the hon the Minister, when the concessionaires have developed these roads further, to take another look, because in clause 1(e) provision is made in paragraph (b) of the proposed definition of “operate” for the contractors to supply other services such as filling stations, restaurants and other facilities. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I listened with interest to the speech of the hon member for Primrose. I want to associate myself with his remarks in regard to the increase in the licences for heavy-duty vehicles. I think it is unfair even to consider increasing the licence fees to that degree. I would like to support the remarks that the hon member made in this regard.

I also want to refer to some of the points made by the hon member for Roodepoort. He made an excellent speech. I am not going to support the hon member in his stand against the Bill, but I think he revealed a certain point in his speech that needs to be given attention, and that is that the road user must not be used as a sitting target who can be bled to boost the coffers of the Treasury.

In regard to the Bill before us I want to use the few minutes available to me to voice certain pertinent aspects regarding the application of the Bill. That is why I wish to make certain comments which particularly affect the privatisation of the N3. Here I refer specifically to the section between Hilton and the recently opened Tugela Plaza near Ladysmith.

Let me emphasise in the first place that the toll system is an ideal means of financing new roads projects, which I accept, because due to financial restrictions it may otherwise be impossible for such projects to be undertaken. Here I have no problem whatsoever and I fully support the system for this purpose.

However, when it comes to the inclusion of an existing road in a section which becomes part of a toll route, I have some serious reservations.

I want to stress to the hon the Deputy Minister that this increasing trend to toll existing roads is not in accordance with the original concept that was expressed and reflected in Hansard when the Toll Road Bill was debated in Parliament several years ago. I am nevertheless aware that such a provision does exist in the Act.

Returning to the section of the N3 to which I have already referred I would like to tell the hon Deputy Minister that it appears that the concessionaires have negotiated an extremely beneficial contract for themselves. Here I associate myself very strongly with the words of the hon member for Roodepoort. This will result in the motoring public now having to pay for using sections of the N3 which hitherto for some 15 years has been, in every sense of the word, a true freeway. The toll plaza to be sited at Mooi River will, for the want of a better word, now catch all the motorists travelling on the existing section between Hilton and Estcourt. I cannot accept that a toll fee as high as the rumoured R6 can be justified when taking these factors into consideration.

My appeal is too that a concession be granted to the public who live in and around Mooi River in regard to the payment of toll fees. I am aware that the cost of the present upgrading of the existing N3 is estimated at R500 000 per km, but I would draw the hon the Deputy Minister’s attention to the fact that an amount in excess of R40 million has been spent on upgrading this section during the past four years.

Another aspect that requires close scrutiny when such contracts and agreements are being considered is that of suitable alternative routes to the proposed toll sections. In this regard, again I refer to the alternative road to the N3 between Nottingham Road and Estcourt, this alternative road is unsuitable for heavy-duty vehicles and, as a result, the safety factor on this road is a cause of considerable concern. It will cost an estimated R50 million to upgrade this road, for which a paltry amount of R5 million has been made available. Bearing in mind that the upgrading of this road, or any other alternative road for that matter should be completed before any toll fee is extracted from motorists, I trust that this fact will be observed when the toll plaza is finally opened at Mooi River later this year. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I would like firstly to deal with the hon member for Roodepoort. The hon member made the remark and seemed to take umbrage at the fact that the National Roads Commission had made an arrangement with private entrepreneurs before changing the law. I think that if we are going to be pragmatic and if we are going to privatise then this is the only way that we can do it. I believe that one must negotiate first and then, having negotiated, change the law accordingly. That is the way I feel about it. I want to say to the hon member that I believe that if he used 25% of the total time that we spent discussing this Bill on the committee, it was a lot. However, I will bet you any money you like that the hon member took his full percentage of the allowance that was given to him by Parliament.

I want to come to the hon member for Mooi River. That hon member has mentioned the position of existing roads. Is he then suggesting that we should put a completely new road in from, say, Hilton right through to Heidelberg? If that is the case then the hon member must look at the costs. If that was done it would cost an additional R1,5 billion to put a completely new road in. I will deal later with the position of existing roads.

One must ask oneself what the object of the particular Bill before us is. The answer is quite plain: It is the privatisation of roads. The measure before us will authorise the commission to enter into agreements with any person, to undertake, firstly, to finance, plan, design and construct a portion of a national road, which by definition relates not only to an actual or existing road that is a public road, but also to a route declared as a national road under section 4(1)(A) of the Act which the commission intends to declare in terms of section 9 as a toll road; and secondly, after the declaration of a portion of a national road as a toll road, to maintain, rehabilitate and operate such road at his own cost.

This Bill seeks to authorise the commission to grant a person with whom such an agreement has been entered into the right to levy for his own benefit a toll in respect of the use of any vehicle upon the toll road, with certain conditions and limitations. Let us just look at what that really means in terms of rand and cents. The average cost of a single freeway today is between R1 million and R2 million per km, and a double carriageway between R5 million and R6 million per km. Added to that, it must be borne in mind that if an existing section of a national road is used in the route, it has to be upgraded to detailed specifications, often at a cost of up to a half a million rands per km, as the hon member for Mooi River has just mentioned.

I wish to make one important point here. People tend to think that an existing road is paid for. In a sense they are right, but what they often conveniently forget, is that the same road has to be maintained and, furthermore, rehabilitated every eight years. Is any road therefore ever paid for? The answer is “no”, because no road has an infinite life.

Obviously tolling existing roads is a controversial matter and therefore there must be good reason for this practice. The main reason for including existing roads in toll projects is to make them viable, especially in the early years of the project, but of course by including these sections of existing roads, the State does not have to find the money to maintain, repair and increase the carrying capacity of these roads for the next 25 years at least. This is also a very important advantage to the Government and to the public, and I would just like to quote a few figures.

When one looks at Tolcon, before tolling existing roads, they have to spend R70 million to upgrade existing roads. After tolling, over the 25-year period, they will have to spend R400 million on existing roads. When we look at Tollway, they have to spend R5 million on upgrading existing roads before tolling and, once having tolled, they will have to spend R50 million. When one adds the two together—Tollway and Tolcon—the total amount of saving to the State will be R525 million, which is money the State will not have to find by way of the taxpayer.

I want to come back, however, to the effect of viability. On the joint committee we were given actual figures of this from the Springs to Krugersdorp Project Feasibility Study, ie if the R77 is not included. The result, expressed in 1985 rand terms, is that during the first 10 years the net income will drop from R141 million to R66 million compared with possible interest rates of R152 million. In other words, there will be a drop in income of 57% if the R77 is left out of the project.

It was also demonstrated that as compared with the project cost of R448 million—again expressed in 1985 rand terms—the net income for the first 30 years was R710 million with the R77 included, and only R315 million without the R77. The project will therefore be unviable without the inclusion of the R77 and the facility—this is very important—will not be created in view of the non-availability of State funds.

Mention has also been made of excessive profits, but let us look at the position. This, of course, is another hare which has been chased up by opponents of privatised toll roads. One should remember that all toll roads lose money in the first few years of the project, make this up in the middle period and then make their profits in the last few years. The entrepreneur therefore has to wait a long time for his return on a large amount of capital. Also, to take up the option to operate a toll road for a second 25-year period, the concessionaire has to repurchase the asset at its value in the last few years of the first 25-year period, which is the profitable period and when the asset is therefore at its most valuable. I therefore believe the excessive profit issue is a red herring.

In this regard, mention has also been made of the aspect of income tax. I would also like to comment on this subject. According to the details given to the joint committee in the case of Tollway, the company should start paying tax three years after opening their toll road. In the case of Tolcon, they should start paying tax five years after opening their toll road.

However, the important point is that this early tax is only possible due to the inclusion of the existing roads in the project. The tax payable will be low in the first few years, but will increase dramatically in the latter period of the concession, resulting in hundreds of millions of rands in tax pouring into the State’s coffers in 1985 rand values. This is a far better answer than State funding by way of increased general taxation.

Let us look at the employment angle. Much has been said about Government employees losing their jobs due to privatisation. I just do not see this in the case of the privatisation of toll roads. All toll roads are national roads, and national roads are all planned, designed and built by private enterprise—that is, private consulting engineers and contractors. Therefore, the only difference or significance is that the financing comes from private enterprise instead of from taxation. In addition, of course, road maintenance of a very routine nature is done largely by provincial road departments, so this will now be done by private enterprise. The effect on employment will be that there will be new jobs available in private enterprise to replace any maintenance personnel in the public sector who might be affected. There will be additional employment opportunities in the private sector to man tollbooths, manage toll plazas and maintain toll equipment, and opportunities will be created by providing services to the road user on privatised toll roads. When one looks at the matter in this manner, Sir, there should probably be more employment opportunities than existed previously.

Sir, we on this side of the House support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for South Coast must forgive me if I do not react to him, but I should like to exchange a few words with the hon chairman of the Joint Committee on Transport and Communications. It was clear to me after my colleague had spoken this afternoon why he had made it so difficult for us to have an opportunity to read that contract. It was obvious that, for some or other incomprehensible reason, there were certain parts of it that he did not want us to see. I think we were entitled to see it, but we read it and saw what we wanted to see.

The hon chairman also made an interesting statement here in his request to the hon the Deputy Minister in connection with the licence fees of heavy vehicles, but I think a serious look should perhaps also be taken at the licence fees for farmers’ heavy vehicles. Special attention should be given to this, because at this stage it is really a thorny issue.

I am going to take another national road this afternoon and tell hon members that during the CP’s massive congress, which took place in Pretoria this past weekend—I am sure hon members took thorough cognizance of that via the media— I noticed a very interesting poster in the streets of Pretoria. The poster read as follows: “Truth wins. Think. Vote NP.” Now I wonder what the independents’ posters will look like, because just as the NP cannot boast of telling the truth, the independents, who are really just NP personae hiding behind masks, cannot use the word “truth” when taking part in the election. Perhaps they could have McCann’s meerkats on their posters, because meerkats hide away in holes just as they hide behind masks. [Interjections.]

The only truth the governing party can talk about, is the …

Order! I think the hon member is deviating very far from the national road; he must come back to the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I am on my way; I shall come to that in a moment. [Interjections.] The only truth the governing party can talk about, is that the CP is going to replace them during the next municipal and then general election. I understand via the Press that the hon member for Sundays River—I see he is not here now; he will also have to read in the Press what he said about me—objected to a pamphlet which I had helped draw up. He criticised it on a single point. I understand he was rather aggrieved about the matter and I want to thank my colleague, the hon member for Ermelo, who replied to the hon member on my behalf in my absence …

Order! I asked the hon member to come back to the Bill. If we are going to permit a political debate on all sides of the House, we are never going to get round to the Bill. If I permit the hon member to do so, I must permit everyone to do so. I therefore ask the hon member please to come back to the Bill.

I am going to come back to the subject of national roads, because without fuel, motor vehicles cannot use our national roads. During the discussion of the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology’s Vote, I put a question to the hon the Minister, to which he replied. I quote my question from Hansard, col 13597:

I was referring to the motor vehicle industry—

The hon the Minister replied to my question in his reply. He complimented me in col 13644, for which I owe him many thanks, and then said it was a pity I had spoilt my speech by not taking the trouble to verify the facts. He then said the following:

He said that on 10 June.

Mr Chairman, with all due respect, I submit that the hon member is still not discussing the legislation.

Order! The hon member is slowly moving towards the legislation; I shall give him a chance.

Hon members know what has happened to the petrol and diesel prices. Was the hon the Minister’s reply correct? Surely McCann was right when he said his client, the NP, had a credibility problem with its reform policy.

It is clear that the Government has sought out a soft target, viz the owners of motor vehicles in South Africa. There is hardly a family today which does not have at least one car—generally two—and cannot get along without it.

Motorcars can run only on this very expensive fuel, which is now also being taxed by an extra 3c per litre, apart from the so-called compulsory increases. This is happening despite the fact that petrol is already taxed by 22,9 cents per litre and 4c per litre for customs and excise. Now all the levies are being deposited into the general tax fund, and no longer into the National Road Fund. Then there is the extra 3c per litre on diesel apart from the 7c per litre which is already being levied. According to the available figures for 1985-86, every levy of lc per litre supplies the Treasury with R81 million.

I think the above-mentioned facts are sufficient reason for every vehicle owner to vote against this Government during the municipal elections which take place on 26 October. That includes the NP members who are sitting on the opposite side.

This unilateral kind of action reminds me of a boxer with one arm tied behind his back, who is challenged to fight. The owners of motorcars and road users have been taxed by the Government to the point where they are punch-drunk, and they are defenceless because they have to buy fuel if they want to go anywhere.

Now we have this new National Roads Amendment Bill which legalises toll roads in all their facets. The joint committee was expected to legalise the agreements that had already been concluded by means of this amending Bill. That is similar to the case of the Harding-Port Shepstone railway line. Why this urgency? What is concealed behind this action? The CP is not opposed to the concept of toll roads on national roads. Now, however, filling stations and restaurants can be erected at such toll gates. Just imagine: These other businesses will be erected at every toll gate now. Have hon members thought about the damage this is going to cause the businesses in rural towns?

These toll gates are also going to be permitted to function on the roads around the larger cities. In other words, ordinary workers and owners of motor vehicles will have to pay toll twice every day when they go to work. Will that not be an unfair state of affairs?

Congratulations to the four NP MPs from the Transvaal who objected to these toll gates outside our large cities. That will probably signify the end of their presence in the NP. Perhaps, after this, they should look at what one of the other parties says; perhaps they can join them.

They are joiners!

This amending Bill deals with the erection of new toll gates which are being financed by the Highway and Tollrate company.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it permissible for the hon member to say that another hon member is a joiner?

Order! No, the hon member did not say that. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I am afraid the hon member for Delmas did say that.

Order! Did the hon member say that?

Mr Chairman, my hon colleague said they could join another party, and I then said that was the kind of people they were; they are fond of joining other parties. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: He clearly said they were joiners.

Order! The answer to the whole matter would of course be that “joiner” is unparliamentary. The hon member said he had not said that. I accept his word …

No, Mr Chairman, I did say “joiner”. I used the word “joiner”. [Interjections.]

Order! Then the hon member will have to withdraw it.

I shall withdraw it, but …

Order! Then he will withdraw it unconditionally. [Interjections.]

I withdraw it.

Order! Unfortunately that has taken up the hon member for Middelburg’s time. His time has expired.

Mr Chairman, it is very clear that the hon member for Middelburg, because he is the kind of hon member who spends little time at committee meetings, did not have much to say about the contents of the Bill. [Interjections.] It was very clear that shortly after he had begun to speak, he wandered off to posters and all kinds of other things, but he knows nothing about what is stated in the Bill. He also referred in passing to fuel prices. I want to tell him that they are abusing fuel prices once again, merely for the sake of the imminent municipal elections. I want to tell him the hon member for Brakpan was the hon member who appealed with me a few years ago—he was the one who made the proposal—for 2 cents to be added to the fuel price so that the R77 road from Boksburg to Brakpan could be completed.

Where do you get that from? You are dreaming!

The hon member and I were at a meeting with Mr Hendrik Schoeman, the then Minister of Transport Affairs, when he made this proposal. [Interjections.] The proposals he says we are going to make are proposals he made himself.

I want to come back to the hon member for Roodepoort, however. He also said that apparently the contracts stated that the State would now ostensibly be held accountable if it build other roads adjacent to toll roads.

Have you read the contract?

I merely want to tell this hon member that only a CP government would be foolish enough to want to build a road of equal standard alongside an existing toll road. Only a CP government would do anything that absurd. I want to tell hon members on this side of the House that we shall never incur such costs. [Interjections.]

This Bill is one of those Bills which is related to the deregulation of transport affairs, something that has been opposed so vehemently by the CP so far. During the recess, however, they had an opportunity to discuss this legislation with us, and what did the Official Opposition do? Exactly what the chairman illustrated here this afternoon. They elected to stay at the joint committee meeting only long enough to be marked present so that they could obtain their allowance for the day. [Interjections.] After this they went and wasted the taxpayers’ money by boycotting those meetings. [Interjections.]

Order! I do not think it is appropriate to the stature of this House to make that kind of remark about colleagues. We cannot know what circumstances applied in each case, and I request hon members rather not to make remarks of that nature. The hon member may proceed.

I shall comply with that, Sir, but I still find that at every meeting those hon members attended, they stayed there only a short while, and one wonders what the reasons for this are. [Interjections.]

Deregulation has been accepted by everyone in South Africa, and that is why an amendment of this kind to the legislation …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: You expressly ruled that the hon member should not continue with those examples but he has. I submit that that is a reflection on the Chair.

Order! No, the hon member chose his words very well. The hon member may proceed.

The Government can no longer be held responsible for instituting services of a commercial nature. Services such as security services, health services and other similar services could be regarded as a duty of the Government in this country, but the development of this country is obliging the Government to relinquish transport and similar services to the private sector.

These are not national assets that are being given away, as has been claimed by the CP. The roads, the bridges, the tunnels, the plazas, the rest stations with fuel pumps and other facilities to which reference was made, do not even exist yet, and therefore are not national assets. The only thing that does exist is the land on which these facilities stand, and the Government will retain that at all times. It is merely relinquishing the right to utilise that land as, for example, a canal in the case of a pipeline. That is all that is at issue. Apparently that is something the hon members of the CP cannot understand.

A road that is built is just like an aircraft or a pipeline. It entails constant expense. As soon as one starts using the road, that road begins to wear away and has to be maintained. The cost of a road has to be recovered over a long period just as in the case of an electric cable. The road is not paid for once it becomes operative. Successive generations continue to pay off that road until 40 years later. Consequently it is not true to say that the taxpayers have paid for such a road already. I want hon members to go and see how calculations of this kind are made.

In my opinion this Bill is a milestone on the course of reform. In order to pay its full attention to the social and political reforms in our country, the Government has to detach itself from undertakings and services which are abused by opposition parties for political gain and which the private sector in South Africa is better able to deal with at this stage in any case. The Official Opposition is fighting this legislation merely because it is a political instrument in their hands. The hon member for Middelburg has just illustrated that. The CP realises that by means of this Bill, we are putting an end to the political ploys which they are using to bring the voters under a misapprehension with regard to the Government’s ability to manage this country. We saw that in the standing committee in Pretoria. If you had not ruled this out of order, Mr Chairman, I should have liked to have said more about it. I merely want to say that on the first day the Chairman permitted all three Houses’ representatives to discuss this Bill on an informal basis. I do not know whether or not those hon members had good reasons for not being present, but it was not necessary to make us carry on with it the following day.

[Inaudible.]

If they cannot attend a meeting, they must ensure that they get hold of the information, but they cannot delay the proceedings of a committee in this way.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member?

No, Sir.

We did not see our way clear to accepting ridiculous proposals such as those of the hon member for Roodepoort, and that is why the committee unanimously decided against that. [Interjections.] We do not allow people to waste our time.

Those hon members realise, as we do, that the building of roads in today’s world is no longer a Government function, but they are not satisfied to accept that, because they can use it to mislead the voters. They are using it merely for petty political gain. They know that the days when slaves and soldiers were used to build roads have passed and that governments have to leave road building to the private sector to an increasing extent. The first toll road in the USA was built as early as 1793, and in the countries in which the production and use of motorcars prevails, one finds that more and more toll roads are being built. In 1984, for example, the following toll roads existed: In France 4 400 km and in Italy 5 100 km. Those of us who have travelled there know that there are hundreds of tunnels and hundreds of bridges which link mountains and valleys. The road never undulates and one need never ascend or descend. This means that the traffic flows more quickly. South Africa needs such roads. A strong economy needs an effective transport network.

We in South Africa can differ on what tariff should apply to toll roads, but toll roads as such must make up part of our road network. This is for economic and logical reasons which can no longer be ignored. If we want to see our country growing at the required rate, we must allow the private sector—as the hon member for South Coast explained—to bear that part of the financial burden.

The number of light vehicles in South Africa has increased by 37% during the past seven years, for example, and the number of heavy vehicles by approximately 27%. Consequently one can say that the figures will double over a period of 10 years. Our road network, especially the interchanges, the main roads, the national roads, etc, has not been expanded at that rate and that is why it is essential that the private sector do its share.

It is an acknowledged fact that the buying power of people of colour has recently increased dramatically. As we progress on the course of reform, this trend will continue and will increase. More and more Blacks, also from the adjacent neighbouring states and from our own independent states, are going to use the roads. Those hon members are going to say the Whites’ roads are being used and that they have to pay for this privilege. That is why we say a way has now been created in which one can ensure that the road user contributes his rightful share in paying for the road. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I do not intend referring to anything that the hon member for Boksburg raised. I do not think he raised anything that was new or important as far as this Bill is concerned.

I just want to refer briefly to the hon member for Primrose. I want to remind him of the fact that less than a month before the committee adjourned in June he actually congratulated the hon member for Roodepoort on his punctuality, among other things. However, today he sings a completely different song about the co-operation or lack of co-operation of the hon members on this side of the House. [Interjections.]

Another question one must ask is how it is possible to put a question on a matter which has not yet been discussed. We in the CP are wonderful, but we are not yet quite that wonderful.

We have reports that the N17 as part of the M4 is on schedule. We on the West Rand in particular—I am sure I speak for my colleagues here— say that it is about time we had a decent road to enable our people to commute between Krugersdorp and Johannesburg Central, and further. What we do object to, is the fact that for some strange reason the people on the West Rand are penalised, because when they want to use a decent route they have to pay for it, whereas the people on the East Rand have a beautiful freeway, taking them as far as Nigel and further, on which they can travel free. We say it is not fair to expect the Westranders to pay while others do not.

Therefore, during this discussion today, I want to appeal on behalf of the people on the West Rand for a decent road which can be used as an alternative route, without having to be blocked for hours and hours in traffic congestions on whichever road one tries to use to get into the centre of Johannesburg. I am sure hon members will agree with me that that is a reasonable appeal.

The hon members on that side of the House raised the question of privatisation. I think they are actually turning to privatisation as a rip-off. The only reason why they say privatisation will bring about this whole question of routes earlier, is because they have now devised another way of getting more money in advance from the already over-burdened taxpayer so that they can use it to pay for the roads for which they should be paying with the money they are already deducting in terms of tax, road levies, fuel levies and heaven knows what other levies.

Let us look at the other problems. I have an interesting report here which appeared in Die Burger of 7 September 1987 which reads: “Padontwrigting by Paarl gou agter rug”.

*That is the heading. However, the letter says just the opposite. It was written by a Cornel Grobler—I do not know whether this person is a gentleman or a lady—from Modderkloof, Small Drakenstein. This correspondent writes:

The letter-writer goes on to say:

This is exactly what has been built into the legislation we are discussing. The letter-writer goes on to say:

We agree with him when he says:

Note that the letter-writer does not mention a member of Parliament. [Interjections.] The correspondent goes on to say:

†Mr Chairman, road users, as I mentioned earlier, are now expected to pay private enterprise in advance so that they can use the money paid to finance the roads. In addition to the tax burden which I have already covered, they have to pay a tax to the private sector as well.

We are assured of the quality of alternative routes, and I want to refer here to comment in the Natal Witness headed “Louw invited to drive along alternative route”. We have had every assurance that there are going to be good alternative routes. Here is an alternative route. The report says:

They say:

The hon member for Roodepoort raised that point. We need to know why the Government sold a road which in essence did not belong to it, to Tolcon, who are now establishing toll plazas.

Furthermore, Sir, I noticed the hon member for Mooi River had an opportunity of participating in this debate but failed to meet his promise to his people according to the Natal Witness of 28 May this year, under the heading “Hardingham vows to harass Louw”. I quote:

In his absence—since he did not do it on behalf of his constituents and in view of the growing increase in support for the CP in that constituency—I will say we must harass the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs.

Do not kid yourself!

We must now take action to ensure that this alternative route is attended to as expeditiously as possible. We read in The Citizen that the highway could not be built without the N13 toll road.

I want to come now to the question of the N13 and the private sector now having certain rights, and I should like the hon the Deputy Minister’s comments on this. I want to refer too to the apparent lack of consultation between the people who are really in touch with the residents of the area and the people constructing the toll road. It says here in connection with the introduction of the toll plaza on the N13, and I quote:

My question is the following. Why has there been no consultation? The NP Government keeps on talking about devolving power down to third level. This third level is that of local government. Is this what the Nats mean by devolution of power? Is power devolved to the Minister only? Why do councillors have to go to court to claim justice for their people in a so-called democratic country like South Africa?

I want to refer further to the opening shots on 28 July in Die Vaderland.

*In Die Vaderland we read:

But Tollway is not the Johannesburg City Council. It reads further:

This is the hon the Minister’s admission of and justification for the fact that no consultation had taken place. The Whites are not the only ones who are complaining. What is the opinion of the residents of the area affected by the Ennerdale exit?

†We cannot even consider passing this legislation before the House today without a guarantee from the hon the Minister that before any further projects are undertaken, starting with the N13 toll gate, consultation will first take place with the local authorities concerned before any decisions are made. That is how a democratic government works, not the way the hon members on that side of the House tell us.

This lack of consultation and lack of the democratic approach has incensed NP councillors to such an extent that I read in Beeld of 28 July:

*Danie being Mr Danie van Zyl, Johannesburg management committee member, who says:

[Interjections.]

They went on to say that those hon members talked a great deal but did very little. They should listen for a change, the hon member for Jeppe too, because his councillors, or possible councillors, are going to be furious about this and he will have to act on their behalf despite the hon the Minister’s resistance.

†They say further in The Citizen of 29 July that Johannesburg wants a meeting on the toll roads:

So it goes on, Sir. It is quite obvious there has been no consultation.

*What does the hon member for Turffontein say? I hope he is going to take part in this debate. Perhaps he will make a statement on behalf of the hon the Minister about the future of the unfortunate people of Winchester Hills, among others.

You just concern yourself with Krugersdorp.

Leave the toll gate alone, he says. [Interjections.]

Order! There are hon members who will be given a chance to speak and who must contain themselves now. The hon member may proceed.

According to Die Vader land he said:

After these discussions there has been a deathly silence. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs was to have discussed this whole subject at a meeting, but all we read about is the privatisation of the SATS and things like that; we hear nothing about what was said at that meeting and whether it ever took place.

According to The Citizen of 24 August, four NP LPs had a meeting with the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs, Mr Eli Louw—

†and they said:

So they are going to be subjected to that inconvenience whether they pay for it or not. [Interjections.]

We read further in Beeld:

*In other words, they are now creating the impression that it will be possible for these people to obtain free passes that will enable them to use the toll road free of charge.

†I hope that the hon the Deputy Minister in his reply today will tell us what he plans for Johannesburg as far as the N13 is concerned. Or is he going to wait until 26 October has passed before he comes out with a whole bag of tricks and says to the people to the south of Johannesburg:

*You can go to blazes. Like a bunch of fools you once more opted to vote for the NP; you are going to get your toll gate and you are going to pay. That is the law of the Transvaal. This is what the NP says. The hon member for Turffontein’s problem is not only with the toll gate; he also has a problem with the Group Areas Act. This matter went so far, Mr Speaker, that he was actually thrown out of a public meeting on that subject.

You are lying!

This goes to show how furious the people of his constituency are.

Order! No, the hon member for Turffontein should know better than that.

I withdraw it, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I say his own voters are throwing him out of their meetings. We also hear that he makes some very unparliamentary remarks about his leader.

†We then read in Hansard of Thursday 13 April 1972 that he said (Hansard: Assembly, col 4881):

He is referring to those hon members there—

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: What does this have to do with the Bill before us?

Order! I have just taken the Chair and I have kept myself busy asking myself the same question. [Interjections.] The hon member must come back to the Bill before the House. According to my information the Bill before the House is the National Roads Amendment Bill. Is that correct?

That is correct, Mr Speaker.

The hon member must please confine himself to the Bill.

Mr Speaker, I am actually talking about the dangers contained in allowing people in the private sector to have the right to control roads where they are not answerable to the voters. I am trying to compare it with the situation where the hon member is responsible to the voters and he sits with the problems created by these people. It is all part of this legislation. [Interjections.]

All I want today is that the hon members for Turffontein, Rosettenville and Jeppe make a statement before the hon the Minister says anything and assure their constituents that, no matter what the hon the Minister’s attitude is, they are going to put their interests first. That is all we want to hear from the hon members on that side of the House. There are other problems which come from this which I am sure that these people have not even taken into consideration.[Interjections.] What problems are going to be experienced? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Maybe the hon members are trying to drown out what I say, because they are afraid of their voters hearing what I am saying.

*However, let me say to them that their voters can read in Finansies en Tegniek about the decrease in expenditure on road-building. That is another result of the legislation that is before us.

Order! I regret to inform the hon member that his time expired long ago.

Mr Speaker, the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis referred to the chairman having complimented the hon member for Roodepoort on having so faithfully attended the meetings. Yes, he was on time, he attended a meeting for five minutes and then left.

The hon member Mr Derby-Lewis is very concerned about what the voting public will say because we are now making certain roads toll roads. I think the time has come for us to tell the electorate what irresponsibility hon members of the CP display in their attendance of joint committee meetings. With reference to the hon member for Roodepoort’s version, I want to associate myself with what the hon member for Primrose said and state that what the hon member for Roodepoort told us here was a half truth. The point is that if those hon members had been present the previous day, it would not have been necessary for them to have asked questions the next day.

[Inaudible.]

They were absent the whole afternoon. The next day they—I am tempted to say arrogantly—left the meeting and we never saw them again. No wonder the hon member for Roodepoort stood up here today and, instead of confining himself to the provisions of the legislation, devoted his time to casting suspicion on the contracts.

But that is part of the legislation!

It is not necessarily part of the legislation. [Interjections.] Those are consequences of the legislation. That is what is involved.

It is interesting that the CP is now so vehemently opposed to this legislation. Let us look, however, at what happened a short while ago in the hon member for Brakpan’s constituency. I have here the minutes of a meeting held in Brakpan on 26 August 1985:

I now want to focus on who was present at the meeting. There were representatives of the Department of Transport Affairs, and there were also representatives from Alberton, Boksburg, Germiston, Nigel and Springs. It is interesting to note who those representative were. Firstly we see that they were none other than Dr S D Latsky, the former CP MPC for Alberton, Mr F J le Roux, the present MP for Brakpan … [Interjections.] Also present from Nigel was Mr J H Visagie, the former CP MP, and none other than Mr C B Schoeman, the present CP MP. [Interjections.] Let us take a brief look at this. Let me quote the minutes.

A disgrace for the Schoemans!

Let me quote what they said:

What did I say there?

The hon member is asking what he said! They went on to state:

Those are the people who are sitting here today saying they are opposed to toll roads. [Interjections.] The construction of roads, in particular national roads and toll roads, is extremely expensive. The hon member for South Coast has already referred to that. These days it costs anything from R1 million to R3 million per kilometre for a single carriageway and from R3 million to R6 million per kilometre for a dual carriageway.

At this stage these few toll-road projects, tackled by the State, have cost no less than R420 million, and R255 million of this R420 million has come from the National Road Building Fund, and only 38% of that from loans.

If we take into consideration that the two roads alone, the one from Johannesburg to Kroonstad and the one from Alberton to Pietermaritzburg, are more than 600 kilometres in length, we can imagine the costs involved in bringing those roads up to present-day toll-road standards. If it were possible to privatise these roads, it goes without saying that far more funds would be available to the Treasury for the construction and maintenance of other national roads and provincial roads, in regard to which there is already a tremendous backlog. In the Free State alone there are some of the … [Interjections.] Sir, I really cannot …

Order!

In the Free State alone, of the 30 000 kilometres of roads, only 7 000 kilometres have been tarred. Since the hon the Minister of Finance is examining motor vehicle taxation at the moment, I should like to recommend to him that the principle applicable to toll roads, that of a “users charge”, in other words, having people pay for what they use—or even in the case of heavy vehicles, which not only pay for what they use, but also damage what they use— being made applicable to other roads so as to generate funds for repairing and constructing roads.

In my maiden speech, when I arrived here, I asked to have the principle of motor vehicle taxation examined and for a larger levy to be imposed on fuel with a view to allowing for merely a registration fee for motor vehicles, so that more funds could be made available and so that people paid for what they used. There is an argument in favour of that, an argument to the effect that the damage that vehicles, in particular heavy vehicles, do to roads is not proportional to the fuel they use. Yes, that is true, because trailers and caravans do not use fuel.

We must travel in CP ox-wagons.

In most of the provinces motor vehicle tax is levied on the gross vehicle mass or on the tare. Let me say at once that the gross vehicle mass of a vehicle and the tare are only used for these two purposes, because every other basis in terms of which the carrying capacity of heavy vehicles is determined, has nothing to do with their size or their gross vehicle mass. A vehicle’s carrying capacity is determined by the number of axles. It is embodied in the Act that the front axle of a heavy vehicle may only carry 6 400 kilograms gross mass, and any other axle only 8 200 kilograms. The damage that a heavy vehicle can do to a road can only be proportional to the number of axles. Permits for abnormal loads are based on the number of axles. Toll fees are based on the number of axles.

That is why there is great concern, at present, in the agricultural sector. I do not think agriculture is asking for any concessions as far as toll roads are concerned, but in regard to provincial and other roads the position in which agriculturists find themselves is different to that in which the rest of the heavy-vehicle owners find themselves, and they deserve a different approach as far as licence fees and taxation of heavy vehicles are concerned.

I think that for various reasons the hon the Minister of Finance will have to give very sympathetic attention to agriculture in which farmers chiefly use their heavy vehicle on poor secondary and primary roads, and only for the transportation of their own products. I am also of the opinion that a basis of differentiation, particularly in regard to the fuel levy, can be incorporated with a view to accommodating farmers.

To sum up, my request is that instead of a drastic increase, particularly in heavy-vehicle tax, a levy should be added to fuel, particularly diesel, and that vehicle tax on all vehicles with one or two axles should still take place on a tare basis, but that all vehicles that have more than two axles should be taxed per axle.

The National Road Building Fund no longer exists, but I appeal to the hon the Minister of Finance that wherever more funds can be collected by way of these fuel levies and the greater axle tax on heavy vehicles, greater amounts should be allocated to the respective provinces for the maintenance and the construction of their roads.

Mr Speaker, this measure empowers the National Transport Commission to enter into agreements in order to privatise national roads, and I support this principle wholeheartedly.

Despite the provisions.

However, the question is what is going to happen with regard to its practical implementation. What are the criteria and the guidelines according to which such an agreement should be concluded?

On behalf of myself and my colleagues, the hon members for Langlaagte, Rosettenville and Jeppe, I wish to contend, by way of a practical example, that if the agreement with the Tollway Consortium in regard to the proposed toll plaza on the N13 in Johannesburg as a temporary part of the future Krugersdorp-Springs-Hendrik Schoeman N17 highway is to serve as the standard for future agreements to which this measure applies, we foresee serious problems.

I want to emphasise that we support the principle of privatisation. We support the principle of toll roads, even on existing national roads. We also support the construction of the N17, but what is now being expected of the road users of the N13 which is temporarily becoming part of the N17 until such time as the M4 part is completed?

Let us accept, for argument’s sake, that the prospective road user of the M4 portion of the N17 ought now to begin making a contribution to its construction. The question is: What route are they using at present? I contend that some of them are indeed using the N13 at the moment. Some of them are using the N1-N3 combination to the north of Johannesburg. However, the majority are using the M2, because that is the only freeway which gives access to the city centre of Johannesburg at present, which will in future be served by the M4. We must therefore determine which road users are going to use the M4 after its completion. Those motorists must then pay for it. However, what is happening now? According to my information, 51% of the present N13 road users use this route only between Reading-Alberton and Ridgeway-Uncle Charlies.

The majority of the future M4 road users, who should be making a contribution at the moment, therefore get away scot-free and the local inhabitants in the south of Johannesburg must now subsidise capital for a road which must be built and which they are probably never going to use.

We are saying, with all due deference, that the Department of Transport did not do its homework properly. The Department of Transport did not negotiate properly or timeously with the core city of Johannesburg and the local representatives and co-ordinate their plans. The Department of Transport did not pay serious enough attention to the negative influence on the existing traffic patterns in a metropolitan situation particularly during peak-hour traffic. For that reason we want to express our appreciation for the possible concessions after discussions were held with the Minister on 18 August and with the Tollway Consortium on 19 August. The possible concessions are for the lowest possible tariff, the promise of financial assistance with regard to the upgrading of local networks as alternative routes, the possible acceleration of the construction of the M4 section and the consideration of a reduced tariff for local inhabitants.

However, we are making a plea for the closing and reconsideration of the proposed toll plaza and for serious negotiations between the Department of Transport, the Tollway Consortium, the City of Johannesburg and the public representatives. We are also prepared to act as mediators in the dispute which exists at present between the Department of Transport and the core city of Johannesburg.

We want to make the following very clear: Privatisation of and toll levies on existing national roads for upgrading and maintenance: Yes. Privatisation of and toll levies on prospective national roads and their construction: Yes. But in regard to privatisation and toll levies which place an unfair financial burden on and disrupt the travelling patterns of local users, we say that we must adopt a more reasonable standpoint. Privatisation should relieve the burden on the person who does not specifically use the road and tax a person who does benefit from it. For that reason we are saying that the N13 toll plaza is unfairly going to tax 51% of its present users. The only positive aspect for those users is that they will, in a decade or two, have the benefit of less traffic, if the traffic on the N13 were to increase and the M4 section were not built. Effectively alternative routes in urban situations, particularly during peak-hour traffic, simply do not exist. This N13 which completed the ring road around Johannesburg, has been particularly successful as a service road and not only as a freeway. Finally, we are asking the hon the Minister: Have all alternative methods of financing been considered on a temporary basis on the N13, instead of a toll plaza, and if not, could we consider them? [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I do not want to become involved in the NP’s infighting. I merely wonder what the hon member for Boksburg would have said if he had spoken after the hon member for Turffontein.

We are dealing with the establishment of tollage in South Africa. In the past few years we have had a foretaste of a few toll levies imposed by the State itself. Now we have a Bill giving effect to the idea of toll levies, particularly in respect of road transport in South Africa. Tollage or toll levies are not music to the ears of members of the public. A publican was not very popular in New Testament days. Amongst other things, in early European history toll levies were advanced as a reason for revolution. When we come to toll levies we must therefore be very careful and examine this aspect very circumspectly. It is the duty of an official opposition, in particular, to examine how foliage is employed by the Government and how the right to levy a toll is apportioned. I think that toll levies can greatly enrich the concessionaire.

Last year the Government published the White Paper on Privatisation and Deregulation in the Republic of South Africa, and on page 11 furnished certain requirements for privatisation under the heading “Criteria for Privatisation”. I quote from paragraph 7.2.2:

1. (i) not entail a real risk to State security or internal order;
2. (ii) not defeat the constitutional, social or ecological objectives served by a function or activity;
3. (iii) be reconcilable with the policy of competition …;
4. (iv) be to the long-term benefit of the taxpayer or the community in general. This means that the continuation of the function or activity must as far as possible be ensured at a fair cost.

Those were criteria acceptable for privatisation. The paragraph on “Invalid Criteria”, paragraph 7.3, contains the following introductory words:

Then comes paragraph 7.3.1:

Sir, I shall come back to that; I shall not quote the rest of that paragraph. In paragraph 7.3.2 it is stated:

As far as the privatisation of roads is concerned, and therefore the toll levies—and linking up with what was said here—all the present toll roads are brand new. They have been very well constructed, and the maintenance will be minimal. Those toll roads have already been paid for. They were paid for with taxes, as the hon member said, from the National Road Building Fund. Also partially from loans, but that was minimal, the hon member for Betlehem said. Consequently they have already been paid for from taxes obtained from fuel levies and taxes and licence fees, and it will therefore definitely be possible for the concessionaire to operate them profitably. He will definitely be able to do so profitably. So why do we not operate them ourselves, and why not directly use the profits made for cross-subsidisation, because South Africa is a developing country, Sir? One cannot compare South Africa with Britain, America, France and Italy. South Africa is a developing country begging for infrastructure, crying to high heaven for it, a country in which one definitely can, by way of cross-subsidisation, employ that portion which is operated profitably for the purposes of development elsewhere. In my area the N1 stops at Middelfontein, but the traffic …

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member?

I do not have the time. If I could have some of his time, he may put a question to me.

You could have answered my question by now!

The N1 stops at Middelfontein, but the traffic to Lebowa, Venda and Gazankulu does not stop there. It goes further, and that entire road, up to Beit Bridge, can still be built. If the State—the Department of Transport Affairs—had wanted to do it, why did it not tell a concessionaire that there was a piece of road to be built, have them build it and then levy a toll? How many of them would do that? The profit lies in the finished product which has already been constructed with taxpayers’ money and which they now simply have to make profitable use of.

The road from Louis Trichardt to Thohoyandou, which carries a heavy load through difficult terrain, can be widened and rebuilt, as is the case with other roads to other national and independent states. It is justified because of the traffic it carries. It could be done from this source. How is that road going to be built, because it crosses South African territory, but it is Venda citizens, in particular, who use that road? Those are the kinds of questions we want to ask. We say that this could be given to a concessionaire, but I do not think one would find a concessionaire prepared to go along with that.

I would have had no objection if the private sector could tender for an area where a road had to be constructed, renewed, widened or replaced, and were then allowed to levy a toll there. Property is now being taken from the people, the taxpayers, and given to a smaller group of people. [Interjections.] They now call this redistribution of wealth, but the private sector is not going to spend as much of that income on wages and job creation, because its primary motive is going to be profit.

There is another point that I want to raise. The burden being placed on transporters, those making use of transport, and ultimately the consumer, amongst other things by virtue of a toll, is a kind of supertax imposed on those who are depended on traffic or transport. In the majority of cases that additional burden is passed on to the consumer. A farmer who has his own transport, however, carries that burden himself. If he makes use of a haulier for the transport of his livestock, fresh produce or whatever, he carries the burden, because he cannot pass on his price to the consumer, since the consumer pays the ultimate market price. He has to pay, however. The toll burden is merely an additional component of his obligations and marketing costs which, in any event, he has to bear.

The hon the Minister has said that this toll is going to lead to a better distribution of the burden amongst road users. I now want to tell him about a group of road users who, apart from the toll burden, when they do make use of toll roads, contribute very little to the revenue from the licence fees of heavy motor vehicles, because the other component is the licence fees which are possibly going to be increased. I am speaking about the foreign heavy-duty hauliers who make use of heavy-duty vehicles on our roads. They come from our neighbouring states and use our roads from the north, the west and—I do not really know about the east—probably from the east too. I am told there are South African hauliers who register their vehicles outside South Africa and then use our roads.

[Inaudible.]

Oh, Sir, I cannot hear what that hon member is saying; he speaks so indistinctly and is mumbling something over there. They use those national roads until there is nothing left of them, and I want to tell the hon the Minister that if they wanted to levy tolls, they could also erect toll-gates at South Africa’s border posts and levy tolls on those heavy-duty vehicles which make no contribution whatsoever and yet are comparable to the heavy-duty vehicles registered in South Africa and making use of the same facilities.

Another aspect of this Bill I find disturbing is the right which the National Transport Commission can transfer to the concessionaire, during the construction and the maintenance of roads, to allow workers and machinery to trespass on the property of the person across whose land the road is being constructed in order to obtain raw materials for the construction or the substructure of the roads. I do not think there is enough protection for the landowner in this Bill. The landowner is going to have a major problem and have to incur great costs if he needs to call on someone to protect his rights.

This is all part of our opposition to this piece of legislation which, if I must sum it up, boils down to the following. The tariff for the calculation of the toll fees is not prescribed in the Bill—it is merely being left to an agreement between the Government and the concessionaire. That is unacceptable, because then there is no legal protection for the road user against excessive increases in toll fees.

Secondly, existing roads will, amongst other things, be transferred to concessionaires in terms of concession agreements. The road user does not obtain a quid pro quo for this. The system places an even greater burden on him as a result of the structuring of the system.

Thirdly, inadequate provision is made for the construction and maintenance or upgrading of alternative routes. In fact, by the concession agreement the State is discouraged from maintaining alternative routes on a competitive basis.

Fourthly, what we also find unacceptable is the total exclusion of liability, on the part of the State and the concessionaire, for acts or omissions on the part of the concessionaire in the implementation or discharge of any powers of duties in terms of an agreement.

Fifthly road tolls in urban areas would lead to traffic problems and the unequal levying of toll fees.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Soutpansberg has briefly summarised the opposition of the Official Opposition to this Bill. Consequently I shall spend most of my time discussing the points raised by the hon member.

He said at the beginning of his speech, however, that one should be careful not to say too much about the part played by a publican (tollenaar), because that creates certain perceptions which are not very pleasant. However, I have at my disposal here a select committee report on toll financing.

No less a person than Dr Frans van Staden served on this committee in 1982. He supported this report with regard to toll financing and the creation of toll roads in South Africa wholeheartedly, together with all the other committee members. I do not want to place myself in the same category as Dr Van Staden with regard to his knowledge of religion and the Bible, but I do find it strange that the hon member for Soutpansberg should conjure that image up now, whereas the former CP member for one of the constituencies had no problem in supporting toll financing and toll roads in South Africa.

The hon member made the point that the protection for the landowner was completely insufficient. If the hon member reads the Bill properly, he will find that the concessionaire does not get more basic rights when it comes to entering upon someone’s property than the National Transport Commission, the Department of National Roads and even the provinces had in the past with regard to the entering upon land. Basically the concessionaire is becoming the National Transport Commission’s agent and he will do precisely what he was able to do before. Consequently I do not think the argument raised by the hon member for Soutpansberg was a very good one, because that is not the true state of affairs.

The hon member asked why the Government did not manage the toll roads itself. The hon member has the right to ask that question. I want to point out to him, however, that we did that. The Department of Transport is not relinquishing the authority to toll roads itself. It is merely creating an additional possibility. I shall come back to section 6 of the original Act later.

The Department of Transport might in future have to do what it did in the case of Kranskop, Tsitsikamma and Mariannhill. If it is possible for us to do everything we should like to do, however, we should like to do so. It is a well-known fact that when the private sector ventures into certain sectors which were previously the responsibility of the Government, they can usually manage them more quickly and more easily. I do not think there is any reason why the Government should enlarge its share in this when it comes to the development of South Africa. We cannot create the same amount of work as the private sector. If we permit the private sector to take over this kind of thing, we shall be creating more work in South Africa. If we do this ourselves, it will also mean that we will be increasing the burden of the hon the Minister of Finance, because the toll roads we are discussing here will amount to an investment of more than R2 000 million, which is now going to be borne by Tolcon and Tollway. Would the hon member want us, the Department of Transport and the Department of Finance, rather to use the scarce financial resources we have in South Africa, or should we rather leave it to the private sector to compete for that money? I think the development of the roads in South Africa will take place far more rapidly if it is left to the private sector.

The hon member said the present toll roads were new. That is correct. But I want to ask the hon member—this was mentioned here repeatedly— when it was ever said that we would not toll the existing national roads? That was never said. No such promise was ever made.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister a question?

No, Sir, I am not prepared to reply to a question. I have only a few minutes at my disposal, and I should like to conclude.

Why do we want other, new, additional roads? It is precisely because the existing roads are not adequate. Surely that is the reason. One wants to create a new line of communication, and if it is necessary for that line of communication to consist of part of the existing road, that does not mean that that existing road would never require any expenditure on the part of the State. I think the hon member for South Coast mentioned that those roads continually have to be maintained and upgraded. We have to spend more, because we need more national roads in South Africa. We shall probably proclaim more roads as national roads. We shall have to get more and more roads, and the existing roads will have to be upgraded, because they simply cannot carry the increasing traffic. The hon member’s argument that we should rather do that ourselves does not hold water, therefore. We already have an enormous responsibility in respect of many roads. One need only look at the Department of Transport’s report. We already have more than 6 000 km of road which have been declared national roads. If we have to extend the network any further, we have no option but to consider privatisation, as we are in fact doing.

The hon member for Turffontein …

Go for him!

No, I am not prepared to let fly at the hon member on a matter which I think he raised in the interests of his voters. The hon member spoke on behalf of a number of members.

All of them former UP supporters like you.

He also referred to a previous discussion of this matter which had taken place between him and the hon the Minister.

The matter was explained to the hon member before, but I want to point out again that the N13 is a temporary component of a comprehensive future-orientated package with regard to the development of roads. It is a temporary arrangement to try to meet a great need which already exists, but is going to assume tremendous proportions in future. The technical reasons for situating the toll plaza on the N13 have also been explained to the hon member. I merely want to point out once again that there is a difference between an open toll road and a closed toll road.

What is at issue in this case is an open toll road. The open approach was followed in this case and situating the toll plaza on the N13, by means of which toll is levied by the private sector, was the best arrangement that could be made in this case.

The hon member requested that this be discussed again. The department’s officials are prepared to see the hon member and discuss the matter. The fact is that solutions are already being sought, for example lower toll tariffs for local consumers on the basis of a high frequency of use. We shall see whether the wishes of the hon member can be complied with.

The hon member for Primrose raised a number of matters. He said that we should take another look at the question of licences and the levy on fuel.

He also raised the question of the new licensing of heavy motor vehicles. He knows that at the moment it is in the right hands and that consideration will be given to this matter.

The hon member for Mooi River also raised a specific matter in his constituency.

†I would like to reply to him as follows. He was very worried about the alternative road there, which is Nottingham Road, and the interchange on the N3 to Nottingham Road, Rosetta and Mooi River along the old road to Estcourt as well as the gravel road to Hidcote. I want to tell the hon member that we are not happy with the road pavement, therefore R5 million has been allocated to ensure repairs so that that road will be a reasonable alternative route.

It is not nearly enough.

We will talk about that again, but at least we will make it a reasonable alternative road.

*That brings me to the point made by one of the hon members on the opposite side, viz that the alternative roads are not really alternative roads. The Government has no obligation to look after those roads. I want to tell hon members, however, that they are quite wrong.

†Let us take Ennerdale for example. Those residents who go to Johannesburg can use the Golden Highway. We admit that congestion can occur at certain peak periods. However, we are going to allocate approximately R3 million to improve the Golden Highway and to make it four-lane standard throughout.

*One cannot make the alternative roads exactly the same as the toll roads, however, because then one has a duplicate situation. After all, if the hon member for Roodepoort has a business undertaking, he will not go and buy a business undertaking from someone else and then permit it to be opened directly next to his own. He would not be that foolish in doing business. [Interjections.] That is what he wants now, however. He wants us to upgrade those alternative roads in such a way that they will be of the same standard as the toll roads. That is impossible, however. [Interjections.]

The public will have the following protection in respect of the toll roads. If the tariff is too high, no one will use the road and the concessionaire will lose money. That is what will happen. Once a toll road has been completed and the public in other words have rapidly moving traffic, they will in due course use the road. The traffic on the alternative road will then systematically be reduced. The alternative road is there, however, so that people have a choice of using that road if they do not want to use the toll road. [Interjections.]

I want to thank all the hon members who took part in the discussion. I merely want to say that this is not the first time we have discussed toll financing and toll roads. What is at issue now is whether there will be a change in the accepted policy, viz that toll financing and toll roads should be the responsibility of the Government, and that the user, viz the NTC, will pay the Government. In the past the NTC would have had the road in question built and would have collected the toll money for its own account. This amendment now authorises the commission to have toll roads built by someone else for his own account.

The Government is actually using the private sector as an additional form of assistance in helping it to build roads. The Government is calling in the private sector additionally to assist in building essential roads which will promote the economic development of South Africa.

That is why I feel this legislation is a significant positive step. It will be of great use in the long term. With regard to the change with reference to these roads, the Financial Times very clearly put the following question recently: “Roads tolled: for whom?” The following appeared in the ensuing report:

That is the choice we have. I think that is a summary of the whole situation. People may not like the idea, but what will we do without toll roads if we want South Africa to develop sufficiently in the economic sphere? Consequently it gives me great pleasure to support the legislation under discussion.

Mr Chairman, the CP does not support this Bill. In the first place we are opposed to the fact that the tariff for calculating tolls is not prescribed in the Bill itself. Therefore there is no protection for the road user against exorbitant toll increases.

Our second objection is that existing roads, inter alia, may be transferred to the concessionaires in terms of the Bill. The road user receives no consideration for this at all. Furthermore we object because sufficient provision is not being made for the building, maintenance and upgrading of alternative routes. That should have been prescribed in the Bill.

Furthermore we maintain that the total elimination of accountability of the State and of the concessionaires for any act or omission on the part of the concessionaires in the exercise or carrying out of any power or duty in terms of an agreement under the legislation in question, is also unacceptable to us.

Finally, toll roads in urban areas result in traffic problems and an unequal levying of tolls. Under these circumstances we cannot support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, from the NP side we support the Bill in question because it is in accordance with the two White Papers—the one on privatisation and deregulation and the one on transport policy. These were debated at length for many months.

Furthermore, as the Deputy Minister has indicated, sufficient provision is made in the measure to offer road users the protection that was requested. It also creates the possibility of affording the Treasury some relief in regard to the amounts which it has to pay for the creation of infrastructure—road infrastructure in particular—since private enterprise can now be brought in to help in this connection.

Furthermore the hon the Deputy Minister replied fully to the objections raised by the Official Opposition. It will suffice to say that we believe that they have been adequately dealt with. Therefore we on this side of the House shall support the Bill in question.

The House divided:

AYES—97: Alant, T G; Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Badenhorst, P J; Bekker, H J; Bloomberg, S G; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J van R; Botma, M C; Brazelle, J A; Camerer, S M; Chait, E J; Christophers, D; Clase, P J; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; De Klerk, F W; Delport, J T; De Pontes, P; Du Plessis, B J; Edwards, B V; Farrell, P J; 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; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; Jager, R; Jooste, J A; King, T J; Kotzé, G J; Kruger, T A P; Lemmer, J J; Louw, E v d M; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Malan, M A de M; Malherbe, G J; Marais, G; Mare, P L; Maree, J W; Maree, M D; Matthee, J C; Matthee, P A; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, A T; Myburgh, G B; Nel, P J C; Nothnagel, A E; Odendaal, W A; Olivier, P J S; Oosthuizen, G C; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Rabie, J; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Retief, J L; Scheepers, J H L; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Schutte, D P A; Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Steenkamp, P J; Steyn, D W; Steyn, P T; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, P J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Van Breda, A; Van der Walt, A T; Van Deventer, F J; Van de Vyver, J H; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Heerden, F J; Van Wyk, J A; Veldman, M H; Venter, A A; Vilonel, J J; Welgemoed, P J; Wentzel, J J G.

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

NOES—19: Coetzee, H J; De Jager, C D; De Ville, J R; Derby-Lewis, C J; Gerber, A; Jacobs, S C; Langley, T; Mentz, M J; Mulder, C P; Mulder, P W A; Nolte, D G H; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Prinsloo, J J S; Uys, C; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, W J D.

Tellers: Le Roux, F J; Schoeman, C B.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, we in the CP support this Bill.

Hear, hear!

Mr Chairman, on behalf of this side of the House it is my pleasure to say that we are in favour of this Bill and we support it.

Hear, hear!

Mr Chairman, I thank my hon colleague and also the other side of the House for their support.

Hear, hear!

Mr Chairman, I give notice that I shall move tomorrow:

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Order! I want to advise hon members that in view of the seriousness of the resolution of which notice has been given by the hon member for Stanger, and the possible far-reaching implications thereof, business will now be suspended until the bells are rung. I request the Leader of the House, all the Whips and the leaders of the parties in the House to report to my office after the suspension of business.

Business suspended at 14h26 and resumed at 18h18.

Mr Chairman, during the recess I have had the opportunity of meeting with the leaders of the various parties, the Whips and the officials and we have had a healthy discussion. As a result of the amicable discussions that we had and in the light of the spirit of those discussions and the decisions we reached there, with the leave of the House I should like the draft resolution that I gave notice of earlier on, namely that Rule 2(1) be suspended with retrospective effect from 29 August 1988 for the remainder of this session of Parliament, to be withdrawn and not to be part of the Minutes.

Order! The hon member for Lenasia Central has requested an opportunity to make a statement. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, in our frustration yesterday hon members on this side of the House walked out of the Chamber. In our haste to dissociate ourselves from the report some of us unintentionally walked out without bowing to the Chair. I want to place on record that this was not done with any disrespect to the Chair and on behalf of this side of the House I wish to apologise accordingly.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

1. (1) whereas the Report and findings of the House Committee on Maladministration contain serious charges against the hon member for Arena Park, Mr A Rajbansi; and
2. (2) whereas the House deems it desirable that the said member be present in the House during further discussion of the said Report so that he may respond thereto before any decision is taken thereon,

the House resolves that in order to enable the said hon member to be present in the House for the aforesaid purposes, the resolution adopted on 29 June 1988, in terms of which the said hon member was suspended, be rescinded.

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.