Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

1. (1) Mr Speaker may accelerate or postpone the date for the resumption of business; and
2. (2) the reports, proceedings and evidence of committees be printed on representation to Mr Speaker.

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

1. (1) Second Reading debate—Constitution Third Amendment Bill [B 113—88 (GA)];
2. (2) Second Reading debate—Moutse (Validation of Actions) Bill [B 106—88 (GA)]; and
3. (3) Second Reading debate—National Roads Amendment Bill [B 99A and B—88 (GA)].

Agreed to.

Order! The hon member for Mariannhill has requested an opportunity to make an announcement.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the NPP I wish to make the following announcement.

During the suspension of the national leader of the NPP, Mr A Rajbansi, MP for Arena Park, Mr S V Naicker, the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture, shall be the acting Parliamentary leader of the NPP until such time as the suspension of Mr Rajbansi has been rescinded or lifted.

Secondly, during the absence of Mr M Y Baig, MP for Moorcross, who is presently overseas, Mr M S Shah, the MP for Lenasia Central, shall be the acting Whip of the NPP.

Mr Chairman, when the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was given an opportunity in this House on 1 September to respond to the report of the House Committee, he made certain very serious allegations which were taken up by the Press. I want to respond here this afternoon in regard to two such allegations.

In the unrevised Hansard of 1 September, he said, inter alia:

I said, on that occasion, that the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council had made that statement in 1984 or 1985 and I had then presented him with the deeds of the property. Here are the deeds of the property, and the land in question was not bought from the Department of Community Development or any other Government department, but from Mr Ebrahim Mohamed Paddia of Stanger, and the property was transferred to my family on that basis. I have given you a copy of the deeds and these deeds are available for the second time to many hon members across the floor so that there will not be …

Order! The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may only make a statement.

Very well. Unfortunately I have to protect myself because these allegations have been made.

The second allegation made by the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was that when the people of Richards Bay should have been given priority there was no investigation by this House Committee of the allocation of homes to my firm. I again give evidence of correspondence in which land was advertised by the House of Delegates for purchase by employers. An application was made and building stands were made available. I have all the evidence here. However, no homes were allocated to my company. That again represents false statements made in this House …

Order! The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has made his statement and that will suffice.

Mr Chairman, arising out of the explanation …

Order! Unfortunately the hon member may not respond to a statement made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

I merely want to make an enquiry and elicit a response from the Chair.

Order!

The hon member will have to do so by way of a question or by way of giving notice.

Mr Chairman, this Bill is a very short Bill. The effect of this is that any report of the President’s Council need not be tabled within 14 days, but as soon as possible thereafter.

This Bill was discussed at joint committee meetings and I have here the speech of the hon the Minister in which he said that the Bill was a result of the technical problem that, if Parliament was not in session, a special meeting of Parliament had to be called to table a decision of the President’s Council on a Bill on which disagreement had existed. Then he went on to say the following, and I quote:

I do not want to take up the time of this House unnecessarily. We sought clarity in the standing committee and we were not convinced there that there was a need for this amending Bill at all. Therefore we on this side of the House want to suggest to the House that this Constitution Third Amendment Bill not be approved.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House do not approve of these measures either. We believe that this particular section which is being enacted in terms of the Constitution would give extra powers to the President’s Council to deal with certain pieces of legislation with which any particular Chamber of Parliament does not agree. Therefore we on this side of the House strongly object to the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I hope that at this late hour I can persuade hon members to reconsider the position. I would like to react to the hon member for Lenasia Central. I want to say to him that there is nothing in this Bill that affects the powers of the President’s Council. In fact, the Bill does not deal with the powers of the President’s Council. It is true that the hon the State President had indicated on occasion that consideration had to be given to the composition of the President’s Council and at the same time to the functions of that council. If and when legislation to that effect is presented to this House, a debate can take place. It can be, firstly, on the composition of that council, and secondly, on the functions of that council. However, in all fairness, there is nothing in this Bill before the House which affects the powers of the President’s Council in any way whatsoever.

When we decided to participate in the system created by the Constitution Act of 1983, we also accepted the composition and functions of the President’s Council. I would like to concede the point that we did not all agree with the Constitution of 1983 but what we did do was to participate in that institution and other institutions created by that Act.

Having said this, we all said at the time that this was not the end of the road in terms of constitutional changes and adaptation. Not only did we all say that, but the initiative was taken in this regard by the hon the State President, namely to establish a Cabinet Committee dealing with the participation of members of the Black communities as well in the decision-making processes in both the legislative institutions and in the executive. It is therefore irrelevant—I say this with all due respect—to argue about the President’s Council and its functions today. What is contained in this Bill is secondary and does not affect the legality of the submission of reports.

There is no amendment to the Bill which suggests that reporting to the Houses of Parliament on decisions of the President’s Council should be abolished or that provisions in that regard should be deleted. The Bill deals only with one particular matter, ie the time of the tabling of the reports containing any decisions by the President’s Council. In all fairness, Sir, it does not affect the provision relating to tabling a report. It only has a bearing on when such reports should be tabled.

The reason for that was the experience we all had at the beginning of this year when, in terms of the interpretation of the particular section of the principal Act, Parliament had to convene because of the stipulation that Parliament had to be in session for such reports to be tabled.

I suggest, in all fairness, that we will all agree that that created an impossible situation. I should add that in at least six instances the hon the State President had in fact accepted a report by the President’s Council and promulgated legislation before the submission of that report to Parliament, and I can argue at length on the legal issues involved. I do not wish, however, to argue those issues today. I only want to argue the practical implications of the arrangements the Bill is seeking to introduce. Therefore I ask hon members to assist us in this regard.

Finally, I want to remind hon members of this House that they also have members in the President’s Council. They have members there who participate in the proceedings and discussions in relation to any Bills that may be referred to the President’s Council. Furthermore, I believe that as members of Parliament we should all be prepared not only to assist but also to ensure that those reports become available as soon as possible instead of our having to wait for a session of Parliament to be convened for the purpose of tabling them.

In all fairness, Sir, we have our difficulties because we belong to opposing political parties. I understand that. We have differences of opinion because we have different philosophies in regard to how these problems can be solved. In all fairness, however, I believe we cannot argue with any relevance that we want to defer the submission of reports by the President’s Council. Therefore I ask hon members once again to reconsider their position in this regard.

Mr Chairman, one recognises that the Executive, which is the Government, is in trouble. The trouble in which they find themselves is, however, entirely of their own making. They were amply warned. They were repeatedly warned, not only here in Parliament but also outside Parliament, that the measures taken in 1985 were wrong and that those measures were against the wishes of the people involved. They were told that human beings were not pawns to be moved around on a chessboard. However, the arrogance of the Government, which has been in power for such a long time, led them to believe that they could do whatever they liked, regardless of the realities of the situation, regardless of the human considerations involved and, I am sorry to say, regardless of the legality of the situation.

Thankfully the independence of our judiciary remains. When one of the affected persons took the matter to the only tribunal where he could expect to get justice, regrettably he was not able to get justice from this Parliament. He therefore took it to the other arm of government, the judiciary, where he expected to get justice. There he was able to get justice. That then upset the— I am not going to say maligned machinations— but rather the unwise, ill-advised and inhuman machinations of the Government. That has got the Government into trouble.

Now they want to come here and say to us: “Look here, fellows, we have made a mess of the situation. As a result of the mess that we, the Government, created, a vacuum exists and a slightly anarchical situation exists in a certain area of the country, created by the Government itself.” So they say: “Look here, chaps, we made a mess. Come and rescue us.” One might consider a rescue mission, but there has been no contrition. There has been no remorse.

It is said that when a person makes a mistake and he repents, there is an obligation to forgive. There has been no expression of repentance, either from the hon the Deputy Minister, or from any of his colleagues or any Minister of State. How dare they, therefore, come to us and ask us for forgiveness? They must repent first. Since they have not, I am not prepared to forgive them. We are therefore not prepared to give assent to this particular Bill either.

Mr Chairman, the incorporation of the people of Moutse into KwaNdebele is indeed a matter which has been under the spotlight for some considerable time. The irony of the matter is that Government policy, with all its talk about negotiation and consensus politics, has not been adapted in this particular case. By moving them into KwaNdebele, these people are now being denied their right to citizenship of the Republic of South Africa.

We believe that, as a component of Parliament, the House of Delegates cannot support the Bill. We on this side of the House therefore strongly object to this measure.

Mr Chairman, Moutse was previously a calm and almost unknown part of the Republic of South Africa. However, in recent times it has come into the political limelight because of the Government’s policy of separate development to which rural areas are subjected. It represents an extreme case of the insensitive application of the policy of separate development.

No regard or respect has been given to the views, wishes and interests of the Moutse people. In fact, unlike anywhere else, the Government has ignored and dismissed any suggestion that a referendum be conducted to assess the mood and wishes of the people, simply because the Government knows that there is no support for this step. The resistance to incorporation is at all levels. Firstly, the entire community has rejected this at all meetings they have held with representatives of the Government, including those held in Pretoria. Meetings that were held with the Moutse leaders culminated, as I understand it, in a deadlock between them and the hon the Minister on 18 November 1985 in Pretoria.

I beg your pardon; just say that again?

I am referring to a meeting which the hon the Minister held with the representatives of the people of Moutse on 18 November 1985 in Pretoria. Almost simultaneously, teachers, clerks and nurses resisted and rejected any attempt by the Government to transfer their services to KwaNdebele. The people of Moutse have always been attached to and associated with Lebowa. This has been so in terms of the RSA policy of separate development. They share a political destiny, and so they stay with Lebowa. This was evidenced when after a decision by Moutse in the elections in Lebowa in 1983, when the two members of Parliament for the area were elected unopposed—a mandate that is normally highly respected in democratic political circles— we consequently had the contention that the people’s will would be tested, if anything. After all, the people of Moutse regard this issue of incorporation as a national issue and attach similar sentiments to it, and in the same manner, as our Government attached to issues relating to the Republic and the referendum which led up to the new Constitution.

The people of Moutse, of course, suspect the intentions of our Government in imposing this, as it is being done without any consensus whatsoever. The feeling is that the Government is excising them for reasons of political expediency and is simply abandoning them to independent KwaNdebele, and their fate is therefore sealed. The greater part of Moutse being private property, this makes it even more important that they feel and suspect that in an independent KwaNdebele these properties could well be nationalised at the stroke of a pen, thus resulting in the people losing their property rights. Then there is the discriminatory trading practice which, I understand, is already in existence in KwaNdebele against non-Ndebeles in the granting of trading licences. This makes it difficult for the people of Moutse to accept any proposal with regard to incorporation. After the excision, the people of Moutse had reverted to full RSA citizenship. This is something very dear and near to them; in fact, it is a birthright that they wish to retain.

Furthermore, the infrastructure in Moutse is far advanced in comparison to that in KwaNdebele. The roads are tarred and the district boasts a hospital that came into being long before the introduction of homelands. In fact, KwaNdebele is being served by this hospital as it has none of those services yet. There are 748 teachers; approximately 58 schools; approximately 36 000 schoolchildren; and all types of businesses one can think of are available in the area. Examples are supermarkets, bottle stores, dry-cleaning establishments, etc.

As far as the economic and strategic position of the area vis-á-vis the residents’ job opportunities is concerned, people commute daily between their places of work and home and this has the effect of stabilising family life, an advantage they would otherwise lose if they should move to the so-called Immerpan, an inlet about 90 km away. This middle class status and economic viability they now enjoy, will be lost. Of course they would prefer to remain under Lebowa, where they have for a number of years remained good and loyal citizens.

As is to be expected, Mr Chairman, the people of Moutse enjoy a level of development where women are given their rightful and respectable role to play. This includes the treatment accorded them. They know about and can never be reconciled to the attitude of KwaNdebele where women are simply flogged publicly, as is at present the case, and are disenfranchised, although we have recently passed a Bill in terms of which it will be possible for the women to be enfranchised. Moutse—a peaceful area, and an area where, previously, development had taken place—has now, unfortunately, been turned into an area where there is violence and misunderstanding, and a peaceful area has been turned topsy-turvy. For this reason, I believe that there must be a reconsideration of this matter of incorporating the Moutse area into KwaNdebele, and I therefore want to suggest that this House does not accept this Bill to validate certain actions in respect of the Moutse district.

Mr Chairman, firstly I would like to deal with the point raised by hon members regarding the question before the House this afternoon. We have here a Bill which refers to …

Order! There are far too many little discussion groups within the House. I appeal to hon members please to give speakers a hearing.

Mr Chairman, I was saying that the Bill before us was actually aimed at the situation that occurred after the judgement by the Appeal Court of South Africa. The Government accepts that court judgement in this particular case.

They had no choice!

But that is the point, Mr Chairman! If we do not pass this Bill before the House, we will not be abiding by the court ruling. That is the point. In other words, this Bill actually gives effect to the implications of the court ruling. For that reason, I would like to argue with hon members and plead with them to accept the court’s ruling. If we do not do this and do not go ahead with this Bill, we will necessarily have to deal with the implications. Certain effects will then have to take their normal course. However, I will come back to that.

The point I want to make is that as a result of the court case and the judgement, certain effects will have to be dealt with. However, first of all I want to point out—with all due respect to the hon member for Reservoir Hills and other hon members who participated—that the case in point before us at the moment is not the merits of the 1985 proclamation. That we can argue about on another occasion. That is not the issue before the House at the moment. I would like to refer hon members to the judgement itself and the reference that was made to the arguments which were put before the court in terms of the original proclamation. However, that is not the issue before the House at the moment.

The issue before the House at the moment is a measure which deals with the effects of the judgement. The Government has appointed the Rumpff Commission to investigate the future juridical position as far as Moutse is concerned. However, in the interim we have to deal with the effect, and for that reason we have to deal with certain measures which have been taken during this period between 1985 and the judgement. We have to validate the actions that took place during that period.

The implication is, for instance—for the sake of the hon member for Reservoir Hills and my hon colleague—amongst others, the fact that all actions of the KwaNdebele government in the area concerned are ultra vires for the period since the end of 1985. Furthermore all Government expenditure and budget decisions with regard to Moutse during this period can be considered as unauthorised expenditure. Thirdly, rights acquired by the residents of Moutse and other people outside Moutse—in other words, in the territory as well as outside the territory—could be invalidated and challenged. For that reason we have to give effect to the result of the court judgement in order to rectify the situation.

In practice, if we look at the implications, it could for instance have the effect that all payments of pensions and vehicle licences, including third party coverage, trading licences and marriages concluded, as well as payment of salaries during the said period, could be challenged in a court of law. Hon members will understand that this could have far-reaching consequences for the authorities, but in particular for the residents of Moutse and even innocent people outside Moutse who could have been involved in this on a bona fide basis. The Government has a responsibility towards its citizens and in this particular case, of course, the people of Moutse are part and parcel of the central Government’s responsibility again after the judgement. For that reason we have to pass this measure.

The rights and interests of the Moutse residents are involved. It is essential that the validity of the actions be confirmed by the legislation we have before us. This is in no way whatsoever an effort to validate any action of an illegal nature which was taken by any authority in KwaNdebele over the particular period; it serves to validate bona fide actions which affect the position of the inhabitants of Moutse and other people outside Moutse.

I would like to summarise by saying that, in the first place, this actually serves to give effect to the judgement by the Appeal Court. In other words, we need this measure for that particular purpose. We have to validate the actions that were taken during that period and we have to take care of the administration in the interim while we wait for the outcome of the Rumpff Report. In the third place it is important to emphasize that this refers to actions of a legal nature which were taken during that period and it looks after the interests of the Moutse people. I would like to confirm that we are really dealing with the interests of the people of Moutse here. As the hon member correctly stated, we have to look after their interests. That is why we need this measure.

In conclusion I would like to argue that if we do not pass this Bill, the deduction can also be made that this is a ruling of Parliament which goes against the judgement of the court.

Mr Chairman, I want to say at once that this debate is actually a bit unreal. The arguments advanced by the hon the Deputy Minister have no bearing on the legislation we are discussing at present. In all fairness, if the Bill before the House had stipulated that the area of jurisdiction of Moutse should be incorporated in KwaNdebele, the hon member’s argument would have been valid. This is not, however, what is contained in the Bill.

†The hon member for Reservoir Hills will recall his comment—he will not take it amiss if I repeat it—that as a laywer he would have to support these measures.

I still say you should admit your mistakes and say you are sorry!

Thank you very much. I will come back to that.

You must say you are sorry first!

No, I am sorry, the hon member must just give me a chance. The hon member said that as a lawyer he would have to support this Bill.

The law abhors a vacuum.

Just a moment. The hon member said that. Will the hon member just confirm that he said that?

It is a legal action.

Of course it is a legal action! Why does the hon member then argue against legal actions in Parliament?

Because you have not said you are sorry!

I do not know whether my apology is going to change the law! That hon member did in fact say this and I do not want to argue with him, but he professed that as a lawyer subscribing to the principle of law he had to agree with this measure. Why, then, does he oppose the measure?

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

No, I am sorry, but I want to finish my argument. There can only be one reason why the hon member is arguing against his own sense of equity and his own interpretation of what the law is. I wondered, while he was talking, what that reason could be.

You have not said sorry yet!

It could only be because he belongs to a particular political party.

If you say sorry now, I will change my mind.

The hon member also knows, as do all hon members, including the hon the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture, not only that the inclusion of Moutse in the area of any self-governing territory is at stake in this Bill, but that the hon the State President has appointed a judicial commission to investigate the future of Moutse. I thought the hon member for Reservoir Hills would welcome the appointment of a judicial commission.

We welcome that.

If it is welcome, why argue as if this Bill purports to include Moutse in the area of KwaNdebele? The hon member is more intelligent than that. I know he is.

The Government has not decided to flout the decision of the court by merely introducing a Bill including Moutse in KwaNdebele. In other words, we are not now attempting to restore the status of Moutse to what it was before the judgement. We have chosen another road, namely that before a final decision is taken in this regard, we will wait for the report of the judicial commission.

The reason why the hon member for Reservoir Hills said that he would have to support this Bill on a legal basis was that various people acquired rights and incurred obligations from 1985 up to the time of the court’s ruling. I say it is wrong for this House blatantly to ignore the rights of people in order to score political points against other people. Nobody can persuade me otherwise.

Without preaching a sermon, I would like to tell hon members again that it is the responsibility of this Parliament and this House to protect the accrued rights of people, even though one may disagree with the Executive. It is also the obligation of this Parliament and this House to protect the rights that have accrued.

I therefore appeal to hon members to support this measure, and to debate the question of the future position of Moutse in this House if and when a Bill dealing with that matter is introduced for consideration by this House. I suggest that that is the only rational, reasonable, fair and equitable way to deal with the issue.

Mr Chairman, this is a very involved Bill. Its objective is to transfer certain functions, powers and duties as defined in the National Roads Act. In fact, this is a means by which some of the assets of the Department of Transport can be privatised.

Although this Bill was piloted through the joint committee, a lot of dissatisfaction has now arisen. If the Department of Transport were to privatise some of the national roads, where some millions of rands have been spent in constructing these roads, a lot of people would want to climb on the bandwagon to get this privatisation, in order to make enough money for themselves.

Therefore this is a Bill that cannot be supported. I would like the hon the Deputy Minister to withdraw this Bill and to hold consultations with the members of this House. The best thing for the hon the Deputy Minister to do is to withdraw this Bill forthwith and to hold discussions with the members of this House.

Mr Chairman, I have no further comment. My party will never support this Bill because it will do a lot of harm not only to the Indian community, but also to the various communities who are going to be affected by this Bill. In the best interests of all concerned, I think the hon the Minister must withdraw this Bill. It is not a question of us not co-operating with the hon the Deputy Minister or the Department of Transport. We will do so, but I think we want to have discussions and I think we want to put forward our points of view in respect of the various provisions in this Bill.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House cannot see our way clear to support this Bill. I served on the Joint Committee on Transport and on that joint committee I did support the Bill. However, my party and the alliance here have very carefully reconsidered their viewpoint. Although there are certain provisions in this Bill which have been made for the benefit of the State as a whole, there are many other implications which are very detrimental to motorists and our people generally—to all people in South Africa.

One must also bear in mind the concern that was shown recently by the Administrator of Natal, especially about the tariff that one has to pay for the toll road. Furthermore, what really concerns us most is the fact that existing roads are now going to be tolled and this will have a far-reaching effect on those people who commute daily in areas like, let us say Mooi River, where a toll will probably be in operation shortly.

People from there have to travel to Pietermaritzburg and also to Ladysmith which is an industrial area. I imagine that if one has to go through these toll roads daily and pay this amount which is going to be levied by this private company this will have a very far-reaching effect on the motorist and the workers generally. In view of this we want this Bill to go back to the joint committee so that it can be gone through with a very fine-toothed comb again so as to meet the aspirations of all the people concerned.

Mr Chairman, I have always been against toll roads, in particular the toll road between Vereeniging and Johannesburg on the N1, called the Grasmere Plaza toll road.

We have spoken at length about this toll road and we have several communications from the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs, as well as a petition which a member of the House of Representatives and myself sent to the hon the State President in this regard. We on this side of the House object totally to this measure because we believe that the Government cannot go into privatisation with closed eyes. This is going to affect the communities settled in the areas where the toll is being constructed, and we consider it an extra form of taxation on an already overtaxed community, especially communities of colour.

When we look at the communities which are settled around the areas where tollgates are being put up, we see that the majority of these communities are not White communities. They are Black, Coloured or Indian communities. The problem with the Black, Coloured and Indian communities is that they do not have a chance to live where they want to because of the vicious and abhorred Group Areas Act. They are forced to live in an area which has been assigned to them— the so-called homelands. In effect they are forced to pay a toll.

In the case of the Grasmere Plaza Toll there is a community of approximately 72 000 involved and a further 68 000 living in Ennerdale, who have to pay R3 each way, which constitutes R6 per day. Most of those people who live in that area have taken out bonds on their homes and both the husband and the wife have to work to supplement the family income. They simply cannot afford to pay a toll to go into Johannesburg and return. These people were originally residents of Johannesburg and they were moved there as a result of the Group Areas Act. Tollgates constructed anywhere else will have the same detrimental effect on society. Existing alternative routes are not designed to carry the additional volume of traffic which will have to be accommodated as a result of tollgates being constructed on these roads.

Enough has been said about negotiations with the communities concerned, but I take strong exception to negotiations taking place after the construction of a tollgate, like the Grasmere Plaza, has already commenced. Negotiations with the communities concerned only took place after the matter had been raised here in Parliament in the Houses of Delegates and Representatives. In view of that, we on this side of the House cannot see our way clear to support this measure.

Mr Chairman, I do not serve on this standing committee, but I merely rise to express the sentiments of the hon member for Umzinto who does serve on the standing committee and who is very ill at present and unable to attend today’s proceedings.

I also want to associate myself with what the hon member for Lenasia Central has said about the toll roads. He contends that we have created the toll roads to provide shorter routes. However, sometimes shortcuts are dangerous and I hope that these constructions were not planned for that!

The other point the hon member raised was privatisation. Of course we are talking seriously about privatisation here, but at the same time we should not go into that arena with blinkers on. I believe that privatisation should be to the benefit of the community as regards what the taxpayer may derive from this. The cost factor should be of the utmost importance. The hon member for Lenasia Central has correctly stated that this tollgate has now been completed and that it is only now that we realise the pro’s and con’s and the difficulties in connection with the use of this facility to the benefit of the people.

This is sad and therefore we believe that this legislation should go back into the melting pot. Some improvements must be made, which may be more acceptable to the people concerned in that area. We believe that most of them are working class people. We are fighting to bring down transport costs for those people who travel from one area to another. The one important factor which has been mentioned here concerns residential development adjacent to industrial areas. However, that is not the case and these communities thus have to travel from one area to another, which is why we say that these tollgates are certainly not the answer as regards the convenience and comfort of those workers.

I agree with the hon member for Umzinto and I therefore suggest, as he would have, that this matter be looked into again.

Mr Chairman, as far as I am concerned I am a long-distance driver. I come to Cape Town by car and I return by car. Some of these tollgates have eliminated many miles of driving so that one sometimes does not mind paying a toll in certain areas. However, when one gets to a tollgate which says R2 per axle, technically speaking the department is also at fault. Most of today’s vehicles do not have axles but stub-axles. There are four stub-axles per car. It gets a little too much when they charge R2 per axle.

I think that is too much, and I am sure the hon the Deputy Minister will agree. If the hon the Deputy Minister had to travel like me and keep paying R4 per car just to cut a few minutes off his journey time, I think he would make a bigger fuss than I am making now.

My colleague, the hon member for Lenasia South, has already mentioned this particular toll road, but I would also like to refer to it. All those people living in that area have to travel through that tollgate daily. I have spoken to the hon the Minister and have also received a letter from him. The people in Grasmere, Lenasia South and Ennerdale must all travel along the Golden Highway. It is a narrow road with potholes and everything else one can think of. That road is not adequate for the number of people who have to use it. The Government has spent so much money without consulting the people concerned, but if they were to take my advice, they would spend another R100 000—perhaps even less—to relocate the tollgate a few hundred metres away—500 m to be exact. Then the people in the area would be highly satisfied, because those are the people who have to travel to work daily over that particular bridge and toll road. They cannot afford it in the first place, whereas the Government can afford to break down that tollgate and rebuild it. No one will tell me that that cannot be done, because whenever there is a problem among the White farmers, the Government is always prepared to spend millions. Here, however, Indians and Coloureds working in Johannesburg, 20 or 30 km away, have to suffer because of a tollgate. We did not ask to be put in those locations where we are today. I call them locations, because we are located in areas which the Government used to call locations. Today people use a different name but it is the same thing.

I have spent some time with the hon the Deputy Minister. I have served on the committee and I have also visited various places with him. I think the hon the Deputy Minister will agree with me that the department can afford to lose a few hundred thousand rands to shift that tollgate in the Grasmere-Lenasia South-Ennerdale complex. The Department of Transport is used to losing money, so why not spend a few more rands before making rich people even richer? [Interjections.] My hon colleague on the opposite side said that now that the Department of Transport had got everything nice and ready, everybody was jumping in. If one looks at the situation, however, one finds that these are all White companies, making millions out of us as usual. What do we get? The hon the Minister wrote to me saying that part of the road going over the hill to Lenasia South had been enlarged, but that road was enlarged because it was an uphill gradient and it had to be done. I suppose that is the lolly the hon the Minister wants us to lick, but I do not think anyone here is ready to lick any lollies offered by anybody.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to debate the merits and demerits of toll roads. In certain given circumstances toll roads may be utilized usefully. However, tollgates are now being constructed on existing roads, and that is where our problem lies.

I want to refer to a particular tollgate in my constituency, namely Mooi River. I want to invite my colleague, the hon the Deputy Minister, to come along—if he has not already done so—and to drive along the alternative route which is being offered in the Mooi River area. I want him to realise why there is such an outcry in that area about the establishment of this tollgate. Firstly, that stretch of the N3 was constructed with funds other than the tolls that are now going to be levied on the people. Let us compare the tariff at the Mariannhill tollgate, which is 50 cents for a light motor vehicle, to that at Mooi River. I understand that the charge there is going to be the same as that at Van Reenen, where the driver of a light motor vehicle is required to pay R6,50 to pass through the gate. I know of people who commute daily from Mooi River and Pietermaritzburg to work. We have teachers coming to Mooi River from Pietermaritzburg who will have to drive through this tollgate in order to get to Mooi River. Can hon members imagine teachers paying R13 per day just for the privilege of using an existing road which was constructed with funds other than toll funds, although I accept that it is now being extensively repaired and upgraded to a high standard?

Further along the road, when one reaches Van Reenen, there is another tollgate. Therefore, this further imposition on the motorist is something which is being resisted. Petitions are being circulated in that area. I believe that if my colleague the hon the Deputy Minister has not yet received a petition from the Mooi River area, it will be forwarded to him in the not too distant future. I should like to know from him whether there will be any concessions for the people living in the vicinity of that tollgate. What about the farmers and the people who may have to negotiate this tollgate a number of times a day? I should like to know whether these people will be allowed to use this road without any charge being levied on them. These are the difficulties, and I do not know whether any negotiations have been undertaken with those people who are going to be affected by the establishment of these tollgates.

Another problem is the following. I really cannot understand how they arrive at these levies. Who arrives at the levies? Is it the contractor who has the concession? Does he decide? Does the State make any input in arriving at these levies? Will the levies be static or will they escalate? This is the problem. We might start off at Mariannhill with a levy of 50 cents per motorcar and then, taking our cue from the other tollgates, that might well go up to R10 in a few months’ time.

These, then, are the aspects relating to tollgates which are of concern, and for that reason I can well support my hon colleagues in this House when they say that another look must be taken at these tollgates in order to ascertain whether an equitable way can be found of ensuring that the levies are reduced to an affordable level so that the people living in the vicinity of the tollgate, such as the Mooi River-Nottingham Road people, for instance, may be given some concessions. If they cannot, then how are the motorists in these areas expected to survive?

Furthermore, why are we expected to impose a burden upon existing roads which are not of an acceptable standard? Due to their width, the roads in that area which are deemed to be alternative routes, are not fit and proper roads to carry the heavy traffic in that area.

Numerous pedestrians use these roads. Cattle and other animals use these roads, and if we want a spate of accidents, if we want to make it hazardous for the motorist to negotiate these roads, then we are going about it the right way by diverting traffic from the N3 to the alternative routes that are being proposed for this area.

For these reasons, I want to support my hon colleagues who have spoken before me in saying that this House does not lend its support to this Bill.

Mr Chairman, at the outset I am not going to refer to hon members individually but am going to make a few general remarks with regard to the tolling of roads. Then, in the time allotted to me, I hope to deal with certain individual points.

I think all of us in this House agree, and it has clearly come to my notice that all hon members agree, that one could toll roads under certain circumstances. It also appears to me that hon members are not against the National Transport Commission tolling certain roads. However, it now appears to me that hon members are against the idea of the private sector tolling roads for its own account, because hon members are afraid that the public, the motorist and the transport entrepreneur will pay too much, and that the people who are located near the toll plazas will be adversely affected. If I could sum up this debate, I think it revolved around these few points.

Hon members have served on the Joint Committee on Transport and they have had a very good opportunity to have a good look at all the various implications, and I am certain that hon members have made use of that opportunity to get the answers from the department concerned.

I say that just by way of introduction. The tolling of roads in South Africa has a fairly long history as far as its recent history is concerned. We amended the National Roads Act as far back as 1983 to make provision for the tolling of roads. I should like to refer hon members to section 6(3)(a) of the Act which provides as follows:

What have we done now? All that we have done, is that we have tried not to circumvent but rather to take a direct route—to take hon members into our confidence and say to them that we feel—and this has been so since 1986—that we should get certain consortia in South Africa to become interested in providing these roads, building them, rehabilitating them, controlling them and so on for their own account. Why? Because South Africa needs better roads. There is no doubt about it. That is why there was a select committee of Parliament in 1982 investigating this issue. I can quote to hon members the select committee’s unanimous report of 1982 in which it was agreed that the department should investigate the possibility of tolling not only rural roads but also suburban and urban roads.

Our history as far as that is concerned is quite clear. We have not tried to hoodwink anyone. However, we have reached the stage where everyone in South Africa is agreed that we should deregulate and privatise.

We have reached the stage where we need so much money in South Africa to build up and improve our roads that if we are to continue with this, we will have to take too much money out of the capital market; the State will use this money and there will not be sufficient for the private sector to continue developing. We have to make a choice in South Africa—make no mistake about it, these toll roads are not the only means we can apply to build roads—and tolling roads is only a small measure we shall have to use. A vast amount of money will still have to come from the State coffers. This is just an additional method of helping us to provide better roads. It is not the final answer. We are not going to toll all the roads in South Africa because that is impossible.

If one compares the figures submitted to me—I think the hon members of the standing committee also had this available to them—and if one takes into consideration what it costs in other countries of the world where they are tolling roads, then our price per km for roads tolled by Tollway and Tolcon compares very favourably. In fact, ours are amongst the cheapest in the world in respect of what it will cost the motorist and the entrepreneur.

But in comparison we have a high fuel price in this country.

No, the hon member is making a mistake. He must not think that our fuel is amongst the most expensive in the world. In fact, I do not think that that is the case. Our price is quite reasonable compared to many other parts of the world.

However, I am just trying to explain to hon members that the tolling of roads by a private consortium is not a matter of us giving away assets to or trying to help White companies in South Africa, as the hon member for Lenasia tried to suggest. Within 10 years the names of these consortia will have to be listed on the Stock Exchange and up to 25% of their shares can belong to the Government and the ordinary citizen in South Africa will be able to obtain those shares. That will not only apply to White people. One must also bear in mind that these companies which are going to do this—and they are going to do it much more quickly, which is one of the reasons we want them to do it—are going to be able to provide more work. More job opportunities will be created in South Africa and this is what we all want because we have a situation where there is unemployment and overpopulation as well and we therefore have to provide work all the time.

It is my opinion that the policy of tolling roads is the most effective way of giving assistance in the very serious situation that has arisen as a result of scarcity of capital and also because we have to do something about it. Let us take as an example the road from Springs to Krugersdorp, the one about which there is a lot of controversy. If it were not for Tollway and Tolcon being interested, what all this would have meant was that the hon the Minister of Finance would have had to raise something like R2100 million. Hon members can imagine what that would mean to our available capital in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister a question? These roads have already been built and paid for by the taxpayer. Why take them and give them to a private company?

We are not giving them to a private company; they are going to have them for 25 years. They then come back to the State. However, the point is that if one is trying to convince a construction or finance company to become interested in a consortium of this nature, that road must be viable. One cannot make it viable unless one also includes a certain length or lengths of existing road. Those roads have to be maintained in any case; they are not there for nothing. Things are going to happen to them. The normal wear and tear on those roads will require capital expenditure as well as normal maintenance. This will be taken over by the consortium, instead of the State doing it. After 25 years, as I have said, they will revert to the State. They will remain the property of the State and then they can extend the concession, if they want to, for a further 25 years.

Thus there are many advantages as far as South Africa is concerned. However, I agree with hon members—I do not blame them for standing up here and pleading for the people who live in the immediate vicinity of a toll plaza. That is quite normal. One would do that. However, first of all the hon the Deputy Minister asked me—other hon members are possibly interested in this particular point—whether there would be concessions to the people living in the immediate vicinity. Yes, there could be concessions, but it depends on the negotiations that one enters into with the two consortia concerned. This is not impossible, since after all they would also like to have the traffic. If they do not get the traffic, this will not be viable as far as they are concerned, since they will not be able to make a profit. After all, private companies are all interested in making a profit.

Therefore if it were necessary for them to reduce the toll per axle or per motor car, they would certainly do so, especially in the case of people using it quite regularly. Therefore that line of thinking is not completely out of line; this could be considered. I am certain that they will also give favourable consideration to this. That is my response to the point raised by hon members as to what will happen to the public living in the vicinity.

Secondly, there are alternative roads for all these people. It is part and parcel of the National Roads Act that we cannot declare a toll road in an area unless we have an alternative road. I do not say that those alternative roads are completely comparable with the toll road, but in a number of cases these roads are the roads that were used. [Interjection.] Take for example the case of Ennerdale. I myself travelled on the Golden Highway about six weeks ago, and it is quite clear to me that congestion would occur at certain periods. However, we are allocating R3 million towards improving the Golden Highway and bringing it up to four-lane standard throughout. It is one kilometre shorter than the other route. [Time expired.]

General Affairs:

1. 1. Free Settlement Areas Bill [B 121—88 (GA)]—(Joint Committee on Constitutional Development).
2. 2. Local Government Affairs in Free Settlement Areas Bill [B 122—88 (GA)]— (Joint Committee on Constitutional Development).
3. 3. Prevention of Illegal Squatting Amendment Bill [B 123—88 (GA)]—(Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Development Aid).
4. 4. Group Areas Amendment Bill [B 124— 88 (GA)]—(Joint Committee on Constitutional Development).