Order! The hon the Minister of Law and Order has requested me to accord him the opportunity of making a brief personal explanation. I now accord him that opportunity.

Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity you have accorded me to make the following explanation. The hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition has brought it to my attention that he objects to the following sentence in my speech last week:

Having discussed the matter with you I withdraw the relevant sentence, Mr Speaker.

laid upon the Table—

1. (1) Sectional Titles Bill [B 75—86 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Communications and Public Works).
2. (2)
   1. (a) Probation Services Bill (House of Assembly) [B 76—86 (HA)]—(Minister of Health Services and Welfare).
   2. (b) Certificate by the State President in terms of section 31 of the Constitution, 1983, that the Bill deals with matters which are own affairs of the House of Assembly.

Mr Speaker, right at the outset I should just like to point out that because of the limited time at my disposal it will not even be possible to reply to all the economic and financial points the hon members raised. The discussion of Finance Vote has, however, been brought forward to later this week, and those matters which therefore have to stand over now, we shall be able to take further to good effect during that debate.

To begin with I wish to raise a few important matters. In the first place I want to say a few things in regard to the question of our foreign debt. D-day came and went. Although tomorrow is the final day for the repayment of an amount of more than R500 million in foreign debt, transactions of this nature must be finalised two working days before the final day. That therefore means last Friday. Last Friday, too, came and went, and the rand stands firm at 49 American cents. In all likelihood it will then resume its moderate upward trend. Consequently, as far as 15 April is concerned, which were specified as the date of repayment for our foreign debt, we need have no fears. All manner of forebodings that were noised abroad in this regard have therefore in truth been proved to be wrong. In fact, a portion of that money is being left in South Africa, and will be rolled over from time to time.

Up to the end of June next year we therefore have only R100 million which we have to repay in terms of this agreement with our foreign creditors. Once again, of course, this is a theoretical statement because we can expect that a considerable portion of that amount will also be allowed to remain behind in this country.

We have therefore discharged our obligations without disrupting our exchange markets. In my opinion this is another fine chapter in our handling of this extremely unfortunate situation in which we have unfortunately found ourselves since September of last year.

There is another point I should like to make. The figures will be confirmed later this week, but we have this year taken the very important step of setting ourselves targets in regard to the money supply, and I can inform hon members that the figure for M3—the broad money supply—for February is precisely on target and lies between the two limits; that is to say, between the minimum and maximum limits we set ourselves as a formal target. As far as the money supply is concerned, this is also good news.

I want to make one last point in respect of interest rate patterns. This morning the Land Bank made a bills offer, and the interest rate was 11,23%, which therefore in the short-term makes reasonably cheap money available to the Land Bank.

As far as Treasury bills are concerned, taxation bills are usually made available at this time of the year, for a great deal of tax is due at the end of August. In total R200 million was offered, tenders were received for R677 million, and the average interest stood at 11,9%.

This is not the occasion now, so soon after the Budget Speech, to deal in detail with the state of the economy. I think the matters I have mentioned are the main matters which have emerged in the meantime, and I am in fact quite grateful to be able to convey such reassuring news to this House at this stage.

On behalf of the department and myself, I should very much like to convey my gratitude to all the hon members who expressed words of appreciation and congratulation. I gladly accept them on behalf of the department, because if one has not had an opportunity to participate in the preparation of a budget, one really has, with all due respect, no idea whatsoever of what is involved. When I accept all the expressions of thanks on behalf of the department, I also do so on behalf of the finance people of all the department who are even now working on next year’s budget cycle because there is the closest co-operation between the Treasury and the finance people of other departments.

A budget is almost like an organism, and it is in fact a miracle that everything works out in the end and that stupendous errors do not creep in. That proves that it is worthwhile working on this matter with great care.

I should like to express a few words of thanks in sequence to a few of my colleagues, and I want to begin with hon colleagues on our side of this House. Before I come to that, I do want to ask the hon member for Waterberg whether he is a racist.

No, I am not a racist.

The hon member says he is not a racist and I thank him very much for being prepared to reply to this question in the House.

I should like to thank the hon member for Smithfield who, I think, dealt quite effectively with the figures mentioned by the hon member for Yeoville. It is a pity that the hon member for Umbilo proceeded to make the same mistakes the hon member for Yeoville had made.

†I would like to say that the hon member for Umbilo should really have taken proper cognizance of what the hon member for Smithfield said before he made his own speech because I am pretty sure that then he would not have made quite a number of the points that he did in fact make.

*In my opinion the hon member for Paarl dealt effectively with the numerous absurdities and factual errors in the speech of the hon member for Sunnyside. I intend to refer to only a few matters which the hon member raised because I think the other hon members, such as the hon member for Waterkloof, dealt very effectively with the speech made by the hon member for Sunnyside. If he feels that there are other matters that were not replied to, he is at liberty to raise them during the discussion of the Vote, and then we can give attention to them in greater detail.

As far as the hon member for Paarl is concerned, I want to tell him that I am pleased that, in contrast to what he said about books being made cheaper—I do not think the solution to that problem is to be found along the lines of reduced tax of any kind—he told people who are confused about this matter in no uncertain terms that the bread subsidy is a consumer subsidy and not a subsidy that goes to agriculture. It does of course affect agriculture because it affects the product of the wheat farmer.

The hon member for Lichtenburg made an erroneous statement which probably made many people unhappy when he said that the Government felt nothing for the farmers because we had now ostensibly cut the Budget allocation to agriculture. I think that was an extremely irresponsible statement. It also implies that the hon member for Lichtenburg regards the bread subsidy as a direct subsidy to the wheat farmer, which is of course quite wrong.

I should like to thank the hon member for Waterkloof for the speech he made. It really sounded as if the hon member had been an invisible listener during the many occasions, extending over a long period, at which we discussed the Budget. I should like to pay him this compliment, because his analysis of the Budget was precisely in keeping with what emerged from the many tussles we had with it over a very long period. He correctly labelled it a careful and political-economic Budget. It remains true that a budget is the instrument by means of which a government puts its policy into operation. A budget cannot therefore be construed separately from the political and social standpoints of the governing party, or rather the Government.

The hon member made a very important point of which I think we should take note and which is something positive. The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central referred to the negative disadvantages fringe benefit tax had on the automobile industry. The hon member for Waterkloof made the important point that in the past, when the abuse of fringe benefits was rampant, one exerted virtually no influence on the demand for housing and cars by way of monetary policy owing to the simple fact that it was absurd to try to effect an adjustment if the people enjoying the advantage could obtain immediate compensation as a result of fringe benefits. In the end therefore the Exchequer paid for that additional monetary burden. As far as cars and houses were concerned, we could achieve nothing with monetary policy. This situation is now changing.

The hon member also made an important point with reference to a point which the hon member for Lichtenburg made, once again erroneously, in connection with the deficit before borrowing. I shall come to the facts in a moment. I do not know how the hon member for Lichtenburg came by his facts, but he must either get another adviser or make sure he understands these things better. We have an idea who is giving him the figures and we shall talk to the managing director of that particular bank about the quality of the advice he is conveying to this House.

Is that a threat? [Interjections.]

Is that intimidation?

This is the most incredible demonstration of confidence in leadership! The hon member for Lichtenburg is unfortunately not here at the moment, because we have a few questions to ask him. Hon members will see that the hon member for Rissik is programmed like a small computer. The moment one asks his hon leader or deputy leader a question, he replies every time. It is a phenomenal expression of confidence! We shall see it again today.

He is just a little adding machine.

You are very nervous. You have reason to be nervous.

The hon member for Waterkloof made an interesting point, namely that this Budget was a careful budget and had therefore made internal provision for flexibility, particularly in the deficit before borrowing. What is at issue, however, is not so much the size of the deficit before borrowing. We could have had a R10 billion deficit before borrowing if only we had financed it in the right way. However, we must put two things together—and this is where the hon member for Lichtenburg allowed his clutch to slip a little, while the hon member for Waterkloof spotted it—and that is that the deficit before borrowing is relatively small, which therefore gives us leeway to expand it if necessary. This is an important plus factor in this Budget, because as a result of the fact that we are only going to borrow approximately R890 million new money on the market in South Africa to finance our deficit, we can therefore afford a little expansion in two areas if it is necessary. That means that if we borrow more, we are not necessarily going to cause a distortion in the interest rates, because we proceeded with the utmost caution in that regard. Nor are we going to get into trouble with the 3% limit. This limit is a good guideline, not a law of the Medes and the Persians, but a good guideline for a country such as ours which is in a developing stage.

The hon member also touched upon an important point, viz that Professor Hupkes made the important statement that although our achievements in other areas and in view of other recent figures have not been all that wonderful, our gross national product nevertheless grew by 0,5% last year, in spite of the fact that our gross domestic product dropped by 1%. It was also correctly pointed out by the hon member—I want to emphasise this—that this country did not experience a complete recession or was not at present still experiencing the aftermath of a complete recession. There are several sectors that are doing well, and those who listened to Monitor this morning will recall that a broker from the Johannesburg Stock Exchange said that company reports with brilliant results were still coming in. Various mining companies as well as certain agricultural sectors had done very well. Consequently it was not necessary to adopt a complete sackcloth and ashes attitude in regard to the economy.

As usual the hon member for Gezina made a thoroughly prepared and carefully thought-out speech and also made a very good contribution. [Interjections.] The hon member was correct in remarking that we had reached a ceiling a far as personal income tax was concerned. Naturally that is in any case one of the reasons why the Margo Commission was appointed, as some of us will remember.

The hon member also mentioned that we should as far as possible apply the consumer principle, the “user charge” principle. That is a very sound guideline in our economy today.

The hon member for Primrose said thank you for the windfall for SATS, and for the tax concession for working married women. The question of tax on married women reveals ever more variations of problems the deeper one delves into the matter.

An important point which the hon member made was that we should ensure that we generate enough own capital in this country. For that we must have savings incentives. He also advocated a Savings Year, and this is something we can definitely keep in mind because, as the hon member put it, foreign capital is “flight capital”. It is important that we do not have to rely on foreign capital for our economic growth.

The hon member for Welkom made the very interesting and important statement that professional people should be used in local areas. I give him the assurance that as far as the State Tender Board has any say in this matter, this suggestion will definitely receive attention. I am pleased the hon the Minister of Public Works is here so that he can, at the same time, take cognisance of the principle.

The hon member for Vasco emphasised the need for central financial control so that the budgeted amounts will be adhered to. This is an extremely important concept in the principle of the devolution of authority. One cannot exercise proper control over the money supply and maintain a proper monetary and fiscal policy if there is a proliferation of tax authorities.

†The hon member for Amanzimtoti dealt very adequately with many of the points raised by the hon member for Edenvale. In the course of my speech I shall refer briefly to some of the points that the hon member raised. The other matters we can take up later during this week.

The hon member for Amanzimtoti pointed out that the lack of economic growth is our most pressing problem today. I agree with him fully as far as that is concerned. I think he made the point that the capital:output ratio of the public sector was atrocious. I think this indicates—and I agree with him— that there is a lot of room for improvement as far as that particular issue is concerned.

*I think the hon member for Fauresmith made an important point which I should very much like to forward to the Margo Commission for further consideration. He said that he had in fact done so. He made the point, however, that the tax structure played an enormous part in the overcapitalisation of agriculture. It was also mainly responsible for the fact that provision was not being made for the lean years, and also for the fact that agricultural land was excessively expensive, in comparison with the yield that could be obtained from that land. This is a tax problem which applies not only to the fulltime but also to the non-full-time farmers. This is certainly a matter to which we shall have to give attention.

I should very much like to elaborate on a few other matters on a subsequent occasion. The hon member for Hercules, for example, raised a very interesting point in connection with excise duty. I think it is necessary for us to devote a little more time to that matter. Nevertheless I want to tell the hon member that there are very sound reasons why the system is as we have it today and why we do not see our way clear to recommending at this stage that a change be effected.

It is true that there is no excise duty on unfortified wine, although such wine contains alcohol. But the same applies to sorghum beer, and sorghum is to the best of my knowledge, the single largest source of alcohol. It is at least the medium through which the largest volume of alcohol is consumed. Specific economic as well as social reasons are bound up with that matter, and unless we receive very convincing proposals from the Margo Commission, we shall rather not do anything about it at this stage. However, we might as well take the matter further during the discussion of the Vote.

I want to react to a political statement which one of my hon colleagues made—I am referring to the hon member for Witbank. The hon member said: “Neither apartheid nor integration can bring about a peaceful solution for South Africa.” This is a statement one has to ponder before one understands it. I think these were true and profound words which the hon member spoke; they definitely gave me food for thought.

†The hon member for Yeoville …

Oh, you remembered me! [Interjections.]

The hon member talked about the credibility of our figures. Somewhat later I shall turn to an analysis of the additional estimates. [Interjections.] The fact is, as far as the additional estimates are concerned, that there are no real grounds for accusing this Government of not having adhered to its estimates in an admirable way. The same applies with regard to what the hon member for Edenvale said. He said that businessmen hate insecurity.

Uncertainty.

Sorry, businessmen hate uncertainty. However, I think it is incumbent on hon members of Parliament to be absolutely sure about their facts. Ultimately, when one analyses the additional estimates, one ends up with a figure of an increase of 0,4% over the budgeted figure for last year—I am referring here to amounts over which one could exercise a reasonable degree of control. There is an increase of less than half of one percent.

Because you wouldn’t listen!

Sir, I did not even hear what the alternatives were that the hon member offered. [Interjections.]

Provision of R100 million was made for unemployment. Were you not told that it was a drop in the ocean? You laughed at us; you said it was more than adequate.

So what? [Interjections.] During the course of the year the hon member for Yeoville was proven right, and I do not begrudge him that fact. [Interjections.] However, having eventually seen that the expenditure by way of the creation of jobs and training facilities would be higher, we took that decision as a Government. We financed it in the proper way by imposing a 10% surcharge on imports. [Interjections.] What is wrong with that? It was in the interests of the country. Why then accuse us of not being able to control our expenditure when absolutely consciously we take a policy direction change? I think that was unfair and there was also a measure of inaccuracy. That is why I think it is quite remarkable that these hon members persist with that argument. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Cape Town Gardens also fell into the same trap of accusing us of not having been able to contain our expenditure.

Me?

Yes you, Smiley.

Yes, of course, the hon for Cape Town Gardens.

What did I say? [Interjections.]

It is not for me to remember what the hon member said.

I talked about foreign investment.

I will check whether it was the hon member for Cape Town Gardens who said that, or was it perhaps the hon member for Edenvale? [Interjections.] I want to come to a second point the hon member for Yeoville made. He criticised us severely about the 2% cut across the board.

The Budget cycle is a one-year affair. In the course of developing a Budget eventually one arrives at rather firm figures and then one arrives at hard figures. One goes through the entire cycle and then one knows that this is the inevitable expenditure figure one has to deal with.

Then you arrive at wrong figures.

In the process of determining that one takes into account the price of fuel, interest rates, the exchange rate, existing job remuneration levels and so forth.

Since fixing those figures into a hard and fast mould several things have happened. We reached agreement as far as our foreign debt was concerned, which eased financial matters inside the country considerably. The price of oil declined, and since then we have seen two cuts in the fuel price—two. The rand exchange rate has appreciated considerably since the time we fixed the figures for the Budget. Domestic interest rates have declined even further. I referred to this aspect in my introductory remarks. Would the hon member have preferred us to stick to wrong figures?

[Inaudible.]

Of course not! A second point, however, is the following. I was given the assurance by the Treasury that they were not aware of a single major expenditure that was in the offing. The hon member quoted two specific departments that were opposed to the 2% cut. Let me concede immediately that if it had been possible for us to go through the entire cycle again and to evaluate the allocated amount in respect of each department in order to find that one department could save 1,5% as a result of the change in its parameters, while the next department could save say 2,5% or 3,5%, then we would have preferred to do it in that way. I am afraid, however, that that was not possible. So, what did we do? We chose a 2% figure, and I am not willing to accept that a 2% cut in expenditure is not a management challenge which anybody in any business can handle. Any household or any business, large or small, can handle a 2% cut. Now the hon member tries to construct an argument on the basis …

What does your wife say about that?

She accepts that. [Interjections.] We regarded a 2% cut as feasible in the light of the existing parameters. It is also feasible in the case of those departments which are personnel intensive—people intensive. Why, Sir?

Louis is not prepared to accept a 2 000 cut.

I will come to that just now. Why are we prepared to say it is still possible to have a 2% cut in personnel intensive departments? It is for the simple reason that one can delay filling a vacancy.

In the Police?

Yes, Sir. The Police are filling vacancies. Let us look at the case of the Police, Mr Speaker. That department does not only consist of people. It is personnel intensive, yes. I think the figure is 80%. The other 20% is, however, a substantial amount. At least some quantifiable attempt can be made as far as fuel is concerned. If I remember correctly, the amount budgeted for in respect of their fuel is R38 million. Moreover, R175 million was allocated to the Police for the offsetting of administrative costs. I think we are being fair in expecting the Police to do that. In fact, the hon the Minister of Law and Order agreed to this in the Cabinet, and he is committed to it. He has never denied any responsibility for it. That is their challenge!

In other words, he agreed to 2 000 fewer policemen. [Interjections.]

Just listen to the hon member for Yeoville, Sir! The hon member can only view a 2% cut in terms of people, regardless of all the other things.

There is the evidence. You cannot ignore the evidence. [Interjections.]

I did not give that evidence and neither did the hon the Minister of Law and Order. I think it is unfair …

Who gave the evidence?

Yes, who gave the evidence?

The Commissioner of Police gave the evidence.

That is correct. Are you now repudiating that evidence?

No, I am not repudiating his evidence.

You are.

No, I am simply saying there is more to that equation than just people—and that is a fair and factual argument. If anyone considers that to be repudiation of the evidence, let them think so. The equation in respect of the Police budget consists of more than people. The same goes for the Education Departments. It is always possible to delay a contract or to delay an appointment. For instance, if an appointment is delayed by only one month, one twelfth of the salary allocated in respect of that appointment is saved. Quite apart from that, therefore, R175 million is allocated to the Police for the offsetting of administrative costs. They can do something about the situation.

Moreover, it was further decided that those expenses that definitely cannot be met can be argued about in the Cabinet. One cannot run a country as if one is dealing with a computer. A country changes from day to day. It is a dynamic, constantly changing organism.

Secondly, as far as Foreign Affairs is concerned, I cannot understand the logic of the hon member for Yeoville. I did not have time to study in detail his questioning of my colleague, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The hon member can correct me during the debate later on this week if I am wrong, but on the one hand he criticises the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs for the kind of assistance that is given to the independent national states.

Who said that?

That is the impression that I gained. Is it the wrong impression?

Read my Hansard.

At one stage the hon member for Yeoville said to my hon colleague: “Although I do not agree with the kind of assistance you are involved in … [Interjections.] We can take that up; I have it marked in the evidence that I have before me.

You are taking a chance.

Let us look at the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He is one hon Minister who is absolutely exposed to fluctuations in the exchange rate of the rand. So, having calculated his Budget allocation on the basis of an exchange rate of less than 40 American cents to the rand which is approaching 50 cents now, obviously there is ample room for saving there. He is also in a way personnel-intensive and even there it is still possible through careful management, if one has the will to do it, to manipulate these figures in such a way that 2% can be saved, and he confirmed it to me in writing. I have the letter here in my hand.

I therefore reject out of hand this very handy debating point which the hon member for Yeoville has now had for the second time running. If he can make constructive suggestions as to how we could go about making a differentiated adjustment in each of the Votes I would like to hear him on that. I attach great value to the work of the standing committee and he is absolutely free to suggest that that particular point be taken up with the Treasury and that we debate it during the proceedings of the standing committee. I will welcome such a debate because if that can be done it will suit me down to the ground.

Will you come with the hon Ministers concerned?

I will certainly do that with the greatest of pleasure. [Interjections.]

The next point the hon member raised and which other hon members also referred to, was the whole question of inflation. As if this Budget did nothing against inflation! The hon member for Durban Point even said that other commentators were now following them in this regard. I reject that out of hand. Firstly, I reject the allegation that we did nothing to counter inflation. Secondly, I would like to hear who those commentators are because they certainly did not feature in the publications that were brought to my notice.

Several points contained in the Budget address the question of inflation. One was the very first point I made earlier in my introductory remarks when I said that we have now targeted for the money supply. That is an anti-inflationary measure. If one’s money supply does not grow beyond 20% then one knows that one’s inflation rate will not exceed 20% but will actually drop below it. That is why our bottom line is 16% as we expect it to drop rather drastically.

Another point is that the envisaged increase in total Government expenditure is below the inflation rate.

On how many sides do the hon members of the opposition parties want their bread buttered? [Interjections.] Some accuse us of not having stimulated the economy sufficiently. Others like the hon members for Umbilo and for Yeoville accuse us of doing nothing about inflation. [Interjections.] That is incorrect.

Our deficit before borrowing is by all standards modest and we will be financing it by means of non-inflationary instruments. Is that not an anti-inflationary measure? [Interjections.]

Let us look at the salary increase for public servants. I personally feel that it would have been good to give them more but they accepted 10% which is well below the inflation rate of even this year.

They did not accept it; you gave it to them and told them that was all they were going to get! [Interjections.]

In other words, every possible step was taken not to fuel unnecessarily the flames of inflation. We are not using bank credit to finance the deficit before borrowing. I will return to that matter later on.

As I mentioned in the Budget Speech, a task group has been appointed to investigate, with the co-operation of senior officials of the various departments, the whole question of State expenditure.

The hon member also argued that we did not offer sufficient incentive for saving. How far can we go in one year? The hon member seems to forget that one has to achieve a fine balance in a budget. An incentive to save constitutes an expenditure; it does not happen for free. It requires a sacrifice of tax revenue. The concession we made this year on savings of up to R500—five times the maximum which prevailed at the end of the previous tax year—means a revenue sacrifice of R107 million. I did not hear a single suggestion as to where we could have cut in order to finance a larger amount of tax-free savings. It is simply not possible! I think we have achieved a reasonable balance in our compilation of this Budget.

We must maintain an equity. Hon members seem to forget that if one gives an incentive by way of a tax concession on savings, one is only benefiting that small percentage of people who have money to save.

That is a short-term view.

It is not a short-term view.

Long-term investments …

He does not want capital formation.

In other parts of the Budget we took money in order to invest in the development of people by means of training and special job creation programmes. These coupled with deregulation will in the long term certainly help more people to help themselves. If we did not make that investment in adult training and that massive investment in education, people would never be able to qualify sufficiently to receive remuneration. I am not saying that it is sufficient, but that perspective was lost in the arguments of the hon members of the opposition parties.

The hon member for Yeoville also argued that our job creation was inadequate. It is the old story. Why cannot we reach a stage where the hon member will make suggestions as to where we find the resources to carry out his suggestions?

But you do not listen.

I suggest that if the hon member for Yeoville feels that he has the answer to unemployment in South Africa, he should also try to convince people outside this Chamber. [Interjections.] I have never, with great respect, heard anybody accusing me as a member of this Government for not having listened to the hon member for Yeoville’s marvellous plans for the creation of jobs. [Interjections.] I have not heard it, so why should I then be accused in this House of not having listened to the hon member? On the contrary, together with so many commentators outside, I argue that this Budget within the constraints of our limited resources is doing the maximum that we can in order to create employment. Certainly we could have done more if we had had more resources, but I do not believe that job creation is primarily the task of the Government. The Government is the signalman in economic development, it is not the locomotive.

Therefore part of the resources went to the taxpayer to improve his cash position or his in-pocket position so that he can spend more and stimulate demand so that spare capacity can be taken up and more jobs can be created along that way. I certainly do not agree with the argument that the Government is solely responsible for the creation of jobs.

Did your policies not create unemployment in South Africa?

The hon member for Yeoville asks whether our policies did not create unemployment in South Africa.

Of course they did.

To an extent strict fiscal and monetary policies restrict the creation of jobs and will to an extent also cause certain job opportunities to disappear. There is no question about that. However, the fact is that there was no other way to cure the patient. There is no way that we could have cured this economy without having felt the pinch. We cured this economy with relatively drastic medicine, and we followed restrictive fiscal and monetary policies. In that way we turned a massive deficit on our current account of the balance of payments into a surplus in a record time. That surplus enabled us not only to withstand the pressures from international creditors but also to take a different stance and opt for a mildly stimulating Budget. That is what our strict fiscal and monetary policies enabled us to do. So, we paid the price, but it was worthwhile paying the price, and today we are in a much healthier situation than we were at this time last year.

Ask Louis whether the price was worth paying.

Order! I think I have given the hon member for Yeoville sufficient opportunity to make his remarks. I notice that he has started making notes, and I recommend that he goes on doing so. He can have an opportunity later to discuss them. He must now allow the hon the Minister to continue without interruption. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Sir.

I want to deal briefly now with another point which the hon member made, supported by hon members on his side. He said that the Budget was not for the ordinary people of South Africa. However, we should also see this Budget in the perspective of last year’s Budget. Did we not last year increase the threshold for the payment of income tax by 70% for elderly people? Did we not do that? Did we not, in our tax adjustments last year, treat the top end of the scale inadequately? Did we not do that over a period of time? Is it not fair and in the interests of the economy and of the country to make an adjustment to the top end of the scale again? We did much more. We removed the 7% surcharge and gave a further 5% discount on tax, applicable to everybody.

Now, it is argued that the removal of GST would have done that. Point one: We do not believe that this is the opportune time to tamper with that percentage or with the structure of the tax itself. I have often referred in this House to the shortcomings of the present GST system. I do believe that that is also one of the main reasons why I trust that the Margo Commission will recommend to us a completely changed structure of GST.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister, while he is dealing with GST, whether he would like to tell us what he thinks of the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs and his tax avoidance schemes in regard to GST, and whether he is going to do anything to put an end to that kind of evasion of tax?

Mr Speaker, I have already taken up the matter with my colleague the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs. We are investigating the matter and we will discuss the details. [Interjections.]

There seems to be the illusion that a reduction in GST will of necessity alleviate the plight of the poorer people in the community. That is not the case. The largest part of the expenditure in a poorer household goes on food purchases, and did we not exempt food to the extent that we would have had another R1,5 billion revenue this year if we had taxed food by 12% as well? The very fact that we did not reintroduce GST on foodstuffs this year, is costing us R1,5 billion, and that fact is already of assistance to people in the lower income groups.

I am not going to discuss the old story that we have no long-term plans. It really amazes me that people still say that kind of thing. We can also discuss the question of regional services councils in the course of the other debate.

I want to support the hon member for Umbilo on one point that he made, namely that we must not quarrel primarily—that is how I took his point—over the division of the cake. We should rather spend our energy in order to increase the size of the cake. I fully endorse that particular point of view.

In concluding this part of the debate, I should like to refer to the speech made by the hon member for Edenvale. The hon member obviously missed the point in the Budget Speech when I referred to the R2,5 billion which the Treasury owes the Reserve Bank as a result of losses incurred by the depreciating currency. Mr Speaker, that is a patient account. If ever hon members have seen a patient account, that is the one. The Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Reserve Bank decide between themselves when this debt has to be paid. I made it clear in my Budget Speech that if in the process of conducting sound monetary policy we are forced to sell paper in excess of what we really need, then we will use that amount to address this particular issue. It is useless taking badly needed resources now in order to pay off that account. That money has been created, it has been used in the system and it is gone. There is therefore no reason why we should try to repay that debt now. Another important point the hon member must not lose sight of, is that there are a number of gold transactions which may yield some profits eventually which will also address that particular issue. For that reason I do not think it is a matter of urgency that we should concern ourselves with that at this stage.

As far as the speech of the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central is concerned, I should like to point out to the hon member that I am aware of the severe problems existing in the Eastern Cape, and in particular in Port Elizabeth. As far as I personally am concerned, I should like to do everything within my power to assist the people in that region by way of tax concessions. Unfortunately, this year is not the right time to do that. We could not address the question or even consider a reduction in customs duties. If the motor industry is to be singled out, however—which is a dangerous thing to do—the reduction of customs duties is one of the important areas where the fisc can render some sort of assistance. As I say, singling out the motor industry is a dangerous thing to do, but there is certainly some merit in it. However, I do not want to create any expectations in this regard.

You will consider it next year though?

In the light of the findings of the Margo Commission, we shall also keep that in mind.

*The hon member for Sunnyside made a statement here. The hon member usually makes use of extremistic terms. He said the abolition of the 7% surcharge on income tax was a drop in the ocean. But surely that is not all we have done. We have granted a further 5% rebate on individual income tax. If R1 billion is a drop in the ocean to the hon member for Sunnyside, I do not know, I just do not know.

The Government tried its utmost to afford tax relief, and also to strike a balance between various ways of getting the economy going. We granted tax relief. On the other hand we launched job-creation projects. As a result of the fact that we exerted no influence on the interest rate, we also allowed the private sector ample opportunity, under the conditions of low interest rates, to play its part. I therefore reject the statement that it was a drop in the ocean. The people who are receiving a substantial tax rebate—I quoted examples in the Budget—will definitely dispute the extremistic statement the hon member made.

As far as the hon member for Lichtenburg is concerned, I sat here in a state of shock when I listened to him. [Interjections.] To think that a person who was a member of the South African Government could string together such a pack of lies and present them in a speech which will stand recorded in Hansard forever, and which will be believed outside by credulous and relatively uninformed people, is an absolutely shocking experience. I shall prove this to hon members point by point. [Interjections.]

Let us look firstly at the excess expenditure, in connection with which he made the absurd statement about how we ostensibly carried on to such an extent last year that the market no longer believes us. Let us consider this. I promised the hon member for Yeoville that I would furnish the figure. Let us consider only a statutory amount in our excess expenditure on our additional appropriation of R654 million for interest rates. Not only does this department have some of the best officials one can find, but it also has some of the best advisers.

All it needs is a better Minister! [Interjections.]

The Deputy Director-General, Mr Croeser, holds regular talks with the money market and capital market people. I have attended such discussions on a few occasions. Those officials are as absolutely conversant with matters as anyone can ever hope to be. Our best effort in respect of what the effect of the exchange rate and the interest rate on our statutory amounts would be nevertheless resulted, owing to the large amounts with which we work, in an account of R654 million, which we could do nothing about.

Moreover we took a deliberate decision to effect specific stimulation and training programmes. They cost R368 million. We could not avoid budgetary assistance to administration boards. It was absolutely essential. The provincial deferred payment of R103 million is of a customary nature which is dealt with every year in the additional appropriation.

We had further exchange rate losses of R60 million via defence. Then there was the R100 million appropriated by the State President for the upgrading of the infrastructure in Black residential areas. This is R100 million in respect of which a deliberate decision was taken to spend the money.

A further R170 million was spent on Defence Force equipment which was delivered early. This brings us to a balance of only R125 million in respect of which we can really say that it was possible to budget for it. That represents 0,4% of the appropriated amount in last year’s Budget. Is it factually correct to want to crucify us on these grounds?

I come now to a few more particulars concerning the hon member for Lichtenburg. He maintains that I had stated during last year’s Budget that the deficit had not been financed from the bank sector. Now he tells me that our banker—the Reserve Bank— says however that we did do so. He maintains, in fact, that we did so to an increasing extent during the last three quarters of the financial year. What is the truth? Just as in the case of the hon member for Sasolburg, we are dealing here with people who have a reckless disregard for the truth. [Interjections.] I want to return to the truth of the matter. What is the truth?

The truth does not consist of interpretations. This is not a matter about which there need be any doubt. All these errors the hon member for Lichtenburg made are verifiable facts. They are quantities; they are figures. It is not necessary to make a mistake with them. One cannot say that one misunderstood, because these are all defined concepts. But what did he do? We took a look at the Reserve Bank reports, and precisely the opposite of what the hon member said, is true. He mentioned a figure of R1 182 million, but it is not an annual figure; it refers to nine months. However, the hon member made as if it were an annual figure. He does not understand it—that is his problem!

You do not understand it! [Interjections.]

The truth is that this figure of R1 181 million decreased after 11 months to R509 million. The final figure will soon be known, when the annual figure is published, and it will be far less. This is a seasonally sensitive figure. At present, seasonally speaking, we are spending an enormous amount, and the Treasury deficit is very large. A little later in the year things level off. This is merely one more mistake the hon member for Lichtenburg made in regard to his facts. I wonder why he is not here today. [Interjections.]

I come now to one of the prize errors which the hon member made. Listen to what the hon member said:

Once again we may ask what the truth is. The hon member for Lichtenburg does not understand the difference between the general authorities and the central Government. So he simply went and lumped the provinces and the local authorities together, and levelled this reproach at us. Why does one do that? If one takes the trouble to go and look at page S98 of the Reserve Bank report, why does one not grasp the truth if one is working with it? Why does one mislead people in this House by making factually incorrect statements? [Interjections.]

The hon member for Lichtenburg went on to say that the economy was not working at full capacity, and that the supply of fixed capital in the manufacturing industry was dwindling. However, he placed it in such a context that it seemed to be the most fatal thing that was happening to us. I should like to see the country, in a similar position to South Africa, ie one that is moving out of recession, that did not have reserve capacity in its manufacturing industry. Surely it is only logical that this should be the case. If one has gone through a stage in which the demand for products was at a very low level, surely factories will inevitably operate at a capacity of 83% or 84%, instead of 95%, 98% or 100%. Why does the hon member state this as though matters could have been different at this stage had it not been that the Government had taken a specific decision.

I come now to the worst of all the things the hon member for Lichtenburg said.

Why do you not tackle him in Lichtenburg?

I shall tackle him with the greatest of pleasure when it comes to the truth, but I shall not create a platform for him. I share no platform with him. [Interjections.]

We must remember that the hon member for Lichtenburg, like his bench-fellow, was a Minister of Education and Training. He was the Minister of Black Education.

And you?

I was one too, and it was an extremely great privilege. [Interjections.]

Tell us about the breakfast you had.

Yes, I shall do so with pleasure! I did not have breakfast with them, but invited that group of Black rebels into my home, and gave them some coffee. [Interjections.] Then I told them I wanted to hear what they had to say. It was just them and I. [Interjections.] It is because those hon members did not speak to the people that we are plucking the bitter fruits today. [Interjections.] How are they even going to succeed in implementing their policy of partition if they do not hold talks? [Interjections.] I shall tell hon members what happened that morning. That morning I heard from the rebels what their problems were. They told me about their problems one, two, three, four to six problems. [Interjections.]

Then you people began to make concessions.

Is it a concession? I should like to place this on record and say that that contact we had with the rebellious boys from Atteridgeville that morning was one of the most satisfying negotiation and personal dynamic situations I have ever had the privilege of experiencing in my life. I listened to the complaints they raised. Those complaints were all capable of being solved. There was not one extremistic demand. [Interjections.] They were capable of being solved, and we gave attention to those things immediately and eliminated many of them. [Interjections.]

Then they began to burn down the schools. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Lichtenburg—the former Minister of Education and Training—stated in Hansard that a Black school principal only required Standard 8 and two years’ training to earn the same salary as a White teacher, who had to have matric and four years’ training.

I wanted to ask the hon member for Lichtenburg about this myself, but unfortunately he is not here. I shall therefore ask his hon leader, who similarly was Minister of Education and Training. I want to ask him whether he thinks this is true.

Make your speech.

The hon member says I must make my speech. [Interjections.]

It was during the time of the hon member for Lichtenburg that a start was made with the implementation of salary parity. If I were to ask him across the floor of this House today whether he thinks this is true, he would know. I want to ask the hon member for Waterberg again whether he believes that a Black school principal with standard 8 and two years’ training, and White primary school principal with standard 10 and four years’ training, are earning the same salary. [Interjections.]

I want to put it today that I think it ought to be rejected with contempt by every honest and decent person that such a flagrant untruth as the one the hon member for Lichtenburg told should be presented to this House—it arouses emotions and increases polarisation in this country. [Interjections.]

The State President himself told untruths here.

What is the truth? As a result of the question of salary parity, qualifications determine the scale and nothing else.

What is the salary scale of a Black school principal with standard 8 and two years’ training? Surely this is a verifiable fact, and if one has respect for one’s country, in fact, if one has any respect for the truth, one would verify this before saying it here. [Interjections.]

What is the truth? A Black school principal with two years’ training after standard 8 is remunerated on the scale R12 897 to R15 669 per annum, and the salary scale of a White or Black school principal with matric and four years’ training is R27 687 to R38 979, more than double that amount. These are the verifiable facts. [Interjections.] Did the hon member for Kuruman ask whether one finds school principals with such qualifications? There are dozens of school principals in Black education who could polish off the hon member before breakfast with their qualifications, with their qualifications and as regards their respect for the truth. [Interjections.]

We are talking about White school principals.

All he can do is drive a pick-up truck. [Interjections.]

If I am not mistaken, our hon colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply, has already replied to the point which the hon member for Lichtenburg made, namely that the agriculture budget was pruned. The hon the Minister explained in detail the circumstances in which this occurred. In spite of the fact that the hon member for Lichtenburg heard the truth, or that it was available …

He was not even here.

Oh, the hon member was not even here! Nevertheless it remains available. Once again, in spite of those facts, he did not avail himself of the truth. He preferred, however, to noise an untruth abroad from this House. What is that untruth, Sir? It is of course his allegation that the agricultural budget was summarily pruned. What is the truth? That amount which was reduced, has to do with the rotating fund. I shall quote it to this House as my hon colleague gave it to me:

Sir, why does one violate the truth, when one is in fact able to avail oneself of the correct facts? Where does the motivation for such behaviour lie? [Interjections.]

I now want to come to another statement the hon member for Lichtenburg made. He said that South Africa had maintained a positive real growth rate for years until the announcement by the Government of power-sharing. Then, he said, our growth rate plummeted into the depths. [Interjections.] Once again I ask why the hon member does not avail himself of the truth. After all he can establish the truth beyond any reasonable doubt. Why does he not do so? He does not do so because the truth is something else.

Because his leader is a witchdoctor! [Interjections.]

Of course he is so hypnotised by the word “power-sharing” that he will damage anything and everything around him in his efforts to get a blow in against the concept of power-sharing. One can only shake one’s head ruefully about this. What is the truth? The truth is that we had negative growth rates in 1982-83. That is true. The year after the announcement of power-sharing, however, we experienced a growth rate of 5,0%. Believe it or not, this happened the year after the announcement of power-sharing.

That was the year of the promises.

Then, last year, we had another negative growth rate of 1%. We have not abolished power-sharing; in fact we are expanding it. And what is the economy going to do this year? This year the economy is going to grow by at least 3%. Why does one tell an untruth? Why does one present verifiable facts incorrectly? Why does one do that for the umpteenth time in the same year? [Interjections.]

I come now to something else which the hon member for Lichtenburg said. The hon member for Sasolburg also mentioned this. [Interjections.] It is that the Whites are ostensibly paying for the education of Blacks. What are the facts in this respect? I want to qualify this by pointing out that these figures work in accordance with a data base, on which the taxable salary intervals are R5 000. Consequently they are still rather rough. We are busy refining them. As soon as we have refined them I shall be able to furnish the precise figures. Based on the figures as I have them before me here, however, this is the case. I am talking about taxable income. A White family with two children must have a taxable income of R27 500 before they pay only for the pre-tertiary education of those two children, and 68% of the White families who have two children at school, do not pay for the education of those children. Their tax payment simply does not cover it.

What is the position of a White family with one child at school and one at university? A White family with one child at school and one at university must have a taxable income of R35 500 before they pay for the education of those two children. As soon as the family has paid for the education of those children, they have still not paid for anything else in the country, and 89,6% of all White families that have one child at school and one at university, do not pay enough tax to cover the education of those children.

Do you understand that, Stoffies? [Interjections.]

Let us take a third example. Let us consider the position of people with two children at school and one child at university. If those people are members of a White family, their taxable income must amount to R41 000 before they pay for the education of those children. Out of those White families with two children at school and one child at university, 94% do not pay enough tax to pay for the education of their children. Why, then, is the lie being told that the Whites are paying for the education of Blacks? There is quite a different aspect attached to this, and one finds it intensely galling.

The hon member for Waterberg says he is not a racist. In 1946 the Afrikaners earned an income equal to only 48% of the income of English-speaking persons. I repeat: In 1946 the Afrikaners earned an income equal to only 48% of that of English-speaking persons. By comparison, therefore, his tax contribution was far smaller. All these years we have been using a progressive tax scale precisely with the view to the redistribution of income, or rather the redistribution of growth. Income tax is after all linked to the ability to pay. The more one’s income increases, the greater the portion of each successive interval of income that one pays to the Receiver of Revenue. Therefore, according to Prof Sadie, it is even today still fair to say that the English-speaking Whites are paying 60% of all income tax.

Is company tax included in that?

A company does not belong to a cultural or a racial group. There is not a company in South Africa that does not employ Black people.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister whether the tax figures with which he has now furnished us, namely that English-speaking persons pay more tax than Afrikaans-speaking persons, are related to direct tax, or whether company tax is included?

So far I have been talking about income tax. Let us now discuss company tax as well.

I asked whether it was direct tax.

Yes, it is direct tax. [Interjections.]

I have analyses of what an ordinary family typically pays in GST, and it is only in the region of 5%. Only 5% of the annual income of an ordinary family is spent on GST. Consequently it does not make such a dramatic difference.

Let us consider companies. A company cannot be qualified as purely English or purely Afrikaans, or as White or Black. For the purposes of his study, however, Prof Sadie did classify a company as such and he found—this is a very rough criterion—that in general today only 22% of the companies are under the control of Afrikaans-speaking persons. That means, therefore, that 78% of all companies are under the control of English-speaking persons. According to Prof Sadie English-speaking persons therefore pay 75% of the company tax via their companies. I want to state categorically that in the days when the Afrikaners were on their knees, the hon members of the CP found it quite expedient that the English-speaking people were subsidising the Afrikaners. In those days, when the Afrikaners’ contribution to tax was minimal, and even today is far less than that of his English-speaking compatriot, it suited the CP.

Now that the illusion exists among some people that the Afrikaner has developed to such an extent economically that his contribution to tax is now such that he not only pays for himself, but that he maintains virtually all of Black education, this redistribution of income is hurled at us as a reproach. It is not even true! As I have said, 94% of White families with two children at school and one child at university do not pay enough tax to cover the education of those children. These are the facts! Why, then, are these facts being distorted?

The hon member for Sasolburg is sitting in this House on the basis of a false pamphlet. [Interjections.]

What I find to be a wonderful thing in connection with the analysis of these figures and the redistribution of income is that I have never heard an English-speaking person utter a word of reproach because he has been paying since 1948, or since 1946 in fact, for the upliftment of the Afrikaner by paying for most of his education.

You are skating on very thin ice.

The hon member for Rissik does not listen to the arguments. He comes into this Chamber late and displays his stupidity. [Interjections.]

You are a disgrace to Afrikanerdom! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon member for Waterberg say that the hon the Minister is a disgrace to Afrikanerdom?

Did the hon member for Waterberg say that?

Sir, it was a slip of the tongue on my part. I meant the hon member for Soutpansberg.

The hon the Minister is quite confused; he does not know what he is talking about.

Soutpansberg. The hon member for Waterberg knows I was referring to the hon member for Soutpansberg.

Did the hon member for Soutpansberg say that?

Mr Speaker, I said the hon the Minister was a disgrace to Afrikanerdom. I want to suggest that that is not an unparliamentary term.

The hon the Minister may proceed.

Let us see what the truth is as far as this question of disgraceful is concerned. Even though the hon member for Soutpansberg uses every possible unparliamentary term with which to berate me, it is not going to change the facts of the matter one iota. The indisputable truth is that even today most Afrikaner families do not pay enough tax to pay for the education of their children. That is the truth. Those are the figures. [Interjections.] I look at the figures and at the tax, and this is the verifiable truth in this connection.

I was saying that I had never heard a single English-speaking person utter a word of reproach about the contribution which he had made to the education of the Afrikaner by means of a redistribution of income. He did not do so because our fates are bound up in the same economy and because if one invests in developing people the cake grows bigger and more is produced in which everyone can share. That is the truth. The arguments of the hon member for Soutpansberg and the other hon members of the CP were a manifestation of the politics of envy and of selfishness. [Interjections.] It is the absolute truth that those hon members could find no evidence to prove that the Whites were paying for the education of Black children from their personal tax, and yet they are riding that puny horse on the basis of an untruth.

We are not only going to ride the horse; we are going to ride roughshod over you.

The hon member can try to ride roughshod over me as much as he likes, he will come off second best again. [Interjections.]

It is an absolute prerequisite for a developing country to invest in the education of the developing sector of the community by means of the redistribution of income. If we do not do that in this country, our economy will come to a sudden halt. There are not enough Whites to do the work in this country, and even if there were, how can one on any moral grounds deny the Black people participation in the economy? I thank the good Lord for that day on which the NP decided to do away with job reservation so that one could earn one’s livelihood, not on the basis of the colour of the back of one’s hand, but on the basis of the callouses on the inside of one’s hand. [Interjections.] That is the Christian work ethic.

What is the unemployment situation? [Interjections.]

I put it to hon member that an investment in human capital in this country is in the best interests of the survival of our country economically, socially and politically. If we do not do that, and we lapse into the pathological argument of the distribution of tax contributions in compartments, we are going to intensify the conflict in this country. [Interjections.] Why does an hon member of a party in this House come forward with the argument—it is untrue— that money is being taken from a certain group of people, thereby angering them, in order to give it to other people who do not deserve it? The people who receive, on the other hand, argue that they are not receiving enough, and they are indeed not receiving enough when measured against the development demands of this country. These are the economic demands of this country.

I cannot blame the hon member for Rissik for not understanding this. For two years I was just across the passage from him, and I spent hours trying to explain to that hon member how much one plus one was, but it was impossible. [Interjections.] One does not even find arithmetical skills in the hon member for Lichtenburg, who is supposed to be a developed person. [Interjections.]

Those are your Christian civilised norms!

I want to make the point today that we in this country must realise that when it comes to the redistribution of resources, we are dealing with a very sensitive matter. The history of this country will reproach the right-wing radicals for having politicised an extremely sensitive matter such as this, while we as Afrikaners do not have the moral right to do so. [Interjections.] We do not have the moral right, because the historical facts of this country say otherwise.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Rissik must please give me a chance. I think hon members on this side of the House should really get danger pay, because we have to look at them all the time. [Interjections.]

How far is your new party?

Mr Speaker, I beg your pardon, but I am going to wait until the hon members of the CP keep quiet now. [Interjections.]

You will have to wait a long time, because your silence will not silence us!

Order! From now on I do not want to hear any remarks while the hon the Minister is speaking. The first person to make a remark now—it makes no difference from what party he is—will have to withdraw. That is final! The hon the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Finally I want to make a plea for us to pause for a moment to take stock, as far as the debates in this House are concerned too. We must come to a halt and see where we are taking this country. If one has not been present in this House much for a few weeks, as is the problem of the Minister of Finance before the Budget, and one then returns to this House and hears the level of debate as conducted by the CP, it comes as a shock. That is not how we are going to solve the problems of this country. My plea is that we should all pause for a moment in order to realise that we have reached an hour of crisis in the history of this country.

My plea is also that we should in the first place adhere to the truth. In the second place we should rise above our own self-interest and above the interests of our own small group, even if it is the interests of a whole party. More than ever before we must ask ourselves what each one of us can do for our country at this moment.

I want to say with all due respect: In this debate as well—I realised this during a sober scrutiny of the speeches and in particular the speech made by the hon member for Lichtenburg—we are playing with fire in a South Africa which cannot afford this any longer. In this country we cannot continue to be this irresponsible about sensitive matters as we have just been. The same applies to this side of the House.

My plea is that every time we debate finances, the hon member for Sasolburg and the hon member for Lichtenburg should rise to their feet in this House and tell us why they show such a disregard for the truth as they have done. What else do they achieve by this than to polarise South Africa to a terrible extent?

Let us stick to the facts. For me as an Afrikaner it is not easy to accept these facts either, but it is the truth and we cannot wish it away. We in this House cannot create a world for ourselves which is different to the world outside. These are the realities of South Africa which are pleading to be addressed today, even though that is not how we would have liked it.

If this Budget can make a contribution towards stabilising South Africa at this juncture by employing resources which are extremely necessary, it will be recognised as a good Budget under difficult circumstances.

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

Mr Chairman, I request the privilege of the half-hour.

Another year has passed and the transportation system of this country continues in the same way. Administering that system are the Director-General of Transport and his staff. Representing as we do the aspirations of millions of South Africans, I should like on their behalf to thank Mr Eksteen and his staff for their year of hard work and effort. The fact that much of it should not have had to be done is not their fault, but the fault of the politicians, notably of course of the hon the Minister. This makes their job all the more difficult. To have to administer a system of transport which everyone recognises to be outdated and expensive, must indeed be galling. I would like to thank them for their excellent report which was available at the beginning of this session, and which we have had every chance to study.

I believe I should also say farewell to the staff of five services that have been transferred to the Department of Environment Affairs. I wish them luck under their new Minister. I think perhaps they might need it.

I shall now turn to the budget itself. The amount budgeted for under this Vote has risen from R480 million to R752 million, which is an astronomical increase of R272 million which amounts to an increase of 56,6%. The reason for this is quickly found. R256 million more than last year is being spent on subsidising bus and rail commuters. It now costs the taxpayers of South Africa R615 million for this subsidisation. When one considers the subsidy on bread one realises how bad this is. This is a classic example of how the errors of apartheid are bankrupting the taxpayer. People have been forced to live far from their place of work because of the Group Areas Act. The removal of people from District Six in Cape Town and South End in Port Elizabeth are two classic examples. These two areas were both close to the CBD. They were both razed to the ground and the people were moved miles from those CBDs. It is interesting to note that Herr Leutwiler, the Swiss banker, has commented that the distance that people of colour have to travel to get to work and the time it takes them to do so is one of the worst features of the South African situation. Another bad feature is the iniquity that we all pay the same tax but the subsidy money is spent mainly in the major metropolitan areas of the Reef, the Cape Peninsula and Durban. That means that the small, poorer centres are subsidising the wealthy, large areas. Surely that is totally the wrong way round. My gallant colleague, the hon member for Bezuidenhout, will enlarge on the Black commuter problem.

I wish to submit that it is possible, even perhaps likely, that these vast amounts being paid out of the taxpayers’ funds are being paid unnecessarily. Let us examine the question of rail commuters first of all. We have now had two major decreases in the price of fuel. The drop in price is of the order of 20%, yet the SATS in general and the railway services in particular have not decreased their tariffs by one cent. I hope that the hon the Minister will, during the course of this debate, announce some form of relief for the poor consumers of this country. Whether they decrease the tariffs of the SAA or those of railway passengers, let us at least have some indication that we are trying to do something to reduce inflation.

Just the opposite has happened, however. The SATS have increased their tariffs recently. They will therefore be recovering a far bigger proportion of their costs.

I am also not satisfied with the calculation by which the SATS arrive at their loss figure on commuter and mainline passenger services. First of all there is the amount deducted for higher replacement costs; and secondly, it is possible that they load expenses onto passenger services in order to justify a high subsidy. Many of the expenses charged to passenger services would still be there even if there were no passenger services. I believe therefore that their compensation should be calculated firstly, without any dedication for higher replacement costs, and secondly, on a marginal costing basis. I believe that the hon the Minister should appoint a firm of chartered accountants to calculate a basis for compensating the SATS for their socio-economic services, and that each year this basis should be used for the computation. It is no good asking the SATS themselves to calculate what it is costing them. The minute one does that, one is laying oneself wide open to some sort of shenanigans. It is like asking the fox to be in charge of the hen-house. Let us do it differently, and perhaps there will be some money to be saved.

Then there is the vexed question of urban bus transport. This is to receive an additional amount of R256 million over and above the funds levied from the private sector in terms of the Black Transport Services Act which, roughly calculated, amounts to some R40 million per annum. These funds are described in the account as being for—

However, Sir, they are not. A proportion of these funds—a large proportion—is for subsidising White bus passengers, many of whom could afford to pay more—much more. Let me explain what I mean by using Port Elizabeth as an example.

There we have a bus company that operates in all areas. Recently, an application was lodged by a new company with Coloured shareholders to run a bus service for the Coloured areas. What is more, this company did not require a subsidy in order to run this service. They wanted no subsidy whatsoever. Here, then, we had a group of Coloureds who wanted to operate a service with and for the Coloured community without subsidy. Immediately, however, there were objections from both the White municipality—which was shameful—and from the bus company to protect its vested interests, which is of course understandable. Their point was that they had to run a total service and that the profitable routes help to offset the losses on the bad routes. Patently, the Coloured route is profitable. I have been to the terminus in the Coloured area and seen the demand. Patently also, the White routes to the more affluent suburbs are less utilised and therefore loss-makers. Who, therefore, is subsidising what? Patently, something is wrong when the Road Transportation Board can turn down an application for an unsubsidised service—which they have done—in favour of a service which is costing the taxpayer a small fortune. I therefore repeat my contention: We are overpaying for subsidisation of travel. I therefore ask the hon the Minister to reconsider the subsidies in the light of the changed situation, and particularly in view of the decrease in the fuel price and the lack of action on the part of not only the SATS but some—not all—of the private bus companies as well. City Tramways is an exception. They have undertaken to pass on the benefits of this decrease in the fuel price. However, I have seen no one else who has done so, and that must be taken into consideration.

I should now like to turn to the whole transport system in general and to the National Transport Policy Study in particular. As at April last year, this had cost the country over R5 million. By now it must be much more. In November, there was a meeting to discuss the NTPS initial recommendations. It was a good meeting. The basic recommendations, with some exceptions, were good, and they were taken further by the very positive suggestions and discussion at the meeting. In this regard, I should like to pay tribute to the hon member for Primrose who is an expert in the field of transport and whose suggestions were both thoughtful and had merit.

Since then, however, five months have elapsed and nothing further has happened. We have spent a fortune. Has the whole thing been lost in some bureaucratic file? Are we going to have spent all this money, only to end up in a situation where the status quo is barely altered? Where is the White Paper? We have been promised it for a long time now. We have had both debates—both the SATS and Transport—and we have had no White Paper.

Every day, every week, every month that goes by without action, costs South Africa more money. The regulations and licensing in the transport field have to go, and we are all agreed on this, except for some of those who have vested interests. These are, firstly, those who have licences and who cost them into their balance sheets as assets, these assets being bought and sold. We have had quite enough of that sort of accounting.

The other vested interests are the bureaucratic ones. Those who serve on the National Transport Commission and on the local road transportation boards would probably be out of a job if there was no licensing necessary. I see in its latest budget that the National Transport Commission is to have improved service conditions, which will cost us another R40 000 per annum. Perhaps the hon the Minister will tell us what it costs to maintain the National Transport Commission and how many people serve on it.

Similarly, the remuneration increase with respect to the local road transportation board is R185 000. Perhaps the hon the Minister could also tell us more about that. If that is a 10% increase, then these boards must be costing us almost R2 million. It is past time we started to implement some free enterprise principles in the transport sector. Let us get on with it.

In the brief time remaining to me I want to deal with a series of quickies. Firstly, I am unhappy with the toll road situation. From June 1984 to February 1986 we paid R716 000 to the concessionaires who operate the Tsitsikamma toll road. Firstly, this does seem excessive. Secondly, the remaining income of R640 000 would not even cover the interest on the cost of erecting the toll collecting facilities. From the account one sees that interest paid last year, ie within one year, amounted to R874 000. It is more than the toll road collects. So, what is the point of erecting these facilities? The toll road lost R358 000; no wonder we have had this massive increase in the toll road charges! I do not think we are winning on this subject. Perhaps the hon the Minister could spell some figures out for me.

Quicky No 2 relates to the National Road Fund. For the second year running we have spent less than we have collected and yet we keep upping the levy on petrol. Last year the income of this fund was R258 million and we only spent R162 million. In the meantime, everybody complains that there is no money available to properly maintain the national roads—let alone build new ones. Last year almost R100 million more could have been spent. What are we trying to do? Are we trying to build up cash empires? Furthermore, why on earth do we have a bridge design subsection? Surely this work can and should be done by professional private sector engineers.

The same applies with regard to the nurseries established at Donkerhoek, Camper-down and Knysna. Why do we not let the private sector supply the plants? Why do we spend money on strange things? R3,7 million was spent on a viewing site on the Tsitsikamma toll road—what a white elephant! Furthermore, R712 000 was spent on telephones along the national roads. All this was done at a time of economic hardship when there is a general complaint that there is not even enough money to maintain roads.

While on the subject of telephones, I do wish the Department of Transport would answer their telephones in both official languages. They do not. The phone is only answered in Afrikaans.

I want to pose two final questions. Did the R123 000 that was paid for a new committee room for the National Transport Commission come out of the National Road Fund? It sounds as if enough money was spent to build a luxury four-bedroomed home—let alone one room! Secondly, did the Department of Transport pay R26 million for the new Falcon Jet—the Cabinet Minister is an important person to be flipped around—and, if so, from what fund or account did the money come to pay for that jet aircraft? You see, Sir, we are past the stage of gravy trains; we have now arrived at the stage of gravy planes!

Finally, there are some local issues which I want to discuss. Last year in Port Elizabeth no less than 70 flights were diverted or delayed due to bad weather because of inadequate navigational facilities, notably ILS. We are spending R5,7 million more on this type of equipment this year. Is Port Elizabeth going to benefit?

Since 1948 the SATS have had the right to operate a bus service between Cape Town and Port Elizabeth, yet they have not used that right. In August 1984 and in February 1985 private sector operators applied for a licence. Suddenly the SATS resurrected its licence and started operating between the two cities, with a daily service taking 13 hours. This compares with 33 hours by train. I am happy that this service exists but I believe that other applicants should be granted a permit. Let us have some competition instead of yet another State monopoly. The price of the SATS is too high and it takes too long. Therefore, let us allow some private enterprise.

Finally, why is the hon the Minister making such a big fuss about the Daeyang Family and the eyesore it represents on Whale Rock while the Kapodistrias sits on Thunderbolt Reef at Port Elizabeth and have been an eyesore for a long time?

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central again produced a torrent of words, a characteristic we have learnt to associate with him.

Also, as we have come to expect of him, he began his argument by objecting to the subsidies that have to be paid out. He then states that all of this is really just happening as a result of apartheid. I wonder if the hon member realises how many people still live in the very centre of Cape Town itself—from Schotschekloof to Woodstock—who are not at all part of this subsidy system against which the hon member has launched such an attack. Thousands of people are still living there.

And does the hon member not realise that there are thousands of Whites who have to commute too? How many people live in Pretoria yet work in Johannesburg, and vice versa? This is so, is it not? It is a reality of the times in which we are living. I think I should just say as well that the hon member to quite a great extent represents the factory owners and the industrialists. They erect their factories in a specific place, and as soon as that is done they expect labour to be available. Those factory owners and industrialists then expect the State to make provision for transporting people between their homes and places of work. I think the time has arrived for us to look at this matter very seriously so that these people who require the labour and have to have it, should also make a greater contribution towards housing and the transportation of those people.

In the course of my own speech I shall to a certain extent be examining a few of the other aspects mentioned by the hon member. I unfortunately do not have much time available to me and so have to hurry. I nonetheless do want to tell the hon member, against the background of the fact that he is now objecting to telephones, amongst other things, that they are essential, and that they are one of the basic concepts which we shall have to get used to in this day and age.

If I had the time today, I would ask the hon the Minister if it would not be possible to extend those telephone services to the other areas, particularly in the Transvaal, where it is still not done as generally as here in the Cape.

[Inaudible.]

[Inaudible.]

I think that in the Estimates we are dealing with it is possible to be much more positive than just denigrating or running things down the whole time.

I should also just like to thank our department and our Director-General and his team sincerely for the work done by them this year, and to congratulate them on the successes they achieved in this way. I also want to thank them for the annual report which really is a monumental work on one’s book shelf, and which one would do well to retain as a useful reference work.

I think 1986 will be remembered as the year in which we could bid farewell to the old outmoded compulsory third party insurance, and that we could replace it with a new system which represents a levy on fuel. It seems to me to be a fairer system and I think that the standing committee which is at present wrestling with this new Bill, would be able to iron out the problems that crop up in it so that we may soon succeed in placing this Bill on the Statute Book to introduce this new, fairer system.

One actually also thinks nostalgically of the fact that a part of the work to which we have become used to in this department, such as the metereological services, the combating of oil pollution, the Antarctic islands, research, sea transport and computer services—is now being taken away from the department. One therefore merely wants to express the hope—and I can think of no reason why it should not be so—that they will be very happy in their new environment.

I should also just like to mention the National Road Safety Council’s annual report, in which the gratifying announcement is made that in 1985 the death rate on our roads dropped considerably. It was the lowest in five years. According to the latest figures, 8 967 people died in road accidents during 1985 as opposed to 9 621 in 1984. In spite of various bus accidents during the same period in which a large number of people died, the death rate on our roads dropped to the lowest level since 1981. I shall return to this later and emphasise certain aspects of it. One is pleased to know, however, that there are at least signs that we are overcoming this problem.

I also want to exchange a few ideas regarding national roads and the National Road Fund about which the hon member spoke as well. Hon members of this House are aware of the fact that the levy on fuel was recently increased to augment the revenue of the National Road Fund. This was a very important and welcome step, as the National Road Fund has suffered from a serious shortage of money during the past few years, which made it very difficult for the Department of Transport to meet its obligations as it should. Besides, inflation also succeeded in swallowing up this money. It is a fact that in five years an inflation rate of 15% halves the number of kilometres of road that could be built with a specific amount of money. In spite of these problems, Sir—problems that were experienced due to the shortage of money—the hon the Minister and his department should none the less be congratulated on what they achieved during those years. Here we think of the completion of Johannesburg’s western bypass, which can be held as one of the examples of the excellent work done during that time. The hon the Minister should also be congratulated on his foresight and enterprise—I know the hon member differs with me on this—in his search for alternative sources to augment the revenue of the National Road Fund by means of toll levies. This too is a very fair method of collecting money. Our second toll road—the Mariannhill toll road, near Pinetown in Natal—was opened recently and I have heard that it is still being well utilised. Road users use that road—and they also enjoy its advantages.

The shortage of money has, however, resulted in a distressing backlog in the maintenance of our national roads. The shortage of money dealt a tremendous blow to the maintenance of our roads on the one hand, while on the other, the building of new roads came to a virtual halt. However, since 1983 a number of increases in the National Road Fund’s fuel levy was approved, as it was realised that a well-developed road infrastructure, adequately maintained, is essential for healthy and dynamic growth in our economy. These increases, which amounted to 5 cents per litre for petrol and 7 cents per litre for diesel by July 1985, provided the revenue of the National Road Fund with a substantial increase from R245 million in 1984-85 to more than R400 million in the financial year of 1985-86.

Order! I am sorry, but the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise to give the hon member the opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon Whip for giving me the opportunity of continuing.

The National Roads Act was amended in 1985 however, to make provision for the transfer of funds from the National Road Fund to the Urban Transport Fund. Seeing as allocations made by the Treasury to this fund were not nearly enough, up until that stage very little was spent on carrying out urban transport projects. The allocation of approximately R21 million in 1985 and R100 million per year in the following year from the National Road Fund to the central Urban Transport Fund, inevitably resulted in a large number of projects which were placed on the programme of expenditure, having to be delayed again to make provision for this.

Following the Government’s decision on fuel prices, the levies on petrol and diesel were increased from 5 March 1986 to 7 cents per litre and 8 cents per litre respectively. As expected it will provide the National Road Fund with revenue totalling almost R600 million during this financial year. The increase in the levies will once again enable the department to put those projects which had to be delayed to make provision for the transfer of funds to the Urban Transport Fund, on the programme of expenditure as well as also financing the other projects.

It is interesting to look at this wonderful programme. I understand the department aims to make more funds available for the construction of the George bypass during the 1986-87 financial year. It is expected that the total cost of it would amount to R20,5 million. The Commercial Road off-ramp as well as parts of the existing road at Port Elizabeth will also be improved at an estimated cost of R7,3 million. The existing road between Komga and the Great Kei River will also receive attention, and will be improved at a cost of R6,4 million.

In the Orange Free State it will be possible to make a start on the extension of the next sections of the Kroonstad/Vergenoeg toll road at an estimated cost of R73 million if I may just round the figure off.

Tourists who regularly travel to the Eastern Transvaal Lowveld will be pleased to hear that funds will also be made available for the construction of the extension of the Middelburg bypass up to Wonderfontein. This project, to the value of R39 million, will result in motorists no longer having to travel through Middelburg.

Traffic on the Ben Schoeman Highway between Johannesburg and Pretoria has increased to such an extent that the department has also decided to spend approximately R17 million on it to build two additional lanes over the next two years.

In Natal R4,3 million will be spent on the construction of fill-ins so that the South Coast Road can be extended. Construction will also continue on the remaining part of the Frere-Keeversfontein toll road on national route 3 at an estimated cost of R60 million.

Here in the Cape construction will also continue on the road between Du Toitskloof tunnel and Worcester as well as the Paarl bypass at a total amount of between R40 million and R56 million. A considerable amount of work is similarly being carried out in the vicinity of Knysna district as well. The development of Mossel Bay will have a lot to do with this.

It is also being planned to spend approximately R128 million on the construction of a new road between Warden and Villiers. All of us who know what a bottle-neck this is, will realise the importance of this step. That is why I say it is a particularly impressive programme that is being presented.

I want to refer briefly to another aspect as well, the question of training. The millions of rands to which I have referred, cannot be spent effectively without there being competent and trained people who could determine the need for roads, who could handle their designing and development and who could also transpose the plans on paper into actual roads. The training of people in general and civil engineers in particular is an investment for the future. Our department has once again done this and we must congratulate them on having now taken the lead in training civil engineers.

Approximately six new undergraduate bursaries to the value of R4 500 are awarded annually to approved students by the National Road Fund. Selection takes place strictly according to academic achievements and sex or race plays no part in it. The bursaries are awarded irrespective of persons. Thirteen bursaries amounting to a total of R58 500 have been awarded. The Department of Transport also makes annual grants out of the Urban Transport Fund to universities for post-graduate training of students in Transport Engineering. In this way 105 post-graduates qualifications have now been obtained at the abovementioned universities.

The Department of Transport’s contribution to education and training does not end there. Since 1985 a Diploma in Road Transport can also be obtained. To illustrate the necessity for it, let me mention that more than 5 000 certificates and diplomas in advanced town planning and in road transport have been obtained since 1980. In 1986 1 325 students applied to do these three courses.

In the few moments I still have available to me I want to get down to another matter which is very important to me. It is the wearing of safety belts to save lives. I realise a safety belt cannot prevent an accident, but it could, all the same, reduce deaths and serious injuries during an accident. For this reason it is therefore desirable to encourage the public to wear safety-belts, and the relevant legislation has now been adopted.

It has also been shown that it is not only the front seats’ safety belts that are important, but that safety belts for the backseats should also be installed to try to limit the loss of human lives. Our legislation makes it compulsory for people, who sit in the front seats of vehicles that are equipped with safety-belts, to wear them. Few people think of what could happen to people in the back seat during an accident if they were not wearing safety-belts or of the effect of loose objects on the back seat. It is estimated that people or objects on the back seat can strike those in the front seats at more than 30 times their body weight during an accident.

There are people who have asked why we did not simply make safety-belts for back seats compulsory at the same time as we made it compulsory for front seats. The fact is that we have now got to the stage where we can pay attention to this matter. The SABS has already published the compulsory special specifications for safety-belts on the backseats as well as the points at which they have to be secured and this will require all cars manufactured from 1 January next year to be installed with backseat safety-belts.

The appeal to motorists to wear safety-belts on the backseats on a voluntary basis will not help. It has been proved in the past that it has to be laid down in legislation. I want to lodge and appeal for attention to be paid to this aspect as soon as possible. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I shall refer to the speeches of the hon members for Port Elizabeth Central and Kempton Park during the course of my speech.

I believe it has become imperative for the road traffic ordinances of the four provinces to be replaced by a national road traffic law. I believe this national road safety legislation should fall under the Department of Transport, in other words the Ministry of Transport Affairs.

Although the road safety ordinances of the four provinces correspond to a great extent, differences still emerge. Nor do we find uniformity in the application of these traffic ordinances. Greater uniformity is extremely desirable.

There are amendments or improvements to the existing ordinances, for example, by bodies such as the National Road Safety Council. Where amendments are proposed, achieving uniformity among the provinces before one can embody these amendments in ordinances takes up endless time and the work of various interprovincial committees. It then happens that not all the provinces implement such amendments at the same time and this leads to confusing implementation and application of the law. The road user is usually the victim of this confusing situation.

The need for a central road safety bureau arose a long time ago. This bureau could have been in full operation a long time ago if we had only one road safety Act.

The large number of drivers on our roads who are either not in possession of a driver’s licence, or have a forged one, gives great cause for concern. The statistics seem to show an increase in these figures. I think this can be combated to a great extent if the road safety bureau really comes into its own and there is only one road safety Act.

Greater uniformity in the licensing of drivers and their vehicles is not only desirable, but has become a necessity. This has to happen in the interests of greater safety on our roads. In addition such legislation will facilitate the training function of the National Road Safety Council, since the various implementations of and approaches to the ordinances in the various provinces will not have to be taken into account.

The provinces differ greatly even as far as road signs are concerned, despite all the efforts made in the past to obtain uniformity. In my opinion the only solution is one controlling authoritative body, which can only be effected if we make the Minister of Transport Affairs responsible for the national road traffic legislation to which I am referring. This legislation will be to the advantage of all the road users. It will eliminate the confusion prevailing at present and I think it will lead to improved road safety.

I address these representations to the hon the Minister in the confidence that he will take a strong stand in favour of such a national road safety act.

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central referred once again today to the losses on passenger transport because of the subsidy system. Hon members of the PFP— through a chief spokesman today—blame separate development for this situation to an increasing degree. Perhaps it is good to take a brief look at the inception of the subsidy system. It originated as a result of the resettlement of people from slum conditions to residential areas where they could live in decent conditions.

That was not true of South End.

That was the NP policy at the time, and we in the CP still support that policy today. We also believe that one should live in one’s own community, and that is why we do not object to the resettlement of people when it is necessary. [Interjections.] Unfortunately there are people on the NP side who object to separate development and who go along with the PFP. [Interjections.]

At the time it was decided that if people were resettled to live in their own communities, they should no longer pay for their transport; therefore a subsidy is paid on it. Unfortunately that situation was exploited by certain people, and still is today. Not only people who were resettled benefit from the subsidy. There are people who were living in Soweto already and were not resettled. Because of a lack of influx control, there are people who came to settle themselves here in the Cape Peninsula and were not resettled. Some industrialists abuse this situation. They have begun more and more to establish their industries in the urban areas instead of decentralising. The industrialists have not complied with the NP Government’s decentralisation policy. Employees are now transported to these industries, for which the industrialist is subsidised. The State subsidises him to make greater profits as it were since he does not pay for the transport of his employees himself. That is why it is necessary to consider this aspect, and for the industrialist himself to see to the transport of his employees.

We are experiencing disorder in our country today, and if we look at the Transport Affairs Vote we see that for the first time in history it has become necessary for the department to compensate a private company for losses it suffered as a result of disorder in the country. This took place because the Government does not really want to take strong action against the barbarians who throw stones, commit arson and murder people. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I think that it is a long time since the hon the Minister has listened to such a sober, well-considered speech coming from any Opposition Party as the one made here today by the hon member for De Aar. Basically I differ very little with what the hon member for De Aar said and I even agree with him as to the way in which he took the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central to task somewhat and explained to him why certain people live at certain places. There is a historic background in that regard.

†I want to refer to a thorny problem of transportation and the Department of Transport, namely the privatisation of certain functions of the Department. In this regard I want to refer to an article which appeared in the Sapoa News of March 1986 under the heading “Privatisation in South Africa.” This was issued by the Economics and Planning Division of the Standard Bank Corporation. It states the following:

And very significantly:

*That is the cry with regard to privatisation. Anything that is a paying proposition, remunerative and economically viable and that is being operated by the State, can be privatised. However, if there is a possibility that certain parts of such service will not be economically viable then it is argued by the private sector, and in this case by the bank, that only part can be privatised. I think it is reasonable to ask: what part or parts? What about the parts which are not privatised? As far as the Department of Transport is concerned, I want to refer briefly to privatisation or possible privatisation and to co-operation between the private sector and the State, in this case the Department of Transport, with regard to transport—marine transport, civil aviation, Government motor transport, roads and toll projects.

Government motor transport is one of those points of discussion that is raised every year in this debate. Accordingly I shall not discuss it this year but I venture to say that someone will indeed discuss this very important aspect of transport.

I want to dwell for a moment on marine transport. The Department of Transport is responsible for the harbours and the work in and around the harbours as well as along the coast line of South Africa. There is no better example of co-operation between private initiative and the public sector than marine transport. As far back as 1976 the State entered into a contract—I think it was with Safmarine—for the services of two tugs, five sprayboats, and an aircraft to be at the disposal of the department at all times. We need only think of what has happened in practice in this regard. When the Venpet and the Venoil, two very large vessels, collided on the East Coast of Africa the entire situation was dealt with efficiently.

A better example of this are the events of 15 days’ ago when the Daeyang Family went onto the rocks here on Cape Town’s front porch. I do not think hon members are aware of exactly what happened there. It happened on 30 March. That morning, at 08h55, the alarm was raised and 25 minutes later the tug John Ross was already on hand to furnish assistance. If that is not an example of total preparedness and good co-operation then I should like to know what is. Within 48 hours a start was made with the pumping of oil out of the Daeyang Family, something which in my opinion is a feather in the cap of both the department and the private sector as regards the co-operation and preparedness displayed in this regard.

As far as civil aviation is concerned, it is basically a matter of the airport as such. What can still be privatised there? The State only performs two functions there. Firstly, they are there in a controlling or regulatory capacity in the sense that they control the licensing of aircraft and pilots, while they also regulate airport security and the airport system. However the construction of airports is given out on contract. The same applies to the maintenance of the buildings and the runway. It is private initiative that is responsible for that. What is more, the services rendered there, including cleaning, catering and the leasing of vehicles, is all in the hands of the private sector. What is left that we can still privatise?

The parking area.

The parking area is also the responsibility of the private sector.

I want to refer to the issue of roads. In fact, roads ought not to be discussed under this Vote because it is a different aspect of the entire system, since the National Road Fund is involved here. However I am informed that the hon the Minister has in mind privatising the toll roads and the entire toll system.

Before elaborating on this I want to ask the hon the Minister—and I also ask it on behalf of the hon member for Hercules—to influence the hon the Minister of Finance either to legalise casino’s in South Africa and permit the private sector to build casino’s, or else to construct a toll road between Johannesburg and Pretoria and the Pilanesberg. I assure the hon the Minister that that toll-gate will certainly be worthwhile because at present there are so many visitors to Sun City that the roads are suffering.

I wish to ask the hon the Minister a few questions about the privatisation of the toll system in South Africa. In the first place, if we were to sell it to the private sector, who would control the toll system? Will there be a single national South African body or will there be various bodies that will accept responsibility for the various projects? Who will determine the tariff? At present the hon the Minister can determine it but if the private sector takes it over as a whole, who would determine the tariff?

In the second place, if we were to specify a term within which the juristic person that tackles this can collect toll for his own gain, how long will that term be?

Finally I want to ask the hon the Minister, if a consortium is formed, please not to permit a monopoly to be formed again as happened in the case of Richards Bay. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, this Vote covers a broad field which will be impossible to cover fully in the short time at my disposal.

I want to deal primarily with two aspects of the department’s work. The first of these, is the question of the MVA Fund and the new Bill which is currently before a Standing Committee. I shall not deal with the Bill itself because that would be out of order. However, I want to deal with what happened before the Motor Vehicle Accidents Bill was referred to the committee.

The position is that on 26 March, the Standing Committee on Transport Affairs was presented with a Bill which “had to be passed” by 30 April. It would have been impossible to pass it in that amount of time, unless we were to function merely as a rubber stamp. I want to know who it was—was it the hon the Minister?—who insulted the standing committee by treating it like a rubber stamp which would automatically put its imprimatur on whatever was placed in front of it. After all, that is what it boiled down to. We were treated with contempt in that a Bill was placed before us with the “instruction” that it had to be passed by 30 April. [Interjections.]

On 30 April, a new system will come into effect, and we discovered two days before we met to discuss the Bill, that certain insurance companies were already issuing tokens. They were dishing them out as fast as they could from tables out on the street. This was being done in terms of a new agreement—an official, “legal agreement” signed by that hon Minister’s department—retaining the monopoly of the consortium without any reference to the standing committee or to this Parliament as to whether that consortium should be expanded in order to allow new people in. It was a signed agreement, binding the State and giving a monopoly in respect of the handling of accident claims to a consortium, when the Bill which provided for that agreement had not yet been considered, let alone passed. It had not even been considered.

On 30 April, the current third party insurance lapses, and the hon the Minister has now had to say that he will, by regulation, ensure that the new system will be valid until the Bill is passed. What happens if this Parliament does not pass the Bill? Who will pay for the discs that have been printed at Government expense and given out free of charge to the consortium to issue? We have not even had a chance to debate this matter. I believe that this is tantamount to treating Parliament with contempt. It is being taken for granted that what the Government wants, will automatically be approved by Parliament. Therefore the committee has— to my mind correctly—called for evidence from certain bodies deeply affected by this agreement but which have not previously been consulted. These are bodies with which there had been no consultation until the committee decided that it would like to hear their views, because they were directly affected by what was intended in the Bill. I therefore hold the hon the Minister responsible, firstly, for signing an agreement without the backing of the law to make it a legal agreement. Moreover, if this Parliament does not pass that measure, then that agreement will be null and void. Secondly, I hold the hon the Minister responsible for entering into expenditure on a system which this Parliament has not passed. I want to lodge the strongest protest against this procedure.

The other matter which I want to raise is that of the National Transport Policy Study. Unfortunately, I was not able to attend the briefing in November. However, I have here a copy of the recommendations which was kindly supplied to me. This is a report which makes very far-reaching recommendations. It makes recommendations of a fundamental nature, changing the entire control structure of road transportation in regard to both passenger and freight services. In terms of this, the National Transport Commission will disappear. There will be a new body which will deal with the question of control. The permit system will disappear and there will be free and open competition for anybody who can afford to enter the new system, subject to the maintenance of prescribed standards. I think that is a good thing; I am a hundred percent behind it.

It has also been proposed that the four provincial road traffic ordinances be combined under one national Traffic Act. These are all things of fundamental importance to the road user and I believe it will be a tremendous improvement in that it will do away with the system of the application for and the granting of permits—the SATS object to virtually every application for a permit—and with all the nonsense that goes with the current system. I believe the hon the Minister and his department are in favour of these new proposals and, as I say, they will effect fundamental changes.

However, we are being asked to vote money—the amount of R752 million—not in terms of the new proposed system but in terms of the system which is about to disappear. We are budgeting under the existing system. We are being asked to vote money when, according to the proposals, certain things will change by June this year and when, by next year, new legislation will change the whole situation. It is recommended that many of the changes will occur within the current budget year.

However, we have neither heard a word from the hon the Minister on the matter nor received a White Paper. We cannot discuss the matter in this debate. How can one debate something when one does not even have a White Paper or a word out of the Government as to whether it accepts the NTPS and the phase 2 recommendations? Does the Government support and accept them? Does it intend to implement them? What is the use of our discussing the matter—as other hon members and all of us have done so far—on the basis of the old setup? We should be talking in terms of this new proposal, and the hon the Minister should have given us a lead. He should have tabled a White Paper or he should have got up at the start of this debate and said that he accepted a, b, c, d, e, f and g, thus opening the matter to debate. However, he has remained “tjoepstil” and he lets us get up and talk on a system which should disappear, according to the proposals. I think it will be a wise step and that the new proposals will effect a great improvement, but debating the issue now, without knowing what the Government’s attitude is to these proposals, is an academic exercise in futility. How does one debate something when one does not know whether it merely revolves around proposals that will gather dust on a shelf or whether it is going to be the policy of the Government?

I should have liked to discuss aspects of it, for instance the practicability of replacing regulation by the sanction of law enforcement. It is a very interesting concept, and I should have liked to be able to debate it, but what is the use of debating it if I do not know whether it is going to be accepted? The idea is that one will not have regulations but that law enforcement will provide the standards that are required. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Durban Point has amazed me somewhat with his argument. He referred to a provisional report which he has there. The hon member said he could not discuss the matter because he did not yet know what the Government’s standpoint or approach was in this connection.

I said there could be no theoretical debate.

Very well. Nothing prevents the hon member, however, from taking a stand on statements which appear in that provisional report. I almost have the impression that the hon member wants to say he does not want to commit himself to anything yet, since it may subsequently become apparent that he agrees with the Government’s standpoint.

The hon member therefore wants to know the Government’s standpoint first so that he can take a contrary stand. That is how I interpret him, but I shall leave it at that. Regarding the technical aspect concerning the third party fund, I merely want to react to some of the hon member’s objections. I take it the hon the Minister will discuss the details of the matter with the hon member. I think it represents a great improvement. I believe the general public welcomes the levy system in respect of third party insurance. I hope the day will come—although perhaps that is not relevant here—when the same can be said about licensing fees, that the same procedure can be applied there, and that many administrative costs and other unnecessary problems that affect the general public can be eliminated in this way. This also has a bearing on the road fund which hon members referred to earlier through which money is already being levied for road building in any case.

I should like to refer briefly to the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. I do not have much time at my disposal, but I do not think he should get away that easily. The negative attitude of the Official Opposition to services rendered is obvious. I think the hon member for Berea, who is sitting there so peacefully, is probably a little embarrassed today. Hon members will remember that when toll roads were considered by the Commission, those hon members agreed. Afterwards, however, the hon member for Berea did an about-face. He did not even go back to the commission to apologise for changing his stand to such an extent. What I really want to emphasise is that I think that hon member has even more reason to blush today because of the success of this toll road system. It has been applied with great success, and I think that has contributed to priority now being given to roads which would not otherwise have been the case.

The hon members for Kempton Park and for Roodeplaat dealt with the aspect of the road fund and the road building strategy in a sensible way. I merely want to add that a road fund is very important because a good road network is essential. For this reason a larger contribution to the road fund will be to the advantage of the whole country. An important aspect, viz road traffic, is under discussion in this Vote. I want to contend that it is one of the most important components of every modern community’s activities. Not only is it of economic interest, but it affects the whole population in some or other way. Urban development necessitates the transport of people. In fact, urban development is not possible without transport. That is why it is particularly disturbing—also because we find specifically these days that buses and cars are being attacked—that the safety of people is threatened more and more when they make use of our roads. I therefore hope that measures will be taken to prevent people who travel from being robbed of their vehicles. This reminds one of the bandits one found alongside roads in earlier years. The lives of people are being endangered in the same way today by troublemakers who throw stones and bricks at vehicles. That kind of thing does not belong in a civilised community.

Because transport is so important, it is logical that the policy in this connection is of public interest and that legislation and the application of the law are important to the travelling public. One can definitely not deny that the present fragmentary manner, on which control and policy-making, as well as legislation, are based, is not at all conducive to this extremely important matter which involves everyone. There has been reference to this already. In addition, I want to make brief mention of action the public sometimes finds extremely irritating. One sometimes finds that speed traps are placed on roads the motorists find the safest to travel on. Speed traps are placed on freeways, for example, where there are quite safe dual carriageways in each direction. Often these are the places where speed traps are placed most regularly. One wonders sometimes whether this is done to promote road safety or simply because it is a convenient place at which to catch people. [Interjections.] I hear a whole chorus of a variety of standpoints. Some people are worried, while others say it is done to bring reckless drivers to book. [Interjections.] I believe, however, that implementation of the law as far as traffic is concerned should always be aimed at the promotion of road safety. The general public should never get the impression, therefore, that there are certain traffic authorities who are out to get people simply for the convenience’ sake.

I agree that delays in legislation often occur when concept legislation is considered because consensus has to be reached by the interprovincial committee on road traffic. An advisory committee prepares these cases, and the respective provinces are represented in that committee. That is where the problem area occurs. We have spoken about this before, Sir, and I hope that the matter will be rectified at some time.

In my opinion the National Road Safety Council performs a very important task which is much appreciated, and I want to express the confidence that that council will get the necessary money to carry out its task in a exceptional way. There is criticism at times. People maintain that accidents still take place; that the statistics are not very encouraging. It must be realised, however, that that is one of the extremely complex problems we have to contend with. Despite negative criticism, I have great appreciation for the work done by the National Road Safety Council. In fact, I believe the general public realises that the National Road Safety Council performs an important task. One would therefore like to encourage the council to even greater success.

The control over road traffic and the promotion of road safety will definitely be improved if there is greater uniformity as a result of the centralisation of policy and legislation. This will improve the present dispensation in which fragmentation in the form of various government bodies creates confusion in many respects for those who have to perform the task. The second tier and local authority bodies can implement it in practice, but it is desirable that decision-making and legislative functions should be centralised. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a great pleasure for me to congratulate the hon member for Welkom most sincerely. Today he pointed out the problems affecting certain aspects of our central transport policy. As MEC of the Orange Free State he played an important role, and I want to congratulate him most sincerely on the facts he brought to light.

Today mention was frequently made of the toll roads. Reference was also made to the telephone. A while ago I came across a report in Die Burger with the caption “Aapstreke met telefone langs tolpad”:

Hon members can consequently see how popular the telephone system is. I agree with the hon member for Kempton Park, and I hope that this wonderful system which has been introduced here in the Cape, will also be extended to the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. I want to congratulate the hon the Minister on this system. It is an emergency system which is absolutely essential.

A great deal is being said about the traffic problems in Johannesburg and those of us who live on the Rand are very interested in that problem. I remember that last year the hon member for Turffontein also referred to the chaotic conditions which could arise there. He also referred to the important role which Johannesburg plays.

When I think of the South African Games which took place at Ellis Park, I was surprised that we did not have more trains to Ellis Park, like we did in the old days. In the old days when we wanted to go and watch the rugby at Ellis Park we travelled by train. During the SA Games I myself was caught up in that traffic in Smith Street for an hour and a half. Eventually I saw the traffic policemen throw up their hands and say that they did not know what more they could do. They told me that all they could advise me to do was look for a parking place, although I had a green ticket which gave me access to a parking lot near Ellis Park. If it had not been for one of the South African policemen who eventually said that there was still plenty of parking inside, I would have had a problem. When the traffic policemen said that the parking lot was full, it was still two-thirds empty. There was still plenty of place to park.

I dread the day when there is an emergency situation in Johannesburg, because we shall simply not be able to cope with the traffic. Over the weekend I took a look at some traffic statistics. As far as the growth rate of urban transport is concerned, I came across the following statistics: Six years there were 649 000 vehicles in Johannesburg, but that number has risen so much that there are now almost 800 000 vehicles in Johannesburg. The growth rate for vehicles was consequently 4,6%. In Pretoria the growth rate is higher and stands at 8,3%. On the East Rand the growth rate is 5,2%. Four years ago Pretoria had 374 000 vehicles, and it is estimated that at the moment the East Rand area has 80 000 vehicles.

I now want to talk about the central business district of Johannesburg. Between 1971 and 1981—I am now using figures which the Department of Transport furnished me with—there was an increase of 35% in traffic from the north of Johannesburg. We thought that most traffic came from the north of Johannesburg. But it has now been found that there has been a 46% increase in the traffic from the south of Johannesburg. The south of Johannesburg has a tremendous population potential which is exploding. There is also an increase in business districts and we must take a look at this. In 1981 400 000 vehicles travelled to the city centre of Johannesburg every day. Johannesburg North has a growth rate of 2,5% en Johannesburg South a growth rate of 5,5%. It is also a fact that throughout the country on average there are only 1,5 people in every car travelling to the city.

Let us take a quick look at the position in Cape Town. It is estimated that 110 000 people are transported to Cape Town every day. Sixty per cent of the Whites travel by car. Just look how prosperous the non-Whites have become, because 32% of them travel to Cape Town by car. Twenty-four per cent of the Whites and 58% of the non-Whites travel by train. Seven per cent of the Whites and 10% of the non-Whites travel by bus. The total number of vehicles on the road here during peak periods is already 20 000.

The central business districts of Johannesburg are now being thrown open. Sixty per cent of the permissible space there is being utilised. If the rest of the space is utilised, there is going to be chaos in that city as far as transport is concerned. The hon the Minister is now dealing with an area where the volume of vehicles is growing by between 2J% and 5% per year. It has already been estimated that the volume which our roads there can cope with will be exceeded by more than 100% by the year 2000. It will then no longer be possible to reach the city centre of Johannesburg by bus or by motor car.

In 1957, when I was a member of the Johannesburg City Council, I asked for an elevated railway system for Johannesburg. This is now being used successfully over short distances in Bophuthatswana and at the Rand show.

The number of people in Johannesburg is going to increase, because the hon the Minister is going to lease land to business undertakings one of these days, hotels may be built on top of railway lines, cafés are going to be built and there are eventually going to be supermarkets. At the moment people no longer come to the city centre of Johannesburg because it is a dead city. Johannesburg must come alive again, and this must be achieved by introducing a central transport system.

In 1957 I went to collect plans from the head office of the Railways according to which a subterranean or elevated railway would run from Parkview to Rosettenville, Turffontein and those areas in the south. At that stage as members of the National Party we were in the opposition in the City Council and the United Party told us that it would cost too much to introduce the system. Every time we were warned about the high costs. In 1970 a link between Faraday and West End with Johannesburg station was advocated. The Government is facing problems. If there are problems, they must be studied and people must be trained to solve them eventually.

I should like to know from the hon the Minister whether my information is correct that he contributes R24 million per year to the relevant area of Jomet, and whether the total contribution to all our urban transport is R100 million. I want to refer here to what Mr Nigel Mandy said recently. He is particularly well known in the central business area of Johannesburg because of what he has done to breath new life into the business district. I am quoting:

Order! The hon member for Rosettenville must please speak a little louder because I can hear the hon member for Yeoville far more clearly than I can hear the hon member for Rosettenville.

Do hon members know why on average there are only 1,5 people in every motor vehicle travelling to the city? They always say that there is no efficient mass transport system. Consequently we must introduce an efficient mass transport system. Surely it is not such a big expense.

When I was serving on the City Council, I frequently took films of the trams with my cine camera—as you did, Mr Chairman, in America. Now the TV people have approached me to show them during a programme on Johannesburg. Consequently if hon members see a film about the old trams, they must know that it is my film which I have made available to the SABC.

But later on it was decided to remove the tramlines in Johannesburg. In consequence it was decided that we should get trolleybuses. At a later date, before the oil crisis diesel buses were taken into use. But after the oil crisis it was decided that a stop should be put to this, and now we are right back where we started. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, in the very short time available to me I would like to follow on some of the aspects mentioned by the hon member for Rosettenville in his speech.

I would like to raise two issues. First of all, a brief question re the trolley bus system in Johannesburg. I would like to ask the hon the Minister if the city of Johannesburg applied for financial assistance for the maintenance of trolley bus lines upgraded for the demonstration project? If they did, will he make the necessary funds available and, if not, why will he not make the funds available?

The hon the Minister will remember that I raised the issue of the A3 and A6 highways last year. At the time I outlined the problems that the local associations of my constituency and surrounding constituencies had in regard to these proposed highways. I also asked the hon the Minister a few questions. He did not reply to these directly during the debate but when I questioned him again he kindly wrote a letter to me and I sent the Parktown Association his reply.

As the hon the Minister knows, his reply was not received very favourably by the association and it led to one thing and another. Very harsh comments were actually made about the hon the Minister concerning the A3 and A6 highways.

Yes, that is right!

After this an official of the Department of Transport and an official of the Johannesburg Management Committee came to see me in my office in Johannesburg where we again discussed these proposed highways. I had to tell them that it was of no use trying to convince me. They had to convince the ratepayers’ and the other associations concerned. The hon the Minister then again wrote a letter and I think he put his foot in it rather because it resulted in the associations requesting me to call a meeting of the residents of Parktown and the surrounding areas in order to discuss these proposed motorways.

The hon the Minister kindly sent one of his representatives—it was a Mr Mitchell— to address the meeting. For this we were very grateful. Although he trod on a few toes that night he spoke very well and I feel that he presented the case of the hon the Minister’s department in such a way that a few could have sympathy with his views. The town management committee of Johannesburg failed, however, to send their representative which means that the matter could not be taken any further.

The hon the Minister must realise that this meeting was attended by over 300 persons who wanted to show their concern. They did not only come from Parktown but also from the surrounding areas like Houghton, Westdene and Johannesburg West. I feel that the hon the Minister’s department and the Management Committee of Johannesburg are still not convinced that the A3 and A6 highways will not be to the advantage of the people who live in these areas.

The hon the Minister will remember that I sent him a copy of the resolutions that were taken at this meeting and we would like him to respond to them as soon as possible. I feel he should make himself available to come and address these associations on the matter.

I have a feeling that the hon the Minister is trying to take a gap. I feel that the hon the Minister and his department are hoping that we will not want Jomet, the Town Planning Department of Johannesburg, to undertake the planning of these highways but that we will approach the hon the Minister’s department to undertake the planning. I am afraid the answer is “no”. We do not want that but we would like the hon the Minister not to provide any financial subsidy unless there is public participation. The hon the Minister will remember that that is the real issue. The people of Parktown and associated areas want the assurance that the hon the Minister will support public participation in the development of these highways as he has promised. That is what we want to know from the hon the Minister.

In doing this he will be following the example of the USA. There must be no Government subsidy unless the hon the Minister has full knowledge that there is public participation. All that we are asking of the hon the Minister is that he fulfil his promise of allowing public participation in the planning of these highways.

At the said meeting it was decided to ask me to convey to the hon the Minister the following resolutions:

In his letter of reply, the hon the Minister referred to the M6 which we agree is no longer planned, but the M6 is now called the A6. The resolution adds the following:

We have just heard that the more public transport roads are made available, the more private transport is used. The hon the Minister has to have a more general plan and create a larger and more adequate public transport system.

The third resolution reads as follows:

1. (a) The absence of any land use planning …
2. (b) No attempt is made to deal with the real need, i.e. public transport, and virtually assumes that no adequate service will be provided.
3. (c) The public has been deliberately excluded from this planning, despite the Minister’s statement that his department recommends the involvement of the public in planning.
4. (d) The description given in the Report of this being a balanced strategy is misleading, as there is no balance in expenditure or even in areas of greatest need.

The next resolution concerns the hon the Minister himself. It reads as follows:

1. (a) That it is directed at solving the most pressing problem, ie Public Transport, particularly for Black areas.

Although we are told that Jomet planning is intended to improve the road system for Blacks, it is basically designed to meet White needs, hence the A3 system. The resolution continues as follows:

1. (b) That provision is made for the involvement of the public in the planning.
2. (c) That the scenarios of 1980 be updated.

The fifth resolution reads as follows:

Just look at Parktown and its roads! Finally, the meeting resolved as follows:

Mr Chairman, I should like to make use of the opportunity to wish Mr Jock Germishuys, who is retiring from his post as Deputy Director General of the Department of Transport at the end of this month, after many years in the department, an enjoyable and pleasant retirement.

I should like to broach a matter which is a relatively emotive issue amongst members of the public. I want to introduce the topic of the axle load into this debate on transport. This does not mean what we pay on it, but what one may load and transport on a truck’s wheel and axle assembly. At the same time as drawing up a national transport policy study, which is going to change transport in South Africa drastically, we should look into this aspect. I want to issue a warning, however, that this matter should be debated with sober logic, without being emotional for a moment, otherwise we shall not do justice to the debate.

I should like to ask the hon the Minister that the axle load of heavy vehicles—in other words the maximum capacity allowed at present—be increased. However, there are two important points which will prove decisive. I want to highlight this at an early stage in this difficult debate. We should first determine what our road network can carry. According to the hon the Minister of Trade and Industry’s most recent notification, these vehicles are technically they have a much greater carrying capacity. Their engines, which are built by ADE, are powerful enough and the axles, which are manufactured by ASTAS in South Africa, can carry much greater loads than the Act permits. However, I want to limit myself to what the Act allows. In the second place, heavy vehicles should bear their rightful share of road costs. And so there is a fairly big difference between the legal carrying capacity and the technical carrying capacity, but it is a very complex investigation. As I was saying, it has stirred up feelings in the past and it is going to do so again. The advantages of an increase in axle load and the reasons why I am bringing it up in this debate, is because the productivity of the present vehicle fleet in South Africa could be utilised much better and because it would also result in lower transport costs. Certain vehicles have a gross vehicle mass of approximately 50 000 ton. If this is increased by 2 000, or 3 000 kilogram it will represent 2 000 or 3 000 kilogram that can be added to the cartage.

In the third place, it would contribute to a matter which has been fairly problematic up until now, namely a standardised policy in all four provinces in regard to the carrying capacity. I hope this will also be introduced by the new transport legislation, so that all the provinces in South Africa will allow the same formulas and weights. There are a few stumbling blocks and I think it is essential to expressly request the hon the Minister to instruct the CSIR or one of his committees to negotiate on this and to see what would result from it. The greatest danger arising from this at present, is overloading. Regardless of what the hon member for Welkom has said, I want to lodge an appeal today that the traffic officials who lay speed traps for people who drive too fast should also concentrate on the overloading of vehicles in future.

Overloaded vehicles are one of the greatest sources of danger on our roads. There are basically two reasons for this. In the first place, there is the road safety aspect which has been covered. In the second place, our roads are being ruined by it. We do not have the money at this stage to rebuild roads that have been damaged as a result of overloading and other abuses. We should protect the existing road assets which are estimated to amount to many thousands of millions of rand and which are irreplaceable. The best protective measures in this case, would be taking stronger action against the overloading of vehicles—and I want to ask the hon the Minister to pass this on as well when the new provincial or regional set-up comes into effect later on this year.

The next point I want to come to, is urban transport problems. Various hon members, amongst others the hon member for Rosettenville, have referred to them. I just want to approach it from a different viewpoint. It is a monster which is slowly crushing urban transport to death. When we first travelled to Parliament in the mornings in 1981, the traffic used to come to a standstill much closer to the city centre than was the case this morning. This applies to every freeway in South Africa, and the situation will only grow worse. I assure hon members that in five or six years there will be a traffic jam on the freeway stretching from here to the Karl Bremer hospital. At the moment there are approximately 4,5 million vehicles on the roads in South Africa. I should like to make a request concerning something that has been raised by other hon members. The hon the Minister has said on occasion that he is going to make available R100 million from the National Road Fund for the improvement of urban transport systems. I want to thank the hon the Minister for that. In my opinion it is a very good and equitable distribution.

I just want to add that I do not think that it is sufficient to solve the problem. Recent studies indicate that vehicles do more mileage in an urban area than on national roads. I think we should move away from the concept or the term “National Road Fund”. I should like to ask the hon the Minister to change the name and character of the National Road Fund and that it should be called the Central Road Fund from now on. Such a central road fund should in future primarily obtain its funds from the fuel sales.

I hope the hon the Minister will at one time or another find a way of also adding licences, such as third party insurance to the fuel price so that one would only pay a registration fee when one wants to register a car as ones property. The amount to cover licenses should be scientifically calculated and added to the petrol price.

We should also do away with the National Road Fund and the money that is collected in that way should be poured into the central road fund. Then the hon the Minister, together with the Priorities Committee appointed by the State President, should divide up the money to finance three kinds of road transport, national road transport, inter-urban and inter-city road transport and urban transport. The reason why I am lodging a plea for better financing for urban transport is because the largest percentage of the total number of kilometres per year are covered in the urban areas of South Africa. I think it is fair that those priorities should be changed somewhat and that we should take a look at them.

I should like to ask the hon the Minister after having now made available R100 million, to just reply to three questions. Firstly, how large is the total amount which he expects to collect over the next 12 months by means of the new contribution of 7 cent per litre to the road fund? Secondly, how does he divide up that R100 million and on what basis has he done so? In the third place I want to ask what main use is that it will be put to in our various urban areas.

The most reliable figure that I could get hold of was for the financial year ending in 1984 which indicates that approximately R1 330 million was spent on our road network. R400 million of that total amount was financed by municipalities themselves in so far as urban roads and streets were concerned. I therefore think that the R100 million which the hon the Minister is going to add on will help. I nonetheless want to ask the hon the Minister to increase that amount of R100 million a little if he has the funds. I am asking him to increase the ratio even further—firstly to one third and later to one half.

I also want to ask the hon the Minister to tell us—if he is able to talk about it at this stage—how the new regional services board and the new second tier government will function in regard to the provision and control of roads. If the hon the Minister has the necessary knowledge at this stage, let me ask him to explain to us in terms of which priorities and in what way he is going to divide us the money—that is to say if he does have such money available to him—as far as the new second-tier government, the regional services boards and the local city councils and municipalities are concerned. I should like to hear this from the hon the Minister because I think this is the question which is regarded as the major problem outside this House. It does not so much concern the introduction, but how we are going to finance it in regard to this aspect of the transport sector.

I should also like to ask, although I do not want to bind the hon the Minister to it when discussing this national transport policy, that the hon the Minister will see to it that the minimum standards for the construction and basic planning of transport strategies be determined at a national level. I ask that he will see to it that we do not again as in the past, have different ones in the four provinces, but that we right from the start—we do after all have the opportunity now to put it to rights because we are starting with a clean slate—will begin to set it to rights and to extend it together with the central road fund. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is always a pleasure to listen to the hon member for Primrose talking on transport matters. He is indeed a master of his subject.

However, I cannot believe how the year has flown. Here we are again, discussing my favourite topic. I want to talk to the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs, the one who operates airports, as opposed to the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs who operates airlines. I think that in operating airlines that hon Minister has a fairly easy task because he has a fairly good airline. However, when it comes to operating airports, I am afraid that that other hon gentleman does not even know where it is at.

I like flying; I think it is a fairly pleasant occupation.

If one can get a seat on a plane.

Yes, that is the matter with which that other hon Minister deals.

Departing and arriving is becoming a bit of a problem. I do not mind departing from Cape Town and I do not mind arriving in Cape Town. I think arriving in Windhoek—I do not know if any of the other hon members can recall arriving there—is quite a pleasure. Even arriving at Bloemfontein can be exciting. [Interjections.] I also think it is fine to arrive in East London.

However, what about arriving in Durban? That is something to be experienced to be believed! [Interjections.] I want the hon the Minister to hear me, and I want him to hear me well this afternoon. I want him to do something, and I want him to it personally, himself. I want him to catch an aircraft to Durban but I want him to book his own luggage into the hold, without making any fancy arrangements. Now he tells me that he is a gentleman—he has told us all about this— who goes to the back of the aircraft and talks to the passengers, how they love to see him and how they love to talk to him.

However, I want the hon the Minister to arrive in Durban and I do not want any lackey at the bottom of the gangplank, waiting to throw him a salute and say: “Stap hiernatoe, asseblief mnr die Minister.” [Interjections.] Oh no, he has to walk off that aircraft with everybody else, he has to walk into that airport building and then he must go and collect his baggage. He must do it while two aircraft are arriving at the same time, maybe from Johannesburg or Cape Town. That makes it particularly exciting. [Interjections.]

Then he must get a trolley and he must push it to one of these baggage-dispensing things. Then he must take his pipe out of his pocket, he must put it in his mouth and he must light it—he must look around and he must say: “I am the Minister who is responsible for this airport and I am responsible for this state of affairs.” That is what he must do. This will be his moment of truth.

He wants it that way.

That will be his last moment of memory, because that mob will lynch him. They will lynch him!

They will lynch him; you are right.

The situation existing in Durban is one of the most incredible disasters that anybody has ever dreamed up. We talk about it year after year. There is no imagination shown. There is a whole row … [Interjections.] The hon member may interject as much as he likes. He should just ask the hon Government Chief Whip how he enjoys going home. Ask him; ask him in the caucus how he enjoys going home. He is likely to tell the hon member the truth. [Interjections.]

The entire front of that building can be taken out. A temporary structure can be put out a little way onto the tarmac. For heaven’s sake, do something to make life a little more bearable for the people supporting the South African Airways. They can do it, but they just will not. No, but what we have got, to demonstrate the planning, the tremendous planning we have, is, for example, an airport here in Cape Town that is nothing more or less than a white elephant.

You are right; quite right.

I believe they want to let it out as a conference centre. That is all they want to do now with the international terminal. It stands there as a memorial—to what? In the meantime Durban has to put up with this absolute disgrace.

I just hope that this time the hon the Minister will heed me and send somebody down there to look at the situation and try to do something, because the alterations to the airport are not going to be completed for quite a while.

I should like now to turn to the subject of road safety. The hon member for Kempton Park expressed a measure of satisfaction at the drop in the accident rate. The hon member for Primrose said he could visualise that in five years’ time there would be a traffic build-up on the N1 freeway that stretched as far back as the Karl Bremer Hospital. One of the reasons for this, in my view, is the lack of driver education. I sincerely believe that this is an area that must be investigated. It may be investigated by the National Road Safety Council or by some other body, so long as serious attention is given to driver education, to the schooling and to the testing of drivers on South African roads. Moreover, serious attention must be given to the disciplining of drivers on the South African roads.

In regard to the disciplining of drivers, I should like to use the N1 as an example. I have spoken about this before. Perhaps hon members can visualise the N1; or perhaps the hon members who travel on that road can think about it when they go home tonight. It is quite ridiculous, but the fast lane is the one on the left. People hog the middle of the road and they hog the right-hand lane. This is a dangerous hazard to other road users. I once travelled with a lady who refused to travel faster than 80 km/h. She simply sat in the centre lane. Let me hasten to add that it was not my dear wife. My dear wife does not know how to travel slower than 120 km/h! [Interjections.] As I was saying, the lady I was travelling with simply continued to drive in the centre lane. Eventually I could bear it no longer and so I asked her why she persisted in travelling in that lane. She replied that her driving instructor told her the centre lane was the safest one to travel in because if any one walked onto the road from either side, she would have plenty of time to see and thus avoid him or her. [Interjections.] That is the sort of thing that is being taught in driving schools.

I believe sincerely that the time has come for us to do something. Let us not see traffic officers sitting on the side of the road reading newspapers. For heaven’s sake, let us have them on the road disciplining the traffic and disciplining the people. It is no good having the odd “keep to the left” sign. People are not doing that. I think it is necessary for a few fines and some harsh measures to be meted out. I also think that people should be taught. Eventually they will get the message.

Mr Chairman, it is an honour for me to follow on the hon member for Umhlanga. Most of the time he is positive and he speaks well.

*We also have members in this House who are made up of complaints, criticism and lamentations and who would fall apart without them. It must be very difficult to go through life like that. One of the hon members who complains so much is the hon member for Sasolburg. I want to ask him whether he remembers what a good time we had in Worcester when he was still able to laugh. [Interjections.] I helped that hon member to be elected as the NP’s candidate in Worcester. Afterwards I could kick myself, but I take comfort in the fact that I worked hard to get him out of there, and that was not too difficult.

On Monday, 3 February 1986, this hon member said (Hansard: House of Assembly, col 107):

This is what he said.

Order! I am not aware of the fact that the Department of Transport controls slippery slopes as well.

He has been sliding around all over the place since he left Worcester. I think his behind must be all almost worn through by now, but it has been a long time since I last caught a glimpse of him from the rear.

Let me rather talk about the Department of Transport and the Dutoits Kloof Tunnel, since that is a more interesting subject.

Much has already been said about the Dutoits Kloof Tunnel and the influence it will have on the area beyond the Drakenstein Mountains. That is my part of the world. Hon members will recall that work on this project started in 1975 with the construction of a pilot tunnel in order to find out more about, in particular, the nature of the rocks hundreds of metres below the mountain peaks through which the road tunnel was planned to run. Due to lack of money the National Transport Commission could proceed with the tunnel project only in 1981, when work was started on a tunnel through about 100 metres of soft soil that was virtually waterlogged and severely taxed the resources of modern tunnelling methods.

Fortunately the money at our disposal enabled us to start on the construction of a bridge over the Hugovallei River in 1980. Today we are able to admire a structure of the highest aesthetic value on the Paarl side of the tunnel. However, work on the actual road tunnel could only be proceeded with in 1984.

Hon members will forgive me for dwelling for a time on the progress of the construction work, but I do so advisedly. The prospect of the opening of the tunnel project to traffic within the foreseeable future is something that I and many motorists who use this route are really looking forward to.

Many people will say that that is all very well but that we shall have to pay toll money. The fact that toll will have to be paid in order to use this facility cannot detract from the desire that it should be opened to traffic in the foreseeable future. It would, in fact, be a pleasure to pay for such a facility.

This brings me to an important point. If it were not for the vision of the hon the Minister to implement toll roads in South Africa and make the Dutoits Kloof Tunnel project a toll road, we would probably have had to wait another ten years or more for this project to be finalised.

I have made a few enquiries and I have been told that the project will be opened to traffic early in 1988. The blasting operations were completed last year. We shall, therefore, enjoy the privilege of using a shorter, safer road within less than two years. It is 11 km shorter than the Dutoits Kloof Pass. We shall be able to reduce our travelling time and, above all, we shall be able to travel more effortlessly and in greater safety.

By paying toll money the user will, of course, have to contribute a little more than the fuel levies that are channelled to the National Road Fund. This is, however, an expensive project, and being able to enjoy its advantages at an earlier stage certainly makes it worthwhile to pay the envisaged toll. Even after having paid the toll money I still gain, because the fee charged is such that it would still be more expensive to use the alternative, the Dutoits Kloof Pass.

Although I realise that the toll fees have not been finalised, I should appreciate it if the hon the Minister could lift the veil somewhat and give us an indication of more or less what amount of money would be payable in respect of, for example, an ordinary car or a large truck. We know by this time that toll fees are based on the total saving accruing to the user, but it would nevertheless be illuminating to hear more or less how much money would be payable for the use of this toll road, or rather, toll tunnel, which, it is estimated, will cost R157 million to complete and for which R74 million was borrowed, money that will have to be recovered from toll income.

Unfortunately the tunnel does not eliminate all the traffic bottlenecks on the road from the Cape to Worcester and further. I want to concentrate specifically on the road between the tunnel and Worcester. The existing road follows the ravine as far as Rawsonville, after which it crosses the Breë River and the railway line in the valley. Then it follows a route through the expanding residential areas and the business area of Worcester, through to the Hex River Valley. That is in the centre of Canaan, where I live. The existing road is definitely not adequate for the traffic it carries. I am afraid that if nothing is done about it the opening of the tunnel will burden the route even further. Therefore, we on the other side of the mountain would like to hear from the hon the Minister whether any planning is being done to improve this road and whether there is a possibility of its construction coinciding with the completion of the Dutoits Kloof Tunnel project. I shall see to it that there is a posh party on the other side if this could be achieved.

For the information of this House I should just like to mention that work on the enlargement of the pilot tunnel has already commenced. When the king visited the country years ago, there was a guard of honour at each station he visited. All the men wore medals. At one of the stations he went down the row and asked what the medals were for. The first one said he was in the Anglo Boer War; the second one was in the Boer War; the third one in World War II. But the last man in the row wore a thing as big as a tray, and when the king asked him in which war he had been, he replied: “No, I was not in the war; our bull won first prize on the show!” [Interjections.]

If I could give a prize today, I should give it to the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs; not for a bull, but a tunnel-digger!

Mr Chairman, I like speaking after the hon member for Worcester, in fact it is a pleasure to listen to him. Unfortunately I should like to discuss a different aspect, and consequently he must forgive me if I do not associate myself with what he said; particularly as regards the tray story.

I should like to look at the annual report of the Department of Transport for the 1984-85 financial year. On the basis of this I want to bring a few excerpts to the attention of hon members and take a closer look at Government motor transport. It is striking that there has been a definite cut in expenditure, naturally because of the economy. As a result fewer vehicles were purchased in the course of the year. Unfortunately the Government garage planned for Cape Town could not be built. There was no money available to put the computerised transport control system into operation either, which was a pity.

But on the plus side of this economic recession is the fact that all the technical posts could be filled. Of course specialised services, as well as spares, were more easily obtainable.

Order! There is too much noise in the House.

It is also clear from the report that there was not a real increase in the number of motor vehicle accidents. The statistics on motor vehicle accidents remained unchanged at 69 000 km per accident, and this included minor accidents which did not even need to be reported. These statistics compare very favourably with the average. We have already heard that serious attention will have to be given to road safety.

[Inaudible.]

Order!

It is a pity that the building of the Government Garage in Cape Town has had to be postponed again. This means that there is going to be great pressure on the existing facilities, and the staff are working under very difficult conditions. It is expected that it will only be possible to build the new garage in 1991. We can only hope and trust that it will be possible to expedite the building operations.

It is also a great pity that the computerised control system could not be put into operation now.

[Inaudible.]

Order! I am not prepared to argue with the hon member for Bryanston. The hon member must abide by the ruling of the Chair.

Mr Chairman, I apologise, but what I said was true.

The scope of the functions of the Government Motor Transport Division really justifies the acquisition of a computer system. The present control and supervision is effective. It is so effective that during the present financial year, for example, 24 cases of the unauthorised use of Government motor vehicles have already come to light. Last year there were 33 such cases. On 31 March 1985 there were 17 691 vehicles in the service of the Government. On 31 March of the previous year there were 18 375 vehicles. Consequently there was a reduction of 684 vehicles over a period of one year.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I should just like to request your ruling as to whether only words used in Parliament can be described as unparliamentary and whether a gesture across the floor of the House can also be described as unparliamentary.

I can also show hon members how I make a kissing gesture. [Interjections.]

Order! I am not unwilling to allow humour in the Committee. But we cannot turn the Committee into a farce.

Mr Chairman, I should just like to ask whether the hon the Minister can translate the meaning of the gesture he has just made. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Maraisburg may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I wish I could also have used sign-language. [Interjections.]

Order! I repeat, I am not prepared to allow this Committee to be turned into a farce. The next hon member who in my opinion disobeys this ruling, will be ordered to withdraw. The hon member for Maraisburg may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I repeat, as a matter of interest, that during the past financial year there was an increase in the number of large trucks purchased. There was also an increase in the number of passenger buses purchased, as well as in the number of ambulances.

When one looks at the ambulances, one thinks involuntarily of the investigation and the findings of the ombudsman of the AA with regard to the country’s ambulance services. I should like to ask that he also investigate the Government’s ambulance services. I want him to see in what excellent condition the Government’s ambulances are kept, and what vital equipment is installed in those ambulances. I think it is most unfair to generalise in this way. There are almost 300 ambulances in the Government service which really comply in all respects with the standards one could require.

I again want to argue that matters must be considered seriously before the existing Government motor set-up is replaced by a system based on private initiative. The privatisation of this very important component of the Government’s infrastructure does not appear to me to be in the interests of the Government. Although at first glance it looks as if it would relieve the Government of a burden if all transport obligations were transferred from the Government Garage to the private sector, there are pitfalls.

It is inconceivable that one organisation would be able to take over the existing vehicle facilities. If the change-over were to take place gradually, divided control would be detrimental and productivity would be influenced negatively. Organisations from the private sector would only be interested in the centralised services, and would try to skim off the cream in this way. Transport services in the rural areas are obviously expensive and it is doubtful whether a private organisation would be interested in them.

In order to run a transport undertaking successfully, control, training and maintenance branches, which form an integral part of it, are essential. As separate entities it will be impossible to carry out successfully.

There is still a shortage of trained artisans in the industry, and because the Government Garage already has the necessary expertise, it would be a pity if it had to be dismantled for the sake of making room for private initiative.

This would also be detrimental to the public, because without reliable and economical transport, many of the services at present being rendered to the private sector by the Government would be adversely affected. It is significant that the moment a farmer, or any other entrepreneur, has to keep one or more vehicles in his business running, he sees to the maintenance of his facilities himself because this is obviously the cheapest. It is also obvious to me that it will be cheaper for the Government to purchase and maintain its own vehicles. [Interjections.] It would be wrong to create the impression that the Government Garage does not already privatise to a great extent. Major repair work, such as the rebuilding of engines and the repair of damage caused by accidents, is already being allocated to the private sector.

Where possible, Government employees are provided with subsidised transport. This in itself is a very important and beneficial form of privatisation and where possible it can also be expanded. As matter of interest, at the end of the financial year the Government had 176 motor cycles. In passing I wondered if it would not be desirable to take a look at the subsidised use of motor cycles in the Government set-up.

In the year which ended on 31 March there were 1 815 subsidised vehicles in use. The Administration: House of Assembly had the most subsidised vehicles, namely 341, involved in the scheme. I want to say that to me it is obvious that this department meets its obligations in all respects. I am thinking in particular of the training of drivers and supervision of their activities. It is a pleasure to travel by bus from Acacia Park in the mornings, and to see how that bus is handled in peak hour traffic. It is also a privilege to see the way the clutch is used, even when the bus is full.

Mr Chairman, may I in conclusion thank the Director-General and the staff involved in Government Motor Transport, and in particular the director of the department, Mr Chris Smith. On behalf of every taxpayer, I want to …

Order! I am sorry, but the hon member’s time has expired. [Interjections.]

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 19.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.