Mr. Chairman, in the few minutes available to me I should like to begin by expressing a few words of thanks. In the first place, I wish to convey my very sincere thanks to the Commissioners-General for the assistance they render in the important position which they occupy, and I want to assure them that the work they do is greatly appreciated. [Interjections.] Secondly, I should very much like to convey my sincere thanks to the Commission for Co-operation and Development, especially the enlarged commission, under the able chairmanship of the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt, for the positive work which is being done. If a new spirit has emerged here, I believe it is very largely to be attributed to the guidance given by the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt to the members of that commission. Therefore I should like to convey my sincere thanks and appreciation to them for their assistance in this connection, especially under the present circumstances, now that new initiatives have to be taken and there is a need for greater adaptability. I thank them, not only for their understanding of this fact, but also for the fact that they make such positive contributions to enable the necessary measures to be implemented, measures which are so very essential and in the interests of all the people of South Africa. While I am on the subject, I should also very much like to mention the two new members who have been nominated to the commission, the hon. member for Pretoria Central and the hon. member for Vasco. I want to extend my sincere congratulations to them on their nomination and to wish them every success in the work they will do. I should like to thank the hon. member for Barberton very sincerely for his contribution when he was still on the right side. [Interjections.] I want to assure him that his work on the commission is greatly appreciated. I have always had great appreciation for the hon. member and I hope it will not be necessary for me to change my views in that connection. [Interjections.]

The chairman of the Mining Corporation, Dr. A. von Maltitz, has made a very important contribution, for which we thank him sincerely. He has intimated that having reached an advanced age, he wishes to be relieved of that post. However, he will still make a contribution in other ways. In his place, the Government has nominated Dr. A. H. Taute. I congratulate him. Dr. P. A. von Wielligh has also been nominated as a member of the Mining Corporation. I congratulate him on his nomination.

It is also a very great privilege for me to welcome Mr. Roux Raath as Director-General of the department. He has had a very brilliant career. I do not have time to go into that now. To Mr. C. J. Grobler, who has made an enormous contribution, I want to convey our thanks and appreciation on the occasion of his retirement as from the Corporation. However, I have known him for quite a number of years. I am able to say today that the Department of Co-operation and Development may consider itself very fortunate in having a Director-General of the calibre of Mr. Raath. We wish him success in the future. He asked me not to be too eloquent in my praise. I congratulate him and welcome him to his new post.

The same applies to Mr. Van der Wall, who has been nominated as Deputy Director-General of the department. He has also had a very fine career in the department. I think he is the right man in the right place. These are reliable people on whom one can depend. My very sincere congratulations to him, too, on his nomination.

There is a certain matter that I wish to deal with briefly at the outset. Officials who regard their work as their vocation are more essential in this department than in any other. They do their work with idealism. They are inspired by an ideal. That is why one has to be able to depend on these officials, the more so under the circumstances where we are encountering new problems and will have to find solutions to very complex problems in the year 1982. Now I notice that the Commission of Inquiry into the Mass Media refers in paragraph 31 of its report to what it regards as the undermining of the morale of public officials by certain factors, which have caused them to become indifferent and disloyal. In substantiating the statement in the Steyn Report, the commission refers, inter alia, to the way in which officials of the Department of Co-operation and Development allegedly performed a certain task. The version of the events contained in the report is not factually correct, and the commission’s unfavourable comment on the events casts a serious reflection on the competence and especially on the integrity of the officials concerned. I am sorry that the commission found it necessary to quote the incident involved, particularly in a way which in my honest opinion—and I am acquainted with the facts—does the officials concerned a great injustice. Therefore I should like to set this matter right. I have been involved with this department for many years—for more than 30 years. At first I was an official in the department, then I became Deputy Minister, and today I am Minister of the department. During this time I got to know the officials very well. Therefore I can testify to the fact that they are not only dedicated and loyal, but that they maintain very high standards throughout. If there is a department in which people really do not work by the clock and in which many hours overtime is worked, it is this department. I can personally testify to this. Therefore I should like to affirm on this occasion that I really trust the officials and that I appreciate their services. I am convinced that I am speaking on behalf of the whole House when I put this matter right and when I say to the officials: “Carry on with the work. We have very great appreciation for the work you do and for the way in which it is done. We rely on you, because it is essential that it be done. The country depends on you, especially under the circumstances in which we find ourselves.”

Now I should like to reply to a few of the speakers who have participated in the debate. Certain hon. members’ speeches have already been replied to—I should like to mention them by name. They made important and mostly positive contributions. As far as the hon. member for Innesdal is concerned, I want to say that he is right, of course: Blacks outside the national States do have rights, and this is recognized in many ways. I thank the hon. member for his fine and positive contribution. I also thank the hon. member for King William’s Town and the hon. member for Ventersdorp, who apologized for the fact that he could not be here. He is right about the housing subsidy, which has already been replied to, and to which a further reply will be given soon.

As far as the hon. member Prof. Olivier is concerned, I just want to tell him that all the reports in connection with the research projects are available. Of course, we cannot publish everything. However, the reports are available in the library. Naturally, they are only made available with the consent of the authority which commissioned them. Therefore the hon. member is welcome to inspect, upon request, any report on matters which are being researched by the CDR and the department. He has only to approach us, and he will be very welcome to inspect those documents. As regards one or two other matters which the hon. member raised and which I consider to be very important, we shall continue our argument about these in other debates. However, I shall not take these matters any further this morning. I believe that replies have already been given to all the other matters raised by the hon. member.

The hon. member for Pretoria West made a very positive contribution. I wish I could reply to his speech in greater detail. He is making a very great contribution in many spheres, and for this I want to convey my sincere thanks to him.

I have already replied to the excellent speech made by the hon. member Dr. Odendaal. I cannot say any more about it now. I have also replied to the speech made by the hon. member for Green Point, an hon. member who annoys me very much sometimes. I want to thank the hon. member for Umbilo for a splendid contribution. I have already replied to the speeches of the hon. members for De Kuilen and Brits. If I have time, I would like to make a remark about the question of confederation. I think I have replied adequately to the speech made by the hon. member for Berea. I should very much like to cross swords with the hon. member for Barberton about the question of Badplaas, but I shall refrain from doing so. For the rest, I thank I have already replied to his speech. The hon. member will agree with me that the department and I have done everything in our power to deal with the problems that are being experienced there as effectively as possible under the circumstances. I think we have been successful there and we are being increasingly successful. I also want to thank the hon. member for Amanzimtoti for his contribution. There are still one or two outstanding matters which the hon. member and I can settle between ourselves. The hon. member for Randburg apologized for the fact that he could not be here. He requested an examination of two Acts. I want to thank him for doing so. I had not realized that those two specific Acts to which he referred in fact dealt with these matters which he singled out. I have not had a chance to examine them, but I shall do so. The hon. member, as well as the hon. member for Krugersdorp, who did not participate in this debate, are making a thorough study of the whole question of nationality and citizenship. They are young men, and I do not doubt for a moment that, in addition to the positive contributions they have already made, they will make yet a further decisive contribution in this field in particular.

I want to thank the hon. member Dr. Marais for his contribution. Furthermore, I want to thank the hon. member for Bellville for the assistance he has offered with regard to financing formulas. I have specifically brought it to the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance, who is the person who deals with that.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein East made a speech about justice which, my humble opinion, should be read again. His contributions always reveal thorough study. He made a fine contribution in this House, and I want to thank him sincerely.

The hon. member for Pietersburg—he is not here at the moment—was quite correct. I have undertaken to do everything in my power to enable that specific removal to which he referred to be carried out. I shall keep my word as well as I can. We have not yet been able to take any final decisions about this matter. However, I do not want my views in that connection to be in any doubt. The question is whether we shall be able, with all the facts available to us, to carry it out in the way I would like it to be carried out. I shall keep in close contact with the hon. member regarding this matter. It is not impossible, perhaps, but it is nevertheless a difficult matter. The hon. member need not attack me about it. He should be co-operative because we do not have to make political capital out of these matters. I should like to help him and I shall go on trying to help him.

Then there are a few questions I should like to reply to. In particular, I want to mention the very positive contributions made by the two hon. Deputy Ministers in my department. I want to thank them for the work they do and to assure them that I have the greatest appreciation for it. These are two very hard-working people indeed, who do brilliant work, and hon. members should take cognizance of this.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South asked me a few questions which I should like to answer. The department is at present re-writing in its entirety the specific proclamation to which the hon. member referred. In it, provision is being made for the building of houses by building societies. In fact, the Association of Building Societies has already been approached about this and has been promised that the re-written draft proclamation will be submitted to them for their comment. Representatives of building societies and the department have already had talks in this connection, and there is a very good understanding between the two parties about this. I thank the hon. member for his positive contribution, for this is an important matter. If we can succeed in involving building societies in the building of houses in the national States, this will be a major break-through.

I want to say to the hon. member for Welkom that delegations to the regional offices of the department are at present receiving attention. The intention is to eliminate unnecessary delays. We should like to help the hon. member, and I thank him for his positive contribution. I come now to the hon. member for Maraisburg and the hon. member for Carletonville. They drew attention to the question of the administration boards and their officials. I am very glad that the attacks made on the administration boards last year have now come to an end. More than 7 000 White officials are employed by the administration boards, and these two hon. members are absolutely right in saying that there are few people who are making a greater contribution to the welfare of White and Black than the officials of the administration boards. We are now going to convert these boards into development boards. I ask the hon. members opposite to bear in mind that no one is perfect; bodies and instruments are not perfect either. Therefore we should not be too quick to criticize. Of course we must point out the mistakes—that is reasonable—but we must also understand that these people need to be supported. I should like to assure the hon. member for Maraisburg once again that as far as I am concerned, the position of the officials will be investigated under all circumstances so that they will not be prejudiced. In my opinion, there is a promising future for young people who join the administration boards—which are to be converted into development boards—and for this reason, I appeal to young people to join the administration boards. Young people must make a contribution in the sphere of relations between White and Black and they must qualify themselves for this. This is of vital importance.

Unfortunately, the hon. member for Rissik is not here at the moment. He extolled the virtues of ethnologists in this House, and I want to thank him for having done so, since I take it that he included me among them. I myself was trained as an ethnologist, as the hon. member knows! I want to say to him and to the hon. members of the CP that there is an interesting saying among the Black people, Go tlhatlaganya meoka godimo, which means that when one adds wood which cannot burn to a smouldering fire, it only gives off more smoke. Sometimes, when I look at the CP, they remind me of a haystack which has caught fire, and there is an enormous fire which is producing a great deal of smoke. In actual fact they do not have any case against the NP.

You are making a mistake.

I may be making a mistake, but I do not think those hon. members really have a case with regard to the matter on which they profess to disagree with the NP.

If the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North would always express himself as he did during the discussion of this Vote, he would become an esteemed member of this House. I should like to say this to him as a young member. I also want to thank him for what he said. I found it very significant, coming from the PFP benches, that he suggested to me that a tax should be levied on industrialists to provide housing for their workers.

That was not what I said.

Yes, but that was more or less how I interpreted it. The hon. member need not be frightened. I shall not embarrass him! It was a very positive contribution. The hon. member also said that the farmers should co-operate. He said that the farmers and others should co-operate with regard to development, etc., then we would solve the problems. Of course the hon. member is right, and he must help us in Natal so that we can persuade the farmers to do that. If we succeed in doing this, we can make excellent progress.

What about my question concerning Steenkoolspruit?

I have the reply here, but it is somewhat lengthy. My time is limited. If the hon. member would come to me immediately after this debate, I shall give it to him.

The hon. member for Kuruman apologized for the fact that he could not be here. The implementation committee is still working on the whole matter and is resolving some problems that still remain. Meanwhile, the Government has already ordered a survey of the land which is ear-marked for excision, so that any delay which may possibly be caused when we come to the stage of deproclamation may be eliminated. So there is no need for the hon. member to make attacks by saying that it has been going on for seven years. It is difficult to finalize these issues, because they are complicated matters which take time. I am giving the hon. member a very positive answer, and I hope that when we meet here again next year, he will be able to rise and thank us for the progress which has been made in that connection.

I have appreciation for the hon. member for Albany. He and I have deliberated together about Fingo Village and we have solved difficult problems together. However, I gave a full reply on 12 March regarding the matter which the hon. member raised here. I went out of my way to obtain the facts. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the facts I gave the hon. member. Surely there is no need for the hon. member to turn this into an issue. I understand that he is very well acquainted with the local circumstances, and I greatly appreciate that. However, if there are any problems, the hon. member can bring them to my attention, because he knows me, after all. I do not wish to act in an inhuman manner; I refuse to do that, and my officials know that very well. I could give the hon. member a full reply, but I do not want to take up the time of the House. However, I request the hon. member to come to see me about the matter, and if I can possible be of any assistance, I should like to help the hon. member in this connection. The Black Sash goes out of its way to politicize a matter such as this. We should try to keep it out of politics as far as possible, and the hon. member is very welcome to come and see me about it.

The hon. member for Walmer kicked up a terrible fuss here—which was actually just a lot of smoke—and said, among other things, that what we had done was illegal. We will not act illegally. I can tell the hon. member that as far as that matter is concerned, a decision was taken by Parliament in 1975, long before the hon. member was elected to Parliament and I took over the control of the department concerned. Those decisions have to be carried out. Surely we cannot fail to carry out the decisions of Parliament. For the rest, it is the hon. member’s duty to help us with a difficult matter and not to turn it into an emotional issue. The Department of Co-operation and Development will ask the Select Committee for the necessary approval during this session. With all due respect, the hon. member could have come to see me about it; he need not have turned it into an issue in this House.

I want to thank the hon. member for Koedoespoort for the very positive contribution he made. If all hon. members of the CP would follow the example of that hon. member, we would make some progress. On the whole, the hon. member is correct, and I shall personally give attention to every point he raised. The department must help to combat begging, and it is in fact doing so to an increasing extent. I do not have time now to indicate what is already being done in this connection. I agree with the hon. member that the institutes and other places should be provided inside rather than outside the national States. Therefore I agree wholeheartedly with what the hon. member said. He made a fine speech, and I thank him for it.

The hon. member for Houghton asked a few more questions towards the end, and I wish to reply to them. As far as the question of rentals is concerned, I want to tell the hon. member that there is one thing she really must understand, and that is that these are service charges. We are trying to handle this matter in the best possible way. The department, as well as the various Community Councils, is involved in it, and comprehensive talks are held before rentals are put up. As far as Soweto is concerned, I want to tell the hon. member—she really must get this into her head—that we are naturally aware of the fact that there is a certain percentage of people who live under the bread-line, but our policy is implemented in such a way that these people are assisted with regard to the payment of service charges. It works very well in practice, and the hon. member may accept that.

As far as pensions are concerned, we have gone to a great deal of trouble to provide points of payment in Soweto and elsewhere, in an attempt to eliminate inconvenience to pensioners. We used public address systems to announce where these points were, and now we only need a little time to convey the necessary information to the Black public. Then the question of pensions will also have been put right and it will no longer be necessary for hon. members to rise in this House to raise the matter. I hope we shall reach that point very soon.

As far as the question of Winterveld is concerned, as well as the question of the pensions of Botswana, I shall bring these to the attention of my hon. colleague and I shall try to help her in this connection, because these are positive matters which should receive attention.

As far as the Natal Code is concerned, the matter is being very closely studied, and the indications are that it will be finalized within a month—however, it will be difficult for me to commit muself to a date—but I must immediately qualify this by saying that the member of the executive of KwaZulu also has a say in the matter, and I do not know how he will want it to be handled. As far as we are concerned, the matter is very close to being finalized.

I want to refer briefly to the final matter mentioned by the hon. member, i.e. the section 10(1)(a) case, to which my hon. colleague reacted very correctly within the framework of policy.

†I shall take it up again; please leave it in my hands. There is a policy …

A bad one!

This is a complicated issue and we have to deal with it along those lines.

*With this, I believe, I have replied to the speeches of all hon. members, but if I have a few more minutes available to me, I should like to conclude by drawing hon. members’ attention to two further aspects. I have here an article which was written by Prof. Swart of the University of Cape Town and which was published in a newspaper in February 1982 under the heading “Confederation could lead to the end of race discrimination”. He says—

These are not the words of a person who is associated with the NP or the Government, but of an unbiased lecturer at the University of Cape Town. In reply to the speech made by the hon. member for Brits, I wanted to bring this to the attention of the House, so that it could serve as a stimulus to further thought, for if we can get people to co-operate with us in what we are doing, we shall be working towards peace and progress and freedom and prosperity at the southern tip of Africa, as I am constantly trying to show.

I should like to conclude on a positive note. Therefore it gives me pleasure to state the following facts. In order to illustrate the results that have already been achieved in the attempt to improve Black people’s standards of living, I want to mention that the average earnings of Black workers in the non-agricultural sector increased almost fivefold during the period 1970-’80; that is to say, from R476 to R2 253 a year. The average annual increase amounts to 16,8%. When one looks at the average increase in the case of the other population groups, one sees that it is only 10,8%. In real terms, the earnings of Blacks have increased by 5,5% a year over the past decade, and once again, this figure is considerably higher than those for the other groups. It also compares extremely favourably with our own, which has been 0,08%.

What about inflation?

I am dealing with an important matter, and I request the attention of hon. members for just another three minutes.

The abovementioned tendency indicates a significant improvement in the general level of welfare of the Blacks. The point I want to make, therefore, is that if we want to co-operate to accomplish these things at the constitutional level, then I say, on the basis of all the facts and authority at my disposal, that in the midst of problems there is a substructure which is very sound, because the result of this rapid rise in the income of Black people, relative to that of the other groups, is the clearest proof that we are narrowing the wage gap. Where the income of the Blacks was only 14,7% of that of the Whites in 1970, it had increased to 24,9% by 1980. [Interjections.] This tendency is continuing.

There is a final fact I should like to mention. In 1980, the consumer spending of the Whites amounted to R18,5 billion and that of the Blacks to R8,9 billion. Over the period of ten years preceding 1980, the consumer spending of Blacks rose by 19,4% on average, and that of Whites by 1,2% on average. If one projects this over the following ten years, the consumer spending of the Blacks, based on this straight-line projection, will amount to R74,3 billion in 1992. It will then be more than that of the Whites.

To sum up, therefore, it is clear from this that the economic position of the urban Blacks is improving. These trends confirm that this progress will continue and that it will accelerate. This is the result of the priority given to education and training and to various other things, too, of course. Therefore we are not living in such a bad country as many hon. members would have us believe. Over the past 30 years, my sons have had a better future before them in this country than I or my father had during the 30 years before, and the same applies to many Black children. The important point I wish to make, and this is based on facts, is that no matter from what viewpoint one analyses this question, the prospects for the White child, and also for the Black, Brown or Indian child, for the next 20 to 30 years, are much more promising than they were in earlier years. Let us then rise above the dividing lines of politics in discussing these matters, in talking about the great problems of South Africa. For this reason, I am glad that all the parties—and I do not want to make any exception—have co-operated in this connection, and I thank hon. members for doing so.

Every year, the Parliamentary Women’s Club sends every Minister flowers before the commencement of his Vote. This year my flowers were accompanied by such a wonderful note that I want to conclude by quoting it. At the same time, I want to convey my appreciation to the Women’s Club for the kind gesture, because the words they addressed to me undoubtedly inspired me. The note says—

and really, Sir, we have a profusion of problems; there is no doubt about that. [Interjections.]—

[Interjections.] Therefore I do not care a rap what others may think; at least there are some people who appreciate our problems.

Mr. Speaker, I began by saying that good relations between White and Black and between Black and White were the most important corner-stone for the future of us all in this country. In saying this, I am motivated by a very important concept. These are the things we have to do—

This is the spirit, therefore, in which I try to handle these extremely difficult problems to the best of my humble ability, which I am afraid is deficient in many ways. Once again, I thank hon. members for their patience.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No. 6.—“Transport”:

Mr. Chairman, because of time allocations, I am limited to only 10 minutes on this Vote, and because there are a number of matters that I want to raise, I shall have to deal with them briefly and perhaps without the motivation that would otherwise be more appropriate.

The first matter I should like to deal with is the question of the first interim report of the Welgemoed Commission on bus passenger transportation. The commission was appointed last year, and the hon. the Minister stressed the urgency of the matter. It was given fairly wide terms of reference and a very firm injunction to get on with the job and, if possible to report, I believe, by the end of last year. This was an indication of the importance that the hon. the Minister attached to the subject under investigation and to the issues involved. The commission has now produced its first interim report, and there are two more interim reports to follow dealing with tariffs and subsidies. The first interim report deals with the whole question of co-ordination of our transport services for the various metropolitan areas.

The commission has obviously operated under considerable difficulty because of the time factor. The chairman of the commission has been on a trip around the world, and the commission indicates some of the problems in regard to having to produce a first interim report before it in fact had the opportunity of considering the four matters within its terms of reference. One of these constraints is referred to in chapter 1.9 of the Commission’s report, as follows—

That is the question of co-ordination—

The commission did operate under some difficult circumstances, even at the time of submitting this interim report. None the less, in the interim report there are some fairly far-reaching recommendations. In the report it is suggested that the co-ordinating function of the National Transport Commission should be extended—as recommended by the Franzsen Commission—by the creation, inter alia, of a central transport fund to provide for the sources for the financing of bus and train passenger transportation. It is proposed in the interim report that each region should have a different transport authority. Three are named—an autonomous regional road transportation board, a regional transport co-ordinating board and a metropolitan advisory board. It also sets out how these boards should be composed. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister what he is doing about these recommendations. I find it difficult to understand because in view of the urgency which the hon. the Minister said last year existed, and also in view of the fact that the commission was asked to get on with the job quickly and produce an interim report, I would have thought that we would be dealing with legislation this session arising directly from the recommendations contained in the Welgemoed report.

It is true that there are two Bills on the Order Paper, which we are going to deal with presumably later today, which flow to an extent from some of the recommendations taken over by this commission from the Franzsen Committee’s recommendations. The main body, however, even of the interim report, despite all the urgency, has not produced anything substantial. We still see no legislation on the Order Paper. Is the hon. the Minister going to take urgent action? If not, why was there such urgency in compelling the commission to produce an interim report?

Leaving that matter now in the hope that the hon. the Minister will deal with it in some detail when he replies to the debate, I should like to talk about the question of staffing at our airports. In these days of extensive air travel safety circumstances and other circumstances at our airports are of immense public interest and importance. The public today is vitally interested in airport facilities and in passenger safety because they are users of these facilities and of our aircraft. Having said that, I want to come directly to a matter which seems to have become a bone of contention between myself and the hon. the Minister. When hon. members of this House asks questions on matters of this kind, I believe, such hon. members are acting in the public interest. I put questions to the hon. the Minister in connection with airport conditions and the staff situation, and I believe that they deserve a public reply because they are in the public interest. I am referring particularly to questions I placed on the Order Paper earlier this session, questions relating to fire services at our various airports. There were two questions. In the one question I asked whether the International Commercial Aviation Association laid down any standards relating to fire-fighting services and the personnel of international airports, and whether South Africa complied with these standards.

I then received a reply to that question indicating that standards were laid down and that we were trying to comply with them, but that they could not be complied with in all respects. The hon. the Minister then said he was of the opinion that it would be more appropriate and meaningful if he provided me with a personal written reply regarding these matters.

I also asked him a second question, a much more specific question relating to the situation obtaining at our various airports. I listed the airports and I asked how many posts there were for firemen, how many of those posts were vacant at the time at the various airports, and also how many firemen were employed at the various airports. I particularly mentioned the Upington airport during a particular period. The hon. the Minister then said: “I refer the hon. member to my reply to question 18 of 10 February.” That reply, of course, had nothing to do then with the specific questions which I put to him on the second occasion. The hon. the Minister then wrote me a letter in which he gave me information relating to staffing as far as fire fighting services at our various airports were concerned. At the top of that letter, however, the hon. the Minister wrote “confidential”. This really does not help me, and I explained to the hon. the Minister in a letter that it was no good that when an hon. member of Parliament put a question to an hon. Minister on matters which, I believe, were in the public interest, the hon. the Minister should decline to reply to such questions here in the House and simply say he would write the hon. member a letter. When he wrote that letter, he marked it “confidential”. I honestly do not know how to handle this matter under present circumstances. I have asked the hon. Minister whether he would release me from the confidentiality, but he has said he would rather deal with the matter during the discussion of his Vote. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister, however, that in matters of this kind, matters which are in the public interest, I believe, we are entitled to a reply. It is necessary in order that feelings may be aired.

My concern in regard to this particular matter relates to the fact it is clear—I cannot deal with the figures, however, because the hon. the Minister gave them to me in confidence—that there have been difficulties in regard to the staffing of our fire-fighting services at our airports. They have been understaffed. It is also clear that at one particular airport at Upington there have been very acute difficulties in regard to the staffing of this particular sector of airport services. I believe that one has to look at the reasons for this. My information is that it is largely due to the appallingly low salaries paid to this section of airport staff. There is, for example, a married man on the staff who gets a net income of as little as R150 per month. I have seen the figures, and I have also seen other similar figures. I want to ask the hon. the Minister if there is a problem and, if so, whether he is addressing himself to the problem. If it is a question of wages—and the wage I have mentioned is a particularly low wage in any circumstances—surely it is up to the department to do something about the wages of those people.

I now want to move from that subject to a point relating to the Road Transportation Act. I am given to understand that after the new Act came into force in 1979, local boards issued new permits in terms of the Act and levied an amount of R100 on each applicant for a new permit. My information—and the hon. the Minister can confirm whether this is correct or not—is that the payment of this amount was, in fact, illegal and that after a court case confirmed the amount to have been illegal, money was repaid to applicants upon application for a refund. Not all permit holders, however, have been made award of the fact that the R100 which they paid for a permit—incorrectly as it turned out to be—is an amount that can be refunded. I should like to quote from a telex message I had from an interested party who says—

If this is the case, surely it is incumbent upon the department to make some public announcement to tell those people who have paid R100 that they can now have a refund. The information I have just referred to, however, would indicate that this has not been done. There are people such as Black taxi-drivers and so on who are totally unaware of the fact that they can have their R100 refunded. Many people have been involved. I should like the hon. the Minister to give me an answer and indicate whether my information is correct.

I now want to raise an issue relating to pilots, a matter that has also been brought to my notice. I am referring to the question of foreign nationals being employed in South Africa by commercial aviation companies to the exclusion of pilots trained in South Africa. My information is that South African nationals who are qualified and trained pilots are finding great difficulty in getting employment with private commercial aviation companies because there are so many foreign-trained pilots who occupy those posts. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Berea touched on various matters in connection with the Welgemoed report, problems he has in connection with fire fighting services, etc. He discussed these matters with the hon. the Minister and I shall therefore not go into them. I would have liked to say something about pilots, but owing to a lack of time I shall have to speak quickly otherwise I shall not get to all the matters I want to discuss.

In the first place, today I want to make a renewed appeal for the introduction of a coastguard for South Africa. However, I prefer not to call it a coastguard. I prefer to call it a South African marine patrol, because the word “coastguard” may have a slight military connotation. It is well known that the national marine advisory council recommended the establishment of such a coastguard and suggested that the matter be investigated by an interdepartmental committee. This committee consists of representatives of the Department of Transport, the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Department of Finance, the Department of Internal Affairs, the S.A. Transport Services, the Defence Force, the S.A. Police and the National Sea Rescue Institute. As far as I know, the investigation has virtually been completed and the draft report is now being compiled. It is already clear that if such a coastguard is established, it will cost a great deal financially, but I do not want to go into that now.

In the second place, the Marine Traffic Act, No. 2 of 1981, makes provision, inter alia, for control measures with regard to maritime traffic in our territorial waters. Its aim was to ensure security along the coast, to protect our sovereignty and to regulate the passage of ships through our territorial and coastal waters. It is of the utmost importance that the Act should come into operation as soon as possible. The burning question is this: If that Act comes into operation, how are we going to ensure that the ships comply with and obey the provisions of the Act? This is clearly not the task of the Navy or the Air Force. We are dealing here—and I want to emphasize this—with a peace-time activity and we cannot expect the Fleet or the Air Force to patrol our territorial waters on a regular basis. With a view to the control and the protection of our territorial and fishing waters, the exploiting of our natural resources, the combating of marine pollution by oil and the ever-increasing threat constituted by large ships conveying chemicals, if they should be wrecked, such a coastal patrol has become imperative.

Our waters are only patrolled to a limited extent. I am now referring to the civil aspect. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries undertakes limited patrol work owing to a shortage of vessels and staff. The Department of Transport has a few hired spray boats and patrol boats to locate and spray oil spills along the coast. There is also a serious need for air reconnaissance in this connection. Except for these activities of the Department of Transport and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, there is no other supervision and control over what happens in our coastal waters.

An important matter which is closely related to our coastguard activities is the safeguarding of human lives and of property at sea. Our stormy weather is notorious and the sea along our coast is extremely dangerous. A commission of inquiry has already advocated improved safety measures for fishing boats. Certain measures have to be taken in connection with small craft. The number of accidents involving small craft and fishing boats which has led to loss of life is alarming. It is in the public interest that it should not only be possible to exercise control measures in connection with safety inspections on land, but at sea as well. The marine patrol is of the utmost importance for this purpose. The National Sea Rescue Institute is doing excellent work and their unselfish sacrifices deserve our praise, but unfortunately this organization does not have the equipment and authority to patrol coastal waters and to enforce statutory measures. In addition they can only operate close to the coast.

My plea is therefore that, bearing in mind the problems I have outlined here and with a view to the application of the customs, the immigration and the emigration laws, the time has come to establish a South African marine patrol. I want to advocate that the patrol activities of the Department of Transport and of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries should be better co-ordinated. Although we are satisfied that everything possible is being done to protect our country in the military sphere, there is also a serious deficiency with regard to the peace-time guarding of the sea area along the South African coast, primarily as far as our own interests there are concerned. The co-ordinating of the activities of the existing maritime patrols and their development into an effective peace-time task force, ought to receive the same priority as our military preparedness, even in views of the present financial conditions. In conclusion, it is also important that the interdepartmental committee of in quiry should report and make its recommendations available to us as soon as possible.

There is also a second matter I should like to touch on. In the short time at my disposal I should like to focus on the Ocean Freight Agreement and the problems arising from this agreement. As a result of the rationalization of the Public Service, the administration of the Ocean Freight Agreement—abbreviated to OFA and to which reference is made on page 9 of the annual report—was transferred from the former Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs to the Department of Transport. The Ocean Freight Agreement was entered into in 1977 between the Government, the Perishable Products Export Control Board and the South and South-East African Conference Lines, which originally consisted of 22 shipping lines and now consists of 23. Wherever possible, they have to use the new concept of sea-carriage, viz. container transport, and they have to make provision for both general freight and for perishable products. South African shipping lines and the shipping lines of countries in Europe are included in this conference. The important principles contained in the provisions of the OFA are that, except in cases where it is specifically stated otherwise, all the services by the above-mentioned ships are to be operated on a joint account. Unfortunately time does not allow me to go into the details of the agreement and how the freight charges are calculated. The use of conventional ships as a supplementary service was totally eliminated by the conference lines and they no longer use them. However, chartered conventional ships may still be used. The freight tariffs are fixed in such a way that there will also be compensation for the costs and in the agreement it is carefully laid down how the freight charges are to be calculated—what may be added and what may not be added. The net return on the services is determined by deducting all the allowable costs from the freight income. All returns are to be furnished in US dollars and there are also arrangements for changes in rates of exchange, etc. What is important, however, is to know that there is an important provision in the OFA that any revision in the freight charges is subject to the approval of the South African Government. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am merely rising to give the hon. member the opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon. Whip for the opportunity and I shall not misuse it.

The conference is, therefore, required to submit its operating results, which are examined by independent accountants, to the South African Government. The statements submitted by the conference have to be audited and there are also other provisions for various contingencies.

Although the South African Government is a party to this Ocean Freight Agreement, it is not in any way directly bound by it financially, nor is it bound as far as financial assistance is concerned. The conference lines operate the service for their own account and the Government is not compelled to stand in for any losses the conference may suffer. However, the State is in fact compelled to use the conference lines to convey goods for the State. It therefore goes without saying that it is of great importance that the country continues this service and as a result all possible support has and is being given to the conference, particularly with regard to the approval of justified upward adjustments of freight tariffs. Because the conference undertakes voyages on a scheduled basis, it almost always happens that ships are not fully loaded, particularly on north-bound passages. Because they are bound to a schedule it is, however, not possible to postpone a passage or passages. The greatest problem facing the conference is that the tariffs levied are not competitive enough with the ships of lines operating outside the conference. In addition, these ships can arrange their passages in such a way that they can depart with full loads or with virtually full loads. The statements of the conference lines indicate that they have already built up an extremely large accumulated loss. I do not want to mention the amount now, but it totals many millions. They shall definitely have to give attention to this. In addition, it is essential that the conference’s tariffs should be competitive.

Another important fact is that recently the Perishable Products Export Control Board, which is a co-signatory to the OFA, only used the conference line for about 26% of its exports because other lines offered far lower freight tariffs than the conference lines. By way of summary therefore, and with this I conclude, we are grateful for the regular and efficient freight service, but we are asking the hon. the Minister for purposeful steps to be taken to bring about a better understanding between importers and exporters on the one hand and the conference lines on the other, with a view to mutual understanding and support for each other’s interests. The conference lines must be encouraged to cut down their expenses and not to aim for exorbitant profits.

Mr. Chairman, I shall not follow up on what the hon. member said. I do not think his suggestion can be faulted in any way, and we know him to be a man who has always made a tremendous contribution when we discussed transport affairs and he will probably continue to do so. I think we all listened with interest to what the hon. member had to say.

I am rather worried about the duplication of work. As far as our national roads are concerned, if one takes the southern bypass on the Witwatersrand as an example, one finds that various bodies are doing the planning. There are various bodies that have been working on this road for many years now. When one considers that this road passes through various towns and that it has caused delays in those towns over the years, one asks oneself whether, at a stage where we are trying to bring about a streamlining of various bodies, we should not try to do this more quickly. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to tell me when the southern bypass was first proclaimed. He must tell me what the planning costs to date are. One can note for example that there are certain problem areas in connection with the southern bypass, particularly at the Uncle Charlie’s traffic interchange. Work is now in progress to complete that traffic interchange and we are grateful for this, but let us consider the situation created over the years because that interchange had not been completed, because that interchange section was not joined up to existing roads and because the southern bypass was not yet completed. According to surveys that were made, 34 000 motor cars use the Uncle Charlie’s road every day. Some mornings that road is blocked almost as far as Lenasia, up to the junction with the Potchefstroom road, and on the other side as far back as the hill where the Lido Hotel is. This is a tremendous waste of energy. A half-hour delay on an ordinary day in Johannesburg represents approximately R20 million a month in transport and energy, and this is something we must give urgent attention to. I am not criticizing the hon. the Minister. Only last year I told him how good he was, and I stand by what I said. Of course he also told me what a wonderful fellow I was! [Interjections.] I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has changed his mind in the interim, but according to the Hansard he said I was quite a decent young man and well-informed on these matters.

I return to the traffic interchange at Uncle Charlie’s. This interchange is at present under construction and we are very grateful to the hon. the Minister that, in reply to my question, he announced that provision has been made this year for the construction of the Uncle Charlie’s traffic interchange. I want to thank him for that and I can testify to the fact that work on the project is in progress.

What are the implications of a road? Let us consider the circumstances in Ridgeway, Winchester Hills and Gillview. In this region there are approximately 2 000 plots. One cannot lay out a town if a road is planned for that area and one does not know the final location of that road. Until such time as finality is reached on the final location of the road, one cannot proceed with the development of the town and costs get higher by the day.

That road was marked out years ago.

The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. I owned those three townships. The three points of the township were only established in 1974. The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. I am giving the facts here; I am not complaining. I am speaking of old stereotyped methods. Once one has determined point A and point B, it is possible to plan a route, even if it is done as a plot in a township.

You are talking about what happened 20 years ago.

The trouble with that hon. member is that he always voices opinions about things he knows nothing about. At one stage I submitted proposals in respect of Ridgeway to the department, and the department did not oppose them. On the contrary, the department and I and other people agreed—we did the same in other places—and said that the State needs about 30 morgen in a specific area and that this should be made a stand for a township. That plot may cost R5 000 per morgen, but at least there is finality and township development can continue. That is all I ask, namely that this matter be given priority when it comes to township development and the building of roads through townships. The department will probably undertake a great deal of new work and I am only asking—I am not criticizing—that we reconsider this. I believe we can save the country a great deal of money if we think more productively and are more practical.

I now want to refer to another problem regarding the four provinces and the National Transport Commission. Engineers are needed for both. At the moment the National Transport Commission appoints road inspectors, and there are also provincial road inspectors who are doing precisely the same work. There is a tremendous shortage of manpower in this country and I want to ask whether it is not possible for us to save manpower in this connection. The inspector who must travel to the Northern Transvaal areas to inspect roads can undertake the same inspection work in the Free State. Could we not perhaps appoint one road inspector to inspect a certain route? This could be arranged by the departments themselves. I do not think we would have a problem amalgamating those departments. Having listened to the speech by Mr. Croeser I am convinced that new dispensations are being envisaged. I want to ask that these dispensations be introduced more rapidly, particularly if they can bring about savings with regard to the cost of roads and the cost of establishing townships, etc.

Let us take as an example the question of the beautification of road verges. At the moment this work is undertaken by the provinces and people are also being appointed in the department to do this work. I am asking that we investigate this matter to ascertain whether there may not be a certain degree of duplication, and whether road verges could not be included in this. We must try to cut costs as much as possible.

Take as an example the question of the cost of the construction of roads and the time lost between date A and date B, the fruitless expenditure in the form of interest. This is inflationary. These costs cannot be recovered and no one benefits from them. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Langlaagte will excuse me if I do not follow up on what he said. He referred to the traffic interchange at Uncle Charlie’s and with all due respect I want to say that I know very little about it. For this reason I shall not react to what he said; I am sure that other hon. members on this side of the House will do so.

After having studied the annual report of the National Road Safety Council for 1981, I was very impressed by the tremendous task being performed by a very small group of people. In the first place I want to break a lance today for those people who have to carry out this almost superhuman task of ensuring road safety on the South African roads, particularly if one considers this against the background of the number of registered vehicles on our roads and the total population in South Africa. However, it is gratifying to know that the education of the South African public as regards the use of roads is still receiving high priority, particularly when it comes to toddlers, very young children and children in primary schools. We are very grateful for the educational publications which are being distributed among the various races in so many languages, the translations of the various publications which appear, the modified educational aids, the competitions, the work seminars, the school patrols and the research which is being done in a variety of areas. I also want to break a lance here for the Press and the SABC, including the television service, which have allocated a tremendous amount of space and time during the past year to road safety, particularly over the Easter Weekend.

The 1981 annual report, as I have mentioned, is a very good annual report, but if I may offer a little constructive criticism, there are a few remarks I should like to make in this connection. After I had read the 1981 annual report I again took a look at the annual reports for 1979 and for 1980. It struck me that the annual reports for 1979 and 1980 contained tables and information which I found extremely interesting and enlightening, but which did not appear in the 1981 annual report. There may be various reasons for this, such as that the information was not yet available when the report was compiled. I should nevertheless like to point out certain aspects of this information.

In the 1979 annual report there is a table “casualties among passengers of motor vehicles” and there is a further classification into the categories of motor cars, station wagons and taxis. There is also an indication of how many motor vehicle drivers died in 1979, as compared with 1978. The number of passengers who died are also given for those two years. There is another column which further analyses this information to differentiate between mini-buses and combis. The drivers and passengers who died in each of these types are also given. The same also applies to light and heavy motor vehicles. Detailed information is also given on this basis in respect of injured persons.

Another column which I found extremely enlightening was the pedestrian casualties in 1978 and 1979 among the various population groups. In this connection I can point out that the number of deaths among Whites in 1978 was 142; among Coloureds, 456; among Asians, 69 and among Blacks, 2 788. In 1978 the total number of deaths among pedestrians was 2 788. From this it is quite clear that casualties among pedestrians remain one of the biggest problems on our roads. Such casualties represent the largest number of deaths on our roads.

There was also other information I found very interesting. It was indicated that road accidents in 1977 were estimated to have cost us R600 million. I should very much like to know what it is estimated to cost us now. In other tables it is quite clear that South Africa’s death rate is one of the highest in the world compared with those in certain Western countries.

There are equally illuminating figures in the 1980 annual report. It contains, inter alia, information on how the number of deaths, serious injuries, slight injuries and road vehicles have increased since 1950, compared with the growth in population. In 1950, 952 people died on our roads as against 7 572 thirty years later in 1980. This means that between 1950 and 1980 the number of deaths on our roads increased eightfold whereas the number of vehicles increased only sixfold. Between 1980 and 1981 the number of deaths rose from 7 572 to a phenomenal 9 078; an increase of more than four people a day who died on our roads. If we consider the total number of people who died on South African roads this year, it means that 25 graves were dug every day. If we make a projection using these figures as a guide, we find that when my son is my age, in the year 2012, 170 people will die on our roads every day.

I asked myself whether the department can make a projection to indicate what the manpower shortage would be as a result of these accidents. How many people will be seriously injured, how many people will be maimed and how many man-hours will be lost to South Africa? What are the total costs of this tremendously high death and accident rate on our roads?

One cannot but ask what the causes are. I want to consider two or three of these causes. Arising out of representations made by the provinces and the NRSC, the Government appointed an interdepartmental committee of enquiry into the issuing of driver’s licences and the prevention of the forging of driver’s licenses and other certificates. This committee’s activities have been completed, and I should like to know from the hon. the Minister when we shall receive information in connection with the findings of that committee.

I should also like to make a friendly appeal in regard to the consumption of alcohol in South Africa. Recently a magistrate told me that almost every day, large numbers of people appeared in court charged with driving under the influence of liquor. By way of an experiment the magistrate sentenced them to three months’ imprisonment, and six months’ in the case of a second offence, and with the co-operation of the Press the number of cases appearing before him decreased to such an extent that within a week there was not a single case of a person charged with driving under the influence of alcohol.

Frequently far too many people at a time are being conveyed in vehicles on our roads, and in many cases these vehicles are not road-worthy either. Sometimes there are as many as ten passengers in one motor car. In the annual report mention is made of an accident involving a small motor car that had been carrying 12 passengers.

Over the Easter Weekend there were hundreds of accidents and hundreds of people died in them. The authorities tried to apply shock tactics. I call them shock tactics, and apparently these are the only tactics that work in South Africa, i.e. literally shocking people with the actual figures of the slaughter on our roads by publicizing them through the media, i.e. the newspapers, the radio and television, and I want to ask that we continue to give the South African public the shock of their lives on every possible occasion by telling them the true state of affairs. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the hon. member for Kimberley South on his speech on road safety. This is a very important matter, as was recently emphasized during the recent Easter weekend when more than 100 people lost their lives on our roads. I do not intend following the hon. member in this regard, except that I wish to discuss our national roads and I believe that the construction of national roads can play a tremendous part in reducing accidents.

Before I discuss national roads, Sir, I should like to comment on the speech made by the hon. member for Kempton Park where he made an appeal for the establishment of a national coast guard, a coastal marine patrol, as I think he called it. I should like to tell the hon. member that we in the NRP support him in this appeal because we believe that such a coastal guard is essential. I certainly think that it is urgently needed for a number of reasons, reasons which the hon. member in fact mentioned. I only hope that the committee that is being set up and which consists of representatives of eight or nine different Government departments, is not going to take too long in its deliberations, because there has been talk about a coastal guard for many years. I sat on the Conservation of Marine Resources Commission, and that commission clearly found that there was a need for an efficient and adequate coastal patrol in order to protect our marine resources. We have just recently read in the Press of what has happened in the False Bay area, where there are allegations of various illegal exploitations of marine resources taking place, and I think that a coastal patrol can play a big role in eliminating this.

I now want to speak about the need for national roads. The hon. member for Langlaagte spoke about the interchange at Uncle Charlie, and I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we have three major problem areas in Natal. The one is the extension of the N3 from Pinetown through to Nshongweni which, I believe, is of great urgency at the present moment because of the notorious Field’s Hill, and traffic is increasing daily. Then there is also the extention of N2 in my constituency from Illovo to Scottburgh that is now well advanced. I want to make a special appeal to the hon. the Minister to add his muscle and horsepower—if I may put it in this way—to get the construction of the Umkomaas bridge completed as soon as possible.

Then there is also the area along the north coast of Zululand, from Compensation through to Richard’s Bay, which is also an area that needs to be improved as soon as possible. I do not doubt, however, that there are many other areas throughout the country where there are similar problems. The thing that bothers me, however, is the financial problems which the department has been experiencing in recent times. It concerned me to read on page 58 of the report, the following—

We do know that the hon. the Minister at that time had to pull in the belt as it were, and stop a number of projects. We made an appeal at the time that the development at Nshongweni, and also the South Coast development, should not be stopped. I am delighted to say that the hon. the Minister saw fit to go along with that request. Nevertheless, it concerns me that there is this shortage of funds and that it is creating problems. One of the reasons given is the tremendous effects of inflation. We must accept, however, that there is the principle that the need and the urgency thereof in regard to roads must first of all be correctly assessed and then met. In times of high inflation, however, and especially in the present period of a shortage of capital—which has resulted in extremely high interest rates—I believe we must get the correct value for money in order to solve this urgent problem. I also believe that the department must ensure that available funds are being used to best advantage. Therefore there should be a priority rating, and also optimum utilization of funds.

I should like to learn from the hon. the Minister whether there is a section in his department which has been specifically designated to the task of investigating cost benefit ratios on both capital and maintenance projects. It is common knowledge that design can have a far-reaching effect on costs, regardless of whether it is earthworks or whether it is concrete and steel construction work. I therefore want the hon. the Minister to inform hon. members exactly what is being done in this connection by the National Transport Commission. I believe he has to guard against merrily drifting along, especially since we have idealistic engineers—and I am a professional engineer myself—who set standards for certain projects while at times ignoring the financial realities of the day. We often see this in the construction of buildings, houses and also roads. I submit this thought to the hon. the Minister.

I want to question for example the economic or practical necessity—and this is a small thing which I have noticed—of the planting of kilometre pegs along N3 between Durban and Pietermaritzburg. Every 200 metres there is a little steel board, neatly painted, telling the people that they are now 200 metres further along the road. I want to ask the Minister what is this in aid of? I have been told it is because engineers or a maintenance crew want to know exactly where they are when they go out on the road for repair or maintenance reasons. I believe that is a bit ridiculous, especially since we now find that when a mowing machine comes along mowing the road verges, some of the signs get bashed and bent. Where the signs are located further away from the roadway, the grass grows around these kilometre pegs and consequently a maintenance gang now has to go along to cut the grass in order that the pegs may be seen. I questioned this practice, and I should like to receive some reaction to this from the hon. the Minister.

The reason for my concern about finance is to be found in the report itself. If one reads the report, one finds, on page 62, that it is stated that in real terms the amount of money accruing to the National Transport Fund is actually declining, while, in today’s value, the actual income has increased by more than 100% in 10 years. One finds, from the graph on page 62, that in real terms the money going into the Fund is declining, and this causes me problems.

Would you support me if I asked for an additional 1c per litre on the price of petrol?

Mr. Chairman, that brings me to the very next point I want to put to the hon. the Minister, viz, is the fuel consumption in the country a true measure of road usage? Is not too great an emphasis being placed on fuel consumption as a measure of the utilization of our roads? Is that, in fact, the correct measure? It may not be. I may be wrong in that connection, however, I believe that levies must relate to need. I believe that there have been tremendous changes in petrol consumption in recent years. It may have gone up overall, but it does not actually reflect the real need for road improvements. We know that because of fuel economy programmes and so on the efficiency of vehicles has increased. Therefore the number of kilometres travelled per litre has increased. I therefore do not believe that fuel consumption is necessarily a correct measure of the present-day need. I would suggest that there should be greater emphasis, in the public’s mind, on such things as vehicle numbers—especially in particular areas—and traffic flow on particular stretches of road. I know that the department does, in fact, do this, but in any publicity that is put out, I believe that the emphasis should be on the need in terms of numbers of vehicles and traffic flow at peak periods.

There is also the fact that we have accelerating urban growth today. Let us make no mistake about the fact that over the next 10 to 20 years we are going to see urban growth such as we have never seen before. I believe that we have to be on our toes to make sure that we keep up with the need.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the interrelationship of all the various factors I have mentioned has been taken into consideration in determining the department’s need and the method of raising the necessary funds. I have criticized capital expenditure in the past, because I believe there are many demands made from many quarters upon our available capital. That is why I am one who is very cautious when it comes to the manner in which the State spends great sums of money. Where money is really needed in the real interests of the country, however, I believe that it should be spent. So if the hon. the Minister wants to raise the levy by 1c, we shall go along with it if it is absolutely necessary, but could I ask him whether he could perhaps reduce the amount taken from the levy for the Sasol Fund and let private enterprise finance that section, and on the saving he finance National Road development? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I shall not react to the subject dealt with by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. The building of national roads is a complicated matter. I think we can concede that due to a lack of funds, these roads are not being built as rapidly as was originally envisaged. This extremely complicated matter needs attention. It must receive attention to prevent the whole programme from suffering in the future. In any case, the hon. the Minister and his department will take this matter further.

I wish to associate myself with the very important subject, road safety, which the hon. member for Kimberley South raised. I maintain that it is a very important matter, as any matter involving the violent deaths of 9 000 people annually, the cost of which to the Republic amounts to more than R1 000 million, is certainly important. In this regard, I wish to thank the hon. the Minister and his department for the Cabinet decision to establish a central road traffic bureau. The bureau will ensure the establishment of a comprehensive national traffic register and related matters. I maintain that it is a step forward in establishing an effective record system. In fact it consists of various registers, viz. a central vehicle and ownership register, a central driver’s licence register, a central accident register and a central traffic offence register. These records will be of great value. They will promote road safety in praticular, and the task of the institutions and researchers concerned will be greatly facilitated and promoted by the information contained in these registers.

The National Road Safety Council was the brain-child of this House and that organization therefore deserves the continued interest and support of this House. Any activity aimed at combating the suffering inflicted on people deserves the support of the entire community. On a previous occasion I pointed out that the NRSC had R3 285 014 at its disposal for the year 1980-’81. With all due respect, the hon. the Minister brushed me aside somewhat last year and said that people had at least received money. However, I wish to ask the hon. the Minister, once again in all seriousness, to give his serious consideration to the statutory provision that Parliament may vote an amount for this institution. The reason is that each year—this has been happening for many years—these people indicate in their annual report that they cannot carry out their task properly, due to a lack of funds. If one bears in mind what the State spends on research annually, this is a drop in the ocean. I really think the hon. the Minister should seriously take this matter into account.

The NRSC tackles many projects which promote road safety. They deserve our gratitude and appreciation—I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Kimberley South who also emphasized this—for the efforts made to reduce the number of road accidents caused by motorists driving under the influence of alcohol. This is still one of the major causes of road accidents. It has been found that one out of every four drivers, when they are driving at night, have in fact consumed alcohol. The success achieved with this campaign is convincing evidence that purposeful action is important.

I should now like to address the secretary of Fedhasa, the organization of hotel owners. According to a report in Rapport of 27 December 1981, the secretary of Fedhasa criticized the campaign as well as the slogans used. The report, in which he raised serious objections, appeared under a bold heading. It is a pity that people with a financial interest in the selling of liquor, should make negative noises in this regard. One would expect that someone with the experience of Dr. Uken, who was previously attached to the NRSC, would act positively. According to the report—

This concerned the general statement that people who drink, should not drive. In the interests of the public, the NRSC should be supported in its efforts to root out this evil, one of the main causes of accidents. In my opinion, it would be a fine gesture on the part of the people in the liquor trade if they were to give financial and moral support to those who are striving to combat this evil, which is caused by the abuse of the product marketed by people in the liquor trade.

I am convinced that the organization of hotel owners, viz. Fedhasa, is not insensitive to the human suffering caused by the abuse of alcohol and the accidents caused thereby. I am convinced that is not the case, and in the interests of the community at large I should not like them to adopt a negative attitude towards the efforts of the National Road Safety Council.

Mr. Chairman, my time is very limited and therefore I just want to say briefly that the time has come for motorists in the Republic to make a sacrifice in order to ensure safety on our roads. I am aware that the question of the compulsory carrying of driver’s licences is a sensitive matter, but I think we have reached the stage in this country where we can no longer avoid it. We shall have to ask motorists to have their drivers’ licences at hand. This will be important with regard to national security as well. We are living in dangerous times, and if we could compel motorists to produce their drivers’ licences at road blocks and stop-over points, this would also promote the security of this country. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Welkom has made an extremely good speech here today and I would certainly recommend that the hon. the Minister pay attention to it, particularly in regard to driving a vehicle while under the influence of liquor. I believe that the recent campaign was very successful, but I do not think that it is sufficient. I think these campaigns against people who drive after they have taken liquor in excess, should almost be an everyday practice in South Africa. I believe it is extremely important, and I agree with the hon. member for Welkom that the statistics of accidents, causing injuries and deaths, are such that this question needs attention from the Government.

As everybody in this House does from time to time, I went to Jan Smuts Airport the other day and in walking from the aircraft to the terminal building, I noticed one of the most modern and futuristic buses I have ever had the pleasure of seeing. It was parked in front of the building. This bus really looked as though it was something out of which Flash Gordon could hop any moment. It was a magnificent-looking vehicle, and it interested me, because I did not think that we in South Africa could actually produce a vehicle of quite that nature. The following week I took the opportunity of asking the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs a question about these buses. I asked him what the date of purchase of the new buses was. I was told it was 17 September 1981.

That does not fall under this Vote.

I was under the impression that all ground facilities and airport facilities—and I consider this to be an airport facility—is in fact the responsibility of the Department of Transport and not the responsibility of the S.A. Transport Services.

You could have chosen another theme.

The hon. the Minister can still answer the question.

I will answer it. Carry on.

Thank you.

Secondly I asked whether tenders were invited for the purchase and the answer was “Yes, in State Tender Bulletin No. 875.” I then asked whether the lowest tender was accepted and the answer was “No.” I then asked who the successful tenderer was and the answer was that it was a German company from Stuttgart in West Germany. I then asked what the cost of the buses was and I was told that it was R107 758 per bus. Finally, I asked whether the buses in question were built in the Republic of South Africa and, if so, what percentage of the contents of such buses is imported. The answer I received was that the buses were imported as complete units. I should now like to take issue with the hon. the Minister on this, because there are many regulations in South Africa which militate against commerce doing a similar type of thing. We all are aware that there are many local content regulations in relation to passenger and commercial vehicles and that local manufacturers have to adhere to these regulations. There are penalties for not adhering to them. Secondly we are all aware that the country has gone to tremendous expense, through organizations such as the IDC, to set up facilities such as the Atlantis diesel engine plant. We are also aware that only this week the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism opened a new shock-absorber factory in South Africa. Yet the Department of Transport Affairs purchased buses to the value of R107 000 each in which there is no South African content whatsoever. I would submit that this is not the sort of procedure that should be allowed. I would think that the Department of Transport Affairs and the S.A. Transport Services should, where it is possible, buy South African. Our South African goods are excellent. I would not suggest that we produce anything quite as futuristic looking as these buses, but when a visitor arrives in South Africa from overseas and has his first view of South Africa, which will probably be the bus standing right alongside his aircraft, it would be nice if the bus was of South African origin, made by South African workmen out of South African products: South African steel, South African tyres, batteries, glass, upholstery and whatever it might be.

You are now talking like a real patriot.

Thank you, I consider myself to be one. I have asked additional questions on this particular purchase to which the answers have unfortunately not yet become available, but I do believe that this is a serious matter, particularly when one considers that foreign currency also has to be spent on the purchase of these buses. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance will be able to tell us what our current financial position is in terms of our deficit on the current account of the balance of payments. It is not very good, and this sort of situation does not help it at all. I thank the hon. the Minister for listening to me on that subject.

I now want to deal with the next subject and, as background, I am going to have to use a speech of the hon. the Minister which he made during the Second Reading of the Transport Service Appropriation Bill on 3 March this year. I refer to column 2004 of Hansard, where he said the following—

Herein I believe lies great cause for concern because it depends on how this is handled. If handled on a straight commercial basis, then the situation is one of relatively free enterprise, but if the S.A. Transport Services are enabled to compete more favourably by the use of the National Transport Commission and by use of the low transportation permits granted in terms of the Road Transportation Act, then I should like to cross swords with the hon. the Minister. This is a subject of very great concern. Perhaps I could quote Dr. A. D. Wassenaar where he said the following—

Let me stress at this stage that I am now talking about transportation of goods. For the purposes of my argument I am leaving out bus and rail transportation of passengers. That I think is a different subject altogether. I think the National Transport Commission is, with the S.A. Transport Services Commission, guilty of perpetuating to the nth degree a system of State control over road transportation which is, firstly, in conflict with the free enterprise system and, secondly, perpetuates monopolies and inefficiency. I want to make it clear that I do not advocate the total removal of control. I believe a modicum of control is necessary, particularly in respect of vital urban passenger transport. However, transport of goods inter-city certainly does not need nearly as much control as passenger transport, and I believe control can be, and is in fact, totally overdone because of the protection of big brother, the S.A. Transport Services. I do not believe this is in the interests of South Africa. I believe the permit system creates monopolies and helps those monopolies to exist.

The S.A. Transport Services keep telling us how efficient and businesslike they are. As far as fuel efficiency is concerned, one of the hon. the Minister’s predecessors held tap little glass tubes in the House to indicate how little fuel was used in transporting a ton of goods from point A to point B. With the price of fuel as it currently is, then surely the S.A. Transport Services should be able to compete without having the protection of the Road Transportation Act. They should be able to sort out any competitor on a fair basis. The S.A. Transport Services say they will be left with the unprofitable dregs after private enterprise takes the cream. The General Manager of the S.A. Transport Services said in defence of this policy that his organization must offset the cost of its social responsibilities and that it must recoup the losses incurred in carrying the low-rated freight and passengers by retaining the more profitable cargo. In every business competitors try to take the cream. That is what makes for efficiency and keeps prices reasonable. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, while the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central was speaking, I compared him with the previous hon. member for that constituency. The previous hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central at least always had something important to say and he always knew what to speak about. However, it seems as if the hon. member was emitting hot air today. I wondered whether the hon. member has begun building buses now, as we have come to know him as the supplier of something else. Nevertheless, I wish to tell the hon. member that I agree with him on two points. The first is the idea of “buy South African”. We should buy South African products, and the hon. member is correct in that respect. The hon. member’s party would do well to propagate that at all times, and the hon. nember can even tell the hon. Mr. Hulley that one could do a few things for South Africa in other respects as well. The hon. nember has problems with regard to the question of road transport, and I, too, wish to deal with this matter.

If one considers the Department of Transport, one immediately thinks of buses, road transport, permits, licences and third party insurance. However, one does not think of the other sundry services which come under this, for instance lighthouses and weather forecasts. Hon. members will have the opportunity today of being carried along by these matters, as we on this side of the House have decided to hold an interesting debate on these aspects.

When one considers a department, one should always try to determine what is popular and what is not. I think it is sometimes as well to know what the unpopular aspects of a department are, and I think the most unpopular section of the Department of Transport, is the system of transport permits. A faithful supporter of mine, Gertjie Hepburn, a very good fellow, has a transport business. He sent his wife to apply for a permit, as he wanted to transport steel from Pretoria to Durban, where he would load other goods for the return journey. His wife approached the department—it is situated where the buck are—and the person in charge asked her to pay RIO. She then paid the R10 for the application for a permit, and they told her to come back the following day. When she did so, she was told that she could not have the permit. When she enquired about the R10 which she had paid the previous day, the official told her that the R10 was not refundable. When she asked why a permit could not be issued, she was told: “The law states that I do not have to tell you.” [Interjections.] I just want to say to the hon. the Minister that they could at least make a “no” cheaper than that! I do not think it is necessary to pay R10 merely to be refused. [Interjections.] I rather think that price could be lowered. I say this because they usually refuse! [Interjections.]

I have referred to a number of components of the Department of Transport Affairs. I wish to concentrate for a moment on one of these components, viz. the insurance component of the Department of Transport. We are all reasonably well acquainted with the MVA. I think the expression “third party” is well known to all of us. Before I knew anything about insurance, I always wondered why it was called a third party. The South African motoring public has had a number of catastrophic experiences during the past two decades. One of these was the insolvency of Parity and the other was the insolvency of Auto Protection. We had all bought our insurance from them because, as you know, we all try to take out the cheapest insurance. All the hon. members who own motor cars, will know that we had to pay double after that. As befits a good Government, we had the matter investigated again, and it was then that the consortium was established. Everyone questioned that consortium at that stage. Everyone asked whether it was a good thing and whether it was in the interests of private initiative that the State President should suddenly conclude a contract with a specific elect group of insurers. If I remember correctly, there were 16 of these insurers who formed a company at that stage. Afterwards, in 1969, that company was dissolved, and the MVA Fund became a statutory body. This step on the part of the Government resulted in total stability in the field of third party insurance in South Africa. It began with every participating company having to pay an amount of R50 000 into the joint pool, and I think it should be reassuring for every motorist to know that at present there is a daily balance on account of R300 million in the name of that fund and that it is estimated that the expected annual claims will not exceed the amount of R200 million. This means a credit balance of R100 million to serve as a buffer. I do not think any country, any Government could do better than that which the Department of Transport and the hon. the Minister have ensured by way of their recommendation for the South African motorist.

While I am dealing with this, I should also like to convey my sincere thanks to the Director-General of Transport and his staff for the fine service we, as members of Parliament, enjoy when we approach them for information or assistance. Of special importance to me is the fact that whenever one writes a letter to the Director-General, it does not take three days, but only a day to receive a reply, or at least an acknowledgement of receipt. I think this entire House sincerely appreciates this. [Interjections.]

Perhaps it is not widely known that South Africa still handles third party insurance for Venda and Ciskei. A commission under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Ernie Grosskopf has now been appointed. That commission has a number of terms of reference, but I wish to address one request to the hon. the Minister. In this sphere the confederal concept contains a large number of possibilities, and I think the terms of reference of the commission could be extended to allow a report to be submitted to the hon. the Minister and the Government on how we could incorporate this joint assurance aspect at the third party assurance level as well. If we really want to extend the confederal concept, we should obtain as many of these levels of contact as possible, and we should allow implementation to take place as soon as possible.

I am concerned about one thing. Both the Transkei and Bophuthatswana have begun their own third party insurance. The basis of reinsurance as far as those two national States are concerned, does not seem to be broad enough to contain it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to follow the hon. member for Kempton Park who spoke on the NSRI and join with him in expressing appreciation to that voluntary organization for the tremendous work they do. However, I should warn the hon. the Minister that I am declaring a financial interest in his budget because I want to speak on behalf of another worthy cause which I believe does not receive the financial recognition which it should receive. If we look at programme 7, we notice that the NSRI, for instance, receives R80 000 from the department. I also know that we spend more than R3 million on saving lives on the road.

There is yet another organization which saves lives and in the last year alone it saved 1 380 lives. To date it has saved altogether 46 149 lives, and I may mention that out of the 1 380 lives it saved in 1981, 237 were saved by either manually or power-driven craft. Therefore they fall very much in the category of the work of the NSRI. I refer of course to SLASSA, the Surf Life-Saving Association of South Africa. This association has been accepted by SASA, the Search and Rescue Association, as a body involved in search and rescue. It has also been accepted by the Department of Internal Affairs as a body performing an important national service. I would not like to guess how many million people in South Africa swim in the sea and I would like to guess how many million people in South Africa have benefited from SLASA’s service. There is no need for me to establish their right to assistance because they are offically recognized. Yet they only get assistance from the Natal and the Cape Provincial Administrations whereas the bulk of the people who create the problems and whose lives they save come from the Transvaal and the Free State. I will rather not repeat what the lifesavers say about some of the people they have to rescue. I am, however, aware of the battle that this organization has to face. Garages, basements and backyards have been cluttered with reels, boards, broken oars and trailers as these young people have, under difficult circumstances, built up an organization that now consists of 3 000 active members. They have had their teething problems, but they are doing an absolutely magnificent job.

I have had the privilege of watching some of their national championships. One of their subidivisions in which I am particularly impressed is the “nipper” division which also does a magnificent job. These little kids, kids up to the age of 14, go out and have actually rescued people from drowning.

In addition to other problems, this association also has to contend with Sacos, the radical anti-White organization which tries to sabotage the efforts that they are making—and they are making very serious efforts—to assist non-White lifesaving organizations in South Africa. If for no reason than that, I believe that Parliament, the Government, has a duty towards this association to help them to fight this intimidation and victimization by giving them some sort of support. The Governments of Australia and New Zealand contribute R200 000 per year to lifesaving associations, and I appeal to the hon. the Minister to twist the Minister of Finance’s arm to make a substantial annual grant to the Surf Lifesaving Association of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the hon. leader of the NRP, as the aspect he raised is an important one. I think it should be seen in conjunction with the contribution of the hon. member for Kempton Park. However, before I deal with the hon. member for Berea, I wish to say something about urban traffic in general. Thereafter I shall have something to say about bus transport.

At the moment, urban traffic in South Africa is a problem. We have spoken about this on various occasions, and under the Land Transport Branch of the Department of Transport, funds are being made available in the budget to further the implementation of the Urban Transport Act. I think it is essential at this stage to try and determine whether we could not solve the problem of urban transport in its intirety. There are various aspects which we could deal with, but the commission of which I am chairman, confines itself mainly to bus transport.

The most important aspect of the whole urban transport problem is that it seems as though city dwellers have already accepted the problem, to such an extent, in fact, that a hit-song, “Beautiful Noise” by the pop-star Neil Diamond, who sings about the traffic noises of New York, has become a world hit and is in great demand. It seems to me, therefore, that half of the problem has already been solved, viz. the fact that city dwellers have already accepted the problems accompanying urban traffic, but the second half still remains, viz. how to solve the problem.

At this juncture, therefore, I wish to turn to the hon. member for Berea, who spoke about the first interim report of the Commission of Inquiry into Bus Passengers.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to the questions asked by the hon. member for Berea, arising out of the first interim report of the Welgemoed Commission. Although we experienced considerable problems in getting this interim report ready on time, I wish to put it to the hon. member that even more problems will crop up when the amendments come up for discussion. Should the report be accepted as it was laid on the Table in this House, the problem would immediately arise that a large number of Acts would have to be amended and new bodies created, while existing bodies will have to be restructured. In fact, it has been the intention of the commission to try under all circumstances to utilize the existing bodies as far as possible be it by altering their composition, or by changing the instructions they have to carry out. That is why I am convinced—and I believe that the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs would agree with me—that it will be a considerable time before the Acts concerned are amended. I therefore hope that the hon. member for Berea will now be satisfied.

If we perhaps deal with legislation later today, we shall probably deal with the Transport Services for Coloured Persons and Indians Amendment Bill, and when we do so this problem will arise once again. Furthermore, I should just like to explain to the hon. member for Berea why it will still take such a long time before the Acts concerned are amended.

When one reviews the bus transport business, and takes note of a number of the statistics involved, just to determine the importance or otherwise of this industry, one can clearly see why it will take a while to make the necessary adaptations which are essential on the basis of this submission, and why it is desirable to reflect carefully on this matter. As the hon. member himself should know, transport subsidies often cause problems in South Africa. Some people exploit them for political reasons; others exploit them for other reasons. That is why this matter should be discussed very thoroughly here, and consensus must be reached on how these recommendations are to be implemented.

Looking at the order of importance of this industry, one notes that for the financial year 1980-’81, the capital invested in this industry was approximately R35 million. The total number of buses in the industry in that year was 13 500. The number of staff employed in the industry was 35 000. Altogether 1 250 million passengers were transported in that period over a total of 730 million kilometres.

Therefore, when the laws involved are amended, it is going to have a direct effect on the business activities of these people. This task cannot be hurried, as each possible amendment will have relatively far-reaching consequences for the bus transport industry.

To proceed, I just wish to exchange a few ideas with regard to the questions put by the hon. member for Berea in respect of the second and third interim reports, which will deal with tariffs and subsidies. The commission is having serious problems with that report, because subsidizing and tariff increases are, of course, two very important aspects as far as bus transport is concerned. That is why the commission is experiencing the problem that those who have to make proposals, all ask for an extension, and that when the commission decides on a certain date, those concerned do not keep to that date, but often submit their documents up to two months late. This means that everything is delayed, because those who ask to make contributions, simply do not do so. This causes delays in the proceedings of this commission.

During the second parliamentary session of 1981, the hon. the Minister asked us to report as soon as possible. We are doing our best, but in this case we are in the hands of the public who are giving us problems, as everyone wishes to give evidence. They all want to make proposals, but they also repeatedly ask for extensions to enable them to address documents to us. I therefore place on record in Hansard here and now that the next report will not be able to comply with the request of the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. members of the Opposition put questions to me concerning the Welgemoed Commission. The chairman of that commission is now replying, but those hon. members are not listening. I shall therefore not reply to their questions again. We should save time here and strive for efficiency. [Interjections.] Everything which they asked about, has already been replied to.

If they do not listen, this makes my task so much easier, as they will have nothing to moan about later, as they are always moaning about everything.

There is a further point I should like to raise here. I wish to express my gratitude to all the members of my commission, and in particular to the people who addressed memorandums to us and submitted proposals. I also wish to express my gratitude to the Department of Transport. One of my colleagues also expressed his thanks to the department concerning other matters, but I wish to express my gratitude in particular for the assistance the department gave us in making it possible to adhere to the return date for the first interim report. The second and third reports will follow a little later this year. At this stage, I trust that we shall be able to submit the two reports by August.

Furthermore, I wish to discuss certain relevant aspects of this report. In the first instance, I wish to refer to the problem surrounding the recommendations. The recommendations were of such a nature that for the most part we concentrated on the co-ordination aspect. After we had dealt with the co-ordination aspect, we tried to state the co-ordination aspect in detail in such a way as to be able to provide for any changes in the second and third interim reports and in the final report. We are thinking of constitutional changes in particular.

Mr. Chairman, it is always a pleasure to listen to a person who is as capable of dealing with transport affairs as the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed is.

†I accept that transportation is one of the many areas in which private enterprise and freedom to compete cannot be given absolutely free rein. The transportation of people and goods is too critical an economic activity to be left to the whims and chances of the private entrepreneur, without any control whatsoever. These views are shared by responsible leaders in the private transport field. It was expressed very clearly at the Good Hope conference, I think, by Mr. Desmond Bolton, who is chairman of the Public Carriers’ Association. He said—

Obviously this makes the job of road transportation boards extremely difficult. On the one hand they have to maintain a degree of competition in the transport industry, and on the other give the existing operators a degree of protection against irresponsible and disruptive operations that could cause havoc. This type of protection is very necessary. The S.A. Railways does not only run a transport organization. It also carries an enormous national economic and strategic responsibility. It does this in respect of the movement of goods for trade and industry, the movement of people, both for pleasure and for business reasons, and as an indispensable adjunct to our defence capability. Competition from private carriers could either damage this colossus, whose budget reads like that of a small country, or if it is responsible competition, it can actually stimulate such an organization by keeping it abreast and aware of what a modern economy needs. It is the difficult task of the Road Transportation Board to try to maintain the optimum balance between justified protection to the existing transport operator, be it the S.A. Transport Services or a private operator, and the necessity of competition to get the best out of an economic activity.

It is the nature of road transportation as an operation that makes the task so difficult and so necessary. Road transportation is probably the easiest type of business to get into and to do badly. Also—and I speak with some experience—it is one of the most difficult types of business in which to do well. In the future the task of the Road Transportation Board is only going to be more difficult. Road transport is going to be a far more critical factor in the economy as the economic development plan gets under way. By the nature of this plan, and the decentralization of industries the plan involves, there will be an increase in the transport content of all costs. The location of new industries in less developed areas and in deconcentration areas quite close to existing metropolitan areas will mean that rail transport will either frequently not be available or will frequently not be the correct choice. Private carriers are already operating in many of these areas and have permits to do so. They already have the permits to service new industries established there. They are seriously concerned that the transport subsidy available to industry in these developing areas will be used by the S.A. Transport Services as a lever both to establish themselves there and to render competition by the private sector impossible. It is very important that the Road Transportation Board and the Decentralization Board should ensure that the private sector and the S.A. Transport Services compete for this work on an equal basis. To this end the Public Carriers’ Association is putting before the Decentralization Board comprehensive and businesslike suggestions for the administration, payment and control of the decentralization transport subsidy. This facility will be available to carriers who are not members of the Public Carriers’ Association and also to private industrialists who see fit to buy their own vehicles—hopefully 14-ton vehicles—under the scheme that has been arranged for them.

One cannot leave this matter without remarking on the type of subsidy that we have institutionalized in South Africa over the years. I believe that it is extremely dangerous and that the whole question of the principle of subsidizing activities or regions in an indirect way should be reviewed. It requires a special commission consisting of the most eminent people we can find to give this matter their undivided attention and come forward with a comprehensive report. To my mind this ranks as one of the top priorities of national importance. I say that not only because of the situation that already exists but also because this type of indirect subsidy is the basis on which we intend to promote our massive economic development plan. Subsidies of this nature develop serious distortions in the economy. They result in wrong decisions, high costs and inefficiency and are obscure and frequently unquantifiable. They are primarily carried out through the unloading and loading of transport charges. It is my belief that a healthy relationship between the private sector in the field of transport and the S.A. Transport Services is seriously bedevilled by a system of rail rates that bears no relationship to costs. I am aware of the necessity of subsidizing activities or regions for national reasons, but I believe that no operation should be carried out below cost and that subsidies should be paid out in cash from a central treasury through a special subsidy authority.

For passengers too?

Probably. Although I think we can get very twisted up over this, I think it should include passengers. This would mean that they would be seen annually, reviewed annually and assessed against the country’s competing needs and priorities. That does not happen at the moment, and as far as passengers are concerned we know that R390 million per year is actually going towards subsidizing passenger transport in three of the major urban areas. That is the kind of distortion of which I speak. The National Transport Commission must very carefully consider the S.A. Transport Services thrust into road transportation. They say they are doing this because high-rated traffic is being creamed off by the private sector. It must be weighed up very carefully whether it is in the national interest for the S.A. Transport Services to chase and get this high-rated traffic, because road transport costs are very different from rail costs. It helps them not one bit to obtain this traffic and then to do the work at a loss or on a break-even basis. Once again, subsidies given to the S.A. Transport Services in the form of fuel rebates, licences and import duties, which represent about 20% of the private operators’ total costs, must not be allowed to confuse this issue.

There is a final point I should like to raise. The argument is often used that the private sector heavy-vehicle operator is not bearing his share of the costs of the infrastructure in the form of roads, bridges, etc., that he uses. His answer to this is that he accepts that these costs should be charged correctly in the form of licence fees or other charges, and he is perfectly happy about this. He has no objection, provided the charges apply equally to all users of the road, i.e. the S.A. Transport Services as well as himself.

Mr. Chairman, I regret being unable to follow up on the argument of the hon. member for Walmer, because he dealt with road transportation and I should like to say a few words about aviation. The Department of Transport controls civil aviation in South Africa and plays a very big role behind the scenes with regard to the safe transportation of air travellers and freight. Unfortunately travellers are not always aware of the role played by the Department of Transport in all journeys by air. Most of the travellers know that a seat has to be reserved for a particular flight and they know the times of departure and arrival at airports, in what aircraft the journey will be undertaken and the crew they see on the flight. During the flight travellers become aware of the thoroughness with which members of the crew are doing their work as well as of the responsibility they shoulder. During the flight the travellers are informed of the temperature, the weather conditions and the expected time of arrival, and they accept that the source of this information is the captain.

No reference is ever made to the true source of information or the way in which this information is communicated to the captain during the flight. Sometimes the travellers are informed that the aircraft will be making an automatic landing and then they come to realize what progress has been made in the field of aviation. The assurance that the pilot monitors an automatic landing throughout and is able to interrupt the process at any time, reassures the travellers and once again focuses attention on the pilot, on his expertise and ability. So, as far as the ordinary traveller by air is concerned, he is travelling in an aircraft which takes off and lands and which are in the hands of a pilot in whom he has confidence. The terminal buildings are clean and neat, and there are no hitches in checking out. As far as the traveller is concerned, nothing more than this is involved in a journey by air. The fact that the pilots write examinations set by the Department of Transport and are licensed by the department which sets high standards so as to enable S.A. Airways to operate a truly safe air service, are things of which most of the travellers are unaware. Today everyone is aware of the necessity to control road traffic and of the role played by communications in this regard. However, few people realize the very important role played by control by means of aircraft and the sophisticated nature of systems of communication used for this purpose. The pilots are seen and at times they are heard. The stewards attend to the passengers at all times, so they, too, are seen. Normally the travellers are completely unaware of the staff of the Department of Transport who are playing a very important role behind the scenes.

In the course of this short speech it will be impossible to do justice to, for example, the role played by the Weather Bureau in South African aviation, or the role played by the radio operator and other ground staff, including, of course, the airport manager and his staff.

There are, however, other divisions of civil aviation which are also concerned with the aircraft as such and with the crew of the aircraft. Hon. members will allow me to draw their attention to the role played by the people exercising control over the aircraft while it is in flight. These well-trained staff members, who perform an extremely responsible task, are trained by the Department of Transport and qualify after passing a strict examination on all essential facets of aviation. The Department of Transport exercises control over all non-military aircraft in the air space in which these civil aircraft fly. The S.A. Defence Force, on the other hand, exercises control over the military airports and aircraft, and it goes without saying that in times of war, air space will have to be under the control of the military authorities as well. In terms of the existing aviation regulations, the Department of Transport is responsible for the licensing of air traffic controllers who work for the department, who are called “lugverkeerleiers” in Afrikaans. The Department of Defence, on the other hand, is responsible for the training and licensing of the military counterparts, known as “lugverkeerbeheerder” in Afrikaans. The position is, unfortunately, that the training received by the air traffic controller of the S.A. Air Force is not recognized for licensing purposes by the Department of Transport. Consequently an Air Force trained “lugverkeerbeheerder” may not perform the task of controlling air traffic at a civil airport, and, strictly speaking, a “lugverkeerleier” employed by the Department of Transport has no jurisdiction over military aircraft in the air space in which they are flying.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister to look into this situation, which can create confusion, and to rectify it as soon as possible. I should like to see a uniform Afrikaans designation being accepted for the posts, and in my opinion the designation of “lugverkeerbeheerder” corresponds more closely to the English designation of “air traffic controller”. I should also like to see uniform training being given and a uniform qualifying examination being written. Because the number of people who meet the mental and physical requirements laid down for the post, is not very large and because the number of prospective air traffic controllers is not very large, I am asking that there be one training centre for both the Department of Transport and the Department of Defence. This will result in qualifications being recognized by either side and will also eliminate the need for duplicating training facilities at very great expense. Military onslaughts on the Republic are increasing. Air traffic and air defence are becoming more important in the defence of our country, and for that reason this matter has to be looked into forthwith.

In conclusion I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to convey my thanks to the Director-General, Mr. Eksteen, for his running of a department which ensures the safety of civil aviation and which is making major contributions to the growth of this industry in South Africa. I cannot refrain, however, from asking the hon. the Minister to review the salaries of air traffic controllers and to make them commensurate as soon as possible with the heavy resposibility which these employees have to shoulder.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Maraisburg has paid a fitting tribute here this afternoon to both S.A. Airways Pilots as well as the men and women in the Department of Transport who are what one may term the backroom boys and girls at our airports dealing with air traffic control and all the other facets required to be dealt with in order to have safe aviation in this country.

I want this afternoon to express a few thoughts in regard to roads and road safety. It is gratifying to note that following on the legislation that was introduced last year the National Road Safety Council is now firmly established under the aegis of the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs. However, what I believe is alarming is the fact that in South Africa we have one of the highest incidences of fatal accidents in the world when one considers the accidents per capita in relation to our population. It is an alarming thing that so many South Africans are killed and maimed on our roads every year. I think we all know that the abuse of alcohol is probably one of the major causes of road accidents. However, I sincerely believe that the cause of most of these fatalities can be attributed to the shocking driving habits of the South African motorist. I think this can be attributed to the way in which we drive. I say “we” and I mean “we”. I believe that organizations like the National Road Safety Council, the traffic control departments in the various provinces and law enforcement agencies at both provincial and local level are probably doing their utmost to ensure that a young person who wants a driving licence is properly trained, knows all about the road signs, knows what courtesy on the road means and is taught everything there is to know about driving a motor vehicle safely and in a proper manner. He is taught safety-consciousness. At the end of all this he has to undergo a rigorous test and these tests are rigorous today. However, the problem does not lie there. The problem arises when that young person ventures forth on to the South African roads. He goes out there with all the good intentions in the world. He means nothing but good. The moment he takes to the roads he realizes that in order to survive he has to do to others what they are trying to do to him and the “others” are the drivers on our roads. These “others” are the “we” of South Africa.

Let us take a look at our national highways. I know that there are many hon. members in this House who will this afternoon be travelling along the main highway to the north that runs from Cape Town to the northernmost point in South Africa, our main national highway, and that at some point they will branch off from that road. I want to say that any one of us who travels that road must realize one thing and that is that the fast lane is on the left, the slower lane is in the middle and the slowest lane is on the right. That is how it works. If hon. members try this tonight on their way home they will see what I am getting at. This is what happens. The overtaking lane is on the left-hand side of the road, according to present-day standards, and this is an awful truth, while in the centre lane or on the right hand side of the road, which should be the highspeed lane, one finds people who feel that they are entitled to drive along at moderate speeds like self-appointed law enforcement officers. They drive along in that lane at 60 or 80 km an hour while they should be travelling at 100 km per hour. They simply hog the centre of the road, and it is frustration that causes the average motorist to pass on the left and, I believe that frustration leads to more motor accidents than does alcohol abuse. This attitude of “I am a self-appointed law enforcement officer” is extremely dangerous. I do not believe that any person who drives a vehicle should adopt this attitude. If a man wants to break the law, that is his right, but I believe that anybody driving on our highways must understand that the rule of the road is “keep to the left, and stay over to the left”. If one decides to travel faster than the next man, one should take the necessary precautions, move over to the right and overtake on the right. This nonsense of overtaking on the left is simply caused by frustration.

How do we solve the problem? That, in my opinion, is easy. We could solve this problem in the same way we are now trying to solve the problem of alcohol abuse, and I think we went a long way towards highlighting the problem of alcohol abuse last year. The solution lies in rigid law enforcement, preceded by a campaign in which members of the public are warned that they have to change their driving habits, or else! I think we can all take heart at the fact that that campaign against drinking and driving at the end of last year was extremely successful. I say this in lighter vein, but I do not know how may of us went to Christmas parties last year and heard: “Dear, are you driving tonight or are you drinking?” It was not a case of everybody drinking and driving; one member of the family did the driving and that was the one who did not do the drinking. That message got home, and I believe that we can get this message home too.

I recently paid a visit to Hong Kong, and I was tremendously impressed by the use of the television media to put accross community messages, inter alia, anti-litter messages, and messages regarding the opening of windows when one is using gas in the home. I believe that television is definitely the impact medium, and this is the medium that we should use to the best advantage as far as the road-hogs and the shocking driving habits of South African motorists are concerned. We must use this medium to correct those driving habits.

Finally I come to my hardy annual, and that is the airports. I have criticized airports in the past, but this year I want to home in on one aspect. I have done this before, but I want to make an honest and sincere appeal to the hon. the Minister to look at the catering facilities at our airports. I ask him in heaven’s name to look at these facilities carefully and diligently. I want the hon. the Minister to put himself in the place of the public of South Africa who make use of these so-called restaurants and are ripped off. That is the only way I can describe it. The public is being ripped off. I know that these restaurants are operated by concessionaires, but I believe they bear investigation. It is an absolute rip-off from start to finish. The service is shoddy. The quality of food—or whatever it is that is served—is shoddy, to say the least, and the whole attitude is one of “Take it or leave it.” The prices charged are absolutely ridiculous. For a glass of soda water in the restaurant at Jan Smuts Airport I was charged 90 cents the last time I visited that restaurant. This is quite a ridiculous price for a glass of soda water, and what one has to pay for a cup of tea or coffee is beyond belief, and the service! I am sorry that I have to raise this matter again and again.

90 cents for pure soda water?

90c for pure soda water at Jan Smuts Airport. It was in the bar above the Airbus lounge which is the departure lounge for flights between Johannesburg and Durban. I do not know what a cup of tea costs there today, but I know it was close on 50c the last time I was there.

One does not get tea; one gets dishwater!

There is the voice of a colleague who says by way of an interjection that one does not get tea; one gets dishwater. He is about right too.

There must be a thorough investigation done by the Department of Transport into the facilities the public are expected to put up with by way of restaurants in our airports. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to look into this as a matter of urgency and to rectify this situation which is causing undue hardship and undue resentment on the part of the fare-paying passengers and the customers of the S.A. Airways.

Mr. Chairman, if the speech of the hon. member for Umhlanga has achieved one thing, it is that it has absolutely and finally convinced me never to drink soda water again. [Interjections.] If it possibly sounds as though my speech is a translation of his since we express ourselves on many things in the same way, it will just have to be accepted that I have not done so but that our speeches sound the same for the very simple reason that great minds think alike.

Today I want to deal with the slaughter on our roads. In this regard I want to deal more specifically with drivers’ licences and with road usage, and I want to pose the question to the hon. the Minister of what attitude we are adopting towards the drivers of motor vehicles. Before being able to arrive at a solution to the problem in this connection, we have to ask ourselves whether it is a right or a privilege which a driver has to use our public roads. The angle from which we view this question has a tremendous impact on the arguments we are able to advance and the methods we are able to apply for curbing the slaughter on our roads.

Cancel the licences of all women.

That may be a solution, but then one will be faced with the question, in the words of the hon. member for Umhlanga, of who is going to drive the car home after a party.

One has to be realistic and one has to view the problem from all angles. My personal opinion is that we should proceed from the premise that no driver has the right to use the road; it is a privilege. One of my reasons for adopting this standpoint is that here we are concerned with a lethal weapon. When we compare the slaughter on our roads to the fatalities in the war we are waging at the moment, we find that the ratio is 30:1. For every person dying in the operational area 30 die on our roads. Whenever a person dies in the operational area it immediately stirs the emotions but when a person dies on the road it is, so to speak, a situation which has blunted the emotions. I think the time has arrived for us to return to reality and to gain a proper perspective.

I want to examine a few figures. In 1980 7 572 deaths occurred on the roads of South Africa and 24 077 injuries. From January to November 1981 8 287 deaths occurred, and the preliminary figure for the full year of 1981 is 9 078. Over the 1980 Easter weekend 194 deaths occurred on our roads and 597 serious injuries. Fortunately this seems to be a falling tendency as only 147 deaths occurred over the 1981 Easter weekend, and even fewer during the 1982 Easter weekend, i.e. 117. However, this is not the worst of it. We also have to take cognizance of the cost aspect, of course. What does this cost South Africa in money terms? In this regard I want to quote a few figures which have been confirmed by the National Road Transportation Board. Road accidents cost South Africa a total amount of R1 035 000 000 annually. This is what they cost South Africa annually. If we calculate the approximate cost per day, we find that for 1981 the cost came to between R3 million and R4 million per day.

Every day in this House we talk about all the things for which we need money. There are so many essentials for which South Africa urgently needs money, money which is needed in critical circumstances, but which simply cannot be found. Consequently, if we were in earnest about this, we could rather spend this enormous amount of money in an attempt to do something positive about the massacre on South Africa’s roads. That is why I made the categoric statement right at the outset that we should proceed from the premise that it is a privilege for each driver of a motor vehicle to use a road. I see a certain analogy between the use of a motor vehicle and the use of a pistol. Both are lethal weapons, and the one is not more lethal than the other. However, a far larger number of people die on the roads annually than the number killed by pistols. Even drugs and every other lethal weapon claim fewer lives each year than road accidents do. Nevertheless drugs are subject to strict control and the use of drugs is made subject to heavy penalties, as is the use of other lethal weapons. So why should we draw a distinction between the use of a motor vehicle and the use of every other leathal weapon? Is the reason not that our emotions have become blunted to such an extent that we no longer give any thought to the effect which the reckless and irresponsible use of a motor vehicle has? I believe that the time has arrived for us to ask ourselves whether we are really in earnest about this matter. If we are, there are a few suggestions I should like to make. In this regard I should therefore like to suggest that we conduct another thorough investigation into certain planning methods suggested many years ago by the department of the hon. the Minister. One of the aspects which is undoubtedly deserving of attention, is the question as to whether the penalties imposed are realistic in the light of the possible consequences of punishable actions of this nature. I think consideration should be given even to the confiscation of motor vehicles in the same way as every other lethal weapon may be confiscated when it is in the hands of a person who uses it injudiciously.

According to particulars furnished by the National Road Transportation Board there were as many as 500 000 holders of illegal drivers’ licences in South Africa in 1977. So by this time this number ought to be considerably higher. In this respect I should like to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Umhlanga. I believe that we should accept this particular aspect as our point of departure. In the light of this alarming situation, I think consideration should be given to obliging every driver of a motor vehicle who is involved in an accident or who is punished even for exceeding the speed limit, to pass a new test to obtain a driver’s licence.

What about people caught in speed traps?

Yes, I would say that they should be included. We must not forget that this is a very serious matter. Of course, it may happen that I myself may be caught in a speed trap. However, it is such a serious matter that I believe that we should, for once really investigate it urgently. If the hon. the Minister were to say that he did not see his way clear to including, for example, contraventions regarding the speed limit in this …

Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the hon. member for Vasco whether he does not want to propose that the reckless use of motor-cycles be included in this? [Interjections.]

Often motor-cyclists are extremely dangerous.

Only reckless motor-cyclists are dangerous! [Interjections.]

I shall come back to motor-cyclists. [Interjections.] However, I may mention that I know of certain motorcyclists who drive extremely cautiously. One problem presented by motor-cyclists, of course, is the speed at which they move, which often gives rise to unforeseen events.

In addition I want to suggest that consideration be given to fully retesting each driver of a motor vehicle possibly every 10 years. At the moment we have the system in terms of which the drivers of motor vehicles have to be retested when such drivers attain the age of 60.

Then there is another matter to which the hon. member for Umhlanga referred as well. This is the phenomenon of vehicles overtaking other vehicles on the left hand side. Not only is this a dangerous practice but also an extremely foolish one. In Europe this practice was nipped in the bud many years ago. That resulted in the traffic in Europe flowing so much faster than South Africa will be able to handle at present. Why do we not avail ourselves of what experience has taught in Europe and apply that here? In adopting this approach there is, however, one essential element from which we shall not be able to escape. We shall have to afford the department of the hon. the Minister central control right at the top so that a central idea with regard to road usage, drivers’ licences and all the other factors we are able to call to mind may emanate from a central point to all the provinces to be applied on the roads of all the provinces. I say this because I have had experience of this. Central control is inadequate. Central control must emanate from one point so as to allow of co-ordinated action being taken. The report of the NRSC is a very fine report, but what is the problem as regards the NRSC? The problem is that it has no power, no teeth. If we are in earnest about this matter, we shall have to take another look at this entire matter and give our direct and urgent attention to all these factors.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think one can find fault with the speech that hon. member made. However, there is something I want to tell him. One must associate powers with the law and not with people. Recently I have seen that people with too many teeth can cause one a great many problems. [Interjections.] We must therefore give potency to the law and not place power in the hands of individuals.

When I interrupted my speech this afternoon I was discussing the southern bypass. In the time of Fox Odendaal in 1960 the southern bypass was considered to be the best road. Actually that was in 1965. The bluegum trees are now encroaching on the existing bypass in Johannesburg. It is going to cost a great deal of money to get rid of the roots and those trees in Winchester Hills. Those huge trees are standing in places like Winchester Hills. The hon. member for Turffontein knows the people of Gillview have been complaining about this for years. So this is not a new phenomenon. Between Springs and Johannesburg it is a tremendous problem that over the years no further construction on the southern bypass took place. Of course the main reason for this was a shortage of money, although there are many other problems as well. I do not want to blame the department for this. However, there are frequently other places which are politically more important when it comes to getting prospects started, and frequently the political leadership follows those routes. However, that road is essential to road transport in South Africa, the road passing to the right of the airport, past Secunda, Springs and all those places, right through Soweto to Kimberley. This road should really be opened up. If we had planned the road today we would have built it two or three kilometres further south where there are no buildings. However, because the road was built about 20 years ago it is now in a built-up urban area. Of course there are certain problems involved. When dynamite has to be used in certain places it causes problems.

I merely want us to think of inflation. We must take cognizance of certain financing problems. Money paid in interest, money which the State has to spend, while for 10 to 15 years there are roads that cannot be used, money which simply becomes part of our inflation factor. We really cannot afford this.

This brings me to the question of the road building programmes. In this country there are only four or five major contractors who build roads. These people all belong to a cartel and I know what I am talking about. I have frequently had to tender for roads I had built myself. If one dares to accept the work of a smaller contractor they boycott you. However, they will not easily boycott the State. I once used a Cape firm which was R160 000 cheaper for a small township of about 350 plots. The cartel then took action against me in all the other places. However, they did not get the better of me. The fact of the matter is that they can strangle you if they do not want to tender.

Why am I talking about this? I am doing so because I want the State to reinstate its road-building machinery. In the provinces this machinery is still working. One cannot form an assessment of what a contractor charges for a road if one is only an engineer or if one merely considers the regulation of contracts for roads. You must realize that in such a situation you can lose money yourself. You must know that the State itself must compete in South Africa to handle prices effectively.

Let us take the road from Jan Smuts Airport through Bedford View to Johannesburg as an example. I think that road was some thing of a record. One can also consider the road from Pretoria to Jan Smuts Airport in this connection. The contractor who built that road knows exactly what it costs to build a kilometre of road. One can make comparative studies throughout the world to ascertain how much it costs to build a kilometre of road—we could try to arrive at that figure. However, the official is bound hand and foot when he has to deal with a contract that has been accepted. The 10% and the escalation factor render him helpless. He cannot escape this. That is why it is frequently extremely difficult for an official to deal with the situation in which he finds himself. I have great respect for our officials who are definitely among the best in the world. We cannot get away from the fact that they act in good faith at all times. I am now speaking from experience.

The question now arises whether we still have people who can build roads in all the provinces. I know what the position in the Transvaal is and I can say that there are still road-building teams in the Transvaal. We must use those people, even if we only use them for part of a road. Suppose the building of a road between Johannesburg and Germiston is done under contract. Even if only the short section from Johannesburg to Springs, say, is done by the province’s team, one at least knows that that short section is being built at a certain price. I am sorry to have to say this, but the cartels work together and practise price maintenance. This is bad for the country.

I do not like to paint a pessimistic picture of the future, because I am really an optimist, but there are problems and economically the country is facing a very difficult period. Monetarily we are going to find ourselves in a situation where the State will have to make far more use of its officials and their expertise. The State will have to take over certain work that is now being done by others. Prices are becoming too high and this means that the carpet is being jerked out from under the feet of the Government. We must look at this. We are being confronted by problematic situations.

Another matter causing problems for me is the powers of the provinces. We find ourselves in a new dispensation. No one has any objections to a new dispensation being introduced. However, the major problem lies in the fact that when one begins with something new and one does not have a plan one can present to the people who will be involved in it, they will not trust one, irrespective of one’s bona fides. One must have a plan in terms of which they can move from A to B and from B to A, as sometimes happens. The worker in the province must know what is going to happen to him. The State has instituted very good investigations in this connection. Announcements are being made about this over the radio and television. I know the worker. I am now referring to the man who is worried about his future position. Today the provincial worker does not know whether he is quite safe in his work situation. Perhaps this is quite unnecessary. Can we not tell him that he need not be worried? The powers of the provinces will remain, and if there are changes in those powers, they are not intended to deprive the provinces of those powers, but merely to enable the State to cause its work to be done more easily.

There is another mattér I want to refer to and that is third party insurance. I want to refer to it briefly. Third party insurance is being undertaken in this country by firms that are sometimes not registered in this country because they do not belong to the consortium. However, they conduct insurance business in Botswana, Basutoland and Swaziland. If the credit standing of those firms is in order, we must consider them. If someone is insured by a firm which is not registered in this country, and he is involved in an accident, this could cause problems. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to start by thanking the hon. the Minister and the department most sincerely for the documents they made available to us. I should also like to say a few words about the Weather Bureau and research, particularly with regard to the seeding of clouds in the process of weather modification. After last week’s unnecessary squabbling, as I see it, I must ask: Why, after two months, has no one yet been informed of the real reason why the hon. members of the CP left the NP?

Would you repeat that please?

Sir, they are not listening. When we speak, they sit there chatting to one another. But I do not mind repeating what I have just said. I asked: Why, two months after the split, have those hon. members not yet informed us of the real state of affairs, the real reason why they walked out?

What has that got to do with transport?

It has a great deal to do with it. [Interjections.] Koos Koedoe, keep quiet. [Interjections.] I expected this. It is with sorrow and with mixed feelings … [Interjections.] If that hon. member would just keep quiet he would be able to hear what is going on.

Can you tell us why you were standing at the gates of Iscor?

I was standing there; that is quite right. I was guarding the store, and there is nothing wrong with that. I shall return to those hon. members in a moment. I repeat: It is with sorrow and with mixed feelings that I rise here today to take part in this debate, with sorrow because I have to look straight at the hon. members who only a few days ago sat with us on this side of the House and defended the principles of the party.

Rather tell us what Mr. P. W. Botha told us.

I do not talk behind another man’s back, as you do, Koos. [Interjections.] Those hon. members must just listen to what I have to say. It does not matter if they become angry. Today those hon. members are opening the floodgates against us and they are throwing everything overboard. And what are they saying?

Are you not ashamed of yourself?

I am not ashamed of myself; I know what I am talking about. They say we are selling the White man down the river.

We are going to cook your goose, Nico!

Koos, you cannot get the better of me, not you. We are still on the same path the NP has always followed and I want the hon. members of the CP to listen to what I am saying.

Have your congresses agreed to your new policy yet?

Frank, you should rather listen to what I have to say. Let us be honest with each other—I am referring to both sides now—and stop this gossiping, telling of half truths and distortions of the truth.

What are you talking about? Give us examples.

Keep quiet and listen. The hon. member for Jeppe must also listen. We must be careful and not take matters too far, for everyone has a skeleton in his cupboard.

We are not afraid. Say what you want to say.

I am warning you. There is a skeleton in everyone’s cupboard and if we take this matter too far problems are going to arise.

Bring out the skeleton.

That hon. member must be careful. Mr. Chairman, I request that we leave these matters alone now.

Tell us about the gossip.

Those hon. members know what gossip they have been spreading. [Interjections.] I now come to the real reason …

But you were always on our side.

I did not attend any of the hon. member’s meetings. Name one. I was not at a single one of them.

Let me get to the real reason. The hon. members of the CP claim that we drove them out of the party. [Interjections.] Are those hon. members afraid to get hurt? Secondly, the hon. members claim that we are distorting National Party policy. Thirdly their main piece of gossip is that we believe in power-sharing. But what is the truth? [Interjections.] It is of no use for those hon. members to make an outcry. They should listen to the truth instead.

Nico, you must be very careful now.

I am not afraid, Cas. Two hon. members of that party served in the Cabinet and they were all members of our caucus where they defended our policy and accepted it in silence.

The hon. member must please come back to the subject under discussion.

I want to conclude and say—I am coming to the Transport Vote in a minute now, Sir—that the reason why those members were transported away from us, is that they have a real hatred for P. W. Botha. [Interjections.] That is why they took to the road, and I can prove it. I am sorry that some members of the CP are not present today, because I can prove what I have just said. I am very sorry but that is the reason and that is why I brought up this matter this afternoon. I just wanted to clarify matters so that we know and the country knows why those hon. members left. [Interjections.] Those hon. members must not come to light with the power-sharing argument now. I have explained the entire matter now. Some of those hon. members took action against our present hon. Prime Minister several years ago. That is where it all started. [Interjections.] However, I shall leave the matter at that. [Interjections.] There is nothing for me to rectify.

Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry that I had to spend the time allocated to me for the discussion of transport affairs, on this matter. I said that if there is time I should like to return to the question of the seeding of clouds with a view to weather modification in order to duscuss this further. In this connection I should like to point out very briefly in conclusion that we have the Bethlehem project and I am pleased to be able to say that things are going very well there because a great deal of money was spent on this project. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I hope that the House will forgive me if at this stage I return to the discussion of transport matters. [Interjections.] It may be a refreshing change to get back to a discussion of the hon. the Minister’s vote. I should like to say, Sir, that I am grateful to my Whip and my hon. colleagues for having been given another opportunity to speak because I should like to complete what I was saying when my time expired this morning.

The point that I was making this morning related to pilots who are apparently competing unfairly with South African nationals in commercial aviation concerns. I have reports here from individuals who say that it is almost impossible for suitably qualified South African pilots to obtain employment because these posts are occupied by people who are not South Africans but who are living in South Africa. I suggest that the hon. the Minister should have this matter investigated because I am told that in most other countries preference is given to nationals of those countries in regard to the filling of posts of this nature. I feel that this is a matter that bears investigation by the hon. the Minister.

I want to move now to another point arising out of a question which I put to the hon. the Minister earlier this session relating to a particular incident affecting staff at our airports. We are concerned that at our airports we should have officials who are courteous, who are efficient and who are concerned about the welfare of passengers and also who are concerned about the image of our South African Airways. I asked a question earlier this session in regard to an official who was summarily dismissed on 24 hours’ notice by S.A. Airways, an airport official, because he had apologized to an overseas passenger in regard to the indiscretion of the South African Police in respect of an incident at Louis Botha Airport. This incident arose out of the fact that there was a visiting British doctor who was flying back from Durban to the United Kingdom. A scrapbook which he had as excess luggage was seized by the police and at one stage he was threatened with not being allowed to leave. Eventually the police took the scrapbook and allowed him to leave and in due course the South African Railways Police were compelled to apologize to the passenger concerned for what they termed “over-zealous-ness” on the part of the police in seizing a scrapbook which contained cuttings from South African newspapers. The official concerned was interrogated by the South African Police in regard to what he had said. It transpired that he had apologized to this passenger for this incident which he had recognized to be an indiscretion on the part of the police. Therefore, he apologized to this passenger. As a result, after interrogation by the South African Police he received a letter from the Airways telling him—I have a copy of the letter here—

This is a letter that was sent to him by the Airways. When, earlier in this session, I raised this matter by way of a question, the hon. the Minister said in his reply that according to his information this official was not a permanent but a temporary official. He also said that medical advice had been received to the effect that he should not be appointed, and he was therefore dismissed. His dismissal was therefore not due to this incident. However, this is simply not the position as I know it. The official approached me in a state of great concern, after his dismissal, and also gave me a letter from the Regional Manager of the S.A. Airways that confirmed that he had been employed by the S.A. Airways in a clerical capacity from July 1981. The letter also stated that during his employment with the S.A. Airways at Durban he rendered satisfactory service. This certainly does not square with this man being dismissed on 24 hours’ notice. The suggestion that was primarily conveyed to him was that because of the incident to which I have referred, he was regarded as a security risk because he had apologized to the passenger for the incident concerned. I treat this as a serious matter because, I have said earlier, we are concerned about the image of South African airports and about the general behaviour of airport officials. I believe that in this instance the official acted absolutely correctly in pointing out what was an obvious indiscretion, and in my view it was a very good public relations operation that he should have apologized to the passenger concerned. This is perhaps an isolated incident, but if the hon. the Minister is concerned about the activities of his officials at airports, he should ensure that police activity of this kind is not tolerated and that officials at airports realize that they do have a public relations job, and the official in charge of the airport should be the one to determine whether they are appropriately employed or not.

Why did you not tell him to contact me?

The man lives in Durban. This incident took place in December, and he contacted me in a state of great concern because I am the local member of Parliament. I am merely doing my duty by raising the matter at this stage.

Maybe he has more confidence in the hon. member for Berea too.

That is possibly another reason. Incidentally, the gentleman’s name was Rencken.

Oh no!

However, I don’t think he is related to any hon. member in this House.

It does not sound like it.

In all seriousness, this is a matter that should not be allowed to recur.

I now wish to move to a matter relating to the question of road transportation. It was touched on by the hon. member for Walmer, and it is true that the hon. the Minister, in his budget speech this year, did comment on the fact that in view of the swing of high-rated traffic from rail to road, the S.A. Transport Services will have to enter the competitive transport market in this field to a greater extent. Those were the words used by the hon. the Minister in his budget speech. A competitive market is one thing, and one realizes that Transport Services are going to enter into this market, but they must do so on an equal basis with the private sector, without any built-in preferences or advantages. In regard to this matter, the attitude of local Road Transportation Boards is going to be watched even more closely in the future than has been the case in the past, because one knows that there is a long history of the private sector believing that it is subject to unfair competition in respect of the operation of our Transport Services. I must also point out that there are already disquieting signs in this regard. In the Witwatersrand, for instance, there is the case of a large private haulier operating from the Alberton area to anywhere in the Republic, because that is what his permit allowed him to do. Recently this permit has, however, been amended in order to restrict his area of operation to a radius of 240 km from the town of Alberton. I think this is a matter that will be watched with interest, because this was an action taken by the board. The permit-holder had committed no indiscretion at all, but it was on the volition of the board that the permit held by this very large private haulier was amended. In the Financial Mail they have the following to say in this regard—

This is therefore a situation that bears a great deal of study and scrutiny in the future. Then there was a comment, again attributed to the Financial Mail, of the Director-General of the department. I should like to know whether the comment was in fact made on which the following report appeared in the newspaper—

One would view this in a very serious light too, because people who are going to apply for temporary permits to operate as hauliers will then have to go to each of their customers to get affidavits, and this will then place them in an impossible position. It will be very, very difficult in practice for businessmen to operate on that sort of basis. I think the hon. the Minister should elucidate whether this is the prelude of a new policy which is going to be followed by his department in granting temporary permits.

In the few minutes at my disposal I want to come back to another matter relating to the city of Durban. I have raised this matter on previous occasions with the hon. the Minister, but it remains a problem area although I know that representations are constantly being made to the Minister. I refer to the question of whether or not Durban is going to be allowed to have an integrated bus service. The hon. the Minister should be aware of the tremendous problem relating to transport in the city of Durban. The hon. the Minister should know too that the local transport management board has repeatedly made application to be allowed to integrate their bus service for pure economic reasons and for reasons of providing Durban with a better bus service. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I shall not react to the speech of the hon. member for Berea as I only have five minutes in which to express my thanks for an important announcement which was made recently and which will have a major effect on the Western Cape in general.

I am referring to the announcement concerning the bringing forward of the Du Toit’s Kloof tunnel project between Paarl and Worcester which, as I have said, will have a substantial effect on the economy of the Western Cape. As a result of the project being brought forward, 800 additional unskilled labourers will have to be employed as well as 200 skilled workers. This will have the effect of an additional amount of R20 million being spent in the Western Cape in the form of wages and salaries. In addition it will entail the spending in the Western Cape of R30 million in respect of materials. These are the effects as regards Paarl and the Western Cape in particular.

The effects of this announcement on the country in general are of major importance, too. One need only think of how much safer the new road will be. On the old Du Toit’s Kloof road 100 serious accidents occur every year and ten people die on that road every year. The tunnel will be 3,9 km in length and will shorten the existing road by 11 km. This will mean that 10 million litres of fuel will be saved each year.

If people were to travel by train that fuel would be saved in any event.

At a price of 60 cents per litre it will effect a saving of R6 million just in the first year. This saving is calculated on the present figures of 3 500 light and 1 000 heavy vehicles using the road per day; a figure which will probably double itself by the end of this century. As a matter of interest I may mention that an amount of R30 million has already been spent on this project in respect of the pilot tunnel, the access roads and the first phase of constructing the tunnel through the softer, weathered section of the mountain. The completion of the tunnel will require a further R80 million. What this means when one bases one’s calculations on these figures alone, is that the new tunnel road will pay for itself within 15 years at the present figures relating to the consumption and the price of petroleum products. These calculations do not take the elimination of accidents and the saving of man-hours into account. We have determined that it will be possible to save at least 20 minutes on each single journey, through the tunnel particularly with a large lorry. One can imagine what a tremendous saving this will bring about in the economy.

An important by-product of this tunnel is the water which will be taken through this tunnel from Elandskloof to the Western Cape as part of the programme of supplying water to the Peninsula. Having expressed my thanks for this, I do want to make one suggestion to the hon. the Minister and the department. This tunnel will be financed by means of an additional levy of 0,6 cent per litre of fuel, which levy will be contributed to the National Road Fund. This will mean an additional amount of R55 million per annum.

What I want to recommend very strongly is that this tunnel road should be the first toll-road in South Africa. I am aware of the fact that at the moment a Select Committee of this House is investigating legislation dealing with toll-roads. I do not want to anticipate the business and the findings of the Select Committee, but I nevertheless want to point out that I impose certain conditions as regards the matter of toll-roads. Firstly, there must be alternative routes. Secondly, they must be capable of effecting a saving for the public. Thirdly, they must not give rise to delays. As far as I am concerned, this new tunnel road will meet all the requirements I have just stated for toll-roads. In fuel alone, the public will save R6 million. In addition, it will benefit the country indirectly. Moreover, I believe, of course, that it is extremely important that part of the saving accrue directly to the National Road Fund or to the State in general. Consequently I suggest that the Select Committee give very serious con sideration to making this tunnel road a toll-road. The drivers of motor cars will not mind paying, for example, R1, whereas the drivers of lorries ought to pay R5, or in the case of a heavy lorry, R10. By using the tunnel the owner of a lorry is going to save a considerable amount of money in any event.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Paarl must please forgive me for not following him in his argument. Unfortunately, I have only five minutes to speak, and I have a couple of points that I want to make.

Firstly I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that I sincerely hope he is not cross with the hon. member for Berea because that hon. member has brought up the matter of the passenger at the Jan Smuts Airport. I believe that it is correct that we should use this forum to make it known to the hon. the Minister in a public way when we are in possession of evidence of bad manners on the part of any public official. This is especially so at our international airports which are, I believe, our shop window, and must be of the highest order. I have had similar complaints over the years of people arriving at Jan Smuts Airport and being badly treated, if not by officials of the Department of Transport, then by immigration officials, S.A. Police officials or Airways officials. I believe that all public servants who are dealing directly with the public should be made to understand very clearly that we in this House are proud of good manners, and that this should be the watchword that goes out to all employees. When dealing with the public the manners of public servants should be of the highest order. There was a recent case at the Louis Botha Airport, in Durban, which was brought to my attention, and I am delighted to state that it was sorted out. I must tell the hon. the Minister though that I know of cases similar to the one referred to by the hon. member for Berea and I support his appeal to the Minister. I do believe therefore that instructions should be issued to all the various departments in order to make sure that this does not happen again.

In the very few minutes I have at my disposal I want to raise with the hon. the Minister the matter of subsidies. I want to wish the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed and the members of his commission all success. It is a very difficult task which they are undertaking. Furthermore, I must remind the hon. the Minister that we have had the Driessen Commission, i.e. the Urban Transport Commission, and many other commissions. In spite of all that we are still burdened with the problem of urban transport and passenger transport. Summarizing the hon. the Minister’s problem I must point out that I believe he is in some sort of a dilemma. He finds himself in a dilemma by his having to find some conciliation between the vested interests of the S.A. Transport Services, the private road transport services and the so-called national interest. He has to mediate between road versus rail. We know that railway transport has lost high-rated traffic to private road hauliers and that the S.A. Transport Services are now trying to get into road transport. We also know that rail passenger losses are now in excess of R600 million. We know that there is the dilemma of bus passenger transport. We know that the subsidies granted to private transport operators for passenger services are now well in excess of R100 million per annum. We also know of the political pressure exerted by some political parties—especially from the party to which the hon. member for Berea belongs—for more subsidies for passenger transport. We have the problems involved in raising funds. The hon. member for Walmer raised the point that we are now talking about decentralization subsidies in regard to the transport of goods and passengers. This is all done in the name of the so-called national interest or in the name of social interest. I believe it is time for us to have another look at this matter. I agree with the hon. member for Walmer that the various types of subsidies have been institutionalized and that we should possibly review them. I say this because I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to an example of how we can get ourselves into a mess.

I am referring, of course, to the Rent Control Act. When this legislation was first introduced, it was in a very good cause. The object was to protect people in need during the Second World War. Over the years, however, the whole Rent Control Act, and the whole business of leasing houses and accommodation, became distorted. The whole system was corrupted. One found people who did not really need to have subsidized rentals making use of subsidized facilities. I might add that I myself was, at one time, one of those who lived in a rent-controlled flat without the need to have done so. The whole system became distorted. I think the same thing could be happening in the transport field. We have to ask ourselves whether all these subsidies are really necessary. I should therefore like the hon. the Minister to ponder this matter that I have raised today and to give consideration to the hon. member for Walmer’s suggestion that the principles behind all the subsidies involved at present be reviewed, with a view to making sure that they are really serving the purpose for which they were originally intended.

Mr. Chairman, I only have three minutes. I need a good road. I am therefore appealing to the hon. the Minister to get on with it. I think my speech is now almost completed, because the hon. the Minister knows what I am talking about. This concerns the southern bypass to which reference has already been made today. At this stage it is a provincial road. However, we requested the hon. the Minister to declare this road a national road. However, the request was refused. As a result I am appealing to him again.

At present the far East Rand and Delmas are on an island. It is not very easy to reach these areas by road. There is no route between the West Rand and the East Rand. It is virtually impossible to explain to someone how to get from one side to the other. There is virtually no passable road left between Springs and Secunda, and I need not tell this House how important Secunda and the Eastern Transvaal are to the economy of this country. Virtually all the capital investment that is taking place in Africa is taking place there, and it is therefore important that we build up this very important infrastructure. [Interjections.]

A freeway between Johannesburg and the East Rand could reduce the driving time by about 40%. Wear and tear and fuel consumption would obviously be reduced accordingly. This road was promised to us 20 year ago by the Administrator—at that stage it was Mr. Odendaal—but it could not be built. We did everything in our power by means of representations, to have it declared a national road, but they were unsuccessful. Apparently there are insufficient funds. Of course we cannot fight a lack of funds. We must realize when we have lost.

No, Gerrie, we have not lost yet.

I want to ask that income derived from the 4% of the total fuel consumption of the East Rand, be allocated fairly in the road building programme in that area.

I must say I do not think we have really lost. I want us to build a toll road from the West Rand to the East Rand.

No, now you are skidding. You have gone off the road.

It could be an accomplished fact before the tunnel through the mountain at Du Toit’s Kloof has been completed. I am appealing to the hon. the Minister to give further attention to this matter in the interests of a very important part of our country. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, there are 20

speeches to which I have to reply.

Begin with Nico’s.

However, there is also legislation waiting to be dealt with, so I have been given only half an hour to reply to this debate so that we may dispose of the legislation as well.

Firstly, the hon. member for Berea asked certain questions. The hon. member Dr. Welgemoed has already replied in great detail to the first part of the speech by the hon. member for Berea. He is the chairman of the Welgemoed Commission. I just want to say that it will not be possible during this session to give effect to those proposals, which involve three to four statutory amendments. Next session we can consider the proposed amendments in this House. We are also making a further study of the whole matter.

†The hon. member also referred to certain problems concerning fire-fighting services at airports. It is true that in certain areas we have difficulties, but we are looking into the salary position of these people. The Commission for Administration has received our request for an increase in salaries. However, the position is not so bad. At Upington we have six people at the moment and at Louis Botha Airport in Durban we have 29 posts and all of them are filled. As the hon. member knows, we unfortunately have problems with the personnel there. Some irregularities occurred and there were some cases of alleged theft and the police are investigating. We are now awaiting the result of the investigations.

Why did you not answer the question I had on the Question Paper?

When one has caught a person who has been stealing petrol and tyres, and when one is still investigating the matter, one cannot reply so directly to such questions. The hon. member also asked a question about the number of people available. When we have shortage of fire-fighting staff, and I have to say in reply to a question that although we need 16 people, we only have 14, this will cause alarm. When, in the case of aviation, we do not have enough staff to perform certain tasks, one cannot answer the hon. member’s question in such a way that he can publicize the information. Now the situation has been remedied. I gave the hon. member the reply and told him it was confidential, but he was not satisfied with that. I know he does not want it to be confidential so that he can give widespread publicity to it. We have a staff shortage in South Africa, and in some areas this is a sensitive matter. One of these is airports. Then one cannot handle this matter in an injudicious manner; one must first obtain the necessary staff and put matters right.

The hon. member also asked a question about the permit fee of R100 which had to be refunded to applicants. At one stage, local road transportation boards asked for R100 when an application for a road transportation permit was submitted under certain circumstances. Those circumstances have now fallen away. People now pay an application fee of R10, but they pay a further R100 when they have received an indefinite permit. The system was changed as a result of a court application. According to our information, there is virtually no money that still has to be refunded. The cases where the R100 had to be refunded have virtually all been dealt with. The hon. member says there may still be a few Black taxi-drivers who have not yet received their R100. The way I know those people, they have kept on insisting, and they can get their R100 back. If the hon. member can give me the names of people who say that they have not yet received the R100, I shall go into the matter. According to our information, however, there are no outstanding cases, and if there are any, only a minimal amount is involved.

†The hon. member also raised the question of foreign-trained pilots taking the jobs of South African pilots. We do not have any unemployed pilots. We do have foreign-trained pilots here, people coming from Rhodesia and other countries. They are qualified pilots. However, can the hon. member tell me of one South African pilot who does not have a job today because a foreign person took his job?

What about those I referred to?

Give me their names. They did not apply to me, saying they could not get jobs because we have employed foreign pilots. Actually, we find that there is no problem in this connection. Today there is a shortage of pilots world-wide. We have to compete with the S.A. Air Force and with private companies. Therefore I cannot see where the problem lies as regards the employment of foreign pilots.

*The hon. member can give me the particulars. I shall come back to the hon. member for Berea at a later stage.

The hon. member for Kempton Park asked some very important questions about commerce and industry and about our activities at airports. I want to thank the hon. member for the thorough study he made, especially with regard to the marine patrol. The idea expressed by the hon. member will be brought to the attention of the members of the Conference. The department will ensure, with the aid of the Department of Industries, Commerce and Tourism, that a special understanding is created between importers and exporters on the one hand and the Conference lines on the other. We have problems with this every year. When the Government, in co-operation with the conference lines, determines the freight tariffs for deciduous fruit, citrus and canned fruit, the freight tariff on a case of apples being exported at the moment is 40% of what the farmer gets for that case of apples. In the case of citrus fruit, the cost of transport from the interior to the coast and of shipping the fruit to the country of sale, whether this be Europe or the East, constitutes 50% of the price which the farmer gets for that case of oranges. If the hon. member is alleging, therefore, that the Conference lines are not making money, I want to say that the people who export the goods are not making money either. So it cuts both ways. However, we are making sure that there is no disruption and that we can continue exporting. We do not want to kill the local industry.

The hon. member also spoke about a better relationship between the shipping lines and the exporters. This is what we are constantly trying to achieve.

The hon. member for Langlaagte said that I had once said he was not such a bad fellow. That was a month or two ago, though.

Now he is even better.

I feel that I can never become embittered. Nor could I attack the hon. members the way they attacked me at a meeting the other day. I practise clean politics, in all sincerity. As I said during the debate on the Transport Services Appropriation Bill, where this matter was discussed, I have been sincere in my dealings with them. I know the hon. member is going to hold a meeting at Bronkhorstspruit, and I could give the hon. member a verbatim report of what will be said, but I do not do things like that. I do not do it because my case is such that I can put it in all honesty.

The hon. member referred to the southern by-pass and the problems at Uncle Charlie’s. We have discussed these problems together and we have received the money for building the traffic interchange at Uncle Charlie’s. The hon. member also said that we should plan over a longer period. It is true that that road was proclaimed as far back as 7 February 1968, and R10,75 million has already been spent on plans, sketches, relating to bridges, tunnels, fly-overs and clover-leaf bridges—the planning alone. All these things are already on the drawingboard. But that road is going to cost more than R1 million per kilometre. These are enormous amounts that are involved. However, the hon. member must realize that I asked for 1,9 cents a litre and that I only got 0,609 cents a litre, and this only enabled us to complete the existing roads which were half-way to completion. There is the road at Warmbaths, for example, the one at Middelburg, certain roads in Natal near Frere, certain parts of the Van Reenen’s Pass road and certain roads between Wilderness and Humansdorp, where bridges have to be built. There are certain bottlenecks that have to be eliminated. We can only continue with this. The 0,609 cents a litre we are only getting as from 1 April next year. I have already made an announcement in this connection. Shall I have the support of all Opposition parties if I come to this House next year and I make out a case for one cent or 1,5 cents a litre? Then we can build all the roads I have referred to.

No.

An hon. member on my side says “No”. I also want to point out to the hon. member for Langlaagte that township developers along national roads could to a large extent eliminate delays if they would consult the department beforehand in order to ascertain what conditions will be laid down for specific developments. The hon. member is a township developer himself, and if he would inform the department in advance, we could co-operate and there need not be any delays such as those he referred to.

The hon. member for Kimberley South—he apologized for being absent because he had to catch a plane—spoke about road safety. The CSIR has calculated that road accidents cost the country R1 million in 1980 and R1 150 million in 1981. I thank the hon. member, as well as the other hon. members who spoke about road safety. It is a tragedy when one considers that a country which has a shortage of trained people loses an enormous number as a result of road accidents. I am giving attention to the proposals made by the hon. members, and where they are practicable, we shall implement them one by one.

†The hon. member for Amanzimtoti spoke about the N3 road in Natal, the section from Illovo to Scottburgh and the Umkomaas bridge, about financial problems, etc. I think the hon. member will realize that the main problem is finance and an annual cost escalation of up to 20%. As I have pointed out, we will only receive an additional 0,605 cents per liter petrol from 1 April next year. The hon. member wanted to know what amount of money was spent on signs along highways. I have spoken to the Director-General about this. I personally do not like the idea of all these signs. These signs have to be kept painted at all times. The Director-General said that they would go into the whole matter. The provinces maintain these signs and we pay some of the accounts. I do, however, think that we can save money on these signs, and we will therefore pay attention to this matter.

The hon. member also referred to the method of raising the necessary funds. There are various methods of raising funds. What are we doing in this country? The South African Transport Services last year alone lost R590 million on the transport of passengers. When I prepare a budget with my officials we load the pipeline and thereby create an indirect subsidy to pay for the transportation of passengers.

*I do not want to talk politics now, but I do want to say something about the question of equal pay for equal work. The time will come when we shall have to re-examine this whole matter. I recently spent an hour waiting for an aircraft at an airport, and I walked from one person to another, talking to them, and then I went up to one fellow—he was English-speaking—and I asked him: “What do you know about power-sharing?” I just wanted to hear what he would have to say. He thought it had something to do with an engine! There are many people who are not interested in the kind of jazz we quarrel about. I subsequently talked to him about these problems. Then I met another fellow and asked him what his problems were.

He told me: “Sir, I am so glad to be talking to a minister.” So I told him that we should sit down on a bench so that he could tell me what was bothering him. He then said: “I work as a clerk and I earn R345 a month. Working with me is Wilson, a Black clerk. We have become friends. We have asked you to pay us the same salaries for the same work, and I am not complaining about that, for if you had been able to employ Wilson for a smaller amount, you would have employed him, and that is why I say that he must get the same salary as I. However, Wilson and I have become friends. Wilson now tells me that he fives in Mamelode and that his house costs him R36,40 a month. I have just been evicted from my flat because it has been sold under sectional title and I am now looking for a flat for R210 a month. My wife has to work and we cannot afford a child. Wilson tells me that it costs him 9 cents a day to commute to work, while it costs me 90 cents a day, because Wilson’s transport costs are subsidized.” Sir, I am not a racist, but if we want to pay equal wages, the people really and truly have to pay their own transport costs, and then we cannot lose R590 million a year on train passenger transport. If the prices of tickets could be increased instead, so that the additional revenue could compensate for the loss on passenger transport, we could build these roads which hon. members are taking me to task about today. Then we would have the funds to do this.

Hendrik, you can come over to us now.

No, my friend. This has always been our policy. This is the kind of story which is spread by those hon. members in the rural areas. It is typical of those hon. members. I have said on several occasions in this House that there should be equal treatment for every person, irrespective of whether he is a Coloured or a White.

Hear, hear!

The hon. member says “hear, hear”. So there is nothing wrong here. These are just a few men who were frightened out of their wits by the HNP. That is what is wrong. But now I am digressing. [Interjections.] I have only half an hour.

I have already replied to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. I hope he is satisfied, because I think I spent enough time on him. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Welkom spoke about road safety and a central traffic bureau. I just want to tell the hon. member that we are going to visit Welkom next month to inspect the airport and the station. Mr. Eksteen and I are trying to obtain money for improvements to the Welkom airport. The proposals made by the hon. member are very important to me.

As regards research done by the CSIR others for the National Road Safety Council, it is as well to know that the NRSC’s main source of revenue is a levy of 75 cents per car per annum. In this connection I fully agree with the hon. member. When we think of the lives which may be saved by this research, why can we not increase the amount to R1,50? If we could double this amount, we could also deal with the matters mentioned by the hon. member for Vasco. We could do this in the interests of road safety in our country. Therefore I thank the hon. member sincerely for his contribution. We are giving attention to it.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central discussed matters which actually, with all due respect, Sir, should not have been discussed under this Vote. The hon. member discussed Railway Affairs. However, I only want to react in respect of the three buses purchased for R107 000. These are three special buses. I have said before that I do not wish to criticize my predecessor, but when Jan Smuts Airport was built, the plans for the airport got mixed up with the plans for the Johannesburg market. [Interjections.] The two lots of plans got mixed up. Now we have an airport such as Jan Smuts—one can hardly believe it—where one has to fetch a passenger by bus when he wants to catch a plane because there is insufficient parking space on the apron for aircraft. Because there is no parking nearby for the aircraft, one has to go and fetch that passenger by bus. We could not get any firm in the Republic to build these three buses for R107 000. Surely one cannot ask a firm to change its whole factory just in order to build three buses. If one wants 300 buses built, it is a different matter. However, we do not have one-way traffic in South Africa either. We cannot only want to export without ever importing. When one is importing something of this nature, one bargains. One says to the firm: Very well, we shall buy the three buses, but we want this and that in addition. This is something I cannot disclose at this stage. In my opinion, however, the hon. member made a patriotic speech, and I appreciate it.

The hon. member for Roodeplaat spoke about the woman who paid R10 when she was applying for a transport permit on behalf of her husband. The hon. member said that when that woman went back the following day, she was refused a permit and the R10 was not refunded to her either. I just want to say that we investigate every application thoroughly. I may also say that many inquiries and other work has to be done in this connection. This is what has to be done when we issue or do not issue a permit. Hon. members spoke about a monopoly. The South African Transport Services at present conveys 45% of South Africa’s goods, only 7% of which is profitable. The conveyance of profitable goods is in the hands of the private carriers. As for the transportation of maize, steel, iron ore, etc., which are not profitable, those private carriers would not touch those. It is only the highly profitable goods that are transported by the private sector. A man applies for a transport permit and he swears that he needs the permit because he wants to transport tomatoes on contract. Just pull off that tarpaulin and see what is on that truck! That is why we must have inspectors. The hon. member and other hon. members spoke about sworn statements. We are considering having these people sign a sworn statement. Because we do not have the staff to carry out the inspections, such an applicant has to make a sworn statement. I have no fault to find with that.

I quite agree with the hon. member for Roodeplaat that this this consortium of insurers, 15 or 16 of them, is something which has given us stability and which we shall have to investigate very thoroughly if we want to change it. A fund consisting of hundreds of millions of rands has been built up in this connection, and we do not want a repetition of the experience we had with Parity.

†The hon. member for Durban Point asked for a little amount on programme 7. I cannot differ from the hon. member. The people in the Transvaal and the Free State say that they are not prepared to contribute, but the people swimming along our seashores are the people from the Transvaal and the Free State. Actually the people from the Free State should pay more because they do not know how to swim—all their dams are empty! [Interjections.]

The hon. member asked me a very positive question when he asked whether we could give concessions to S.A. Air Force staff flying for us in the Airways. I hope that I shall be in a position next year to say that we have some money available in order to help these people. Until now Minister Horwood has not been prepared to agree to make more money available. [Interjections.]

I shall inform Harry about that reference! [Interjections.]

I want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed—I have to be brief, in view of the time factor—for his contribution and for the replies he gave to the hon. members of the Opposition. I thank him for his support. We shall try to implement the proposals contained in the Welgemoed report as soon as possible.

†The hon. member for Walmer referred to sound competition between the S.A. Transport Services and the private sector. He also requested that subsidies be paid out directly. His suggestion cannot be implemented because subsidies cannot be paid out direct to commuters. How can it be done? It can only be done along the lines provided for in the Bills with which we shall presently be dealing. What the Franzsen Commission actually asked for was a one-third contribution by the employee, a one-third contribution by the employer and a one-third contribution by the Government. We are undertaking investigations along these lines. The ways in which subsidies can be paid out differ tremendously.

In so far as his remarks on competition between the S.A. Transport Services and private enterprise are concerned, I should like to point out, as I did earlier, that the S.A. Transport Services are only handling 45% of the transport in South Africa today. The private sector picked out all the items on which a profit can be made and we are stuck with non-profitable ones.

*The hon. member for Maraisburg spoke about air traffic control, our good staff and salaries. I thank the hon. member for this contribution. As far as our air traffic controllers are concerned, steps have already been taken to improve the position. The hon. member made certain suggestions, one of these being that the Afrikaans name “lug-verkeerleier” should be changed to “lugver-keerbeheerder”. In this connection I agree with him, and we shall go into the matter. Standardization of air traffic control is desirable and we are giving attention to his proposals. I congratulate him on his contribution.

†The hon. member for Umhlanga spoke about the number of people killed on our roads. He suggested that we change our driving habits. I agree with him on that score. The problem is that when we get into a motor-car, we feel the road belongs to us.

*I now want to say something to the hon. members of the CP. I regularly carry out a test here in Cape Town. There is an intersection where one has to wait for someone else to give one a chance to get in. Every morning I say to the man sitting next to me that we should see who gives us a chance to get in. Not a Prog, no one on my side and no one on the side of the CP, but a Coloured person! Upon my word, this happens every morning.

Upon my word, that is very kind of him.

Give the devil his due! [Interjections.] Every day those people are an example to me of what courtesy on the road really means.

And when one has a break-down, too, they are the people who stop.

Yes, they will help you. The other night my car broke down on the way to Acacia Park, and not one of you boys stopped. [Interjections.]

We saw it was you! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister must note that he is not allowed to address hon. members as “boys”. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Umhlanga referred to the fact that he had to pay 90c for a glass for soda water. That is shocking! We have an agreement with those people. They are granted the concessions at high prices. One of them tendered more than R150 000 for a concession which I think is a mistake. As he had tendered at such a high price for the concession he now has to increase his tariffs. I have spoken to the officials and they have told me that some of the waiters are taking chances. How can they charge 90 cents for a glass of soda water without whiskey in it? This is impossible!

*We are harming the reputation of the Department of Transport, because passengers feel that they are being cheated at the airports when they have to pay 55 cents for a cup of black coffee without sugar. However, we are giving attention to this.

The hon. member for Vasco spoke about the use of our roads, and I want to tell him that it is not a right, but a privilege to use the roads. The hon. member for Welkom maintained that the NRSC should have greater powers. I thank him for this view and I assure him that this matter is receiving attention.

The hon. member for Langlaagte said that the State should build roads itself. The State has the machinery to build roads itself, but we have called for tenders, and in some cases the provinces build the roads more cheaply, while in other cases the tenderers are cheaper.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana asked why hon. members of the CP had left, and then an objection was lodged to this, because he was raising the matter under the Transport Affairs Vote. However, this was the right place to mention it, because those hon. members are travelling in the wrong direction. So he was being quite relevant, because this still falls under Transport Affairs. [Interjections.]

†I want to come back to the hon. member for Berea. He referred to fire engines and the appointment of pilots, to which I have already replied. I have also told him that the money for the permits were repaid in most cases, and I referred to the report of the Welgemoed Commission.

The hon. member also raised the matter of unemployed South African pilots, and then referred to Mr. R. W. Rencken. The hon. member is a member of the official Opposition and as such he is entitled to take me severely to task, but I feel that he should also be reasonable. In my reply I stated that according to the medical report officials of the S.A. Transport Services received, Mr. Rencken was not fit to be employed in the position that he held. The next time I heard about this matter was when the hon. member for Berea referred to certain allegations, and said that he had a discussion with this man. But why did Mr. Rencken not approach me? He could have telephoned me and said: “I feel that I was badly treated by being paid off”. I can merely give the hon. member the assurance that we will once again investigate this matter, and I will endeavour to see Mr. Rencken personally. I will also try to get the medical report to show to the hon. member for Berea to prove to him that we cannot employ this man.

*However, this man has been unemployed for the past six months, and now I have to learn about that in this House. Why did he not send me a telegram or telephone me, because I do go to Durban now and then. [Interjections.] Who has been overseas?

You have.

I only went overseas for eight days during November to inspect airports.

As far as transport permits are concerned, I just want to tell the hon. member that these are being peddled on an enormous scale. Mr. Eksteen had no choice but to say that the man should make a sworn statement, because discipline has to be maintained in this respect.

The hon. member for Paarl spoke about the tunnel at Du Toit’s Kloof, and it is quite correct that this tunnel is being built at his insistence. He kept insisting on it, almost like water dripping on a roof, and now we are building it. The hon. the member for Worcester asked for it just as often, and the tunnel is now being built. I also hope that the Parliamentary committee which we have appointed will announce, when this tunnel has been completed, that there is an alternative, namely that one can use the old Du Toit’s Kloof road if one prefers. However, it will cost R24 more in diesel for a 25-ton truck, and an additional amount in wear and tear on its tyres and brakes. Therefore, the whole trip across the mountain will cost the owner of such a truck more than R30 extra. However, if there is an alternative, i.e. the tunnel, and the road-user is being asked to contribute R10 towards paying for this tunnel, he has the alternative of using the old road across the mountain if he is not prepared to pay the R10. So we are not complaining about this; we are only doing business. Therefore I thank the hon. member. We shall introduce toll roads where there are alternative routes.

†The hon. member for Umhlanga said that we should look into the whole matter of subsidies. As I have already pointed out, this is a burning question, as more than R800 million is paid out annually in subsidies in respect of commuters alone.

*The hon. member for Springs also addressed certain requests to me. The southern bypass could possibly be declared a national road if we could obtain the 1,9 cents per litre of fuel which is necessary. I am talking now about the South Rand Road. I have unfortunately had to inform the province that we have not been able to obtain the money. The Cabinet has decided that that road should remain a provincial road. So there is nothing we can do about the matter at this stage. However, I am going to try again next year. With the development at Secunda, as well as the development of Springs to the east, and the developments at Germiston, Benoni and Brakpan, delegations from all those city councils came to see me. The delegation from Springs brought a lot of pressure to bear. However, I regret that we cannot declare that road to be a national road at the moment, merely because of a lack of money. I must point out, however, that this is one of the places where a bottleneck is being allowed to develop which is going to give us a lot of headaches in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I have finished in exactly half an hour. There is only one more thing I want to say. It is a great pleasure for me to work in this department. Hon. members really show understanding for our problems, irrespective of the political party to which they belong. I thank them for this, as well as for their contributions here today. I also want to convey my appreciation for the support which hon. members of all political parties in this House give me and the department throughout the year. I once asked the divisions of this department to make matters easier for members of the House of Assembly. Hon. members have to catch planes, park their cars, travel by train, they often have to be away from home and to put up with disruption. Therefore, I request that we should go out of our way to make things pleasant for them, and also, of course, because they make things pleasant for me. For this I thank all hon. members sincerely.

Finally I just want to say this. A man can be a good Minister. However, if he does not have the right people behind him, he has not got a snowball’s hope. I am not saying that I am a good Minister.

You are, Hendrik!

Without people such as Mr. Adriaan Eksteen, Director-General of the department, Mr. Meyer, the Deputy Director-General, Mr. Smith, the man in control of overland transport, and Mr. Triegaardt, the man in charge of the Weather Bureau, this department simply could not provide the efficient service it does at the moment. Piet Koornhof once said at a political meeting that Hendrik Schoeman was now announcing his butter and cheese prices along with the weather report, because they changed so often. Time and again, however, the foracasts of the Weather Bureau are correct. When they forecast rain for the Eastern Transvaal and the southeaster for the Cape, I know that they are right. However, when they forecast that it is going to rain in the Eastern Transvaal, but that the southeaster is not going to blow in the Cape, I know that it is certainly not going to rain in the Eastern Transvaal. [Interjections.] For the rest, however, they are always right.

I also wish to refer to Mr. Germishuys of Civil Aviation. On the basis of information provided by Mr. Germishuys, Mr. Adriaan Eksteen phoned me at half past four in the morning to tell me that an aircraft had been hijacked. Thereafter he phoned me every quarter of an hour. It was still dark, but he came up with new particulars every time. Before long Mr. Germishuys was providing his information to Mr. Eksteen from a strategic point. This was merely because he was being kept informed of what was going on by means of a secret code. I convey my sincere thanks to Mr. Germishuys. Mr. Mills of Administration, Mr. Smith of Government Motor Transport, Mr. Lötter of Water Transport and Mr. Claassens of Overland Transport, as well as Mr. Booyse and Mr. Loots, our parliamentary officials, all deserve our thanks. I also want to thank them very sincerely for the pleasant co-operation between us.

Vote agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again

Mr. Speaker, I move—

For socio-economic reasons it is the policy of the Government to subsidize the busfare of non-White employees in those instances where they cannot afford the economic fare. In the case of Blacks this subsidization is under the Black Transport Services Act (Act No. 53 of 1957) in that employers in specific areas make contributions to the State on behalf of their employees.

In 1952 this contribution was 5 cents per adult male Black employee per week, from a levy of 25 cents imposed upon employers in terms of the Native Services Levy Act (Act No. 64 of 1952). The transport levy of 5 cents embodied in the said Act, was replaced by the present Act in 1957. From 1974 up to the present, the maximum contribution per employee—male as well as female—is R1 per month.

These contributions do not apply countrywide, but only in areas under the jurisdiction of an urban local authority in which more than 20 000 Blacks reside, and in areas which the hon. the Minister, after consultation with the National Transport Commission, declares in the Gazette to be areas in respect of which the provisions of the Act apply. In practice the Act is made applicable to those areas where the number of employees—and consequently the number of potential passengers as well—can justify the amounts that can be collected as against the cost of collection.

When the present Act was passed in 1957, the hope was expressed that the subsidization of Black bus passengers would be a temporary phenomenon. The subsidization of public transport in some form is a worldwide phenomenon today, even in the most developed countries. Subsidization of bus services, therefore, is a phenomenon which is here to stay. However, where this subsidy is to come from, is a matter which may be debated and to which the Welgemoed Commission of Inquiry into Bus Passenger Transport will, among other things, be giving attention. The principle that applies at the moment is that employers in declared areas contribute to the transport costs of their Black employees.

†The contributions received from employers are insufficient to cover subsidy payments. Consequently additional funds have to be appropriated by Parliament in the Vote of the Department of Transport. I now wish to indicate how the amounts paid from these two sources have increased during the period 1974-’75 to 1980-’81, the last year for which audited figures are available. In 1974-75 R6 594 069 was paid from the Black Transport Services Account, i.e. the account into which the contributions by employers are paid. This amount had to be augmented by R9 136 715 provided in the department’s Vote, which means that the total subsidy in respect of Black bus commuters amounted to R15 730 784. For 1980-’81 the corresponding figures were R15 750 630 in contributions, R78 514 582 in funds voted, a total therefore of R94 265 212. The estimated figures for 1981-’82 are R15 000 000 in contributions, R99 300 000 in funds voted, giving a total of R114 300 000.

Let us, however, look at the position from another angle. In 1974-75 the income from employers contributions represented 42% of the subsidy payments in respect of Black bus commuters. In 1980-’81 this percentage decreased to 17%, whilst the estimated figure for 1981-’82 is a mere 13%.

The figures I have quoted clearly demonstrate that a complete imbalance has developed between these two sources of revenue of the Black Transport Services Account, a situation which places an unbearable burden on the Treasury. Whilst the Government has amply shown its willingness to contribute to this important service, it is equally important to correct, to some extent, the present imbalance between the subsidies paid from contributions and those from appropriated funds. This can only be done by increasing the contribution payable by employers.

*When Act 53 of 1957 was passed, the principle was reaffirmed that the employer, being the person who benefits directly from the labour of his employees, therefore has a duty to contribute towards their transport costs. The present maximum contribution of R1 per employee per month has applied since 1974 and, as I have indicated, is totally inadequate. In the rapidly changing economic circumstances of today I do not regard it as practical merely to specify a bigger amount in the Act, only to adjust it again in a year or two, with all the cumbersome procedures involved in amending an Act. I propose, therefore, that the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs, after consultation with the National Transport Commission, will determine the amounts by notice in the Gazette. In order to enable employers to plan for such increases and adjust their budgets accordingly, I shall move an amendment to clause 3(a) during the Committee Stage to the effect that the first increase enacted in terms of this Bill will come into effect on the day specified in the notice. Subsequent increases will only come into effect 2 months after the publication of the notice. In this way, I believe, economic uncertainty among employers will be eliminated.

What the extent of this increased contribution should be, has not yet been determined. The National Transport Commission is the foremost authority in the country on most facets of transport and I am convinced that the commission will not seize upon this amendment to place an unbearable burden upon the employers. Moreover, I intend holding discussions with my colleagues the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Co-operation and Development before finally deciding on an amount.

†In the past the argument has often been advanced that this is a sectional and discriminatory tax and that all bus subsidies should be met from the State Revenue Fund. I admit that this contribution by employers is sectional by nature, but will it be less discriminatory if the subsidies are debited in toto against the State Revenue Fund? That will mean that every taxpayer has to contribute whether he receives a benefit or not. I am convinced that it is more equitable that those people directly involved with the employee should bear their fair share of the burden since they also receive the advantages emanating from their labour force.

To ensure that the responsibility of employers to contribute towards the cost of transport services for their Black employees is spread more evenly, it has been decided to delete section 3(2). This means that a contribution will also be payable in respect of domestic servants employed by private householders and adult Blacks for whom employers provide approved accommodation. More and more domestic servants commute daily between their places of residence and employment, receiving the benefits of the subsidization of fares while their employers are excluded from the duty of contributing towards their transportation costs. In practice it has also been found that employers providing approved accommodation to their employees often do that in areas where these employees still use subsidized tickets.

However, I wish to draw hon. members’ attention to section 3(3) which provides that contributions may under certain circumstances not be payable at all, or at a reduced rate. A particular class of employees that will be excluded from the provisions of section 3(1) is Black miners who live in approved accommodation provided by the mining houses on their premises. Likewise, I intend to exclude domestic servants who actually live in accommodation on the premises of private householders.

*I want to emphasize that the provisions of this Bill do not automatically apply country-wide. They only apply in declared areas as defined in section 2. Furthermore, transport contributions will only be increased in those cases where the contributions collected are insufficient to meet the subsidy requirements. Moreover, contributions collected in one area, may not be utilized in another.

Before the National Transport Commission makes a recommendation to the Minister regarding subsidy payments, in depth investigations on a wide front are undertaken by the department’s cost accountant into the affairs of the bus company concerned. If necessary, the services of independent private cost accountants are also utilized. I am proud to say that where departmental investigations have been checked by private cost accountants in the past, only very minor changes have been proposed to the departmental findings or methods.

For the rest this Bill contains technical or administrative improvements. An example of this is clause 5, which provides what has to be paid into the Black Transport Services Account. This account, like the Coloured Transport Services Account, is administrated by the same section in the department. The proposed amendments will result in the two accounts being administrated in the same way which, from an administrative point of view, will facilitate matters considerably.

To summarize, the subsidization of public transport services is a pheonomenon which is probably here to stay. The State is not reluctant to contribute amply in this regard, but cannot foot the bill in toto. For that reason a levy is imposed on employers in declared areas because they derive the greatest benefit from the labour of their workers. The principle that a user of a service has to pay for it, is not foreign to us. That is why there is excise duty on tobacco products and liquor and why the motorist is taxed on his fuel in order that various objectives, for example the construction of national roads, may be realized.

Mr. Speaker, from the hon. the Minister’s speech it is clear that, apart from the provisions of the Bill which are clearly consequential, relating to nomenclature and the deletion of the reference to the Senate, the Bill provides for a considerable extension of the principle for employers to assume responsibility for subsidized transport services for Black employees and an unspecified extension or increase in the amount of the subsidy itself. It is therefore a measure that can have far-reaching consequences for employers, whether they be businessmen, industrialists or private individuals, employing domestic servants. The position at the present time, as has been indicated, is that employers, other than employers of domestic servants or those employers who provide accommodation for their employees, can be liable for a contribution to the transport subsidy in respect of their employees. Their liability in this respect is subject to certain criteria, such as whether they operate—this is the present position—in what is termed a declared area. These declared areas are defined in the existing Act as any area under the jurisdiction of an urban local authority referred to in the definition, where there are more than 20 000 Blacks residing—that could be a municipal council, a town council, a town board, a health committee, etc., or any administration board or other body contemplated in section 84(1)(f) of the South African Constitution Act, such as municipal institutions, divisional councils and other institutions which have similar authority or power. Then, of course, the Minister also has the right in the Act to exempt certain areas and to repeal notices issued.

This Bill changes all of that. A declared area—to use the terminology of the Bill—may now be any area which the Minister may, after consultation with the National Transport Commission, declare by notice in the Gazette to be an area subject to the provisions of the Act. It gives the Minister a blanket authority and no longer is there the stipulation of specifying local authority areas or the limitation relating to the residence of at least 20 000 Blacks. Every community, large or small, city or dorp, can now be made a declared area to which the provisions of this Bill can be made to apply. That is going to be the effect of the Bill that we are discussing today. So much, then, for the specification that the Minister, at his discretion, can declare any area to be a declared area.

The second point in regard to which there is a major amendment in the Bill we are discussing now, relates to the degree of financial liability. The present Act provides that every employer in a declared area shall pay to the special Black transport account, opened by that local authority, a contribution of R1 per month per employee. As the hon. the Minister has told us, this Bill deletes reference to the R1 and says that they will pay for their employees at the rate which the Minister, in consultation with the National Transport Commission, may determine. In other words, the effect of this further amendment is to give the Minister a blank cheque in regard to the levy on employers. In terms of the Bill, as published, all that he has to do is to publish a notice in the Gazette and he can then increase his subsidy and the burden on the employer.

It is correct that the hon. the Minister has an amendment on the Order Paper in regard to this matter, an amendment that indicates that he has to give notice of 12 months of the amount that he is going to determine, and that certainly is an improvement on the Bill as published. It does at least provide some sort of certainty and some advance notice to enable employers to plan their budgets, to plan their expenditure and to take into account what their transport costs are going to be. That is an improvement, but nonetheless, we have now moved from the situation where we have legislation that stipulates and lays down the precise amount which can be charged, and it is in the discretion of the Minister, in consultation with the National Transport Commission, to decide upon the amount from time to time, even though, in terms of his amendment, he has to give at least 12 months’ notice.

The third point of difference is that the existing Act specifically excludes certain categories of employers from the operation of the Act, and they are primarily employers of domestic servants and employers who provide living accommodation for their employees, not as part of their remuneration, but as an additional benefit. These two categories are specifically excluded in the law as it stands at the present time. In this Bill the relevant subsection is deleted so that these employers and their employees are therefore included in the operation of the legislation.

I believe that the three factors which have been referred to are far-reaching. In the first place, the hon. the Minister is now going to determine any area in his discretion to be subject to these provisions; secondly, there is the removal of the limitation on the amount of subsidy; and thirdly, there is an extension of the provisions to include categories of employees previously excluded. The principle is now a general one that all employers in South Africa, no matter where they may be or what work they are offering, will be subject to the whims of the hon. the Minister as to what their liability must be in respect of the transport of their employees to and from work.

In any area, provided they get a subsidy.

Yes, in any area provided they get a subsidy, but, nonetheless, the hon. the Minister determines the area. It is not prescribed as it is prescribed in the existing legislation.

But we have to pay the subsidy first.

Yes, there is a responsibility to pay the subsidy; that is true. We have considerable sympathy with workers who, through no fault of their own, are compelled to live long distances from their places of employment and are therefore burdened with excessive transport costs. This is a fact of life. The fact that subsidies are paid for passenger transport services, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, is a matter which is not peculiar only to South Africa. The problem is, however, much more acute in South Africa because of the circumstances which obtain in this country. These circumstances obtain, not because of normal, natural or economic reasons, but because Government policy determines that workers by and large live long distances away from their places of employment. In this sense, South Africa is very different from most other countries. In most other cities of the world one will find that, normally, the working people live closer to the central and industrial areas, and the more affluent people live distances away. In South Africa this situation is reversed. Because of Government policy it is the working people, the Black workers in particular, who are compelled to live long distances away from their places of employment. Therefore, in principle, one has got to accept that transport services have got to be subsidized. We do not, however, believe that the burden for this should be placed on the employers to any greater extent. We now have the situation where willy-nilly it is accepted as Government policy that a levy is imposed on employers, and we are against this in principle. We believe it is the responsibility of the State to pay the subsidy.

I do not know to what degree the department has undertaken an investigation as to what additional revenue will accrue from this particular source, but to include domestic servants is, we believe, totally unnecessary. For employers of domestic servants now to be involved in having to contribute to a transport subsidy, we believe is totally unreasonable. It will impose, for one, additional administrative work on the part of the authorities in order to collect the subsidy, and it will be yet another form to fill in for the housewife of South Africa, who is already burdened with all sorts of technical forms which she has to fill in regarding the fact that she has domestic servants in her employ. It will also mean that amounts will have to be paid over each month and require all the paraphernalia resulting from the creation of an administrative infrastructure to collect money and levies from this source. It may even possibly have the effect of discouraging people from taking domestic servants into their employ, because it is an additional burden imposed upon them. One therefore sees very real difficulties and grounds for objection, particularly in relation to the further inclusion at this stage of a new category, namely employers of domestic servants.

That is one section, but one must also look at the reaction of other sections of our community to the Bill which the hon. the Minister has introduced. I want to quote at some length from a telex received from Assocom giving the views of organized commerce in respect of the provisions of this Bill. It refers to two Bills, the one we are discussing now and the Bill which is next due for discussion on the Order Paper. This telex states—

It goes on to state—

This is a well-known view and has been expressed before—

This is the amount of R1 to which I referred earlier. Assocom goes on to say—

Then it goes on to list all their problems. I will admit that some of these problems are met to some extent by the amendment proposed by the hon. the Minister because that at least will allow them to plan for the future.

We drew this amendment up after we had received that telex from Assocom.

Yes, well, at least that shows that the hon. the Minister is prepared to listen to reason sometimes. That is welcome and I am sure that Assocom will welcome it as well.

I am prepared to listen to good reasons at any time.

I am pleased to hear that too. Assocom goes on to refer to some of the consequences. These are—

Assocom goes on to say—

Very well, the hon. the Minister is now going to give notice but there is still no indication as to the amount that is going to be levied. I have had inquiries from various quarters in regard to what these people are going to be asked to pay. They say they are paying R1 per month at the present time and they want to know what the new levy is going to be. I think that the hon. the Minister should as soon as possible at least give some indication of the amount that is going to be levied so that people will have some certainty in this regard.

In general terms, however, we believe that this is an overaction to the situation. We believe it is a bad principle to extend a principle which is already a controversial one of making employers contribute towards these essential services and providing the subsidies necessary to include other categories as is being done in this Bill. Because of this and because of the uncertainty that this causes we believe it can only be detrimental, and we therefore cannot support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could ask the hon. member for Berea a question. The hon. member need only indicate whether he received that telex from Assocom today.

Not today.

Then I wonder why it is that the chief spokesman on transport affairs and chairman of the transport group of the party governing the country at present, has just intimated that Assocom did not send him a similar telex, telegram or message. I do not know what I should deduce from this, but apparently Assocom has seen fit to use the official Opposition as a mouthpiece on this occasion.

You are making a reprehensible attack on Assocom.

The hon. member for Berea has attacked different aspects of the Bill, and he says that he cannot support the Bill for various reasons. Perhaps we should have expected the hon. member to act in this way. However, during the course of my speech I shall refer to the criticism which the hon. member levelled at the Bill. At this point, however, I only wish to raise one aspect, viz. that according to the hon. member, there is no longer a definition of the area, as it is now within the jurisdiction of the hon. the Minister to be able to decide which area should be proclaimed a declared or affected area. I think the hon. member would concede that it would be foolishness on the part of the hon. the Minister to single out an area as an affected or declared area if it would not be economic to collect fees within the area. It would therefore not be economical for the Minister or the department to single out an area as a declared area, when the cost of collecting that levy would exceed the money he would collect. I therefore think the hon. member would agree with me that it must at all times be an economic effort on the part of the department.

It is true that we in South Africa speak of subeconomic and economic housing, but also about economic or subeconomic transport. We are familiar with the term in housing, and it is not remarkable that we also use it in the case of transport.

It is a fact that the levy on the transport of Black workers—take note, this levy is not imposed on the worker, but on the employer—was introduced approximately 30 years ago, in 1952, not in terms of the Act being amended here, but in terms of other Acts. It was in the form of a levy of 5 cents a week for every registered Black worker who made use of bus transport. I have done some research and I have found that this Act was amended only in 1964, in 1972 and in 1974. I am now referring to the Act which came into effect in 1957. This means that an amendment of the amount of the levy was made three times in 30 years. One asks oneself why this should be, and the reply is: Because it is an extremely clumsy method of increasing an insignificant amount of 5 cents a week, which was stipulated in 1974 and which still applies after eight years, to R1 a month. It cannot be justified that the time of this House be taken up with the amendment of a single amount provided for in an Act. This is why it is not often done. I spoke of an “insignificant” amount. It may seem small when one is speaking of 5 cents per worker per week, or R1 per worker per month, but if one considers the number of employees being transported, it eventually amounts to millions of rand. That is why it is essential to determine what the effect is going to be.

The hon. member for Berea is aware that the contribution to the subsidy of the transport by bus of Black people was 42% in 1957. The hon. members for Berea, Welkom and Kempton Park—in fact, every other taxpayer—paid R9,1 million for the transport of those Black workers in 1957. The projection for 1981-’82 is only 13%, however, but do the hon. members know what an astronomical amount the ordinary taxpayer will now have to pay for the transport of those Black employees? R99 million!

They could have used their salary increases to defray that expense.

The hon. member for Berea still says he does not think the game is worth the candle, or words to that effect. He thinks the hon. the Minister is over-reacting. The hon. member said: “It is an over-reaction.” When the Treasury has to pay an extra R99 million, the hon. member says we are over-reacting. On the other hand, we say that we want to strike a balance in the economy. We maintain that the person who wants to use Black labour, should pay for it.

The housewife too?

The housewife too. I am coming to that.

We should not be under the wrong impression about the legislation. This does not concern all Black labour, but only those people who are transported by bus, and then only in the areas which have been proclaimed affected areas.

We all know that Black domestic servants have been excluded in terms of section 3(2) of the existing Act. Surely the hon. member knows South Africa too. I invite him to go and have a look at the situation in Pretoria. He should look at the buses which enter Pretoria from Garankuwa, Mamelodi and Atteridgeville and which transport people coming to work in the city. Thousands of them are domestic servants who work in flats or houses, whether in Hatfield, Waterkloof or Montana. Formerly it was different, but today it is a much easier arrangement for the domestic servant to live with her family in Garankuwa or Mamelodi, because there is transport. One should go to Mabopane East or West and see how many of those people are domestic servants who do char work from house to house. One finds that they sometimes clean a flat once a week, and sometimes they wash and iron.

It must not be thought that we are going to catch those people in this net; we are not. They are not being affected, and the hon. member is well aware of this, because who is going to register them? We are aware that if one wants to catch snoek in a net, one does not necessarily have to use a sardine net. However, from time to time, one has to make the holes of the net smaller. Of course, we are aware that this does not always work effectively. However, all we envisage with this legislation is to enable the hon. the Minister and his department to say that they can no longer allow this continual increase in the subsidy which has to come out of the pocket of the ordinary taxpayer, while those who do make use of the luxury, are not taxed likewise. That is why we on this side of the House are of the opinion that the hon. the Minister should be able to say what he envisages by way of notice, so that the employer, too, can plan and budget.

The hon. member for Berea had absolutely nothing to say the other day when a similar piece of legislation was discussed in this House. The hon. member was dead silent when we amended the Labour Relations Act to provide, inter alia, that it is no longer necessary for the Minister to make an announcement with regard to the fees for witnesses and assessors by way of regulation, but merely by way of notice after consultation with the Minister of Finance. Today we are dealing with what is surely a similar provision. Why do the hon. member for Berea and his party find fault with this? It is unnecessary.

To me, what is most important is that the hon. the Minister is not going to determine what the increases should be by acting on feeling or instinct. The hon. the Minister is going to consult with his internal auditors, among others. However, he could use outside people and organizations to examine the books of transport contractors and determine exactly what is going on before stipulating what the increase should be. In the light of the fact that this is a practical arrangement, we can only request the hon. member for Berea to forget about these petty differences and to help us and to support the hon. the Minister as far as the present legislation is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I think that what the present legislation amounts to in essence, is that an employer should pay for the transport of his worker. However, I do consider it somewhat unfortunate that our domestic servants are regarded as being on an equal footing with, for instance, industrial workers in the service of an employer in Soweto. The industrial worker in Soweto is being treated in the same way as, say, a domestic servant living in a declared area, for example Kempton Park. This is an aspect which I am not too happy about. Domestic servants and their employers are on a completely different level to other workers and their employers.

The present Bill is also not very specific with regard to the question of chars. I think this term ought to be better defined. The Bill merely refers to an employer and an employee. I think this could be defined more clearly. Let us consider, for instance, a housewife who compensates her domestic for her travelling expenses by means of a weekly tariff. This is an agreement which has applied for many years between workers and employers. Normally, travelling expenses are added to the salary of a domestic servant as an extra. It is not regarded as part of the salary of the domestic servant. It is something which is added. Nor should I like to see the relationship between employer and employee in South Africa changing in such a way at this level, that the one must continually watch the other to see what he is going to do next. One makes certain laws which are undoubtedly necessary, but others which could perhaps have been dropped. When it comes to employers and employees in industry, I fully support the hon. the Minister, as the levy is something which has to be introduced. What is the situation in a place like Soweto, for instance? Each morning, people are transported from Soweto over a distance of 35 to 45 kilometres. In the years when planning was carried out in the Johannesburg City Council, and we spoke to employers, they said that they were not interested in that situation because the State subsidized those people. The employer builds his factory in Benrose, because he lives nearby. It takes him 5 minutes to get to work. However, he does not care about the fact that his employees have to get up at 4 o’clock in the morning to be in time for work. All that interests him, is the fact that the State subsidizes those people. He does not care what time they have to get up, or how many buses they have to catch to get to work. Better planning would be a great help. The industrial circle around Soweto, which I have been proposing for many years, is, in my opinion, necessary in the light of the tremendous increase in the number of people in that area. It would solve many problems. However, this is not a problem that is being experienced in Johannesburg alone. It is also a problem in Pretoria and many other places.

Anyone who does not wish to support the proposed levy of the hon. the Minister is, in my opinion, not really acting in the interests of the worker. It is only in this way that the worker can be provided with effective transport. Even if he has to stand, the important point is that the transport has to be able to take him from one point to another as rapidly as possible. Our country is very large. We need only look at the transport system from the cities to the homelands to see that the employer who wants a worker in the city will have to pay for it. We shall simply have to pay for it. Of course, this will help with decentralization as well. It is not that one wishes to force anyone to accept anything, but one should not offer people advantages if t is not in the best interests of the country.

For this reason, this side of the House most definitely supports this piece of legislation. We shall give the hon. the Minister all possible support. However, the position of the domestic servant and the employer is not clearly stated in the legislation. The amount proposed is acceptable, but I am always afraid of allowing legislation by way of regulation or notice. In my opinion, we in this country should be careful of being accused of giving preference to legislation by way of regulation or proclamation.

I agree with the hon. member for Roodeplaat that one cannot find fault with this legislation, particularly not with the principle. There are perhaps certain improvements which could be effected, but we can only support it in principle. An amount of R99 million has been mentioned, and it is unfair to ask pensioners and other people to pay for workers if they do not employ workers themselves.

For this reason, we shall support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, both the hon. member for Langlaagte and the hon. member for Berea advanced very interesting arguments here which I found extremely surprising. I shall return to this later. At this stage I should just like to thank the hon. member for Langlaagte for his support and his co-operation with this side of the House. As I mentioned, he advanced a few arguments which I shall return to later.

I want to state categorically that I support the principle of subsidies because, as far as I am concerned, it forms an inherent part of the development of the policy of this side of the House.

Of apartheid.

No, not of apartheid. That is in fact what I want to argue about later with the hon. members opposite. It is not apartheid at all. It is the welfare of this country and all its people. Let me explain why. I think we are all agreed and the hon. member for Berea also conceded that the principle of subsidies is accepted by everyone. Or does the hon. member not accept it? I feel that the question of subsidies is accepted to a minor extent by the hon. member for Berea. If one accepts the principle of subsidies, the size of the subsidy does not change that principle. After all it is an administrative matter when the subsidy is increased or decreased as circumstances require or if the subsidy has to be adjusted to the financial circumstances. That is why this amendment Bill does not contain any change in the principle. It is merely an administrative matter. That is why I say that once one has accepted the principle as it has already been accepted by this House, one must decide on the best possible way of applying this for the good of everyone.

I support the amendment which provides that the Minister may change it by regulation. As he has already intimated, he will do so after consultation with the other Ministers concerned and with due regard to the economy of the country and of the people involved. The hon. member for Roodeplaat has already said that since the principle Act came into operation in 1957, i.e. 25 years ago, only two amendments have been made to it. I believe the reason for this is the reason he gave. Another reason is that the current administrative situation means that, by following that example, the Minister will always be about 12 months too late in implementing it. By means of the proposed amendment a change can be effected to bring the situation into line with the changing circumstances and it will therefore be on a more effective basis which will in fact enable Assocom and others in the industry to know what they must budget for during the ensuing year. If this is not done according to the proposed amendment, they will still be faced with the results a year later, and they cannot base their planning on what is actually happening when they prepare their budget for the following year. That is why I also support the amendment.

Allow me to say what I found so interesting in the reasoning of the hon. member for Berea when he rejected this amendment and the principle of subsidies. I would never have dreamed that an hon. member of that party would come to this House with such an argument. When he does so he should take into consideration that he is rejecting the sound principle this side of the House subscribed to, viz. the sound family ties and family life which should be granted to Whites and Blacks. That is what I find so surprising about that hon. member. The employer is compelled to pay this subsidy to the employee and in this way the employer is compelled to enable the employee, irrespective of the financial circumstances in regard to transport, to go home in the evenings and to live with his family. I believe this amending legislation will contribute to the sound flourishing of family life. It applies particularly to domestic servants. Under the circumstances it is the domestic servant in particular who is frequently treated unfairly because she is employed in the White area and owing to a lack of transport and the cost of transport cannot go home every day. That is why I feel the hon. member for Berea should reconsider his opposition to this legislation and help this side of the House to promote the family life of the Blacks and the Coloureds, which we shall be able to achieve if we pass this legislation.

The hon. member for Langlaagte stated that he agreed with this amendment except that he did not want the domestic servant to be included. If this is so, his reasoning also surprises me. He and his party of a people who state every day that, we on this side of the House are the people who do not want to guarantee the White man’s identity, or do not want to give the White man the protection he ought to receive. The argument of the hon. member for Langlaagte therefore surprised me and I want to put it to him that with this subsidy the employer has to pay on behalf of the domestic servant, it will be possible to solve the problem of intrusion to a certain extent.

No. Now your argument is wrong.

My argument may be wrong, but the hon. member was in any case discussing the wrong legislation. I put it to the hon. member for Langlaagte, just as I put it to the hon. member for Berea, that with this legislation we will be protecting the family life of the Black man. We will also have the situation where the Black domestic servant will be able to return in the evenings to her own home, facilities and environment and this will to a certain extent eliminate the crowding out which the hon. member is so worried about. That is why I was so surprised at his argument. Since he and I may have been talking about different legislation, he does not understand what is at issue.

You remind me of Oom Snoek on the TV programme “Harmonie”.

I do not care who I remind him of. He is fortunate that he does not remind me of anything. After all, nonentities do not remind one of anything. Taking these factors into consideration, I have no difficulty in supporting this legislation.

I cannot agree with the hon. member for Berea who said that we are giving the hon. the Minister a blank cheque to determine the amount. I can also not agree with him that we are also giving a free hand in determining what areas are to be affected areas. As the hon. member for Roodeplaat said, this will be determined in the first place according to the economic situation and in the second place on an economic basis after everything has been taken into consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the debate so far and I sincerely hope that the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed is also listening very carefully because it concerns subsidies payable on bus passenger transport while that hon. member is chairman of a commission that is, we sincerely hope, looking into this matter in great depth.

The one thing that puzzles me is that we are dealing here with a subject which I believe has landed the hon. the Minister in a financial difficulty because he is now finding that he himself cannot bear the cost. In his Second Reading speech he said that in 1981-’82 the employers who were being levied at the present time would be levied to the extent of R13 million, while he, the hon. the Minister, would have to provide funds totalling R99 300 000 in order to meet a total subsidy of R114 300 000 during the 1981-’82 year. This is going to increase somewhat more, I assume, during the current year. What we are finding here is that the system of subsidies is placing an even greater burden upon the taxpayer. Nowhere in the hon. the Minister’s speech did I hear him say exactly what portion the bus users are paying and by how much their portion has been increased during this period.

There are three people involved here, namely the employer, the Government and the employee. I find it rather puzzling that the hon. member for Berea and his party have decided to vote against this Bill, because they are largely responsible for the representations and protest meetings in certain areas calling upon the Government to increase the subsidies. I find it difficult to understand why the hon. member is now opposing the Bill, because what the hon. the Minister is asking us to do is to approve a more equitable sharing of the subsidy between the employer and the Government. This bothers me. It could be—I am open to correction by the hon. member or one of his colleagues—that they would have supported the Bill had they not received representations from Assocom, as we and, I believe, others did. They are now playing it both ways. On the one hand they support the protesters and the working man, so they say, and on the other hand, when big business or those who have to pay the bill say that the principles involved are not quite right, they oppose the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we in this party are different.

We are true to our principles.

Yes, we are true to our principles, as my hon. colleague says.

Your principles are negotiable.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central says that our principles are negotiable, but I want to tell him that never have any of us on these benches negotiated on our basic principles. That hon. member used to sit on these benches and I can remember the day when he was negotiating his future, and today he sits in the PFP benches and not here. He should therefore not talk about negotiating principles.

He has got no principles, none at all.

I am quite sure that in the not too distant future a lot of those hon. members are going to negotiate their future, not on principles, but on political expediency.

Ask Hulley where his future lies.

There are a number of principles involved in this issue. The first one which I want to mention is that the hon. the Minister has come to Parliament asking hon. members to delegate Parliament’s powers to him to determine the amount of the levy which should be imposed upon certain sectors of the population in order to subsidize bus fares. I look upon this as a form of taxation. I know the hon. the Minister’s predecessor had a big argument with me over the floor of the House as to whether a levy is a form of tax or not. In fact, I received a nice free dictionary from the hon. the Minister—he was trying to prove that he was right. I am not playing with words, but the fact is that, as a result of the actions of the House should we pass this Bill, we will impose a financial burden upon a certain section of our community.

The second principle involved is that the hon. the Minister is now asking us to expand the category of those people who are going to be taxed. In others words, he wants to broaden this form of selective taxation by enabling himself, firstly, to declare any area receiving a subsidy an area to which a levy will apply and, secondly, to include other employees such as domestic servants, etc.

In regard to the first principle, it has always been a basic principle of our parliamentary system that Parliament should approve the amount of any tax, any financial burden that is levied upon the population. This is basic to our whole parliamentary system. The representatives of the people come to Parliament to make sure that they are not ripped off by the Government. That is what it amounts to. My personal view and the view of my party is that we in this House should not abdicate our responsibilities as protectors of the public interest when it comes to the statutory powers of Ministers to extract money, whether in the form of taxes or levies, from the public in general or from any particular section of the population as is the case in terms of the provisions of this Bill, namely the employers of Black labour. This is one reason why we shall oppose this Bill. We in the NRP refuse to abdicate our responsibilities in this regard.

Having said that, I want to add that, because the levy system has been in operation for several years, we urge the hon. the Minister to ensure that the present method of fixing the maximum levy be retained; that is to say, should increases in the contributions be absolutely necessary in the view of the hon. the Minister, this should be decided by Parliament and not by the hon. the Minister.

We also object to this Bill for a variety of economic reasons. The hon. member for Berea quoted at some length from the telex message which his party, and also my party, received from Assocom. I believe other parties may have received this message as well. I believe that the hon. the Minister’s amendment does solve one of the problems and that is in regard to the uncertainty of employers if the hon. the Minister was simply given the power to increase the rate willy-nilly at any time. That could really upset the budgets of very many companies and I believe that it would create an untenable situation. Therefore, I am very pleased that the hon. the Minister has effected this amendment. However, there are other sides to this matter as well. Once again, it is placing a burden upon employers and we will find that employers will react in one way or another to these provisions. There may be some economic implications arising from this.

The second principle involved is that one sector of the population is being subsidized by another; that is to say, we have here a form of selective taxation designed to subsidize bus transport. We have many forms of subsidies. We have food subsides—there is the subsidy on bread—and if we extend this principle of selective taxation, one may possibly ask all employers of labour to pay a special levy in order to subsidize the food that is eaten by their employees. This may sound a trifle far-fetched but that is the principle that is involved here. We have subsidies in the form of rent control. We have on our Statute Book the Rent Control Act, which, as I mentioned earlier this afternoon, was originally intended to assist a certain group but which I believe is now in disrepute in that people cannot rent houses today because the whole housing system was turned upside down as a result of this form of subsidy. Therefore, whether it be a food subsidy, which is a subsidy paid by means of direct taxation, whether it be a rent-control subsidy or whether it be a passenger-fare subsidy, I believe they are all open to abuse and I want once again to ask the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed to bear my comments in mind when his commission starts investigating this matter in detail. I will concede that, because of the stage of development in which South Africa finds itself at present, there are certain sectors of our society which need assistance. However, I do believe that there is a great danger that, once Parliament abdicates its responsibilities to all sectors of our society in respect, firstly, of those who pay for the subsidies and, secondly, those who benefit from the subsidy, many of the abuses to which I have referred may occur, as I believe is already the case in regard to the Rent Control Act and, I believe, also exists in regard to the subsidization of passenger fares. This is the second reason why we oppose this Bill.

Speaking for myself—and I believe some of my colleagues will agree with me—I feel that this hidden taxation which is used to subsidize certain sectors of our society is a form of paternalism which I believe strikes at the dignity and self-respect of many individuals. I would prefer to see far greater emphasis placed on the real value of work and the payment of the rate for the job so that people do not have to rely on hand-outs from others. I believe that employers should look at it this way. [Interjections.] Hon. members of the PFP laugh at this; I believe they are a paternalistic party. They like the idea of subsidies, because they use them as the largess of politics to win votes. We in this party are different. We believe in the dignity of the individual. We believe in the work ethic, we believe in the right of people to work and we believe in the right of people to a fair return for their labour.

Are you suggesting we do not?

We also object to the deletion of section 3(2) of the Act which is sought in terms of clause 3(b). The result of this will be that in future domestic servants and others will be included. We believe that this is an extension of the powers which the Minister has at present, an extension with which we are not entirely in agreement. We believe that this should be opposed, although I am prepared to admit that the hon. the Minister’s intention, as stated in his Second Reading speech, to exclude from this levy those who actually house their domestic servants in their home is an improvement.

In relation to this particular clause, I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that especially in this city there are many employers today who, when they employ domestic servants, first of all negotiate the rate for the day and then also agree to pay the transport cost. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister is aware of this. I know that my wife does that. She pays not only the rate for the day, but also the transport cost. Such an employer is now going to have to pay in so many ways: He will pay his direct taxation from which a contribution is made to these subsidies, he will pay transport costs in the form of a wage to the employee and now the hon. the Minister also wants to impose a special levy on him. I believe this needs to be looked into in great detail.

We also have a reservation when it comes to clause 10 which seeks to empower the Minister to enter into agreements with certain neighbouring States or territories. We have a fear here and I believe certain hon. members who have received the Assocom telex will also have that fear. Assocom expressed the fear that South African employers may end up subsidizing foreign States when it comes to certain of their transport operations.

Finally, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he or his department consulted with Assocom, the FCI or the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut before deciding to bring this Bill before Parliament. If the hon. the Minister did not, I believe that he has erred, and on this point alone I should like to ask him to withdraw the Bill.

The hon. member for Roodeplaat asked whether this House was going to be dictated to or led by Assocom. Surely we are the representatives of the people. I and my party are always open to any representations from any group concerning matters and legislation which affect their future. For this reason I believe the hon. the Minister has erred.

We believe that the provisions before the House are ill-considered and that they are going to have certain financial implications for employers. I believe the provisions impinge upon the accepted and traditional role of Parliament and because of this we are voting against the Bill.