Mr. Speaker, I move —

During 1967 the British Government requested the South African Government to agree to the amendment of the preferential tariff duty treatment which, in terms of the Ottawa Trade Agreement of 1932, South Africa had been receiving on unsweetened pears and pear pulp (canned) as well as lemon juice.

The said agreement guarantees to South Africa duty-free access and preferential tariff margins, varying in extent, on the products concerned when they are imported into Britain.

On unsweetened pears and pear pulp (canned) South Africa enjoys a preferential tariff margin of 15 per cent, 10 per cent of which is guaranteed to South Africa in terms of the Ottawa Trade Agreement. The British Government has requested that the preferential margin of 15 per cent on these two products be cancelled.

South African exports of sweetened lemon juice to Britain enjoy a preferential tariff margin of 18 per cent, 10 per cent of which has been guaranteed to South Africa in terms of the Ottawa Trade Agreement. The British Government has asked for this preferential margin to be reduced to 3 per cent.

On unsweetened lemon juice and powdered lemon juice South Africa enjoys on the British market guaranteed preferential margins of 12½ per cent and 15 per cent, respectively. The British Government has asked for both of these preferential margins to be cancelled.

Although at first the South African Government was opposed to the requests made by the British Government, the two Governments, after prolonged negotiations, reached unanimity on the matter after the British Government, in return for the requests it had made to the South African Government, agreed to relinquish the preferential tariff margin on canned sardines, which it has been enjoying in South Africa in terms of the Ottawa Agreement, in order to make it possible for South Africa to conclude successfully certain tariff negotiations which it had been conducting with Norway in terms of Section XXVIII of the G.A.T.T., and after the British Government had also agreed to amend its request for the complete cancellation of the guaranteed preferential tariff margin which South Africa has been enjoying on unsweetened canned pears and pear pulp on the British market and to retain on these products a preferential margin of 5 per cent in favour of the Republic.

The South African Government’s compliance with the British Government’s requests was also influenced partly by the fact that the Republic’s exports of unsweetened canned pears and lemon juice were relatively small and that the reduction and cancellation, respectively, of the preferential tariff margin on these products on the British market would not substantially harm its exports of the relevant products to Britain.

I may add here that the British Government has also given the South African Government the assurance that it will give sympathetic consideration to the re-introduction of the preferential margins on unsweetened lemon juice if it appears that the South African exports thereof, no matter how small they may be, were affected adversely by the loss of the preferential tariff treatment which the Republic has been enjoying on the British market in terms of the Ottawa Agreement.

Notes were consequently exchanged between the two Governments on 4th December, 1970, in order to confirm the South African Government’s agreement to the relevant preferential margins being amended. The House is now being asked to agree to the exchange of notes.

Mr. Speaker, this is the type of motion which periodically comes before this House whereby amendments to the tariffs under the Ottawa Agreement are sought. Basically these are matters which are handled by the department in consultation with Commerce and Industries. In the circumstances we have no objection to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I have already tabled copies of the exchange of notes connected with this motion.

In terms of the trade agreement between South Africa and Malawi, which was signed in Cape Town on 13th March, 1967, 1 000 short tons of rice, not packed for retail sale, are allowed into South Africa from Malawi every year at a rebate on the customs duty amounting to 125c per 100 lb. The customs duty on such rice imported from other countries, amounts to 250c per 100 lb.

There are several processers of rice in South Africa that produce polished rice from rice in the husk or husked rice. In order to assist this rice-glazing industry in the Republic, they are being granted a partial rebate on the customs duty on imported rice in the husk or husked rice. Because of this rebate, the effective customs duty which the local industry has to pay on imported rice in the husk and husked rice, amounts to 135c per 100 lb and 170c per 100 lb., respectively. This customs rebate on the kinds of rice in question applies to imports from all countries and is not confined to imports from Malawi only. The rice imported into the Republic at present, consists mainly of husked rice or rice in the husk.

The production of rice plays an important role in the economy of Malawi, and the Government of that country has been paying more and more attention to the cultivation of this cereal. With a view to extending further that country’s export trade with South Africa, the Government of Malawi has therefore asked for the existing quota of rice which may under the trade agreement between the two countries be imported into the Republic subject to a rebate on the customs duty, to be increased in order to enable the exporters of Malawi to utilize more effectively the sales possibilities for rice on the South African market.

In the course of negotiations which were conducted on the matter between representatives of the two Governments, it was agreed that—

1. (i) the existing import quota for 1 000 short tons of rice not packed for retail sale, be increased to 2 000 short tons per year, with the retention of the existing customs rebate of 125c per 100 lb.; and
2. (ii) a quota for the importation from Malawi of 8 000 short tons of rice in the husk or husked rice per annum, be introduced at an increased customs rebate of 20c per 100 lb. on each of the two kinds of rice. What this concession to Malawi amounts to in practice, is that the processer (polisher) of rice in the Republic will then pay effective customs duties amounting to 115c per 100 lb. on rice in the husk and 150c per 100 lb. on husked rice imported from Malawi for processing into polished rice, whereas imports of the two kinds of rice from other countries remain subject to effective duties of 135c per 100 lb. and 170c per 100 lb., respectively. These increased customs rebates on imports from Malawi will encourage our importers to import their requirements from that country, whilst the protection afforded to our local polishers, is not being undermined.

These new concessions to Malawi are subject to review after three years. Just as was the case before, imports of rice from Malawi, i.e. imports on which the new concessions have a bearing, will remain subject to an import permit being issued by the Secretary for Commerce.

The results of these negotiations are contained in notes exchanged between the Governments of South Africa and Malawi on 1st February, 1971, in order to make provision, by way of effecting the necessary amendment to the trade agreement between the two countries, for the implementation of the additional concessions made to Malawi.

The House is now being asked to agree to the said exchange of notes between these two Governments,

Mr. Speaker, we have had an opportunity of examining this question of the importation of rice from Malawi, because the details appeared in notes which were tabled in the House a few weeks ago. We have no objection to these proposals.

If words have any meaning, I think that the introductory words of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport have a special meaning for me. In his Second Reading speech in connection with this Bill, the Minister went out of his way to give us a picture of it, and to sketch its development and background. On the one hand this illustrates to me the desire of this side of the House, when legislation is submitted to the House, to do so on the basis of numerous investigations of commissions, but also after consultation has taken place with the various bodies concerned. Secondly, it illustrates to me another very important matter, i.e. that when the future of South Africa is at stake, and that goes for this matter as well, the necessity and the urgency of a Government that will act very responsibly in this connection comes very clearly to the fore. I think that the hon. the Minister, in his Second Reading speech, very clearly sketched for us the background that makes it necessary for this Bill to be placed on the Statute Book, i.e. to give legal effect to the recommendations of the Borckenhagen Commission of inquiry, to the recommendations of the Schumann Commission and, in particular, with respect to the recommendations contained in paragraph 453 (c) of the Marais Commission, which stated it as follows—

I am very grateful that the hon. the Minister also held proper consultations with the provinces, which did this work in the past, after this report had been studied and after these recommendations had been accepted.

Therefore, when one comes along with a measure as important as this one, where effect must be given to the activities of the National Transport Commission, which must serve as a central road authority, one would very much like to see the Opposition supporting us in this matter, because South Africa’s future and its interests are very closely involved here. That is why I am very sorry that they do not see their way clear to supporting this Bill, and further that they fall back on negative arguments, as though this side of the House were encroaching upon the rights and the privileges of the provinces. Sir, I regret that very much, because that is least of all what this Bill means.

This legislation requires that we should give very proper consideration to South Africa’s future; that we should take a brief look over the hill and that we should do everything, within the framework of existing legislation, that can give effect to this extremely important matter. The hon. the Minister pointed out to us very clearly that section 84 (1) (h) of the Constitution provides that subject to the provisions of Act No. 32 of 1961 and Act No. 38 of 1945, and the assent of the State President, a provincial council may make ordinances in connection with roads, outspans, ponts, bridges, etc. In addition the Minister also pointed out to us very clearly that section 85 of the Constitution provides that any ordinance made by a provincial council shall have effect in and for the province as long and as far only as it is not repugnant to any Act of Parliament; in addition, that paragraph 10 of Part B of the First Schedule of the Transkei Constitution Act, Act No. 48 of 1963, to which reference is made in section 37 (1) (a), read in conjunction with section 39 (f), provides that the Transkei an Legislative Assembly shall not have power to make other laws with respect to roads which have been declared to be national roads, and with respect to national roads in general.

In other words, Sir, within the framework of existing laws that we have, and after the investigations of these various commissions, with the relevant recommendations, this Bill is fully justified. Sir, before I go any further let me just say this: We on this side of the House have the greatest respect and appreciation for what our provincial authorities have done over the past few years in respect of road-building in our country. We know that they undertook this task with great care and conscientiousness under difficult circumstances, there having been divergent needs, with funds not always being freely available, and they also carried it out to their credit. Today we see, across the length and breadth of our country, beautiful roads that have been built, but if we look at South Africa’s future and at the heavy obligation that rests on this House and upon us to plan for the future, then it is also very clear to us that we cannot continue with the situation as we have had it up to now, with clashing interests—provincial interests on the one hand and national interests on the other. The demands of the times are such that there must be proper planning. There must also be appreciation for what has thus far been done by the provinces, but with the creation of the central authority, proper provision must also be made for the future requirements of South Africa. That is why I am glad that under these circumstances we could also liaise with the provinces and that we also have their consent in this connection.

The object of this Bill is to extend the powers, the duties and the activities of the National Transport Commission, with respect to roads, to such an extent that the National Transport Commission will, as a fully-fledged central road authority, have the necessary jurisdiction to establish, develop, maintain and make other additional provisions for a national freeway system for the Republic of South Africa, Consequently this Bill derives its principle from the National Roads Act, Act No. 42 of 1935, the Transport (Co-ordination) Act, Act No. 44 of 1948, the Advertising on Roads and Ribbon Development Act, Act No, 21 of 1940, and the relevant provisions of the Expropriation Act, Act No. 55 of 1965 and the Railways Expropriation Act, Act No. 37 of 1955. In addition it was also necessary for us to implement in this Bill certain principles that were contained in some of our provinces’ road ordinances, and other necessary principles and practices, thereby properly equipping the National Transport Commission to develop, with the greatest measure of efficiency, its powers, duties and activities as an independent and self-reliant road authority. I am very glad that the hon. the Minister made this matter very clear, thereby completely being able to quash unsavoury utterances, unfair criticism and irresponsible talk by uninformed persons.

What do we now hear from the Opposition? The hon. member for Durban North reproached the Minister for having taken the trouble to give the detailed explanation that he did give. By way of a question the hon. member insinuated, in addition, that we do not regard the Transkei as competent to build the roads. In addition, the hon. member said that the Minister had neglected to deal with the various clauses and that the rights of the provinces were now encroached upon. In conclusion the hon. member said they would oppose this Bill. I want to tell the hon. member that I think that we on this side of the House are just trying to face up positively to South Africa’s future problems, to establish the necessary planning and to greatly appreciate the work our provinces have done. This Bill is least of all intended to detract from the rights and the duties of our provinces.

The hon. member for Green Point spoke of “new thinking”. He said that his objection is: “That there is no framework for dynamic planning in this Bill.” I think that this Bill, as it appears on the Order Paper, is specifically a framework for dynamic thinking in the future. In addition the hon. member spoke of a “shortage of engineers”. If the hon. member had looked at clause 5 (1) (f) and (g) of the Bill, which concerns bursaries and subsidies, I may just tell him that we specifically want to extend the powers of the National Transport Commission to such an extent that provision can also be made for all these needs.

The hon. member for Salt River again pointed to the fact that the Marais Commission’s Report was not accepted. Paragraph 453 (c) of the commission’s report was specifically accepted by the Minister, and he stated as much. In addition, the hon. member for Salt River asked a number of questions about funds, standards, etc. If the hon. member had done his homework he would have seen what this Bill envisages.

No, I think this is an important matter. South Africa demands responsibility from us in this field. It is regrettable that the hon. Opposition does not want to cooperate with us in this instance, because I think that this is a matter that ought to stand outside party politics. The importance of transport and its development in our country is a matter of the utmost importance. I can mention numerous instances in the past where problems developed because of the fact that the necessary co-ordination was lacking and because there were various points of departure. Let me take, as an example, a road in my area, the Villiers-Warden road which is a part of the Johannesburg-Durban road. Because this area lies on either side of the Vaal River, and this specific road runs through two provinces, there were several approaches and various ways of planning and aligning the road. There were also various methods of compensation. At the time, when the goldfields were discovered in the Free State, those camps that actually had to build roads in the Northern Free State were withdrawn in order to carry out the necessary services at the goldfields in the Western Free State. At a later stage, when the national road had to be planned there, it was virtually done on the basis of it also being of provincial importance. In my view this is wrong. A road was then built that was fairly crooked, and that also traverses a longer distance than a national road ought to. I believe that a national road must be as straight as possible, because its construction entails such heavy costs. It cost about R400 000 per mile. With the National Transport Commission row having to plan a new road, we find that two roads will run about 200 yards from each other over a distance of nine miles across a very fertile and highly intensive farming area. I am just mentioning this as an example of what happened under the old system. With land becoming more expensive and greater demands being made upon us, I therefore think that it is necessary that we do not continue with this kind of planning, but that this planning should be done in the interests of the nation. That is why I am completely satisfied that, with this Bill drawn up as it is, the National Transport Commission will have all the facets of national freeway systems in its hands. We know that they will also take the correct action as far as these problems are concerned. As I have said, I regret that the Opposition does not want to support us with this Bill, because this matter is of national importance.

According to clause 2 the National Road Fund will continue as it was created in terms of section 5 of Act no. 42 of 1935, despite the repeal of this Act in toto. Clause 4 regulates the proclamation of the road as a national road by the Commission after consultation with the Administrator or the Government of a self-governing area. The Opposition’s argument that we now want to detract from the powers of the provincial council is therefore not justified. This principle of consultation still remains in force in this legislation, but with the object of promoting the interests of the nation. This principle is also derived from section 4 (1) of Act No. 42 of 1935, which is now being repealed. This Bill also makes further provision for self-governing areas and future self-governing areas, because this matter is and remains a national one. Where these powers were not transferred to self-governing areas, I find it only logical that we shall have to consult with them, but that these powers must be in the hands of the National Transport Commission. If we lake a further look at clause 5 of the legislation, we see that in subsection (1) (e), the following words appear: “or the prevention of soil erosion on a national road or as a result of the construction of a national road …” I personally welcome this clause, because we know that where national roads with four lanes are built, a tremendous amount of water is concentrated on that surface. This usually causes extensive soil erosion. In this legislation this is now specifically mentioned, and in terms of this it will be combated.

In clause 18 provision is also made for compensation to persons suffering damage from proposed storm water being diverted. I say that I welcome this measure. In addition I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to add the words “after the owner of the land has been notified in writing of his intention and of the object of his intention”, at the end of clause 7 (1). I should like to ask the Minister whether he would not be willing to add this brief sentence. In clause 8 (1) (d) the word “useless” is used. At present subsection (1) (d) reads as follows

I am of the opinion that the word “useless” puts one too much in mind of the United Party members. Consequently I want to ask the hon. the Minister to replace that word with the word “uneconomic”. In paragraph (b) of clause 8 (4) the following words appear: “to vacate the land within a period of not less than 90 days as from the date referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection.” I wonder whether the Minister would not consider adding, for the purpose of this Bill, “or as soon as the existing crop is removed from that land”. We would be very glad if the hon. the Minister could give this matter very sympathetic consideration.

In addition I can give my full support to this legislation because I know that this matter is not only intended to give us advanced planning for the future in respect of the national road network of South Africa, but also hereby to express gratitude for what has been done up to now. In the interests of South Africa we also cannot but establish a national road authority that can plan South Africa’s national roads on a freeway basis. This can only benefit this country and be of advantage to us all and to our descendants.

The hon. member for Heilbron was, as far as I can remember, the first hon. member from the Orange Free State to take part in this debate. I was waiting to hear from him as I have been waiting to hear from any other member, what the reasons were that motivated the Orange Free State Administration to come forward with their recommendation to the commission that the National Transport Commission should in effect be done away with altogether. What were the reasons and why are there hon. members representing the Orange Free State in this House who have said nothing about that at all? They will vote for this Bill as it comes forward at the second reading, but they are completely silent about the fact that the provincial authority of the Orange Free State —which is totally controlled by Nationalists—submitted a recommendation in its evidence before the commission that the National Transport Commission should be done away with altogether. What are the members of the Orange Free State thinking? Why do they not explain the attitude of their province and also the supporting attitude of the other three provinces? They were all against the implementation of this sort of legislation. It is no good saying it is not true. We have here hon. members representing the Orange Free State who are simply shutting their minds off and are not attempting to explain away the attitude of their province.

I state categorically that the balance of evidence from the three commissions concerned was against the taking away from the provinces, of the right to construct national roads. The hon. the Deputy Minister’s excuse in introducing this legislation is that it is attempting to co-ordinate the administrative procedure which has to be followed when a national road is planned, I believe that as we go along we will be able to see that not only is that not the case, but that there will be an additional complicating factor introduced into the planning of national roads. The hon. member thanked the. Minister for the clear way in which he introduced the Bill. He said “die Minister het dit duidelik uitcengesit”, but this was the one thing the hon. the Deputy Minister, by his own admission, did not do. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that the White Paper had been issued and that for that very reason he was not going to go into the Bill clause by clause. The hon. member obviously felt so bad about it that he tried to do it himself. He was devoting his attention and the bulk of his speech to commenting on various clauses, something which could be done in the Committee Stage. The one thing the hon. the Deputy Minister did not do, and he was at pains to say that he would not do it because the White Paper had been issued, was to go through the Bill clause by clause.

The hon. member for Heilbron then took my colleague, the hon. member for Green Point, to task for saying that this Bill does not allow for dynamic planning. The simple truth of the matter is that this is merely an imposition of the power of the National Transport Commission on all four provinces and that it does not make provision for the sort of dynamic planning and thinking that we on this side of the House had been looking forward to. This Bill does not cover urban freeways, a matter which was debated here a session or two ago, or the matter of mass and rapid transit in urban areas. This Bill makes no provision at all for that kind of dynamic planning and thinking. If there is one thing that is going to be necessary in South Africa, it is that the most urgent attention has to be given to that kind of dynamic planning.

I want to ask what the problem is that makes this legislation necessary. Since 1910 provincial councils through their roads departments were in charge of the building of roads. This Bill now purports to say that national roads have not been built efficiently up to the specifications and that they have not been built in the way the National Transport Commission would like to see them being built. I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that the National Transport Commission was originally conceived of as a funding organization, its prime functions being funding and co-ordination. This had to be done because there were four different provincial authorities and roads departments which had virtually the sole right to build roads in their own areas. It was therefore necessary to have some sort of co-ordinating machinery such as the National Transport Commission which was established by the United Party in 1935. This commission was endowed with the funds to finance the building of these national roads.

Today we have a new system, whereby a new freeway system is imposed upon the old national road system. This freeway system will result in the cutting of distances, as the hon. member for Heilbron pointed out. What is happening now is that the National Transport Commission is taking unto itself all the power over the construction of freeway systems between the various urban authority areas and between the various provinces. The system has worked in this way in the past. The National Transport Commission took decisions on the routes to be followed. I myself have been to the commission with a deputation from the Mooiriver Farmers’ Association asking that an alternative route should be followed. In these matters there is no question of influence being brought to bear or anything of the kind The question is always what the most efficient and most economic route to follow will be. The National Transport Commission themselves visited the area because they were sufficiently interested in the alternative proposal put forward by the Farmers' Association. I, therefore, think there is no problem in regard to the decision on the routes lying in the hands of the National Transport Commission. The Provincial Administrations and the Roads Departments decide on the detailed plans and draw up the documents, ask for and decide on tenders, and so on.

I wish to say that a great deal of play has been made by the hon. the Deputy Minister of the fact that the provinces use contractor and consulting engineers and that they do not do the work themselves. Now, the basis on which the provincial administrations use contractors is quite simple; because the construction units which were run by the provincial administrations were basically staffed by White people. Those units have simply disappeared. There are no longer White people prepared to do this kind of work. The provinces have been forced to fall back on the use of contractors, because all the contractors use non-While labour. There are one or two units in the provincial administrations which are staffed by Whites, but even there you are finding the lower grade and lower paid work being taken over be non-Whites. It is a physical impossibility, either for the National Transport Commission or any provincial council, to be able to staff and maintain their building units on the basis of White labour. As far as the consulting engineers are concerned, there is no difference between the National Transport Commission and the provincial administrations. They will have to do the same kind of thing. I do not think any kind of argument can be adduced for what is basically taking away the power that the provincial councils have today in favour of a centralized organization.

The provincial councils all have a roads department under the control of a chief engineer. They are, by their very nature, personally involved and knowledgeable about the conditions inside those provinces. They have got years of experience and have been dealing for years with the local conditions in every single district and area in that province. Not only that, but they have been building up over the years a body of consultants, people who are local to that province in that they have local offices established in those provinces, knowing what are the local conditions. Here the system is working the best way in which it can work. The provincial administrations have the local knowledge accumulated over the years, and they have built up a close and intimate association with groups of consulting engineers who have come to their aid in the past to meet the shortage of provincial council staff. I believe this is the right and only way in which it can be done.

What is going to happen, is that the National Transport Commission will have to come into a province, for instance the province of Natal, and superimpose open the existing road-making authority the Provincial Roads Administration, a new body of people, a wholly new corps of engineers, people who will have to fit in and mesh in with the administration of that particular province. I do not see how this is going to be any more efficient than the present system. I fail entirely to see how the introduction of a further complicating factor is going to help the National Transport Commission or the Minister’s department to cut out any of the administrative problems. This was the whole complaint of the commission, namely, that it is the administrative problems which are holding up planning, which are costing extra money and which are becoming the bugbear in not allowing us to build the roads that we would like to build with the money that is available.

With any particular road that has been planned, there is still going to have to be the closest possible consultation between the Minister’s department and the Natal Provincial Administration, for argument’s sake. The question of local planning, of access to the freeways, has to be settled between the provincial administration and the department. The question of cattle creeps, the whole detailed planning of the road still has to be done in consultation with farmers' associations along the route. It has to be done with the authority of the Provincial Roads Department. As regards the question of new connecting roads between the old national roads, which are going to be deproclaimed, and the new freeways, there still has to be the closest consultation and co-operation between the National Transport Commission and the provincial administration. It is not necessary to have a totally new body superimposed on what is there now today, which is now concerned with the planning of these roads. All that is happening is that there is an additional factor being introduced, another complicating factor; and the complaint that was made by the Marais Commission and others and by the hon. member for Middelburg, that we have there a too cumbersome procedure, will not be eliminated. You will have to have the same amount of consultation, you are going to have to have agreement and you will have the same trouble with every single farmers’ association wherever a new national road is going to be routed. Surely to goodness, in dealing with the farmers’ associations along the route, the Provincial Administration, who are in far more intimate and close touch with them, are the people to handle it rather than some deus ex machina, coming from Pretoria. I believe this is a step which is going in the wrong direction altogether.

All planning of roads is done on a detailed basis of short sections of road. The national road between Mooi River and Estcourt is a stretch of 18 miles. It has been advertised for tender. A tender of R13 million has been accepted and it was given out to a contractor. But I would like the hon. the Minister to explain to me how the planning and the takeover by the National Transport Commission is going to eliminate any one of the steps taken in the planning of that road. As I say, I went to the National Transport Commission when we were planning the detail of the road. The detail still has to be done. Where there are interchanges, where there are feeder roads, where there are negotiations with the local farmers’ associations, you are still going to have to take every single one of those steps in detail because you are dealing with a short stretch of road which has to he planned right down to that last detail. The Minister thinks that by taking these powers into the hands of the National Transport Commission, he is now going to cut out what is merely an administrative procedure. That is what it comes to; it is a question of a difference of opinion which has arisen between the National Transport Commission and the Provincial Administration, and nothing else. There is no other reason for this Bill other than the basic philosophy of the Nationalist Party, which has anything to do with the planning of roads. I believe this is the problem we are facing. Why should engineers from Pretoria know more about local conditions and be able to take quicker decisions than the people who are intimately connected with this matter every single day of their lives?

Why did you not spend the money allocated to you?

If money which was allocated was not spent, it is because there was a physical impossibility in drawing the plans, drawing the documents, giving out the tenders, approving the tenders and that kind of thing. That is all. But will the hon. member tell me how the new body will obviate that kind of difficulty? Will he tell me how they will cut out any of the red tape necessarily associated with the planning of a road of this nature?

I want to say that my concern is with the engineers. You have in Natal today a position where the engineering staff have been built up to the point where the N.P.A. are cutting down on the use of consulting engineers. We have enough engineers in the department in Natal today to be able to cut down the services of consulting engineers. This is obviously something which is cheaper. Sir, I know one of the consulting engineers personally and he has told me that this is the case. His own firm is affected. It is using the resources of the department to do something which otherwise would have to be let out on contract. I believe this is something which saves the taxpayers money.

When the hon. member for Newcastle says it is the delay and the question of staff, I want to know whether the N.T.C. is now going to pirate the staff of the Provincial Administration? How are they now going to fill up all the gaps they have in their own numbers? Because where you have the province of Natal, which has achieved this satisfactory position by recruitment, by going overseas, by offering people incentives to come out to South Africa, what is going to happen to those people now if some other authority is imposed on top of them and all the glamour work, the big deal, the national road, will be planned by somebody else? What is left to the provinces are the ancillary roads, the by-roads, the provincial main roads, but the big one, the one on which a man can make his reputation, is going to be given to somebody else who comes down from, as it were, the heaven of the Nationalist Party in Pretoria. [Interjection.] I did not say “Brakpan”; I said “Pretoria”. I want to know what the salaries are going to be.

What has that got to do with the Bill?

Sir, this Bill is designed to eliminate certain “haakplekke”

But you have a Civil Service Department.

Sir, I am asking the hon. the Deputy Minister how this new body, to which he is now going to give the power to construct roads and invite tenders and all that kind of thing, is going to affect the salary structures of the provincial administrations because you have got to find your engineers from somewhere. If they are going to pirate the engineering staff of the provincial administrations, then it can only affect all interests in a very serious fashion indeed. Sir, I think that the Orange Free State has a very sound attitude to all this. Why does the N.T.C. not revert to its old function of funding and co-ordination?

And inspection.

Yes, inspection, if you insist upon that, but I would prefer to see the provincial council given the right of inspection, because you have the funding organization and you have a co-ordinating organization, but if you want simplicity and if you want efficiency, the fewer bodies that you have connected with that kind of planning work, the better. Sir, to say that it is not possible to find a standard which will be common to all the provincial administrations, is, I think, a lot of absolute nonsense. You are dealing with highly trained professional consulting engineers: that is what you are dealing with basically. Why is it impossible now for the National Transport Commission, or for anybody else, whether it be the Government or the Deputy Minister who sits there grinning sardonically to himself, to set a standard which can be maintained under the control of the provincial administrations? The provincial administrations have been building roads for years and they have maintained the standards in their own departments by their own inspection. I am quite certain that it could be arranged for the maintenance of specifications and inspections still to be done by the provincial administrations and for the N.T.C. to revert to the function which it used to exercise before. Sir, the big moan that came from the reports was that the money was not being spent correctly.

To which report are you referring?

It came out of the report of the Marais Commission that the money was not being spent correctly, and for that reason it was desirable that the Minister and his department should take over control. I want to know what is meant by the phrase that the money is not being spent correctly. Does this mean that the provinces were wasting it, or does it mean that there were too many administrative tieups, tangle, red tape and shuffling of papers and that kind of thing, which seems to characterize everything that is done by the Government these days? Was this where the money was being wasted or where was it being wasted? I would like the hon. the Deputy Minister to tell us something about that when he replies to this debate. Sir, I want to say that this is merely part of the pattern. I refer to the pattern which has been developing in the Nationalist Party through the years, the pattern of breaking down the powers of the provincial administrations. The hon. member for Parow and other members on that side have said that this is not true; that they are not attempting to do this kind of thing, but what else can it possibly be?

Order! That is not under discussion,

Sir, the matter was raised by the hon. member for Parow. I am replying to the point made by him and he made a very big point of it …

What point? You have nothing to say on this Bill,

Have you read it?

Sir, the hon. member for Parow made a particular point of saying that this Bill is not designed to affect or to do away with the rights of the provincial administrations.

That is what it does.

The hon. member for Parow nods his head; that is perfectly correct. Sir, this is merely part of the pattern which is becoming predominant throughout the whole administration of South Africa—the building up of this pyramid, the centralizing of powers in Pretoria, the taking of all these different powers by the Central Government Because their attitude appears to be that wisdom can only come from Pretoria. Sir, I believe that this is an absolute waste of time; I believe that this is inefficiency built up into a system, and I believe that this Bill is merely another phase of this preoccupation which seems endemic in the Nationalist Party.

Sir, let me say this too. It is significant that what is happening in this Bill is that power is being taken away from the provincial administrations. The power is being centralized in Pretoria, power which provincial administration have had since Union, and even before, to deal with this type of thing. It is significant to note that whereas these powers are being taken away from the White provincial administrations, the Nationalist Party is busy giving these powers to Black authorities.

Order! The hon. member must please come back to the Bill now.

It is not being done in this Bill, Sir. In this Bill the Transkei does not get any power to build national roads. But in every other sphere of activity—in education and in everything else …

What has that to do with this Bill?

The question of education was raised by one of the previous speakers who quoted this as an example of what was happening. In fact, this is precisely what is happening. We find that the Whites who have been administering this country for 60 years and more on the local level, are being deprived of their rights while by the same source, i.e. the Nationalist Party, these rights are being given away to people who have no experience of this whatsoever.

Do you not realize that these powers were only given to provincial councils by this Parliament in 1935?

By the United Party …

By Parliament.

Under the United Party Government yes, specifically in relation to national roads. But surely until then the provinces had been building roads also. As a matter of fact it was only when the National Transport Fund was established to make money available for the building of national roads that …

They are still building their own roads.

I do not see the hon. the Minister's argument, if he has got one. In 1935 a special body was created to which certain moneys was specially allocated by this Parliament, under the good old United Party Government. [Interjections.] Yes, still another example of our forward planning. And what is more, the hon. the Minister of Transport in 1935 supported that, which was a very wise decision on his part, if I may so so. But now he is breaking down the little good he has done.

That was a totally different United Party from the one we have today.

This one is even better. But the Minister is smothering his own little child by depriving the provinces of the powers given to them. The United Party is totally opposed to this type of whittling away of powers of local authorities. We have pledged ourselves time and again that we shall break down this pyramid that is being built by decentralizing these powers. We believe in the provincial system, a system which has served us so well for many years.

The hon. member for Mooi River placed great emphasis on one specific matter, i.e. the fact that here certain powers are being taken away from provincial administrations. At the same time it is alleged that this is not in accordance with the spirit of our Constitution. This was also the main attacking point of the hon. member for Durban North. He referred to the rights the provinces had enjoyed under the old South Africa Act and, since the advent of the Republic, under the Constitution of the Republic. He referred, inter alia to section 48 of the Constitution of the Republic. The hon. member probably made a slip because it should be section 84. Section 85 of the old South Africa Act gave the provinces certain powers. But all rights for the provinces resulting from the old South Africa Act were delegated rights, delegated by the Central Government.

That is wrong.

That was only delegated authority from the Central Government, and I challenge the hon. member for Durban North to prove to me in this Parliament that the authority which this Parliament transfers to any body is not delegated authority. The delegated authority in terms of section 85 of the old South Africa Act has followed a certain course since 1910. That is important. If hon. members want to criticize the Bill before the House today, they must look at the course that was followed. Section 85 of the old South Africa Act, to which I have just referred, made no arrangements with respect to where the finances would come from which every province would have to apply for the construction of its roads, etc. From the nature of the case it must he accepted that the provinces were to supply those finances themselves. I believe that the hon. member for Durban North will concede that, in terms of section 85 of the aforementioned Act, the provinces themselves were to provide the financing for any road construction programme.

In section 85 there was also a provision with respect to bridges. The aforementioned section specifically made certain arrangements to the effect that a certain province could not alone build a bridge connecting that province with another province. There is incorporated the entire principle of co-ordination and co-operation. If we accept, firstly, that the South Africa Act only gave delegated powers to provincial administrations and other local authorities, secondly, that section 85 transferred the onus for the financing of road networks within provinces to the provinces and, thirdly, that the principle of connecting the provinces with each other was incorporated in section 85 of the old South Africa Act, it would pay us to see how, what is contained in section 85 developed further in practice. The delegated authority which the provinces possessed, was creating slight problems as far back as 1915, when the Cape Province, as a result of the recommendations of the Jagger Commission, further delegated the function of the provincial authorities to the divisional council. This same principle again received attention in 1918 as a result of the Baxter Commission’s Report. It also received attention as a result of the Holmwood Commission’s Report in 1925, and also as a result of the Roos Commission’s Report in 1933, which resulted in Act No. 42 of 1935.

If we look at the relevant commissions’ reports, we see each time that there was no dispute about the question of power being, in fact, delegated to the provinces for the establishment of road networks. But as far back as 1915 the question of financing, particularly with respect to roads that had to serve more than one province, created problems. That is so. If we take that point further, we see that there were continual evasions about the whole question of the powers of a provincial administration with respect to the construction of roads, and that nothing more was said about that. In a certain sense it did not furnish problems, but the question of the financing of the projects presented the biggest problem. For the long period from 1915 to 1935 a series of commissions consequently wrestled with the problem of the financing of the national road networks, and repeatedly this specific problem checked them. What Act No. 42 of 1935 eventually amounted to was that funds must be provided for the construction of these road networks. The hon. member for Moot River himself said: "Those were the good old days of the United Party Government.” In acceptance of the fact that provincial authorities are not able to provide the necessary finances, the United Party, which today reproaches us for this Bill, in 1935 discredited, if it may be so termed, the principle that was contained in section 85 of the South Africa Act of 1910, i.e. that the provinces themselves must provide the funds for the establishment of the road networks. I want to state that as far as I am concerned it is not a discrediting of the principle. I want to concede to the hon. Opposition that it is one of the better steps they took, although they still did it incompetently in the sense that it was merely an ad hoc arrangement. It is very clear that that arrangement of 1935 for the establishment of the road fund was only slightly better than nothing at all. It is therefore not this side of the House that encroached upon powers or rights with respect to this matter and with respect to the delegated powers of the relevant provincial administrations; it is the United Party that did so in 1935 with the establishment of the road fund. I want to state very emphatically that section 85 of the South Africa Act did not make provision for any central authority to finance any national roads or road network whatever in South Africa. Those were powers and obligations delegated to the provincial administrations.

But the provincial administrations could not make provision for that, It was an axiomatic fact that was accented. The United Party also accepted it. Since 1935 we have had the National Road Fund from which these national roads could be financed. It is merely as a result of the National Road Fund of 1935 that some or other body, which had to administer the funds, had to be established. Those funds could only be administered by the Department of Transport. Certain concessions were made to the provincial administrations, but even that did not work out. That is why, as far back as 1935, it was a half-baked measure that was adopted. Then the National Transport Commission was established. According to the hon. member for Mooi River the National Transport Commission’s only task is the co-ordination of planning and the financing of the projects. At the insistence of the hon. member for Parow, the hon. member for Mooi River conceded that the National Transport Commission could also carry out inspections.

I now want to stale categorically that this legislation that we have before us today is merely a result of the fact that the National Transport Commission must provide the funds for national roads. If we could perhaps have given this a different name, the hon. member for Mooi River would perhaps have been satisfied. The fact that there is talk of national roads bothers him a little. It is a fact that the National Transport Commission sits with the money, and that this commission must have the say about how and where roads must be built.

It has already been indicated that the delegated powers, which the provinces received, were not absolute powers. There were transgressions in this field by the United Party as far back as 1935. Those specific, delegated powers, which the provincial administrations have with respect to the building of roads, are only being embodied in this legislation in another form. This legislation provides that there can now be negotiations between the National Transport Commission and the relevant Administrator about the building of roads. In the past it was exactly the same. As far as the planning and co-ordination of national roads is concerned, the National Transport Commission also merely held negotiations with the Administrator and the Executive Committee. What is required in terms of this legislation, is that the National Transport Commission, as such, can also take action in building national roads. I am very pleased to learn that the situation in Natal is such that the province has no problems as far as engineers for the provincial administration are concerned. I am very glad that they have a full complement there and that their planning can continue very easily. When we speak about the building of national roads, and since national roads supply a particular form of transport in South Africa, it is not a matter of the one province being able to supply the staff and the other province not being able to do so, it is a matter of over-all planning. It is a matter of planning that is in the interests of the whole country, and it would now be a pity if those engineers, who are now in the service of the Natal Provincial Administration were to find themselves without work. I can assure the hon. member that that will not be the case.

I should like to point to one very important matter, i.e. that the whole question of the building of national roads is today becoming a highly specialized job. Proof of that is abundantly furnished by the provincial authorities themselves. Because one province now has sufficient people, we cannot merely say that other provinces ought to have sufficient people as well. We see that the provincial administrations also make use of the contractors. We must not make a political issue of the fact that provincial administrations make use of contractors, merely because they make use of Bantu labour, and that consequently the contractors can do the work more easily because they can make use of Bantu labour and the provincial administrations cannot do so. The hon. member is making a mistake if he bases his statements on the fact that the one can use Bantu labour and the other one cannot, and if he wants to say that this is the reason why the provincial administrations cannot build roads. He is making a mistake if he says that they cannot do so because their units do not have a sufficiently strong complement. There are certain arrangements in connection with job reservation, and I do not deny this at all. This is, however, not the chief cause of those events. Hon. members on that side of the House have continually asked us to do away with the “red tape”. They said that if this could be done we would have planning, and then we would have action. Here we now want to do away with the “red tape” of consultations and yet more consultations. We have found that one man plans the road and wants to build it, without any regard for the financial implications of the matter, because he is not the one that has to supply the finances; it is the National Transport Commission that must do so. If that is the case, the relevant body can plan as expensive a road as it wants to, or as poor a road as it wants to, just as long as there is general consultation with the National Transport Commission. They will then have to pay out the money.

Now we come to the crux of the matter, and this is also indicated by the Schumann Commission’s report. Where the money is spent and where inspections are carried out by the National Transport Commission, clashes occur between the various engineering divisions. This legislation is. in the first place, not what the United Party is trying to imply, i.e. a doing away with the powers that the provincial authorities have. I believe that we have now indicated in full that if this is the case, it has developed by virtue of the fact that the financing of the road network created problems and that it was the United Party which, in 1935, came along and introduced that principle. In the second place, we are not merely dealing with a provincial matter when we are dealing with a national road. It is a matter of national importance, and there ought to be overlapping in its administration and implementation, whether by the National Transport Commission or whatever other body the hon. the Minister of Transport might deem necessary. Thirdly, we are convinced that there will always be discussions with the various provincial authorities about the construction o£ national roads, but that we will get rid of a great deal of bother if this legislation is passed in the form in which we now have it before ns. We must also see the other provisions contained in this legislation. I am thinking of provisions such as those of expropriation, advertising alongside roads and all such like provisions included here. We consequently have, in a certain sense, a well co-ordinated piece of legislation, which sums up other legislation with respect to national roads, etc. As far as I am concerned, this legislation is a good piece of legislation from a legal and technical point of view. I agree with some of the ideas expressed by the hon. member for Heilbron. The hon. the Minister will probably give attention to his suggestions. There are certain other matters that one could also perhaps take a look at when the legislation is in the Committee Stage. The legislation, as tabled here, is a good piece of legislation as far as we are concerned, and as far as transport is concerned, it signifies to us a particular period in South Africa’s history. That is why I feel that this legislation ought to be supported.

Mr. Speaker, what disturbs me most about this Bill is that it is entirely contrary to what was recommended by the Schumann Commission. It stated that it was the function of the provincial administrations and the local authorities within their boundaries to build and maintain all roads in the Republic. In the report the phrase “all roads” was in italics. The report also says that it should be the function of the Central Government in conjunction with the provincial administrations to plan the national arterial highway network and through the National Road Fund to assist the provinces with the building and maintenance of such of their roads as the Minister may declare to be national roads, and so on. This is the fundamental difference between the approach of this side of the House and the Bill which the hon. the Deputy Minister has presented to us on behalf of his side of the House. In the South Africa Act the provinces were given the special power, the right to build roads. This power became part of the structure of the provincial administrations over the years. The National Roads Act made provision for the establishment of a central planning body which could co-ordinate the activities throughout the country as regards the new thought which had arisen, namely the building of main national roads as a means of communication to bring the whole of the country a little closer together. In that it obviously incorporated the whole of the roadway system right throughout the country.

This Bill goes further. It establishes the right of the National Transport Commission not only to plan and to finance, but also to construct roads. Although the Bill makes provision that there can be agreement arrived at between a provincial body and the commission, it is nevertheless an agreement which has to be arrived at in terms of legislation whereby the provincial body is deprived of that inherent right which it has retained throughout the years in terms of the South Africa Act, which the hon. member who has just sat down, quoted. There must have been a very good reason why in 1935 the question of construction was not placed in the hands of a central body. In a country like South Africa which is similar to many other countries where you have large distances to cover between towns, where the country has to be opened up and where roads have to be used for passenger and goods conveyance, it was essential that there should be a central planning body. At the same time it was also essential to make use of the decentralized opportunity that was provided through the provincial councils to be able to carry out that important service to the country.

When you try to co-ordinate everything into one single body and to establish an entirely new set-up, we believe, with conviction, that it is a set-back in the affairs of the country and that it can become a most extensive and costly undertaking. I remember that in the Provincial Council of the Transvaal there was considerable criticism not only from the Opposition but also from front-benchers of the then Nationalist Party. The criticism was about the waste that was going on and the failure to make use of the machinery which was provided in order to give impetus to a more extensive plan of road building. This is one particular aspect of the infrastructure of the country where there can be a tremendous amount of wastage. To control it from the pinnacle of one central body is going to be a most difficult job and it will become a very costly undertaking. There we have a fundamental difference between the purpose of this Bill and the position as it exists at the moment. We agree that the Schumann Commission obviously had the soundest reasons in the world.

I want to put another point to the hon. the Minister in regard to the whole question of planning. Recently there was, I think, the De Villiers Report, which after investigation of the urban areas of the United States came back and said that the National Transport Commission should no longer subsidize any urban freeways and highways. They felt to a great extent that some of these freeways were harming the cities and leading to compulsive decentralization, and that if cities or urban areas wanted to carry out this work they should do so with their own funds and of their own accord. The commission, having committed itself to a certain extent, said that was is far as they would go. and there they would stop. Now I know there will be provision in our taxation proposals that provinces can negotiate directly with urban areas on these matters and they can make such arrangements as they think desirable in regard to the provision of funds. But in principle it has been accepted by the National Transport Commission that subsidies to large cities must cease. Now the purpose of the planning of this National Transport Commission should be directed to a coordination of our national roads system and our large urban areas, because they are becoming virtually the lifeblood centres of the whole of the country. There is plenty of evidence from countries abroad, and we are already seeing it happening in our own country, that communities are tending more and more to inhabit the cities. Our cities and towns will in due course absorb 80 to 85 per cent of the population of the country. That is a common pattern throughout the United States and it is a pattern which is predominant in Europe today. With those large congregations of people in the urban areas, the question of traffic, its movement and the use of roads become of paramount importance. That is where the National Transport Commission should play its part and it is in that respect that the Act could have been modernized and brought right up to date, by taking into account what is happening in South Africa not only in regard to roads but also as far as human beings are concerned, and the relationship between the mobility of people and the uses to which cities and towns are put. That is a very vital function which the National Transport Commission could have performed. If so, we could have had either a Bill or the presentation of a policy which would lead in that direction and one might possibly have been able to go along with the Minister to some extent in trying to bring about what he suggested was his purpose, namely to bring the National Road Act more up to date. As I recall, one of his main objectives was to improve the condition of the roads, to ensure that they would not deteriorate and perhaps to build better roads then we did in the past. Of course, that is all very desirable and one wants to do better year by year. That is the objective of every businessman and of every Administrator, to try to improve the situation.

But that is not the beginning and the end of road systems in this country. I accuse the National Transport Commission of bypassing and completely dropping the towns and cities of this country, and in doing so do a great deal of harm in the eventual building up of proper means of communication within our country in so far as intraurban areas are concerned. In fact, if anything at all had to happen, then planning could have been directed on a metropolitan basis, on the basis of large conglomerates of local authorities, such as we find on the Witwatersrand, which are situated close to each other and which play an important role in the whole life of this country. When one looks at the Vaal Triangle, one finds that a complex is developing here, which one day is going to accommodate some 10 million to 15 million people and where transport becomes a matter of the utmost importance. It is important, Sir, that the road from Bloemfontein to Johannesburg should be a good road, but that road has to pass through cities and towns; it has to link up, for instance with the Vaal Triangle and then enter a big metropolitan complex such as we find on the Witwatersrand.

That, Sir, is where planning becomes important and vital, and in this respect the assistance of the urban authorities is absolutely essential. The hon. the Minister knows that some years ago when a city like Johannesburg, which is the central point in that area, got busy dealing with these roads and highways, it brought in American consultants with, I think, the cooperation and the financial assistance of National Transport Commission which was very concerned and very interested indeed. Even at this moment there is a special interdepartmental committee, established by the Administrator of the Transvaal, to deal with this whole question of roadways which will link the various towns and cities together so that there is no overlapping and so that there is no dislocation of the easy and smooth movement of traffic from one town to another and no disruption of the internal traffic of any big city.

Sir, I do not have to go very much further than to point to various reports, setting out various attitudes adopted by people who are interested in the development and the building of roads. The Road Federation dealt with this matter at its annual meeting last year, and in The Open Road, a monthly publication, and other publications, one finds continuous reference to this important issue as to what the urban areas are going to do with regard to their arterial roads.

Sir, this obviously brings in the whole question of finance. It is well known that of the approximately R150 million—that was the figure in 1967-'68 but, of course, it has increased considerably since then—that is received by the Central Government from customs and excise on various things such as the sale of motor vehicles, fuel, spare parts and oil, only R44 million went to the National Transport Commission. The interesting thing, Sir is that approximately 15 per cent of this really belongs to a city like Johannesburg, from which about 15 per cent of this revenue is derived. When one looks at the contributions made to this revenue by the various big cities of the country, one can almost come to the conclusion that in fact the funds of the National Transport Commission should be spent only in the cities. But, of course, one realizes that the cities cannot exist alone and that they must be linked by these huge main roads which are to be built.

Sir, to me it is a matter of deep concern that in South Africa we are going to have a central authority which is going to divorce itself from this important problem. I have an article here which says: “Thus far and no further seems to be the Governmental motto.” I am quoting now from The open Road of May, 1970, a year ago. It goes on to say—

With which clause are you dealing now?

I am dealing with the question of the funds which are being collected and which are being allocated completely to the National Transport Commission in terms of clause 2 of the Bill and the fact that this is going to become a planning and a construction body which will deal only with the provinces when agreement has to be arrived at in terms of delegated powers. The whole issue of national roads comes into the picture. The hon. the Minister by his question immediately indicates his ignorance of this important problem of linking his national roads to the arterial roads of any urban area. Surely, one cannot deal with this matter in vacuo. Let me give him an example. Does be realize that the Ben Schoeman highway from Pretoria has now been extended to pass through Craighall in order to link up with another big bypass road of Johannesburg? I know that the National Transport Commission has allocated certain funds to the project. I know the Minister has played some part in it.

We pay all the construction costs.

Only of that particular ring road, yes. I am indicating the importance of the additional urban freeroads and arterial roads, that are needed by cities, and which must come off from those roads, because the bypass roads have their subsidiary roads which bring them into the city. I want to pay a compliment, particularly to the Minister of Transport. I am happy to travel on his highway. It is a very good highway and it helps Johannesburg; but it does not deal with the important problem of ensuring that the highway brings people round the city to the city and link up with other parts of the country. Johannesburg is doing a fantastic job to take that bypass highway itself and link it up with the West Rand and the East Rand. It is an important undertaking. It is all to the benefit and advantage of this great country.

The only difference is that they are going to pay for it.

Exactly. My point is that the National Transport Commission Fund, instead of spending money on reestablishing completely new bonds in construction work, can rather plan and allocate its funds to the urban areas, and to the provinces, who can carry out this work in co-ordination with each other; and that more can be allocated.

We have made a contribution to Johannesburg.

Oh yes, only RI5 million. The Government has said “thus far and no further”. That is what I have just read. Let me tell hon. members that the amount that is taken—I have just given hon. members the figures—is infinitesimal. It is only here in South Africa that so little comes from this particular important source and is allocated for this purpose.

But let me go on to read what this gentleman says, because obviously it is good to know that others think similarly to oneself. He says—

One does not want to hold the city or a town completely responsible for that. I do not think that would be reasonable. That would show a complete lack of sympathy between a government and its own people.

A lack, of money, that is the problem.

But the Government must plan properly. In every bit of planning in this country there is a lack of money. We have just had a Budget which has drained hundreds of millions of rand from the public because there is a lack of money. The lack of money is a very important matter. The objective is to plan so that money can be used in the correct direction. If the community realizes the purpose for which money is appropriated, the blow is a little softer; because it makes a contribution to the improvement and developing of a city. You can go to any city in the world and you will find the same situation. The hon. the Minister knows that Sydney has this famous highway from the north which crosses the Sydney Bridge, where people pay a toll to enter or leave the city. You cannot enter the city of Sydney unless you pay for it. Here in South Africa it is possible. Some of us might throw up our arms, “Why pay to enter a city?” But it is done, because it provides one of the finest highways into a city, the famous Sydney Bridge.

I am prepared to consider it if you suggest it.

I suggested already in a previous debate that a city should be entitled to tax the public in the form of tolls. That is something that must come. Surely, the hon. the Minister of Transport knows that very well. But there must be a better understanding and a closer co-ordination between the National Transport Commission and the cities and towns. They should not be thrown aside as orphan children. The objective is not only to build main roads. A city has got to live, apart from having main highways and byways. One finds that a similar sort of thing happens in the United States.

That is the crux of our whole appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister who is in charge of this Bill. He must realize that you cannot proceed on this course, which is going to involve him in an entire construction undertaking. Generally, he should not have proceeded without having carefully considered these reports and taken into account that a sympathetic understanding between the urban areas and the State can only have one value, namely to contribute to solving this most vital problem, the throttling not only of cities, but even of the country, with mass transport which is the trend of the modern day.

The hon. member for Jeppes appears to be very concerned about urban freeways. Of course, all of us want fine roads in our cities. After all. such roads are essential. Now, it is true that the National Transport Commission has made large amounts of money available to cities and has also undertaken to grant certain assistance. Of course, the National Transport Commission will still carry out this undertaking that was given by them and meet their obligations. In looking at the report of the Borckenhagen Commission, we see that it is being recommended that such assistance should from now on be granted by the provinces. In other words, through the channel of the National Transport Commission and the provinces money will still be flowing to the urban consumer.

But we should examine the entire set-up surrounding this matter. When the Union was established in 1910, it was not possible to foresee the tremendous need that would arise for national freeways and arterial roads. Nobody will deny that such roads are of great importance to the country.

As these roads are also of strategic importance, it is essential that there should be central planning in respect of such roads. But in order to build such roads, funds are required. To meet that need, the National Road Fund was established, a fund into which certain moneys were paid. That fund, in turn, instructed the provinces to build the roads. However, over the years experience has shown that because there was divided control, matters did not go smoothly. Actually, we have live different bodies which are building roads in this country—from local authorities at the bottom to the National Transport Commission at the top. Now, it is a fact that the more road-building bodies there are, the greater the amount of overlapping and the poorer the quality of the planning will be. For instance, over the years we have seen how the provincial administrations have had to intervene more and more in order to finance divisional councils, in some districts by as much as 85 per cent. It is also a fact that the more funds one allocates to a body, the more extensive the supervision becomes that goes hand in hand with it; in fact, so much so that divisional councils started losing their powers. The same thing happened in cases where the National Transport Commission ordered provincial administrations to build roads on its behalf. In those respects, too, there were duplication of planning and duplication of supervision. These things promoted extravagance.

Let us look at the benefits we may derive by amending the Act. We have before us the various reports in which a stand is taken on how this matter is to be arranged. Amongst others we had the Marais Commission, which made certain definite recommendations.

In looking at the report of the Marais Commission, we see that by means of central control we may derive certain very definite benefits. I just want to point out a few of those benefits. In the first place, there are the possibilities involved in training students, which is recommended in the report. A financially strong fund such as the National Road Fund can ensure that engineers and technicians are trained, which will be useful not only to the National Transport Commission, but also to the other bodies associated with it. If the National Transport Commission were to regard this as one of its functions, i.e. to ensure that there are sufficient trained staff by way of making bursaires available, it could prove to he a great advantage to the country as a whole. Furthermore, there is the advantage of central research. The National Institute for Road Research of the C.S.I.R. is doing a very big job. I want to plead very strongly with the Minister for the funds of the National Transport Commission to go to this body on an even larger scale. At the moment the provinces have to contribute a certain percentage to these funds. I feel that this is one sphere in which the National Transport Commission can provide the necessary, basic research. If the hon. the Minister would consider it, I want to put forward the suggestion that the National Transport Commission should take over this function entirely.

Another benefit we may derive as a result of central control, is that of uniform policy. After all, it is very essential for us to have one policy in the four provinces in regard to planning, standards and expropriation of lands. One of the factors which causes the greatest amount of dissatisfaction amongst private owners, is when portions of their land are expropriated. As regards the construction of national roads, we had the position in the past that there were actually three different bodies with which negotiations had to be conducted when land was to be expropriated. I am looking forward to the time when the National Transport Commission will have one central office from which expropriations will be controlled. I foresee a time when everybody will be treated alike. I believe that it is very important that, when people have to hand over land which is often valuable irrigation land, they will know where they stand in regard to the matter, and that such matters will be finalized quickly.

Let us take a look at the great advantage which the more effective control over the spending of money will imply. What has happened over the past number of years? As there was a shortage of engineers and technicians, the provinces made use of the services of consulting engineers and private contractors on a very large scale. Just as they could do it, the National Transport Commission itself can do this when the services of such people have to be used. The mere fact that people are appointed under the supervision of another body in order to carry out certain works, means that there used to be less control over these people. I am aware that serious disputes developed amongst the various bodies in regard to the supervision over these engineers. For that reason it is very important that we should have more central control and that we ourselves should proceed to building roads. If that is done, the supervision and everything that goes with it will automatically come under one control. We shall therefore save money because we shall have fewer people working with these matters. We shall also save time in regard to the resolutions that have to be adopted and the implementation of instructions coming from the top. That is why I believe that this Bill will hold advantages for the entire Republic.

I just want to discuss one matter about which I am rather worried. It is to be found in clause 14, which deals with advertising along national roads. Clause 14 (1) imposes a prohibition even on advertising on private properties. Subsection (2) lays down certain requirements which must be complied with. In other words, Mr. Speaker, requirements have to be laid down now, and that will mean that certain regulations will have to be made. Now, it is true that in my constituency and its environs, where we have a great deal of tourist traffic, i.e. along the Garden Route, people are dependent on the public driving along that route. How are tourists to know that there are hotels, motels and other facilities along the road if these people do not have the right to advertise their trade? People are feeling very unhappy about this matter. Even in cases where people live a hundred yards from the road, they are forbidden to advertise their business. I think that in making regulations in regard to advertising along our roads, the hon. the Minister should give a good deal of thought to the matter in order that the travelling public may not be inconvenienced. Roads are made for the purpose of conveying the person who is in a hurry from one point to another. But in dealing with roads following routes winding through beautiful scenery, as we do have in that vicinity and in other parts of the country, we should also bear the tourist in mind. The tourist brings us a great deal of money. He is an asset to us. When he comes here, he does so in order to see the country. We must tell him where the necessary facilities may be found. One could say that he could consult a map for that purpose. For instance, if he wants to go to Plettenberg Bay, he goes there and once he has arrived, he starts looking for the attractions. I believe that if we can erect along our roads neat notices complying with a certain fixed standard, they will be of great value to the travelling public and especially to the tourist. We should also bear in mind that private enterprise is involved in this matter, people who have provided facilities but are dependent upon the public. For that reason the facilities which they make available, should be well known to the travelling public. The appeal I am therefore making to the hon. the Minister is that in drafting regulations in regard to advertising along roads, he should very thoroughly take cognizance of the fact that there is also a great need for those people who are driving past, to know what there is for them to see and to obtain.

The hon. member for Humansdorp was at great pains to support the case of this side of the House in opposing this Bill. He mentioned that there was a great deal of divided control at the moment. The hon. member thought that the introduction of this Bill might reduce the division of control. The hon. the Deputy Minister during his Second Reading speech said, if I remember correctly, that it was being introduced “om die magte, pligte en werksaamhede van die kommissie uit te brei en te bevestig". If that is the case then certainly there is not going to be any lessening of the division of control which exists. You are still going to have the provincial councils functioning and building some roads and you are still going to have the divisional councils functioning and building some roads. In addition you will still have your city councils functioning and building some roads.

I do not agree with the hon. the Minister that this Bill is necessary at all nor does this side of the House. We shall endeavour to prove that. In discussing this we have to go back into the historical factors as well as the practical factors that exist under the present National Transport Commission. When the original Act, Act No. 42 of 1935, was passed, this country was coming out of a period of depression and out of a period in which the main forms of transport had been the oxwagon and the horse and buggy. With the rapid development of motor transport, it was obviously necessary that a central body should be created to build the necessary roads to connect the various provinces and the various parts of the country. But we have developed a long way since then. So have our local authorities and so have our provincial councils. Our provincial councils have developed a great deal in respect of the building of roads. They are doing it exceptionally efficiently. I may say that many of our local authorities are doing this with the financial assistance, I must admit, of the National Transport Commission. But is it necessary that these funds should be handled, first of all, by the Treasury, then by the commission and, thirdly, by the provinces? Would it not reduce our cost of administration a great deal if funds went straight from the Treasury to the provinces? I believe it would. If this was done, the provinces could perhaps plan ahead far better than is the case at the present moment, because they would then know exactly what is coming and what is needed. Duplication of powers is never a very satisfactory situation. Do we really need this state of affairs? Are we not going to build a rather useless empire of people who sit there and plan in vacuum without representation of the provincial councils for the purpose of co-ordination?

Let us look at what has happened recently with the existing commission. Take for instance the proposed Mossel Bay— Gordon’s Bay freeway. There must be consultation, not only with the roads department of the provinces, but also with other departments of the provinces. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport knows that the original line that was planned between Mossel Bay and Gordon’s Bay affected no less than four nature reserves in the Cape Province, namely Goukamma, Hermanus, De Hoop and Kogel Bay. There were negotiations for many many months to get this position set right. I do not know how our engineers sometimes think, but if one looks at the cost and the distance, it seems that it would have been better to build this road inland and not through these reserves. But one never quite knows what goes on in the minds of the commission’s engineers. The proposed route that affected these nature reserves crossed estuaries which have been highly expensive to span. The distance would have been greater. Fortunately, we have now after much argument and much discussion reached a satisfactory conclusion and the line of the road will alter slightly so as not to affect these reserves. Will this position not be worse under this Bill? Will we not have more of this sort of thing?

Why?

Because the powers of the commission are extended. There are delays in planning. Under the proposed Bill the commission will build its own roads. But as was the case in the past, the commission will in future employ consulting engineers for the building of roads. Consulting engineers leak rumours to the public and to the provinces. I have had experience of this in connection with the extension of trunk route 45 from Alexandria to East London. This is a highly important road in the Eastern Cape. But there were many delays in the building of this road, because rumours had been leaked by consulting engineers that an express way would be built by the commission. They did not then want to spend money on a duplication. Therefore the provincial administration held back for a number of years before the construction of that road was continued. This will now happen on a far greater scale. Speculation and confusion are caused by these rumours. The provinces become exceptionally frustrated when this sort of thing happens.

If that is so, why will it be more so now?

Because there will now be a stronger and bigger commission which will now be entitled to have its own road plant and build its own roads. I will come back to this later. I should like to refer the hon. the Deputy Minister to clause 5 (1) (c) of the National Roads Bill which reads as follows—

At the moment the provincial administrations are doing this for the National Transport Commission, I will come to what I believe the commission should be a little later on. Under this Act you are going to have these road construction units. May I ask the hon. the Minister where he thinks he will find engineers, construction units and the manpower for those units in a country which is already short of manpower and short of engineers, and when all the provincial construction units have been sucked dry by private enterprise? I do not see how he will get these things right. The present provincial system works very well indeed in co-ordinating the road connections between the provinces. We have the Advisory committee on roads, which consist of the M.E.C.s of the different provinces. They are a statutory body, but they will now be done away with, and under them you had a non-statutory committee, a technical sub-committee, which consisted of the P.R.E.s of the provinces. This worked exceptionally well and you get co-ordination between the provinces and within the provinces through such committees. I would suggest that if you wanted a good commission, then you should form a statutory commission called the National Road Transport Commission, consisting of these two bodies combined. Then you would really have co-ordination in your road-building, and you would have better co-ordination in your road traffic ordinance, but not a variety of people under the present definition of the commission, where all four provinces and South-West Africa will have one representative on the commission, according to the definition. This is insufficient, if every province is not represented there. The definition in Act No. 44 of 1948 is the same as this definition, and you find that there is one representative from all the provinces. I do not think that is sufficient at all. If you are going to coordinate, the provinces must be represented. Many of the hon. members opposite have stated that costs will be brought down, or should be brought down because the provinces are wasting money, and this also appears in the White Paper, where the Marais Commission discusses it. But new tenders are up by 30 per cent. We firmly believe that if you want to bring costs down, we should budget better to ease the costs of construction and/or the provinces should be adequately subsidized so that they can expand their construction units in competition with private enterprise. Then you will bring costs down. But it is the lack of funds which causes the delay. It is the lack of funds on the part of the provinces that causes the increase in cost and the labour shortages.

I want to deal at this moment particularly with clause 18 of this Bill, because this clause is repugnant to this side of the House. Clause 18 (1) says—

What we find repugnant here is that the commission should only pay for damage done. There is nothing in this Bill which says that the commission shall build a road in such a way as to prevent damage. What consideration is there for soil conservation in this clause, and what consideration is there for the soil of South Africa for future generations? We believe that an amendment should be brought in here in the Committee Stage to make certain that the road is constructed in such a way that no damage shall be done to adjacent property, and that this would apply only in such case where the works that have been constructed to prevent damage are broken by floods. When you get to clause 18 (3) you find that it provides—

Sir, this is a very hard subsection, because we all know that the cost of township development today is fantastically high, and this reflects on the cost of erven which the ordinary taxpayer in South Africa has to buy. I believe that some change should be made here Sir, we must also look at some other clauses. Clause 20 (1) (a) contains the provision which is of interest to me; it provides

1. (a) prohibiting or regulating the diversion of stormwater onto, over and under a national road or the alteration of the natural flow of any water in relation to a national road.

Say, for instance, that a township developer is next-door to a road and that he is on both sides of the road. He is receiving water on the one side from the national road, but he cannot take it under the road on the other side. Sir, this is ridiculous. It is going to send the cost of township development in the peri-unban areas to an excessive figure which is far beyond the ability of the average taxpayer to pay. I appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to have a very good look at this clause and, if possible, to introduce a suitable amendment in the Committee Stage, As a matter of fact, if he does not do it, we will probably come with an amendment ourselves.

Then, Sir, let us have a look at clause 17, which provides for penalties for people who wilfully damage national roads. I think that this clause as well should again be looked at because it affects the building of dams and furrows and things like that, and it could have a serious effect on some of our irrigation areas where every inch of ground is useful and needed by the owner.

Sir, let me go back to these commissions. The hon. member for Jeppes quoted paragraph 20 of the White Paper dealing with the recommendations made by the Schumann Commission. The commission is clearly in favour of the powers of the provinces being increased. Sir, when you look at paragraph 23, you will find the reasons for the introduction of this Bill, and it has been stated that this is so. It is stated on page 13 that the acceptance of the recommendation of the Marais Commission in paragraph 453 will have the advantages set out below—

1. (1) Such a central organization will be able to introduce uniformity into the expropriation of ground for national roads purposes. At the moment expropriation is handled by the provinces, each according to its own ordinances and procedures. The current lack of uniformity gives rise to much discontent.

Sir, we are quite agreeable in that regard, but we have asked the provinces and they have agreed to introduce a uniform road traffic ordinance, and I am quite convinced that one could reach uniformity through the co-operation of the provinces in finding a common form of expropriation. But even within one province one gets variations with regard to the value of different types of ground; so it is going to be exceptionally difficult, even for the commission, to find a uniform system of expropriation because you have urban areas and rural areas and peri-urban areas. You have valuable agricultural ground and you have poor agricultural ground. It is going to be exceptionally difficult therefore to find a suitable norm of expropriation. What has been done in the Cape Province over the last number of years is to take into consideration fair market value, and this seems to be about the only fair method of expropriation that there is. Then in the second paragraph on page 13 of the White Paper on the Schumann Commission we find the following—

I believe that this is a complete insult to our provinces because I have not seen any wastage of money on provincial roads. I have not seen any wastage of money on national roads. The only place where I did see a wastage of money was where the Department of Water Affairs failed to tell the Provincial Administration of the Cape not to build a new road at Vioolsdrift until it was built. There the road was built before they were told that it was to be inundated. You cannot blame the province for that wastage. I think this is a complete insult to our provinces. Paragraph (3) deals with direct supervision and it appears that the provincial administrations are currently availing themselves of consultant engineers. If the provincial administrations are availing themselves of consultant engineers at this moment, is the Commission going to have its own consultant engineers? If so, what are their salaries going to be and where will they come from? If it is not so, is the Commission going to do exactly the same as the provinces and the Administration of South-West Africa and become a sixth body which will continue to employ consultant engineers? This is not acceptable to us. The sixth paragraph reads—

The commission is not right in what it says here; this has already been done through the Road Traffic Ordinance over which the hon. the Minister also exercises his power. Why should we have this body to further fix this? It is also said here that “the proposed central road building organization will collaborate closely with the provincial administrations …” By introducing a new statute I do not think we can bring about closer co-operation. The provinces have built up a resistance to the commission over the years. By strengthening the powers of the commission the hon. the Minister is merely going to increase the resistance of the provinces regardless of what their politics are. I do not think that there is anything that is more powerful in South Africa than the parochial politics of the provinces.

Why did they build up a resistance to the National Road Commission?

Simply because it has been referred to by a previous Administrator as the greatest secret society in South Africa. He said he could never get any information out of it. When he wanted to plan his roads he could not get the information. It is the truth. If legislation is introduced on the basis of the recommendations of the Marais Commission, then indeed I am greatly surprised. I am surprised because only last year the hon. the Minister of Transport had a great deal to say about this commission. On 29th July he said and I quote from col. 634 and col. 635—

Then he went further and said—

He also said—

But this is not really relevant to what I was saying. Then I quote from col. 635—

A little bit further on he says-—

If that is the opinion of the hon. the Minister. I find it amazing that we now have a Bill before the House based on the recommendations of this commission, recommendations which he flatly rejected particularly with regard to its inattention to the carrying capacity and the needs of our roads. When the Minister referred to people who misused the commission, I wonder who he was referring to. Was he referring to the provinces, the contractors, or who? We find the excuse that this Bill flows from the recommendations of the Marais Commission totally unacceptable and We will therefore vote against the Second Reading of it.

Mr. Speaker, I tried to follow the hon. member for Albany’s arguments and complaints, but I am convinced that there is not much substance in them. In the first place he said that his main difficulty with this Bill was the fact that there would now be less and less consultation between the National Transport Commission and the various authorities regarding the building of roads. I do not understand why the hon. member says so. When he was challenged by the hon. the Deputy Minister for saying so, his only reply was that because the commission was getting bigger and bigger. But the hon. member has not looked at clause 4 (2) of the Bill which states explicitely that—

I therefore cannot understand the hon. member’s complaint in this regard at all. Consultation has been there in the past and will be there in the future. Another complaint of the hon. member is that the National Transport Commission will not be able to find enough roadmakers, engineers, operators, and so on, and that the provinces will be drained. If there are not enough roadmakers for the National Transport Commission there will not be enough roadmakers for the provinces. I therefore cannot understand the hon. member’s argument in this regard either. His other complaint is in regard to clause 18, which deals with damage done to property by stormwater. The impression the hon. member wanted to give was that the only damage for which compensation would be paid, would be damage caused by storm-water. If, however, the hon. member reads this clause carefully, he will understand that damage could also mean damage caused by storm-water drainage works on the adjoining property. I am sure that the clause can be interpreted in this manner.

*However, Mr. Speaker, I should like to leave the hon. member for Albany at that. He occupied the time of this House for half an hour to mention a few complaints, but in the time I have at my disposal I should like to raise another matter. It is a matter of principle as far as this Bill is concerned. I want to commend this measure even if it is only creating, as far as I am concerned, the necessary infrastructure for proper road transport in South Africa. Here we have a commission which has the powers to build proper throughways and freeways for us. Now I am thinking not only of tourists or of those of us who go on holiday by motorcar, but particularly of the growing need of our country for commercial road transport. Road transport has become more and more important in our country, for the simple reason that whereas we have had to make use mainly of the railways in the past, we have lately found that road transport has become more and more important for various reasons and that it will continue to become more important in the future.

One of the reasons, of course, is the fact that we and this Government are concentrating on the policy of spreading, of decentralizing, our industries. As industries are being spread to various remote areas, so it becomes essential for the products of those industries to be transported back to the metropolitan areas where the markets are. Similarly it is essential for the raw materials to be transported to the factories. For this transport we need not only railways, but also roads. For this reason we shall have a particular need for these freeways in the future in order to develop our economy.

As regards our industrial growth in this country, there is another very important phenomenon, and that is the diversification of our industries. Whereas we had mainly heavy industries in this country, mines, steelwork, etc., 20-odd years ago, our industries have diversified to a considerable extent and they have started producing delicate products. Whereas in the past we had the crude transport of our agricultural products, we now have the delicate transport of electronic apparatus, whereas in the past we had the crude transport of ore to the smelting furnaces or to the harbour for export, we now have the delicate transport of refrigerators, stoves, and similar articles. We are experiencing more and more the need for the transport of goods under a controlled temperature. and of other goods which cannot really be handled deftly by our Railways. For that reason it is so important for this infrastructure of roads to be created, so that our industrial growth may be stimulated in this field as well by road transport.

I have in mind another very important aspect, one which is becoming more and more important as we are making progress with our homelands development programme. This aspect is the transport of passengers in both directions between the homelands and these people’s places of employment. I think at the present time this has already become a very important method of transport over weekends, for example, from Port Elizabeth to the homelands. I foresee the arrival of the day when we shall undertake this important transport daily from the homelands to the places of employment. I should like to draw the attention of this House to a paper which was read last year—I think it was in August —at the congress of SABRA in which the person who read the paper pleaded for freeways to be built from our homelands to, say, to the factories of the West Rand. This body, the National Transport Commission, would be the appropriate body for constructing those freeways for us on which intensive bus transport can carry the workers of the West Rand from the homelands to the factories. I should like to advocate an investigation into this matter. We now have the authority which may in all probability conduct this investigation.

I want to say that road transport in general should receive much more attention, as it is safer for the more delicate product. It is often quicker and more regular than the railways. An investigation will also have to be made into a larger contribution to be made to our road construction funds by such commercial road transport. With the establishment of our railways, we made a tremendous contribution in capital for the infrastructure. The people who are going to make use of the roads for the transport of goods, for commercial traffic, will in future have to make a larger contribution to the capital expenditure on these roads. In this connection one thinks of the toll-gates in certain European countries, at which heavy vehicles have to pay toll. It is my considered opinion that the National Transport Commission should investigate the question whether the heavy vehicles which use our freeways ought not to make a larger contribution to the costs of those roads.

The hon. member for Jeppes spoke about the costs involved in the construction of urban arterial roads. His criticism was that the Government, according to the White Paper, was only going so far as to carry out the undertakings it had already given. But that is not quite correct. Evidently he did not read the White Paper well or otherwise he did not understand it well. The White Paper does state that the Government will not accept any further obligations over and above those it already has. But at the same time the White Paper states—

Therefore the Government accepts that the provincial and local authorities will need further financing for the construction of urban arterial roads; hence the statement of the Government that this aspect is going to be investigated. Surely it is very clear from this that the Government is not going to leave provincial and local authorities to their own devices to paddle their own canoe and to look for themselves where they can find the money. Here it is stated very clearly that the Government undertakes to investigate this aspect together with the provincial and local authorities. Indeed, it is stated in the White Paper that the body which will conduct such an investigation, has to submit an interim report within six months. This shows how seriously the Government is treating this aspect. In that interim report the “broad guiding lines regarding probable future developments in urban transport in South Africa, and the possible financing thereof” will be indicated. Surely what we have here is responsible action on the part of the Government. The hon. member for Jeppes, of course, did not read far enough, and he went on to criticize the Minister as though he were going to leave cities to their own devices. By doing that, he was not being completely fair with this House, nor with the hon. the Minister. I want to say that we who live in the cities are finding the construction of these through-ways more and more necessary in order to facilitate the flow of traffic. I, as a city dweller, am satisfied, on the basis of the commitment of the Government in this White Paper, that we are in good hands.

The hon. member for Bellville was somewhat critical of my distinguished colleague from Albany, saying that he took half an hour to say very little. If I may say so, the hon. member for Bellville also took a very long time to say that, because of the more sophisticated nature of our economy, our national roads are being used more and more by heavy transport to convey goods throughout the country. He feels that they should also he asked to contribute more towards the construction of our roads. That is all he said, I agree with him, but he took a very long time to say it. A point I would like to add to what the hon. member said, is that the incidence of heavy vehicles on our national roads is increasing at an alarming rate. I believe that these heavy vehicles are creating a traffic hazard. I do hope that, with the future planning of national roads, due consideration will be given to the fact that there should be bays or points of exit so that these heavy vehicles can pull off the road to allow the faster moving traffic a chance to get through. I believe that this is not being given sufficient consideration at this stage.

The hon. member for Humansdorp raised a point which, to a certain extent, I would like to support. But I feel that, if one weighs up the pros and cons of the particular point he raised, we cannot agree that his point of view was correct. He referred to the question of advertisements along national roads. I speak rather feelingly on this subject, because the national road happens to traverse my farm for a distance of some eight miles. There was a time when I was permitted to put up an advertisement, which could adequately display the valuable wares I had to sell, such as my nice horses, Guernsey bulls, merino rams with fine horns and a virile eye, etc. Then the Ribbon Development Act was introduced and I have been denied the opportunity of advertising any further. Nevertheless the quality of my rams is well known throughout the country and sales still go on.

This is the best advertisement you have had.

The point the hon. member made was that many of the health resorts, of which there are many in these areas, are now denied the opportunity of advertising their location. I feel that, by and large, if we allowed indiscriminate advertising along our national roads, a highly undesirable situation would develop. Therefore I feel that we cannot support the hon. member’s point of view, although I have every sympathy for him.

In dealing with this Bill, I think members of this side of the House in eloquent speeches have made it quite clear why we on this side of the House do not support this Bill. I do not want to add any further arguments to the good arguments which have already been advanced. I want to deal with one or two aspects of this Bill, which is an entirely new Bill. The National Transportation Commission is now taking over the construction of national roads, and this new Bill is being tabled for this purpose. The aspect which concerns me is that, when our national roads are planned, they are planned by engineers who very often give no consideration whatsoever to the aesthetic value of the route which the road is to follow. They are not concerned about the scenic beauty of the route which the road has to traverse. They are interested in constructing the road along the straightest route and the route that will be the least expensive. Very often in this process some of our most beautiful natural resources are destroyed. I think that everybody today is very concerned about this question of preserving our environment. There seems to me to be in this modern age a tendency to destroy our environment. The destruction of our environment is taking place to far too great an extent. I believe that the way in which our roads are constructed is one way in which we very often destroy our environment.

I know because I have much experience with national roads. They traverse my farm. Today there are big quarries left, destitute of vegetation. Attractive hillsides were assaulted by the bulldozers and other scarifying implements. The mountain was chopped aside and there it is today, an eyesore for every traveller and visitor that passes on that road. I believe that far greater care should be exercised by road engineers when they plan and construct these roads. There is nothing in this Bill that in any way restricts the activities of the National Transportation Commission and its engineers.

It says that the commission shall have the power to plan, design and construct any national road. But there is no restrictive clause There is nothing that says that due cognizance shall be taken of preserving the natural beauty along a particular route. I believe there should be some restriction imposed on these people. Nature conservation is a matter that vests in the provinces. Now the National Transportation Commission comes along and constructs the national road. It is not concerned with nature conservation. There might well be a dash between the National Transportation Commission and the authorities concerned with nature conservation in the provinces. There is no provision in this Bill whatsoever for consultation on these particular matters.

There is another matter that concerns me. In clause 5 (1) (d) it is provided that the commission shall have power to fence any national road. There is no reference whatsoever to the economic use of land, I do not know whether the hon. the Deputy Minister realizes that at this stage in the development of our country there is already more land fenced in by national roads than there is arable land available in the whole of South Africa. That is the extent to which national roads or roads have encroached on the land recourses of our country. In this Bill there is no reference made as to how a national road should be sited to avoid occupying valuable arable land. I know of cases on the new national road which is being constructed between Port Elizabeth and Cape Town where in the vicinity of Humansdorp in spite of repeated representations to the National Transportation Commission no redress was arrived at. Eventually this road cut through valuable farmlands just for the sake of making the road straight.

You know, Sir, I remember an occasion once. I was in a small upcountry motel called Berts, and a traveller arrived at this motel at about seven o’clock one night. He came down into the bar and collapsed on the bar counter and said: “Sjoe, maar ek is moeg! Dit is jammer hulle het net nie een draaitjie in daardie pad gemaak tussen Graaff-Reinet en Willowmore nie”. He had to travel for 100 miles and there is not a bend in the road. He was pleading that there should have been a few “draaitjies" included in the road. But just to keep the particular road to which I referred earlier straight, it had to go through a man’s arable land and it cut off his homestead. His homestead is now on one side of the road and the farmlands are on the other. I believe that in many cases like this, if there could be more consultation and more consideration, these things would not happen. But they lay down the law from the top, and whatever economic set-back the farmer might have to suffer because of their ruling does not matter. I believe that in this Bill certain clauses could well be included where definite instructions are given to the National Transport Commission to bear these points I am making here in mind. I must emphasize to the hon. the Deputy Minister that there are many cases I know of where the use of land for road construction has not been given the consideration it deserves. Valuable land has been turned into a road. There is another case I could quote. It is the national road between Cape Town and Paarl. Just think of the vast expanse of country occupied by the national road there. I do not say in this case it was avoidable. But where we have a shortage of valuable land in South Africa, to have such a vast expanse of land used just for transport is this the most economic utilization of our land? These things should be looked into in the future. So, Sir, this Bill goes forward, but we on this side of the House have grave reservations as to whether this is really forward planning and as to whether it is a Bill which is in the interest of progress in South Africa. Other speakers have enumerated very well the reasons why we on this side of the House very strenuously oppose the measure.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend discussing the building of roads with the hon. member for Walmer. I want to remind the hon. member for Walmer of my own motion in this House in connection with soil conservation, as well as the conservation of our natural resources. I also want to tell the hon. member that the members of the National Transport Commission are all South Africans with the necessary responsibility and the love for South Africa and for South Africa’s natural resources, and of our farmland. But they have to plan a road in the long term, taking everything into consideration, and then planning on merit. But the problem is that we cannot build roads up in the air; we have to build them on the ground. Everybody wants roads, as long as they are on their neighbour’s farm and not on their own farm. But I want to tell the hon. member that I have every sympathy with him. I love our natural resources just as much as he.

*I shall return to the ideas expressed by the hon. member for Parow. In this debate the members of the United Party tried, through making what was actually inappropriate use of the Schumann and Borckenhagen Reports, to level the accusation at the Government that the Provincial Administrations were being weakened. I want to make one thing very clear. I think the hon. member for Bellville restored the matter to its correct perspective, because he quoted the White Paper on the Borckenhagen Report correctly, where this matter is made clear. The first matter we should see in its correct perspective, and which these hon. members did not take into account at all, is that one is dealing with national roads which are an absolutely separate entity. The provinces retain their provincial roads, their district roads, their numbered roads and their priority roads. The cities and the local authorities retain their access roads and their roads linking with the national roads. Hon. members on that side confused these matters! Some of them are under the impression that the National Transport Commission is now taking over all roads from the provinces. That is not the case.

Yes.

That hon. member has just said “yes”; that just goes to show that he did no homework whatsoever. This Bill deals exclusively with the construction of national roads, and national roads only. Sir, hon. members on that side all had before them the two White Papers which were laid upon the Table by the Minister of Finance. In those White Papers the Schumann Report and the various Borckenhagen reports are summarized, and the Hosue has been informed of what recommendations contained in these reports the Government is going to carry into effect. Sir, the Schumann Report was brought out as long ago as 1964. Hon. members on that side want to remain static now. After all, we are no longer in the year 1964, we are now in the year 1971. Great development has taken place in South Africa since 1964. Hon. members of the Opposition could have raised the matter of these two White Papers, which were laid upon the Table a long time ago, under the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister in the debate on the financial relations between the Central Government and the provinces; they could have debated under the Vote of the Minister of Finance …

We did.

… the financing of national roads, the financing of provincial requirements and the financing of mass-transit facilities as far as this affects the metropolitan aspect, in order to show that the existing financial relations are wrong, but hon. members did not avail themselves of those opportunities of making an analysis of the existing financial relations. No, they want to thrash out the matter in the debate on this Bill. Sir, I stated very emphatically to hon. members that this Bill is a direct result of these two White Papers which have been laid upon the Table. The Bill follows logically on these two White Papers, which the Government laid upon the Table as policy for this House to accept.

Sir, I am not going to take up the time of this House by quoting from these White Papers, but I do want to ask hon. members to read paragraphs 20 to 25 of the White Paper on the Schumann Report; I also want to ask them to read Schedule I, dealing with the formula for the calculation of subsidies, particularly paragraph 10. In addition they must also read Schedule III, dealing with the compensation of the provincial administrations for the take-over of the eight declared national roads. Unless they do so, they cannot see this Bill and the task of the National Transport Commission and the provincial administrations in its correct perspective. Sir, I want to refer hon. members to the Marais Report, where a proper projection was made of the increase in the traffic on South African roads and in which the conclusion was arrived at that if one were simply to transfer the funds of the National Transport Commission to the provinces, the provinces would not only have to try to maintain the already existing national roads with those funds, but that they would be inclined—for the English proverb says that charity begins at home—to meet their own provincial needs first. This is precisely where there was conflict in the past between the National Transport Commission and the provinces. It goes without saying; the provinces have to answer to their electorate and their taxpayers, and it is obvious that they will give priority to the provincial needs and not the national needs, because the national needs are the responsibility of this Government. These hon. members are acting as the champions of the provinces, although the provinces are not doing this themselves. That is what I find so strange. I shall prove this later on.

If hon. members and particularly the hon. member for Jeppes were to look at the Borckenhagen Report, they would see in paragraphs 8 and 12 how the Government, as the hon. member for Bellville said here, is very clearly making provision to render the necessary assistance in regard to this mass-transit problem. They will also see it in clauses 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Bill. I cannot state it better than the hon. member for Bellville has already done. The hon. member for Jeppes did not do his homework. He never looked at these reports. If he had read these reports, he would never have made that speech of his. He would have known that it was not necessary to make that speech It is very clear to me that the hon. members on that side of the House who participated in this debate, did not read these reports.

Before I reply specifically to the speeches made by certain hon. members, I first want to explain the present position concerning the construction of national roads. The planning of freeways and limited access roads is of course a difficult and complicated matter. The basic planning is done by the National Roads Division of the Department, while the detailed planning is done exclusively by the consulting engineers. The road organizations of the provinces therefore merely act as agents between the National Transport Commission and the consulting engineers when it comes to the planning of national freeways and limited access roads. Hon. members on that side of the House have such a lot to say about duplication. Since the consulting engineers draw up the detailed plans, is it necessary for the provinces to see them first, only to send them through just as they are to the National Transport Commission which, after all, is at the moment still the responsible organization? Why must we have these intermediaries? In actual fact they act only as a post office between the consulting engineers and the National Transport Commission.

Those are the people who are in the know.

The hon. member for Simonstown has just said: "Those are the people who are in the know.” Those are the people who think they are in the know because their first consideration is to their own provincial interests, their own problems in regard to the flow of traffic to their cities. I do not blame them for that. They do not take the overall national plan into account.

What about Schumann?

I have already said that we are no longer living in 1964, but that we are now in 1971. I shall analyse the Schumann Report if that is what the hon. members want.

The elimination of this agent should therefore be no duplication, as I have already said. Under the present circumstances the planning of the consulting engineers is checked by the professional staff of both the Provincial Administrations and the National Transport Commission. Two bodies therefore check the same work. That is unnecessary. If the National Transport Commission were able to negotiate directly with the consulting engineers, it would relieve the provincial officials of this task and enable them to devote their undivided attention to the other provincial tasks. Believe me, the provincial administrations can no longer continue to devote their fulltime attention to all the demands made on them and the tasks given to them.

I now want to refer to the Marais Commission Report which the hon. member for Jeppes quoted a moment ago. Paragraph 824 of the Marais Commission Report reads as follows—

1. (a) Urgent consideration be given to the creation, within the provinces concerned, of the necessary statutory machinery for the establishment of groupings of local authorities to be known as Metropolitan Authorities;
2. (b) The powers and functions of such Metropolitan Authorities be exercized within the defined regions which shall include responsibility for roads and mass-transit routes and facilities based on prior regionwide comprehensive plans approved by the Provincial Administrations concerned;
3. (c) The technical and financial implications for the provision of mass transit facilities in the main metropolitan regions of the Republic of South Africa be made the subject of immediate study and reports in each of the regions concerned separately under the authority of the National Transport Commission in terms of section 7 of Act 44 of 1948.

This is a task the provinces must undertake, because the province is in the first instance the supervisory factor. The province is the unifying factor in regard to the urban areas and the cities. That is why, in this White Paper on the Borckenhagen Commission Report, the Government is already giving attention to implementing those instructions. The hon. member for Bellville has already said this. Just as the planning of freeways and limited access roads is a difficult and complicated task, their construction is also specialized work. It is general knowledge that the construction of such roads is done primarily by contractors. This is also the case in respect of the provinces, with the exception of a few road units in Natal. This is perhaps the case because it happens to be the smallest province in the country. Natal is still able—and the legislation makes provision for that—where it has the road units available, to act as agents, just as a contractor acts as agents for us when he constructs the road. In fact, the Administration has admitted that it uses contractors for all the difficult work, while the departmental units which exist at the moment, have to do the easier and lighter work. As a result of this state of affairs, the Administration is once again merely acting as agent between the National Transport Commission and the contractors, and it would in no wav affect the provincial organization if it were to be deprived of this role. What is more, I said in my Second Reading speech that I had had interviews with all four provincial administrations. They all acquiesced in this quite unanimously. They agreed that the work should be done by us. Since the detailed planning of national freeways and limited access roads is done exclusively by the consulting engineers, and the construction of such roads is done primarily by the contractors, the supervision of the work is done by consulting engineers. The question therefore arises, involuntarily, as to what contributions the provinces are making at the moment. What contributions are being made by the provincial road organizations, which hon. members are so concerned about at the moment? They are not even doing the supervisory work. This is being done by consulting engineers, with a few exceptions here and there.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. the Deputy Minister. Did the hon. the Deputy Minister consult the provinces?

Yes.

Was it the officials of the provinces, or merely the Executive Committee members?

I can state, for the information of the hon. member, that I said that the Administrators-in-Executive Committee consulted with the officials. The officials of my Department were also present. There was in other words, a proper representation of the provinces: The Chief Engineers, the Secretaries, and the Executive Committees of all four provinces.

At that time there were still a few snoek present too.

No, there were no snoek present. According to the evidence of the Transvaal representative before the Marais Commission, consulting engineers are already being used to check the work of other consulting engineers. This has gone so far, and the Transvaal is in such a position, that consulting engineers have to supervise the work of other consulting engineers. I am just mentioning this to hon. members to show that the Provincial Administration could not do the work. In fact, it has already happened that the Transvaal has had to appoint consulting engineers to supervise departmental work, This is how far this matter has already gone. The role played by provinces therefore is primarily that of agents. That is what we are now doing away with.

The hon. member for Durban North asked me to furnish him with a better explanation of what I said in respect of the abuse of confidential information which took place. I should very much like to do so today. Firstly I want to eliminate any misconception that the White Paper as such was circulated. Before this White Paper was drawn up and finalized, the recommendations of the Schumann and Marais Reports as well as those of the Borckenhagen Report, was discussed in a very confidential way, as I said a moment ago, with the Executive Committees of the provincial administrations and their officials, but also with the United Municipal Executive, for as hon. members have seen in the White Papers this affects them as well. This was done for the purpose of obtaining their full co-operation and their views. After discussions with them draft White Papers were once again drawn up with the ideas which could possibly be consolidated in a subsequent White Paper,

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question? Were they also discussed with the executive committee of the Divisional Council Congress in the Cape?

The provincial administrations accept responsibility for the divisional councils. We discussed these matters with the provincial administrations and with the executive committee of the Association of Local Authorities, because it affects these two bodies. Divisional councils have never yet constructed national roads, and this matter has therefore never yet concerned them. If there were discussions with them in regard to the Schumann and Borckenhagen Reports, as these affected them, it would have been done by the Minister in question with its officials, as had in fact been done by the representatives of the Reserve Bank with these various representatives. After this matter was discussed, some of these particulars were revealed in strict confidence to the organizations I mentioned. I come now to the statement I made, that this information was wrongly used. I want to quote, from the Hansard of the Transvaal Provincial Council, what the leader of the United Party said in that Council. The date is 17th and 18th February of this year, before these White Papers were laid upon the Table and before they were made public. He said—

When he was subjected to a cross-examination by way of interjections, he was asked inter alia by the member for the Executive Council: “Are you suggesting this?” Then he said—

He was then asked: “What is the allegation?" He then said: “What reasons do they give for wanting to take it away from you?” I was justified in stating very emphatically in this House that it was with dissatisfaction that I took note of the fact that information which had been circulated in the draft White Papers in order to obtain co-operation and to conduct discussions …

But the Road Federation wrote that last year.

The leader of the United Party in the provincial council was not referring to the Road Federation, but was referring to the draft White Papers. He misused them, and if this is the way in which the members of that party misuse things like that, we will have to consider whether they can in future be trusted with such draft White Papers. [Interjections.] His bench-fellow happens to be a member of the executive committee of the Association of Local Authorities, which is also United Party orientated. The leader said: “I imagine I am reading from a White Paper.” He was not imagining, but was reading from the actual Draft White Paper. That is the way in which that confidence was betrayed, but I hope it will not happen again.

The hon. member for Durban North went on to say that if the Bill becomes law, the provincial administrations may not construct roads if the National Transport Commission does not empower them to do so. But surely that is complete nonsense. Nothing prevents the provincial administrations from building roads other than national freeways. This has always been their task. Where does the hon. member now get his information from that they will not be able to construct roads unless the National Transport Commission allows them to do so?

It is national roads that are involved.

But the hon. member was not talking about national roads.

It is strange that hon. members on the opposite side have taken it upon themselves to be the champions of the provincial administrations, although, as I have already said, the provincial administrations have promised their full co-operation. Nowhere does one see that they have revolted against this Bill or the White Paper. The hon. member also said that the Constitution Act gives the provinces the right to construct roads; but surely the Constitution Act does not give them the exclusive right to construct roads; this is only a part of that. This I also explained in my Second Reading speech.

The hon. member harped on the fact that the central road construction organization is not necessary. He said nothing new. I made it clear to him what the Government is envisaging, and why we are proceeding to this step. Now I want to acknowledge that the hon. member is right in regard to one matter. He said that clause 25 relates to the compensation and deals with civil proceedings. It deals only with civil matters. Provision is being made in clause 9 for other matters. But if hon. members feel that the period which has been laid down is too short, I am willing to consider a recommendation for a longer period. I have checked on the Act to which the hon. member referred, Act No. 94 of 1970, and I am prepared to consider such a proposal, if he wants to suggest it.

The hon. member for Green Point discussed the matter of surrendering powers to the provinces. As I have already said, powers which are being surrendered to the provinces in terms of the proposed Act, must be implemented in terms of the Act and not the Ordinance. It is this Bill which gives them these powers, not the Ordinance they already have. When such a new body is established, there is a transitional period. Hon. members must remember that. That is why we are making this provision. In this case it could take years before the central organization is independent and will be able to function effectively. Consequently provision has been made for the surrender of powers, and all the provinces have already given an undertaking that they will co-operate. This is a measure which will in due course be used to an ever lesser extent, i.e. these powers we are giving them on a temporary basis.

The hon. member referred to the Road Fund. Let me inform him that if we were to tackle all the vitally necessary national roads at the same time, the funds would of course be inadequate. But it is not only the funds which would be inadequate; our manpower would also be inadequate. We do not have the adequate manpower to tackle everything simultaneously. We must cut our coat according to our cloth. That is why it is inevitable that we will have to proceed according to priorities, as was the case in the past. A sound balance is also being maintained between available funds and the manpower needed for doing the work. The more funds and manpower that can be made available, the quicker the progress with national road construction will be. In the White Papers on the Reports of the Schumann, Borckenhagen and Marais Commission inquiries, the financing of provincial roads is covered.

I want hon. members to understand this clearly. It is pointed out here that the Road Fund will not finance this. The hon. the Minister has already said that the Road Fund will only finance that amount we have already given to the cities. Since an hon. member—I almost think it was the hon. member for Green Point—also mentioned the so-called “percentage” which was given to the provincial administrations from the National Road Fund and which now falls away, I want to say that again he did not do his homework. This percentage was a non-recurrent percentage in 1935-’36. Since then they have had no claim whatsoever to a percentage from the National Road Fund. Every cent from the National Road Fund is already being used for national road construction alone, and this is not worked out on a pro rata percentage basis for the provinces.

The hon. member referred to clause 2 (4) (a). Clause 4 (2) (a) provides very clearly that a provincial road or a road in the jurisdiction of a local authority which has to be diverted as a result of the establishment of a national road, must be financed from the Road Fund. The hon. member also mentioned a national road which ends in an urban area. But a national road does not end on the boundaries of a city, but runs round or through such a complex. A national road is a through road; it has no cul de sac where it ends.

Take Cape Town, for example; surely national roads cannot go any further than Cape Town.

No. For example. the main road from the north passes through Cape Town to Gordon’s Bay, Mossel Bay and Port Elizabeth—right through to Durban. Cape Town itself must build those roads which are to serve it linking with this national road. Examples of these by-pass roads are to be found at Mossel Bay, Port Elizabeth, East London, Durban, Pietermaritzburg, Heidelberg (Transvaal), Johannesburg, Pretoria. Bronkhorstspruit. Witbank, Trompsburg, Bloemfontein, Winburg and Kroonstad—to mention only a few. The national road does not end at these towns or cities, hut either passes round them or, where this is not possible, through them. Provincial urban freeways can branch off from by-pass roads at predetermined points. But the road fund does not at present finance the link roads between the national road and towns and cities, and will not do so in future either. In this connection I am referring to the Borckenhagen Report. According to that link roads should be financed. These roads have never been the responsibility of the National Transport Commission.

The hon. member also discussed clause 5 (1) (I). This relates to other roads, roads which are financed for State purposes by State bodies. These are not necessarily provincial or national roads. Roads which are financed by the Treasury, are also converted by this clause. Let me mention a few: Upington-Nakop, Upington-Olifantshoek, and others. Provinces may also ask the Commission, while it is working in an area, to do work on a provincial road for the account of the province in question. In that case the province in question delegates its powers to the National Transport Commission. It will save the provinces time and money if smaller works can be done in this way by the National Transport Commission. Otherwise the provinces will be obliged to undertake small works in remote areas while such works could quite comfortably be done by the National roadworkers. Money and manpower are in any case inadequate for the construction of provincial roads at will. The hon. member need not therefore be afraid that this will happen.

He also discussed the establishment of a road construction unit. The object of this Bill is not to establish an independent road construction unit outside local authority context. However, it may subsequently become necessary to establish not only one, but as many road construction units as are necessary. Just as the Department of Water Affairs has its own building construction units, so the National Transport Commission may also find these necessary later on.

Then the hon. member discussed traffic regulations. Every road authority can of course make laws to regulate the traffic on roads under their control. The hon. member objected to the fact that we are now making provision for that. The hon. member for Walmer referred to the problem of heavy vehicles on our roads and expressed the idea that control over these heavy vehicles should he exercised in order to prevent them causing congestion on our roads. In the case of national roads this will be the responsibility of the National Transport Commission. Hence provision for that is being made here. For the present the Ordinances apply, but it is essential that this provision be made for national roads, for the reasons I have already mentioned. That is why it is being provided in clause 19 (6) (a) that the regulations must be acceptable to both Houses of Parliament.

The hon. member for Salt River, for the most part, merely repeated what previous speakers had said, and I think hon. members have already replied to that. I just want to tell the hon. member that he is quite wrong. Not all the recommendations of the Marais Commission were rejected, and here I immediately come to the hon. member for Albany. The hon. member for Albany quoted the Minister in regard to the Marais Commission, but surely the hon. member knew that the Minister had only discussed certain aspects in regard to the Marais Commission and had pointed out that the Marais Commission had brought out two minority reports, and that the various reports had been signed by various persons. This report on national road construction is virtually the only report brought out by the Marais Commission which was unanimous and which were not, subject to minority reports. He should not place the Minister out: of context to such an extent. The take-over and the control, and all the facets of national roads, are: only I one of the recommendations which were accepted. The Bill deals with national freeways.

The question and the hon. member for Jeppes must also listen to this of what is going to happen in the metropolitan areas is not relevant here. It has nothing to do with this Bill, In regard to that question, the provinces and other bodies will have to take further steps in terms of the Marais Commission, which I have already quoted now. and in terms of the White Paper on the Borekenhagen Report. The hon. member is also wrong if he thinks that the road fund is going to finance the roads of the provinces and the cities. He did not do his homework; if he had read the White Paper on the Schumann Report, he would have seen very clearly that it is provided in that White Paper that the National Road Fund finances only national roads, and that the needs of the provinces are differently summarized and differently analysed.

The hon. member for Mooi River said something here which he has no substantial grounds for saying. He took it amiss of the hon. members from the Free State for not having adhered to the Free State standpoint which recommended that the National Transport Commission should be done away with. Where does he get that from? Why does he not quote it? Surely there has been no such resolution on the part of the Free State that the National Transport Commission should disappear. He grabbed it out of his hat. There is no such thing. The hon. member also discussed the difference in labour. It will make no difference whether the National Transport Commission or the provincial administrations build roads. The division of labour of both will still he there. Then the hon. member did something unforgiveable. He said that we would entice the local engineers away from the provinces. Surely he knows that there is a Public Service Act and State regulations and that officials of the provinces can be transferred through promotion to the Central Government. He knows that there is a mutual agreement and that the one will not entice staff away from tile other. Why did he, without rhyme or reason, make this accusation?

I have already reply to the hon. member for Jeppes. He was actually the champion of the urban metropolitan areas. What he said has been replied to, also by other hon. members. The hon. member discussed the matter of toll gates, and I think the hon member for Bellville also referred to them. I want to tell him that in principle we are not opposed to the idea of toll gates. The hon. member for Bellville went further and said that when discussing toll, one must also synchronize the toll with the weight of the load, etc. This is a matter we could investigate and consider, but it has nothing to do with this Bill. It relates only to urban development and urban financing;

The hon. member for Albany was very concerned about clause 18 in regard to storm-water. I want to inform the hon. member that the National Transport Commission and the National Road organization will take every step in regard to the control of storm-water, because we are as concerned about soil erosion as he is. But he must analyse the provisions of the clause. The provisions were derived from an adaptation of section 19 of the Natal Road Ordinance. No. 10 of 1968. and section 84 of the Transvaal Road Ordinance. In other words, it is nothing new. That is where we took this clause from. The commission may divert storm-water from or under a national road on to any land but shall, in terms of the provisions of subsection (3) pay compensation for damage caused by the diversion of such stormwater, Sir, if you read subsection (3) you will see that it is also provided there, when a township is established, that the township is responsible for disposing of its storm-water if it has the benefit of that road. Our problem is this: A township is established on both sides of a national road; surely one cannot then hold the National Road authority responsible for any storm-water problems which may arise there. Sir, the hon. member said that we are insulting the provincial administrations. I have already told him that charity begins at home. Our experience throughout—and we are not blaming the provincial administrations for this—has been that they, in all the road construction plans, first take their own interests as a province into account, and then establish their priorities according to that Precisely as a result of that one then has the tremendous delay which sometimes occurs in achieving unanimity among the engineers of the National Transport Commission and the engineers of the provincial administration, for the engineer in the employ of the province regards the matter from the point of view of the requirements of urban and local traffic, while the other engineer takes into account the increasing national traffic requirements. Sir, if you read the Marais Commission Report you will see what the expected increase in traffic in South Africa is. Provision has to be made for that increasing traffic. The hon. member himself furnished the reply to his problems; he said that the provinces had constructed roads in opposition to the National Transport Commission, In other words, the provinces looked after their own interests first.

Sir, I should just like to return to what the hon. member for Walmer said, and then at the same time reply to what the hon. member for Humansdorp said. It is a pity that the hon. member for Walmer will no longer be able to advertise his rams, but South Africa knows that he sells very good rams; he does not need to advertise them on the road. However. I want to say that I agree with him in this connection: The hon. member for Humansdorp and the House must know that advertisements on roads are only going to create problems for us for a national road is a limited access road, to which one only has access at traffic intersections. One has international standard road signs to indicate where roads turn off or where hotels are situated; I think these are indicated at a turn-off by means of a knife and fork. Once you begin allowing advertisements on national roads, you will not know where to draw the fine. However, provision is made in the Advertising on Roads Act for advertisements on hotel or motel buildings where the advertisement refers to the motel or hotel. If hon. members drive out to Paarl they would see that a motel is allowed to advertise itself, but we cannot allow other advertisements. I want to agree with the hon. member that one would like to encourage tourism, but a tourist decides in advance what areas he is going to visit and he sees to it that he knows in advance what scenic attractions there are. He does not happen to turn off, because a national road is a freeway.

In conclusion I want to thank the hon. members for Parow, Middelburg, Heilbron and Bellville for their contributions.

What about the hon. member for Christiana?

I come now to the hon. member for Christiana. I should like to point out that the hon. member for Heilbron’s question as to whether in clause 7 (1) the words “after the owner has been notified in writing” could be inserted, creates a problem for us. Often one does not know who the owner is. Perhaps the owner does not stay on the land in question. Often there is not even an occupant. For this reason doing that would delay the work. Normally it is the policy of the National Transport Commission, and it also gives such instructions to its road engineers as well as to its consulting engineers, not to allow them to enter upon a person’s farm or land before notifying him of such intention and consulting him thoroughly in that regard. That is the normal procedure. However, if we were to write into the Bill that the persons in question shall first be notified in writing, it creates the problem that work could possibly be delayed for months because the land owner in question could not be traced.

The hon. member also asked whether we could in clause 8 substitute the word “uneconomic" for the word “useless". The problem is that land could be uneconomic as a unit, but that does not mean to say that the land is useless for the owner. The land could be used in some other way. If the land is called uneconomic, a definition has to be obtained in terms of which the land is uneconomic. Land would be uneconomic for agricultural purposes if it was not possible to make a subsistence on that land. However, that specific piece of land can be added to another piece, which is still obtainable. In such a case the land would be economic again. In other words, we would merely be creating difficulties for ourselves if we were to use the word “uneconomic" instead of the word “useless”.

The other request of the hon. member was to insert the words “or after the crop …” after the words “after 90 days”. The problem in regard to crops is that there are seasonal crops and that three crops are sometimes harvested simultaneously or one after another. A wheat farmer may have part of his land under wheat, while his maize is being harvested. This only creates further problems. If the hon. member were to look at the Bill, he would see that thorough provision is being made for compensation to persons in regard to expropriation and damages suffered as a result.

The hon. member for Christiana, I think, replied very effectively in regard to the Constitution Act and the allegation by the Opposition that we are going to deprive the provinces of their rights. I want to thank him as well.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members will notice from this Bill and the explanatory memorandum which has been tabled, that provision is being made to amend the existing Transport (Co-ordination) Act, 1948 (Act No. 44 of 1948), relating to definitions and the constitution and functions of the National Transport Commission; to incorporate that body; to repeal the provisions of Act No. 44 of 1948 relating to the Advisory Committee on Roads; and to provide for incidental matters.

The Bill flows directly from the allocation of greater powers to the National Transport Commission, as contained in the National Roads Bill, 1971, and is essential for enabling the Commission to exercise its powers under that Bill with the greatest measure of efficiency.

Here hon. members also have an explanatory memorandum at their disposal, but I deem it essential to refer to a few aspects as they are dealt with in the various clauses.

Subsection 1 (a) of clause 2 vests the National Transport Commission with the powers of a body corporate capable of sueing and being sued henceforth. It is deemed essential for the commission to obtain the status of a body corporate, especially since the commission, with its extended powers in respect of roads in terms of the National Roads Bill, 1971, may henceforth sue or be sued, acquire, possess or dispose of property, conclude contracts, enter into agreements and perform any functions normally performed by a body corporate.

Subsection 1 (b) of clause 2 provides that henceforth the Commission shall consist of the Secretary for Transport, who shall be the chairman, and not more than seven other members appointed by the State President, of whom not more than three may be persons who are members of the Public Service.

By virtue of his office, the Secretary for Transport becomes a member of the Commission and its chairman. In terms of the existing Act, in terms of section 3 (3) of Act No. 44 of 1948, he is in any event appointed as a member of the Commission, and since the commencement of Act No. 14 of 1948 it has been customary for the occupier of the post of Secretary for Transport to be the chairman of the Commission as well.

The membership of the Commission is being enlarged from a membership of not more than seven to one of not more than eight members, in view of the extension of the Commission’s powers, duties and functions, as envisaged in the National Roads Bill, 1971.

The number of members of the commission who may be members of the Public Service, is now being increased from a maximum of three to a maximum of four, including the chairman.

Subsection 1 (c) of clause 2 provides that the State President shall from among the members of the Commission designate —

1. (i) One as Commissioner for Road Transportation;
2. (ii) one as Commissioner for Civil Aviation; and
3. (iii) one as Commissioner for National Roads.

With the extension of the powers of the Commission in regard to national roads, as envisaged in the National Roads Bill, 1971, it is essential, just as in the case of road transportation and civil aviation, for a Commissioner for National Roads to be appointed as well.

As mentioned above, it is therefore being proposed that henceforth four public servants will be appointed as members of the Commission, i.e. the Secretary for Transport, who will be the chairman ex officio, the Commissioner for Road Transportation (who will devote himself mainly to road transportation matters), the Commissioner for Civil Aviation (who will devote himself mainly to civil aviation matters), and the Commissioner for National Roads (who will devote himself mainly to National Roads matters). The remaining four members will be appointed in terms of section 3 (4) and (5) of Act No. 44 of 1948 on the basis of their experience of and abilities regarding transport, aviation, industry, trade, financial matters or public affairs.

In addition to these members a member nominated by the Minister of Defence will be appointed in terms of section 3 (8), a member who will not have the right to vote. Therefore the Commission in point of fact will henceforth consist of nine members, of whom one will not have the right to vote, as opposed to the present eight members of whom one does not have the right to vote.

Subclause I (d) of clause 2 has the same effect as the existing provision, i.e. that one of the members referred to in section 3 (4) of Act No. 44 of 1948, will be appointed after consultation with the Civil Aviation Advisory Committee referred to in section 5 of the Aviation Act, 1962 (Act No. 74 of 1962), and shall be a person who, in the opinion of the State President, possesses a thorough knowledge of aviation matters. This amendment is essentially the same as the present wording of section 3 (5) (b) of Act No. 44 of 1948 and has been modified in order to refer to the latest Act (the Aviation Act, 1962 (Act No. 74 of 1962)).

In addition the provision contained in section 3 (5) (a) of the existing Act, namely that one member shall be appointed from among four persons nominated by the Administrators of the four Provinces, is being deleted. As the administration concerned will, in terms of the provisions contained in the National Roads Bill, 1971, no longer be the road authority as regards national roads, the necessity for provincial representation on the commission falls away.

Consultation with the Administrators concerned remains a statutory requirement in the National Roads Bill, 1971, and the close co-operation which has been built up with the Administrations over the years, will, of course, be maintained and continued.

Then there is paragraph (e). Section 3 (7) of Act No. 44 of 1948 is being deleted as the period of office of the chairman is also being covered in the amended section 3 (2) of Act No. 44 of 1948, in paragraph (b) above. Therefore the Secretary for Transport will, remain chairman of the Commission for his period of office as Secretary for Transport. Clause 3 (b) seeks to provide that the chairman of the Commission may designate an acting chairman if he himself is temporarily unable to perform his functions as chairman. Previously the Minister has had to designate an acting chairman when the office of chairman became vacant. The amendment to section 3 of the existing Act ensures, however, that the office of chairman can never become vacant and provision is now being made for the designation of an acting chairman, as provided above'. It burdens the Minister with unnecessary work if he has to designate an acting chairman in respect of each meeting which the Secretary for Transport as ex officio chairman cannot attend. Moreover, the functioning of the Commission may suffer if the present cumbersome procedure had to be followed first.

Clause 5 (b) seeks to introduce the provision which only has the effect of supplementing the existing statutory provision by providing that if the majority of the members present at any meeting of the Commission consists of members of the Public Service, there shall be no quorum unless the chairman is satisfied that the members who are absent from that meeting and who are not members of the Public Service, are unable to attend the meeting. The provision will ensure that the work of the Commission will not be brought to a standstill, simply and solely because there is no quorum as a result of the unforeseen absence of a member of the commission who is not a member of the Public Service. The present provision concerning a quorum can paralyse the Commission entirely, as has often happened in the past. This is a state of affairs which cannot be allowed to continue, as it seriously embarrasses the Commission, especially at the hearing of appeals. The amendment will ensure that the functions of the Commission will not be disrupted as a result of the inability of the members who are not members of the Public Service, to attend a meeting. In the application of the preceding provision, the additional member appointed in terms of section 3 (8), is not regarded as a member of the Commission.

Clause 6 deals with the further functions of the Commission and amends section 9 of Act No. 44 of 1948. The provision that the Commission is to take existing and contemplated transport facilities into consideration in the performance of its functions in terms of the National Roads Act, 1971, is being substituted for section 9 (i) of Act No. 44 of 1948. The functions of the Commission in regard to roads contained in section 9 (i) (a) to (1) of Act No. 44 of 3948, have been incorporated in the National Roads Bill, 1971, and therefore fall away for the purposes of Act No. 44 of 1948. However, the new provision above obliges the Commission to take existing and contemplated transport facilities into consideration in the performance of its functions in terms of the National Roads Act, 1971.

Clause 8 seeks to delete section 11 of Act No. 44 of 1948, as the need for an advisory committee on roads falls away under the new dispensation. It is once again emphasized that consultation with the Administrator of a province is a pre-requisite prescribed by law for the proclamation of national roads, in terms of clause 4 of the National Roads Bill, 1971, and consequently the co-operation and good relations which have been built up over the years with the Administrations, will be maintained and continued.

These are the most important aspects contained in the Bill, and if hon. members wish to have any further information, I shall be pleased to provide them with such information.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has rightly indicated, this Bill is a necessary part of the last Bill, which has been accepted by this House, that is to say the National Roads Bill. Because it is a part of the same pattern and because it flows naturally from the Government’s White Paper concerning the recommendations of the Schumann Commission, we will also oppose this Bill.

The principle that is involved in this Bill is one of the emasculation gradually, but in a determined way, of the powers of the provinces, hut we have not yet had any indication from the hon. the Deputy Minister as to why it is that this now becomes necessary. All that we have had by way of explanation is that national roads are the responsibility of the Central Government. This is quite rightly so. Since 1935, when the National Roads Act was passed, it was the responsibility of the Central Government through the National Road Board to provide the planning and the money for the building of national roads for the reason that they were national roads and were not provincial ones. They were to serve the whole of South Africa and should therefore be paid for out of central funds. The only reason the hon. the Deputy Minister has given is that the Schumann Commission, which recommended that the power to make roads should not be given to this particular body, reported in 3964 and that it is now 1971.

Order! I hope the hon. member is not repeating the discussion which we had on the previous Bill.

With respect,. Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult not to do so in some respects, because the body which is being created here has the powers which are set out in the Bill which we have just dealt with and amongst those powers is the new power to build national roads. In clauses 5 and 6 of the previous Bill the various powers are set out …

Yes, but we are not discussing the previous Bill now. The hon. member must confine his remarks to the long title of this Bill.

Yes, but the long title of this Bill reads: “To amend the provisions of the Transport (Co ordination) Act, 1948, relating to definitions and the constitution and functions of the National Transport Commission .. This Is a new function which the National Transport Commission is now to have, namely to; build national roads. My submission is that it is therefore relevant. In this Bill provision is also made for the appointment of a Commissioner for National Roads. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will concede that in 1964, and before, the provinces were against these powers being taken away from them and handed over, f think I stand on good solid ground if I say that in 1971 they are still against this power being taken from them. I now refer to all the Provincial Administrations, three of which are governed by the Nationalist Party. One therefore has to look elsewhere for the reason. The hon. the Deputy Minister talks about the report of the Schumann Commission of 1964. In 1964 the Schumann Commission did not just say that the situation should remain the same, but also recommended “that the National Council for Roads shall be given no power to itself to construct or maintain any road, to own or maintain any road plant, or to enter into any contract in connection with road construction or maintenance or the purchase of plant”. It is to give it the power to do just that that it is necessary here In this Bill to make the commission now a corporate body so that it may enter into contracts and so that it may be responsible in law. The hon. the Deputy Minister agrees. It is to implement the Government’s decision in relation to this particular recommendation. Now the Government rejects completely that recommendation. I do not have to remind the House what a formidable group of people formed the commission which made this recommendation. Dr. Schumann, the Chairman, is a professor of business economics at the Stellenbosch University and also a director of companies. There was Dr. Albertyn. a farmer and director of companies. Prof. Brit/, a former Director of Education; Mr. W. B. Coetzer, a businessman and a director of companies, Mr. I. J. Fleming, a businessman and a director of companies; Dr. E. G. Malherbe, who was Principal and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Natal; Prof. Murray, professor of political philosophy at the Cape Town University; Dr. J. H. Rauch, a former Surgeon-General, and Prof. H. J. Samuels, a public accountant and auditor and director of companies.

When the Deputy Minister says that everyone is being very parochial in opposing this Bill, in opposing the commission getting these powers and the powers being taken from the provinces, I think he must appreciate that this recommendation came from this commission, the names of the members of which I have read out, which could be expected to bring independent, impartial minds to bear, not shrouded with the parochial aspects. But in relation to that particular finding, the definite finding that this body should not have this power and that the provinces should continue as before, what do we find? What are the reasons given in 1971 for rejecting this particular recommendation? Sir, you find that in the White Paper on the Schumann report, at page 13, this is said; “In the light of the circumstances set put in the foregoing paragraph, (namely paragraph 23), it will not be possible to accept the commission’s recommendation in the form in which it has been formulated. The Government is of the opinion that the main function of the proposed central road-building organization should be the establishment and further extension of a national freeway system for the Republic and, as indicated, this accords with the view of the Marais Commission.” But what are the reasons which are given in 1971, this being a report of 1964? What are the reasons that are given? First of all, and this the hon. the Deputy Minister has not answered at all, and I hope that he will do so in this debate …

The hon. the Deputy Minister replied to the debate on the previous Bill and the hon. member is now dealing with the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reply to the debate on that Bill. He is replying now to the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Sir, I take your point and I shall desist from following that line.

You are making a Third Reading speech now,

No, we will wait for that.

No, Sir. In this Bill we are creating a new body corporate. Of necessity it must have these powers, with a director of national roads, in order to enter into contracts, to make roads, to own plant and to he able to sue and to be sued as a body corporate. Sir, the first reason that is given by the Government in the White Paper is that such a central organization will be able to introduce uniformity into the expropriation of ground for national road purposes. Sir, is this really a reason? All you have to do in order to introduce uniformity is what is done all the time; in other words, you introduce a law applying expropriation. This is the reason given why the recommendation of the Schumann Commission should be rejected.

Order! The hon. member agrees with me, but then he continues along the same lines; he continues with the Second Reading debate on the previous Bill.

No, Sir, I am trying to indicate …

The hon. member is not having much success.

Sir, my success or otherwise is a matter which you and I are not able at this stage to judge. If I could develop my argument I might even be able to persuade the hon. the Deputy Minister.

To withdraw his Bill.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has agreed that this Bill goes hand in hand with the last Bill. He has agreed that it is because of the White Paper that this Bill has been introduced. I am trying to indicate that this White Paper really produces no cogent reason, no reason that holds any water, certainly not in 1971, for the introduction of this Bill.

This Bill is being introduced not because of the White Paper, but because of the previous Bill.

We must accept that the Second Reading of the previous Bill has been accepted.

Yes, Sir, I accept that.

The hon. member must argue on that basis then.

One of the reasons why we have to have a body corporate apparently, again according to the White Paper, is so that more direct supervision can be exercised by the authorities over national road works. Surely you do not need a body corporate for this purpose. The commission, as it was, was able to inspect roads, to supervise whatever was being done in respect of its planning and its programme. Surely, Sir, you do not need a body corporate to do it, a body which can sue and be sued. Does the hon. the Deputy Minister envisage that as a result of the supervision exercised by this new body it is likely to be sued or that it may have to sue? Sir, the real answer is contained in this White Paper. The real answer is that protracted negotiations and differences of opinion with the provinces over the location of national roads, etc. will be restricted to a minimum if this Bill is passed; that is the reason given in the White Paper. If the hon. the Deputy Minister really is sincere in saying that this is now going to streamline everything, he is going to have to deal with the provinces, and does he believe that because he now creates a body corporate, capable of suing and of being sued, he is going to wipe away all the differences, because this body which he is here creating has all the powers in the world and does not have to negotiate any more except on its own terms with the big stick? Sir, what is very interesting is that although in the previous Bill we gave this body, which is now to have a corporate status, certain very wide powers—and that we must now accept, because that is a principle of the last Bill —nevertheless this Bill keeps intact the provisions of section 7 of the Transport Co-ordination Act, which this Bill is amending, and which provides for the object of the commission. Sir, this is still there and must be read together with the changes made here; and, Sir, what is the object of the commission? The object of the commission shall be—

That is to say, subject to the National Roads Bill—

Do you find anything wrong with that?

There is nothing wrong with that at all. It has been the law all the time. Now, will the hon. the Deputy Minister tell me today what it is he is going to co-ordinate when he has all the power? I will not dwell on that question—it will be dealt with by another speaker on this side. But there it is; there is no need for co-ordination or co-operation any more. The reason given in the White Paper, that which led to negotiation when differences of opinion have arisen, is the real reason. Now they want all the power in the hands of this body. There are going to be these differences of opinion. Does the hon. the Deputy Minister really believe—I would like to heat him on this —that having created this body with the powers it now has, he is not going to have to approach the provinces to do, certainly in the next four to five years, the bulk of his work for him? Does the hon. the Deputy Minister not agree that that is what he will have to do? He will find the very same protracted negotiations and differences of opinion.

It is going to be worse.

Yes, indeed, as my hon. friend says, it may well become worse for the simple reason that professional men differ about matters professional, especially scientific and technical matters such as this. Does the hon. the Deputy Minister not then concede that part of one’s wisdom as a technical man, perhaps the greater part of one’s wisdom as a professional man, especially as an engineer, is one’s experience. The people who therefore have the most wisdom in this regard, are the people who have the experience of the terrain where that road is going to go. These are professional people we are dealing with. They are experts in their field; they have become expert because of their experience.

Order! I must ask the hon. member to come back to the Bill.

May L say, Sir, that the reasons given in the White Paper in 1971 are not sufficiently good reasons. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister will tell us what his real reasons are.

The responsibility of the National Transport Commission has always been to plan financing of these particular roads. This Bill, as part of the whole scheme, gives this board powers and provides that one can just appoint, in terms to clause 2, certain persons from amongst the commission members. The membership of the commission now is completely changed. The hon. the Deputy Minister conceded just now that he will have to consult with the provinces; he has conceded that the provinces will, in the next few years, have to build the bulk of the roads for the National Transport Commission. And yet, such is the nature of the attitude of mind of this Government, that in this very Bill they take away from the membership of the National Transport Commission any representation by the provinces. Very wisely that provision is now in the Act—very wisely, because if you have a body that has to co-operate, co-ordinate and indeed, as this body will now have, has the power to delegate to the provinces, one would have thought that it was just normal practice that there would be representatives of the provinces. These are the people who are going to do the work and to whom you are going to delegate. You are going to delegate on certain conditions. One would have hoped that this provision would have been left. We have received no explanation as yet from the hon. the Deputy Minister as to Why representation of the provinces is to be removed, except that, now that the National Transportation Commission has taken over the job of building the roads, it is no longer really necessary; one need not consult with them any more. Yet he must delegate to them; he has the power to do so. Surely one must have someone on the board who is able to tell whether one can delegate to a body like the provincial, council on certain conditions? The conditions are not known to the people in Pretoria, as I have said. Nevertheless. that representation is to be removed. although there is no reason given for it. It is a straight take-over. The gradual emasculation of the provincial powers is commensurate with all the other actions which have been taken in this regard. We cannot have any part of this Bill and will oppose it in the same manner as we opposed the last one and for the very same reasons.

Mr. Speaker, I really felt sorry for the hon. member for Durban North today. Even if the hon. member has a weak case, he still tried to argue logically. Today ft was absolutely impossible for him to do so. since his case was such a hopeless one. That is also why he cut such a sorry figure, a situation in which his party should really not have allowed him to land himself. The hon. member started by saying that this legislation with which we are dealing now, was nothing but an inevitable, logical consequence of the legislation to which the House had just agreed. The Bill with which we are dealing at the moment, is essential for enabling the commission to implement properly and effectively the wider powers which were conferred on it by the previous legislation and which are now an accomplished fact.

He said that.

He said that, but after that he said he was going to oppose the Bill. They are going to oppose it, not withstanding the fact that they have admitted that it is a logical consequence of the previous Bill and that it is essential. In other words, the hon. members openly admit that, if we did not have this Bill as well, we might as well scrap the other Bill, which the House has just passed.

He did not admit that.

Of course he said that! The hon. member for Durban North said that, because the United Party did not like the measure which had just been agreed to by the House and because they opposed it, they were going to oppose this Bill as well, although there is nothing in this Bill to which they can object. They are merely doing it because it is a logical consequence of other legislation which they opposed. Has the hon. House ever heard such a stupid argument? Has the House ever witnessed such irresponsible conduct on the part of an Opposition, i.e. that, although they have no objection to the Bill and admit that it is essential for implementing effectively other legislation which has already been passed by this House, they have gone so far as to oppose it simply because they opposed the other legislation? What does this mean? It simply means that the Opposition is trying to make it impossible, if it were in their power to do so. to implement the measure which has already been passed by the House. They have been trying to create the situation by means of which the effectiveness of an Act which has been passed by this House, will be rendered impossible. That is the logical consequence of what, as the hon. member for Green Point has also said, their objective is. By opposing and wrecking this Bill they want to undo what has already been accepted in principle by this House. Surely, it is the duty of the Opposition, once a principle has been accepted and legislation has been placed on the Statute Book, to enable the Government to implement as effectively as possible the existing legislation, on which this Parliament in its wisdom has already decided. If this is not the case, they are being destructive in their actions. Sir, the hon. member mentioned quite a number of points, but by and large he once again rehashed old arguments and simply repeated what had been discussed in the previous debate. That was why it was so often necessary for you to …

Order! I hope the hon. member does not follow in his footsteps.

No, Sir, I have no intention of doing that. It is also for that reason that I cannot reply to the hon. member on many of these points, for you will not allow me to do so. However, there is one point which has a bearing on this matter. That is the argument that we have introduced this Bill so as to act against the wishes of the provinces. He did not listen to the Deputy Minister, who very Clearly said that the previous legislation which was passed in this House, and of which this Bill was a logical consequence, had been discussed with the provinces and with their officials. The hon. member did not pay any attention to that. He simply said: ‘‘We are doing something here which is against the wishes of the provinces, and, what is more, we are doing so contrary to the recommendations made by the Schumann Commission.” This is an argument which was also used in respect of this Bill. The most important point which the hon. member has been overlooking, is that the Schumann Commission admits that there are certain shortcomings which should be ironed out. I grant that the Schumann Commission recommended that the situation be retained as it is now. In other words, in that case the Bill which has just been accepted in principle, as well as this Bill, which has resulted from it, are both unnecessary. However, now we say that we cannot retain the position as it is, because to certain questions the Schumann Commission did not have any replies. The Commission merely stated the problem and said: “Although the problem exists, we are still of the opinion that the position should be retained, but that another commission should be appointed to reply to these questions.” That is what the hon. member cannot grasp.

If the hon. member did not take the trouble to read this Bill, I shall now tell him, and the other speakers opposite who are going to follow him, what is stated in the legislation and what is involved. Then the matter will have been disposed of as far as this side of the House is concerned.

We admit that this legislation is necessary for making it possible for the National Transport Commission to implement properly the wider powers conferred on them. That is why these amendments are necessary. One of the amendments seeks to grant legal personality to this commission. To that the hon. member has no objection. Having dealt with that, he paused at the composition of the commission. He tried to make a point out of the fact that the representative who served on the commission in the past and who had been nominated upon the recommendation of the four Administrators, was now being dispensed with. It is true that that representative is being dispensed with, but in terms of the Bill which was agreed to in principle earlier this afternoon, the provinces are in any case no longer being regarded as national road-construction authorities when it comes to national roads. It is for that reason that the representative who served on the National Transport Commission on behalf of the province, has become redundant. [Interjections.] The advisory committee is also being abolished.

Another complaint raised by the hon. member was that there would no longer be proper discussion with the provinces, that steps would be taken without the provinces being consulted. I want to refer the hon. member to what the Deputy Minister said in his speech a moment ago. He said: “Consultation with the Administrators concerned remains a statutory requirement in the National Roads Bill, 1971, and the close co-operation which has been built up with the Administrations over the years, will of course be maintained and continued.” It is a requirement under the Act which we have just passed that there must be consultation. That is how it will be. This instruction is set out in clause 4 of the legislation which this House has just passed.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the Bill which is under discussion now.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am dealing with the Second Reading speech made by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport. I am quoting from it.

Yes, but I do not want the hon. member to set an example to the hon. the Opposition by reviving the previous debate.

Mr. Speaker, I am actually quoting from the Second Reading speech made by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport in regard to the Bill which is under discussion now. I want to refer hon. members again to what the hon. the Deputy Minister said towards the end of his speech. He said—

In other words, this nagging on the part of the hon. member, i.e, that there will be no discussions with the provincial councils, is absolutely hollow.

In regard to the composition of this commission, I want to point out to hon. members that the entire commission, just as was the case in the past, will survive, with the omission of one single member, who was previously recommended by the Administrators, because the functions of that particular member have fallen away. As far as national roads are concerned, the provincial councils are no longer being regarded as the road-construction authorities. Instead of three public servants, four public servants will now serve on this Commission. The Secretary for Transport will be appointed ex officio as the chairman. Previously the chairman was elected from the ranks of the board. In addition to him there will be another three public servants. But there is also a necessity for the additional member to be appointed, and that is also why the commission is being enlarged.

This member will be the Commissioner for National Roads; in other words, the official who will be in charge of this national road-construction organization. He will serve on the commission. This is an essential step. We have granted the Commissioner for Road Transportation a seat on this commission, we have granted the Commissioner for Civil Aviation a seat on this commission, and now we are also granting the head of this organization, which will be established, namely the Commissioner for National Roads, a seat on this commission. The number of members on the commission is therefore being enlarged from seven to eight voting members, whilst the member who was previously appointed by the Minister of Defence in an advisory capacity, and who did not have the right to vote, is in actual fact being retained as well.

Another amendment which is being proposed here is the one in respect of a fulltime acting vice-chairman. In the past the chairman was appointed by the State President. Now the Secretary for the Department of Transport will be the chairman. In the past, whenever for some reason or other a vacancy arose in the office of chairmanship, the Minister, having followed certain procedures, had to appoint an acting chairman. This procedure complicated the functions of the commission. It delayed its functions.

Now an acting chairman will be elected, a person who will be able to act on behalf of the chairman. This will facilitate the commission’s functions considerably. Now it is even possible for the commission to sit simultaneously at two places, with the chairman and a certain number of members at one meeting and the acting chairman and a certain number of members at another meeting. For instance, it will be possible for the commission to sit here in Cape Town and in Pretoria or in Cape Town and in Port Elizabeth at the same time. It will therefore be possible for the commission to dispose of its business so much more easily. Then there is an essential arrangement in respect of the quorum. In the past the business of the commission was often held up and complicated by the provision which laid down that there had to be more members than public servants in the quorum. Although this principle is still being accepted, the matter is being left to the discretion of the chairman. If he, in his discretion, has ascertained that the other members could not attend the meeting, he may carry on with the meeting even though the public servants may be in the majority at that meeting. This will also facilitate the business of the commission considerably. That is all that is implied in the legislation.

If the hon. members did not understand it by themselves, I have now explained it to them in detail. I think they ought to understand it now, in the simple language in which I have explained it to them. If hon. members should now proceed with this foolish conduct of theirs, then they themselves are to blame for it. Then they cannot even claim any more that they did not know what was provided in the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parow has really not said much which was new this evening. He did not say much which was new and which a person cannot find out simply by reading the Bill. He did in fact wax lyrical because the hon. member for Durban North had said we were not going to support this Bill because we had not supported the previous Bill. The hon. member for Parow himself said this Bill was a logical consequence of the previous Bill. Our approach is that although it is a logical consequence of the previous Bill, it is not an essential consequence of the previous Bill.

He added that we were trying to do this sort of thing, namely opposing the Bill, while we had no abjection in principle to the legislation. For the information of the hon. member for Parow, I should like to tell him that we have much in principle against this legislation. The hon. member mentioned that the one member out of the four members nominated by the Administrators of the provinces, was no longer essential, because the provinces were being eliminated. This is so, and this is the very reason for our opposition to this Bill. Although the provinces are being eliminated, their interests are most certainly still being affected very seriously and very deeply by the activities of this Commission.

I feel that this is a very important Bill, and it cannot be considered on its own in a vacuum, as we have already said. It must be seen against the background of the previous Bill, the Schumann report and the White Paper. However, not only is it part of this background, but also of a wider pattern. *

Order! We are not concerned with the pattern now; we must come back to the Bill now. The pattern has been discussed a great deal and the Bill should be discussed now.

Mr. Speaker, I merely wanted to indicate the principle of this Bill and what I really wanted to discuss.

Order! Will the hon. member abide by Mr. Speaker’s ruling now?

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I want to try again to discuss the principle of this Bill as well as to determine exactly in what the principle is contained and to indicate why we are opposed to it in principle. This is why I have been talking about the principle.

Order! The hon. member need merely follow my guidance and all will be well.

As it pleases you, Mr. Speaker. As I have already said, I think this Bill is very interesting. I find various aspects of this Bill very interesting.

In the first place I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister to clause 1 (e) of this Bill.

Which clause?

Clause 1 (e) of the present Bill which inserts a new subsection (2) into the principal Act. The part inserted into the principal Act by clause I (e) reads as follows—

If one looks at the definition of “Commission”, as already defined in the principal Act, one sees that it indicates the National Transport Commission. In other words, this provision provides that “a reference in any law to the National Transport Commission shall be construed as a reference to the National Transport Commission”.

Well, the hon. the Deputy Minister may perhaps think that what the section is saying is something very profound, but I think that for someone with the slightest sense of logic, it is, to say the least, tautological and extremely obvious. Then it continues. It is a long section and it goes on to provide that anything done by or on behalf of the body which was established under section 3 shall be deemed to have been done by or on behalf of the Commission. This is as logical.

I should like to recommend to the Deputy Minister to re-examine the wording of this section. To me it is a completely senseless provision in the Bill, and I think it makes the whole matter somewhat ridiculous. It is obvious that the hon. the Deputy Minister merely wants to say that this new Commission, as it is to be constituted in terms of section 3, is the aurhotized successor in title to the previous Commission. I think this is all he is trying to say.

Why do you not move such an amendment?

I shall do so in the Committee Stage. But now we come to a further interesting aspect, and this is the title. I assume the title embraces the principle of the Bill. The title of the Bill is the "Transport Co-ordination Amendment Bill”. What I find really interesting is the word “co-ordination” in the title of the Bill, because when one hears the word "co-ordination”, one calls to mind a multifactor situation, a situation which is influenced by a multitude of factors, one on which co-ordination is then brought to bear as an additional factor in order to bring about direction, definition, purpose and liaison between the other factors. Therefore it is a very praiseworthy function.

Now, the situation to which this Bill relates, is the situation of transport and the factors which at present influence transport are the Provincial Administrations and the National Transport Commission. Therefore a multiple of factors influences this situation, making it a fertile field for possible co-ordination or otherwise improved co-ordination, seeing that the National Transport Commission already co-ordinates activities to a certain extent.

But let us examine the provisions of the Bill, and establish how these plural factors, i.e. the provinces, co-ordinate with regard to transport; in other words, how it gives effect to its principle. If we start right at the beginning of the Bill we find that clause I (a) reads, "by the deletion of the definition of ‘Administrator’.” Why is the definition of "Administrator” being deleted? Obviously because the Administrator, and therefore the province, is not going to play any further role in transport any longer. But how does this tally, because the very thing this legislation is supposed to do is to co-ordinate the four provinces? But now he is eliminating them; so how does coordination come into this?

Then, in the next instance, we have the position that clause 2 (1) of the Bill is giving the National Transport Commission the status of a body corporate. One again asks oneself the question why it is necessary for the National Transport Commission to be made a body corporate. It is obviously because the Commission, far from being a co-ordinating body, is now becoming an administrative body, because the Commission itself will have to enter into agreements which are legally valid.

So what we have in this Bill is much rather a question of a take-over than a matter of co-ordination.

In the third place, Sirs; as has already been indicated here, the constitution of the Commission is being changed, firstly by making the Secretary for Transport automatically the chairman of the Commission —which is a purely technical change—but mainly by deleting section 3 (5) (a) of the principal Act. Section 3 (5) (a) of the principal Act reads as follows—

Therefore this is another link with the provinces, the functions of which this Bill is supposed to co-ordinate, which is being removed.

Order! That point has already been made by the hon. member himself and repeatedly by other speakers as well.

I have finished with that point, Sir. I merely wanted to indicate how it fitted in with the principle of co-ordination. Then various technical changes are being Introduced by this Bill, especially as a result of the new arrangement in regard to the chairmanship.

We then come to clause 6 of this Bill which contains probably the most far-reaching provision in the entire Bill. Any semblance of co-ordination, or even of affinity, with the provinces is being discarded here. Sir, may I just remind you of some of the provisions contained in section 9 (1) which is now being amended here. It concerned the powers and duties granted to the Commission, and paragraph (a) provided—

In other words, this provision in respect of liaison with the Administrators, is once again being thrown overboard. Paragraph (b) read as follows—

Another link which has been cut! Sir, I want to show you how outrageous this clause really is, because one link after the other which existed with the provinces, is being discarded here by one stroke of the pen. Section 9 (1) (e) provided—

Paragraph (h) provided—

Sir, I have now indicated to you which provisions of the principal Act are being amended here. What this actually amounts to Is that only one thing is being done in this Bill, and that is anihilate the provinces completely in respect of this aspect of transport.

Order! That point has been made repeatedly; the hon. member must proceed to a new point now,

Sir, one asks oneself why these amendments are being effected. Surely the hon. the Deputy Minister and hon. members opposite must have a reason for completely eliminating Coordination with the provinces here. Surely there must be a logical and intelligible reason for doing so. According to the report of the Schumann commission, these amendments were not requested by any province. On the contrary….

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill now. We have heard enough about Prof. Schumann now; we would rather hear something about the Bill.

Sir, it is my submission …

Order! My submission is that the hon. member must come back to the Bill.

I am trying to indicate to you, Sir, that this Bill deviates entirely from the declared principle of co-ordination with the provinces. One is astonished, and wonders with what the principle is really concerned.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill now, or otherwise he must resume his seat,

I shall abide by your ruling, Sir. When one looks at the principle of co-ordination laid down by this Bill, and then looks at what the Bill is really doing, one sees that in reality there is no co-ordination in this Bill. The factors which influence the transport situation are being eliminated entirely …

Order! The hon. member is back at the very point where I stopped him a few moments ago. I think the hon. member should resume his seat.

I should just like to make my final point in regard to this Bill …

No, I think the hon. member should rather resume his seat.

Mr. Speaker, it is all very well the hon. the Minister of Transport sitting here and becoming irritable when we are debating the constitution of the National Transport Commission …

He was riot debating the constitution but was talking a lot of nonsense.

The person who has made this National Transport Commission into some sort of holy cow is the hon. the Minister himself and I believe we must examine very carefully any changes in the constitution of this commission. When the hon. the Minister is approached about some action taken by the Transport Commission his reply to us is that it is an autonomous body and that he cannot do anything about it. The hon. the Deputy Minister even goes so far as to give it some judicial status and talks about proceedings being sub judice when such proceedings are before the National Transport Commission. Here we have a very vital piece of legislation dealing with the amendment and the alteration of the constitution and the function of this commission. We are debating the different points and these arise from the legislation which has been adopted. One only has to look at clause 6 of the Bill before us to see what is now being done, what is being handed over to the National Transport Commission. No carefully detailed and annotated powers, but the full overriding and sweeping powers “to take existing and contemplated transport facilities into consideration in the performance of its functions in terms of the National Roads Act of 1971”. In the light of these powers which are to be given to this board, surely one is entitled to ask whether we have here definitions and a constitution, as proposed in this legislation which can discharge those functions. The first important factor is, the eliminations which are proposed by this particular Bill. Just in passing I want to refer to the deletion of the definition of “Administrator” in terms of clause I of this Bill. In other words, the provincial administration and the Administrator as such is functus officio so far as the National Transport Commission is concerned. The very name need not appear in the legislation which controls the National Transport Commission. If I may say so, one almost feels that it is the metaphoric washing of the Administrator out of the hair of the National Transport Commission, because the Administrators have over the years exercised a restraining and advisory function as far as the National Transport Commission is concerned.

The Administrators have never been members of the commission.

No, but there has always been a representative of the provincial administrations on that commission. But he has to go now.

He was not a representative of the Administrators, but a member of the executive councils.

He is a member chosen from the four nominees of the Administrators. I am glad that the hon. the Minister of Transport refers to that. Has he not read the Bill and seen that the Bill provides that the administrations shall no longer be represented? He has not read that.

Sub section (7) of section 3, which is now to be omitted, provided that the member designated as chairman in terms of subsection (1) shall hold that office for a period of five years as from the date upon which he is designated as such, unless his period of office as a member of the commission sooner expires or for any other reason he sooner ceases to be a member of the commission. Sir, this Bill before us is a little vague. I hope that we will have some explanation. I can understand the position of the chairman, who is now the Secretary for Transport. He obviously will hold that position for the duration of his holding the post of Secretary for Transport. But what is the position in regard to the other persons who are appointed to the commission, namely the Commissioner for Road Transportation, the Commissioner for Civil Aviation and the Commissioner for National Roads? They are to be civil servants, but there is no indication as to whether those members are to be permanently appointed as heads or sub-heads of departments. In other words, would they be appointed for life and occupy permanently an official position?

As long as they are the Director for Aviation or the Director of Road Transportation …

In other words, they become members of the National Transport Commission by reason of their holding the position of Commissioner of Road Transportation or Aviation?

No; I expect much better from you, Murray.

The hon. the Minister has entered this debate and come into the Chamber at this time. These are questions with which the hon. the Deputy Minister did not deal. We are asked to support the second reading of the Bill and I ask for some explanation from the hon. the Deputy Minister.

It is in my second reading speech.

I have that position clearly from the Deputy Minister, that these persons will be so appointed.

What about the White Paper?

The explanatory memorandum means nothing at all.

Now, let us go on from the question of subsection (7) and consider the amendment of subsection (8). That is the question of the appointment of an additional member nominated by the Minister of Defence. That provision exists in the present legislation, but one wonders whether it would not be better if the hon. the Minister regarded that also as a permanent appointment to the National Transport Commission, the representative of the Department of Defence. Now that the commission is going to take these powers, not only of designing and building roads, but of the sole say in the planning of the routes for those roads, I believe that the strategic value of the roads, both as regards the nature of their construction in order to be able to cope with heavy military transport, should it become necessary, and the strategic routing of the roads is an important matter. I am sure that the House would welcome a suggestion from the Deputy Minister—perhaps be might indicate whether he would accept it in the Committee Stage—that this commission should be enlarged by the appointment of a permanent representative of the Defence Ministry as a member of the Commission nominated by the Minister of Defence. One only has to look at the siting of some of the national roads in South Africa at the present moment to realize the rather fool-hardy routes taken where they pass vital installations for the defence of this country, and also in some cases where they could be, from a defence point of view, cut very easily by any terrorist or other organization that might operate in the country. I would ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to give consideration to the matter and I hope that, perhaps in his reply, he would indicate whether he would consider an amendment in that regard.

As regards the establishment of a quorum, I do believe again that with the responsibility vested in this Commission, the quorum of three is far too small. There are eight members.