Mr. Speaker, I move—

1. (a) “Meneer, dit is ’n baie belangrike ding wat ek vanoggend hier sê, en ek sê dit sonder vrees van teenspraak: Die antwoord wat ek as Lid van die Volksraad in hierdie Huis ontvang het, is doelbewus verkeerd vir my gegee”; and
2. (b) “Those figures omitted the factory ship figures, and I say that a deliberate attempt is being made by some person or persons in authority, either with or without ministerial knowledge, publicly to discredit Dr. Lochner’s theory and to throw doubt on the accuracy of his figures. And this, Sir, is a very serious charge indeed”; the Committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers; and that it be an instruction to the Committee to submit its report before Wednesday, 22nd March, 1972.

I do not think a long discussion will be necessary in respect of this motion. I am not going to take up much of the House’s time either. I want to say at once that I, as an old politician, fully realize that one should not be over-sensitive in this place, and I do not think hon. members can accuse me of having been over-sensitive in the time I have been here. For example, I would not have reacted in this way to ordinary derogatory remarks. I am thinking, for example, of accusations of incompetence, ineptitude, or similar hackneyed techniques and methods used in politics, such as accusations of jobs for pals and that sort of thing. One realizes one has to accept these in the normal course of things, and normally one then replies in debate in this House to such accusations. But in this case I feel my integrity has been questioned. I say “my integrity”, because all hon. members in this House know that sea fisheries have been entrusted to me. Not only hon. members in this House know this; the entire fishing industry knows it. People outside the fishing industry also know that I am responsible and that when such accusations are made as were made by the hon. member for Simonstown, in the public eye I am inevitably the person who is implicated. I do not think there can be any doubt about that. I think what any reasonable person will infer from the remarks made by the hon. member for Simonstown is that I should not occupy the public office I do, and that I am not competent to do so. I think this will in fact be the case if a Select Committee finds that these assertions made by the hon. member are well-founded. I cannot reply to these in debate in the usual way. We all know how things are as far as speaking terms in this House are concerned, and in any case then it would still be only my word against another hon. member’s word, I feel it would not be fair towards me.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to tire this House any further, but from the motion you will note that a committee is being requested to investigate inter alia two statements made by the hon. member. I do not want to quote at length, but I am thinking, for example of certain other statements.

I should like to quote from an unrevised copy of the hon. member’s speech (Hansard, 18/2/72, p. K3)—

There are other quotations which, taken by themselves, seem innocent, but when seen in context, present a completely different picture. I just want to make one further quotation from the hon. member’s speech (Hansard, 18/2/72, p. L3)—

These are a few examples I wanted to mention, apart from the quotations appearing in the motion. Mr. Speaker, I really think that you and hon. members will not feel that I am wasting the time of this House and that of the members who will have to serve on the Select Committee.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have no objection to this motion. This is the correct procedure to be followed when a member feels that his honour has been impugned in any way. I am pleased that I could deduce from the Deputy Minister’s speech that the investigation will not be limited to the two particular quotations which are mentioned in the motion. I think Parliament is fulfilling its proper functions when this opportunity which is provided for in our rules is used by a member to have a proper inquiry instituted into anything which has been said about him, even though everybody may not feel that his honour has necessarily been impugned by it.

Motion put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, just before we adjourned yester day, we were discussing the cost of living in South Africa and in various other countries of the world. I should like to take this opportunity to correct one minor error for the sake of the record. In my haste I made a faulty calculation in respect of the value of pensions, and I should like to change the amount of R16,10 to R17,10.

The hon. member for Von Brandis made a statement in this House to the effect that immigrants were leaving South Africa because, as he said, they could live better on the same amount of money in certain Western European and other countries than they could here in South Africa. We drew a comparison of the prices of various items. I refer once again to this survey in the Financial Times of 13th December, 1971, approximately two months ago, in which there was a comparison of the prices, in terms of dollars, paid for certain articles in various countries of the world. Sir, we showed and proved that according to this survey food in the Republic, for instance, was cheaper than it was in most other countries of the world. I should just like to draw a few more comparisons. I was drawing a comparison of what it cost four persons to dine out. In terms of the American dollar it costs four people $76 to dine out; in Dusseldorff in Germany that evening out would cost $97; in Rome that evening would cost one $145, and in Paris $143, as against $76 here in South Africa. But there is another item, the price of which gives one a good basis of comparison, and that is petrol. In South Africa petrol, expressed in American cents, costs 14 cents per litre in Johannesburg. That same litre of petrol costs 20 cents per litre in Germany, as against our 14 cents; in Paris that petrol costs 22 cents per litre, and in Rome, in Italy, it costs 25 cents per litre. Sir, there is a very big difference between 14 cents per litre and, for instance, the 25 cents per litre paid in Rome. And then the hon. member for Von Brandis makes the statement—I have his Hansard here; I could read it out to him— that on the same money one could live better in Europe than here in South Africa.

Why does he not move?

But, Sir, I should like to draw another comparison, i.e. in regard to the price of international cigarettes, cigarettes of the same brand sold in any country of the world. It is rather interesting to note that in South Africa such cigarettes cost 36 American cents for a packet of 20. Those same cigarettes cost 50 cents in Paris, 55 cents in Dusseldorff in Germany and 73 cents in Rome, as against 36 cents in South Africa. Those, Sir, are the places where, according to what the hon. member for Von Brandis is trying to make this House believe, one can live better on the same salary. But that is typical of the psychosis which hon. members opposite are trying to create in the minds of the electorate, especially with a view to Brakpan, namely that the standard of living is dropping here, that we are suffering hardships, that the immigrants want to go back to their countries of origin because, as the hon. member for Von Brandis puts it—

Sir, that is flagrant irresponsibility. The hon. member did not make sure of his facts. What is more, Sir, let us see how salaries in South Africa compare with salaries in these countries of Western Europe. I want to mention the simple example of a construction worker. In terms of the American dollar his comparable salary in South Africa is $120, but we see that such a construction worker’s salary is $45 in Rome and $28,80 in Paris, and then the hon. member wants to tell us here that immigrants no longer want to come to South Africa because they do not receive the same salary here and because they cannot, on the same salary, maintain the same standard of living here as they can in Europe. Sir, surely that is flagrant irresponsibility. In actual fact, it is economic disloyalty to one’s country to deliver oneself of such statements here. We are trying to recruit good immigrants for South Africa. How does the hon. member think we are going to get immigrants if prospective immigrants should read this comment of his: “They can live better in Europe than they can live in South Africa on the same money”? Sir, surely this kind of statement will be used against us. The hon. member should make sure of his facts before he delivers himself of such irresponsible statements in this House again. One could almost say that this borders on economic treason.

Sir, I want to come back to the hon. member for Durban Point, who yesterday tried to make the people believe how they were struggling here and how the cost of living was rising. Yesterday I quoted here, for the benefit of the hon. member, from the Sunday Times of February, 1948, where this newspaper said—

That is what happened during the last eight years of that Party’s regime. What happened under the regime of this Government during the past eight years? During the past eight years we had a 25 per cent rise in the cost of living, as against 69 per cent during the last eight years of U.P. regime.

But they were waging a war.

Sir, we do at least have one consolation, and that is that the electorate will never again allow such a party to come into power. Consider how things were going for the families on the Rand. I quote from the Sunday Express—

And then the Sunday Times said—

That is what happened to the electorate outside under U.P. regime. Sir, when the United Party tries to make the people believe what hardships they are suffering, we should at least be a little realistic and look at the facts; we should not make vague statements. When we look at the remuneration of employees in this country and we take the figures for 1963 to 1970, we see that that figure increased from R3 301 000 to R6 657 000; in other words, over a period of seven years the remuneration to employees showed an increase of 101 per cent, and during that corresponding period the consumer price showed an increase of 25,4 per cent. And now the hon. member for Durban Point is trying to make us believe, by way of the statistics he quoted here, that we are worse off at the moment and that our standard of living is dropping. Sir, the remuneration to the employees in this country is showing an increase as a percentage of our gross domestic product. The fact that cannot be argued away, is that from 1963 to 1970 the percentage of the national income going to the workers, increased from 62 per cent to 67 per cent of our gross domestic product; in other words, measured in all terms, the worker and the salaried man are today better off than they were before, and that improvement was effected under National regime. Sir, fortunately we do not have it against our record that we simply dismissed public servants and failed to provide them with employment again, as that party did. Yesterday I read out here, for the benefit of the Opposition, a quotation dealing with the way they fired people and failed to provide them with employment again.

As you are doing with the farmers.

Here they say—

That was in February 1948 when the United Party was in power—

[Time expired.]

Sir, it was very interesting to listen to the earnest, young hon. member, who has just spoken on behalf of the Government side, dealing with the problems of 1948. Sir, the hon. member must remember that that was a post-war period in which South Africa faced tremendous problems. There were shortages of material, shortages of personnel, a tremendous flux of workers, a tremendous demand for the development of industry and other similar undertakings. Sir, the hon. member has painted a very doleful picture to us, but I want to tell him that the picture of today is much worse. He talked about a rise of 69 per cent over eight years in the cost of living. Today he can treble that figure. What happened to the Government of 1948 of which he complains today? They went out of power because the public were not satisfied, and this Government is not only on its way out of power; it is very well on its way out of power.

Wait until tomorrow.

Sir, I am content to wait until tomorrow, and I am perfectly satisfied that the hon. the Minister will sleep less well after he has heard the results of today’s by-elections. I say to the hon. member who has just sat down, that when he criticizes the hon. member for Von Brandis, the member did say that the information he disclosed to the House was that given to him by an immigrant and is not his own assertion. I want to tell him further that I read this very same story in the December issue of the Financial Times. I would advise him to take a trip to Europe as a tourist and see how far the very money goes there which he talks about so easily.

I was there. You cannot tell me anything.

Then the hon. member will probably realize that in Europe there are today sophisticated countries which are very much further ahead than we are as regards standard of living and in the built-in provision for social security and the comforts that have been provided over the years, for which provision was made in the good years. He will find that those things may on paper cost more but they give much more in many other respects, both in the cultural, the physical and in the environmental way of living. You cannot compare the situation. The hon. the Minister of Finance has been at pains for weeks now to try to convince this House and to justify his actions by making comparisons with other countries, but there are no comparisons whatsoever. Over the years we have been saying that we do not have to look at other countries to see how to live or how to run our affairs; we are capable of running our affairs ourselves. But when the hon. the Minister finds himself in very serious trouble he tells you: Look how difficult it is in other countries; look at the problems they have; it is a world problem.

I now want to deal with the hon. member who has just sat down and with what he said in regard to pensions. He followed his master’s voice and tried to make a big song and dance of the fact that pensions have gone up to R38 above what they were some 25 years later and he boasted by comparison of the fact that it has really doubled itself. But I think it might be interesting just to listen to a simple statement that comes from an outsider, from a man in the street, in a letter written by one who is the chairman of the Cape Town branch of the S.A. Legion, a body of ex-servicemen, many of whom have to live on pensions today. I quote from The Argus of 21st February, two days ago—

That, I think epitomizes the whole question in regard to pensions. It is all very well to talk about percentages, something in which the Government and its members indulge to a considerable extent. This question of percentages means nothing. What really counts is how a person lives; how a pensioner lives, he who cannot find a home and if he does find a home, has to pay a huge rental. There are not sufficient homes for the aged in this country and not sufficient provision has been made for private residences, and so the pensioner has to struggle on a pittance of R38 a month despite the fact that it is so much per cent higher. But that means nothing today. He has to pay for his rental, he has to have food and clothes and medical services, he has to have a doctor and a chemist and there are so many things he requires, all out of this miserable pittance of which the Government continually boasts. [Interjections.]

Order!

Let me now deal with the debate itself and say that the hon. the Minister of Finance has to come to us with a completely negative approach. It was extraordinary to listen to his views both in the presentation of this particular Bill and in his reply as to his approach to all the problems. He pleaded with us that he had no option but to devalue and that he had no option but to impose import control and intensify it. He pleaded with the House for the public to spend less. He pleaded with the private sector to curb their spending. He said he had no option a year ago, but to increase taxation in order to provide the necessary loan money that this country requires. But he certainly did not give us anything positive. He knows the story of what happened in a country like Britain, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed his Budget. Perhaps I can quote to him something published very recently in the Financial Times, which gives an excellent picture of what happened to the British Government, in what was virtually the Cinderella country of Europe a few years ago; and the hon. the Minister knows it well. These are some of the steps they took. Those steps were taken with a positive purpose to inject new life into the economy, and not to plead as the Minister does, that they must tax the public more to stop them spending, that they must curb their spending and that they must impose import control to curb their spending, all artificial means to try to bolster up an economy which was beginning to crumble in the hands of an inept Minister and a bad Government. When the hon. member for Parktown tried to give the Minister positive steps to take, the Minister threw up his hands as if it was something which was of no consequence. This is what the British people did, I quote—

That is R2 200 million, which is almost the whole of our revenue for last year. For the next year they planned ahead for a cut of another £1 400 million. That is the way a government approaches a problem of this nature. They went even further. They had a considerable increase in public works expenditure, concentrated mostly in the less well-off parts of the country and pensions and other social benefits have been raised. So, what you do in difficult times is to inject life into the economy and not come pleading in defence of the negative steps taken. And what is more, when we have times of plenty, of which this Government boasts year after year— like the morning cock that rises and crows in the early morning sun—this Government gets up and crows over the bounties of the last eight or ten years. But what has it done to give built-in security to South Africa? Nothing. What has it done to enable us in lean times to live on the fat of the good times? You have only to read the Bible to realize that even in the days of Egypt such steps were taken when people realized that in the years of bounty you must expect the lean years to come. Does the hon. the Minister not read the books which will tell him that there are valleys and peaks in all financial affairs? It runs right through the economic life of every country. It is no good crying now.

The Government side constantly throws into our faces what we quote from various industrialists in our country. The hon. the Prime Minister, in the course of an address a couple of weeks ago, talked in the most sombre tones about the fact that he had met a leading businessman from another country who said that he had been given advice by a member of the Opposition and then told the Prime Minister that if he had listened to that advice and had not come to see things for himself he would never have invested money in this country. The Prime Minister regards it as a most serious thing to do, that we deliberately wronged our own country by giving a bad picture of it. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance whether men like Hurter, who is on the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council, do harm to the country when they give an honest expression of opinion. Do the Jan Marais’ and the Van Aswegens, and the heads of all other big financial institutions in this country who have helped in recent years to make a very big difference to the strength of our economy. Do they harm South Africa deliberately when they point out to the Minister of Finance that his handling of this portfolio and the Government’s policy is a poor one and that it is stultifying the growth of this country?

I do not want to refer to the past, but perhaps the hon. the Minister of Finance may say: “What is the economic strength of what you are saying?” One does not need personally to be an economist to see through the whole picture and to realize that sufficient evidence has been recorded in recent days to prove to the hilt that the policy of the Government is completely negative. I want to point out one simple matter in regard to how the revenue has risen at the expense of the public of whom the hon. the Minister and his colleagues speak as living too highly today. The yield from customs and excise has jumped since the 1967-’68 Budget—not since the Budget for 1948-’49—by nearly R400 million per year. The 1971-’72 financial year has accounted for nearly R100 million in sales tax alone. The yield from income tax has jumped from R724 million to R1 092 million. The proceeds from licences have jumped from R6 million to R9 million while the proceeds from stamp duties and fees have jumped from R15 million to R31 million. The revenue derived from post and telegraph services has jumped from R138 million to approximately R240 million. The tax on the sale of shares—part of the economic life of the country—quadrupled from R3 million to R12 million. Somebody is paying for all this and what is being done with it? One has only to look at the enormous waste and expenditure of the Government to realize what is happening to the funds.

The hon. member for Parktown referred to the Johannesburg Hospital, something which comes under the administration of a National controlled Provincial Administration. It would be very interesting to read a story which has been prepared on the subject to show the cost.

But the Progressives say we must not build that hospital at all.

I am not worried about the Progressives. The hon. the Minister can be worried about them; we are not worried about them at all. The hon. the Minister should rather listen to this story—

Before I proceed, let me interpose to say that one of the top construction companies in this country, Roberts Construction, issued a statement of which the hon. the Minister must take very careful note, namely that the companies spend thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of rand, preparing tenders running to R30, R60 or R90 million as they did for this hospital.

From where did you get those figures?

These figures are genuine figures; they are quoted in the newspapers and if the hon. the Minister doubts them, I shall get him the authentic figures.

Does the Minister deny those figures?

Roberts Construction complains of the many thousands and thousands of rand and man hours that they have spent in preparing these tenders and what happened to the tenders when the tenders were opened? The hon. the Minister should ask the hon. the Administrator of the Transvaal, who would give him authentic figures. He is a personal friend both of the hon. the Minister and myself and I am sure that his trust will not be broken; take it from me this time. [Interjections.]

Order!

Let me continue with the quotation—

So that in a period from about 1961 to 1971 after you had called upon one of the big undertakings in this country to prepare tenders, you found yourself at R90 million and the tenders were not accepted.

What happened to the dam query? I cannot remember the name of the dam.

The P. K. le Roux Dam.

In the case of this dam they received tenders of nearly R800 million, and it was supposed to cost R400 million and now the department is undertaking the job. This instance also cost the tenderers many thousands of rands—I think it runs into hundreds of thousands of rands. [Interjections.] You know the story and I need not tell you what was said, Sir. That hon. Minister is probably the best informed man on the subject in this House.

Before I proceed to another important matter which I wish to raise, I want to deal with something else. I want to deal with what the hon. the Minister of Finance said in regard to the way in which a party wins power. He said that no party had ever come into power purely because of a bread-and-butter policy. He said a party must have a “gees”. He talked about the youth and went on to quote from some book which was prepared in 1967. He quoted figures, using what we call the percentage policy of the Government once again. He dealt only with percentages and not with anything real. I mean, if anything increases from one to two, that is a 100 per cent increase. In the mind of the Government that is a very important figure. The Minister told us of the percentage Afrikaanse-speaking students who were close to the Government and accepted their policy and of the English-speaking students who accept their policy. He also gave us figures of Afrikaans-speaking students who accept the United Party policy and English-speaking students who accept United Party policy. Those figures were taken from a survey involving approximately 1 000 people, in some cases 300 people and in some cases 400 people. These figures were taken from a book printed in 1967, so I assume that the survey was done in 1965 or 1966. But who worries about that when we have the facts and Die Burger, which is a very useful paper? On the 21st September it talked about the congress of the United Party and that of the National Party in an article headed “Jong Mense”. Die Burger must have had the Minister of Finance in mind! In this article they stated the following—

This is straight from the horse’s mouth and not from this little theoretical book called Jeug en Kultuur.

How many United Party people are there in the Free State?

More people attended our congress than did your congress in the Free State. But let me go further. I have here another interesting newspaper about which there has been some controversy in the past, namely Dagbreek. On the 1st November, 1970, it said the following—

*This is my reply to the hon. the Minister of Finance. This will make him realize that what is written in a book is not always the truth. What I have just read to him are the true facts.

†I want to deal with this question of… [Interjections.]

Order! Would the hon. member take his hand away from his mouth so that I may hear when he is interjecting?

I just want to remind the hon. the Minister of Finance that on the 17th July Mr. A. J. Hurter, according to a report by the financial editor in this newspaper criticized the Government for its failure to control its own spending. He was appointed to the Prime Minister’s economic advisory council. He warns the country that it is in for slower growth and higher inflation. He says—

I just want to reiterate what the hon. member for Parktown said by quoting the words of Mr. Hurter—

I think the hon. the Minister of Finance should take this little lesson well to heart, because it comes from a man who knows.

I now want to talk to the hon. the Minister about this question of percentages which has been worrying me all the time. First of all, the hon. member for Durban Point was considerably concerned about the fact that everyone is living at too high a rate. I think he dealt with the matter very adequately. I want to deal with this question of percentages. In this regard I want to say that when you receive a letter from a resident of Jeppes, the constituency which I have the honour to represent to the benefit of the members of that constituency, informing you that his house has been acquired by the Department of Community Development for urban renewal and it promptly raises the rental by 25 per cent over and above the Rent Board’s predetermined rental, a board administered by the Department of Community Development, then you wonder whether this Government knows what it is doing. It is protected in the Act against all control, therefore it can do as it likes. The department promptly added 25 per cent to the rental of the house of a poor pensioner.

They are scraping the barrel for money.

I do not know what to do. I am told that I cannot do anything with the Department of Community Development. I now have to go cap in hand to the hon. the Minister on behalf of this poor person who is apparently doing better than the pensioner in Europe who at least has a home and gas, social security and other advantages, to try to get this rental reduced. This is one instance. I must tell the hon. Minister of pensioners receiving R38 per month who find themselves in the general hospital and have to send for their member of Parliament asking him whether he cannot make representations for them. They tell us that they must pay at least R5 to be admitted and furthermore they have to pay for medicine, for this that and the other. This lady wants to know how she can afford to pay for this. I told her that free hospitalization is something we have preached for years. She then said that I must go back and tell them—I will not quote the names—that the time has come to take an interest in the poor unfortunate pensioner who cannot find any other relief.

It is cheaper to die.

I have just been reminded that it is cheaper to die. In fact, it is even expensive to die today. You cannot live and you cannot die. I want to make the point very pertinently that housing which is a subject with which we will deal during the course of the session, is something which has reached dire straits in this country. I want to say something else to those people who talk of us as Jeremiahs and prophets of doom. Every decent South African has a great love for his country, and above all every thinking South African knows that this is a country of tremendous potential and of tremendous latent wealth. This is a country which has one of the most extraordinary pools of labour imaginable. The only thing that can hold this country back is a government like this and any overseas investor will tell you that. The reason why the Minister is fortunate enough to have investment from overseas is because people who come from democratic countries believe that sooner or later the Government must fall. When it does, they know that this country, which is economically sound and has a tremendous potential will simply leap ahead. Everybody knows that, and I will have no hesitation to invest anything I have in the potential future of my country. You will find many men on this side of the House who have done so already and who encourage others to do so. We do it, because we know that our country has tremendous potential. We also know that it is being held back by a foolish and slow policy. The thing that bothers most people outside, and I think the hon. member should take notice of it, is that there are so many unanswered questions. The thing that bothers people outside is the unanswered questions of the administration of this country. I want to name just a simple example of what I had thrown at me. Yesterday a chap said to me that he had read in the newspapers what the Minister of Finance had to say but, he said, he does not see any reply by him regarding the problems that face South Africa. He said that he does not see any suggestion of what the future holds for us and that he does not see any thinking about what will happen to or what is the future of import control. Furthermore, he said he does not see anything that is suggested with regard to the manner in which we can reinvest or generate further capital in this country. He said all that he read about were red herrings which were being drawn across the trail. For three days now we have been badgered by a smear campaign with regard to …

Order! A smear campaign on behalf of whom?

A smear campaign.

Yes, by whom?

A smear campaign against this party.

By whom?

Do you rule me out of order, Sir?

Yes.

Then, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the words. It has been alleged …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is the word “smear” now ruled out of order?

Yes, the word “smear” is ruled out of order.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it has not been said on behalf of an hon. member in this House and he did not say it …

I asked the hon. member to tell me by whom this smear campaign was conducted.

By the Government.

Well, that means it is directed to members on the opposite side. The hon. member may proceed, but the word “smear” has been withdrawn.

I will say it has been alleged that this party is sympathetic to forces which are subversive in this country. I say that is a very low and vile form of criticism and the public is commenting on that.

[Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat reminds one of an inflated tyre with a big nail stuck in the rubber. After he has driven a short distance the nail pierces the tube with the result that the tyre suddenly deflates. There he sits, then, and cannot go any further. He began making accusations at a tremendous speed, but gradually he got flatter and flatter until eventually he had to be called to order by you, Mr. Speaker, for things he is not permitted to say in this House. That is a pity.

You do not even have a tyre. You are still riding on iron rims.

The hon. member is pleased, as if this Government were on its way out. I want to give him the assurance this afternoon that he will no longer be in this House to take his seat on this side.

Famous last words.

We have been hearing that same story for a very long time now—the story that this Government is losing the confidence of the people—in fact, since 1948, but each time the Government has emerged stronger. I remember that in my own constituency in the last election, in 1970, the U.P. took such courage that they said they needed only another 70 votes and they would take the seat. Good heavens, they subsequently lost it by almost 4 000. Those are the kind of estimates the United Party makes.

The hon. member for Jeppes also spoke about the standard of living of our people in the Republic not being high enough. Am I correct? Did I understand him correctly?

You are correct.

I now want to ask him to draw a comparison with the standard of living 24 years ago. If he does so he would see that the standard of living in the Republic has improved by 300 per cent to 400 per cent.

What was it like 50 years ago?

I am speaking about the time when that hon. member’s people were in power. He speaks of people living below the breadline. Let the hon. member just listen for a moment, then he may go and laugh outside in the passage. I now want to challenge the hon. member to bring me one person who works in this country and who lives below the breadline—just one.

There are many.

There are perhaps many here living below the breadline who are too lazy to work, who walk the streets at night and whose hair ought to be shorter by half. They are the people who live below the breadline.

What about the farmers?

I shall be coming to you now, my friend. Then the hon. member is concerned about the old peoples’ pension. It has been said repeatedly in the House by the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions that the National Party improved pensions by more than 300 per cent. Now my hon. stupid friend of Maitland will tell us how the cost of living increased. But now I ask him whether he can remember a single figure: By how much did the cost of living increase?

Oh no!

Now he will say: “Oh no”.

May I ask the hon. member a question? I should like to know from him whether he is satisfied that the old age pensioner draws enough pension these days.

I am satisfied in as much as the Social Welfare people give him numerous additional services, over and above that R38 pension— medical services, etc.

What services?

Wait now, I am making the speech, not you. When a person gets old, sufficient facilities are created for him in old age homes.

Where?

Where? It is because my hon. friends know nothing that they make such interjections.

I now come to the hon. member for King William’s Town. Through his Whip I asked him to come in because during the week he made a few accusations about the Minister of Agriculture. I regret that the Minister of Agriculture has just had to leave, but I am glad the hon. member is here. In his speech he said that we know each other very well. That is so. We contested several elections together, he on the one side and I on the other, and each time he had fewer votes. I can tell him he comes from a very good family, but it is a pity that he perhaps abuses this and tries to hide behind his family’s good name. When the hon. member one day came to parliament he found me in the passage and said, “Uncle De La Rey, let us drink a cup of coffee together. It seems to me the Nationalists and the United Party members do not drink together here”. I then said to him, “No, no, let us go and drink together”. I then gave him some advice. I gave him good advice that day and said that as a backbencher he should first sit quite still for a while. He should first look at what was going on around him and learn a little. My hon. friend then said, “Yes, Uncle De La Rey, I shall try to learn”. What has now happened? He tried to write the examination and got no marks at all. He now makes wild incorrect allegations. At the end of his speech he said, for example: “What do we have to export? Nothing!” Those were his words. He may consult his Hansard. I can think at the moment, for example, of our wool, our fruit, our gold, our diamonds and our maize. I am mentioning only a few, Sir, and then the hon. member says that in the Republic of South Africa we have nothing to export.

The hon. member for King William’s Town also made another wild allegation, i.e. that the Minister of Agriculture has killed the farmer and the consumer.

Ruined.

Yes, ruined; those were his words. I want us to take a few figures into consideration. Figures are sometimes boring, but I should just like to mention a few. The hon. member said that we have 2 900 butcher shops in the country. Is that correct?

No, 5 800.

According to the hon. member’s speech, which is unfortunately in my office upstairs, the figure is 2 900, but let us make it 5 800.

I said 2 900 in the urban areas and 2 900 in the rural areas.

Very well, make it 5 800. The hon. member said that they slaughtered an average of six sheep per day and three-quarters of a carcase of beef. We shall come to that. I do not know whether the hon. member saw the Argus of 19th February. I should like to quote a few passages from it. If the hon. member did not see that newspaper, I should like him to consult it in the Library so that he can see what is in it, because the hon. member also said that each of those butchers made a good living. In an article in that newspaper it is stated—

That is so; Because they had to decrease the number of their sheep, the farmers did, of course, decrease the number of their slaughter sheep, in other words, the wethers, the old ewes, etc. Today the farmers farm only with ewes. The article, which deals with the abattoir in Cape Town, continues as follows—

One can understand this. December is the holiday season and there are many visitors to the city. But now the Government must be blamed if all the sheep cannot be slaughtered. The hon. member must realize that this is purely a municipal matter. In spite of the fact that the Cape Town municipality increased the size of the abattoir, they did not increase it sufficiently. The hon. member also said that sheep had to stand for seven days before they could be slaughtered. He now levels the accusation …

No, wait a minute. May I ask a question?

No, I just want to make my point. Here the hon. member now levels an accusation at the Government to the effect that the livestock have to stand there for seven days before they can be slaughtered. The hon. member said that.

Yes.

Why does the hon. member not level that accusation at the municipality? Why does he not accuse the municipalities of Johannesburg, Durban, Cape Town, Port Elizabeth or whatever?

May I ask the hon. member a question? Is he satisfied that the municipalities have to control the abattoirs and that they do not have to be a part of the country’s infrastructure?

My good friend, if the municipalities create the facilities there, that is all the farmer wants. His sheep must simply not stand there losing weight and starving; that is all. The sheep can be slaughtered and hung in cold storage, and even if they hang there for three or four days before they are auctioned it makes no difference. I shall now continue to quote from the Argus article—

My friend, being a farmer, will understand that—

We can understand that. In his speech the hon. member also spoke of the fluctuating prices. I know the market fluctuates.

Are you satisfied with that?

My dear friend, supposing the person who sends off the sheep for the farmer pays you a visit. It could, for example, be the Vleissentraal or any other agency. Suppose they come to Mr. Van den Heever and ask him: “Could you load a truck of sheep for us on Friday?” and he says “Yes”. On Friday the market might not be to your liking and you do not load them. It may be that you have a cold, and you do not load them, or your wife may be ill and you do not load them. There are so many reasons why the sheep might not be loaded. On Monday, when the market opens, the livestock is not there. Is it then the Government’s fault if the prices soar to dizzy heights? According to the permit system, 20 per cent more permits are usually issued than are needed under normal circumstances, because they try to make provision for the type of case I have just mentioned. Sir, I want to go further. The article in the Argus continues as follows—

Now we come to the significant point—

This is where the farmers are exploited.

[Inaudible.]

No, wait now; let me just mention these figures to the hon. member. The hon. member must not be sensitive now. I quote again—

That is for a sheep of 15 kg. Any farmer sitting here will tell you that R11,61 is a very good price. The article continues—

Now the sheep is in the butcher’s hands, in the butcher shop. I quote further—

Well, we can understand that; there are expenses he must incur—

The butcher must now put a price on the sheep. He must rent a building; he must hire a blockman; he must have one or two non-Whites in his employ; he must have a lady for the telephone and for doing the books, and he must have a delivery boy. He then puts the price of the sheep at R17,30—

Do the farmers make that?

Wait now; here is the other point the hon. member has forgotten—

I have just spoken about that; those are the expenses he must incur in selling that R 17,30 sheep—

Sir, in the light of these figures how can my hon. friend say that the butcher makes a good living? In some cases he makes 2 per cent and in other cases 7 per cent, and he still has to live on that. That butcher perhaps has a blockman who puts R1,50 into his pocket for every R1,50 he puts into the till. Eventually one finds a number of butchers going bankrupt.

More so than farmers?

My hon. friend speaks of the exploitation of the farmer. Has he ever calculated what profit a butcher makes on a carcase of beef? Beef is divided up into various cuts for which the butcher obtains various prices—fillet, strips, rump, silverside, topside, thick flank, shin, thin flank, fat and bones. For 18,4 per cent of the carcase the butcher gets more than 44 cents per lb. The most expensive meat is fillet, which is 85 cents per lb., and then one comes to strip and rump which is 44 cents per lb. Then the butcher gets 36 cents, 34 cents, 32 cents, 26 cents, 20 cents, 18 cents and 2 cents per lb. respectively. Sir, has my hon. friend ever ascertained how much bone there is in a beef carcase?

Poor butcher.

I want to refute the wild allegations the hon. member made here. Does he know that bone constitutes about 24 per cent of a carcase of beef, and it is sold at 2 cents a lb. Sir, I want to go further. Supposing a butcher sells one sheep and three-quarters of a carcase of beef per day. This means 36 sheep and 4½ car cases of beef per month. Let us assume, to set a high figure, that those sheep each weigh 40 lbs. and are sold at 40 cents per lb. on an average, and that the beef carcases weigh 500 each; this gives us a weight of 2 250 lbs. Let us assume that this is also sold at an average of 40 cents per lb. I am putting this at the highest possible figure, because the average would not be 40 cents per lb. If you give the butcher the skins, the liver, the lungs and the intestines, the butcher’s income from those 36 sheep is R565. The 4½ carcases of beef give him an income of R900. For his 36 sheep and 4½ carcases of beef he therefore obtains R1 465. But now we come to the rental of the building. One cannot rent a building in any town today, so situated that tourists driving through the town can also reach it, for less than R100 per month. One is fortunate if one can get a blockman for R250 per month. One needs three Bantu, as I said in my previous speech; one needs a female employee; one must pay for one’s lights and water. One must buy those sheep at R13 each; one has one’s slaughtering fees; the 4½ carcases of beef cost one R327; these are light carcases, not heavy ones; one’s expenditure is consequently R3 87,70. This leaves the butcher with a favourable balance of R77,30. Can the butcher make a good living out of that, as the hon. member said? A butcher cannot increase the price of mutton arbitrarily; he must bear the public in mind. He has hundreds and hundreds of non-White clients that he must bear in mind. One cannot tell a non-White client that mutton is 35 cents a lb. today, and then tell him tomorrow that it is 50 cents a lb. Sir, a butcher has one of the most unenviable jobs one can imagine. I hone the hon. member for King William’s Town will not allege in future that a Minister of Agriculture has exploited the farmers and the consumers.

Sir, the hon. member for Colesberg has spent a long time here telling us about the expenses of the butcher. It appears that for some reason or other this hon. member has decided to defend the butchers of this country. But, Sir, I do not believe that the butchers of this country have been attacked. What has been attacked is this Government and the inefficiency and the ineptitude of this Government, and particularly the inefficiency and the ineptitude of the missing Minister, the Minister of Agriculture, Minister Uys, who is always missing when we come to talk about agriculture. This is not the first time that this has happened, Sir. He was in his seat, but immediately somebody started discussing agriculture he left the Chamber. Yesterday afternoon in this House we were asked to pass a motion expressing our appreciation for what the Government has done for agriculture. But, Sir, if there is one person in this House who should express appreciation, it is that Minister. He should express his appreciation to the Deputy Minister and his other loyal supporters on that side for the way in which they have protected him and looked after him and defended him and acted as a buffer between him and the public, let alone between him and the Opposition. But where is he, Sir? Yesterday afternoon, when he was not here, we were told that he was looking after the interests of the farmers. What interests? He has not looked after the interests of the farmers. But I want to say this to the hon. member for Colesberg, who has tried to defend the butchers. The housewife is still not satisfied and she is not satisfied because of the action of the Government, and at the same time the farmer is not satisfied either, so who is satisfied?

Nobody.

Nobody is satisfied with that Government.

But they vote for us.

For how much longer will they vote for the Government? The hon. the Minister of Community Development talks very loudly now, but what happened a little earlier when we were talking about Brakpan? I am afraid the Government has given up; they are not prepared to accept that they will even maintain the majority that they had last year. They accept that they are going backwards. The people of South Africa, the people of Brakpan, are going to show the Government today just how dissatisfied they are with conditions as they are today under this Government. Sir, I should like to have the attention of the hon. member for Colesberg for a moment if the Whips will leave him alone while we try to discuss matters in this debate. The hon. member for Colesberg challenged us to produce one person who is living below the breadline in South Africa. Sir, does the hon. member for Colesberg accept that non-Whites are people? He does not even want to listen. He knows that he did not have a case. I am sure that we can produce 10 million people in this country who live below the breadline under this Nationalist Government.

Ten million— nonsense.

What does the hon. member for Colesberg say now? Sir, we heard yesterday from an hon. member on that side that the average income of the farmers was R6 000 a year. Mr. Speaker, we cannot find many farmers with an income of R6 000 a year. There are most certainly no dairy farmers whose income is R6 000 a year.

Only the farmers in the Cabinet benches.

We spoke about the dairy industry yesterday. We discussed all sorts of aspects of it. We got to the stage where we discussed the exports of butter, and what I asked of this hon. Minister was that he makes available to the housewife of South Africa the cheap butter he is making available to the housewives of some undisclosed countries, at some secret price. I can only go on information which I receive because I can get no official figures from the hon. the Deputy Minister, but my information is that we are losing something in the region of 5 cents to 6 cents per half-kg on this butter.

Does the hon. member realize that the price of butter to the consumer is subsidized, to the extent of R5,6 million?

Of course I know it, and I accept it. There is a subsidy. This is an essential product and I believe it is right that the Government should subsidize it, and I do not believe that we on this side are critical of this subsidy. I do not think we have ever criticized it. But where do they get the R5,6 million? They are taking half of it out of the pockets of the housewives and the profits they are making on imported butter.

That is not so.

It is so. Those were the Minister’s own words. He made R2,4 million profit on the importation of butter before September last year, and how much profit has he made on the 13 million lbs that he imported after 1st October last year?

That is the New Zealand butter. At what price are we selling it?

The Minister refers to the price at which he is selling it now, but why is he selling it at that price now? It is because of the pressure we brought to bear on the Government. [Interjections.] It is because of the scandal which we dug out, the scandal that they were making this profit at the expense of the housewife.

It is because of the surplus.

Of course there were surpluses, but once again I must ask the Deputy Minister why have we got a surplus of butter. We have a surplus of butter in this country today because of the ineptitude and the inefficiency of the Dairy Board and the Minister, because after we had already reached the stage where local production of butter was exceeding the local consumption, he was still importing butter, and he still imported 13 million lbs of butter after yellow margarine came on the market.

And did yellow margarine not play a role in this surplus?

The Minister knew that yellow margarine was going to cause a drop in the consumption of butter. He knew it and if he did not know it, he should have known it.

Did you know it was going to be 40 per cent?

37 per cent was the Minister’s own figure. The hon. the Minister estimated last year that it would be 37 per cent. He estimated that the drop in the consumption of butter would be 37 per cent, but still he places orders through the Dairy Board or somebody else and imports another 13 million lbs after the introduction of yellow margarine and after the local production of butter was exceeding the local consumption. This is the important thing. This shows the ineptitude. And now for the Deputy Minister to say, “yes, but we had to reduce the price of this butter we imported” is nonsense, because he is still making a profit on it. He still has not reduced it to the price he paid for it. He still makes a profit out of the housewife.

You are just playing politics, Mr. Webber.

No, I am not playing politics. All I want to see is a square deal for the people of South Africa. I want to ask this hon. Deputy Minister in all sincerity …

You want an increased subsidy. That is all you want.

No. We have a subsidy which was voted by this House of R5,6 million and we were all in favour of that subsidy because this is an essential product for the people of South Africa. In addition to that the hon. the Minister has imported butter and I want to ask him to make that available to the housewife at his landed cost, at What that butter has cost him, and let him not make additional profits to reduce the amount of the subsidy made by the Government. That is the first point. The second point I want to make is that he has told us that he estimates that he will have to exports 10 000 metric tons of butter. That is something like 10 million kg of butter. My information is that he has exported up to now at a loss of 12 cents per kg. I want to ask him to make that 10 million kg of butter available to the housewife at less 12 cents per kg or 6 cents per half kg, or whatever it is that he is losing on the exportation of butter.

That is 2 cents a lb.

No, 12 cents per kg is 6 cents per ½ kg. As I say, this is my information, which is unconfirmed, that this is what the Government is losing on the export of butter. I cannot get a price because the hon. the Minister will not tell us.

Only on the first consignment.

How much did we lose on the first consignment?

About 12 cents.

Then my information appears to be correct.

On the 10 000 tons.

But this was not the reply given to a question. When I put a question to this House the Minister said he expected that during this year he would have to export 10 000 tons.

In total, yes.

So, I see, this is not merely exported to Iran?

There was a loss of 12 cents on the 12 000 tons.

Well, then I am afraid the reply given to the question is ambiguous. I accept the reply given by the hon. the Deputy Minister, but I say the reply is ambiguous. I took it that the 10 000 tons referred to exports to this country, which we guess is in Asia, but of course I accept what the hon. the Deputy Minister says. This refers to all exports, including exports to African states and including exports elsewhere.

So he is subsidizing foreign housewives?

I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether butter is being exported to African states at a lower price or whether it is being exported at the regular price.

Some of those exports were at a small loss.

There again, the housewife is being asked to subsidize these African states.

The storage compensates for that.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 136.

Mr. Speaker, we have now come to the end of this Part Appropriation debate, and I am very pleased to have been able to notice that my hon. friend the hon. member for Parktown concluded his speech yesterday in a much more moderate tone than was heard from him and his colleagues during the whole debate. I am very pleased to see that, because it seems to me as though my hon. friend and his colleagues listened to my charge about the bitterness and the acrimony they had displayed during that whole debate. This hon. friend accused me of having spoken like an “angry man” when I spoke the previous time. The hon. member is absolutely wrong. I am not a person who easily gets angry about what is said by hon. members on that side of the House, but I want to say that I was and am bitterly disappointed at the fact that in times such as these a country such as South Africa is saddled with an Opposition such as that one. It is difficult for one to keep one’s temper when one hears all the things that are said by hon. members on that side. In such cases a great deal of self-control is required from one. The Opposition should really not think that they on that side of the House can say just what they please, in any language they please and couched in any offensive words they choose to use, and that we on this side of the House merely have to accept this with resignation.

The hon. member for Parktown made a statement which is true. I notice that the hon. members of the Opposition have learnt many things over the past few days. He made the statement that if one was angry, as he claimed I had been, it was a sign that one believed that one’s case was not a very good one, and that the angrier one was, the less faith one had in one’s case. Is this not precisely what I said in the previous debate? Did I not say in the previous debate that those offensive, bitter and acrimonious words of the hon. members opposite, were uttered because they were not convinced of the strength of their arguments, and then they tried to convince by means of the force of their words. I am pleased that my hon. friend opposite realized those things, and I am pleased that now we may perhaps speak to each other again on an equal footing.

Before coming back to my hon. friend, I wish to speak to my hon. friend the member for Durban Point. He complained, in the first place, that I had attacked him and that he had never spoken about certain things as far as the cost of living structure was concerned. He consulted Hansard and did not find it anywhere in Hansard.

I did not refer to the figures.

No, do not let us split hair; we have had enough hair-splitting in recent debates. If the hon. member wants to take the trouble to read the Hansard report of the no-confidence debate, he will read in the Afrikaans edition on page 139, where he started his speech, that at that stage he asked, in the same wailing tone which he raised here yesterday, what significance figures were supposed to have. He referred to what the housewife could now get for R5. Like a customer in a general store, he recited yesterday a long list of articles with their prices a few years ago and what they are today. What the hon. member will not tell the people, however, is that whereas the housewife only had one R5 note before, she has today four or five R5 notes for buying those articles. The hon. member admitted here what all of us are admitting, namely that prices have increased, but he did not want to admit that salaries and wages had shown a much bigger increase. He does not want to look at those figures, because he is one of those who say: “This is my standpoint; do not confuse me with the facts.” The other day I read in a book on finance— the hon. member for Gardens may know it too—that in the previous century “the price of a sheep was a sixpence, and five shillings was a high: price for an ox”. Prices have increased all the time, but wages, salaries and also the standard of living of our people have been raised. The hon. member for Durban Point also referred to Pres. Nixon, and wanted to know why we did not follow his example. Pres. Nixon introduced a policy of “more jobs”, as well as one of a “price and wage freeze”. However, hon. members opposite do not want these things. He also mentioned that Pres. Nixon had in addition established a “cost of living council” and a “pay board” and many other things as well.

In order to keep the cost of living low.

The cost of living council, the pay board and all those other instruments established by Pres. Nixon, were established for the very purpose of maintaining his price and wage freeze. If one does not have a price and wage freeze, it is unnecessary to do all those other things. And the hon. member did, however, state one truth, and I am pleased that he is gradually seeing the light. He referred to the “inflationary psychology”. He is absolutely correct. After all, we have always said this. He will remember that other hon. members in this House and I said that inflation was to a large extent a psychological phenomenon. It is a psychological phenomenon which is building up and becoming increasingly stronger. When we discussed it at the time, hon. members opposite were laughing. However, they have learnt in the meantime, and even the hon. member for Durban Point is talking about an inflationary psychology now. However, perhaps he is the only one who has learnt this lesson, and just for a few minutes at that. In the course of this debate hon. members opposite referred all the time to the way prices were rising, could rise, and were still going to rise. They continually fed and encouraged the inflationary psychology, but they never said a word to curb it. Earlier on today the hon. member for Parktown was very angry with me in his speech, and one of the things that angered him most, was when I referred to the possibility that the cost of living index might show a downward trend. One may not refer to the possibility that the cost of living index may show a downward trend. If we say that it may show an upward trend, we are correct according to hon. members opposite, and then it is not inflationary psychology.

The hon. member for Durban Point also referred to the Minister of the Interior and to the high cost of living in South Africa …

Standard of living.

Yes, thank you. He attacked the Minister of the Interior. However, would the hon. member accept what was said by the president of the Federated Chamber of Commerce?

Let us hear.

He wants to hear first. A report in the Rand Daily Mail of 10th February, 1972, on the comments of Mr. Sher, President of Assocom, reads as follows—

That is what we have been saying all these years. All these years we have been saying that we should look at our living standards in South Africa and that we should save more. We on this side of the House would like to see living standards being raised more and more. If, in a few years’ time, we could live four or five times as high as we do now, we would be pleased. We would welcome that, but then we shall have to work for it, then we shall have to save for it. It will not simply fall into our laps. The hard work and the increased savings I mentioned in my first Budget, still remain a truth. When hon. members opposite say—and I agree with them—that our living standards in South Africa should be raised even more, I say that it is a good thing, but that we should work and save in order to accomplish that. But hon. members should not scoff when we talk about working and saving more.

Yesterday the hon. member for Parktown said that we knew now what their standpoint was in respect of devaluation and import control. I am very pleased that the hon. member has now stated it clearly. He said he was speaking on behalf of his party. They are in favour of intensified import control and devaluation. Now I want to know why they did not tell us these things earlier on. Why did we have to battle in this debate to drag such a statement out of them?

But the hon. member for Parktown said that he had made statements.

The hon. the Leader did make statements, but why could they not say these things in this House, which is the official Chamber of the people of South Africa? After all, we have the right to inquire in this Chamber about the policy of the United Party.

Surely he did state our policy.

Yes, towards the end my friend the hon. member for Parktown said yesterday what the policy was as he had stated it in November. Why did they keep it from us for such a long time and why did they not tell us the truth? Why did they only point out the bad points of devaluation throughout this debate? If they are in favour of devaluation, surely they should also have pointed out the good points of devaluation. Did my hon. friends point out the good points of devaluation? All they said was that it afforded us an opportunity, but, but … and then they went on again to say how bad devaluation was. Now I just want to express the hope that when they leave here after the adjournment of this House, or whenever they may speak outside, they will tell the world that they approved of devaluation and intensified import control in this House and outside.

Under circumstances. [Interjections.]

They should tell the public outside that they approved of it, and they should also furnish the reasons why they did so, namely, as I have explained it here, that devaluation is chiefly attributable to international factors over which we have no control, and of which I mentioned in particular the changed and deteriorating rate of exchange in our international trade. The hon. member for Parktown said they knew that devaluation would give rise to increased prices. Whilst they knew that it would give rise to increased prices, they approved of it. Now I ask them that they should not only propagate one side of the matter in the future. If they have approved of it, they will have to account to the public outside, and will also have to point out the good side of devaluation.

If we had another Government, there would have been no need for us to do so.

The hon. member for Parktown said that what he did not like, was “the running side by side of devaluation and import control”. But that position existed from 1948 to 1970. We devalued in 1948 and have had import control since 1948, and that position obtained all the time. I do not know what my hon. friends find so strange in that.

But with devaluation you have now all of a sudden intensified the import control.

The hon. member wants to ask when we are going to put a stop to it. Does he want to put a stop to devaluation or does he want to put a stop to import control?

The import control.

Does he want us to put a stop to it tomorrow?

No, I did not say so.

Very well, I am pleased the hon. member has said so, because they complained every time that it was wrong for these two phenomena to run side by side. They said a stop had to be put to these two phenomena running side by side. They did not say when. They blame us for the fact that these two are running side by side.

Yes, that is right.

I am telling the hon. member that to put a stop to import control now, is inconceivable.

Why?

The hon. member still has doubts about what he said a moment ago, namely that we may not put a stop to it at once, for he wants to know why. It is inconceivable, in the first place, because that hon. member would tell me that we have “stop-go politics”, because we introduced import control and put a stop to it again. In the second place, we would be doing our industries a disservice. How can one introduce something of that nature and then change it again the next day? We know it is a temporary position, because import control must be abolished eventually. I cannot give a date, but it can be abolished as soon as our balance of payments is in such a position that we shall be able to do so. In the second place, we can do so when our industries are enjoying sufficient protection so that they may stand on their own feet. I repeat: We shall have to exert ourselves in the positive direction to protect South African industries more effectively, until such time as South Africa will, through exports and the strengthening of our balance of payments position, be in a position to abolish import control eventually. The hon. member asked me “if it is in conformity with the rules of GATT”.

The two together.

The hon. member asked me whether this was in conformity with the rules of GATT. GATT deals with import control and the IMF deals with devaluation, and therefore I am now talking about import control. Our interpretation is that GATT grants us the right to take steps such as these as a temporary measure because we have problems with our balance of payments and of trade. What is more, GATT is aware of our situation and has discussed it. GATT has not found us guilty of breaking its rules. These matters are still being investigated and dealt with, from time to time …

Is the matter still pending?

The matter is still in progress; it is under review from time to time, as was also the case previously, for years. We still have to report to them in order that they may see whether it is still justified for us to retain import control. Now I want to put a very serious question to my hon. friend: He posed a question here, and I feel rather apprehensive about putting this question to him personally, but I must. Would the hon. member for Parktown support South Africa’s case as regards its requests at GATT?

For tariffs?

Yes, would the hon. member for Parktown accuse us as the Government of not having been justified in introducing import control in terms of the rules of GATT?

You cannot have import control running side by side with devaluation.

We have already said that we did that, and I just want to know from the hon. member whether he agrees with us or whether he is going to say that we broke the rules of GATT.

No, I would never say that.

I am very pleased to hear that from the hon. member. I am asking this, because I have had very difficult experiences of similar matters. On previous occasions when we were engaged abroad in the most critical negotiations, we found that here in South Africa—I am not referring to those hon. members now —certain bodies, which are very close to those hon. members opposite, tried to ridicule our negotiations abroad. They tried to tie our hands while we were negotiating with other people, but I do not think my friend will do that. For that reason I am giving him a chance to deny it here. He will not hamper us in our discussions with GATT. Now the hon. member asks me, “What about all the things bound by GATT?” He wants to know whether we have not had 22 years for dealing with those things. He put this question to me before, and I replied to it. In terms of the existing agreement we have already raised the tariffs in respect of hundreds of articles. But I want to tell my hon. friend what I told him before: There are hundreds of tariffs, more sensitive, critical and important matters which are bound, and on which we have been deliberating for years without being able to have them unbound. We cannot increase these tariffs. I here are quite a number of cases in point. We struggled with motor spares for a tremendously long time. We are still struggling to have certain motor spares unbound and to promote our motor car industry by those means. It is not an easy matter to negotiate with GATT. There are many difficulties.

The hon. member also spoke about devaluation. He said that I had referred to devaluation as far back as 15th August. What is true, is that I said we had started thinking of devaluation after 15th August.

Seriously.

We would start thinking of it seriously. Quite correct. On 15th August Pres. Nixon announced those well-known steps. Any person who knew monetary politics, knew at once that eventually this had to lead to a devaluation of the dollar, and that if America had to devalue its dollar, we would 99 to one also be obliged to devalue the rand.

Yes.

The hon. member agrees. Fine. But on 15th August, and even on 24th November, when we intensified import control, nobody knew what America would do. I said so here. The hon. member told me I had said that the crisis was going to be resolved. He should thank and congratulate me here for having known and anticipated these things. I knew this crisis was going to be resolved. I, too, have acquired some knowledge of international monetary affairs. That I knew, but I did not know when and how it was going to be resolved. In other words, I did not know by how much the dollar would devalue. Nobody knew that. Even the members of that Group of Ten did not know when and how. Did the hon. member expect South Africa to devalue unilaterally? Is that what the hon. member expected from us?

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member has now said here that he expected us in South Africa to devalue unilaterally.

No, I said “the same as” the United States.

Those hon. members blamed me for the fact that we introduced import control and did not devalue at that moment, on 24th November, because we should have known at that stage already that America would devalue. The hon. member for Constantia was one of those who said that. On 24th November we did not know by how much America would devalue. Nobody knew that. The Group of Ten did not know that. It was impossible for us. We had to wait. I am serious when I speak here. The Government and I myself, with my people, considered the matter day after day, and we discussed it with economists, our own advisers, every day. However, we reached the decision that South Africa would not take the liberty of devaluing before it knew what America and other countries would do.

Right.

Now I hear that it is right. The hon. member also mentioned another point. He said previously that the change in the gold price was an “exploded dream”. At the time I reproved him. Then he objected that the change in the gold price I had wanted, was a different kind of change, one in which the rand would not devalue. Imagine, Sir, an increase in the gold price in which the rand does not devalue!

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Has the price of gold risen in terms of the Yen and in terms of the Deutsche Mark, because … [Interjections.] … in the price of gold and not the devaluation of the dollar.

Mr. Speaker, I spoke, in the first place, about the increase in the price of gold in terms of the rand, and, in the second place, about the principle of the devaluation of the dollar. In the past nobody expected the dollar to devalue. Naturally, the increase in the gold price is not everything I should have liked to have had; I should like to have much more. But the hon. member very clearly said that I wanted an increase in the gold price in which the rand would not be devalued. How on earth is that possible? Surely, in every increase in the gold price the rand has to devalue.

Why?

If, for instance, our gold costs R25 per ounce, and the gold price is doubled, one gets R50 for an ounce of gold; surely, then the rand will have devalued by 50 per cent. Sir, you will see what I mean when I say that my hon. friends opposite cannot make any monetary calculations.

Sir, hon. members referred to “a chronic psychosis of uncertainty”. That is also one of the things they have learnt. During the past few days they have learnt a great deal. They are talking about a psychosis of uncertainty! Did we on this side of the House not tell them every day, from morning to night, that they were creating uncertainty in South Africa and that uncertainty was the enemy of economic growth? What did they do in those days? What did they do, during these debates, other than trying to create confusion and uncertainty in the minds of our people? “This will happen and that will happen, and the worst and the most abominable things will happen,” they predicted. Yesterday the hon. member for Parktown said something which he actually never thought he ought to have said in this House, namely that we are heading for a recession. Sir, this is not the first time he has done that. He will probably not deny that on at least one occasion in the past he also said outside this House that South Africa was heading for a recession. I have here a clipping taken from the Argus of 10th November, in which the following is said—

This is only one clipping which refers to what was said by the hon. member. But what did the hon. member for Pinetown say? He quoted from an unknown source, which he did not mention and which had all sorts of unpleasant things to say about the Government. Then he added—

Sir, these are the people who stand for safety and security in the future, and who speak of a psychosis of uncertainty, and then we find that their two main speakers on finance have these things to say: The hon. member for Parktown talks about a recession, and the hon. member for Pinetown talks about a depression. We are the people who are creating confidence in the future. [Interjections.]

Sir, there is a second reason why the hon. member for Parktown is angry with me. You know, Sir, he is terribly fond of playing with dates. He continually points out what I said on this and that date. I want to tell him that I am very appreciative of the fact that he is keeping such a close check on my speeches. But do you know why he attacked me so terribly in a certain speech he made in this House? He did so because I had expressed confidence in South Africa’s future on a few occasions. On a few occasions I made speeches in which I said I expected South Africa to have a good economic future and its problems to be solved. The fact that I expressed confidence in the future of South Africa, made the hon. member terribly angry. And then they say I am creating uncertainty! Sir, the greatest uncertainty they may create, is the uncertainty that will arise when people start believing that they will come into power one day. Fortunately the people do not believe that. Fortunately there are others, such as Dr. Lutz, whom I mentioned yesterday, who believes that this Government is an exceptionally capable one. [Interjections.]

He probably does not know you.

The hon. member was probably not here when I read out Dr. Lutz’s article. He knows us well. Dr. Lutz is a businessman who has been doing business with South Africa for many years. Furthermore, he toured South Africa for a month in order to investigate investment possibilities here, and then he went back with a beautiful testimonial to South Africa. There are scores and scores of people like that. The hon. member for Parktown said that he had met Dr. Lutz, and that he had told Dr. Lutz that this Government would no longer be in existence in 1975. Fortunately Dr. Lutz did not believe him.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with a few matters of policy. My time is very short, but I want to tell hon. members that we stand for the growth of the South African economy, as well as for stability —growth and stability. In this regard there are a number of points, which I mentioned in the past, such as the protection of our industries, the enhancement of productivity and the strengthening of capital formation, the most effective utilization of our manpower and the undertaking to investigate credit provision properly. We are looking into the question of taxes, to see where they constitute the heaviest burden and where to spend the money most effectively for the infrastructure of our country. We are giving special attention to export promotion in various ways, which I have already mentioned. We are looking into the infrastructure in this extensive country of ours. We are proceeding with the programme of decentralization. We shall see to it that there is industrial peace in our country, and we shall always seek and obtain the co-operation of our businessmen in South Africa, because we believe in co-operation with those businessmen. We shall go on maintaining the principle of the profit motive and of private enterprise in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

When I explain this Bill to the House, hon. members will find that I am not explaining it clause by clause, because the Bill is set out very clearly.

When the original legislation which established the present South African Road Safety Council was dealt with in this House in 1960, the hon. the Minister of Transport pointed out that that legislation was non-political, non-contentious and uncomplicated. The matter in hand is a well-known problem which every modern country in the world has to contend with.

The Bill which I am submitting to this House, and which has the same characteristics as the one of 1960, seeks to repeal the existing Act and the South African Road Safety Council in their entirety.

Hon. members are all aware of the history of road safety in South Africa and how one commission and committee of inquiry after another has attempted to establish machinery which would be able to combat road accidents more effectively.

Time and again, however, these committees came up against an accomplished fact, namely that the road accident rate and the number of deaths on the country’s roads had increased alarmingly—I shall furnish figures in this regard to this House at a later stage—and came to the conclusion that the slight progress made in combating the evil could be ascribed to the fact that in the existing machinery there was a lack of authority to implement the measures deemed necessary to meet the situation in respect of road accidents.

The necessity of supporting Governmental authority in the application of uniform measures was repeatedly emphasized, so much so that the hon. the Minister wanted to introduce a national Traffic Act in 1963. The draft legislation was prepared, but the provinces objected to it and maintained that the responsibility for ensuring the safety of traffic and road users rested with them.

Because of this attitude the Minister was obliged to abandon this idea, and in 1964 he appointed another committee, whose recommendations resulted in road traffic legislation which was uniform to the letter being introduced by the four Provinces and South-West Africa as from 1st January, 1966.

In spite of this and of the fact that the Provinces did everything in their power, road accidents nevertheless increased considerably and hon. members on both sides of this House repeatedly pleaded that positive steps should be taken to combat the evil. Time and again the hon. the Minister had to point out to us that he had no authority to intervene.

As a result of the alarming increase in road accidents and the continual representations made, the Minister again appointed a committee on 15th December, 1969, with the following terms of reference—

1. (1) To inquire into, report on and make recommendations in regard to the following—
   1. (a) Whether the expenditure incurred in maintaining the South African Road Safety Council and causing it to function is in sound proportion to the results obtained;
   2. (b) the way in which such a council ought to be constituted and with what functions and authority it ought to be invested in order to promote effective road safety in all its aspects; and
   3. (c) any other matter concerning road safety which may be relevant in the opinion of the committee.

Furthermore, the hon. the Minister requested that the committee submit its report within nine months, but as a result of the wide field which had to be covered this was not possible, and consequently the committee submitted an interim report which dealt only with the terms of reference (a) and (b).

Because these two aspects were the most important of the terms of reference and the committee had reported fully on them, it was possible to proceed to draft a Bill which could seek to implement the recommendations. Briefly, the recommendations amount to this, that although the existing Road Safety Council has performed useful work in certain respects, its results do not fully justify the expenditure. Furthermore, the committee found that the existing council was too large, and that, in the absence of an overall authority, it was powerless to ensure the implementation of essential measures.

Furthermore it was found that apart from the fact that the funds of the Road Safety Council were totally inadequate, they were being provided in an extremely cumbersome way and that the council never knew in time how much funds it would have at its disposal for a current and ensuing year. In this regard the committee found that the road accident problem was created by the use of motor vehicles on roads, and recommended that, in the same way as it was in the interests of an employer to contribute to the Workmen’s Compensation Fund in order to safeguard his employees, it was in the interests of owners or owner/drivers to finance the activities of the proposed National Road Safety Council by means of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund, since any reduction in the number of road accidents as a result of action taken by the council might bring about a reduction of expenditure in respect of compensation, which would prevent an increase in premium contributions and might possibly even lead to a reduction in such contributions. In my reply to the debate later, I shall use these figures in order to prove this statement. But apart from that I think that the public, now that they are making a direct contribution to road safety, will become much more safety conscious and that accidents will necessarily decrease. However, this important recommendation could not be delayed until such time as the committee had made its main report available, because then we would only have been able to deal with this legislation during next year’s session of Parliament. But I am expecting the main report within the next few months, and then I shall table it as soon as possible after it has been considered. The main report, however, contains nothing which will cause any change to be made in this Bill.

Why did you not table the interim report?

Because it is a very short report. If there are members who request information about it, I shall do so.

In the light of the recommendations contained in the interim report, a draft Bill was prepared, which, together with copies of the interim report, was sent to the respective Administrators for their comment.

Useful suggestions in regard to the recommendations of the committee and the draft Bill were received from the Administrators. On the strength of these, certain clauses were omitted, amended or substituted. I want to make it very clear that the Administrators studied the interim report and the draft Bill, and after various discussions this final Bill was drafted.

After thorough consideration of the reports and comments made by all interested parties, and only after discussions had been held with all five Administrators, the Bill was cast in the form in which it is before you today.

Were motorists, organizations such as the A.A. and Rondalia, also consulted?

I shall reply to that. Do ask that question in the course of the debate. You are most welcome to ask it in the course of the debate. The A.A. and Rondalia and the motorists had the opportunity of giving evidence before that committee of inquiry, because it was advertised and they were engaged in the investigation for more than a year. In other words, the opportunity was in fact there.

The Administrators had misgivings about clause 26 in its original form and were of the opinion that their autonomy was being interfered with. The hon. the Minister subsequently had a personal interview with them and as a result of that the Minister agreed that the clause be amended to its present form. The position now is that in terms of clause 24 the Minister may accept, amend or reject any recommendation of the council or remit it to the council for reconsideration.

In terms of clause 26—and I regard this as the most important clause—the Minister may refer any recommendation of the council accepted by him to the provinces with a request that, as far as the recommendation relates to a matter falling within the power of the provinces concerned, laws be made to give effect to the recommendation.

However, in cases where any such recommendation is not acceptable to their executive committees, the provinces have the right to make further representations to the Minister in that connection. But in cases where the Minister is nevertheless satisfied that a recommendation of the council will promote road safety, he may recommend to the State President that regulations be made to give effect to the recommendation.

The Minister is therefore giving the provinces a proper and reasonable opportunity of coming to discuss with him any problem they may experience in connection with the recommendations of the council, and it goes without saying that if the Minister is satisfied that the provinces have a good case, he will not proceed with such a recommendation.

However, in cases where the representations of the provinces do not satisfy the Minister, he has the right to recommend that the State President make regulations which give effect to such a recommendation. As I have mentioned, the previous committees of inquiry as well as the present committee came to the conclusion that one of the main factors contributing to the problem of road accidents is a lack of supporting Governmental authority.

In addition, strong representations were made to the present committee and the public opinion was expressed repeatedly that the necessary uniformity and effectiveness of action would not be achieved unless the Government assumed central control over traffic matters. The committee came to the conclusion, however, that an effective traffic safety system could be developed while retaining the present traffic control system if the Government were simply brought into the system at the highest governmental level in order to carry out its general responsibility for the safety of road users and in order to fulfil the role which society expects it to fulfil in this regard.

Therefore, without great disruption being caused in the existing system of control, and after consideration of many other methods, it seemed best to obtain governmental authority in the form of the overall authority of the Minister of Transport. I trust that I shall receive the full support of both Houses of Parliament in this regard. We are concerned, with a national problem here and it should be combated on a national basis. I say this, Mr. Speaker, without detracting from the good work of the provinces, and on this occasion I also want to express my appreciation towards them and the Territory of South-West Africa for what they have achieved with the limited means at their disposal. I want to repeat the words “what they have achieved with the limited means at their disposal”. The object of this measure is to remove that limitation. In addition, I want to express my appreciation for the uniform ordinances passed by them. I also want to express my sincere thanks to the local authorities, in particular to those which have to contend with a heavy pressure of traffic. Similarly, my sincere thanks to all the private institutions promoting road safety. Without this grand effort on the part of these institutions, we shall not achieve our object.

I am saying this because it implies that I expect we shall receive the same support and harmonious co-operation from these institutions in future. South Africa is dependent on that.

But now, Mr. Speaker, very careful note must be taken of the fact—and I am placing great emphasis on this—that in the year ended 31st August, 1971, there were 217 729 accidents on our roads, in which 8 566 people were killed and 18 022 serious and 45 190 less serious injuries were sustained. I have made a very accurate calculation and can state without fear of contradiction that these accidents cost South Africa R202 771 121 for that one year alone.

In view of this it has become absolutely essential that all the available resources should be combined in a joint effort, and I am convinced that hon. members will agree with me that all resources can only be co-ordinated effectively on the highest level.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I want to emphasize that the provisions of the proposed Bill can achieve the expected positive results only if everybody, the Government, the respective provincial administrations, local authorities and the public, put their shoulders to the wheel in a concerted effort and purposefully endeavour to promote road safety in the Republic by every possible means. This, Mr. Speaker, is also my appeal to hon. members in this House.

Mr. Speaker, towards the end of his speech, and again when he concluded, the hon. the Deputy Minister appealed to both Houses of Parliament and to all parties in Parliament to support this measure as an attempt at promoting road safety in South Africa and, if possible, reducing the number of accidents. I want to say to him at once that, as far as the official Opposition is concerned, we shall support the measure. We support it because we are in favour of the principle that road accidents must be combated. The figures mentioned by the hon. the Deputy Minister are shocking, and nobody can accept those figures with satisfaction or resignation. However, I must add that, while we are supporting the measure, we are doing so with quite a number of serious reservations. We are not satisfied that this measure is the best way of combating road accidents, but at least it is something. Nor are we satisfied that, as far as the composition of the council is concerned, this measure affords proper representation to people who deserve representation. Nor are we satisfied that, before the Bill was introduced, there was proper consultation with people who have a great interest in this matter. We are very clearly convinced that one of the proposed methods of financing the council is something which one cannot accept in principle.

I must say that we on this side of this House had to weigh up two principles against each other. One is the principle of sectional taxation, to which we are opposed, and the other the principle that this is a measure which is doing something to combat road accidents. We have decided that the predominant principle is road safety and that we shall support the measure, but that we shall do our best to ask the Minister and the Deputy Minister to give due consideration to our standpoint and, in the interests of the country and of good government, to make concessions, where possible, to the standpoint of the Opposition when we move amendments in the Committee Stage.

Our first problem is the question of consultation. I do not want to elaborate on it, but I am grateful to the hon. the Deputy Minister for having said frankly, in reply to a question I put to him, that, for example, the motorists’ organizations were not consulted after the interim report of the committee of inquiry had been made public. It is true that they had the opportunity to give evidence, but their evidence consisted of their own personal standpoints. Other evidence was also heard and the recommendations are probably very different from what the motorists’ organizations recommended. According to the provisions of this Bill, and from the fact that a sectional tax is being imposed, it is clear that the Government regards the motorist as the person who bears the greatest responsibility for road accidents. Therefore I am surprised that, after the Minister had received the report and while he was preparing legislation accordingly, he did not have the chivalry and the good grace to consult organizations such as the A.A., Rondalia, the Road Federation and other similar organizations. I was very pleased to hear the hon. the Deputy Minister say that when the final report is issued, it will be published before he introduces legislation.

Not before I introduce legislation. After all, I am introducing legislation now.

Surely it is possible that, when the final report is issued, there may be further legislation?

Yes.

I greatly deplore the fact that, while we are dealing here with a Bill which affects the interests and lives of so many people, the motorist was not granted recognition by being consulted in the final stage with respect to the use of an essential luxury in modern life. I am pleased to hear, and we shall try to keep the hon. the Deputy Minister to this, that he will not make this mistake again when the final report becomes available.

Our other problem is the composition of the council itself. The council will consist of twelve members, but if I read the clause correctly, eight of those members will be members of the existing council. The representation of the provinces, together with South-West Africa, will now be even more preponderant than it …

This is Kelly’s speech you are making.

I do not know whom the hon. member is referring to, but it is possible. It is very possible that if the facts are correct, more than one person can face up to their truth. To me this is not a rare or strange phenomenon. The point I want to make is that the provinces will have the preponderant representation. Eight of the twelve members will be members of the old council. How can one expect that the addition of four members, who may also be members of the old council, because it is in the Minister’s discretion, can lead to your getting a new approach, a new policy, a new insight and “getting new teeth”, as the Minister put it, as a result of this Bill? One is likely to find that they will continue in the old unsatisfactory way. As the Minister indicated, road accidents have increased and this Bill has therefore become necessary. One would have expected a new vision, new sources of advice to be called in by the Minister, but instead of that we find that he is simply carrying on in the old way.

I now come to what I personally regard as the most important point in this matter. I have had the privilege of knowing other Ministers of Finance in South Africa. I know that Mr. Havenga and Mr. Hofmeyr were strongly opposed to sectional taxation. But now I find that under this Government there is an increasing tendency towards this, and for various motives. In the case of one Bill which we shall perhaps discuss later today, the principle that groups and sections must pay for what is a national responsibility is accepted because the Minister wants to punish a section. The motorists contribute to a large extent to road accidents, but who can say it is their responsibility alone? What about the people who build the roads, in many respects with danger points and bottlenecks which should not exist? What about the pedestrians, who are responsible for an enormous percentage of road accidents?

Cyclists.

Yes, what about cyclists?

Do you want to tax children?

I am sorry to say so, but this is the sort of rubbish one is offered by way of an argument.

He just does not understand.

He does not know South Africa. He should go and look at Louis Botha Avenue in Johannesburg in the mornings and in the afternoons to see the number of bicycles ridden by adults through the busiest streets of Johannesburg.

But bicycles are not ridden by adults only.

I cannot understand that a man can make such an interjection. I say that if parents offer their children such a dangerous instrument as a bicycle, those parents should make a contribution towards preventing road accidents.

Mr. Speaker, I am thinking of another example. I am thinking of people who drive animals along our public roads. Do they not contribute to accidents?

And the kudus in South-West.

Yes, the wild life conservation people in South-West. That is another cause of accidents. One can continue indefinitely in this vein. Why must the motorist be singled out to pay this taxation alone? Why must it be the motorists who, as a section of the population, today pay practically the same amount in taxation to the State as the income tax on individuals yields to the State every year?

I think it will be interesting at this stage just to draw the attention of the House to what motorists are paying. I have the data in English. According to an investigation which was instituted, motorists paid the following taxation and other levies in 1970—

Customs and/or excise duties on diesel fuel … R10 874 000.

Customs and/or excise duties on motor vehicles R52 496 000.

Customs and/or excise duties on tyres and tubes R714 000.

Customs and/or excise duties on oils and greases R187 000.

I want to mention something which I regard as a discriminatory tax, although it is called something else. The profit that the South African Railways make on the conveyance by rail and pipeline of petrol from the coast to inland areas is R52112 000, a profit of 600 per cent. I just want to say in passing that I read in a paper this afternoon that in the National Party there is a growing concern about the fact that the price of petrol will rise again and that they want the profits of the oil companies investigated. I want to commit the United Party to something. If it is shown that any petrol company makes as much profit on importing and selling petrol as the Minister of Finance makes on transporting petrol, then I will support action against the petrol companies, because they would be as guilty of exploitation as the hon. the Minister is. Further information that I have is—

The following statistics are an estimate because the figures were not available when this was done—

The total which had to be borne by motorists and motor-cyclists alone amounted to R328 620 000 in the year 1970. In 1971, the income tax collected from individuals was R317 million. That was approximately for the same year, and it means that the income tax on persons was less than what the motorists had to pay. In 1970-’71 the income tax on persons was so high that the Minister of Finance, contrary to normal practice was hinting that he would seek to reduce it in his Budget because he is worried that it is so high. It was R376 million, which is not even R50 million more than the motorists have to pay. Now, with this proposition, the hon. Minister comes and he wants us to levy another tax of more than R1 million on the motorists specifically. There are about 3⅓ million motorists and motor-cyclists on the road and they will have to find almost R1¼ million which they will have to pay. Where is it going to end and what possible justification is there for the suggestion that the motorist alone should be penalized because of the road accidents that take place in South Africa? He is not solely responsible for that and in any event he makes his contribution to this already. Why should this money not be taken from the Consolidated Revenue Fund? It is a national problem which affects the nation as a whole and why should not the nation as a whole accept the responsibility for this? It does not mean that there is a new tax; it just means that the tax will be paid by the people who should pay it, i.e. the nation and the community as a whole and not merely a section of it. I want to say that we on this side of the House wish this Bill well. In its purpose and in its object of combating road accidents, we pray that it will succeed more than we expect it to succeed. We support the principle of fighting death upon the roads. That does not mean that we should not be free to point out that the methods under which this subject is sought to be attained, can be wrong. It does not mean that we cannot criticize the method of financing this important and this necessary work as being contrary to sound principles or statesmanship in South Africa.

Subject to those reservations, and I admit that they are important, we shall support this Bill at the Second Reading. We hope that the Minister will put the true interest of the country above any pre-conceived ideas and that he will accept the amendments of the Opposition in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member for Yeoville adopted the standpoint that the baby should not be thrown out with the bath water. At a later stage I shall come back to some of his arguments. However, at the very beginning I want to say that I personally am not of the opinion that this legislation, this new attempt on our part to combat a big problem, is going to be the alpha and the omega of road safety, and I think this is also the case with all of us here today. On the contrary, I think we are much nearer the beginning than the end of our attempts to get the better of this problem. It is a problem that is as old as the hills and has already existed for centuries. I should like to go back a bit in history. As early as 1861 a law was promulgated in England, “The Act to regulate the use of locomotives on highways”, which provided that the speed limit should be 10 miles per hour.

There also had to be a red flag in front.

No, that was not that Act; I am still coming to that. The fine for a contravention of that speed limit was R10. That was the position in 1861, but within four years, in 1865, the road safety people said that this was a reckless speed and that the speed limit should be reduced. They then drew up a new Act which was known as the “red Flag Act”, the Act to which the hon. member for Yeoville referred. It was then determined that the speed limit on outlying roads should be four miles per hour and two miles per hour in towns. However, that was not all. Apart from that a fellow had to be walking about 60 yards ahead of the self-propelled vehicle with a red flag, and he had to announce the danger. What is more, if a man on horseback came along and he raised his hand, the self-propelled vehicle had to stop so that the horse could pass. This is a problem with distant origins, and I want to take it a little further back, because I want to come to another point. The point is that early in the 16th century in England a law was promulgated which provided that a man was not allowed to go to church in a motor vehicle on Christmas. The motive behind the law was, of course, road safety. In those days there were still good people. On Christmas day the people went to church and the roads were busy. The Act was passed for that reason. If the Act was contravened a policeman could confiscate the vehicle, sell it and divide the money up amongst the poor. This is where I want to stop for a moment. I find it such an attractive idea that one can employ the traffic offence fine for so commendable a purpose as road safety.

Is that in the Bill?

The Deputy Minister is now introducing this Bill according to which a levy of 50 cents will be imposed on motorists for this commendable purpose of road safety. I foresee that this will not be the end of the need to spend funds on this great task. I am convinced that if this council, which is being created, wants to do its work well, and if results must be furnished, we shall need much more money than this 50 cents per motorist provides. Where are we going to obtain that money? I want to give the Deputy Minister a tip today. If in the future we have to come back to this House to increase this levy, there would most probably be opposition from the public. I do not foresee our carrying out this big task properly and successfully with this meagre amount of 50 cents per motorist. I consequently foresee our needing more money for this purpose in the future. This council will need more money. When must it obtain the money? I now want to tell the hon. the Minister where he could get it, and no one would squeal about it. For the purposes of road safety I want to ask the Deputy Minister to give very serious consideration to impounding all traffic fines collected by any body, or at least a percentage of all traffic fines. If the Deputy Minister does this he could obtain sufficient money. If he impounds all the fines, he could really build up a road safety machine in this country that would extend to the control of traffic in the streets. Not until there is one central authority completely responsible for this big problem and task in our country can we expect our results to be lasting and worthy of note. I am sorry if I am a little pessimistic in this connection, but I have been keeping an eye on the matter from the very beginning. I want to join the hon. member for Yeoville in saying hail to this legislation. May it meet with the expectations we all cherish for it. But the money is too little and the effort not big enough. Of course we must not despair in advance.

No one would be disappointed if he obtained his funds from traffic fines and made them available for this purpose. Of course, each and every person finds it difficult to pay a traffic fine. It is very difficult for a person to have to pay a traffic fine if he is caught in a speed trap in outlying districts where he presents no risk as far as road safety is concerned. I do think, however, that it would give him a measure of satisfaction to know that this money is being employed for a good purpose, i.e. for the promotion of road safety; much more so than if the money were used to balance the municipal budget of some or other municipality.

Sir, I say these things because I think that the most important task of this council will be to initiate a large-scale educating task in connection with rood safety. There was a time when we thought we had to build better roads, make safer motor vehicles and place improved and more clearly visible distinguishing signs on the roads. Those improvements made a contribution, and they still do so today, but the blame still attaches to the individual, the person himself, and I therefore say that we shall have to initiate a tremendous educating process. We shall have to obtain the co-operation of every individual, and when I say “every individual”, I am speaking of every pedestrian, because 50 per cent of the persons run over are pedestrians. Seventy per cent of them are Bantu and 17 per cent of them are Coloureds. This shows us that the people are not educated in how to conduct themselves on the roads. Above all we shall have to obtain the active co-operation of every motorist. To obtain the active co-operation of every motorist, in the interests of road safety, one must have a correct attitude to road safety. To illustrate what I actually want to say, I should like to quote briefly from the leading article of the January, 1972, issue of Robot. Here the author of the leading article writes (translation)—

Sir, we need the sympathy and the co-operation of the individual, of the man who walks along our streets and in our roads, but first and foremost we need the sympathy and the co-operation of the motorist.

I do not want to say any more about road safety; there are many hon. members who will speak about it. I just want to refer briefly to the argument of the hon. member for Yeoville about the so-called sectional tax, the levy of 50 cents being introduced in terms of clause 25 of the Bill. I want to ask hon. members not to regard this levy as an independent, new tax we are now levying on motorists. This is not what it is. I want to state that this levy should be seen as an integral part of the premium that has to be paid in terms of the Motor Vehicle Assurance Act. That is why it is also being linked to motor vehicle assurance, although it is chiefly to be set apart for road safety. Road safety, motor car accidents, people who are injured and run over, all have the closest connection with third party insurance. The accident rate and death toll determine how high or low the premium must be that we pay for third party insurance. In this connection I should like to mention three points. The first is that the establishment of the consortium for handling third party insurance was an outstanding success. Thanks to that the South African motorist, the South African motor vehicle owner, today pays a third party insurance premium that is virtually half of what it would have been if this consortium had not come into being. I therefore think it befits us, the country, the Opposition and everyone to express gratitude and appreciation for the Minister’s endeavour to place this matter on a sound footing and to save the motorist this great expense.

While saying this, I want to point out that notwithstanding the fact that third party insurance was placed on a sound footing and the costs considerably curtailed as a result of the method of investigation and the settlement of claims, the premiums that are collected for third party insurance are insufficient to cover the claims. The premium rate is only stablilized today as a result of the interest we receive on the investment of the premiums. If it were not for this interest we receive as a result of the investment of the premiums, the tariffs for third party insurance would already have had to be increased again.

I want to point out that since 1965 we have received R123,9 million by way of third party insurance premiums and that we have received R18,4 million in interest on the investment of those premiums. This makes a total income for the period of R142,3 million. To date an amount of R58 million has been paid out in claims, but the estimate of claims already received amounts to R113 million. In other words, the total expenditure could amount to R172 million. It is a fact that these claims are about three years in arrears, and in the meantime we can earn the interest on the premiums, but if it were not for that the motorist would already have had to be paying a higher premium.

The third statement that axiomatically follows from this is that if this legislation does not cause a change, does not meet with all the expectations we cherish for it and does not check the death toll on our roads, I cannot see how third party premiums can be prevented from increasing in the future. Therefore we must see these matters in context. We must accept the fact that we are now going to pay a levy of 50 cents to indirectly prevent or combat the increase of third party premiums. We must not regard this as a separate and independent tax the motorist now has to pay. We must see it in context as an aid being employed to help the motorist keep the premiums low.

The hon. member for Yeoville raised the argument that we should take the money we need for this from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. He said it is a sectional tax, a tax that is discriminatory. Sir, if one takes this from the Consolidated Revenue Fund one would also place the tax burden on the reckless pedestrian, but then the person who does not own a motor car and presents no safety risk must also pay; then it is also unfair to him. The hon. member for Yeoville’s argument does not, therefore, quite hold water. I want to tell the hon. member that I appreciate the attitude he is adopting in this connection, but I want to point out to him that we are dealing here with a matter of consequence, a big and important matter for South Africa, literally a matter of vital importance. I believe that every member in this House is very sympathetic to the principles of this matter, as the hon. member also said. We must not be unnecessarily sceptical; we must not harbour fears; we must not place obstacles in the path. Instead of creating the impression in the motorist that in terms of this legislation he is being hit and taxed, instead of creating the wrong attitude in him about this legislation, it is important that we should give him the correct attitude towards this legislation because we need his co-operation more than that of anyone else if we want to make a success of this legislation. We must not tell him that he ought to feel aggrieved because an additional tax is now being imposed upon him. We must see the matter in the correct perspective. If we do this, we have a chance of making headway in this endeavour.

Must we conceal the truth?

Sir, when one listens to the hon. the Deputy Minister introducing this Bill, one realizes that this particular Bill was drawn up as a result of an interim report. At first glance, when one goes through this Bill, one realizes that it is a Bill which has been put together very hastily. I would not say that no thought was given to it, but when one reads through the various clauses of the Bill one realizes that there has been a lack of consultation with the people concerned. One wonders whether the Road Federation was consulted; one wonders whether the motoring organizations were consulted; one wonders whether the local authorities were consulted, and one wonders whether the Road Safety Associations themselves that exist in the various towns throughout our country were consulted. When one goes through this Bill, one realizes the looseness of the whole make-up of the Bill. We on this side of the House support this measure in principle as one which we hope will, when put into effect, do something to cut down the considerable number of fatalities on our roads today. But, Sir, this Bill is not going to cure anything; it is not going to work unless the council of 12 members that is being set up does something about it. Sir, the council that we had under the old Road Safety Act may have been unwieldy, but one must realize what difficulties they had. The council was faced with a lack of funds and power, but, make no mistake about it, they did very useful work. They organized symposiums, and I notice that this particular Bill makes provision for that. They organized lectures and safety weeks, but their hands were tied because they simply did not have enough money. To replace this well-tried organization, we are now going to have a council of 12 members. One is disturbed to find that only one of the members has to be a person who, in the opinion of the Minister, commands special knowledge with regard to road safety on account of training and experience—only one out of 12. The other members are going to be members of the executive committees of the provinces and of South-West Africa, and other ministerial appointees. Sir, it is quite obvious when you read the Bill that it is intended to by-pass the provincial councils, because all the way through this Bill it is stated that the council will report to the Minister. Whether the Minister will consult with the provincial councils, that is another matter. Now that provision is being made in this Bill for the appointment of 12 individuals to cut down the very high death-rate, one wonders what is going to happen to the organizations in the various towns, to these voluntary workers, who have taken a great interest in road safety, who have organized lectures in schools and have done great work in the interests of road safety. One wonders what is going to happen to them. It is not mentioned in the Bill whether they are going to be retained. Is this organization just going to disappear, or are these officials going to be taken over by the new council? Sir, these local committees also raised funds, and when one thinks of the interest taken by these clubs and individuals in road safety and the time that they spent in promoting road safety, one wonders why they were not consulted before this Bill was presented to the House. I have a feeling that this Bill has been rushed to this House in order to meet the deadline of the 13th April. Sir, we in this House should not be put in that position. In a very important measure like this there should have been greater consultation. We would then have had a better measure. We do not want to have to come here every year and find that we have to amend the Bill because the hon. the Minister has found faults in it and that it does not work. We do not want that sort of hit-miss legislation. As I have said, this council that is now being set up is not going to save one life until it starts working and sets up a complete organization throughout the country to replace the existing organization. Have we got sufficient time?

We will just take it over.

The Bill does not say so.

Of course it does.

It will just take over the individuals, not the local committees.

You have not done your homework properly.

I have done my homework, the hon. member need not worry about that. He has not done his homework. If he reads the Bill he will find that no provision is made for that. Sir, in this Bill we see the seeds of empire building; we see the seeds of a new department. We find that a director is going to be appointed; and that the members of this council are going to receive salaries. I foreshadow that by the time the necessary organization has been set up throughout the country, we are going to have a very substantial department or sub-department of transport to deal with road safety.

Do you still support the Bill?

Mr. H. M. TIMONEY; If it is going to save one life, I would still support it, and that is why we do support it. But, Sir, this Bill does not go far enough. You have the nucleus here of a very big department that is going to be built up.

When you look at the functions of this new council, you find that they are very similar to the functions of the old council. This council, in coming to a decision, will not consult with the local authorities. It may consult with the Provincial Administrations, but it will report direct to the Minister, with the net result that legislation will come from this House in order to control traffic in this country. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister, as I asked him last year, whether he foreshadows a national Traffic Act. One wonders whether the hon. the Minister knows of the work that was done by the Provincial Administrations and the consultative committee, and of the submissions made to them over the years in order to control traffic. Sir, we are in a most difficult position. There has been a committee of inquiry into the Act, but we have not seen its report. We have in this Bill the skeleton of an organization which is going to be built up. The main purpose of this Bill is to put it on the Statute Book so that we can collect the 50 cents from the motorist at the end of April. This measure cannot work as it stands here, and the Minister knows it. The hon. member for Yeoville has given the figures to this House of what the motorist pays by way of taxation. I do not agree with the hon. member for Parow. This is an indirect tax. We have seen it so often in this country coming from that Government, this indirect taxation where they put a little bit on here and a little bit on there and call it a levy. This is nothing else but another tax on the motorist.

When did you change your policy? It was your policy to impose a 5-shilling tax, as I will show you in Hansard.

In regard to the 50 cents that will be levied on the motorist one wonders why the Minister picked 50 cents. I suppose he did this because it is a round figure and it is easy to collect from one source. One wonders whether one will have to pay commission on the collection or what is going to happen when a man changes his car once or twice during the year. Will he have to pay this 50 cents repeatedly? There is nothing in the Bill about it. If you read the Bill, every time the motorist takes out a third party disc he will have to pay 50 cents. It is quite possible that a man who has two or three cars will have to pay 50 cents for each car. He will have to pay for each disc, and if he changes his car he will have to pay another 50 cents. It will be loaded and so it will go on.

But now, as has been said, it is not only the motorists who cause accidents. There are also the pedestrians. We know too that no matter how careful you are, accidents happen. The Minister of Railways knows that with all the precautions he takes and with his marvellous signalling system and the training that he gives the young railwaymen, he has a very high percentage of accidents on the Railways. It is the individual who is at fault, and in nine cases out of ten an accident is caused not through a vehicle breaking down or a fault in the vehicle. It is the individual himself. That is why not only the motorist should be affected by this, but every taxpayer in the country should be asked to contribute to this particular fund. I agree with the hon. member for Parow that there will be insufficient money if this scheme is to be carried out properly. If the Minister is going to carry out this policy properly he will collect insufficient money by way of this 50 cent levy. I hope he will not think of making it R1 next year and increasing it above that, for the simple reason that I think the motorist pays quite enough already by way of taxation.

As I say, this measure which has been brought to this House, has been rushed here. After the interim report this Bill was introduced, and there has been no consultation with the people who really count, like the Automobile Association. There has not been any consultation with any of the people who count, like the Road Federation or any other organization, or with industry or commerce. It has just been done by an inter-departmental committee and on this council, as I say, there will be only one individual who is appointed because of his expert knowledge. I think that in a Bill like this the Government should take note of these things and not just come to this House and rush a Bill through here in order to meet a deadline. That is all the Minister has been doing. He has brought this Bill to this House and is rushing it through here without consultation with those people, just to get it on the Statute Book so that the motorist can pay his 50 cents at the end of April.

When an important Bill such as this is before the House one comes to realize anew the appalling problem of road accidents in South Africa. The hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Salt River stated very clearly that they support the principles contained in the Bill, except for a few provisions, mentioned by the hon. member for Yeoville, which they reserved. In the first place a great fuss was made about the levy of 50 cents. The hon. the Deputy Minister asked the hon. member for Salt River, by way of an interjection, when they had changed their policy, because I want to tell you, Sir, that in the year 1960, when the Road Safety Act was passed in this House, there was an hon. member who sat on the other side, the then hon. member for Turffontein, Mr. Durrant. I want to quote what he said in respect of this provision. In all fairness I want to say that Mr. Durrant was one of the few United Party members who had some common sense, because he eventually crossed over to the National Party. I should like to quote what Mr. Durrant said. This quotation very clearly motivates what this side of the House has in mind today, i.e. to combat road accidents in South Africa to the best of our ability. Mr. Durrant said the following, and I quote from Hansard, col. 346 of 25th January 1960—

That was the erstwhile Mr. Van Ryneveld, who advocated in this House that all levels of the population should be taxed in respect of such a levy—

And this is important, Sir.

… Sir, one may say that on occasion pedestrians are as much responsible for actions as motorists, but, Sir, motorists are compelled by law to take out third party insurance, and that third party risk does not only cover the driver but also pedestrians. It gives a very wide coverage, and I want to put forward a suggestion to the Minister that he should consult his colleague, the Minister of Finance, with a view to finding a more equitable way of providing the necessary funds, and I am sure that every motorist in South Africa will accept the suggestion that a levy of, say, 5s per annum should be added to the third party insurance premium.

In 1960 this same principle was therefore advocated, on behalf of his party, by an hon. member who was sitting on that side of the House. Since we are dealing today with an Act which is exclusively based on one very important ideal, i.e. to promote road safety in South Africa, to try to combat the road accident rate which, as I shall indicate briefly, has assumed alarming proportions in our country, I was grateful, I think that I could at least learn from the hon. member for Yeoville that they support this Act in general principle. But now the hon. member for Salt Rvier must not refer to this extremely important legislation as a measure that is just quickly being piloted through the House by the hon. the Deputy Minister for the purpose of obtaining the 50 cent levy. That is definitely not so. When we are speaking about road safety it is imperative that we present the House with a few figures to prove what alarming proportions this extensive evil is assuming in South Africa. The hon. the Deputy Minister has already furnished the House with certain figures. I should not like to bore the House with a long list of statistics. However, I think that in order to establish the scope of this evil it is important for me to touch briefly on a few facts to establish the problem of road accidents in South Africa.

In order to obtain the desired data, a sample of 687 claims files was analysed and additional data obtained from insurance companies. With this data as a basis, a unit cost calculation was made in respect of each of the various losses, which in turn was applied to the latest statistics as published by the Department of Statistics, i.e. in respect of the year ending on 31st August, 1971. I am just furnishing the statistics to indicate what road accidents cost South Africa. This is, of course, over and above the heartache and the misery caused to numerous people in our father-land. Fatal accidents for the year ending 31st August, 1971 were as follows: Whites, 2 312; non-Whites, 6 254. The figure for seriously injured persons was 6 753 for Whites and 11 277 for non-Whites. In round figures those with light injuries totalled 19 000 amongst the Whites and 25 000 amongst the non-Whites. The number of accidents that took place during that year amount to the appalling figure of 217 729. And 271 061 motor vehicles were involved. I shall now furnish the unit costs, and man hour losses, from third party claims for fatal, serious and light injuries. Fatal injuries, calculated on the basis of compensation, medical costs, legal costs, assessor and diverse costs, amounted to the alarming total of R9 693 038 in respect of Whites, and the equally alarming amount of R2 390 000 for non-Whites. For those seriously injured the figure for Whites was R3 800 000, and for non-Whites R1 800 000. The costs for those with light injuries is quite a bit less. On the basis that at least 37 per cent of the White and 35 per cent of the non-White population of the Republic are economically active, the 8 566 fatally injured represent the following losses, calculated according to the same table of compensation, i.e. according to medical costs, etc. As far as Whites are concerned there is the alarming amount of more than R8 million, and for non-Whites more than R5 million. The 18 022 seriously injured represent a loss of R23 million in respect of Whites and R19 million for non. Whites. The 217 729 accidents resulted in 73 778 persons being injured. About 40 per cent of these injured persons will institute claims for damages since their injuries result from unlawful actions by other persons. The loss in man hours, calculated on the basis of an eight-hour day and a five-day week, with 37 per cent of the Whites and 35 per cent of the non-Whites calculated as being economically active, amounts to the following: for fatal injuries the alarming amount of R64 million in respect of Whites and R98 million for non-Whites. This amounts to a total of R165 799 000 in respect of all races in South Africa. To sum up I want to furnish the House with the statistics indicating that damage as a result of physical injury from the 217 000 accidents amounted to more than R65 million. The total for physical injuries amounted to R75 million and material damage to R127 million. This gives one a total of more than R200 million which it costs South Africa each year from a material point of view. What alarms me, over and above the figures I have now given to the House, is that in South Africa the road accident rate is the highest, in comparison with other countries in the world. A few weeks ago I read a report in the Star under the heading “South Africa has the worst accident rate in the world”. The article states the following—

These are facts that alarm one. The question arises as to whether road accidents in South Africa can be prevented or not. I want to state very clearly that I am aware of the fact that in dealing with road accidents we are dealing with a tremendous problem with many facets. I want to concede that there are many facets in respect of human factors, and that there are a thousand and one things that can cause a road accident. I am also convinced that if we were to bring a thousand people together and ask each of them how road accidents should be combated in South Africa, each of them would have a different solution for the problem. The introduction of this Bill today by the hon. the Deputy Minister is a great and positive attempt at combating road accidents in South Africa. In no way do I present myself as an authority on the solution of the problem of road safety. However, I believe that if we perhaps approach this problem on a more scientific basis we shall probably have greater success in combating road accidents. It is, after all, a recognized fact that when one wants to solve a matter one naturally has to acquire an intimate knowledge of the matter before one can solve it. I am convinced that if we approach the matter on more scientific lines we shall achieve greater success. In my hand I have a report issued by the C.S.I.R. It was published by their Institute for Road Research under the title “Report on Case Studies of Road Traffic Accidents.” I paged quickly through the report; I did not read it in full, but it is clear that it is a far-reaching report of what is being done by the C.S.I.R in respect of this problem. I now cannot but thank the C.S.I.R. very warmly on behalf of ourselves in this House, and also on behalf of South Africa, for the excellent work they are doing to promote road safety in South Africa.

I now just want to give the House a few ideas, my personal thoughts on this matter. I believe that this could perhaps be brought to the attention of the new council, when it is constituted. Since I have said that road safety could, in my humble opinion, be promoted if the matter were tackled more scientifically, let me also say that I believe that our penal provisions in South Africa in respect of persons contravening the road traffic laws are hopelessly too lenient. I do not think that the penal provisions in South Africa actually serve as a deterrent any more as far as those persons contravening traffic laws are concerned. I just want to refer to a column “American Scene” in the New York Herald in which, inter alia, the following remarks, informative in my opinion, are made—

Connecticut, for example, has managed to bring down its death rate to about half the national average by a campaign of strict traffic law enforcement.

Some of the laws are stiff—a policeman can suspend a driver’s licence on the spot, just as he would hand out a ticket.

There was an outcry when the laws were passed but Connecticut now points to a death rate of 3,2 deaths per hundred million miles of driving, compared with 5,6 for the country as a whole. (In most other countries it is higher.)

In this connection I could perhaps also briefly refer to what the penal provisions in other countries are in respect of traffic offence laws. In brackets I just want to say that the penal provisions in South Africa no longer serve the purpose of deterring people who contravene our road laws. For example, in Italy the driver of a vehicle that collides with a pedestrian, who is legally using a pedestrian crossing, is taken into custody and detained until he is tried in court and sentenced. The Austrian Government has recently passed a Bill in which provision is made for the maximum penalties that can be imposed. In the case of a serious traffic accident in which the driver is found guilty of reckless or negligent driving, or driving under the influence of liquor, the penalty is two years in gaol or a maximum fine of R10 000; for accidents in which a person is seriously injured the penalty is three years in gaol and in the case of fatal injuries five years in gaol. In certain countries, for example France, drivers’ licences are issued subject to certain restrictions. These restrictions include the fact that a driver may not drive a motor vehicle faster than 50 miles per hour for a specific period. Disregard of this restriction subjects the licence-holder to a maximum fine of R54 and the driver’s licence is suspended for a period of six months. Let us look at the position in Scandinavia. The Scandinavian countries also make use of breathaliser tests to determine when persons are driving vehicles under the influence of liquor. In cases where the alcohol concentration in the blood exceeds ,15—the same provision we have in South Africa— the person is charged with having driven a vehicle under the influence of liquor and a sentence imposed that varies from one month to five years in gaol. An alcohol concentration in the blood of .05 to .15 per cent is regarded as an offence, and sentences are imposed according to salary, varying from 25 days to 150 days. In London recently a judge said the following in passing sentence—

The judge said the five cases showed that people were obliged to buy very cheap, unroadworthy cars which led to the death of innocent people. It was clear that some of the accused had been drinking.

Quite clearly, sentences must be passed which made people face up to that embarrassing situation—and leave their cars when they have had too much to drink.

I now briefly want to make a few suggestions which the Minister may perhaps consider and which can also be placed in the hands of this new council for consideration. I want to conclude with a final thought. I hope and trust that here in the seventies we shall enter a new era in road safety. It is my sincere wish, as all of us in this House hope, trust and pray, that this legislation will prove a great success for us and will contribute, to a large extent, towards combating this extensive evil.

Mr. Speaker, this measure which is before this House is indeed an important one and deals with a subject which one can call a social one, namely the question of road safety in general and the method in which the Government is directing its efforts in combating the problem of road accidents. I think one can agree to a certain extent with what the hon. member for Welkom has said when he quoted various figures illustrating the severity of this problem. We on this side of the House support this Bill in principle, but there are various aspects concerning the Bill which we believe require greater clarification. In this regard one refers to the general principle that is involved, the principle of establishing a fund so as to promote road safety. Wen one looks at the figures of the past, one will see that these figures have been calculated on a joint basis including contributions from the Central Government, the provincial administrations and from donations. We believe it is important to maintain the situation on that basis in regard to a problem such as this. If one looks at the last financial report of the Road Safety Council, one sees that the amount of some R¼ million was contributed by the Central Government, R87 500 each by the Transvaal and Cape Provincial Administrations, R50 000 by the Natal Administrations, R25 000 by the Orange Free State Administration and R15 000 by the South West African Administration. According to clause 15 of the Bill that is before us, the clause in terms of which the establishment and the control of the fund is outlined, we see that the money which will be paid into the fund will come from the 50c levy. It also makes provision for money to be appropriated by Parliament, but it does not mention the provincial administrations. I would like to ask the hon. Deputy Minister whether it is the intention that the administration of this fund should almost entirely be derived from the 50c levy that is proposed in terms of clause 25 of the Bill. This aspect, I believe, is an important one if one looks at the general…

Please repeat the question in regard to the 50c levy.

I ask whether the 50c levy which is proposed in clause 25 will provide the necessary funds for the administration of the particular fund that has been established in terms of clause 15. Clause 15 gives the various sources of income so as to constitute that fund. One must compare the position as it will be in terms of that clause with the present position. The only figures which one is guided by are the figures which have been included in the last financial report on the final account of the income and expenditure account of the Road Safety Council for the year ending, 31st March, 1970. Some R521 000 was received from income consisting of income from the Central Government, the four provinces, the Territory of South West Africa and a R6 000 contribution from the Transkeian Government. Then, other sources of income include R70 000 which have been received as donations. That is why it is important for us to ascertain the calculation that the hon. Deputy Minister must have made in terms of the expected expenditure that will be incurred with the passing of this particular Bill. It would appear that from the 50c levy on 2½ million vehicles, approximately R1¼ million will be derived. This raises the question of the part played by the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, because if one looks at the last report of the South African Road Safety Council, you will see that it features the fact that the Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund have made a donation of R50 000 to the Road Safety Council. This was a contribution towards the council’s campaign for pedestrians. Later on in the report mention is made of a further donation of R16 000 also from the same fund towards the campaign for the prevention of accidents amongst cyclists. It appears that a position has arisen prior to the introduction of the Bill, whereby certain funds have already been donated through the Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund to the Road Safety Council Fund for the purposes of intensifying their efforts in road safety. Here it would appear that perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister and the Government have taken a guide from the fact that the Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund has been in such a strong and healthy position that it was able to make a donation of such magnitude to the Road Safety Council. We know what the position of the fund is. In reply to a question that was put by my colleague, the hon. member for Port Natal, only a few days ago, we heard that this fund stands at some R104 million. This is an aspect which directly affects the interests of those members of the consortium belonging to the Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund. Obviously, if they are able to make a contribution which in turn will result in a reduction in the number of accidents, it will bring about a reduction in the number of claims on the particular fund.

The question of the necessity of requiring those persons who have to pay third party insurance to make this additional contribution of 50 cent is a matter which the hon. member for Yeoville has pertinently put to the hon. the Deputy Minister. Here one has to take into account the fact that the community as a whole is involved in this whole aspect of road safety. That is why I said at the commencement that this is a social measure. One realizes the enormity of the tragedies and the miseries that are brought about by road accidents. Those who suffer physical injury very often are physically disabled for the rest of their lives. Various speakers have pointed this out. The last speaker on the other side, the hon. member for Welkom, has again used statistics and figures to demonstrate the enormity of this problem. The Deputy Minister himself also gave the House various figures which can only shock the community as a whole. However, Sir, all the members of the community must play their part in road safety. If this is to be the principle, that all the people should play their part in road safety, then surely the principle ought to be to maintain a position whereby road safety measures are financed in the main by the Consolidated Revenue Fund, so that the community as a whole is making a contribution towards this social problem which does exist as a result of the loss of lives and injuries to people. I believe that this aspect is one to which the Deputy Minister should give greater consideration. As regards the part played by the public, we know that donations of public-spirited people have come forward in the past to the benefit of the Road Safety Council. In many instances, of course, these donations will no longer come forward, because people will sit back and say, “The 50 cents per year on my third party insurance is more than paying for the requirements of road safety in South Africa.”

Don’t be so pessimistic.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says I must not be so pessimistic, but I do really feel that this is an aspect which in the past has played a very important part in making the public aware of the importance of road safety, to such an extent in fact that they have come forward to make a donation towards the efforts of road safety associations and local committees. I think this aspect is one which should be encouraged. The community’s participation in road safety is of course of paramount importance in making it a success.

That will still be done.

I hope so. It remains to be seen. We must remember that this Bill is bringing about a change. We hope that we will see in the course of time whether the change is going to be to the advantage or not of road safety in South Africa. After all, the hon. the Deputy Minister referred to the Committee on Road Safety and the interim report which we have not had an opportunity of seeing; but the other committee of inquiry into road safety, road traffic and road traffic legislation of 1964 submitted a report. The members of that committee of inquiry, in giving their views, were optimistic; they were certainly not pessimistic. I quote from page 13 of the report—

The conclusion to which they came was this—

That was the conclusion arrived at by the committee of inquiry in 1964. We now have before us a Bill which is radically altering the structure of this Road Safety Council. The hon. the Deputy Minister is in effect saying to the country that we have not been able to cope with this question of road safety with the material that we have at our disposal at the present time and therefore we have to come forward with an amending Bill which, it must be remembered, repeals the Act of 1960. Sir, the question of public participation in the road safety campaign is of paramount importance. This is mentioned in the Bill in clause 6 in which the functions of the council are defined, and in paragraph (b) of which it is stated that the council is to undertake the collection of information in connection with road safety and make it available to the authorities and persons concerned and the public generally. Obviously, therefore, the question of public participation, community participation, is of paramount importance in the successful implementation of this Bill which is designed to bring about a reduction in road accidents. Included in the functions of the council, is the question of research, which we all realize is an important matter and has received attention in the past, but it is felt that in some instances it is not receiving the attention that it deserves. Various hon. members who have participated in the debate have stressed various aspects of road safety, to which they feel greater attention should be paid in order to reduce the high accident rate in South Africa. In this connection various reports have been brought out which still require the attention of the Government, although some of these reports date back some years. Here I want to refer to a report of the president of the Automobile Association in June, 1966. The president, Mr. Brian Kelly, is a man with a great knowledge of road safety and he has been connected with road safety for many, many years. Let me quote what he says—

I do not want to weary the House by quoting long extracts from this report, but the essence of the report is that the president of the A.A. calls upon the Government to expedite the elimination of danger spots and accident-prone areas on our roads in South Africa. He makes a very strong plea that road engineers, in their efforts to prevent accidents, should give the fullest attention to this aspect of the elimination of these danger spots and accident-prone areas. This statement was made almost six years ago, and I believe that there are still far too many danger spots on our national and other roads in South Africa.

There are still far too many fatal accidents resulting not necessarily from bad driving but from defects in the design of the road, where there is perhaps a hidden approach or an extremely sharp corner. We find that accidents occur at frequent intervals at these danger spots. I believe that it is very important that the Government should give its full co-operation to this new council in its efforts to eliminate these danger spots. Sir, there are other aspects of road safety in regard to which hon. members of this House can put forward their own ideas as to what should be done. We believe that when it comes to road fatalities, this is a problem which is shared by all of us. Other hon. members have quoted certain figures here and I make no apology for quoting further figures because I believe it is important to stress to the public generally the tragedy of accidents and the misery that it causes people. It is tragic to see the increase in the number of people in South Africa who have been crippled by motor accidents. I have in my constituency a special school for physically handicapped children. This school is under the jurisdiction of the hon. the Minister of Education. At this particular school today there are more physically handicapped and crippled children whose disability is attributable to motor accidents than there are handicapped children whose handicap is attributable to diseases such as polio or other causes. This state of affairs is causing great alarm to those people who look after the welfare of crippled children. It is estimated that some 16 000 people a year are permanently physically disabled and crippled as the result of motor accidents in South Africa. Many of these are children and they have to face the remainder of their lives with this physical disability. I think it is a great pity that these people have to face their future with a great deal of trepidation, and in many cases with a great deal of pain. We know that last year a national pedestrian campaign was launched in an effort to reduce the number of accidents. Figures which were made available at the time showed that during a period of only nine months there had been 5 132 fatal accidents involving 2 293 pedestrians. We know that it is the bounden duty of parents to advise and assist their children in learning the basic principlès and fundamental rules as far as road safety is concerned. Sir, road safety is a matter of community participation, arid this measure is a social measure which deserves the support of this House, the support of all levels of government and of all bodies, organizations and associations whose aim is to reduce road accidents. We on this side support the principle of the Bill and we support the Second Reading, but we do have reservations, as the hon. member for Yeoville has indicated, as to the manner in which the hon. the Deputy Minister intends to raise approximately R1¼ million from one particular section of the community, that is to say, the motorists. We believe that this is an important measure, and in the Committee Stage we will endeavour to persuade the Deputy Minister and the Government to realize that it is their duty, not to single out the motorists for this additional financial burden, but to get the whole of the community to participate in this campaign.

Sir, the House has discussed this question of road safety very thoroughly. Hon. members on both sides of the House have mentioned astronomical figures to show what the death rate on our roads as a result of accidents, the damage to motor vehicles and the financial damage in general, also as far as loss of manpower is concerned, means to the country. Sir, I do not want to bore you with figures here, but I should just like to mention two figures which I think are important. It is tragic to think that during the past year the accident rate in South Africa in respect of all races reached the tremendously high figure mentioned here by the hon. the Minister. This figure can be compared to the total White population of a city like Bloemfontein. The death rate on our roads in respect of all races—over 8 000—is considerably greater than the White population of a place such as Bethlehem. I maintain that if one views these figures in that context, one realizes the magnitude of this problem. But on an occasion such as this, where we are considering measures to improve this situation, one cannot but express one’s gratitude and appreciation, in the first place, to the Road Safety Council and all their collaborators for what has been done up to now. I wonder what the figures would have been if the Road Safety Council and all its collaborators had not performed this task in this manner to the best of their ability. I think these figures would have been much higher. One also thinks with gratitude of the financial contributions, mentioned here by the hon. member for Umbilo, which came not only from the central Government and the local and provincial authorities, but also from South-West Africa, from the Transkei Government, and other organizations. One thinks with much gratitude of the sums of money which have been made available. One also thinks of insurance companies, oil companies, motor vehicle manufacturers, chain stores, motor-sport clubs, tyre manufacturers, the Press and the articles they publish, the magazines, the S.A.B.C. and Springbok Radio in connection with news-flashes, etc., and also of bioscopes and drive-in cinemas for the films they display. I say that this was an effort tackled on a national level through which we succeeded to a large extent in gripping the imagination of our public. We are all confronted with the problem today that in spite of all this effort on the part of this Road Safety Council in all the facets of road safety in South Africa, in the midst of all this assistance which was rendered not only in the financial sphere, but in other spheres as well, the accident rate on our roads is still increasing. That is why I think we have reached a stage where we should consider new legislation. If we consider this problem confronting us, we see in the first place that this problem of road safety in South Africa is still basically a problem of money. In one of the reports of the Road Safety Council it is also specifically stated that money is one of the problems. On the other hand we have the problem that third party insurance for motor vehicles is tending to rise steeply. Now I think, to make this argument very brief, that the Minister has succeeded, in spite of all the circumstances to which he was tied down because the Premium Committee had to determine the third party premiums for motor vehicles, in finding a good method, by stating in this legislation that a specific amount of 50 cents will be levied on each motor vehicle, of surmounting this problem of finances. Consequently it is specifically stated in the Bill, in clause 25 (3), that the latter amount is for all purposes deemed to be portion of that premium. I maintain that we should not see this amount as a separate amount of 50 cents, but as portion of that premium which has to be paid in order to find the necessary funds for this purpose. I think it is very good business, if one also considers the connection between the increase in the number of accidents and the increase in the number of motor vehicles on the road, that we should also utilize this amount to the benefit of the motor vehicle insurance purchaser to assist in this way. Since we are also rectifying this problem of overlapping authority, which arose, in this legislation, it is now possible to deal with and administer this matter of road safety correctly. I think it is in fact good business if we take this amount of 50 cents from the motor car owner and administer it correctly in order in that way to keep this third party premium low. I say that I think we should not view this 50 cents as a separate item, but as having been incorporated in this way, and that it will be utilized in the interests of the motor vehicle owner. It is actually a percentage of the premium we have to pay for the purpose of keeping this premium for the motor vehicle owner as low as possible.

I do not want to discuss this legislation any further. It has already been explained thoroughly, and the House has already spent a great deal of time on it, but there is still a deficiency if we look at the ordinances which have been placed on the Statute Book by our provinces. If we look at Ordinance No. 21 of 1966 we find that there is a deficiency as far as the fines are concerned because our ordinary courts may only impose a fine of R200 and six months’ imprisonment under their jurisdiction. If we look at section 138 (4) (a), reckless driving, we see in that ordinance that a fine not exceeding R800 or imprisonment for two years may be imposed. We see in section 138 (1) (iv) (b) that for careless driving a fine not exceeding R400 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year may be imposed. Section 140 (1) provides that for driving under the influence of liquor a fine not exceeding R800 or imprisonment for a period of two years may be imposed. Section 140 (2) provides that when the percentage of alcohol in a driver’s bloodstream, expressed in terms of 100 mm of blood, is not less than 0,015 per cent, a fine not exceeding R400 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year may be imposed. Now we have this problem that the jurisdiction of our ordinary courts is merely a fine of R200 or six months’ imprisonment. Then, too, our regional courts may only impose sentences of un to R600 or three years’ imprisonment. Now I am not advocating that this ordinance as it is being applied according to its intention should have the effect that people should be referred to the regional courts. This will cause overloading and it will be an unnecessary waste of time. But I think the Minister could also consider stipulating in this legislation that ordinary courts may be able to impose the fines and penalties provided in the ordinances of their province. These are measures which are already contained in the ordinances, and which we regard in a very serious light. The incidence of accidents in South Africa is of such a nature that we in this House should cause the responsibility of this House and of the Government to be felt and I cannot but request that drastic action and the correct action should be taken so that we can safeguard our people, do something about this great number of people who are not only killed, but who are injured every year, with the attendant losses in manpower and money, and protect our population, and also do something which will grip their imagination, and carry out this task as we should and to the best of our ability.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down and other hon. members on that side of the House dealt at some length with the question of the 50 cent levy on the Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund. I will deal with that during the course of my speech. In doing so I hope as well to be able to cover some of the other remarks that hon. members have made.

There is not a person in South Africa, let alone in this House, who does not welcome this Bill. Of that, I think, we can all be sure. From the speeches of my colleagues who have preceded me that has become quite obvious. We all welcome this Bill and we all agree that something drastic is required to halt the road toll in our country. There is not a family in South Africa that has been unaffected by the road accident rate. There is not a family in South Africa that rests in peace when a member is out on the roads at night or during the day, particularly if such a person is delayed. Each and everyone of us in South Africa realize to our lasting shame that not only have we the highest accident rate in the world, but we are one of the few countries in which that accident rate is in fact increasing and not decreasing as in other parts of the world. The thing that concerns us mostly is the fact that we seem to have lost control of the high accident rate in South Africa.

It is a dreadful thing when one realizes that in 1970 nearly 8 000 people were killed on the roads. It is a terrible thing too, Mr. Speaker, when we know, according to details given to me by the hon. the Minister that whereas the figure in respect of the period January to September, 1970 was 5 835, this figure had increased to 6 285 over the corresponding period for 1971.

One every hour.

One every hour. This is an increase of 450 during that time. The hon. the Deputy Minister has given us other figures. I do not intend to recite the long list I have because I do not believe they will prove any more than we already know. They do, however, prove how bad our record is.

The figure that interests me particularly is that 61 000 people have been killed on South African roads since 1961, while nearly 200 000 were seriously injured. A thing that we overlook too often—a fact mentioned by the hon. member for Umbilo —is that for every person injured there may be many who become vegetables or are crippled for life. It has been estimated by the authorities that for every seven people injured one is crippled and so severely injured that he is virtually useless for the rest of his life. This, Mr. Speaker, is a bill, a cost that no country, let alone South Africa, can afford to bear. We cannot be sure, obviously, that this Bill is going to cure or help cure some of our problems. But we can be sure that the old system did not. For that reason, as far as I am concerned, and I think as far as everybody is concerned, we are prepared and have reached the stage where we will try almost anything in order to bring about an improvement in this terrible record of ours. I say this with no political motive whatsoever. When visitors to South Africa are asked what things strike them most about our country, the first thing they will mention is apartheid, while the next is the drivers on our roads. Surely this is brought out so clearly in the record that has been mentioned here by all the speakers. As hon. members on this side of the House have said, we welcome this Bill. We welcome this Bill with certain reservations, but those reservations do not outweigh our sincere belief that this Bill may in fact be able to do something in respect of this record. As other members have done, I will deal with the reservations a little later.

What is clear is that the existing method for combating the road accident rate is not working. I believe it is no good in blaming anybody for this and it is no good looking for the fault, why this should be so. I, and anybody who has had anything to do with road safety, know that the people who have concerned themselves with road safety have done their best. There is no question about that. The people who have interested themselves in road safety in all walks of life have done their level best and it has not been for the lack of trying that our record is so bad. It is my own view that it has not been for the lack of trying that our record is so bad. It is my own view that it is pointless to try and place blame for the problem we have. It will not bring back the dead, it will not heal the injured and it certainly will not soften the loss for those who have lost members of their families in road accidents. As I have said before, there is hardly a family in South Africa who can make the claim that they have been fortunate in this respect. I believe that the present system has failed for one main reason, and that is because it has lacked the power to ensure that the recommendations of the people whose job it is to study road safety and to look at the problems of road safety, are enforced. As an hon. member has said, everyone is an expert on road safety matters. The hon. member for Welkom said that if you have a thousand people they will come up with a thousand answers to these problems. This is perfectly true. What worries me is that the real experts, the people whose job it is to look after road safety, and who have spent a lifetime worrying about the different aspects of road safety and how to reduce death on the roads, seem utterly powerless to do anything about it. In this connection I think of road safety officials and traffic policemen. If this measure gives them some of the power necessary to implement the knowledge they have obtained over a lifetime of devotion to this particular problem, the sooner it is placed on the Statute Book, the better.

I want to give an example of the sort of thing I mean and to emphasize how it works. In my own constituency there is a road which has been responsible for 45 deaths in the last seven years. Various traffic experts and road safety officials have made recommendations as to how to bring about an improvement in the conditions on this particular road. But despite all their recommendations and the fact that they are the experts, they have been and are completely ignored and not one of their recommendations has been implemented. It seems to me that this should not be allowed to continue. If we are going to pay people for their advice, and if people are going to devote their lives to the studying of this problem, I believe that we must, at least, pay attention to their recommendations. Unfortunately I have to level just a slight criticism—not a great criticism, because as the hon. the Deputy Minister knows I am not very critical in this House—at the Deputy Minister himself. In a report in the Financial Gazette of the 18th February, 1982, the hon. the Deputy Minister said the following, in the context of another matter, but it applies here: “Politically it will be very difficult to force drivers of unroadworthy vehicles to pay for the risks they were imposing on others, particularly as it would force many to take their cars off the road.” In passing that would not seem to be a very important statement, but for me to see it coming from the hon. the Deputy Minister, it is a very worrying one. The hon. the Deputy Minister is going to be responsible for this measure, yet makes a statement that has reservations and he talks about something being “politically difficult”. When it comes to road safety—and I am quite sure the hon. the Deputy Minister regrets using those particular words— there is nothing “politically difficult”. When it comes to road safety the duty of every South African, regardless of the political consequences, is to enforce those regulations. As far as I am concerned—and I am not quarrelling with the hon. the Deputy Minister, because these things sometimes come out like this—if my constituents would judge me as to whether I was politically expedient in a matter regarding road safety, then I would say that the sooner they found themselves another representative the better. I will certainly not have my opinions, judged by what is “politically expedient.” The hon. the Minister says that he couples this with forcing unroadworthy vehicles off the road. I think we must be perfectly clear—and I am sure the hon. the Minister agrees with me—that if a vehicle is unroadworthy it has no place on the road. We must force it off the road no matter what legislation we take to do it. I know that there is no political motive behind this measure: of that I am convinced and I hope that in time to come, when this measure is judged by its success or lack of success, we will still be able to keep political motives out of it. In saying that, I hope that the people who are appointed to the various boards are appointed because of their knowledge of the problems of the subject rather than for any other reason.

I want to draw attention to some of the problems. With an accident rate which has increased by 50 per cent in the period 1966 to 1970—figures have been mentioned by various members in the House—we still have a peculiar attitude among the population of South Africa to this problem. I know that in this House for instance we have had discussions in previous years on various legislative measures, but mostly on the Vote, about motor vehicle speeds. I can remember listening to debates in this House where members on both sides of the House had different points of view. The feeling of a good many of the members of the House was that speed was not a factor, provided a person drove a good motorcar that was capable of travelling at a high speed, and that, probably a bigger factor was the slower driver and that it was he who caused accidents. It is not strange that all over the world this particular problem has been high-lighted better than in the past. Dr. Rodendahl of Pretoria has done a great amount of research on motor accidents and related problems. He, for instance, worked out that at 10 miles an hour the chance of death in an accident was 1 in 1373. He goes on giving different figures and states that at 61 miles an hour the chance of an accident is one in seven.

The chance of an accident?

No, I am sorry; the chance of death in an accident. At 71 to 80 miles an hour the chance of death in an accident is one in two. At over 80 miles an hour the chance of death in an accident is one in one.

All cars?

Yes, motor vehicles. He mentioned that a vehicle travelling at 40 miles an hour was just as likely to have an accident at 80 miles an hour, but these are the figures that would apply if it did have an accident at those speeds. It was calculated that the time saved by driving at this speed would be only 13 per cent whereas the chance of death was increased by 400 per cent. The point I am trying to make here is that speed is a factor that exists in nearly every single accident on the roads. I was not happy to hear members on both sides of the House defending speed when it was debated at that particular time. I mentioned speed in this context, because in other parts of the world they have reduced the speed limits on roads at night. It is something which we do not do here and I hope this new Road Safety Council will bear some of the things that I am saying, in mind. I have not seen separate night speed limits anywhere in South Africa. It is also interesting to note that in the United States, where the roads are generally built for faster travel, they have in fact generally lower speed limits than in South Africa. I think it can be said without doubt that it has been discovered in other parts of the world that speed is a factor which when limited can reduce road accidents on the roads. Dealing with speed I might say I hope that this new body takes very stern action—action which I cannot foresee at the moment —against those commercial houses or those commercial enterprises which use the advertisement of speed as an essence in selling their particular product. On our cinema screens, recently, there was an advert, which I have seen, showing a sports car overtaking on a blind rise. The advert was aimed at advertising the punch of a particular brand of petrol. I have an advert here of a buzz-bike. It is sold to our youth and youngsters over the age of 16. The advert says: “Racers style, 5 speed sporty bike” I am making this point because I have the figures here of the number of people who have been killed on motorbikes in South Africa—of course I can’t say whether they were killed on this particular type of buzz-bike. The hon. Deputy Minister also has the figures because he has supplied them to me in the first instance. The number of people killed on motorbikes is fantastically high, yet the advertisers are allowed to advertise the sale of their products mainly on the basis of speed. They maintain that if you buy their type of buzz-bike you will be able to go faster than the next one. The strange thing about this is that our existing legislation, the legislation which we have had for so long, has not yet changed the regulations in regard to buzz-bikes. Yet the speed of buzz-bikes have increased by something like 30 per cent over the last 3 or 4 years. Despite this, the regulations have not been changed. I would ask the hon. Minister to draw this particular matter to the attention of the new council. He should also advise them to look into the regulations and the qualifications of youngsters who are now able to use these buzz-bikes, though it is right that they should be able to use them because with the high cost of transport this becomes necessary. I do not want to dwell too long on this matter.

There are other matters I would like to deal with. For instance I would like to deal with the problem which has been raised by, I think, the hon. member who preceded me. That was the question of sentences imposed on people who have been convicted under our road traffic ordinances. Here I have a cutting which says that a 21 year old man who drove through a red robot knocked down two elderly people and drove away, was told by the magistrate that the court could not conceive of worse conduct on the part of any motorist. This motorist was found guilty of driving the motor vehicle under the influence of liquor and on this charge was fined R150 or 75 days imprisonment, and a further three months imprisonment was conditionally suspended. That is one of the examples I would like to mention. Here is another. A man was fined a total of R180 or 50 days for driving while under the influence of liquor and for failing to stop after an accident. On the same page, a person here in Cape Town was fined R200 for picking protected wild flowers. I have reported to this House on a previous occasion how a person, on the Natal Coast I believe, was fined R500 for catching crayfish illegally The point I am trying to make is that we must surely get our priorities right in regard to this matter. We must make not only the penalty fit the crime, but we must be sure that we do not consider that crayfish are of higher value than human lives. It seems that most South Africans think the roads belong to them. Whether they are pedestrians or drivers, whether they are Black or White, the same thing applies. One of the reasons is probably that a person can commit a driving offence four thousand times in South Africa before he is found out. This was the figure that Dr. Rodendahl calculated in his research. In other words, he will be found out once in 4 000 times when he commits a traffic offence. He also conducted a survey at a stop street in Pretoria. During this period 436 vehicles went past the stop street, of which 121 did not stop at all. One hundred and thirty-eight only slowed down.

On his calculation, 60 per cent then had broken the law out of 436 vehicles. Then a friend of his dressed up as a traffic policeman and stood at the same stop street. The percentage that then broke the law was 6 per cent. It dropped from 60 per cent to 6 per cent because they saw a traffic policeman at the stop street.

I think it goes without saying that, in dealing with this problem, our attitude towards traffic law enforcement officers obviously must undergo radical changes. It is about time that we elevated traffic officers to the status that is rightly theirs. We pay a game ranger R205 a month to protect our game. We pay a traffic officer, joining for the first time, R157. In other words, we seem to consider the preservation of wild game far more important than the preservation of human life. So I say that we must raise the status of traffic officers, because our lives depend on these people.

In dealing with traffic officers, I believe that we must remember, this, that we cannot afford the luxury of things like job reservation in traffic control. We have the strange case where people object, for instance, to being given a traffic summons by an African policeman. I believe that that attitude is entirely wrong. The people did not object to being caught out for their traffic offences but objected because it was an African who caught them out! I know that in South Africa we are going to have to use more and more traffic policemen of different race groups. In this respect I would like to say that in Pinetown—the hon. member for Pinetown is sitting here—they have African traffic policemen. I will say without any hesitation that these men are the pride of Pinetown. These African traffic policemen are doing a tremendous job and they are doing it very well indeed. It is only natural that we should make more use of non-White traffic officers and they should not be restricted in their powers at all. When a man breaks the law, he should be apprehended by anybody who catches him doing so.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned I was dealing in the main with certain figures in regard to road safety. In the time left to me I will have to pass on to other matters, except to make one last observation. The accident rate in South Africa is growing at three times the pace of the population growth. If this does not give cause for concern, I do not know what will. There are one or two other observations I should like to make. I hope the new council considers the necessity for night courts. All over the world this is believed to bring about an improvement and a speeding up of trials of people who have committed offences. There should also be a far stricter control over the issuing of drivers’ licences and roadworthy certificates. I believe that these are other factors that must be considered.

Dealing with the Bill itself in the few minutes left to me, I should like to say that we had reservations about the composition of the council. We are pleased that it is not the 125 that it was initially in 1960, or the 70 members which was brought about by way of an amendment. I think the twelve now proposed is an improvement. It will be able to function much more satisfactorily. We are, however, concerned as to how the twelve are made up.

Another point is that the research angle receives quite prominent attention in the Bill. I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to ensure that we do not spend money on research which has already been covered overseas. Let us make use of the research that they have done. They have done a good deal of research that could apply to us. Let us confine our research to matters that are peculiar to South Africa.

Then too there is the staff question. In clause 18 (3) the Bill makes mention of the language proficiency of the staff. It has always been my contention in this House that we make an unnecessary fetish of language. I am far more concerned about the proficiency of the individual whose job is linked with road safety. His efficiency in road safety is to my mind the important thing and not whether he is proficient in languages.

In regard to the 50 cent levy, the hon. member for Parow mentioned a figure of R18 million in respect of interest earned by this fund. His arithmetic may be a bit better than mine because I never reached quite that figure, but I can assure the hon. the Minister that the figure in respect of interest is considerable. If the levy is not to come out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund as we suggest I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister and intend to prove to him during the committee Stage that it can well come out of the M.V.A. Fund which is making very good profits.

The hon. member for Parow also said that the consortium is running very well. I should like to suggest to him that if the consortium were enlarged and all the other companies included as well, it would run a good deal better, that is to say if they could run the business on the same basis and the same terms as the consortium has been able to do. In conclusion I would like to say that this Bill introduces in my view a new era in road safety in South Africa. Much will depend on the Minister and the Minister’s attitude in administering this Bill. So much will depend on his attitude. If lives are to be saved by this Bill, that will be sufficient commendation and justification for passing this measure with the speed with which we are attempting to do. Every single South African hopes that at long last we may have turned a corner. We all pray very sincerely that at last we will be able to make a big dent in our soaring death rate on the roads. As a result families will be able to sleep more peacefully at night when their members are out on the road.

Mr. Speaker, it was quite apparent from this debate that hon. members on both sides if this House are deeply aware of the importance of road safety. For that reason we were given an undertaking on the part of the Opposition that they would support the principle of this Bill. All that remains, therefore, is a difference in regard to procedure. Since we in this country have made such progress in regard to road safety and have reached the stage where we agree on the various aspects of principle, it has become necessary that we should preferably emphasize those things on which we agree, and place less emphasis on those things about which we differ. If this is our attitude, it means that we are already is this highest body in the country developing an attitude of mind in regard to road safety which must have a contagious effect on the people outside who are potential victims on our roads and on those who must guard against such fatalities on our roads.

We have made a great deal of progress in regard to road safety. You will recall that one of the greatest complaints prior to 1966 was that there was no uniformity in the country in regard to road traffic. It goes without saying that this should be the case, for in this country we are dealing with an exceptional position, i.e. we have a constitutional position which is different. The result of this is that legislation, or a task such as this is entrusted constitutionally to various authorities. These various authorities which are constitutionally responsible for this task, are obviously very jealous of their rights and powers.

In 1966, however, a milestone was reached with legislation on road safety and traffic regulations. Since we have reached this milestone, in a country with a constitutional set-up such as the one we have, I think the hon. the Minister of Transport deserves a great deal of praise, from us all who are aware of the seriousness of this subject, for what was achieved that year. In 1966 an agreement was negotiated to the effect that all the provinces, including South-West Africa, would place uniform road traffic ordinances on their Statute Books. Reference has already been made to the fact that this was not easy to achieve. It took a great deal of convincing to reach the stage where this uniformity could be achieved. But with this progress which was made, it became clear that we have now reached the stage where serious attention will have to be devoted to taking this uniformity which exists in regard to road traffic legislation a step further so that it will be uniform applied as well. We have now reached the stage where it is possible to convince our people that this agreement negotiated between the various provinces to establish uniform legislation should be made enforceable. The greatest deficiency which has existed since 1966 was the fact that agreements negotiated by the Inter-Provincial Road Safety Advisory Council were not enforceable on the various provinces. The result of this was that when a constituent body did not agree with the recommendation of the Council, one of two things happened: The other provinces could either continue to pass ordinances, and that province which did not agree could then refuse to place them on the Statute Book. The immediate result of this is that there is a disturbance of the uniformity which was achieved over so many years and with such a struggle. But the other course was the one which was in fact adopted. When there were provinces which did not agree with the recommendations, those recommendations were preferably left alone and not included in legislation. That is why I say that this has up to now been one of the greatest deficiencies since the progress which was made in 1966. Mr. Speaker, the seriousness of this matter has brought us so far that we are able, this evening, to discuss this legislation which is intended to eliminate this major deficiency. That is why I say that, in view of this constitutional position which we have in this country, the hon. the Minister of Transport deserves a great deal of praise from our people for the tactful way in which he has led the provinces so that we have in fact been able to reach this stage we have reached tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to adopt the attitude tonight that we have this legislation before us because we are at our wit’s end with a position which has gotten out of hand. On the contrary, we have made great progress in this country in respect of road accidents as well. Under the present legislation, as it was up to the present, we have made great progress. It was alleged here that the number of road accidents is increasing. When compared to the growth of the population it is true that the number of accidents which occurred has in fact increased, but if this comparison is made on a percentage basis, then the number of accidents which occur have gradually been decreasing over a number of years. I want to mention a few statistics here in order, after having done so, to make certain statements. In the first place I want to mention certain statistics to indicate how different the situation in South Africa is when compared to other countries, and for this comparison which I now want to make here, I was unfortunate in being able to obtain only the 1968 statistics. In the year 1968 43 194 accidents in which persons were injured and killed occurred in the Republic. This is not a figure which covers all the accidents. The number of fatalities in these accidents was 5 810. But, Sir, if we compare this to the position in other countries—I shall take Belgium, for example— what do we find then? In the same year 70 009 accidents occurred in which people were killed and injured in Belgium, which has a much larger and denser population. But despite the fact that this is almost double the number of accidents which occurred when compared to the number of accidents which occurred in South Africa, the death rate was 2 673, almost half the figure in South Africa. In Britain there were 264 200 accidents, with 6 810 fatalities—only a thousand more fatalities than in South Africa, as against almost six times the number of accidents. In the Netherlands there were 65 000 accidents, as against only 2 907 fatalities. In Canada there were 51 406 accidents with 5 318 fatalities, as against the 5 810 fatalities in South Africa. So I can continue, Sir, and mention Australia where the position was virtually the same. I now want to mention the second set of statistics, to come to the statement I should like to make. It is also interesting to draw a comparison in respect of the fatal accident rate for 1968 per million vehicle kilometres covered. In comparison with the countries mentioned, including France, Germany, Italy, the United States and Japan, i.e. ten countries, the death rate per million km vehicle miles covered was the highest in South Africa, namely 0,2 persons as against 0,9 persons in France, 0,07 in Germany and 0,03 in the United States. Mr. Speaker, many experts and many people who are not experts, are seeking solutions to this problem. We are looking for explanations as to why the position in South Africa is so different to that in the rest of the world. In the first place I want to allege that the different circumstances of South Africa are the cause or the position in South Africa being different to that in the rest of the world.

What different circumstances?

The fact that there is a United Party here.

In the first place, if we make an analysis, we shall find that approximately half of the persons killed in road accidents were pedestrians, of which the vast majority—I almost think the hon. member for Parow mentioned the figure of 80 per cent—were non-Whites. A second fact is that of the total number of fatalities on our roads, almost two-thirds were non-Whites. Mr. Speaker, this proves that the non-White factor plays an important role in the Republic, which cannot be compared to other countries in this respect. A second factor which illustrates the high percentage of fatalities on our roads, is also the fact that a higher percentage of vehicle kilometres are covered on the open road at high speeds than in other countries of the world, and this also demonstrates very clearly that speed on the open road plays a very important role.

My information is that a good example of this is the Ben Schoeman highway between Pretoria and Johannesburg. All of us who knew the old road between Johannesburg and Pretoria are aware of the great number of accidents which occurred on that road. But what happened after this new road was opened? The number of accidents on this road decreased, but the death rate is higher than it was on the old road. That explains the fact that speed in a country like South Africa, where such a large number of vehicle kilometres are covered on the open road, is a very important factor in the problem with which we are dealing. I have said that we have not reached a stage where we are at our wit’s end. Between 1963 and 1970 the accident rate in South Africa dropped considerably, i.e. from 6,38 to 5,98. Despite this decrease in the accident rate between 1963 and 1970, the death rate remained almost constant. We can therefore take steps to reduce the accident rate, but the practical problem lies with the death rate, i.e. with accidents which occur in a country with the circumstances South Africa has. By way of summary I want to say that we can all be grateful that we have reached this stage, that we can go to meet a new era in solving this extremely important problem of this country, which this country cannot afford. We shall have to bear in mind that research in South Africa cannot be done on the same pattern as in other countries owing to the different circumstances in South Africa, to which I referred a moment ago. We can learn a great deal from other countries, but our people will have to display ingenuity in their research in order to cope with the specific circumstances which exist here.

There is another factor which we shall have to take into account in future, and that is the tremendous increase in motor vehicle traffic on our roads in South Africa. There are certain areas in our country where the number of motor vehicles have doubled in a period of seven to ten years. This tremendous increase in the number of motor vehicles we must also attribute to the high rate at which non-Whites in South Africa are acquiring motor vehicles. If this had not been the case, we would not have had this high rate of increase; then it would have kept pace with the population increase and the economic position of the Whites in this country. Seen against this background it was essential to review the entire matter of road safety again. It has been reviewed in time, and we hope that this measure is being adopted here this evening as a next phase in the progress we have made, will contribute to South Africa, despite its different circumstances, nevertheless being comparable to other countries when we come to the next phase. It lies in the hands of experts and people with experience to adapt circumstances so that we can be placed on a comparative basis.

The statistics given here by hon. members in regard to road accidents, especially those given by the hon. member for Umbilo concerning crippled children, are more than hair raising. I agree with the hon. member for Bloemfontein East that one of the most important matters facing the Republic is road safety.

*Many accidents occur on our highways, but nevertheless the man behind the wheel is mostly responsible for those accidents.

†At last it would appear as if there is a glimmer of light on the road safety horizon. For years I have been advocating the scrapping of the present Road Safety Council. It was like a thirsty sponge absorbing money like water. I often wonder how much of the taxpayers’ money has been spent and wasted in the past 12 years, and what about the deaths on the road? Surely during those 12 years they must exceed 70 000. Sir, can any country in the world afford that type of death and loss of humanity?

Then we come to the controlling body. I was sincerely hoping that a clean sweep would be made at this level, but it appears that no fewer than nine of the 12 members were already members of the Action Committee of the present Road Safety Council. The idea behind the proposed settlement is to succeed where the old council has failed. Three-quarters of this new council will be sitting in judgment on the shortcomings of their own beliefs. What about all the uncommitted organizations that have a vital interest in road safety? Are they not to be represented? I am referring to the Automobile Association, Rondalia, and the other local road safety organizations. We have not yet had sight of the Road Safety Committee inquiry report. Why this delay? Why were extracts of this report given to the Press before it was laid on the Table of this House?

Cannot we also have sight of this copy? However, I see that the hon. the Minister has had sight of the interim report, which apparently contains a number of far-reaching recommendations.

Has the present Bill been drawn up as the result of these recommendations?

Yes.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says that is a fact. According to the Bill which establishes the new National Road Safety Council, the hon. the Minister is the only person who can legislate for this important measure. It then still remains a National ideological council, exactly the same as the old Road Safety Council. And then, in terms of clause 26 (5), he still retains his right of veto. The Opposition has no say in the matter whatsoever and we are all perturbed about the seriousness of the road accident situation and we would like to see the end of this unnecessary slaughter on the road. The propaganda material in the form of pamphlets and films is a waste of money and has lost all public appeal.

That is only a matter of opinion.

Even the children have scorned them. The only booklet of the Road Safety Council is the Highway Code, which was studied by the youth merely to obtain a driver’s licence. The information in the book was absorbed parrot-fashion to satisfy the examiners when the learner drivers were being tested for their licences. Instead of lessons in the mechanics of driving a motor vehicle, schools were only prepared to provide road safety instruction at the lower grades, as the matriculation years had to be reserved for final examination studies.

Order! I hope the hon. member is not reading his speech.

He is not, Sir! In my opinion the final year at school is the most important year and that is the year during which pupils should receive road safety instruction. That is the year when all the youths apply for their driving licences. May I ask what the value of a first-class matriculation certificate is, if one’s child is brought home broken, mutilated and on the point of death as a result of a motor accident? I grant that young children should be taught road safety in the lower forms, because during those years they are most receptive. That is stated even in the Bible. I quote Proverbs 22, verse 6—

The logical time for teaching advanced road safety and how to drive a car is surely during the high school years, but there is no time provided in the curriculum of high schools for road safety. I would like to know whether the new council is going to attend to these matters. To my mind the hon. the Minister and the Road Safety Council are completely out of touch with the man in the street, as far as road safety is concerned. May I ask whether the pedestrian campaign was a success? I very much doubt it. I have repeatedly suggested that the person to be appointed as director will be a person dedicated to road safety, apart from his special knowledge of the subject on account of his training and experience. I nevertheless want to suggest that he should be a qualified mechanical engineer as well. That qualification is a most important factor and, in my opinion, the lack of this qualification has been the main stumbling block in the past. Especially when members of road safety associations possessed that degree, they were speaking a foreign language as far as Pretoria was concerned when they discussed the technicalities of a moving motor vehicle, such as power brakes, the impossibility of changing gears of diesel engines when travelling downhill at certain speeds, and used terms like kinetic energy and a multitude of other terms.

There is another matter which I have suggested before to the hon. the Minister. Is he prepared to establish traffic courts which are completely divorced from criminal courts, so that offenders can be brought to trial as soon as conveniently possible after an accident whilst witnesses have the facts of the accident fresh in their memories? In terms of clause 26 (2) the State President may prescribe penalties. This is a very important matter requiring serious consideration. The Minister and his Deputy have made numerous statements which have appeared in the Press recently, such as “Road offenders and drunken drivers will be relentlessly prosecuted”, and “drunken drivers should have their licences torn up and their cars impounded on the spot without going to court”. Although this is heavy medicine and could be considered the right type of remedy, it must not, at the same time, make enemies of the general public and of motorists in particular. To me the whole set-up appears to be the result of desperation. Now it is a case of mounting panic stations. This is the time when the hon. the Minister should show leadership and should be calm, cool and collected. There are so many motorists, the majority of whom I am sure are law-abiding citizens, that we should ask them to co-operate with the Minister and the South African Road Safety Council so that they can report misdoers they see on the road.

But what about penalties? To my way of thinking, and from my own experience, threats, imprisonments and heavy fines are fruitless and of no avail. The threats they laugh off, the imprisonment they sit out, the heavy fines they often pay with a smile, treating it as a joke. When it comes to suspending their licences it is entirely a different matter. Then they are in real trouble. After all, who wants to be without a car living in this mechanical age? This is the only way to really hurt them. Because of this I ask with sincerity that just that be done after conviction. For the first offence I suggest that a person’s driver’s licence be cancelled for one month. After the second offence it should be suspended for three months, and after the third offence for six months; it is no good being lenient. After the fourth offence the licence should be withdrawn. I predict emphatically that if this system is introduced, the accident figure will plummet beyond all expectations within a few months with the death figure doing exactly the same.

In conclusion, I want to say that we must take leave of all our friends that have served the cause of road safety throughout the Republic. I mean those chairmen and members of local associations and of local authorities concerned with this problem. They are excluded from the new setup and are the persons who laid the foundations of road safety in South Africa. Unstintingly they gave their valuable time, their sound advice and very often their money. The people of South Africa thank them one and all. With that I support the suggestion of the hon. member for Yeoville. I also feel that the finance required should come from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

I wish the new council the best of luck in its attempt to reduce the accident rate in the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I want to request the House to bear with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg City. He has made this emotional plea because he has always been very interested in road safety. I also want this House to bear with the hon. member’s contradiction of himself.

*The hon. member commenced his speech by saying—these were the only Afrikaans words he used—that it is mostly the man behind the wheel who is responsible for accidents. That is really the essence of the idea. Then he concluded by saying that the man behind the wheel should not be asked to contribute towards waging this struggle.

He should not be the only one to pay.

No, he put it as I have just stated it. I shall return to that aspect of his speech.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he does in fact believe that the man behind the wheel is responsible for the greatest number of accidents?

Yes, for if there were no cars there would be no accidents.

Does he bear the greatest responsibility for accidents?

No, he does not bear the greatest responsibility for accidents.

Before I do anything else I want to thank the House and all the hon. members sincerely for accepting this Bill in principle. I think South Africa and all its people should take note that this House accepts unanimously in principle that something drastic should be done to put a stop to these accidents, to death on the road. Even if there is something drastic which has to be done, such as that the hon. the Minister may by way of recommendation to the State President issue regulations which can override provincial council ordinances, this House accepts this unanimously because it has taken into consideration the extreme importance of this aspect. In this debate two points have emerged to which hon. members on the opposite side object. The one point is the composition of this council. Hon. members say that this council should consist of 12 members, five of whom shall be members who served on the old Road Safety Action Committee. I want to make it very clear that the House must know that traffic control still falls under the provinces of South Africa and South-West Africa. We cannot summarily exclude the provinces from this Road Safety Council. That is why we are giving the provinces the five representatives whom they can elect as M.P.C.s to serve on this council. The hon. gentlemen must remember that this council to which they referred, was only the action committee. The actual position is that there were 63 members serving on the Road Safety Council, which convened once per annum. It was a congress at which a great deal was said and not very much was done. Then we had an action committee of 15 members.

Now all we have is a council consisting of 12 members, on which five members of the Executive Committees will serve so as to give cohesion to the provinces and to activate them, and also to get their co-operation there. In addition we have a member of the United Municipal Executive, which I believe is very essential because we also have to apply safety measures in our urban areas, particularly in respect of pedestrians. The other member to whom they referred, is a member of the S.A. Police. So much, then, for the seven old members. In addition to them we now have five other members, who need not necessarily be a member of the previous action committee. These five members are appointed by the Minister. In addition the Departments of Transport and Justice also have representatives sitting on the council. When those hon. members referred to the council, which was supposedly being incorrectly composed, they did so because the chairman of the A.A. objected to this. I want to refer to that. Yesterday the chairman of the A.A. said in a speech in Durban, according to a report I have here—

He said it is ridiculous. I did not hear any of these hon. members of the House agreeing with him. The hon. members support this legislation, but they have reservations, and those reservations are the same as the one’s Mr. Kelly has. I quote again—

I shall deal with this later, but I should like to ask hon. members not to come here and echo the ideas expressed by the Star, Mr. Kelly and a few of our English-language newspapers, inter alia the Argus and the Sunday Times.

We adopted an attitude in regard to this matter before those articles were published.

I shall come to the figures in a moment. I have said that hon. members made very good and interesting speeches here, speeches which could also be used by this proposed Council as a guide to these ideas. I am thinking, for example, of what the hon. member for Heilbron said. He put forward the idea that our courts and our magistrates should be given greater jurisdiction. I think he is very right in this connection. This legislation provides that if this Council finds it necessary to make such a recommendation, and the provincial ordinances are not able to allocate greater jurisdiction to magistrates’ courts, the Minister may by way of recommendation to the State President request that such a regulation, which has greater legal validity than provincial ordinances, will in fact effect this. The hon. member for Port Natal today made one of the best speeches I have ever heard him make.

A typical speech.

It was a good speech because it was not politically motivated and because road safety is an important matter to him. I blame him for only one thing, what I blame him for is …

That he is a U.P. member!

No, I blame him for the following reason.

†The hon. member referred to a proposal in connection with compulsory insurance. Then he mentioned that I as Deputy Minister had made a statement. He said that this in effect amounted to the fact that I was saying that it was politically very difficult to force the drivers of unroadworthy vehicles to pay for the risk they were imposing on others.

*He omitted to convey the contents of the statement. In reality I told the reporter in a telephone conversation the same as the hon. member said above. I said it was impractical …

It is not there.

Yes, I know it is not here, nor is it that hon. member’s fault. When the hon. member quoted me he could at least have established whether that was what I had said. [Interjections.] I want to place it on record that I never mentioned the word “politically”. I only used the word “impracticable”.

Don’t play politics, otherwise I may.

You can’t play politics. You are not up to it. Firstly I want to refer to the objection hon. members have to the levy of 50 cents per motor vehicle. The hon. members for Port Natal, Umbilo and Yeoville all had the idea that these amounts should come out of one of two sources, either the revenue account, i.e. the taxpayer in South Africa, or as the hon. member there said, out of third party insurance which can afford it.

Pen wants it to come out of the fines.

No, Pen says it is a supplementary amount. I now want to refer, in the very first place, to clause 15, and I want hon. members to read that clause again. They will see that provision is made there for more than 50 cents per motor vehicle. In other words, it is being provided there that if the 50 cents per motor vehicle, which could net us an amount of R1,25 million, is not enough, money may be voted by Parliament for the purposes of the Council. Secondly there is the possibility of other money which may accrue to the Council from any other source. In the past money accrued to the Council from various organizations whose names I do not want to mention here. That door is not being closed, and those organizations can therefore continue to do so. Additionally Parliament can make good that deficit.

Not the provincial administrations?

I shall come to the provincial administrations. What is the position at the moment as far as the provincial administrations are concerned? At the moment the 1971-’72 Estimates indicates that the Central Government contributed R387 785. The Cape Province and the Transvaal, which contribute 17½ per cent each, contributed R136 725, Natal, with 10 per cent, contributed R77 558 and the Free State, with 5 per cent, contributed R38 780. In addition we received more than R23 000 from the Administration of South-West Africa, and from the Transkei and the Ciskei jointly, R12 000. In other words, in the Estimates for 1971-72 an amount of R808 840 was obtained from this source. But hon. members must accept that the money which is contributed by the provinces, is only the subsidy they have received from the central Government in any case. They paid it according to their income. They can now save that money. I hope that the fact that they are going to save this money, will enable them perhaps to appoint more and better paid traffic policemen, as the hon. member for Port Natal did in fact request.

But in the long run this 50 cents per motor vehicle could entail a tremendous saving for the motor vehicle driver. I can analyse this on the basis of a few figures. I want hon. members to take note of the fact that comprehensive insurance increased by 11 per cent from January 1971, by 15 per cent from June, 1971 and by 14 per cent as from January, 1972. In other words, over this period of slightly more than a year, the comprehensive insurance of motor vehicles in South Africa increased by 40 per cent.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Could he give us any indication to what extent that increase is attributable to more accidents or increased repair costs?

It is very easy to reply to that question. It makes no difference whether it is attributable to a greater number of accidents or increased repair costs, for the hon. member has already heard the astronomical figures from the hon. member for Welkom, and those I furnished to him, in regard to the number of accidents and the increase in the number of accidents in South Africa. Let us not try to make ourselves believe that there has not been an increase in the number of accidents. Let me call in someone else as a witness. I am now referring to a certain Mr. Sher of Assacom who made a speech in October, 1971. What did he tell us? He said—

That is terrible.

… and in the year 2000 the number may be 85 000.

He then asks whether we can afford this, and goes on to say—

What is your opinion on repair costs?

But the third party does not pay for the repair costs.

If the hon. member would only give this matter some realistic thought, he would realize that the fewer accidents there were, the fewer motor cars there would be to repair and the less the repair costs would consequently be. Surely that is logical, not so?

Quite right.

South Africa will for a long time, and the motor car owners will be eternally grateful to the hon. the Minister and the Government for the system of third party insurance which was introduced. It is necessary for us to look at certain figures. Very necessary.

Would the hon. the Deputy Minister tell me whether he has compared the balance sheets of the comprehensive insurance companies with the balance sheets of the M.V.A. Fund and whether he will publish the balance sheets of the M.V.A. Fund.

I have not as yet compared them.

Then you cannot advance that argument.

I can advance that argument. If the hon. member would only listen. It is that member in particular who wants us to obtain these funds from third party insurance, because he alleges that third party insurance can afford it. According to him that fund is an economically prosperous one, and is making so much profit that it can afford this. Let us consider the facts. In respect of the insurance year 1969-70, there is still time until 30th April, 1972, to institute claims. In respect of the 1970-71 insurance year claims may be instituted until 30th April, 1973. In other words, claims against third party insurance may still be instituted for two years and longer afterwards.

What is the average per year?

I shall now give you the average per year. I want to take this House into my confidence. The revenue in respect of third party insurance in 1970-71 was R29 252 312. The total expected expenditure for that period is at present R13 967 095.

R16 million difference?

Wait a moment. This only makes provision for the claims which have already been instituted.

You said the “expected” amount.

These are only the claims which have already been instituted. This fund has earned interest over that period to the amount of R18 486 688. The fact that that interest is being earned, established a buffer between the premiums and the claims, for if it had not been there, the fund would already have been bankrupt. [Interjections.] I shall now furnish the figures. The number of claims still outstanding from 1965-’66 to 1970-71, make a total of 43 763.

Are those claims or the amount of the claims?

No, they are the claims. The aggregate amount of these claims totals R54 980 559. Let us now consider the comparison between the premiums and the claims.

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. the Deputy Minister explain then why in the 1969-70 year they showed R20 million as the amount of outstanding claims and suddenly it jumps to R54 million the following year—in other words, an increase of R34 million under that one heading alone?

I shall explain this in a moment; I just want to deal with these figures first.

I am now going to submit to the House the premium and claims experience, and I shall also furnish it sub-divided into the different categories, the rural areas as against the city. The rural area premium for public vehicles is R23. The average claims experience from 1965-’66 to 1969-70 in this connection is R36,99.

Per vehicle?

Yes, per vehicle. The experience in regard to the urban category, i.e. group Z, is that while the premium amounts to R57, the average claims experience is R91,24.

And for private vehicles?

Let us now consider the passenger vehicles. The premium on passenger vehicles—these are vehicles which carry more than 12 persons —in the urban areas amounts to R260. The average claims experience is already R295,04. So I can take them one by one. I am very glad the hon. member referred to motor cycles, because I am going to refer to them as well, for the sake of interest. If we consider motor cycles with an engine capacity exceeding 50 cc we find that the premium in the urban areas amounts to R15. The claims experience, on the other hand is R49,30. This indicates to what an extent they are responsible for accidents. Also for the sake of interest I must point out that in the case of hearses, where the premium is R6 the claims experience is R16,65.

We therefore have the phenomenon here in South Africa that as a result of the increase in the number of accidents one already has a situation where the amount claimed exceeds by far the premium income. It is only owing to sound administration and the statutory powers which are used that we have still been able to ensure that the premiums did not have to be increased. It is only owing to the fact that that money is being administered correctly, and that the claims only have to be paid out two or three years later, that these funds can be invested at a good rate of interest, and that in this way a buffer can be built up between premiums and claims.

Is it a good thing to delay payment of claims?

We cannot do anything else, because there are assessors who have to make investigations, there are lawsuits which also require investigation, and there is also the matter of hospitalization. Before a claim can be paid out we must wait until the person in question has finally established in what way he was incapacitated, etc. It is not we who delay matters; it is as a result of circumstances that these claims are not paid out sooner. It is simply practical administrative circumstances which give rise to that. The hon. member must not see it, therefore, as a way of delaying the settlement of claims in order to earn money.

When you talk about claims, do you mean the amount claimed, or do you mean the average amount paid out per claim?

This is the amount which is paid out; this is the amount which the M.V.A. Fund must pay out, as against its income. These are not the actual claims; these are the claims which are paid out. Sir, I want to point out to the House that we have in recent years with this M.V.A. Fund saved the motor vehicle owner and the motor vehicle driver in South Africa many millions of rand. If the fund had not been there, these people would have had to pay in any case. But hon. members must remember one thing: This House and hon. members on that side together accepted the principle of third party insurance. To protect whom? Not to protect the motor vehicle owner, but to be able to pay out to the families of those people who were involved in an accident, whose claim the motor vehicle owner would perhaps not be able to pay, after such an accident; otherwise many motor vehicle owners would have gone bankrupt, with the result that many poor people injured in accidents, or the widows or children who remained behind after their parents had been killed in an accident, would have been destitute. But this House, with the support of hon. members on that side, accepted the principle that the motor vehicle owner and the motor vehicle owner-driver has to pay that amount to safeguard and protect the families of people involved in accidents. In this Bill we have precisely the same principle. Sir, you can tell me that the pedestrian is responsible for the accident. That hon. member is saying: “Yes”. But surely he is then also responsible for the accident as a result of which third party insurance is paid out.

He has no claim if he was responsible for the accident. He is only paid out if the motorist was guilty.

Sir, we have accepted that accidents are caused by motor cars. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg-City stated very clearly and unequivocally that the man who is actually responsible, is the man behind the steering-wheel. That is not what I say; he stated it like that. I say that the factor which causes the accident or leads to death and disablement, is the motor car, for if there were no motor cars, there would be no accidents. [Interjections.] That is true. The driver is not always responsible, but if he were not there, there would be no accident The additional 50 cents per motor car for third party insurance is a meagre amount if one takes into account that one is, to begin with, going to receive R1025 000 with which to counteract accidents and apply this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I think that I have now dealt thoroughly with the question of the additional 50 cents. The hon. member for Salt River asked what would become of the recommendations of this Council. He said that the recommendations of the Council could not be applied, but the hon. member sitting right behind him stated very clearly in this House that the fact that the recommendations of the previous Council could not be implemented by law was the reason why no progress had been made. In this Bill we are providing that this Council may not only undertake research, but that it may also advise and assist local authorities and local organizations, and may even finance them if it is necessary for them to do certain work. In other words, we are still taking the public with in order to be able to do the work. Sir, I want hon. members to take another look at clause 6 (g)—

In other words, the Council may make its recommendations directly to the provincial administration, but it reports to the Minister if it is a recommendation which the provincial administration does not carry out. The provinces are not being omitted; they are not being by-passed; they are being taken with and they in their turn must see to it that the local authorities are taken with. Sir, since one will now have a Council of 12 persons who are intent on making road safety their life task, of undertaking proper research work and of making recommendations, I think it is essential that the provinces should have representation on the Council; in this way we obtain their co-operation. Secondly you will not have a Council which is large and clumsy. It will not be necessary for the Council first to go to an action committee and subsequently to an inter-provincial committee. You will have a council which can give advice directly, and it so happens that you have an Executive Committee member on the Council with the result that he will be able to advise his colleagues in the Executive Committee. In addition the Council will be able to come directly to the Minister. It was with a view to this that this Council was constituted in this way.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Members have already had the benefit of an explanatory memorandum on this Bill, and it will be noted that its main object is to give effect to certain international conventions, the most important of which is the convention for the Suppression of unlawful Seizure of Aircraft.

Offences in this regard increased to such an extent in recent years that the International Civil Aviation Organization paid special attention to the subject and arranged a diplomatic conference. This conference was held at The Hague in December, 1970, and South Africa was represented. Figures released by the Federal Aviation Authority of the United States of America show that the following unlawful seizures took place: In 1968, 30; in 1969, 70; in 1970, 56; and in 1971, until 25th October, 19. According to this statement there were no more than six unlawful seizures per year between 1930 and 1967.

Furthermore, it will be noted that the Bill arises from the conventions, namely the Hague Convention mentioned above, the Convention on Offences and certain other Acts committed on board Aircraft (Tokyo Convention), and the Convention for the Suppression of unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation (Montreal Convention).

The Tokyo Convention was drafted and adopted in 1963 but only came into operation in December, 1969, after it had been signed by the specified number of member states of the International Civil Aviation Organization. While the Tokyo Convention dealt with the unlawful seizure of aircraft, there was no specific indication that this offence was punishable by member states. In addition, the most important shortcoming of the Tokyo Convention was the lack of proper provision for the extradition of offenders.

The conference at The Hague followed this up and the Convention which was accepted was aimed specifically at suppressing the unlawful seizure of aircraft. In addition, provision was made for punishable offences and for the extradition of offenders. These are the two important aspects.

A third conference was held in Montreal in September, 1971, and South Africa was once again represented. As its title indicates, this Convention is aimed at suppressing unlawful acts against the safety of civil aviation. Such unlawful acts need not necessarily be committed on board an aircraft, and provision is made for punishable offences such as placing on an aircraft a device or substance which is likely to destroy that aircraft or to cause damage to it which renders it incapable of flight or is likely to endanger its safety in flight. Another example of a serious offence is the destruction or wilful damaging of aviation facilities, such as navigational aids, which is likely to endanger the safety of aircraft in flight. Provision is also made for false allegations such as that any other person is about to commit a contravention, such as placing explosives on aircraft, to be a punishable offence.

Considering the serious nature of the offences which I have mentioned, especially the unlawful seizure or, as it is commonly known internationally, the “hijacking of aircraft it is worth mentioning that the three conferences held on an international level for the purpose of combating this very evil, were successful and that the relevant Conventions were adopted. If each member state as well as other states which are allowed to become signatories in terms of the provisions of the Conventions adhere strictly to the provisions of those Conventions, there is no doubt that this abominable tvpe of offence will be eradicated within the foreseeable future. Co-operation between states in this regard is essential, and only by measures which prescribe drastic steps will it be possible to meet the situation fully.

Heavy penalties are provided for in the Bill, namely a minimum of 5 years and a maximum of 30 years imprisonment. Let this be a warning to those who, for whatever reason, want to seize an aircraft unlawfully or commit any related offence, that they will not be dealt with lightly. Apart from the aircraft itself being taken over by force and without lawful reason by the offender when such an offence is committed, the endangering of the lives of the crew and passengers on board is involved. It is not necessary for me to elaborate on this aspect, as the results of unlawful seizure are generally known.

For the most part, the relevant Conventions consist of provisions which govern relations between states, and there would be no sense in making those provisions part of the law of the country. Consequently an attempt has been made to select all the provisions which can be made part of the law of the country and to incorporate them in the Bill with the necessary adaptations and additions. The Republic’s national air transporter was consulted in the matter and South African Airways fully supports the principle of ratifying and giving effect to the Conventions.

Hon. members have the explanatory memorandum on the Bill in front of them and, in order to save time, I am not going to deal with the provisions of each clause separately. However, where hon. members desire information on any particular clause,

I shall of course furnish it with pleasure.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House realize the dangers and the serious problem of hijacking and therefore we intend supporting this measure. I might say that we intend supporting this even though on this occasion we ourselves feel very much in a hijacking mood. We have just hijacked a lot of Nationalist votes at Brakpan. But we do not really regard that as hijacking. It was really a rescue operation because the plane was crashing and we rescued those people— therefore it is not hijacking but a rescue. In this happy “hijack” mood of this side of the House tonight we will support the hon. the Minister. And because we know that he will have difficulty in answering questions in the Committee Stage if we suddenly spring them on him, I wish to give the hon. the Deputy Minister some warning. He can then check up and get the information and perhaps clear up the few points about which we are concerned when we come to the Committee Stage.

Firstly, I would like to ask him whether the form, in other words the construction and wording of the various provisions of this measure, was agreed internationally or whether in fact it is just the general principles which were agreed and which have been interpreted in this form by the Government. Because we have noted one or two points on which we are not entirely happy. Therefore I should like to know whether this is simply a take-over from agreements in the form in which the clauses were there drafted, or whether the Minister has taken the principles and has put his own construction on them.

The points I wish to raise and on which I seek information start with the definitions. There is the question of South African aircraft registered as such. That is definition (vii) of clause 1, which says that South African aircraft means an aircraft registered in the Republic including any aircraft which is operated by joint aircraft operating organizations, etc. Could the hon. the Minister tell us whether this automatically includes all members of the pool to which S.A. Airways belongs, i.e. all airlines operating within the pool, and if not, what aircraft are covered which are not South African aircraft, i.e. not registered here, but deemed to be registered here by virtue of such operations, and also those who may be declared by the Minister of Transport by notice in the Gazette. Could the hon. the Minister explain what he has in mind and what sort of aircraft is likely to be specifically declared to be a South African aircraft if it is not a member of the pool and it is not an international airline operating here under joint air transport operation, and it is not in fact a South African aircraft. If the hon. the Minister *can explain that we can discuss it later.

I also note that hovercraft are not included in the definition of aircraft. Could the hon. the Minister tell the House whether this is in fact common practice. Although I have not heard of the hijacking of a hovercraft up till now, can the Minister tell us whether he does not consider that hovercraft should be given similar protection since they can fly over water and there can be danger to people involved.

You are of course not referring to military hovercraft?

No, the hon. member for North Rand will deal with the question of military aircraft.

They are excluded.

Yes, all military aircraft are excluded here, but my colleague, as I say, will deal with that matter and I do not want to overlap onto the territory which he intends to cover. Another point which concerns me is the definition under clause 1 (2) of when an aircraft is deemed to be “in flight”. This measure differentiates between an aircraft “in flight” and an aircraft “in service”. The point at which an aircraft changes from being in service to being in flight, is the point at which the outside doors of that aircraft are closed.

That is in the definition.

Yes, that is the point I am getting at. What concerns me is why there is this differentiation. An aircraft comes into “service” when it is being prepared for flight. It is in service while it is being fuelled, while it is being loaded, while luggage is being loaded, and it is in service while the passengers are embarking. If certain things should happen at that stage, they are lesser offences and are regarded less seriously than if they should happen while the aircraft is in flight. Let me take the example of a person who—

That offence is created only once the outer doors are closed and the aircraft is in flight. If an aircraft is seized by force or threat of force or by intimidation whilst the door is open, it does not fall under this offence. It then becomes an offence under paragraph 2 (g), which is a lesser offence and not so serious. Once the passengers are on board and someone pulls a Mills bomb out of his pocket …

Or a water pistol.

… or a water pistol, but only if that member were flying, because if he saw a water pistol he would probably drop everything and run. Most pilots would not be bluffed by a water pistol, but if a person pulled out a hand grenade or a revolver before the door was closed and said, “Right! You will now fly me to Hawaii … [Interjection.] Why Hawaii? Because we on this side of the House seem to think there are certain attractions in Hawaii which might induce us to consider hijacking a plane. But seriously, Sir, the hijacker could then take over the aeroplane, command the stewards to close the door and the pilot to take off. Would that not be as dangerous and serious an offence as if he had done that a second after the door had closed? But that second during which the door closes, changes “in service” to “in flight”. I cannot see why this differentiation is made when an act performed before the closing of the door could be just as dangerous and serious and just as much a threat to passengers. For instance, to assault or wilfully interfere with any member of the crew is an offence which is only committed when the aircraft is in flight. But if a member of the crew is assaulted or wilfully interfered with on the ground, it does not fall under the provisions of this Bill; the person concerned does not become subject to extradiction and does not become subject to all the other provisions of this Bill. To assault the pilot or a member of the crew is, in my opinion, just as serious an offence before closing the door as it is after closing the door.

In the same clause we find that a person commits an offence who—

Paragraphs (a) (i) and (c) are the two offences in flight when an aircraft is seized by force or the crew is assaulted or wilfully interfered with. If someone alleges that someone else is about to do that, it becomes an offence. But if the person alleges that he himself is about to do it, it is not an offence. This is obviously the hoaxer who is being dealt with here, because just above paragraph (f) the Bill refers to a person who—

Here we are dealing with a hoaxer, a person who causes untold trouble. What if the hoaxer telephones and says: “I have put a bomb on the plane” or “I am about to seize this plane”? He has not committed an offence because this clause only says if anyone “falsely alleges that any other person is about to commit the offence”, it does not refer to the hoaxer himself. Unless we get an explanation on this point, we will move during the Committee Stage to delete the word “other” where it appears in the first line of clause 2 (f).

Another point on which we are not clear or, rather, about which we are not happy, is clause 6 dealing with the responsibility placed upon the captain of an aircraft. He is given the necessary authority; he becomes the commander of an aircraft in flight, and he obtains and must exercise all the authority and powers granted to him. And if an offence is committed in terms of this Bill, there are two things the commander has to do when that aircraft lands. Firstly, he must report the offence to an appropriate authority in the country of disembarkation and, secondly, he must report it to the appropriate diplomatic or consular office of the country of nationality of the offender. It does not say here “if possible” or “if convenient” or “if reasonable”. This is a mandatory provision and the commander must do both these things. Let us take the case of a plane which is hijacked in the middle of the night and which lands at some airport, perhaps in a minor country or at an airport which is not situated in the capital city of a country. Let us say, for instance, that an aircraft was hijacked and that it landed at Bloemfontein. No, that is not a good example, because it is in our own country. Let us say that an aircraft is hijacked, that it is landed in another country at an airport away from the capital city, that the hijacking took place in the middle of the night and that the aircraft landed at 4 o’clock in the morning. The Captain would be committing an offence if he did not immediately contact the diplomatic or consular office of the country of nationality of the person who committed the hijack or the attempted hijack. If it were the middle of the night he would have to delay the aircraft until the morning when the offices open, because no provision is made for him to delegate that authority to anyone else. Even consular representatives are human and sometimes go to bed and sleep. It might not be possible therefore for the commander to do this out of office hours. The same provisions apply in clause 5 (2) (b) where the commander again has to report to the appropriate diplomatic or consular office.

Clause 6 (6) states that any commander of an aircraft who “without reasonable cause …”

But what are reasonable grounds? It is not a reasonable ground to say that the office was closed and that he was not prepared to wait. It would be a reasonable ground if it were impossible for him to get there, but a court could easily interpret that to mean that it would be perfectly reasonable for him to wait an hour or two hours to comply with these provisions. In the meantime the passengers would be held up, the aircraft would be held up and in any case there would be a doubt as to whether it was reasonable or not. We would like to debate this point during the Committee Stage with a view to finding a different wording which would make it sufficient for the commander of an aircraft to report it to the appropriate authority in the country of disembarkation; that would be to the airport manager, airport controller or whoever the appropriate person was there. Through him the commander can then lodge the report for transmission to consular or other offices. I do not believe that it should be the duty of a commander of an aircraft to go looking for consulates in strange places. He does not have the facilities and does not usually speak the language. He then has to get an interpreter and go through all the rigmarole of finding the appropriate consulate to report the matter. We feel that this is an unreasonable onus to place upon the commander. He should either be able to do it through the airport authorities or it can be made mandatory for him to report to the first airport where there is a South African Airways office and they can then report through the usual channels. It should not be mandatory for him to do it on the spot in a country where he may have to make an emergency or a forced landing.

These are the main points which we wish to raise and we will be glad to hear if the hon. the Deputy Minister can give us any answers now, and, if not, whether he can look at these points, so that when we come to deal with him during the Committee Stage they will not be sprung on him and he will be able to make the necessary decisions. These are all the points I wish to raise. We will support him in preventing the hijacking of aircraft, but I hope he will support us in hijacking the votes of Brakpan.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Deputy Minister very clearly set out in the memorandum submitted along with this Bill and as he said in his Second Reading speech this evening, the three Conventions held in Tokyo, The Hague and Montreal gave rise to this Bill. Had the hon. member for Durban Point taken the trouble to study the background to this legislation, he would probably have found the answers to most of the questions he asked this evening. However, I understand that a Wednesday evening sitting and an election on which one has many bets, are probably not conducive to clear thinking.

Nobody will bet with me.

I can understand that in the process of making bets on a Wednesday evening, one would not argue very logically when one looks at the legislation.

Nobody will bet with me. They are scared.

If you have made any bets, you are going to lose them.

Mr. Speaker, the Conventions of which South Africa is a cosignatory, constitute, in broad outline, the background to this Bill. These Conventions extend over a very long period. The first of these Conventions was signed a very long time ago. It was signed in Tokyo in 1969 by 53 countries. Last year there was the Hague Convention, which was signed by 68 countries, and the latest, as the hon. the Deputy Minister indicated, was the Montreal Convention which was signed in September last year by 31 countries. The most important Convention which serves as the background to this Bill actually is the Tokyo Convention which was signed by certain countries as long ago as 14th September, 1963. That afforded the department the opportunity of making a very thorough study of this matter.

I want to refer to some of the clauses which were referred to by the hon. member for Durban Point as well, and to the corresponding clauses as signed in the original Conventions. Let us take the example of clause 2 (g), to which the hon. member referred and which reads as follows—

This particular paragraph was taken from clause 1 (b) of the Tokyo Convention, which provides that the convention countries should make provision in their legislation for the following—

1. (x) Which, whether or not they are offences, may or do jeopardize the safety of the aircraft or of persons or property therein or which jeopardize good order or discipline on board.

Hon. members will notice that the whole of clause 2 is an exact reflection of the spirit of that Convention and is cast in a form which fits in with the South African legal system. I cannot see what problem the hon. member has in this regard

Were you not listening to me?

I tried to listen, but for the reasons I have already mentioned, the hon. member’s logic may not have been of its usual high standard.

There I have to disagree with you.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to one aspect in which the South African Bill differs from the Conventions serving as its background. This aspect is, to be specific, the penal provision contained in clause 2. It provides as follows: Such a person “shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to imprisonment for a period of not less than five years but not exceeding thirty years”. As far as I am able to determine, our legislation does in fact depart from the Conventions, in that the Conventions make provision for fines whereas the draftsmen of this Bill and the hon. the Deputy Minister apparently felt that imprisonment would fit better into the South African legal system and would be suitable punishment for these offences.

This is the only clause which departs from the Convention.

The hon. the Minister says this is the only clause which departs from the Conventions. This is the only real departure from the Conventions which I, too, have been able to find, except one other. The hon. member for Durban Point referred to it as well. In a private conversation with the hon. the Deputy Minister, I have already asked him to go into this. This point also has a bearing on the point made by the hon. member for Durban Point in respect of the obligation resting on the pilot. This legislation obliges him to take certain steps when certain incidents have occurred on board. When we look at clause 6 of the Bill we see subsection (4) provides “the commander of an aircraft may” … and proceeds to give a series of steps he may take. Subsection (5) lower down reads, “the commander of an aircraft shall …” The very point raised by the hon. member for Durban Point caused me some concern as well. It was not caused by the first part, but by the second part. The Tokyo Convention was very clear on this point. I do not want to quote extensively from that Convention, but what it amounts to in essence is that the commander of an aircraft, when some of these incidents occur, has to report them to an appropriate authority at the place he lands, either by radio or after landing. Where he lands, he has to report these incidents to an appropriate authority. In this Bill before us we make provision for him to report to an appropriate authority, but over and above that, for him to report to the appropriate diplomatic or consular office of the country of nationality of that person. I have been unable to find this in the Conventions serving as background to this legislation. We shall be grateful, as the hon. member said, if we may argue this futher in the Committee Stage. I do not believe this to be such a serious departure of serious difference, but for a moment I should like to see this from the point of view of the pilot. It may be well to mention a practical example. Suppose the pilot is en route from Australia to South Africa. He lands at Mauritius to take in fuel, where one or a series of the incidents defined in the Bill takes place. Someone wanted to hijack the aircraft or he had had someone on board arrested. If he arrives at Mauritius in the middle of the night on his way to South Africa, he is obliged to report the incident to a diplomatic officer. The trouble on board might have been caused by a Greek or by someone from Panama. In the first instance there probably are no such consular offices and in the second instance this places an unreasonable burden on the commander of the aircraft. It is an unreasonable burden, because if he fails to do so, he is, in terms of this Bill, liable to a fine of R200. Perhaps we can have another look at this in the Committee Stage. With this legislation I think we have reached an important milestone and have taken a very important step in the right direction. I want to compliment our legislators of the past on the fact that they anticipated this legislation in section 16 of the Aviation Act, 1962, Act No. 74 of 1962, which is being repealed now. That Act already contained a provision similar in wording to what we find in this Bill. It contained provisions dealing with hijacking, etc., and it may be a compliment to the legislators of 1962 that to a large extent they had cast in Act form what was later to be placed on the Statute Book by means of Conventions and further legislation. However, I am convinced that this will make a major contribution to the safeguarding of the airways in our country. We are grateful for the fact that up to now South African Airways has not become a victim of an attack by a hijacker, and we trust that this will never happen in future either. This indicates in the first place that certain measures taken by South African Airways and our Government have been very successful ones and that that is the reason we have been able to avoid becoming victims of these unscrupulous people. We trust that in future, with a strong internationally accepted Act to back our authority, it will be possible to keep our Airways as safe as in the past, and in this spirit we should like to wish them everything of the best.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down, referred to the logic of my friend, the hon. member for Durban Point. He said my friend’s logic was not at its usual high level. I think it will be interesting tomorrow to listen to the logic in the explanations of the result of the Brakpan election.

Order! That has nothing to do with the Bill.

No, but I am simply answering him, Mr. Speaker. He cannot make such allegations. I must answer him.

†Hijacking is a desperate and reckless crime committed by reckless people. This legislation we have in front of us is not coming too soon at all. The previous speaker made mention of the fact that our South African Airways has been very fortunate in that we have not had a case of hijacking on our own airways up to now, although we have flown over many of the routes where these crimes have been committed. If it should happen—and we hope it will not—we will now have the necessary legislation to deal with these people.

It is a crime which cannot be condemned too strongly, and really drastic action is required to deal with these people. Hijacking has become the fashion amongst queer, frustrated and wayward individuals who sometimes have personal motives and sometimes political ones. Sometimes we find that groups of individuals gang together to carry out these hijackings. But whatever their motives are, hijacking is at all times blackmail in its worst form.

Whatever the motivation may be, this crime must be eradicated with all the means at our disposal. It is a crime worse than sea piracy and highway robbery was in bygone days. The very nature of the crime and the very delicate situation which it creates makes it almost impossible to deal with the criminal on the spot. Even when the aircraft lands with a hijacker at places where the authorities do not co-operate, international complications set in and you cannot get at these criminals. There are countries all over the world, some that turn a blind eye to hijacking and others who actually encourage it, which makes the position even worse.

It is always a case of people being held to ransom. Members of the crew and sometimes passengers are held. There are usually very important persons on such aircraft. But it really amounts to the holding to ransom and blackmailing of everybody on board. The lives of innocent people are jeopardized and there is always present this question of the destruction of a very valuable aircraft. Great difficulty is experienced in eliminating the hijacker because modern plastic containers make it impossible for people with bombs of sorts on board to be detected by electronic devices, and a determined and intelligent hijacker is always bound to succeed. In spite of the most stringent measures taken by international airlines all over the world today, we find that there are still very bad cases of hijacking. We had the case only two days ago of a jumbo jet being hijacked between Delhi and the Middle East.

Even if the hijacker is not of the reckless kind, he cannot, in most cases, be eliminated. If he is armed with a bomb you dare not touch him, because once he pulls the pin the aircraft is blown up with everything in it. If, for instance, he is armed only with a gun or a pistol, shots cannot be fired in the aircraft because there is a danger of passengers being injured and there is the greater danger of sudden decompression of an aircraft flying at a high altitude, which means that everybody is in mortal danger.

Sir, one is very sorry for the commander of an aircraft who finds his aircraft being hijacked. If one considers that the main responsibility of the commander of an aircraft is, after all, the safety of his craft and of his passengers, then one realizes in what an individious position he finds himself. We all drive motor-cars and we all know how helpless one is behind the wheel of a car if someone holds a knife to one’s throat or pushes a gun into one’s ribs and tells one to do something. One can do practically nothing. In a motor-car one can at least stop, but in an aircraft one cannot stop, and the poor commander of an aircraft has no option but to obey the instructions of the hijacker. Sir, I think everybody fully supports the idea that no mercy whatsoever should be shown to these people once they are apprehended, brought to trial and found guilty. There are countries to-day where, as we know, capital punishment has been instituted for drug peddling. We in this country have also passed very strict legislation providing for very severe penalties for crimes of that kind. Sir, I maintain that a hijacker is a much more dangerous criminal than a drug pedlar, and we certainly have no quarrel with very heavy sentences for people committing these crimes. All measures to combat this crime will be supported by us.

*The hon. the Minister asked what our views were with regard to military aircraft. The position in regard to military aircraft is in any event not so difficult as the position in regard to civil aircraft, because military aircraft usually transport military staff and when civilians are on board, they are people who usually are there legitimately. In any event, the military authorities can combat this kind of thing in terms of military law.

Sir, we on this side, as the hon. member for Durban Point said, support this Bill fully. We feel it is necessary, but we do not think that this Bill is altogether perfect, and for that reason, as the hon. member indicated, we shall try to suggest certain improvements and to close certain loopholes through which it may still be possible for these people to slip.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to reply to the points raised in respect of military aircraft, because they are excluded from the provisions of this Bill. It is as the hon. member said—they are totally excluded.

†The hon. member for Durban Point posed a question regarding the definition of “aircraft” and asked me whether a hovercraft is also included.

No, I asked why it is excluded.

If one looks at clause 1, one will find that the definition of “aircraft” is the same as the definition in the Aviation Act, No. 74 of 1962. We just copied that definition.

But I asked whether there was any reason for its exclusion.

We are using the same definition of “aircraft” as was incorporated in the Act of 1962.

But what is the reason for that?

No, wait, I am proceeding. This definition is also in accordance with the definition of the International Civil Aviation Organization, i.e. ICAO. ICAO excluded hovercraft and for that reason we have excluded it, because it is not necessary to make this Bill applicable to that type of craft. So much for that aspect.

I know that; I am asking the reason for it.

A hovercraft is not an aircraft. It takes off from the ground like this.

Yes, a hovercraft is not an aircraft.

The hon. member spoke about clause 2 as well. The offences are defined and laid down in accordance with the provisions of the relevant Conventions. I want to refer to them. I refer first to the Hague Convention, section 1 (a), the Montreal Convention, section 1 (a), and the Tokyo Convention, section 1 (a). Then there are the Montreal Convention, section 1 (b), 1 (c), 1 (d) and 1 (e), and once again the Tokyo Convention, section 1 (a) and 1 (b). In regard to the penal provisions, I refer to the Hague Convention, section 2, and the Montreal Convention, section 3. This is the only one that has been amended, in that the fine has been substituted by imprisonment. I therefore want to assure the hon. member that this legislation in fact arises from the provisions of the Conventions—they have been taken over just as they are.

The hon member spoke about clause 6 as well and the hon. member for Middelburg also referred to that clause. While the hon. member for Middelburg was discussing clause 6, I pointed out to him that the Afrikaans version of this clause provided, inter alia, as follows—

The same provision is contained in the English version; therefore I referred to it a moment ago—

By means of this Bill, therefore, we are providing that if there are cases such as that to which the hon. member for Middelburg referred where circumstances are such that admission cannot be gained to a consulate office, such a commander will not be guilty of misconduct or whatever the case may be in that regard. However, I am prepared to discuss the matter further with hon. members in the Committee Stage in order to find out to what extent we can reach agreement.

Can you just quote where the words “without reasonable cause” appear?

I am quoting subsection (6) on page 11—

*Provision is therefore being made that if such a commander cannot give effect to this at that moment, because of the various reasons described here, he will not be guilty of an offence. However, the reasons must be “reasonable”, hence this provision.

I want to thank the hon. members for their support in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, may I then ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether, judging from his reply, he has simply taken over the provisions of the Conventions and is unable to deal with any of the points I raised?

As far as clause 2 is concerned, yes, I have taken over the provisions of the Conventions.

But why do you not answer any questions?

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This amending Bill flows from the Cabinet’s recommendation that the maximum rate of transport contributions be increased from 10 cents to 20 cents per week and that the Act be made applicable to Bantu women as well, excluding domestic servants. I want hon. members to listen.

It is not the idea to increase transport contributions on a country-wide basis, but only in those areas in which the transport contributions collected are not sufficient to meet the normal subsidy requirements.

As a result of the ever-increasing costs of bus transport and the obvious inability on the part of the Bantu to pay higher bus fares, the problem has become an acute one now, particularly as regards the following areas—

May I ask who paid these amounts; I have lost the thread.

These amounts relate to the Boksburg transport scheme for Bantu at Vosloorus.

Are those the number of Bantu?

These are amounts …

Loss?

These are the amounts the Central Government has had to contribute in order to cover the loss.

Over and above the above-mentioned amounts Parliament voted an amount of R1 340 000 in May, 1967, of which amount R486 437,20 was used as a subsidy to PUTCO in respect of its Boksburg services to cover losses it had suffered during the 1965-’67 and 1966-’67 financial years. The balance was used in respect of PUTCO’s Umlazi services.

As far back as October, 1969 the Treasury expressed the opinion that consideration be given to methods for trying to keep the State’s contribution within limits in future, and suggested that an increased contribution be levied from employers.

The subsidy liabilities in respect of Boksburg are such, however, that even if the rate of transport contributions were to be increased to 20 cents per week—at present it is 10 cents per week—the Government would still have to render assistance. It is estimated that it will be possible ta decrease this assistance by approximately R100 000 per annum if the increased rate is charged.

EAST LONDON: The present population of Mdantsane is nearly 100 000 and it is still growing at a rate which is virtually exhausting available funds for subsidizing services. In order to meet immediate requirements, it has been necessary to approach the Treasury to supplement the amounts collected in terms of Act 53 of 1957. Even if the transport contributions are increased to 20 cents per week in respect of this area, there will still be monthly deficits which will have to be supplemented from other sources.

VANDERBIJLPARK AND VEREENIGING: At the time of the introduction of the subsidy scheme in respect of these areas, the National Transport Commission realized that the transport contributions collected monthly would be insufficient and consequently the scheme was introduced on the basis that monthly subsidy payments would be subject to available funds in the accounts concerned. The result of this was that the bus operator concerned suffered a total loss of R51 750,82 in subsidies in respect of the financial year ended 31st March, 1971.

Was that in Mdantsane?

No, I am dealing with Vanderbijlpark and Vereeniging now. In view of this and the fact that costs are constantly rising, additional funds will have to be obtained so that the bus operator may receive his rightful subsidy.

Since the coming into operation of Act 53 of 1957 the Government has voted R3 814 375,63 to supplement funds in the Bantu Transport Accounts, and in view of the fact that the Government will have to continue making a contribution, even if the maximum rate of transport contributions is increased from 10 cents to 20 cents per week, it is not deemed unreasonable to expect also of the employers concerned to make a rightful contribution to the transport of their employees. There is a tendency among employers to employ more and more Bantu women. In many cases these employees use subsidized transport services whereas no transport contribution is payable in respect of them at present. For example, a canning factory in East London, alone employs approximately 500 Bantu women who use subsidized bus services between Mdantsane and East London every day. As I have already said, the shortage of funds in respect of this area is such that it has been necessary to approach the Treasury for additional funds. Furthermore, in this connection the Treasury has indicated that the time has possibly arrived for the Act to be amended so as to include female Bantu.

The proposed legislation in terms of which transport contributions will be collected in respect of Coloureds and Indians, includes female employees as well, and consequently it is no more than right that the employers of female Bantu—and I repeat, excluding domestic servants—should make a contribution to their transport costs as well.

In conclusion I want to point out to hon. members that the wording of the Afrikaans and English versions of the long title differs. I shall move the necessary amendment in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on the very clear explanation he has just given us of the problems and of the means, as embodied in this Bill, he has in mind for solving those problems. I think it is interesting that this Bill, which in itself is a small one, should give us such a clear picture of the way in which the biggest race problem in South Africa, i.e. the position of the urban Bantu in South Africa, affects us all. Here we are dealing with the problem of the transport of the urban Bantu from the townships which we, the National Party and the United Party, appoint for them on the outskirts of our cities, to their places of employment, which often are 10, 15 and 20 miles away. For that reason, while I congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on his explanation, I think it is a pity that he did not tell us about the origin and the original motive of this Bill. This Bill has a history, and for understandable reasons the hon. the Deputy Minister chose to ignore that history on this occasion when he might have discussed all the circumstances surrounding this Bill. I should like to remind this House of the history. On 7th January, 1957, the Natives of Alexandra township in Johannesburg went on strike and refused to make use of PUTCO’S bus services between Alexandra township and the city of Johannesburg. The reason they took this step was because PUTCO had, with every justification so as to enable it to continue providing the service, increased its bus fares by one penny for the forward journey as well as the return journey, in other words by two pennies per day. The Natives, probably incited by agitators who were very active in those days, refused to pay the increase. They said they could not afford it. Thousands upon thousands of them covered a distance of approximately nine or ten miles from Alexandra township to the centre of Johannesburg on foot every day. It was a very striking scene to see thousands of them stretching over many miles walking along the mighty Louis Botha Avenue. To a certain extent they gained the sympathy of many people in Johannesburg who used that road and who gave them lifts. There was real concern among the population of Johannesburg and much further afield than Johannesburg, that this situation would prove to be an explosive one and that one could not foresee where it would end. At that stage the Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of Industries of Johannesburg decided that they had to do something to end this strike, which, at that time, had been in progress for two weeks. They made the offer to PUTCO to make available an amount of R50 000 over a period of three months so as to enable PUTCO to continue the services for three months at the old fares. That put a temporary end to the strike. On 4th June the hon. the Minister of Transport of that time and of today, introduced the Bill we are amending today. If we want to conduct an intelligent discussion on the amending Bill, I think it is necessary for us to refer to one or two of the statements made by the hon. the Minister in motivating the original Bill. As usual I have the English version of Hansard here, and I should now like to read out what the hon. the Minister said on 4th June, 1957, when he moved the Second Reading of the Bill. He said (Hansard, col. 7170)—

This is the boycott by the Natvies of the bus service between Alexandra township and Johannesburg—

This, in brief, is the history which led to the introduction of the original Bill. Just to give a further idea of what standpoint the governing party adopted in respect of this problem, I should like to read out also what the present hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and of Bantu Education, who was a private member at that time but who was on the verge of being appointed a Deputy Minister, had to say about this matter, because it reflects the attitude of my hon. friends opposite in respect of the problem of the transport of the urban Natives. Also on 4th June, 1957, he said (Hansard, col. 7176)—

“They” meaning us—

I think it is very important that we should place this on record, because today, 15 years later, we have a Bill to perpetuate that principle, to increase the subsidy, to give further recognition to the permanent nature of the Bantu in the economy of South Africa. This is further proof of the totally unpractical and impracticable nature of the National Party’s policy, i.e. that the urban Native should not be enticed to accept the temptations of our cities as they do in fact accept them and as the Govment, by means of this Bill, is making it more and more possible for them to accept them.

Why do you not give the alternative you yourself gave at that time?

But I have just commenced my speech. To come to the hon. the Minister’s question; I was not going to reply to it immediately, but he raised it at this stage. The standpoint of this party and our entire evaluation of the Bill at that time was, as it is today and will be tomorrow, that we were dealing with a permanent phenomenon in the socio-economic life of South Africa. I do not care what speeches are made on the opposite side of this House, but the fact remains— and the Government is acknowledging this to an ever increasing extent; this session we have seen them recognizing this in Bills and discussions with the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education—that these people will remain here. We shall need them for as long as you, Mr. Speaker, live and for as long as our grandchildren live. We shall need them and we shall not be able to make do without them, and nobody can deny this. At the same time they represent in the urban life of South Africa, in the urban socioeconomic set-up of South Africa, a sub-economic class. That was my standpoint in 1957 and I reiterate it now. They are a class of people who are compensated in such a way for the valuable labour they provide to South Africa that they cannot afford essential things, or what our English-speaking friends call “the necessities of life”, on the wages and salaries they receive in our society. If this were not so; surely the hon. the Minister and his Deputy Minister would not have come to this House to ask us to subsidize their transport, one of the necessities of life, in this way. This is an admission by the Government that these people cannot afford to buy necessities for themselves from their incomes, such as transport which is one of the vital necessities which each employee in every city of the world needs. I want to repeat that this is the basis of the problem and in this Bill we are dealing with symptoms and not facing up to reality.

Who is responsible for the wages of the private employees?

The hon. the Prime Minister pointed out at his recent Press conference that the State and the Government had the machinery at their disposal for determining wages in South Africa.

Only for its own employees.

No, I beg your pardon. There is an Industrial Conciliation Act which carries the Bantu only partially in certain instances where the White trade unions negotiate on behalf of them. An example of this is the steel industry. Then we have a direct State agency as well, such as the Wage Board, which tries to do a full round every three, four or five years.

The Wage Board does not act on the instructions of the Government, and you ought to know that.

But the Wage Board is a State institution.

But that does not affect the issue. It does not act on the instructions of the State.

I have a great deal of respect for the Minister, but really, he should not flounder in this way. What we are seeing here tonight is a real spectacle.

It is a ridiculous assertion you are making.

Sir, it is not a ridiculous assertion. Through the labour laws of South Africa a wage board has been established which forms part of the labour policy of the Government. The task of the Wage Board is to determine the wages of unskilled labour and unorganized labour, and the Minister may talk as much as he likes. He and I may make speeches at the same time when it is my turn to speak, but that does not make any difference as regards the fact that it is a State organ for determining wages. Surely he cannot argue against that.

The Wage Board was created by the United Party Government.

Mr. Speaker, now it is getting more delightful.

Order! Yes, but I do not want the discussion to drift completely from the Bill.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, then the Minister should not lead me astray in this way. With respect, Sir, in that case not I but the Minister should have been called to order.

I call him to order. I have silenced him.

I accept that; I just want to stress the point, Sir.

I hope the hon. member takes the hint.

I take it immediately. What I want to emphasize now— this is back to the Bill immediately—is that the circumstances of our urban Bantu, which necessitate this Bill, are the result of national policy in the true sense of the word “national”. It is the unanimous policy of those political parties in South Africa which are worth something, the Nationalist Party to a lesser degree and the United Party to a larger degree. It is our joint policy that both parties stand for social and residential separation in South Africa.

Since when have you stood for that?

Since I have known the United Party, and this goes back to the 1920s. It is our joint policy … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must not lead the hon. speaker astray.

He thinks he is still at Vanwyksvlei.

I could not hear whether it was Brandvlei or Brakpan, but I think the nervousness of my friends opposite may have something to do with Brakpan. Sir, I say these people are a sub-economic class; their transport problems are the result of national policy shared by the main parties, i.e. residential and social separation, as well as the fact that they must have separate buses to transport them to their residential areas. Another thing accepted by both sides in principle is that their residential areas should be established on the outskirts of our cities. The result is that to transport one busload of these Bantu to their places of employment and back, requires a bus journey of from two to three times the distance of the average journey required to transport our White workers from their homes to their places of employment. This means an exceptional burden on the less privileged workers of South Africa. Just forget about their colour. Because they are the poorest, because they probably receive, on an average, one-tenth of the wages of the average White person, it is necessary for the State, which is dependent on their labour for its prosperity, to subsidize them. I want to emphasize that it is necessary for the State, the people, the nation, for the public to subsidize their transport. We make no progress when we say that it is the fault of the industrialist or the employer; it is the result of State policy, of the social circumstances and the historical heritage which all of us in South Africa have to share. We must face up to those facts. Their condition is the result of national policy. The hon. the Deputy Minister has asked me what our standpoint is. Our standpoint is, in the first place, that it is not sufficient just to come forward with a measure such as this. A thorough, impartial, scientific investigation ought to be instituted generally into the economic circumstances of the urban Bantu worker.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.