Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate I expressed my doubts as to the composition of this council. In fact, when one looks at the proposed membership of the council, one notices its lack of strength to do this particular job. Therefore I wish to move the following amendment—

1. (d) three shall be representatives of the South African Road Federation, the Automobile Association and the Rondalla Touring Club, respectively;
2. (e) two shall be a qualified civil engineer and a qualified mechanical engineer, respectively.

In moving this amendment, we on this side of the House are trying to give this council more balance and more experience with a view to the decisions it will have to make. In the first place I suggest that a member of the Road Federation should be included in this council: This body is very well respected. It consists of some of the most eminent engineers that we have in this country of ours. There are road engineers, mechanical and electrical engineers and transport engineers. It is often called upon by local authorities and provincial authorities for advice in regard to their road programmes. Furthermore, this particular federation is affiliated internationally to one of the highest bodies of this nature in the world. With their technical know-how and their background, members of this federation are well qualified to assist the hon. the Minister particularly in regard to this problem he has. There is no doubt that with a member of the Road Federation serving on the council, it will add to the lustre and strength of the council, and will assist the council in bringing forth solid and sound decisions.

Another member I suggest, is a member from the Automobile Association. This is an association of motorists numbering some 500 000 strong. It is not very well known that the AA has technical departments which do nothing else but study various aspects such as road safety, road engineering and traffic control. The Automobile Association is represented in most bodies dealing with road safety. They have made a wonderful contribution to road safety and to the teaching of the rules of the road to motorists.

Now we come to Rondalla, one of our newer touring clubs. It is a strong organization, and its influence is growing from day to day. Like its sister organization, the AA, it also has a technical background. It has technical experts, and if one of them were elected to this council he, too, would play his part. I am reasonably certain that these associations will elect only their top people to an organization such as this.

We now come to the two engineers. Sir, if you look at the proposed composition of this council, you will notice that there is only one expert. There is no suggestion that there will be any engineers on this council. The Deputy Minister has not told us that this is going to be the case and we do not know whom he intends appointing. We feel that this particular body would be lacking in balance and strength if it did not number amongst its members a qualified civil engineer. We in this country are in a fortunate position in this regard. In Cape Town, for instance, we have a man like Dr. Solly Morris. I do not say that he should be that member, but there are men of his calibre who could play their part on a council such as this. In the Transvaal we have brilliant engineers. There are such men in the provincial administrations, men who have studied this particular subject and know what they are talking about. They have written papers on this subject; they have attended international symposia. I feel that we cannot do without a very highly qualified civil engineer.

Sir, since we are dealing with road traffic and with mechanical vehicles, it is also necessary to have a mechanical engineer or a motor engineer. When discussions take place on this council concerning the modern vehicles of today, it will be necessary to have somebody in authority who will be able to guide them in their deliberations. As a result, the recommendations the council will make to the Minister will be so much the more sound. I recommend that the Deputy Minister accepts this amendment. We on this side have accepted his Bill and we are trying to make it a better Bill. As I have said, it has shortcomings, and as regards the council those shortcomings shout at one, because 80 per cent of its members will probably know nothing about road safety or road building, or mechanical vehicles. Therefore we must have on the council people who will be able to make a success of this job.

Sir, I want to ask that the hon. the Deputy Minister should not very readily agree to making this council once again a body which cannot function properly because of its unwieldiness. I have sympathy with the proposal made by the hon. member for Salt River, in the sense that he would like to see representation on this council being granted to bodies which can nominate people with specialized knowledge. Sir, once we start doing that, we shall find that there are so many deserving bodies which can legitimately lay claim to representation on this council, that we shall eventually end up again with a council consisting of roughly 40 members, and hon. members opposite have pointed out that one of the shortcomings of the old council was in fact that it was too unwieldy and that, as a result, it could not function properly. I want to point out that what the hon. member for Salt River advocated here, may in fact be effected when this council is constituted. The Minister appoints four members. There is no reason why the chairman or the deputy chairman, for instance, could not be people with technical knowledge or with an engineering background. Why could they not have such qualifications? The Minister can bear this in mind in making these appointments.

The last chairman was the Administrator of the Transvaal.

Surely, it need not be the Administrator again. In terms of this Bill the Administrator will in any case no longer be serving on this council. The hon. member cannot say that because this was the case on the previous council, it will again be the case here. We are now establishing a new body here. The old council had certain shortcomings, and the hon. member is now trying to force the new council into the same position in which the old council found itself.

I want to go further. Clause 3 (1) (a) (i) provides that one member shall be a person who, in the opinion of the Minister, commands special knowledge with regard to road safety on account of training and experience. Sir, why can this not be a person appointed from a panel drawn up for the Minister by these service organizations or by somebody from the Road Federation? If there is such a person with these particular qualifications, the Minister may appoint him, in terms of this particular clause, to serve on this council. I think the hon. member for Salt River did not put forward a sound argument as to why we should make this council a body consisting of 17 members. If one complies with his request for two engineers to be appointed to this council, which one can in any case do under the present set-up, if one appoints representatives of the service organizations to this council, which one can also do in any case under the existing clauses, then one will find that there will be other bodies which will also seek representation on this council.

Sir, representations were made to us here this morning by the Institute of Municipal Traffic Officers. Why does the hon. member want to have a representative of the AA on the council and not a representative of the Institute of Municipal Traffic Officers? Does he have any good reason for omitting these people and wanting to bring in the others? If the hon. member wanted to achieve by way of his proposals something which he could not achieve under the existing clauses, I would have agreed with him, but it is already possible for him to get everything he is asking for here under the existing clauses. Therefore I see no reason why the hon. the Deputy Minister should accept this proposal.

Sir, I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will not allow himself to be misled by the, I fear, superficial and ill-considerered argument advanced by the hon. member for Parow. He suggested that the objectives of the amendment could be achieved if the Minister appointed, in terms of clause 3 (1) (a), people with the necessary qualifications, but he did not dispute the fact that all the people proposed by us would be deserving members of the council. The Bill provides that the council shall consist of 12 members. We propose that another five members be appointed, namely representatives of the two important motorists’ organizations and of the Road Federation, a body which all of us respect very highly, and then we ask for very special reasons that a mechanical engineer and a civil engineer be appointed to the council. The reason for this was mentioned by my hon. friend, and I just want to emphasize it again. One of the most important matters to be considered by such a council is the extent to which the construction and the design and the lay-out of roads contribute to accidents, and how they can be built so as to reduce the number of accidents. That is the task of the civil engineer. We know that for the sake of safety a revolution is being caused in America in the construction of motor cars through the actions of one man, who qualified himself for going into possible technical defects in the construction of a motor car. That is why we suggest that a mechanical engineer, whose speciality is engine work, should also serve on this council. There are already five people for whose appointment we feel a good case cam be made out.

You can make out a good case for another ten persons.

I agree with the hon. member. He only started mentioning other people who could possibly be appointed as well; that is possible. One could go back to the size of the original council, which was not a body which could function easily, but it is for that very reason that we are modest and giving priority to those people who we believe can make the best contribution to an organization dealing with the combating of road accidents. Sir, even if the hon. the Deputy Minister were to accept our recommendation in spirit, he could actually appoint only three people. In looking at clause 3 (1) one sees that he will appoint one person because he commands special knowledge with regard to road safety on account of his training and background. Sir, one would think that all of the 12 members would comply with those requirements, for what would they be doing on the council if they had no knowledge of road accidents and road safety? A second member shall be nominated by the United Municipal Executive. In that regard we are in perfect agreement. And then one has to be designated by the Minister as chairman and one as deputy chairman. They need not necessarily be technical people. They should really be people who come from the Public Service and who can act on that council on behalf of the Minister, and who can advise the Minister directly by virtue of the offices they hold in the Public Service, and I believe that this is in fact what will happen in practice. In other words, we are left with one person whom the Minister can nominate so as to comply with the requirements laid down in our amendment, i.e. that five persons with highly specialized knowledge be appointed to assist the Minister in his work. I want to plead with the hon. the Deputy Minister to accept this amendment. We are not moving it for any political consideration or for the purpose of stealing a march. It is a sincere attempt to have the Minister assisted by people who can give him the best advice. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will not dig in his heels as far as this matter is concerned, but that he will approach it with an open mind and that he will in this manner, in the interests of the principles which we all accept, see to it that we shall have a more solid and effective council to assist him.

Sir, I want to assure the hon. member for Yeoville of two things. The first is that I am in fact approaching this matter with an open mind, because with me and with the hon. the Minister the point of departure is just road safety and nothing else. We have no political ulterior motives. Secondly, I want to assure both the hon. member and the hon. member for Salt River that I quite accept their bona fides in this proposal. The more members a council has, the more difficult it is to hold meetings and to follow its proceedings, especially if one has people who, as is being proposed here, are already employed in large organizations and whose time is taken up in full. I want hon. members to read this proposal of theirs in conjunction with two other clauses in this Bill. The first clause to which I want to refer them is, of course, the clause dealing with the managing committee. This Bill makes provision in clause 9 for a managing committee. I believe that this managing committee will actually function on a fulltime basis, but I also believe that the road safety council we are establishing, will have to hold a much larger number of meetings than did the old council or the old action committee, i.e. because this matter is so urgent. But now I am making special provision in the legislation for solving the hon. member’s problem, and I refer them to the functions of the council. I am referring to clause 6 (a).

†For the benefit of the hon. member for Salt River it is to “prepare a comprehensive research programme to effect road safety, to carry it out systematically after consultation with the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research and the National Transport Commission as to the sequence of the carrying out of such programme, and, as part of the carrying out of that programme, to assign research projects to persons who, in the opinion of the council, are best equipped to carry them out”.

*In these instructions to the council we must make provision for three things. The one is that, in consultation and in conjunction with the National Transport Commission, they are to carry out the necessary research in regard to road safety. We have on the National Transport Commission civil as well as other engineers for the very purpose of advising the National Transport Commission in that capacity. This council will decide on these matters in conjunction with the National Transport Commission, but we also have provision for the C.S.I.R. to carry out the research in conjunction with them. I should like to say, and I think the Committee will agree with me, that if one has a sound and objective road safety council, which can enlist the services of the engineers attached to the National Transport Commission, the C.S.I.R. and other bodies, for which I am making provision here, it is possible for them to obtain the services of the representatives of the AA or of Rondalia or of the Federation of Road Users. It is possible for them to obtain all these services; they have not been excluded. But if I brought them into the council, I would make that council a large, unwieldy body which would not be able to do its work properly. I trust that with this explanation you will accept the matter as it stands and withdraw your proposal.

I am pleased that the hon. the Minister has said that he does not question our bona fides, and I want to return the compliment to him. I honestly feel that by way of this measure he is trying to accomplish the best in the interests of road safety. But I am afraid that we shall have to differ on this amendment in all brotherly love. We know that the Bill does in fact provide that the executive of the council may consult people and may call in their assistance, but what we are interested in, is that the council should be equipped for passing an expert judgment on the recommendations referred to it from all quarters. That is why we are asking for the appointment of qualified engineers. Secondly, we are also concerned about the fact that the motorists of South Africa, who will to a large extent have to bear the costs of this council, do not have any direct representation on it; that is why we mentioned the AA and Rondalia and, to a certain extent, the Road Federation. What is involved here, is once again the principle which has already caused a great deal of trouble in the world, i.e. taxation without representation. If the motorists must make a contribution of R1 million per annum, then the least one can ask for is that they should also be represented on the council which decides on how their money is spent. Accordingly I want to make another appeal to the hon. the Minister not to harden his heart like a pharoah of yore, but to realize that we are proposing here a sensible and helpful amendment, and that he will still give consideration to accepting it.

I may just explain the position to the hon. member for Yeoville by drawing a comparison. I think the Minister sitting here, is the best Minister of Railways South Africa has ever seen, but he is not an engineer. Nor would I say that he is an expert economist, but he has been able to judge the engineering works submitted to him by the Railways so as to give South Africa only the best in regard to the engineering development of the Railways. He was able to pass an objective judgment on the economic statements and proposals submitted to him by the economists of the Railways so as to take a decision in regard to what its policy was to be. I could mention many examples. Take the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, for instance. I do not think he is an economist, but whenever the hon. member for Parktown gives his economic advice, he must be capable of digesting and using it so that he may determine his policy. In this manner one needs to have in the world of enterprise at large people who are capable of analysing and consolidating the technical knowledge, the engineering knowledge and all the other knowledge submitted to them, in order that they may, on the basis of such knowledge, take decisions and determine further development. That is the trend of development in the world today, and I want the hon. member also to see this council in that light.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the hon. Deputy Minister and he proved our case. We have the peculiar situation where the council is going to consult. Could hon. members imagine laymen on a Judicial Bench consulting a judge and then making a decision on something they do not understand?

They will not be laymen.

Does the hon. Minister not understand this? He does not say so in his Bill.

They will be choice people.

In the past when we have dealt with Bills dealing with councils for engineering or other professional societies, we have gone out of our way to constitute the council in such a way that we put the experts on that council, and the hon. Minister knows it. The Minister has the right to appoint three or four nominees. He can do whatever he likes and appoint whoever he likes, whether the person is qualified or not. When this council deliberates it has however to offer the Minister of Transport suggestions, but how can they give advice to the hon. Minister if they do not understand what they are talking about?

No.

I am telling you that you are not an expert in everything, and neither am I. I would not put you on the Bench and I would not go on the Bench either. It would be like us nominating 12 people to the Bench of the Supreme Court and then say that they can carry on because they can call in the advice of all the experts. I do not know what sort of balanced judgment they would come out with. That is one of the main reasons why the jury system has been done away with. The reason was that the people dealing with these matters were laymen. Here we have a council and there is no suggestion that there will be any experts, barring the one, on this council. The hon. Minister talks about a body of 17 members being unwieldy. I would like to ask the hon. Minister then to drop some of the others and let us put the representatives or the societies mentioned in our amendment in. It can be done when this Bill goes to the Other Place. Let us put these people in and drop some of the deadwood that he has there. Then we can bring it back to 12 members. Let us make this body a body of experts. The hon. Prime Minister has his advisory council which advises him—he does not put a lot of laymen on his Council; he appoints experts to advise him. They do not consult outside and then advise the Prime Minister. Now the hon. the Minister comes along here with a council that is still-born; it will consult experts and then make its recommendations. These are the people who will have to make recommendations to the hon. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I think this Committee should learn from history. Let us look at the South African Road Safety Council as constituted on the 31st March, 1970. We had a representative of the Automobile Association, one from the Motor Industries Federation, one from the Newspapers’ Press Union, one from the South African Institute of Civil Engineers, one from the South African Medical Association, one from the South African Road Federation, one from the Institution of Municipal Engineers in South Africa, one from the Institute of Traffic Officers in South Africa and one from the Department of Statistics. These are all people in the same sphere as proposed by the hon. member, all people, according to the hon. member, with the necessary know-how. Last night we listened to the sad story of road accidents in South Africa. With all these experts on the South African Road Safety Council, we could not stop the carnage on our roads. That being so, I think this Committee should realize that in the debate last night in this House everyone emphatically supported the one idea, i.e. that we should have a committee or a road safety council that would be able to work on this problem and produce the necessary results next year. We have already tried all these people with the know-how. That is why I want the House to bear with me and accept the clause as it stands.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened very carefully to the hon. the Deputy Minister. He made a statement which intrigued me. He said that last night we talked about how the Road Safety Council had failed and he pointed out that the council which we said had failed—I think rightly so—had comprised all these experts which he mentioned and some of which our amendment seeks to have back on the new council. I thought we made it quite clear in our debate last night that we did not say the Road Safety Council had failed because of its composition. We said it had failed because the council had no power. That is why the council failed and not because of its composition. I think the hon. the Minister should appreciate too that both this side and that side of the House know that the whole success of this new measure will depend on the council. If this council is ineffective, the thing we are trying to do here today will be ineffective as well. This is why we are so anxious—and he must not blame us for it —that the council be properly constituted. When we suggest that the number of councillors should be 17 and not 12, the hon. the Deputy Minister must also bear in mind that when this council was formed initially, there were 125 members. The membership was then reduced to 70. I do agree that 70 was far too great a number to be effective. But certainly the council cannot be less effective if the number of members is increased from 12 to 17, because the people that we are suggesting should be on this council are people who have had many years of experience of road safety matters in South Africa. They are in daily touch with the motorists of South Africa by virtue of their particular occupations and associations. I believe that we would in fact be strengthening this Road Safety Council by adding the officials suggested in our amendment. I sincerely appeal to the hon. the Minister for the sake of cooperation, for the sake of what we are both trying to achieve by this Bill, to allow this amendment to go through because, after all as I have just said, the whole success or failure …

May I interject and ask you why you do not also suggest a member from the consortium who has experience of accidents every day?

Mr. Chairman, I may have suggested a member of the consortium if I were convinced that the consortium knew something about road safety. But we will deal with that under the proper heading. I do not wish to make light of this matter. I am asking the hon. the Deputy Minister in all sincerity not to consider the fact that we have proposed this amendment and not that side of the House, but to consider the fact that we are simply asking him to increase the size of the council from 12 to 17 members bearing in mind that in the original legislation provision was made for 70 members. I am quite sure that if we did this, we will give this council a greater chance of some success in achieving what we all hope it will do.

Question put: That the word “twelve” stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, J. E. Potgieter, J. W. van Staden and M. J. de la R. Venter.

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question affirmed and amendments dropped.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, I just briefly want to bring a couple of matters to the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I want to refer him to clause 6 (b), which concerns the collection of information in connection with road safety. As I pointed out in the Second Reading debate, I believe that we must be very careful to ensure that we do not duplicate our information and research into road safety with that which has already been done overseas. Let us make use of the information they have and not waste money on merely duplicating. The other point is that I hope the council ensures, too, that our information covers as many factors as possible. I ask that, because in reply to a question in regard to motor-cycle accidents just a few days ago, the Minister was unable to give me figures for certain years. It is not important, but there were years that were missing in his reply. I want to make quite sure that that is something we must avoid. We must ensure that the information we have is up to date, accurate and fully detailed. In that connection I would suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he looks at the statistics put out by the United States traffic department. I am not saying that we do not cover all the aspects, but they go into very great detail as to how accidents take place, the time, the age of drivers and so on. I believe it would be a good thing if our statistics were published as closely as possible on the same lines.

May I tell the hon. member that all these matters will definitely be referred to the council.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, here again I want to draw to the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister the remarks I made during my speech yesterday regarding motor cycles and particularly buzz-bikes. I believe that this is vitally important in the light of the increasing speed of these buzz-bikes and the increase in the number of purposes for which they are used. I hope that the Deputy Minister will see to it that the new council goes into the whole question of the licensing and the training of drivers of these buzz-bikes.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 15:

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. the Deputy Minister agrees, I should like to move—

Clause 15 (1) stated, inter alia—

I have no objection to this clause standing over until we have discussed clause 25.

Motion put and agreed to.

Clause 18:

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with what I believe may well be an important aspect in this clause. I refer to subsection (3), which says, inter alia—

I believe that this is important, particularly in relation to the existing members of the Road Safety Council. I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister for a guarantee that the existing members of the Road Safety Council who are not able to meet the conditions of this clause in regard to proficiency in both official languages, are not handicapped by such a provision in this subsection. I say this, Sir, because we hope to attract immigrants from overseas immigrants who may well be specialists and experts in the field of road safety. I think we shall be doing a disservice to the cause of road safety if we are unable to offer these people employment merely because they are not sufficiently proficient in both official languages. As I have said, I should like to have a guarantee from the Deputy Minister that the present employees of the Road Safety Council will not be handicapped by the provision in this subsection. I am sure he agrees with me that we seek to improve our road safety in South Africa and that, in doing so, we must not make a fetish of language. Proficiency in road safety, as far as I am concerned, in this Bill is far more important than proficiency in either of the official languages.

It is also provided in the Civil Service Act that every person who comes into contact with the public must be proficient in both official languages, and I am sure the hon. member will agree with that.

Mr. Chairman, I think the Deputy Minister will agree with me that every person connected with road safety must be proficient in road safety.

Yes, that is so.

The point I am making is that that should surely be the criterion, and not whether a person is proficient in both official languages.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 19:

Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with the continued existence of the existing National Road Safety Organization Personnel Superannuation Fund. If you will permit me to do so, Mr. Chairman, I should also like to refer, during the course of my remarks, to the following clause, Clause, 20 because both these clauses are related to the same matter. Both of them affect the fringe benefits afforded to the personnel of the Road Safety Organization. In this regard I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether it is his intention that a further superannuation fund will be established at a later stage. The Deputy Minister is, in terms of clause 20, taking powers in terms of which he may establish an additional superannuation fund. In this connection persons who continue to be members of the existing superannuation fund appear not to have any statutory right in regard to transfer from one fund to the other. I think this is an important aspect, because invariably when a new fund is established, those persons belonging to the existing fund would like to have the right to elect to become members of the new fund. Clause 19 (3) reads as follows—

That proviso is a safeguard for the persons who belong to the existing fund. Then, Sir, if I may refer briefly to the following clause, clause 20. It makes provision for additional fringe benefits. We have heard the hon. the Deputy Minister say, during the various stages of the debate on this Bill, that it is the intention to try to attract good and efficient personnel, who will be able to render a service in the field of road safety to the benefit of all. That is why it is important, when dealing with the whole question of these fringe benefits that are being afforded to personnel in the employ of the Road Safety Council, that they should be given the sort of right which is normally given in such circumstances; if another fund is established, these people should be able by statute, and not merely by regulation, to have the right to elect to transfer to a new superannuation fund which could be more beneficial to them. I say this in view of the fact that other benefits are envisaged in clause 20, such as medical benefit societies and a home-ownership scheme. Here, Sir, it would appear that it is the intention to bring about improved conditions and improve fringe benefits for the personnel, and it seems only right that the personnel already in the employ of the Council and who are members of the existing Superannuation Fund, should have a statutory right to transfer their pension rights to such a new fund.

Sir, I think the hon. member has given the answer himself. The last paragraph of clause 3 provides—

In clause 20 we establish the pension fund, the provident funds and the other schemes. It goes without saying that those members who are now in service, who are protected under clause 19, will enjoy the same privileges under clause 20, but if these privileges are different under clause 20 we do not want them to be prejudicially affected.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 25:

Mr. Chairman, in this clause we come to the difference between us and the Government. It is a difference of principle. In the previous amendment, which the hon. member for Salt River moved, we dealt with a difference regarding an administrative matter, but this is a difference of principle. I want to put on record on behalf of this side of the House that we are opposed in principle to sectional taxation, to taxes on sections of the community. I want to put on record on behalf of this side of the House that we think the South African motorists represent a section against which the discrimination has become intolerable. During the course of my Second Reading speech I pointed out that the taxation on the motorist in South Africa, including extraordinary levies like the profits which the hon. the Minister of Transport makes on the transport of petrol by the Railways, in 1970 amounted to R328 620 000. I think I should now draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that that figure for 1970 amounted to an annual taxation on the motorist of R140, about R12 a month. Sir, the point that should be noted is that this tax is paid by the smallest motorist as far as the economic situation is concerned, by the owner of the lightest motor-car and by the richest in South Africa on the same scale, the amount depending to some extent on the size and the weight of his car. Sir, the point I want to make is that this is a discriminatory tax not only against the motorist; it is also a discriminatory tax against the less affluent motorist. It must be faulted on two grounds. It does not distinguish between the people who can really afford to pay this tax and those who have difficulty in paying this tax. If the purpose of the Minister is to discourage motoring in South Africa, if the purpose of the Minister is to say to the average man, the working man in South Africa, “You should not have a motor-car; I will tax you so heavily that you will find it impossible to use a motor-car”, then it is a different argument and then we can join issue on that argument, but the purpose here is to impose a tax of almost equal proportions upon all motorists as a section in order to pay for what is a national problem. I want to emphasize what I said yesterday. It is a fallacy, an unfair fallacy to suggest that only the motorist causes accidents.

If the Minister will look at the analysis of the figures showing the causes of accidents, he will find that it is the human being who causes most accidents, and he causes those accidents whether he is driving a motor-car or riding a bicycle or walking in the street. The major cause of accidents is the mistakes made by pedestrians, acts of negligence or carelessness on the part of pedestrians. Farmers have accidents on the roads with their cattle and their animal-drawn vehicles, but now the motorist, the most heavily taxed community in South Africa as it is, is asked to shoulder a disproportionate share of the cost of this particular Bill. The principle is fine; the principle is excellent and has our enthusiastic support, but why defile a good principle by something which cannot be defended in any circumstances? If we delete this clause, and we come back to clause 15—which should be amended too, consequentially—the result will be that this council will be funded out of funds which will accrue from the departing council, and from funds collected from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and funds from other unspecified sources. But is it right that it should come from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, The whole nation is involved in this. Every citizen in South Africa is a potential cause of an accident, whether he drives a motorcar or not. If you take it from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, it is not a further burden on the cost of production. This tax, because motor vehicles play such an important part in the industry and the commerce of South Africa, is an inflationary tax. The private motorist will not be able to do it, but the motorist in business and in industry inevitably will pass this cost on to his clients. I am not blaming them for it, but that is inevitably how it works. It is an inflationary tax, so why is the Government so contradictory? Why does the hon. the Minister of Finance spend hours in this House and out of it, warning against the dangers of inflation and telling us that the Government will use all its abilities, if it has any, and all its resources to combat inflation and then the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Bantu Administration and others come with this principle of indirect sectional taxation, which is in itself inflationary? It is in itself a contradiction in terms. It is evidence of the incompetence of this Government which led to the rebellion of the Nationalists in Brakpan yesterday. Will this Government never learn a lesson? Will they never see that their policies are being applied wrongly and that it is having consequences in the support they enjoy from the public—drastic and dramatic consequences. Sir, I appeal most seriously to the Government to accept the amendment of the United Party and to delete the reference in clause 15 to this sectional tax. Let the people who should pay, pay for this, which is mostly the nation, every member of which is involved in road safety. I am willing to support, if the hon. the Minister wants to move such an amendment, the suggestion of the hon. member for Parow who says that where the motorist is guilty of negligence and is found guilty by a court, his fine should be contributed to this fund. That I could support because then you tax the responsible motorist, the man who is directly responsible for road accidents. But on what grounds can you say that every motorist must pay? There are motorists who have driven motor-cars for a lifetime and never have had an accident. There are bus drivers who get medals because of the wonderful record of safety, but yet they must be taxed equally with the others. There is no sense or reason in this proposal and I plead with the Minister for once to be reasonable and sensible and let him accept the amendment of the Opposition.

As usual the hon. member for Yeoville has been unable to resist the temptation of exaggerating everything, and of exaggerating it in the grossest manner possible. If Brakpan is any consolation to the United Party, they are welcome to it. If they think Brakpan is an indication that they will come into power some day. I think they will have to wait a very long time. They will never sit here in that hon. member’s lifetime. Of that he may be very sure.

As regards this so-called sectional tax, it is not a sectional tax; it is a levy. The hon. member referred to the pipeline. It is a small part of the motorists of the South Africa that is affected by that. It is only the motorists on the Witwatersrand and not the motorists in the rest of South Africa, and the hon. member ought to know this.

It is the vast majority of them.

It is not the vast majority, but a small part of the motorists on the Witwatersrand. It is not general. Each motorist in South Africa will not benefit from a reduction in that tariff on fuel. What the hon. member must not forget, is that the motorist in the first instance has the biggest interest in the number of accidents being reduced. If the number of accidents is not reduced, insurance premiums will increase each time. As it is, in the course of one year the premiums for comprehensive insurance have—the hon. member must listen to me now!

I hear every word you are saying.

Very well, then you must pay attention and not turn the other way and look around.

I am listening with this ear.

Yes, but in the case of the hon. member it goes in one ear and out the other. That is his difficulty or rather his weakness. If the number of accidents is reduced, the premiums will decrease. Who pays the premiums on third party insurance? Each motorist in this country, whether rich or poor. The claims already exceed the premiums by far.

What consolation is that to a maimed pedestrian?

Mr. Speaker, I say …

Who is more important? The person who pays or the maimed person?

I say it is in the prime interest of the motorist that the number of accidents be reduced, because it is the motorist who has to pay the insurance premiums and not the pedestrian. It is not the cyclist who pays the premiums, but the motorist. Third party insurance premiums are compulsory, and irrespective of whether the motorist is rich or poor, he still has to pay them. Just because I established the consortium … Will the hon. member for Green Point leave the hon. member in peace now so that he may pay attention? Premiums remained constant for the past five years only because I established that consortium. Does the hon. member realize that if we were to have continued in the same way as we did in the past, the motorist would have had to pay at least double the premium he is paying now? What is going to happen? If the number of accidents does not decrease, but continues to increase at the present rate, it will mean that the insurance premiums will have to be increased before long. The premiums will have to be increased not only by 50 cents but by much more. At the moment the claims amount to much more than the amount collected in premiums. This already is the position as regards comprehensive insurance. This already is the position as regards comprehensive insurance, not only because repairs cost more but also because there are more accidents. Therefore, is it not in the interests of the motorist for every attempt to be made to decrease the number of accidents? Is it not worth his while to have to contribute 50 cents per annum to that end? No, but according to those hon. members it is going to cause inflation. Have hon. members ever heard such a ridiculous argument?

The amount of 50 cents which each motorist will have to pay each year, will, according to those hon. members, cause inflation. No, the hon. member should really advance better arguments than this. I say again that in the first instance it is in the interests of the motorist to have the number of accidents reduced. For that reason he is being asked to contribute 50 cents per year so as to help us ensure that the number of these accidents will be reduced. This is not a sectional tax. I think it is completely justified to impose this levy on all motorists in South Africa, because it is in their own interests. If this does not happen and if the number of accidents is not reduced, his premiums will be increased as sure as I am standing here. Such an increase will be much more than 50 cents.

Mr. Chairman, I have often heard the hon. the Minister of Transport in this House and as he knows I have a very high regard for his debating ability. I have occasionally criticized him for being irritable and ill-tempered, but I have never known him as abrupt and ill-tempered as today. I hope the hon. gentleman is well, and I hope he is not suffering from Brakpanitis. His behaviour today was strange beyond words and his arguments were such that he must have been thinking about other things. He has been thinking about Brakpan and certainly not about this Bill in recent times. I just want to know …

Is there a doctor in the House? [Interjections.]

He needs one.

If the hon. the Minister of Health’s medical ability compares with his administrative ability, that certificate will not be worth much.

I want to have a look at the quality of the Minister’s argument. I have never heard such a number of non sequiturs and unrelated points made in support of an indefensible attitude. The hon. Minister argues that unless accidents are reduced the motorist will have to pay higher insurance.

Yes.

He says yes, but I what in heavens name has that to do with the source of the money with which the accidents will have to be curbed?

I have explained it.

If the money is taken from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and it is used for exactly the same purpose, accidents will reduce and the motorist will not pay any more. [Interjection.] Why come with such a completely unrelated and illogical argument as that? It has no reference to the question of whether the money should come from the Consolidated Revenue Fund or from a sectional tax. If the money is used for the same purpose and in the same way, accidents will be reduced in the same way. It is as simple as that. Then the hon. the Minister made great play about how dreadful the accidents in South Africa are and that therefore the motorists—have to pay 50 cents. I agree that the accidents are dreadful and that something should be done about it. But why should the motorist alone pay in order to reduce the number of accidents? Because he does not want to pay higher insurance? Does the pedestrian not have as big an interest if he is involved in an accident and he is crippled for life? Is that a more important consideration than an increase in insurance rates? What is more important: the life and the well-being, the physical fitness, the wholeness of a human being or the amount that he pays in tax? What sort of an argument does the hon. the Minister use? Does he really want the House to take him seriously? I want to suggest that the hon. the Minister recovers from Brakpan and comes back into the debate in a month’s time. It may be better then.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member said an interesting thing here today. For no apparent reason he said in his speech, “That is why Brakpan has had a rebellion”. This goes some way back. He told them, “please do not vote on the basis of policy, because then we shall lose. Simply rebel about these minor things”. This was not a matter of policy, it was just protest. The hon. member is admitting it here now. He has fallen into his own trap.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday evening two of the hon. members referred to a debate held in this House on 25th January, 1960. That is very interesting. One of the members of the United Party, one Mr. Van Ryneveld, pointed out at the time that a levy of 50 cents had been proposed by the then commission of inquiry and he said he was opposed to it.

But in 1960 he was a Progressive.

Very well, he was a Progressive. He said he was opposed to the 50 cent levy on motorists and said it should come from the coffers of the State. The United Party instructed their front-bencher, Badenhorst-Durrant, to oppose it.

He never was a front-bencher.

They told him to oppose it and to propose a payment of 50 cents per motor car. When the Progressive Party said that the commission of inquiry had recommended that motorists be taxed by a levy of 50 cents, but that they were opposed to it and that it should not be done, the United Party said motorists had to be taxed by 50 cents. They then told Badenhorst-Durrant in their caucus to oppose it and to propose a levy of 50 cents per motor car.

Surely that is a sectional argument.

Exactly. These are the arguments of the hon. gentlemen sitting over there.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday evening I pointed out to this House the increasing costs of third party insurance. At the same time I mentioned that the general insurance had increased by 40 per cent. I went to check this today and the insurers told me my figure was incorrect. The increase in comprehensive insurance over the period January, 1971, to January, 1972, to which I referred yesterday evening comes to 50 per cent. The hon. member for Port Natal asked me in respect of which motor cars this was. These risks, which I obtained from a certain insurer, have shown the following increases since 1969: In respect of the small vehicles, for example, the Volkswagen and the Mini, the risk was 106 per cent in 1969, and at present it is 200 per cent. For the medium class vehicle, for example the Opel and the Cortina, it was 53 per cent, and is 80 per cent at present. For the larger class vehicle it was 57 per cent, and is 80 per cent at present. In respect of taxis it was 54 per cent and is 75 per cent at present. I want to put this on record. These claim risks mean that in respect of the smaller vehicles the insurer concerned had to pay out R106 in claims for each R100 premium in 1969 whereas experience regarding claims in respect of 1970 showed that the claim payments amounted to double the premiums. This state of affairs, they informed me, was attributable, firstly, to the tremendous increase in the frequency of accidents. Since 1969, the frequency of accidents has increased from 9 per cent to 15 per cent. This means that for each ten motor insurance policies issued by the insurer at present, claims will have to be paid in respect of one and a half. In addition, as the hon. member has said, there is an increase in the price of spare parts and in the salaries of artisans, but these have a smaller effect on the claims. As the hon. the Minister has said, it is true that the driver of the motor vehicle alone is not responsible for accidents in the first instance, and I want to agree with that. I concede that to hon. members.

Yes, not always.

Even with the irresponsibility of pedestrians and cyclists, the motor car is the cause, as a result of this irresponsibility, of accidents taking place. That is why this amount is being attached to the third party insurance. We have accepted this in principle and this is how hon. members should see it. We decided in this House, and the United Party did not vote against it at the time, that the owners of motor cars should pay a third party insurance policy to protect not themselves but the whole public of South Africa in the event of car accidents. At that time they did not say that that was a sectional tax, and that we should make money available from the coffers of the State to pay for accidents, etc. Because this is so, I feel that this is the first reason.

The second reason—and it is an important one—is that if a fund for covering these costs simply had to be established from the Revenue Account, nobody would take any notice of it and the money of the fund would simply disappear. However, if the motorist knows that he pays 50 cents specifically for road safety, that knowledge will inculate in him the desire and need to drive more safely. When he takes out his third party insurance, it will constantly be brought to his attention that along with that insurance he has to contribute an amount to road safety as well. At the same time this is a means of advertising, a means of making propaganda and a means of educating motorists so as to condition them, because we must do everything in our power to try to achieve this end. I see no other way clear for obtaining these funds, and not only for obtaining these funds, but for deriving the best results from them.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister has just advanced, if I understood him correctly, three reasons for believing that the specific clause should remain as it is. His first reason, and it was his strongest, if I heard him correctly, was that this specific proposal had allegedly come from Mr. Baden-horst-Durrant in 1960. That was his principal reason.

No, that was not my reason.

Apparently that proposal made by the hon. member in 1960 was a very good one. In that case, why did it take the hon. the Deputy Minister 12 years to discover that it was a good proposal? Why did he not accept that proposal in 1960? I shall tell hon. members why he did not. In 1960 the Government was not following this pattern of levying sectional tax on such a wide basis in South Africa. This is but a recent discovery of theirs. By means of sectional taxation one succeeds in concealing from the people the real state of affairs regarding taxation. The pedestrian is being told that he need not be concerned; that road safety is going to be provided for him but that he need not pay, but that the motorist will have to pay. This kind of taxation I call a pickpocket tax because a man’s money is being taken without his being aware of it. This was the first reason advanced by the hon. the Deputy Minister.

The second reason was equally unconvincing. It was the same idea as the one expressed by the Minister of Transport. He says that the motorist is the principal party concerned in an accident and that the motorist would like his insurance costs to remain stable or to come down, and that if the number of accidents is not reduced, the costs of insurance will rise. Of course the motorist desires his insurance either to remain stable or to come down, but there is another desire which is much stronger than all these, and that is the desire of the people of South Africa to combat accidents. The proposal of the hon. member for Yeoville is briefly the following: If one wants to fulfil the desire of the motorists and if one wants to meet the wider and more important interests of the people, the money must be taken from the Consolidated Revenue Account, because in that case the entire nation will be concerned in the matter. This was the second reason of the hon. the Deputy Minister, and there was no motivation whatsoever for his argument.

Thirdly, he said, the thing that actually was at fault was the presence of the motor car. This actually was the principal culprit. If there was no such thing as a motor car, he said yesterday, there would not have been accidents. Because there is such a thing as a motor car, we have to tax it and impose a levy of 50 cents on it. You know, Sir, this is a strange argument. Has he given any consideration to the question of what steps we are to take in connection with firearms in future? Shall we hold firearms responsible in future for the millions of fallen and shall we have to tax firearms in order to prevent wars? But I want to take the hon. the Deputy Minister a step further. He says the presence of the motor car is the principal cause. It is generally accepted that excessive drinking contributes to accidents on the roads. I do not want to deny this. This is so. Therefore the presence of liquor is another culprit. So why does the hon. the Minister not tax liquor? Surely this is the same type of argument. This is an empty argument. This is no argument whatsoever for abandoning the proposal of the hon. member for Yeoville.

His final reason, the hon. the Deputy Minister said, was his most important reason. By levying this amount of 50 cents per annum on the motorists, he is being made aware of the fact that he must be careful as regards motor accidents and road safety. Let us consider this. If the levy is imposed on the motorist, he may be aware of the 50 cents this year. Next year he will still pay it and it is to be doubted whether he will still be aware of it at that time. The year after that he has forgotten about it and it simply is a tax the Government has levied from him. His awareness will be of short duration.

This is not a tax; it is an annual levy.

The hon. gentleman is playing with words. This is a sectional tax, and whatever one may call it, this is how it will be recognized in all terms of finance. If the hon. the Minister wants to create an awareness as far as accidents are concerned, he should create that awareness not only amongst the motorists but amongst the people as a whole. That awareness will be created not by taking money from the coffers of the State or taxing the motorist, but by involving the people as a whole in an endeavour to prevent road accidents in South Africa. Basically this is a matter of education. The hon. the Deputy Minister is very wide of the mark if he thinks we shall be able to put this matter in order in this way. No, the proposal of the hon. member for Yeoville has a sound basis. There is no doubt about that whatsoever. Up to now I regret I have not heard a single argument from the opposite side which has convinced me that this is not so. Until such time as I do hear that argument, I should like to summarize the position as follows; although we fully support this matter in principle, the hon. the Deputy Minister is taking a step here which truly is not worthy of this particular Bill, and I honestly trust that he will listen to the proposal put to him in all fairness and will abandon his original plan.

Mr. Chairman, in 1942 when the third party insurance legislation was piloted through this House, it was said in the course of the Second Reading debate that motor car accidents should be accepted as part of the social consequences of the use of motor vehicles, an article which had become part of our way of life. Yesterday evening the hon. member for Umbilo underlined this aspect as well, if I understood him correctly. He said we were dealing here with a social consequence of what was part of our society. Consequently the logical deduction I have to make from the argument of the hon. member for Umbilo is that because this measure seeks to combat a social consequence, i.e. accidents, the costs should be shouldered by the entire population. Was that how the hon. member for Umbilo argued?

Yes.

The hon. member says yes. At the time of that debate in 1942 we had a United Party Government and that United Party Government accepted as a policy, after they had debated this matter for many years, that this was a social measure and that the motorist should shoulder the insurance premium for that reason. At that time the line of thought was as follows: Dream away the motor car and one never has an accident, but dream away the pedestrian and one still has accidents; dream away the cyclist and one still has accidents too. That was the argument. The policy regarding the means of combating these social consequences of what is part of our society was laid down by those people. Now, because it suits their political ends, they say the opposite in this House. Therefore what my argument amounts to is that if we were to propose today that third party insurance premiums were to come from the Exchequer and were to be paid by the taxpayers in general, they would have to support us. But, Sir, I want to tell you that they will not do so, and again for political reasons.

Then why do you not propose it?

Therefore my conclusion in this regard is that that side of this House laid down a policy for combating this matter, and we are following that policy because we are still concerned with carrying out the same matter, i.e. combating accidents and the consequences of accidents.

Sir, we find that that side of this House votes against the Budget year after year. We have just seen that side voting against the little Budget. Last year we challenged them time and again to mention one single item which, in their opinion, was unnecessary and which, in their opinion, should not have been included in the Budget. They attacked Government expenditure in general, and today we must deduce that they were opposed also to items of expenditure such as a contribution to the C.S.I.R. or to the Road Safety Council, as it was known. Directly and in directly we contributed R622 000 from the side of the Government and we must accept that that was at issue as well. Now the hon. the Deputy Minister is proposing the complete removal of an item from the political argument, as far as the Budget is concerned, and he is asking the opposite side to agree to just 50 cents being voted in this way. As opposed to this, their standpoint is that that amount should be taken from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. On the one hand they are saying this, and on the other hand they vote against that Consolidated Revenue Fund every year. How are we to reconcile those two standpoints?

In conclusion I want to say that if we take the history of the measure before this House today, we find that it has become necessary because the previous measures were ineffective, whatever the reason for that may be. In various debates we and that side of this House agreed a long time ago that there was one very important factor in this connection, and that that was to stir people’s consciences. What is the hon. the Minister proposing in fact? He is proposing to sell a share of 50 cents in this programme to each motorist. Sir, when we take a further look at this measure, we find that the council concerned will have to report to this House through the Minister each year on the successful effect of legislation he may have piloted through the provinces or may otherwise pilot through by means of regulations. Consequently each motorist will be kept informed of the successful or unsuccessful expenditure of his 50 cents in this major undertaking. For that reason I believe that hon. members on that side have not answered for themselves the question whether this is a policy which has to be carried through consistently or whether it is not necessary to give recognition to the motorist in this very large campaign.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein West has referred to the fact that when the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act was passed, the view was held that this was in the interests of the community because it could be regarded as a social measure. He therefore argued that there was some parallel between that measure and the proposal contained in this clause. I submit, Sir, that there is no parallel whatsoever, because when that Act was introduced, it was introduced specifically as an insurance measure so as to protect the dependants of people who may be killed in motor accidents. This new levy is introducing a different principle in that although the amount is to be collected at the same time as the premium for third party insurance, it is to be specifically allocated to another body entirely, namely the Road Safety Council, for their use and appropriation. Consequently this measure goes very much further than the Third Party Insurance Act, which merely dealt with the aspect of insurance. The amount collected from this levy is to be utilized for research into road safety and various ways of making the public aware of the necessity of road safety and of taking precautions to try to prevent road accidents. This is a separate levy entirely; it is for a specific purpose, namely road safety, not for the purpose of insurance. But, in spite of that fact, if this clause is not passed, then the situation will be that the council will have to rely for its funds on the Consolidated Revenue Fund; in other words, the entire community, both the direct and indirect taxpayers, would be called upon to make a contribution to road safety, as has been the position in the past. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister has so far failed to convince this Committee of the necessity to impose this additional 50 cent levy on motorists.

Would you agree to an increase in the insurance premium?

Not if it is not necessary. The Minister has certainly not proved that it is necessary to increase the premium for third party insurance. The figures given to us in this House show that the fund stands at something like R104 million. Apart from that, the Motor Vehicle Assurance Fund has made donations to the Road Safety Council.

Because they regard it as an investment.

The Motor Vehicle Assurance Fund is not in a position, therefore, where it is necessary to increase the third party insurance premium. There are those who believe that this 50 cent levy is going to be an increase in the third party insurance premium, but it is not; it is being imposed for a specific purpose, and that is to promote road safety. It is not being imposed for the purpose of insurance. This levy has nothing to do with an increase in the third-party insurance premium. As we see it, this levy is an impost on the motorist who has to pay this additional amount for a social measure in the interest of the community as a whole. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister has not yet given this Committee any proof that it is necessary to raise this additional R1¼ million. He has indicated the various items of expenditure that will be incurred by the council to promote road safety, but he has failed to convince the Committee that this amount should be borne only by the motorist; that they should be singled out as a group to meet the increased costs that he envisages with the growth of the Road Safety Organization in terms of the other provisions of this Bill. We on this side believe that it is wrong to introduce a principle of this sort in a matter which affects the Whole community and which is a social measure that has been accepted in the past as such by virtue of the fact that any costs incurred in promoting road safety have been financed from the Consolidated Revenue fund. There seems to be no reason why that principle and that policy should not continue to apply. Why cannot the Consolidated Revenue Fund continue to finance the Road Safety Council? This is an important question to which we have not as yet had a satisfactory reply from the hon. the Deputy Minister. He has not convinced this Committee of the necessity to impose this sectional levy on the motorists of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, before dealing with the remarks made by the hon. member for Umbilo I want to refer just for a moment to a remark by the hon. member for Maitland. We in this House have grown used to his making some illogical remarks at times, but today, I think, he has reached the limit. He referred here to the statement by the hon. the Deputy Minister that the addition of this levy will keep the motorist constantly aware of the fact that he is making a contribution to road safety, and then he suggested that it should rather be done on a wider front and that the entire public should be made aware of it by taking the money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. If this were to happen, I want to say in the first place that our tax accounts would have to be sent out by the Receiver of Revenue in two parts every year, one showing a small additional levy of a few cents, and a second showing our income tax. I wonder how he is going to bring it home to the general public that they are making a contribution to road safety.

Then I just want to remark that we have tried this very thing. This is the situation as it is at the moment, after all. Contributions are received from the Joint Taxation Fund and contributions are received from the provinces; this is the source from which road safety costs were defrayed in the past, and now we have heard that it was not adequate; that it did not achieve the object which it should have achieved. This is the reason why we have this legislation here today, namely that the steps which were taken in the past and which are still in force at the moment have not achieved the object which we would have liked to achieve. This means, therefore, that what was done in the past was not successful or apparently not successful, and consequently we must take different steps in order to have more funds available to us, and this is why we are now following this procedure.

This brings me to the remark made by the hon. member for Umbilo that no evidence has been furnished of the necessity for finding an extra R1¼ million a year. If the hon. member looks at the Bill which is now before the House, then I think he will see that provision is made for estimates to be drawn up every year and for the estimates to be submitted to the Minister. He will also see that provision is made for funds not immediately required to be invested, etc. Therefore he need not be concerned about the possibility of an unnecessary expenditure of funds.

I regard this legislation as the next step in our campaign against road accidents in this country. We have had legislation before. We are now taking the next step and I want to suggest that the last word has not yet been spoken in this Parliament in regard to legislation on this subject. I would assume that if these steps which are now being taken, and the measure which is being adopted, still do not have the desired effect, we would come to the House once again, most probably with further proposals for defrayment and taxes to be levied, and other proposals in connection with the ways in which this money is to be raised.

I should like to refer to the remark made by the hon. member for Umbilo that this legislation is no parallel to that of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act. I disagree with him completely. I think he is making a mistake. What is the object of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act? Surely it is for the benefit of those who have suffered as a result of accidents in which motor vehicles were involved, to compensate them for their losses, material losses, pain and suffering, medical and legal costs, and everything that is connected with it. From that source they are compensated and I regard this as the negative aspect of this matter. But we are now touching on the positive aspect, namely the fight against the cause of this problem. This is the positive aspect. As I see it, we are on the one hand compensating for damage in a negative way through the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, while we are dealing with the positive aspect of the matter through the introduction of this levy and the promotion of road safety. These are two legs of the same body. Therefore I am completely in favour of the idea of both of them being taken further on this level.

I have also been convinced by the reasons advanced here that this legislation, just as the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, is in the interests of motorists in general. Not all motorists are guilty of the accidents which are compensated for from the funds of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act. Nevertheless all motorists contribute to that fund. If the hon. members on the other side of the House want to be consistent, I think they should go so far as to say that the funds required for motor vehicle insurance and compulsory insurance should now also be paid from the general fund, but I do not think they will be so foolish as to make such a proposal. In other words, it is sectional taxation as well, because I drive my vehicle and even if I am not guilty I become involved in an accident and I am compensated, but I pay my insurance very year, whether I have been involved in an accident or not, and whether I have driven safely for 30 years or not—I pay that insurance. If the members want to be consistent they should say that we are to meet these expenses from general revenue as well. No, I find a very good parallel between the two. I find that the one is only the negative leg, i.e. the compensation for the patrimonial loss, and the other is the prevention of that loss. The two are therefore being carried further together, and I am quite satisfied that this is the right way to do it.

It has been said here over and over again, and I am convinced that it is true, that the introduction of this legislation is in the general interests of the motorist, not only as regards the combating of the increasing claims against the premiums in terms of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, but also as regards the other patrimonial losses which are suffered as a result of the fact that vehicles are involved in collisions, whether it is covered out of their own pockets or by means of the additional payments they have to make or, if they are insured, by means of the premiums they have to pay for comprehensive insurance. Consequently it is so predominantly in the interests of the motorist that this legislation be carried through successfully and that the objects of this legislation be carried out successfully that I have no hesitation in telling the motorist to make a contribution.

Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that the hon. member who has just sat down, the hon. member for Bellville, was serious when he made the remark about comprehensive insurance. In the first place, if you go in for comprehensive insurance you are insuring yourself against your own negligence. Hon. members on the other side have made several attempts to justify this 50 cents sectional tax and an increase in the third party insurance. I just cannot understand what the two have to do with each other.

You will not understand because you cannot understand it.

What is the object of the 50 cents sectional tax? It must be made available for research and also to the National Road Safety Council. Those 50 cents will, in other words, be used for quite a different purpose than that for which third party insurance is in fact going to be used.

Why will it?

They have nothing to do with each other. In other words, if the 50 cents per motorist is raised and that money is used for the purpose as set out in the Bill, the amount will not be paid out in cases of accidents. What is it going to be spent on? Hon. members can read through this legislation, after all, and they will see for what purpose the money is going to be used. It seems very possible to me, therefore, that in spite of this 50 cents sectional tax there will still be a larger increase in the third party insurance.

I want to return to another point. It has been said that this 50 cents which he has to pay will remind the motorist not to cause an accident every time he gets into his car. There are so many other factors which can cause accidents. Motor mechanics are also involved in the matter. Apart from the objections which we have to sectional taxes in principle, let us look at the additional work created by such a sectional levy from an administrative point of view.

None.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says there will be no additional work.

The members of the consortium collect it when they collect the third party insurance.

Yes, it is collected, but the hon. the Minister said that the matter would be put to the motorist pertinently every year. There will be forms and there will have to be payments and transfers of these 50 cents. The whole planning …

Read the clause; there are no forms. No third party insurance discs are issued if the 50 cents is not included.

But the hon. the Minister clearly said that the object of it would be to bring this matter pertinently to the attention of the motorist every year. There are, in other words, going to be separate heads. The hon. the Minister spoke of advertisements.

If you pay the surcharge is covered.

Then the whole argument used by the hon. the Minister, namely that people must be made more aware of this problem, loses its validity. I believe that this kind of taxation creates additional administrative problems and that it would be much easier if it could be directly transferred from the Consolidated Revenue Account, as proposed by us on this side of the House. Therefore I support the hon. member for Yeoville.

Mr. Chairman, any insurance company is always collecting information and buying the results of research in order to arrange its affairs in such a way that it does not have to increase insurance premiums and in order to make its profit margin as reasonable as possible for itself. Here, too, we have the parallel of an insurance company, namely the Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund, to which every motorist is a contributor. We now have to see to it that that insurance premium is not increased. How do we do this? It can be done by going back to the cause of the introduction of these insurance premiums, namely the motor accident itself. That is logical. How do we tackle this? It is done by conducting research, collecting information, accumulating this information, processing it and then working it through to the provinces. The Institute for Road Research, an agency of the C.S.I.R., has set aside a special section to do research in connection with accidents. The cost of allowing that special team to function amounted to R126 000 last year. The old Road Safety Council which is now being dissolved could only afford to contribute R17 000 to that research. As a result of a lack of funds those research teams were, for example, confined to making studies of accidents in the vicinity of Pretoria alone.

What has that got to do with it?

It has a lot to do with it. The hon. member argues that these are matters which should be kept apart. My argument is that it will be possible for the fund which will be created with the aid of this 50 cents levy to enable this newly established council to make a larger contribution to the C.S.I.R. for this agency it has.

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. member for Bloemfontein West show us where we are proposing an amendment to the effect that there should not be a fund or that there should be a smaller fund?

My reply is not aimed at that part of the amendment. My reply is aimed against the attitude of that side of the House that a fund which runs parallel to the Third Party Insurance Fund is not justifiable. Surely that is the argument. That is the implication of the amendment.

It is the origin of the fund to which we are referring, not its existence.

Our argument is that it runs parallel to the Third Party Insurance Fund and that it consequently has to be dealt with as such.

That is not to the point.

Of course it is to the point. That side of the House cannot run away from the point that it runs parallel to the Third Party Insurance Fund. They want to call it a sectional tax. The moment they accept that it runs parallel to the Third Party Insurance Fund and that it is a fund which will serve to prevent an increase in the premium of the third party insurance their argument of a sectional tax falls away. That is why they do not want to listen to these figures. That is why they do not want to accept it when I tell them that the old council could only contribute R17 000 to certain research work. We propose that a visible fund be established in which everyone will be able to have a share in order that everyone may see what is being done in this research.

Mr. Chairman, there seems to be a lot of confusion on that side about the connection between the funds of the MVA and the funds required for promotion of road safety. I maintain that those are two completely separate issues. The purpose of MVA is to provide indemnity for third parties against damage in certain circumstances which they suffer as a result of road accidents. It is to provide for indemnity. The purpose of the funds that are to be provided in terms of this Bill is to promote road safety. Those two things have a connection but are separate issues. The question of road safety is a far wider issue than the question of third party insurance. I hope that that side of the House will clarify their thinking on this subject, because the two subjects are separate.

I agree with all the arguments that have been raised on this side of the House in connection with the intrinsic demerits of raising money for this purpose in this way and financing road safety in this manner. I would like to raise a couple more points as to why this clause of the Bill should not be approved. I think that a precedent is being established in financing a council such as the Road Safety Council in the manner in which it is proposed to be financed, in other words, by raising a separate tax on motorists for the purpose of financing a council whose job is research and other work to promote road safety for the benefit of all inhabitants of South Africa. We have other councils that work for the benefit of all inhabitants of South Africa. We have institutions such as the Bureau of Standards and the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. We also have the Institute for Small Traders which admittedly does not look after the interests of all inhabitants, but only a section of the population. Those councils are financed out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund; why should the Council for Road Safety not be financed in a similar manner? Why should we have a new form of financing?

I am also not happy with the tendency which is creeping into the management of our finances in this country, of which the introduction of the proposed imposition in this clause is one example, and that is the tendency of having more than one Minister exercising the powers of the Minister of Finance. The proper Minister of Finance is possibly satisfied with this position, because it takes the responsibility of providing funds for particular purposes off his shoulders. This is a tendency which is creeping more and more into our financial management in this country and it is only a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

All the different ministries that are raising taxation, for example the Department of Bantu Administration, the Department of Bantu Development and now the Department of Transport, are all taxing the same tax base so that they are in fact only robbing Peter to pay Paul. Surely the proper place for State revenue and State expenditure, and expenditure on road safety is State expenditure, is the State revenue and expenditure account. Surely it is wrong in principle to hive this revenue and expenditure off into the accounts of a separate department and not to deal with it in the Budget. This means in effect that this revenue and expenditure gets lost in the overall picture of the revenue and expenditure of the State. We do not know what it is costing to run the country in total, if we have these separate amounts hived off from general State expenditure. It means that the finances of the country are being controlled by more than one Minister. It means that the tax sources of the country are being tapped by more than one Minister.

How, in these circumstances, can the proper Minister of Finance exercise proper control over the best allocation of the tax resources of the country when colleagues are by-passing him and doing the same thing? One cannot run a business with more than one boss, and that is what is happening. I can find no merit at all in this proposed tax. I regard it as a tax of convenience. It is certainly an easy tax to raise. It is an expedient tax to raise, but on financial grounds it has no merit at all.

Before I call upon the hon. member for Parow to address the House, I want to appeal to hon. members to cease repeating arguments. Hon. members have tended lately to raise old arguments over and over again.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Constantia asked why we have a Minister of Finance when every Minister can levy taxes. But there are, after all, so many examples of levies in all spheres; why make an exception now of this particular 50 cent levy? I just want to point out to the hon. member that he requests us to set aside money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for that purpose, something that was never the case. The money given to road safety in the past did not come directly from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The money that came from the provinces came from there indirectly. There were also other contributions, but those came from service organizations, private organizations and insurance companies. In the past, the money was not taken in toto from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. We are therefore not deviating from the principle. We are actually following the custom applicable in the past, i.e. of not taking money directly from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

I now just want to point out something to hon. members. The hon. member for Constantia says “It is two separate issues”; but this is not so. One cannot separate the two matters from each other. I want to point out to him that third party insurance is in essence actually social legislation with a two-fold purpose. On the one hand it protects the third party. It protects the person involved in an accident, in this respect that he is certain there is a place where he can obtain compensation for his damage. On the other hand it protects the motorist, the person who is perhaps not insured and runs a person down and kills him. A court case now ensues, he is found guilty and must pay R20 000 to the next of kin. The man does not have the amount.

What does this have to do with the Bill?

Just wait a moment. They then sell his house and bankrupt him in order to obtain that money. I say that third party insurance is an insurance for the motorist and the third party involved in the accident, so that justice will be done for both of them.

I now come to this levy. It is in the interests of both these parties. That is my argument. It is an argument the hon. member for Durban Central will never understand.

It is also in the interests of the people.

I say these two matters cannot be separated, because the levy protects both parties. It is in the interests of both. If this levy achieves its purpose, there will be fewer accidents and the motorist will not have to pay an abnormally high premium. Therefore we cannot separate the two matters from each other. That is why I also said in the Second Reading Debate that we should see this as an integral part of motor vehicle insurance. That is why this is also involved. We cannot regard those two matters as independent.

Order! That argument has already been used a few times today.

I am sorry, I was not here then.

Mr. Chairman, the argument has been advanced that this levy is tied up with the motor vehicle fund and that it should therefore come out of that fund. I would suggest that one could argue equally that this levy could be tied just as strongly to motor vehicle licences and that it should therefore have come from that quarter. Therefore I do not believe that that argument holds any water at all. What did amuse me was when members on that side tried to lecture us on the principles of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act. They seem to forget that it was actually this side of the House that introduced that Act in 1942. We know the principles of that Act as well as anybody does.

I am a little concerned at the fact that time after time speakers on the other side, including the Deputy Minister, have made no bones about the fact that if this money is not obtained by means of the 50c levy, it may well result in third party insurance premiums having to be increased because of the high accident rate. If we had that argument from one member on the opposite side, we have had it from quite a number. It would seem to be a very strong hint that one can expect an increase in third party premiums. I hope the Deputy Minister will reassure us on this particular aspect. If the Deputy Minister requests an increase in third party premiums, we shall have to remind him of a few other factors. I should like to deal with just one of these, while I am at it, to emphasize why I believe the 50c levy should not be associated with the fund in this manner.

Third party premiums last year totalled R124 million, or nearly R125 million, since the inception of the fund. To that could be added a further R26 million or R27 million for the current year, which has not expired. Of that amount, R79 million-odd has been paid out in claims. But the most interesting figure, when dealing with a subject of this sort, is not the amount actually paid out, but the estimate of outstanding claims. The hon. the Deputy Minister shows an estimate this year for outstanding claims of nearly R55 million. The interesting feature is this: In 1969-’70 he showed an estimate of R20 million and this year he sows an estimate of nearly R55 million. Either the 1969-’70 figure was under-estimated, or the 1970-’71 figure was over-estimated. What this does indicate is that something is radically wrong with these figures. The figures are wrong from the point of view that there is either an over-estimation or an under-estimation. I would suggest that before one starts talking about what happens to the 50c and whether there should be an increase of MVA premiums, it would be far better for this House if we had a clear breakdown of these figures. On this basis they certainly cannot be correct. There is a further point: According to the Bill before us the 50c levy is going to be part of the premium. I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister, since this 50c levy is to be part of the premium, whether it will then also form part of the amount on which the commission of the consortium companies is calculated.

No.

It is not clear in the Bill. The way it is worded in the Bill, the insurance companies are entitled to take their percentage on that 50c levy as well. That is the way I read it.

We have had discussions with the consortium and we have come to an agreement that they will collect this without any cost whatsoever to the State.

Mr. Chairman, that is very decent of the consortium company, but as an ordinary taxpayer in South Africa I would be much happier to see that provided for in the Bill, because as the Bill reads at the moment they are entitled to take their percentage on the levy of 50 cents as well. Sir, the point I want to make is this: It seems to me that if one can argue that this 50 cent levy should be tied to the third party insurance premium, then one could also argue that it should be tied to half a dozen other things for which motorists pay, such as licences, petrol and everything else, because it is all part and parcel of motoring in South Africa. Nobody has suggested that this be done, and I believe that it is equally illogical to suggest that it should be done in the way in which the Minister is doing it. Therefore we believe on this side of the House that this 50 cent levy should not be a levy on the Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund: We believe that it should come under Consolidated Revenue, where it rightly belongs. A further consideration that strengthens our point is this: When the motor vehicle insurance premiums are calculated, what part of this 50 cent levy will be shown? Will it be shown as a separate amount? The Minister shows R104 million as premium income. Will he show the 50 cent levy in that figure, or will he deduct it first? Sir, these are the items which I think should be cleared up and I do not believe that the way in which it has been done in this Bill is any good at all; I believe that it is going to lead to a bigger mess in the future.

Clause 25 put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, J. E. Potgieter, J. W. van Staden and M. J. de la R. Venter.

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clause 15:

I realize that the question of the levy on motorists was fully discussed during the debate on clause 25. Consequently I do not want to make a speech in support of the amendment I want to move now, but just to be consistent, I want to point out that we as the Opposition remain opposed to sectional taxation, and therefore I wish to move—

I regret I am unable to accept the amendment, as it is in conflict with clause 25, which has been agreed to by the Committee.

That we accept. May I then just explain our standpoint in regard to the clause?

Yes.

We realize, of course, that the clause is essential to the survival of the Bill, but since this motion to omit a paragraph is not in order, we are obliged to vote against clause 15 by way of continued protest against what we regard as an unsound principle, i.e. sectional taxation.

Mr. Chairman, my sole purpose in rising is to place on record that this side of the House does not regard this levy as sectional taxation. If it is sectional taxation, the United Party also introduced sectional taxation in 1942, when it came forward with third party insurance and when it made it compulsory for the motorist to take out a policy. This taxation is not sectional taxation. In this connection they created a precedent. A fund was established at the time for the purpose of undertaking research and promoting road safety in South Africa. Ultimately the motor-car owner and driver are the people who may derive the most benefit from this, apart from the fact that we hope by means of this to achieve the position that fewer people will be murdered, fewer people will be injured, fewer people will be hurt and less grief will be caused on the roads.

Mr. Chairman, I take the strongest exception to this bland statement which was made by the hon. the Deputy Minister when he said that this is not sectional taxation. It is a levy which is a form of taxation inflicted upon a particular group of the population, in this instance, the motorist.

Have you never approved of a sectional tax?

We shall fight a sectional tax at every opportunity.

What about the gold tax of Hofmeyr?

Please, Frankie, keep quiet. The argument that the hon. the Deputy Minister repeated was that the Third Party Insurance Fund and the compulsory insurance payments are forms of sectional taxation. I am amazed at the effrontery of such an argument.

I want to point out to the hon. member for Yeoville that the whole question of sectional taxation was disposed of when we discussed clause 25.

Mr. Chairman, I shall submit to that immediately. You allowed me to reply to the Minister, who had raised the same argument at this stage.

†I want to emphasize only that a compulsory taxation is insurance against the consequences of your own negligence, your own personal negligence. It is quite a different principle. This tax that we are discussing now is an impost upon the motorist to cover the cost of a national problem. With that I content myself.

Clause put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading of this Bill I asked the hon. the Deputy Minister to clarify what was intended under the definition of “South African aircraft” as defined in paragraph (vii) of subsection (1). Before speaking, I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister if he is now in a position to explain what aircraft he envisages being declared by notice in the Gazette to be a South African aircraft, and whether the joint operating organizations refer to the pool organizations or not.

Mr. Chairman, I want to reply in full to the questions put by the hon. member for Durban Point last night. The principles contained in the Bill were approved internationally in terms of the Tokyo, The Hague and Montreal Conventions. I want to emphasize again that more or less the entire Bill is based on the various articles of these conventions. If we in South Africa depart from the contents of the conventions, it will have an adverse effect on our endeavours to combat this menace and we would not have the necessary co-operation from the other convention countries because they have also based their measures on these conventions. That is the answer to the first question put to me last night by the hon. member.

Furthermore, the hon. member wanted to know in connection with the definition, whether all members of the pool are automatically included under the definition of “South African aircraft”. As I explained last night, the definition of “South African aircraft” in this Bill is the same as in the Civil Aviation Act of 1962 and is in accordance with the definition of the international Civil Aviation Organization. It does not include a hovercraft. All members of the pool are, however, not automatically included. Where joint air transport services are undertaken, aircraft will be declared to be South African aircraft by arrangement between the convention countries concerned.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister has read out the explanation which I assume has been given to him, but he has not answered my question. I accept that this arises from the conventions. I know that it arises from the various agreements, I know that this is in conformity with the 1962 Act and I know that this is part of one of the conventions. My question to the hon. the Deputy Minister was whether he would explain which aircraft are referred to under these groups. What does he mean by a “joint transport operating organization”?

To what clause are you referring?

Clause 1 (1) (vii). Does a joint air transport operating organization mean a pool organization?

Yes, that is a pool organization.

That is not what the hon. the Deputy Minister has just said.

Yes, I have.

Would the hon. the Deputy Minister then tell me what other aircraft he envisages proclaiming by proclamation and by notice in the Gazette? We are clear that the pool refers to the first group. There are three groups. Firstly, you have South African registered aircraft. That is simple. You now have the joint groups, viz. the pool. Then you have a third group which can be proclaimed by notice in the Gazette. What type of aircraft does the hon. the Deputy Minister envisage proclaiming by notice in the Gazette to be South African? Is it visiting aircraft or aircraft with flight rights to South Africa?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member knows that we sometimes provide services with chartered planes from other airlines. These are the aircraft which are to be declared South African aircraft in this regard.

That is what I wanted to know.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I rise not to offer any objection to this clause, but merely to indicate that while we are normally and in principle against the idea of imposing a minimum sentence, —that is to say, taking away the discretion of the court in respect of sentences— we feel that in this Bill the imposition of a minimum sentence of five years is justified having regard to the nature of the offence which is being committed in an aeroplane by people with fire-arms or with bombs where in the nature of the occasion the lives of hundreds of innocent people are involved as a result of a deliberate act where a man takes a calculated chance with those lives. We feel that we would be honouring the spirit of the convention of which we are a signatory, out of which this Bill arises and of which most of the civilized world is a signatory, namely that each contracting state undertakes to make the offence punishable by severe penalties. In these circumstances we can think of no event and of no circumstance which would be a mitigating circumstance, if I can put it that way, and which would extenuate the guilt of a person who gets on a plane deliberately in order to hijack it and takes a calculated risk with the lives of the 300, or however many people on board, innocent people unconnected with his mission, before he gets off the aircraft. In those circumstances we would offer no objection to the minimum penalty. I only thought that I should indicate why it was that we do not offer any objection at this stage, although generally speaking we do not like the discretion of the courts removed.

Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to thank the hon. member for Durban North for expressing the support of that side of the House as far as these penalties are concerned. Last night the hon. member for Durban Point put two questions to me in connection with this clause. He asked me what the difference of the offence was when an aircraft was in flight and when it was in service.

I know what the difference is; I only asked why.

This entire clause is in accordance with the three conventions, and all the members of the convention countries did not regard this as being of importance. I do not want to depart from the provisions of the conventions and I would like to put this on record. This whole matter was given careful consideration by the various aviation authorities and they did not foresee such a possibility happening. In any event, that person can be dealt with under the penal law of that particular country. That is why there is this differentiation.

The hon. member also pointed out that in terms of clause 2 (f) it is only an offence if a person alleges that somebody else is about to hijack an aircraft, but what if a person alleges that he himself is about to carry out the hijacking? To use the member’s own words, here we are dealing with a hoaxer. In this regard I have to point out that a hoaxer by no means endangers the lives of people or property. In any case, a hoaxer can be dealt with under the penal law.

Mr. Chairman, once again the hon. the Deputy Minister has dutifully read out that this is in terms of the conventions. That was not my question. My question was whether he could describe and explain to me the difference in regard to a crime being committed when an aircraft is in flight but not when it is in service, the dividing line being the closing of the door. I gave the example of a person who threatens the pilot and the crew with weapons, or otherwise, having boarded the plane, but before the door is closed. That is then not an offence in flight, but once the door is closed it becomes an offence in flight. I asked the Deputy Minister what the difference is.

The other point to which the hon. the Deputy Minister has referred is the question of “other person”. I do not follow this explanation. It is an offence when a person falsely alleges that someone is about to commit a contravention of paragraph (a) (i) or (c) of clause 2. Clause 2 (a) (i) is the taking over by force or threat of force and 2 (c) is the placing on an aircraft of a device i.e. a bomb or something of that nature. The one that really matters is 2 (c), because that is the sort of hoax you get. A person usually telephones and says that there is a bomb on Flight So-and-so, which then leads to the unloading of the luggage, the taking off of passengers and a delay to the flight. The point I made last night was that if a person falsely alleges that the temporary Deputy Minister has placed a bomb on the plane when he has not, it is an offence, but if he telephones and says “I have put a bomb on the aircraft”, then it is not an offence.

Who says so?

It is not an offence because the paragraph reads: “falsely alleges that any other person”. The Deputy Minister has not explained that. Therefore I wish to move—

That then makes it an offence to falsely allege that anybody or that you yourself have done it. I cannot see, unless the Deputy Minister can show me where I am wrong, how it is an offence for a person to say “I have put a bomb on a plane” when it is not true. The hon. the Deputy Minister says that it would be an offence under normal law. Then this clause is not necessary at all. The purpose of this clause is to deal with a special situation and a special new offence. We want it to be complete. Therefore we want it to cover not only the person who alleges that somebody else has done it or is about to do it but also the one who falsely alleges that he has done it himself.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to support the hon. member for Durban Point with regard to the definition of an aircraft in flight. There is definitely a loophole here. The Bill reads as follows—

1. (a) at any time from the moment when all its external doors are closed following embarkation …

According to clause 2, any person who on board any aircraft in flight carries out certain acts which are specified in 2 (a) (i), (ii) and (iii), shall be guilty of an offence. But, Sir, he can carry out all these acts enumerated under paragraph (a) before the doors of the aircraft are closed. He can still force the crew to take off and fly elsewhere. Once the doors are closed, according to this, one can take action against him, but there is now a period before the doors are closed when he can carry out these acts and not be guilty of a crime.

Read the Afrikaans version.

The Afrikaans version reads—

No, “wat in gebruik is”.

No, it is “in flight”. I am referring to clause 2 (a), i.e. “on board any aircraft in flight”.

The definition definitely states that an aircraft is deemed to be in flight only after the doors have been closed. Now I say that these offences may be committed before the doors are closed.

Let me explain it to the hon. member.

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

In my opinion this subsection would be much improved if the words “in flight” were omitted.

†If the words “in flight” are omitted, you cover the aircraft at all times, even before the doors are closed and the hijacker takes over.

Mr. Chairman, the convention members considered this point. An aircraft can be unlawfully seized only when it is in flight. If it is not in flight, it cannot be unlawfully seized. If the person is still outside, he may be arrested on the runway. He can be dealt with on the runway. He may be caught there and be prosecuted for the offence in connection with the plane in terms of the ordinary law. But if he begins to commit the offence after he has entered and the doors have been closed, this measure will be applicable to him, because then that person can unlawfully seize the aircraft. This Bill is aimed specifically at combating the unlawful seizure of aircraft or endangering the landing of aircraft thereby. It is in order to assure the safety of the aircraft. When an aircraft is not yet in flight and the doors are still open, any person can be arrested on the runway. If, however, he succeeds in getting inside and the doors are closed, this Act is applicable to him.

Mr. Chairman, surely the hijacker can be in that aircraft before the doors are closed? Then he will be able to execute the unlawful seizure; it is easy enough. The Deputy Minister says as long as he is on the ground, he may be arrested, but the person may be inside the aircraft and may wait until the aircraft is almost ready to leave and then execute his unlawful seizure. If these words “in vlug”, “in flight”, were omitted, the measure would be so much better, Then the position would be covered in respect of the hijacker who is inside the aircraft and not on the runway and who is ready to execute the unlawful seizure before the doors are closed. This he can in fact do; he can sit there with a bomb or with a pistol and force the crew to do exactly what he wants after the aircraft has taken off.

Read clause 2 (c). It covers this argument of yours.

Mr. Chairman, once again this clause is one that has its origin in the conventions, and for the sake of clarity we should refer hon. members to the particular parts of the conventions which relate to this. The position would then be very clear to them. Firstly, I want to read out the definition which the Tokyo Convention adopted in respect of an aircraft in flight. Chapter III, article 2, of the Tokyo Convention reads as follows—

I am coming back to this in a moment—

The definition therefore provides that an aircraft is in flight from the moment when all its external doors are closed. This was agreed upon at international level. The other problem to which the hon. member referred is also mentioned in this convention. I refer to Chapter II, article 3, of the Tokyo Convention. This is the exception that is made here—

They give a definition of “in flight” here, and then go on to say that it excludes what applies in the national law of the country concerned. In other words, it is an agreement which was concluded that an aircraft may be unlawfully seized only from the moment when all its external doors are closed, until it has landed on the ground and the external doors are opened again. This particular clause has its origin in that.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has not dealt with the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point to omit the word “other” in subclause (f), and I hope he will reply, because I think that this is an amendment which he ought to accept.

Mr. Chairman, to save cross-argument, may I give a specific instance? Clause 2 (a) (ii) deals with a person who assaults any person, where such assault is likely to endanger the safety of that aircraft. If that assault takes place after the doors are closed, it then becomes a hijack and the person can be sentenced to not less than 5 years and up to 30 years. But let us assume that that assault took place while the door was still open; he would then only be tried under common law and charged with common assault and he might be sentenced to two weeks or three weeks or simply fined, because the aircraft would then not be in flight.

Read (c).

Paragraph (c) says—

That deals with bombs, hand grenades and explosives which can affect the aircraft.

And (d)?

Paragraph (d) reads—

I am dealing with clause 2 (a) (ii)—and assault on a member of a crew. Assuming a person assaults a member of the crew with the object of hijacking the plane and that that person is overcome and taken off the plane. Then he can only be charged with common assault because the door was not closed and none of these other provisions cover an assault on the crew with the object of hijacking the aircraft. I am not trying to weaken the measure; I am trying to strengthen it, because it seems that there is a weakness here. If an act is committed with the door open, then it becomes a minor offence. Once the door is closed, it becomes a serious offence for which we are making provision here. I do not see the distinction between a man trying to hijack a plane with the door open and a man trying to hijack a plane with the door closed; his intent is the same; his act is the same, and it would have the same consequences if he were to succeed. But if he is overcome before the door is closed, then it is not a serious offence. But if the door is closed and he is then overcome, even though the aircraft has not moved, then it becomes hijacking. That is the distinction that I want to draw.

Your amendment does not cover that point.

No, that deals with a completely separate issue.

And paragraph (f)?

That deals with the hoaxer, the person who says that there is a bomb on Flight No. So-andso; that is the amendment; it has nothing to do with this subject.

Sir, I think in this instance we must draw a very clear distinction between an aircreft in flight and an aircraft at the moment before the doors are closed. I think the important thing to bear in mind here is the amount of danger to the aircreaft. If the pilot in command is assaulted while the aircraft is in flight, it creates a very serious emergency on board. I am sure the hon. member can appreciate that. But if the same assault took place on the same person before the doors were closed and before the aircraft took off, the situation would not be so dangerous at all. I think we must draw a very clear distinction between the amount of danger to the aircraft when it is in flight and when it is still on the ground with the doors open; then it becomes common assault.

What is the position if the person concerned puts a pistol to the commander’s head while the door is open, makes him close the door and take off?

He would have to close the door, and from the moment the door is closed the aircraft is in flight. That is the whole point.

But if he were captured before he closed the door?

Well, then it could be any offence.

It depends upon the laws of the country concerned.

It could be very serious assault. If I pointed a pistol at the hon. member’s head, it would be very serious assault indeed, but it would not endanger the aircraft or its passengers at that stage, because it would merely be an assault on one individual. But from the moment the aircraft is in flight, or deemed by this definition to be in flight, in other words, after the doors are closed, then it is a very serious emergency affecting not only the safety of the aircraft but also the safety of all the passengers on board. That virtually changes the offence from ordinary assault to hijacking, which takes place the moment the doors are closed. No person can hijack an aircraft without closing the doors; the doors must be closed in order to be able to take off. That changes the offence from ordinary assault to hijacking the moment the doors are closed.

I just want to link up with what the hon. member for Middelburg said. My problem is that I have to do with a factual position here. I have to do with the convention of the Tokyo agreement which defines “an aircraft in flight”. In the second place, the hon. member rightly pointed out that if the doors of an aircraft are open, it cannot be in flight. The aircraft can only take off when its doors are closed. While the doors are open, the aircraft is not in flight. Such an aircraft cannot be unlawfully seized, because it is not in the air. So much for that aspect of the matter.

I now come to a second aspect. In his amendment the hon. member requests that “other” in paragraph (f) be omitted. Firstly, if a person makes a false statement, he is in any case punishable in terms of the ordinary criminal law. But I am once again in the position here that these are the words which are used in the agreement of the various convention countries. I am prepared to investigate this matter again together with our representatives who were at the convention and then to delete this word in the Other Place if it is really necessary.

Sir, I accept the argument of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I understand his problem here and therefore I shall not proceed with my amendment. With the leave of the Committee, I shall withdraw it.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Seeing that the hon. the Deputy Minister has kindly agreed to reconsider the matter and, if necessary, to effect an amendment in the Other Place, I should just like to ask him whether his advisers do not agree that it would improve the Bill. Would this not give him a better opportunity of combating this problem?

He is not allowed to do it.

The convention members use only the words “in flight”.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 6:

Sir, last night I raised the problem of the obligation placed on the commander of an aircraft to report any hijacking and the arrest of any person connected therewith to the appropriate diplomatic or consular office of the country of nationality of that person.

*The hon. member for Middelburg supported me in that respect. To me this seems a very difficult provision for the commander of an aircraft to carry out, and therefore I want to move—

This obligation is placed on the commander by the provisions contained on pages 9 and 11. I move my amendment and should like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he will accept it.

I have had a lengthy discussion with the State Law Adviser, who is of the opinion that it stands to reason that if there is no appropriate diplomatic or consular office of the country of nationality of that person then this part of the requirement falls away and a report to the appropriate authority would suffice. This obligation rests with the commander or the pilot in command and delegation is not regarded as necessary as it would be a departure from the principle in question. Then the law adviser pointed out to me that this clause is compulsory, as the principle is contained in the Tokyo Convention. That is my problem.

What if there is a consular representative but it is in the middle of the night? Then it is possible for him to contact him, but he would have to delay the plane until the next morning.

That is not necessary. You can wake him up in the middle of the night. You have a telephone system and you have people on duty at the airport.

The hon. member for Durban Point referred to the speech I made in the Second Reading debate. I do not want to make it impossible for the hon. the Deputy Minister by insisting on this. I understand that the legal draftsmen had certain reasons for this. I should very much like to know the reasons. I have paged through the Tokyo Convention, but nowhere in it do I find this particular part which states that the consular or diplomatic representative of a country should be notified as in the case mentioned in section 6. Perhaps there is a reason why it appears in our Bill. There is probably very good reason and perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister can look at it later and determine the reason, but I could not find that particular provision anywhere in the Tokyo Convention. I just want to quote from the Tokyo Convention. Chapter III deals with the case in question and article 2 thereof states the following—

Article 9 of the Convention provides that “the aircraft commander may deliver to the competent authority”, and then in (2) of the same article of the Tokyo Convention it is provided that—

In (3) of the same article it is provided that—

I presume that this is probably concerned with the law of the contracting state. This is the deduction I make, but nowhere in the Tokyo Convention is it explicitly provided that the diplomatic or consular authority in the country concerned should be notified. I understand the explanation the hon. the Deputy Minister gave in this regard at the Second Reading yesterday, i.e. that if it appears to be difficult or impossible, there is no case against the pilot, because further provision is made here, for any commander of an aircraft who without reasonable cause fails to comply with the provisions. In other words, “without reasonable cause” is adequate coverage for the commander. I understand that under the circumstances he cannot easily be found guilty of an offence, but I do find it interesting and should like to know why this diplomatic provision occurs in our Bill.

I should like to inform the hon. member for Middelburg that I could not find this in the Tokyo Convention either. This is in fact the reason why I approached the law adviser and asked him why it was contained in the Bill. His reply was that it is in fact a compulsory provision of the Tokyo Convention. If the hon. member so desires, I shall discuss the matter with him again so that he can explain it to me more clearly in legal terms and, if necessary, I shall look at the matter in the Senate.

I am sorry, but I do not accept the Deputy Minister’s explanation. We are being asked to create an offence on the excuse that it is all right to create the offence because there is a provision whereby the person can prove he is not guilty if it was impossible for him to carry out the provisions of the Act. We are creating an offence and then saying: You have to prove now that it was impossible to carry this out. I do not believe that our pilots deserve this of us. I believe we should make it reasonable for them and not put them in the situation where they have to prove that it was impossible to carry out instructions. If the pilot has to make this decision the position becomes difficult. The hon. the Deputy Minister has shown. You arrive at some airport in the middle of the night, at 2 a.m. or 3 a.m., with a skeleton staff on duty. The pilot is not going to be able to find out whether there is a consular representative or a diplomatic representative, or whether he has a home telephone number or whether he can be reached. He must then face the question of whether he is going to carry out the law or whether he is going to delay the aircraft until such time as he can make the necessary investigations. I do not believe that this is reasonable. I do not believe it is obligatory and therefore we intend to stand by the amendment we moved. I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to accept the amendment and if necessary he can then introduce different wording, clearer wording which does not put the onus of proving himself innocent, on the pilot. Let it be necessary to prove his guilt, and not for the pilot to prove his innocence. I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to accept the deletion of these two subsections; then he can go into it and see whether he can put some other provision in for the person to report as soon as he reaches a terminal or a place at which it is convenient for him to report to the diplomatic or consular representatives. That, I believe, will make far better law of this than is proposed at the moment.

I think the hon. member for Durban Point is being unfair in insisting on this. We have received the assurance from the hon. the Deputy Minister that he will examine this in the Other Place and that he will refer it back to the law advisers in order to clear up this particular little point, which is in any case not of fundamental importance. But I just found this interesting and I realized that it would place an additional burden on the commander of the aircraft, and in this respect I share the opinion of the hon. member for Durban Point. It is an additional encumbrance and an additional burden for the captain of the aircraft to trace consular officials and diplomatic staff at a remote place. Therefore, as I said yesterday, I had already raised the point in a private discussion with the hon. the Minister. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister is being very fair in saying that he will look at this again and will again ask the opinion of the law adviser. I do not think the hon. member for Durban Point is being fair in insisting on the omission of this subclause. I think it may be allowed through, because we have the undertaking given by the hon. the Deputy Minister that he will look at it in the Other Place. I think this is very fair and should like to accept it as it stands.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out one misinterpretation made by the hon. member for Durban Point. He alleged that I was placing the onus of proving that he could not do it on the pilot or on the commander of the aircraft. This is not true. Clause 6 (6) reads very clearly—

I am placing no onus on the commander, but the department also tells me that it is merely another extra safety measure which is being taken to ensure that the hijacker’s country of nationality is informed as soon as possible. If this is done, one knows whom one is dealing with, because then one can establish in that country what the man’s criminal record is and what all the related circumstances are.

If there is one.

Amendments put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned last night I had given a short resumé of the history of this Bill and of the original Act. I indicated that this was a further admission by the Government that the urban Bantu had become a permanent part of the population of South Africa outside the reserves. When we adjourned I was saying that we had to face the fact that the urban Bantu, permanent as he is, is really a sub-economic class in our urban population. They are a class of people who cannot afford the necessities of life, of which transport to and from work is one. I thought that it would have been a good idea, but I know that I cannot expand on it on this occasion, if one could have a general investigation into the economic circumstances of the urban Bantu. If I cannot plead for that, I think I shall be allowed to ask the hon. the Minister and his Deputy to carefully consider whether the time has not come to have a full inquiry into the transport problem of the urban Bantu. I think it should be done because they are housed miles and miles away from their work as a result of common policies among the major parties of South Africa. They have to travel these longer and more extensive journeys as a result of the national policy of South Africa, and they have to be subsidized in various ways. They have to be subsidized by the South African Railways. Every year we have to vote sums running into millions of rand for this purpose. The last one I can remember offhand amounted to R8 million. This was for the subsidization of the rail transport of the urban Bantu between their places of work and their homes. In this case we have a sectional tax. In this case as with bus transport, the tax is levied only on the employers of these people, on the industrialists and the commercial people, for one reason only, namely that the hon. the Minister felt that they had to be punished for something that they did in 1957. The employers have to pay this sectional tax in spite of the fact that the presence of the urban Bantu and their appearance every day at their places of work is in the interests of all South Africa. Without the work of the Bantu in our cities, the economy of South Africa will collapse. Our standards of living will dwindle to nothing and South Africa will become one of the poorest of the poor countries of the world. Although their presence at work is vitally necessary for the growing prosperity of South Africa, the Government persists in pretending that this tax, which is now proposed to be doubled, is not a matter which is in national interests, but is something to punish …

Order! This is just an amending measure.

Yes, Sir, I know it is just an amending measure, but it seeks to double a levy. Therefore I think I am entitled to discuss the question whether that levy should be doubled. It is also now applied to a completely new class of Bantu, the women, to whom it was not applied before. To that extent, so far as the women are concerned, this is a new principle in the Bill. The Minister, having announced in 1957 that this would be a punitive measure against the employers, now wants to punish the employers in respect of Bantu women, who were not involved in the strike to any considerable degree in 1957, and he wants to double some 15 years after the crime was committed. I know this is a surprising statement. I can see from hon. members opposite who do not remember the 1957 debate that they have difficulty in believing this. Let me read, if I may, the actual words of the Minister when he introduced the Bill on the 4th of June, 1957 he said (Hansard, col. 7170)—

That was the fund established to end the strike—

Order! That has nothing to do with this amending measure.

But, Sir, the measure to which I refer increased the levy from sixpense to one shilling. Surely, it is the same principle that we are discussing now.

This is purely an amending measure, amending the existing Act.

Sir, I always submit to the Chair and I should like to submit this time too. But I want to point out with great respect that this is extending the object of the levy to Bantu women.

I know that, but that has nothing to do with what the hon. member was quoting.

Well, Sir, in that case, may I now, to make the matter clear —I think it will help both of us—move my amendment. I move—

I want to discuss my amendment now. I will not protract discussions. I just want to make the point and indicate that the levy was originally introduced as a punishment on commerce and industry because they took an enlightened action of which the government did not approve. Now that punishment is being extended by extending the subsidy to Bantu women and doubling the subsidy. That is the principle to which I object; that is the principle of my amendment. It is again a sectional tax. Why should employers who create the wealth with the Black workers, who create the wealth which we all enjoy in South Africa, which makes the higher standard of living of the Whites possible in this country, which makes the higher standard of living for Black people possible in Africa …

Why should the farmer pay for the transport of his shearers when he fetches them to come and shear his sheep?

If an employer in the city wants to import workers for seasonal purposes, I should admit gladly that he will have to pay for their transport. It is for seasonal purposes. But this is not for seasonal purposes, but for people in permanent employ. One must then argue that those employers should also subsidize the transport of their White employees. The logic is exactly the same. But in the case of the Bantu worker there is this sectional tax. In 1957 we approved of this because there was an emergency, because at the end of June the £25 000 made available by commerce and industry to end what was an explosive situation in Johannesburg would have been exhausted. Something had to be done as an emergency. But we, as the hon. the Minister jibed at me last night, made our opposition to the principle quite clear, because we thought it was an unfair imposition upon the employers and employees. Because we stand by that principle and regard it as a fundamental and wise one, we have moved this amendment to make our attitude perfectly clear.

Why should this Bill, in the case of Bantu women and with a doubled levy, discriminate between employer and employer? There are employers in our cities who will be affected by this Bill and who pay their Bantu workers a fair wage, fair enough for them to afford their own transport. They will now have to subsidize the less enlightened employers. On what principle or grounds can this be justified? It is a sectional tax against a section of a section. Surely the only logical answer is that this extension should be paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. I should like to move that the original imposition should also be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, but then I would attack the Act which I am not allowed to do. For the sake of clarifying the attitude of the opposition I want to make it perfectly clear that we believe that in any extension of this principle the money should be derived from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and not from a section of the people. I also want to make it clear that if we had the power and the right to do it we would also move an amendment to the principal Act as well to ask that all the money should be found from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Mr. Speaker, the principle of this Bill was accepted in 1957, and the amendment has nothing to do with that principle. All the hon. Opposition is now saying is that Bantu women should be excluded from this Bill. That is what the amendment amounts to.

We do not say that.

That is what the amendment says. Actually I want to deal with what the hon. member said yesterday evening, and I hope that he will not accuse me again of feeling irritated or becoming angry. The hon. member simply cannot allow an opportunity to pass without trying to make cheap political propaganda. He is so used to doing that, that he cannot get away from it. I am now going to indicate where he did this.

Always the same!

That hon. member knows nothing about this matter in any case. The hon. member makes propaganda, but his propaganda is usually based on inaccurate facts, unfounded allegations and gross ignorance. The hon. member adopted the premise, and he said it again today, that the Bantu employees are a sub-economic group, that their wages are too low and that their transportation costs must therefore be subsidized. That is true. Yesterday, however, when I said by way of an interjection that the employers were free to pay higher wages, he tried to shout me down and he wanted, with a flood of words, to deprive me of an opportunity of stating the true facts to him. Inter alia he alleged and pointed out that it was only the trade unions which negotiated with employers, and that the Bantu workers were not represented on industrial councils.

I said in some cases in particular. Who is stating the facts now and who is not?

I have always believed in displaying the courtesy of listening to interjections, but not to a flood of words in an attempt to shout a person down. If the hon. member wants to make interjections, he is free to do so. He mentioned the industrial councils and said that the trade unions negotiate, and that the Bantu workers are not represented there. He said that, but apparently forgot what he said.

I did not say that. I said they act on their behalf.

When I mentioned the Wage Board in an interjection, the hon. member said, “Oh, but that is a Government body”.

A State body.

Very well then, let me concede that to the hon. member It is a State body, he said. Why cannot the Wage Board then determine those wages which the Bantu worker ought to receive. This hon. member is the chief spokesman of the United Party on labour matters. I would at least have expected him to have known what the contents of the Industrial Conciliation Act and the Wage Act are, that he would at least have read them and would have known the provisions of those Acts. One would have expected him to have known that those Acts provide that wages are not determined for the individual, but for the work which is done. In both those Acts it is provided that there may be no discrimination on the basis of race or colour, and that, in addition, minimum wages, and not maximum wages, are determined. He ought to know further that when the Wage Board investigates a specific enterprise, representations are received from the employees and employers concerned in that specific enterprise, that the financial capacity of that enterprise is investigated before the determination is made. Surely he ought to know that this is how the wages are determined. He ought to know further that these are minimum wages, and that every employer is at liberty to pay more than the minimum.

Regardless of what his competitors do?

There is no legislation which prohibits him from paying higher wages. It is in fact happening today in numerous industries. I can enumerate these industries. In the printing industry much higher wages are being paid than the minimum laid down in the Industrial Conciliation Act. In the building industry as well much higher wages are being paid than the minimum.

In virtually all industries.

In virtually all industries. In other words, it is correct when I say that the employers are at liberty to pay higher wages than the minimum wages. I agree with him entirely. If these Bantu workers received adequate wages, a transport subsidy would not be necessary, but the employers, of whom the majority are supporters of that side of the House, do not pay wages which are adequate for the Bantu worker.

Now who is playing cheap politics?

That hon. member is talking through his hat. I say again that the private employer is at liberty to pay wages higher than the minimum. If they paid the Bantu workers enough, these transport subsidies would not be necessary. Those are the facts. I am thinking in particular of the municipality of Johannesburg. They can pay their Bantu workers much higher wages than those which are laid down in the wage determination.

They are doing so.

They are not doing so. They are not paying wages which are adequate for them to cover their transportation costs. If that were done, this transport subsidy would not be necessary. But I want to tell the hon. member again that he must remember that this transport subsidy is an unavoidable insitution. As long as the Bantu workers do not receive adequate wages, their transportation has to be subsidized.

I agree with you.

This has been done since 1957. I think it is a good thing that this is in fact being done, until such time as the wages are high enough for them to be able to afford it themselves.

Why must only one section pay for it?

Because it is the employers who derive the greatest benefit from their Bantu workers. That is why a levy is also being imposed on the employers for housing and essential services in the Bantu areas. That is also a principle which was accepted by this House many years ago. The hon. member must just remember that when he speaks he is not on a platform with an ignorant audience in front of him that knows nothing about this matter. When he rises to his feet in this House and makes certain allegations, he is talking about matters all of us know something about. Let him not again make such allegations as those he made yesterday afternoon.

Sir, the hon. the Minister of Transport accused us on this side of the House of playing cheap politics. If ever I have seen an example of cheap politics, it is the speech we have just heard. I do not want to spend much time on this little speech he gave us, but I do want to say that he should be very careful before taking the hon. member for Yeoville to task. He tried to read him a lecture on the procedures under the Industrial Concilation Act and the Wage Act. As I say, I do not want to spend much time on this, but I do want to go back to what gave rise to all of this in the debate last night. While the hon. member for Yeoville was talking, the hon. the Minister of Transport asked him: “What about the wages paid by private employers?” The hon. member for Yeoville then referred to the hon. the Prime Minister’s Press conference last November in Pretoria, and I want to suggest to that hon. Minister that if he is going to make that sort of allegation that we have just heard against the hon. member for Yeoville, he should go to his own Prime Minister and say the same things to him. I will read to you, Sir, very briefly some of the things which the hon. the Prime Minister said.

Order! What has that to do with the Bill?

Sir, it is just a question of getting the record right on this question as to whether wages are sufficiently high to cover transport costs. After all, the hon. the Minister based his whole speech a few moments ago on this. The hon. the Prime Minister was asked by the editor of the Financial Mail during his Press conference—

Sir, this is the nub of the question; the question was, firstly, about the gap and, secondly, what the Government intends to do about it. One must remember, Sir, that the hon. the Prime Minister was talking in the context of non-White wages. He said—

If the hon. the Minister of Transport continues to read what the hon. the Prime Minister said, he will see that the hon. member for Yeoville was completely justified in what he said last night.

Read it.

He said—

Let me just remind you, Sir, that this applies to non-Whites—

That is right.

The hon. the Prime Minister went on in this vein …

Why are the Black people so poor then?

I want to ask the hon. the Minister why he indulged in this intensive attack on my colleague this afternoon. I suggest that he should go through what the hon. the Prime Minister said and address all of those words to the Prime Minister.

[Inaudible.]

Will you tell us why the Black people are so poor…

Ask the City Council of Johannesburg.

Because you people do not pay them enough.

Order!

When the hon. the Deputy Minister introduced this Bill, he gave us a picture of the magnitude of the task that we have to face with regard to the question of non-White transport. Using one example he told us that on one service alone, the one between Boksburg and Vosloorus, which is a resettlement area, the subsidy needed to maintain this service rose from R19 500 in the year 1966-’67 to a total of R650 000 in 1971-’72. We do agree with him that obviously this is a very serious position. This service, I take it, is fairly unique in that it draws a subsidy directly from the Treasury and it is voted in the Budget here year by year, unlike the subsidies paid to the other transport operators in relation to other transport services. But this brings us to the fact that the circumstances surrounding the introduction of this Bill, and indeed the circumstances that surrounded the introduction of the 1957 Bill, are both difficult and delicate. We all know what led to the original Bill and there again, I think, if one looks at the debates on the original Bill one sees some classic examples of irresponsibility on the part of the hon. the Minister of Transport, in some of the things he said. Both these Bills, the 1957 Bill and this amending Bill we have here today, highlight one of the major difficulties that beset our country today, the problem of supplying a basic service, and here this basic service is being extended and is being applied in respect of Bantu women, a section of the population which cannot afford to pay for it at economic rates. Perhaps the greatest tragedy of all is that both the original Bill and this one were introduced as matters of some urgency in this House. You will recall, Sir, that at the time of the 1957 Bill, money was urgently needed to subsidize Bantu transport in Johannesburg after there had been considerable strikes and boycotting, etc., upon which we need not dwell much longer now But here again this Bill that we have today is being introduced as a measure of some urgency. By last year I understand Putco on the Rand was losing several hundred thousand rands a year. In 1957 the hon. the Minister of Transport openly admitted the urgency of the legislation. He went so far as to say that the only thing that stopped him from protracting the debate on that Bill and indulging in lengthy recriminations was the fact that he wanted to get out some notices relating to the payment of the levy by employers. You will remember, Sir, that in that Bill the levy was pushed up from 6d. to 1s. [Interjections.]

Order!

Now the Deputy Minister is moving in this legislation to increase the maximum amount chargeable from 10 cents to 20 cents and he is seeking powers to levy the rates in respect of Bantu women, and again there is an element of urgency. On each occasion the problem that the hon. the Minister has had to face has been that the bus companies operating, which are all private concerns, have found that the maximum fares payable by the Bantu bus users provide revenue far below the cost of operating those services. In other words, these services are being operated at substantial losses, and in each case, as far as bus companies are concerned, with the exception of this one Boksburg case, the Government has turned to employers to make good the deficit. There is one major difference between the approach being taken by the hon. the Deputy Minister and the approach adopted by the hon. the Minister of Transport in 1957.

In 1957 the hon. Minister of Transport quite aggressively said that it was on the heads of the employers if they were prepared to subsidize the fares of their Bantu employees. In other words, he made it clear at that stage that his feeling was that a tough line should be taken with the bus users. They should be made to accept the new fares, or the proposed new fares, at the time. It now appears to be common cause that this Government believes that the losses cannot be borne by the Bantu bus users themselves. There is an immense difference between the approach in 1957 and the approach today. I must say in all sincerity I am glad to see this change in the attitude of the Government in this matter. The hon. the Deputy Minister in his speech suggested quite clearly that the bus users themselves cannot be expected to make good the shortfall. This represents a significant change which I think should not go unrecorded. I am glad to see that this amount of realism at least has crept into the approach of the Government. We should not forget either that for a long time now the Government has accepted that the provision of transport services for non-Whites between the non-White areas that are reasonably far from the industrial areas and the places where they work, is a very special problem. Our South African way of life, as the hon. member for Yeoville has pointed out, leads us to site our non-White townships reasonably far from the centre of our towns, which creates a tremendous problem of transport. It is a problem that has been recognized by the Government for a long time. In fact, as long ago as approximately 1954 ex-Senator Sauer, the hon. Minister’s predecessor, said that the question of siting the housing of Bantu and the question of their transport to and from work were two inseparable problems.

Where we differ with the Government, and have done so all along, is in regard to the question of who should pay the high cost of transporting the non-Whites to and from the resettlement areas to their places of work. Since the 1957 Act was passed we have seen a steady stepping-up of this policy of moving the non-White labour force further and further from the industrial areas. We have seen it on the Rand and in places such as East London, Port Elizabeth, Natal and Pretoria. I want to suggest, and I think the Bill suggests it too, that there has been an appalling lack of forward planning in providing the services between the resettlement areas and the workers’ places of work. We have heard silly suggestions by hon. members and about two years ago an hon. member on that side of the House thought of using jumbo jets for the transport of the Bantu.

He is not in the House any more.

Quite seriously, along with this phenomenon, which is largely an ideological one, we have seen the Government progressively shedding its responsibilities, the responsibilities that have resulted from this policy.

That is why the country is shedding the Government.

Instead of facing up to its responsibilities, the Government has tended to shoulder more and more of them on to businessmen and other employers of non-White labour. This Bill is a typical example of that trend. We see the hon. Deputy Minister wanting to extend the scope of the Bill, to introduce new principles, like that of doubling the levy. Sir, if you would just permit me, I want to suggest to the House that this Bill cannot be seen in a vacuum. We must look at the other pressures that are brought on employers in trying to gauge just how heavily they can be taxed through the provisions of this Bill. We cannot look at this Bill entirely in isolation. Only a few weeks ago we had legislation before this House which potentially can impose a very serious burden on employers of Bantu labour. That legislation is not through the House yet…

That is not under discussion now.

No, Sir, that is not under discussion. May I just explain…

Order! It is not necessary to explain. It is not under discussion.

Mr. Speaker, I feel…

Order! I feel that it is not under discussion. The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

May I just address you, Sir, on the actual point that I want to raise. The point I am making is that this Bill will impose a new burden on employers

But that point has been made repeatedly.

Yes, but I am suggesting, Sir, that this cannot be seen in isolation, that employers already have heavy burdens and that this will add to them. I want to refer to…

That point has also been made repeatedly.

Mr. Speaker, may I address you on this point? With respect, Sir, we have had only one speech by a member on this side of the House on this topic.

But that hon. member emphasized this point over and over again. The hon. member for Kensington may continue.

Mr. Speaker, leaving that point, all I want to say is that this will impose a new and strenous burden on employers.

If one looks at legislation such as this, one sees that a common thread runs through it. The sort of levies that will be imposed in terms of this Bill really amount once more to a selective employment tax, they are levies, taxes, that can be imposed on employers of Bantu labour, in the discretion of the Minister. In each case when we deal with the taxes, we see that it is a Minister who decides who should pay the taxes and what the taxes in fact should be. I want to tell this hon. Minister that if one takes the provisions of this Bill into account and apply them to the maximum extent, employers of Bantu labour, especially in the big areas, in one way or another, can now be made to pay a total of R3,85 in respect of each Bantu worker in various levies including this one. I want to suggest that this burden is really becoming too heavy.

What levies are you talking about?

Mr. Speaker, I should like to explain to the hon. the Deputy Minister what levies I am talking about, but you have already ruled that I cannot discuss this.

Don’t be led into temptation by the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Sir, what is important in looking at this Bill especially in the context of what is proposed to be done in respect of it, one sees that the Government once again with this Bill, makes one set of rules for itself and another set of rules for private business. In the case of Bantu bus users the Government has no compunction in demanding as it is doing in this Bill that any losses must simply be met out of the pockets of the employers of those Bantu. I want us to pause for a moment and ask ourselves just how far this Government has in fact applied double standards in coming with this legislation. What happens, for instance, in the cases of train users? I think it is terribly important when we look at the bus situation to look, at the situation also in regard to the railways. It is an exact parallel.

Here we have the Deputy Minister of Transport, the same Minister who is dealing with this legislation, taking the easy way out which we still believe is the proper way that things should be done. He simply charges losses on Bantu transport services directly to the Treasury. Thus we have it —and I am sure the examples will be illuminating—that the South African Railway Administration charged the Treasury a total of R8 107 000 for losses incurred on guaranteed lines to non-White townships in the five years from 1957 till 1962. This averages out at about R1 621 000 per year. Since then this figure has grown so that we had the position in 1969-70 that the subsidy paid to the Railways by the Treasury totalled R12 418 000. For the 1971-72 year it is estimated that this subsidy will have risen to just over R14½ million.

There is one point that I think should be made here, namely that the hon. the Minister of Transport on the one hand, when it comes to his own services, has no compunction in telling the country the actual cost of subsidizing the services and charging it to the Budget, which we submit is the proper channel, but why does he now try to hide behind the sort of thing that we have in this Bill, by applying a hidden tax, a selective employment tax on the employers of Bantu labour …

It is not hidden. It is open.

It is not open. It is not dealt with by this House in the Budget. Why does he want to continue to do things in this way? I want to put something else to the hon. the Deputy Minister. We do have the position—in fact it is unavoidable—that some employers are in fact paying double taxation. They, through their normal taxation, are subsidizing the Railways and yet those same employers are also being called on to pay a special levy even in respect of Bantu women now. There is little doubt that as Bantu particularly, but also non-Whites generally, are moved further and further from the industrial areas, the money needed to make good losses on transport, the sort of thing envisaged by this Bill is going to increase.

This brings me to the very important point made by the hon. member for Yeoville when he asked the hon. the Minister whether the time has not come for the Government, instead of coming forward with this sort of legislation, to have a thorough scientific survey of the entire non-White transport services in the Republic. The very fact that the hon. the Deputy Minister has had to come to us to double the amount of tax suggests that there is a crying need for this type of survey. It is nothing new. We asked for this in 1957, but needless to say, this request of the hon. member for Yeoville himself was turned down. What has happened in the years in between has been that the position has steadily deteriorated. The only sort of solutions the Government seems capable of applying are stopgap measures, such as the Bill we have before us this evening. On the other hand, we see that, while employers are being asked to pay more and more, the Minister of Transport, in his capacity as Minister in charge of Railways, going to the Treasury for more and more money. I want to submit that this slapdash approach cannot be tolerated very much longer. I believe that the time is long overdue for this Government, or if they cannot do it, the next Government, to have a thorough look at the transport needs of all the non-Whites in this country, and to come forward with some really well-planned forward-looking schemes.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kensington must excuse me if I do not follow up on what he said. I must honestly say that I could understand very few of the points he wanted to make. However, I shall reply to certain of his arguments when I come to the speech made yesterday by the hon. member for Yeoville.

The hon. member for Yeoville’s speech can be summed up briefly. He said that this legislation should be approached from another angle. He then proceeded to do so. The hon. member approached this legislation from the angle of the United Party’s policy.

That is the corner you are being driven into.

I should be very glad if this hon. member who has just made an interjection would stand up and display in the House his superior knowledge of these matters and of the United Party’s policy. The hon. member approaches the legislation from the angle of the United Party’s policy, i.e. that of multi-racialism. That is the policy of the United Party, a policy of multi-racialism, with full citizenship to the Bantu in the White area. Within this framework he repeated the statement he made in 1957, i.e. that this problem arises out of the national policy of separation of residential areas. He emphasized this again today; the hon. member for Kensington also referred to it. But I want to do the hon. member full justice. He added that this was the policy of both sides of the House; in other words, it is also the policy of the United Party. The hon. member must now excuse me if I do not take him very seriously in that connection. Up to now the United Party has never given its unqualified support to the separation of residential areas. If we look at the speech the hon. member for Vereeniging made in 1957, it sounds exactly like the one the hon. member for Yeoville made yesterday and this evening. He ascribes this to the fact that there is separation of residential areas. In 1957 he also said that this load should not be placed on the employers’ shoulders, because the employers are not in favour of the separation of residential areas. In 1957 he said that they are forced to accept the separation of residential areas.

Read it out.

Yes, I shall do so. In 1957 the hon. member said the following (colume 7172)—

[Interjections.] The hon. member must now give me a chance. I said a moment ago that I want to treat the hon. member fairly. He said this, and I said that he said it. I quote further—

According to the policy of both parties.

What does that mean, Sir?

A compound at his house.

That means the hon. member is telling employers: “The separation of residential areas, whereby dignified accommodation is provided for the Bantu worker, is the fault of this Government, and because it is the fault of this Government—something you did not want—the burden can consequently not be placed on your shoulders.” That is precisely what he said again this evening and that is precisely what the hon. member for Kensington said. I therefore say that just as I could not take this hon. member for Vereeniging seriously at the time about separate residential areas, I likewise cannot take the hon. member for Yeoville seriously this evening in that connection.

Sir, the second point I want to make, to prove that the hon. member for Yeoville is not serious about housing, concerns the fact that with the statement he also made yesterday in connection with the United Party’s policy, which means full citizenship for the Bantu within the White area …

Where do you get that from?

Is the hon. member not in favour of full citizenship for the Bantu?

I am in favour of federal citizenship.

What is that?

On a federal basis.

The hon. member is in favour of federal citizenship for the Bantu within the White area?

Yes.

Sir, that is not full citizenship.

There is only one citizenship—full citizenship or nothing at all.

Sir, I just want to get things clear. I do not want to do the United Party an injustice. They are not in favour of full citizenship.

We are in favour of citizenship on federal lines.

Is that full citizenship?

My next argument relating to this legislation is already applicable to this answer the hon. member is going to give me. I put the question: Are they in favour of full citizenship for the Bantu in the White area?

They are in favour of full citizenship for the Coloureds in the White area.

I have now replied twice. We are in favour of citizenship on federal lines.

In other words, am I correct in accepting that the United Party is not in favour of full citizenship?

We are in favour of citizenship on a federal basis.

Sir, this evening we have progressed to the point where the United Party is not in favour of full citizenship for the Bantu. But, Sir, whatever citizenship they may give to the Bantu, the result is inevitably the beginning of the end for separate residential areas; that is where they see the eventual solution to this transport problem we are dealing with here this evening. The hon. member also used a second argument against this legislation, and it is a very sombre picture he painted in connection with the economic position of the urban Bantu. He painted this picture for the benefit of those who would like to make use of it.

And the hon. the Minister agreed.

The hon. the Minister did not agree. What the hon. the Minister agreed with is the fact that employers do not pay enough for the work being done by the Bantu labourers. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister agreed that the wages ought to be higher, and it lies in the hands of the employer to pay higher wages to his employees. But the hon. the Minister did not agree with the sombre picture of the economic position of the Bantu within the urban areas. I say the hon. member used this—just as he used it in 1957 as an argument against this legislation—for the benefit of those who want to make use of it. Why does the hon. member suppress the fact that there has been a tremendous upsurge in the standard of living of the Bantu in recent years? Why does the hon. member suppress the fact that the standard of living of the Bantu in South Africa is the highest in Africa? Why does he only paint a sombre picture in connection with the Bantu? [Interjections.] I cannot see, Sir, why there is such a serious conference being held at this moment. [Interjections.]

Order!

Why do the hon. members suppress these facts? The point is now made that all the burdens are being laid on the shoulders of the employers. This means that the State shrinks from all responsibility. The Government accepts no responsibility for subsidies to Bantu workers. That is what this argument amounts to. But what has happened in recent years? Has the State neglected its duty in this process of improving the economic position of the Bantu? It is not only the employer who has contributed to the transport of Bantu workers. The State has also made a contribution since 1957. The Treasury contributed an amount of R3 million from 1957 up to now. Bantu Administration contributed an amount of R6,5 million. An amount of R96 000 000 was paid over to the Railways by the Treasury. I now ask you, Sir: It is surely not the employer alone who carries this burden. It is a joint effort by employers and the Government, in the interests of the employers, to pay this subsidy for the Bantu workers.

I want to come back to the content of this legislation. This legislation contains two amendments. In respect of the first amendment, the extension of the provisions to female Bantu, the argument was raised that a new principle is now being created. I want to allege that no new principle is involved.

Oh no!

The principle of a levy on Bantu employees is already entrenched in the Act.

Only male Bantu workers.

Even though it only applied to male Bantu workers, I say that this principle is already entrenched in the Act, and it is now being extended to female Bantu. The hon. members are very concerned about the fact that discrimination is embodied in the legislation, but if there is discrimination it is already discriminatory not to have employers, who have female Bantu in their service, and who employ them to a greater or lesser extent, pay a levy while the other employers have to pay a levy on the male Bantu in their service. I say this is discrimination, because those employers employ the female Bantu because their services can be profitably utilized in the respective industries. This discrimination existed in the previous legislation and is now being done away with. I do not think any objection to this can be raised.

As far as the other amendment is concerned, the increase of the levy to 20 cents, I must say that this is not a new principle either. I do not want to say much about this, because this principle has been ironed out very thoroughly in this House in past years.

I want to come to an accusation that hon. members opposite made. They accused the State of exempting itself from responsibility. This is not true, as I have already indicated. In 1957 the employers collected an amount out of which the 1957 legislation was eventually born.

Why?

Why did they do it? They did it because they wanted peace and quiet in the labour world. I say they wanted peace and quiet because it is in the interests of the employer that there be peace and quiet in our country’s labour sector. It is in the interests of the employer and in the interests of the country as a whole. Were it not in their interests, they would not have taken that step in 1957. Throughout past years this Government has created a climate of labour peace and quiet which is to the major benefit of every employer in this country. I say that that contribution the State made in the interests of the employer cannot be measured in terms of money.

I want to conclude by also taking up the cudgels for the National Transport Commission, which is responsible for the administration of this fund. Since this fund was instituted, it has been administered with the greatest conscientiousness imaginable. If applications are received by the National Transport Commission, applications about which the hon. the Minister must eventually decide, the affairs of such an applicant are gone through with a fine tooth-comb and studied very thoroughly before a decision is made. I think we can appreciate the way in which this fund is being administered in the interests of the employer, in the interests of the employee and in the interests of the country as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, at one stage the hon. member for Bloemfontein East had me really worried. I read the Bill that is before us and thought it dealt with a specific levy in respect of railway transport fees for female Bantu and an increase for Bantu men. When listening to the hon. member for Bloemfontein East, I thought for a moment he was speaking under the “Labour” vote. When he had finished I thought again he was speaking about the “Bantu Administration” vote. I was just wondering when he would deal with the essence of the matter.

Order! Is that a direct reflection on the Chair?

No, Mr. Speaker.

What does the hon. member mean by that?

Mr. Speaker, only that …

That I cannot keep order?

No, Mr. Speaker, with great respect, I say “no”.

The hon. member must continue with his speech.

What I want to tell the hon. member is that he stated his case in such a roundabout way that I struggled to determine exactly what he wanted to tell us. Mr. Speaker, I say this with great respect, and I did not attempt to cast a reflection on you. What did the hon. member tell us? He said he had no confidence whatsoever in the statements and a certain point of policy of the United Party, i.e. that we advocate separation of residential areas. He does not actually believe it he does not actually accept it and he thinks we are just saying it. If there is one point that has been repeated ad nauseam, it is probably that point of policy. It looks to me as if the problem with the hon. gentleman in the Free State is that political truth very seldom emerges in the Free State.

Why do you not go there and take the truth with you?

I shall come to that. Now take a look at the other point the hon. member raised. He says, as it were, that we prompt the employers, that they do not want separation. He says that we tell the employers it is actually the Government that wants the separation and wants them to pay. Where does the hon. gentleman get that? I listened to the hon. member and he reiterated what the hon. member for Yeoville said. There is nothing of it in his words, there is no trace of it to be found there. Then the hon. member spoke about citizenship; I struggled but I just could not link up citizenship with railway tariffs. I want to leave that matter there.

I want to look at this matter and the first point I want to try, in my humble capacity, to correct is what the hon. the Minister of Transport, in my opinion, represented incorrectly this afternoon. He told us that the State instrument, the Wage Act, has nothing whatever to do with the question of the levelling up of wages. He said this in reply to our argument that the root of the evil lay with the wage question. We said that the people were not earning enough and the result was that the railway tariffs had to be subsidized for them, and the whole House agrees with that.

We are speaking about bus rates and not about rail tariffs.

It is the same kind of thing—transport rates. With due respect to the hon. the Minister, I want to tell him that I understand the matter as follows: The Wage Board fixes the minimum wages for specific labour categories, but the secret of the matter is that the Wage Board, as an appendage of the State machine, pegs the wages for some categories so low that only the Bantu in those categories and at those wages can make a living.

That is true, is it not, Ben?

It is not true.

The hon. the Minister says it is not true. I also want to ask the hon. the Minister how it is then possible that the transport of the Bantu working for the State must also be subsidized. Why does the hon. the Minister of Transport or the State not set an example to the employers by paying its people so much that they can at least pay for their own transport? Why does the State then not set an example to the employers of South Africa?

They do.

That is the gist of the matter and my humble opinion is that if the State desires that the Bantu should obtain higher wages, it could with the utmost convenience and ease use the Wage Act in such a way that the minimum wage would be lifted to such an extent that the Bantu could, in fact, obtain a decent wage. What interests me is that when this legislation was originally introduced the hon. the Minister of Transport did so himself. I still remember the occasion. This afternoon I want to regard and judge the specific amendment before the House, particularly the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville, in the light of the hon. the Minister of Transport’s own points of criticism on his original action. What were those points of criticism? He told us that he agrees that the 1957 legislation—precisely the same principle is now applicable with respect to the female Bantu—is actually not what he wants, because in the first place it is a sectional tax.

In what column do you read that?

I have it here; the hon. Minister will surely accept it.

Was that in his reply?

In his reply he told us: What you say is quite correct; it is not a nice thing actually; I do not advocate subsidies either, but under the circumstances I have no other way out. [Interjections.] The points of criticism raised in 1957 I am now applying as the result of the amendment being moved by the hon. member for Yeoville. The sectional tax is still there. It is still just as sectional. But let us scrutinize the matter closely. The employer is taxed. Which employers? The great majority of those who now have to carry this levy are not going to do so themselves; they are going to make their products more expensive and the public will eventually have to carry that levy. That is what it amounts to. This levy will merely be pushed on to the public. But now the Government again has a clever pretext. They say that the White public does not pay the levy or the subsidy in respect of the transport of male and female Bantu, but that the employer pays it, and the employers are just about all United Party supporters, as the hon. the Minister said today. That is about the best excuse one can get. I see the hon. Minister smiling. He knows I am right. One can get no better excuse than the hon. the Minister himself advanced this afternoon. The employers are United Party supporters and they pay the tax. The fact that the public eventually has to pay the tax is neatly concealed from them. It is a sectional tax which is eventually paid by the consumer in South Africa. Let us make no mistake about that.

It is a tax on the United Party supporters.

You must be taxed for all your sins.

Now there is this big drawback. I believe that when the South African public is taxed, that tax should in the first place be controlled by this Government. But the way in which the public is now being taxed means that we totally lose control over that money.

Point number two: I believe that when the public is taxed it should at least know by what amount it will be taxed. Now it does not know this either, because this is very neatly hidden from the public. But eventually the public does pay it. I say again that this is one of the pickpocket taxes that is cleverly being hidden from public view, but which will eventually be paid by the South African consumers.

I now come to the hon. Minister’s second argument. One cannot do better than use the hon. the Minister’s own arguments against his own legislation. He sometimes argues well. He told us at the time that the 1957 legislation was a temporary state of affairs. Almost 14 years have passed and that legislation is still temporary. After 14 years the hon. the Minister comes along this afternoon with a brand new principle and extends that old, temporary, sectional tax to cover the female Bantu as well.

The Government is only temporary.

It is only temporary. This is the longest “temporary” I have come across in a long time. What is more, the hon. the Minister said—the same argument applies here this afternoon …

It is just as temporary as your policy.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. the Minister that it is just as temporary as the Nationalist Government will be in South Africa. Ichabod is written in clear print on the Government wall, but the new word is “Brakpan”.

The hon. the Deputy Minister also advanced a third argument. He said he agreed that this Bill is not the ideal solution and that he does not like what he is doing. However, he has no way out because the serious nature of the circumstances compels him to do this. In the meantime almost 15 years have passed, years the locusts have devoured. Today the hon. the Minister says, however, that he forgot about 1957, and then, in truth, makes the same three mistakes, one after the other. Can one believe it? Then hon. members opposite still defend this Bill with a great flourish.

There is a circus here. You could simply go there.

The hon. member for Parow musn’t talk; he is the chief clown. We are now dealing with a serious piece of legislation. Here we now get another example, as I have already said, of a by now well-known tax pattern in South Africa. It is a pattern modelled on sectional tax, and it is one this House loses control of. It is also one which causes the South African public to be ignorant of what is going on. I think that we are dealing here with the duty of the state. The hon. member for Kensington was perfectly correct when he said that the State is here evading its responsibility. All we are telling the Government is that we agree that as a result of the disregard of laws affecting labour in South Africa, conditions have developed that lead to the Bantu today having no other option but to ask for a subsidy for his transport. We all agree with this. We are also telling the Government that we are looking on and want the Bantu to be thus subsidized, but that instead of a sectional tax, a hide-away tax, a pickpocket tax, the Government must go directly to the South African public and add the amount it needs to the Estimates, so that the people can see it and the House can judge it. We would then know where we stand in respect of this matter.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Maitland complained here about sectional tax. Sectional tax is a principle which has always been accepted and applied in South Africa, particularly under our unique circumstances. This tax is nothing new, because the principle was accepted as long ago as 1952. In this regard, however, the United Party has a strange history. In 1952, when this principle was accepted, they voted against that legislation. In 1957, when their spokesman was the hon. member for Yeoville, and when the increase was introduced, they accepted it. Now, however, they come along with these strange arguments according to which they claim that its application to Bantu women is a new principle, and that these contributions should be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The Act was originally placed on the Statute Book to regulate the transport of Bantu workers. Bantu workers stay Bantu workers, whether they are male or female. Now it so happens that Bantu women are being used in industries in greater numbers. The United Party suddenly claims that this is a new principle. On what grounds is it a new principle? I should like to quote to the House what Dr. Verwoerd said in 1952. What he said at the time, is the substance of and background to this levy, and this is where it comes from. He made it very clear at the time. I am reading from Hansard (Vol. 80, Col. 8545) of 18th June, 1952—

First he had discussed the housing levy, and was subsequently discussing the transport levy. I come now to the substance of the matter—

We are still seeking to achieve that today. [Interjections.] It will avail the hon. member for Yeoville nothing to laugh about it. This is a serious matter. The hon. member admitted that his Party was just as responsible for it as this Party. I read further—

There we have the motivation for the reason why we have sectional tax, and why it is being applied in this way. The principle was accepted in 1952 and the Act was passed in 1957. All that happened then was that the administration of this transport levy was transferred to the Department of Transport. That levy, which at the time amounted to 6d., was then increased to 10 cents. That is all that changed, and there was no change in the principle. The United Party in fact voted for it. The hon. member for Yeoville asked why the levy was increased in 1957, but that was done as a result of the strikes and disturbances, just as in 1952 there had been a problem with Putco. The transport services were subsidized because we wanted peace and quiet. One does not want to go into the reasons for that, for we in South Africa are dealing with a unique situation.

I should still like to say a few words with reference to what the hon. member for Yeoville said. The hon. member began his speech in an interesting way. He asked the hon. the Deputy Minister why he had not referred to the history of this legislation in his speech. I do not know whether it was necessary for the hon. the Deputy Minister to refer to the history of this matter, because the principles remain precisely the same, there is no change. Here the hon. member for Yeoville and I do not agree. A Bantu woman or a Bantu man still remains a Bantu worker. There has only been an increase in the tariff.

Why was the amendment necessary then?

I cannot quite hear what the hon. member is saying. I do not think the history of this matter is relevant; but the hon. member is using it because, I think, he wants to play a little politics. He wants to peddle that idea of the permanence of the Bantu peoples in the White areas of South Africa again. That party and that hon. member are obsessed with the idea of permanence. I think they sleep, eat and dream about permanence. The hon. member has the gift of being able to speak in any direction. He speaks backwards, forwards, upwards and downwards. He simply keeps on talking and wants to create the impression that this Bill emphasizes the idea of the permanence of the Bantu. Sir, this Bill emphasizes one fact only, which is that in 1952 there were workers in the White area who had to be transported, and also in 1957 and in 1972. No Minister on this side of the House has ever said that there will never be Bantu workers in White South Africa.

What was supposed to have happened in 1978?

Oh please, Sir, that is not relevant now. No one has ever said that. We did not say anything about the return flow of the Bantu out of the White areas. What was said, and what we are seeking to achieve, is that there should be a minimum number of Bantu here and a maximum number in the homelands. Why that hon. member keeps harping on this, and keeps emphasizing this point and wants to tell us that we said that there would be no Bantu here, I do not know. We have never said that. It is not true. We have never said that there should be no Bantu workers here.

Dr. Verwoerd said it, yes, he did.

No, Sir. The hon. member wants to introduce that idea here. Excuse me, Sir, but the idea of citizenship was raised here. I cannot see that it has anything to do with this Bill, but that was the idea that hon. member wanted to bring home. I wish to state that the transportation of Bantu living in White areas is relevant here, but they are not specifically Bantu who are living here permanently. They could be Bantu who live here for a year, return to their homelands, and come back again. These are Bantu who move about. That is what this is all about. When we in the National Party speak of permanent inhabitants, of inhabitants of a country, we speak of people whom we think are citizens of a country. They are permanent residents, and they have civil rights. One cannot deport them, for no one will accept them. They are here on a permanent basis and cannot leave. No Bantu has such rights in the White area. I do not know what would happen if they were to come into power. One is not even certain what could happen with their interim policy; but in terms of our policy there are no such Bantu. There will be Bantu here, but they will not be here in the same capacity.

There will be Bantu here, but they will not be here.

No, they will be here. Why do we have this Bill?

I now want to refer to the argument the hon. member had with the hon. the Minister of Transport. Why he complained about the wages, and what the wages have to do with this legislation, I do not know either. The hon. member said—

I do not know why he wants this investigation. What will such an investigation reveal? Surely he knows that we have a dualistic economy in the country; surely he knows precisely what the position is. But I come back to my previous point. As far as bus transportation is concerned, what is at issue is not so much the economic position of the Bantu. At the time, with the Putco situation, workers had to pay one penny extra, and another penny extra for the return journey. Then they went on strike because of those two pennies. Sir, I want to ask you now whether those two pennies were such a major socioeconomic problem. But what happened? The mere fact of that tariff being increased, was an instrument in the hands of an agitator. This was a sharp-edged sword with which to incite them and rouse them up. What was at issue was simply the idea of an increase, and not their economic situation. The hon. member is so fond of discussing the urban Bantu. Does he realize that there are urban Bantu who are living in Bantu towns in their homelands? In my own part of the world there is a place by the name of Seshego, from which Bantu come to work in the White area and to which they return. They are not yet being subsidized under this system. The answer is just this, if one could at the present moment convert to the situation where you are able to say to the Bantu that they must pay an economic tariff, we would not have all these problems. Then they would be solved. But this is the unique position of South Africa. If we should again request that the tariffs be increased, it could happen that such a situation of unrest would arise again. It is not in the interests of South Africa that this should happen. I think those hon. members agree with me. I do not know why they are looking for political issues in this legislation. Owing to this position in South Africa the idea of subsidization has emerged. The Government contributes a tremendous amount to the Railway subsidization. According to what the hon. the Minister said, the Government contributes almost R4 million to bus transportation. But the hon. member for Kensington says “the Government is shedding its responsibility”. Now the Government is asking the employers to contribute their share as well where they use the Bantu. Surely there is nothing wrong at all with that argument.

We now come to the Bill itself. The Bill is a very short one. There is nothing special about it. The same scale is simply being increased, and Bantu women are also being included in it. It is a very good thing that employers should now pay for Bantu women as well. Something which was unfair to other employers, is now being eliminated. An industrialist whose workers at this stage comprise 70-80 per cent Bantu women, contributes absolutely nothing. His workers travel on the same buses in regard to which other people contribute for the transportation of Bantu men. Is it not only fair that he should also be taxed? I think it is right that he should. That is why we are in favour of this sectional tax.

He pays them much less.

But I am not going to argue about that. Every man is at liberty to pay his employees what he wishes. He must pay the minimum wage. Now the Opposition are berating us because of this. I cannot understand why they should suddenly be opposing this measure now. They, with their own policy, and we, are jointly responsible. We must realize that the situation has expanded now. They think that this method of subsidization which we have is a form of wage which reverts back to the Bantu worker. It is, as we say, a perk. Even if they do not receive it in cash, they nevertheless derive some benefit from it. I think it is a good thing. Possibly it is a pattern which is developing here in South Africa, and which will continue until the Bantu workers have gained some perspective in this matter, so that they are prepared to pay more for their transportation and that it is not such a tremendously great problem if they are asked to pay a few extra cents out of their pockets. Until such time the Government will have to adhere to this pattern, and the employers will have to pay; and they are doing it too.

Let us look for a moment at what has already been done. Between July, 1957, and March, 1970—this is a matter of approximately 13 years—R22 million was collected from employers, and R20 million was paid out. For the year ending March 1970 R2 million was paid out; so critical is the situation.

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