WEDNESDAY, 6 JUNE 2001
                                ____

                PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
                                ____

The House met at 15:00.

The Speaker took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.

ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.

QUESTIONS AND REPLIES - see that book.

                          NOTICES OF MOTION

Mr D S MAIMANE: Madam Speaker, I give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes that the Halt Elder Abuse Line, HEAL, presented a report to the Minister of Social Development, the hon Zola Skweyiya, on the abuse of the elderly;

(2) believes that the abuse of the elderly is a violation of human rights;

(3) condemns elder abuse and commends the work done by HEAL; and

(4) calls on all communities to defend and uphold the rights of the elderly.

Mr J T DELPORT: Madam Speaker, I give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the DP:

That the House -

(1) notes the ruling in the Transvaal Provincial Division of the High Court that the declared control over South African magistrates’ courts by the Minister of Justice and the Department of Justice is unconstitutional; (2) welcomes this ruling in so far as it supports and underlines the principle of the independence of the judiciary; and

(3) subject to any possible further ruling by the Constitutional Court, calls upon the Minister to take urgent steps to bring the legal system in line with this judgment.

Mr J H SLABBERT: Madam Speaker, I give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the IFP:

That the House -

(1) is concerned about reports that there are occasional mid-air malfunctions experienced by SAA aeroplanes, like the Boeing 737-200 jet failure in mid-flight as witnessed on 24 May 2001 and on 4 May 2001 when airtight door seals ``popped’’, leading to a drop in air pressure and the aircraft having to return to Johannesburg airport;

(2) is dismayed that on 20 April 2001, the hydraulic equipment of a Boeing 373 from Johannesburg to Port Elizabeth failed;

(3) is further concerned that the lives of passengers who expect safe flights and landings are put at risk and that these passengers are not getting value for the fares they pay; and

(4) calls upon the SAA authorities to attend to this unbecoming scenario and to honour their usual assurances that passengers will have safe flights.

Mr M R SIKAKANE: Madam Speaker, I give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes that the Department of Provincial and Local Government has allocated more than R2 billion for the extension of basic infrastructure to poor communities;

(2) further notes that the Minister is also involved in discussions to set up projects such as the construction of roads, and the provision of electricity and clean water;

(3) believes that this signals the commitment of the ANC Government to improving the lives of all our people; and

(4) commends the Minister and his department for embarking on this transformatory project.

Dr P J RABIE: Madam Speaker, I give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the New NP:

That the House -

(1) notes -

   (a)  that economic growth for the first quarter came to a mere 2% of
       GDP;


   (b)  that in real terms this means that economic growth will have to
       accelerate to 4,5% seasonally adjusted and annualised in each
       quarter, to reach the consensus forecast of 3,8% growth for
       2001; and


   (c)  that such low levels of growth could trigger a downward spiral
       in long-term economic growth and further impact negatively on
       the high levels of unemployment and poverty in South Africa; and

(2) urges the Government, in the interest of the millions of unemployed and poor people in South Africa, to use monetary policy to ensure that the economy moves in the right direction, since failure will lead to more South Africans joining the ranks of those in the predicament of being without an income and facing the bleak prospect of finding another livelihood.

Dr G W KOORNHOF: Madam Speaker, I give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the UDM:

That the House - (1) welcomes the United States draft Bill on global access to affordable HIV/Aids prevention and treatment, which would devote $50 million specifically to helping poor countries purchase AIDS-related drugs and a further $470 million for the prevention and treatment of HIV/Aids in Sub-Saharan Africa;

(2) expresses its concern that the spate of diversionary tactics by the Minister of Health would defeat this and other well-intentioned foreign aid, and is a reflection of warped prioritisation by the ANC Government;

(3) calls on the Minister of Health to devise and implement appropriate measures so as to ensure the transparent administration of foreign funding, to ensure that it reaches the intended beneficiaries.

Mr R M MOROPA: Madam Speaker, I give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House - (1) notes that Spoornet and the SA Transport and Allied Workers Union, Satawu, reached an agreement on Monday to end the two week strike;

(2) believes that the amicable solution reached by Spoornet management and the union will contribute to restoring confidence and stability in the public transport system; and

(3) commends the union and management for the peaceful and amicable resolution of the dispute.

Dr M S MOGOBA: Madam Speaker, I give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the PAC:

That the House -

(1) notes with sadness the sudden death of Prof Eunice Motshabi;

(2) further notes that -

   (a)  she was Professor in the Faculty of Education at the University
       of North West;


   (b)  prior to serving at the University of North West, she also
       served at the University of the North;


   (c)  Prof Motshabi was an executive committee member of the PAC;


   (d)  she was deeply committed to serving the poor;


   (e)  she organised many projects among the poor and was a great
       campaigner for women's rights in our country; and


   (f)  her passing is a great loss to education and to the poor African
       masses, and of course to the PAC of Azania;

(3) notes that the PAC has also lost the Secretary-General of the Pan- Africanist Youth Congress, Payco, Mr Selala; and

(4) further notes that funeral arrangements are being made for these two dedicated PAC comrades.

Mnr C AUCAMP: Mevrou die Speaker, ek gee hiermee kennis dat ek op die volgende sittingsdag namens die AEB sal voorstel:

Dat die Huis -

(1) die uitspraak van regter Brian Southwood verwelkom wat bepaal dat die beheer wat die Minister vir Justisie en Staatkundige Ontwikkeling oor landdroste het, ongrondwetlik is;

(2) opnuut die kardinale beginsel onderskryf dat die onafhanklikheid van die regbank ‘n hoeksteen is van die ordelike regstaat;

(3) versoek dat, onderhewig aan bevestiging deur die Konstitusionele Hof, die Wet op Landdroste en die Wet op Landdroshowe met dieselfde ywer as die Wet op die spesiale ondersoekeenheid van regter Heath hersien sal word ten einde dit in ooreenstemming te bring met die Grondwet;

(4) glo dat hierdie uitspraak ‘n vingerwysing vir die ANC is om groter erns te maak met die insette van opposisiepartye, wat telkens in hierdie Huis gewaarsku het dat die Minister sy magte oorskry;

(5) versoek dat minister Maduna voortaan sal fokusseer op sy wesenlike taak, naamlik om ‘n ordelike infrastruktuur vir regspleging te skep; en

(6) die Minister aanraai om, indien hy steeds ‘n brandende begeerte het om ‘n rol in regspraak self te speel, te bedank, die voorbeeld van adv Dikgang Moseneke te volg en by die professionele regsprofessie aan te sluit. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)

[Mr C AUCAMP: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day I shall move on behalf of the AEB:

That the House -

(1) welcomes the ruling by Mr Justice Brian Southwood, which states that the control which the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development has over magistrates is unconstitutional;

(2) once again endorses the cardinal principle that the independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of an orderly constitutional state;

(3) requests that, subject to confirmation by the Constitutional Court, the Magistrates Act and the Magistrates’ Courts Act be reviewed with the same vigour as the Act dealing with the special investigating unit of Judge Heath, in order to bring them in line with the Constitution;

(4) believes that this ruling points a finger at the ANC to deal more seriously with the inputs of opposition parties, which warned in this House time and again that the Minister was exceeding his powers;

(5) requests Minister Maduna in future to focus on his real task, namely to create an orderly infrastructure for the administration of justice; and

(6) advises the Minister, if he still has a burning desire to play a role in the administration of justice itself, to resign, follow the example of Adv Dikgang Moseneke and join the legal professional.]

Mr S J MOHAI: Madam Speaker, I give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes that the heart of a Palestinian, who was killed by Israeli settlers, was donated to an Israeli who would have died without it;

(2) also notes that this was described by the Israelis as a noble act that touched us'' and by the heart surgeon asa ray of light”;

(3) believes that this noble incident is an indication that Jews and Palestinians could and should live together in peace, harmony and co- operation;

(4) commends the Palestinian family for their selflessness that inspires peace and neighbourliness; and

(5) calls on all Palestinians and Jews to reach out to each other to increase their grass-roots peace efforts and to build stability in the region.

Mr R JANKIELSOHN: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:

That the House -

(1) notes the continued escalation of the arms deal price tag from R29,9 billion in September 1999 to R43 billion in May 2001;

(2) further notes that the Government omitted to take any forward cover against the depreciation of the Rand against the currencies in which the contracts were denominated; and

(3) therefore calls on the Government -

   (a)  to supply full details of all the contracts it has signed;


   (b)  to honour only those parts of the contracts from which we cannot
       withdraw without serious financial loss to the taxpayer;


   (c)  not to take up the options to purchase a further 12 hawk and 19
       Gripen aircraft; and


   (d)  where possible, to terminate all contracts which show evidence
       of corruption or undue influence.

Ms S C VOS: Madam Speaker, I give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the IFP:

That the House -

(1) notes -

   (a)  the shocking report presented to the Minister of Social
       Development yesterday by the organisation Halt Elder Abuse Line,
       which revealed the tragic numbers of physical attacks and other
       forms of abuse perpetrated against many thousands of elderly
       persons in our communities; and


   (b)  that physical violence, including rape, was the most common type
       of abuse followed by the extortion of pension money, neglect and
       emotional abuse; and

(2) calls for support for all constructive community action to draw attention to these crimes, to stop their proliferation, to assist victims and to apprehend perpetrators so as to ensure their appropriate punishment and rehabilitation thereafter.

Ms N MAHLAWE: Madam Speaker, I give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes reports that state-owned Transnet is expected to announce its performance results in the next few weeks;

(2) further notes that it is speculated that strong performances from its subsidiaries, like Spoornet and South African Airways, will help the holding company to record a profit of R1 billion in the year ended March 2001;

(3) believes that the increase in the performance of these companies is a positive result of the state restructuring process; and

(4) commends the Government for developing policy for restructuring state assets and the management of Transnet and workers for ensuring that Transnet becomes a viable public utility company.

Mnr F BEUKMAN: Mevrou die Speaker, ek gee kennis dat ek op die volgende sittingsdag sal voorstel:

Dat die Huis -

(1) kennis neem dat die Konstitusionele Hof dele van die Wet op Vreemdelingebeheer ongrondwetlik verklaar het, wat bevestig dat die huidige migrasiewetgewing en die Wet op Vreemdelingebeheer nie die behoeftes van die Suid-Afrikaanse arbeidsmark aanspreek nie;

(2) dit verwelkom dat geen buitelandse eggenoot se aansoek om ‘n werkpermit geweier of afgekeur mag word op grond dat ander burgers die werk kan verrig nie;

(3) ‘n beroep doen op die Kabinet om die beoogde konsep- immigrasiewetsontwerp so gou doenlik voor die Portefeuljekomitee oor Binnelandse Sake ter tafel te lê;

(4) bevestig dat die uitspraak van die Konstitusionele Hof onderstreep dat ‘n nuwe benadering vir die hantering van immigrasievraagstukke nodig is; en

(5) die Kabinet versoek om weer eens te besin oor die meriete van ‘n onafhanklike immigrasiediens wat die bestuur van migrasie- aangeleenthede kan verrig. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)

[Mr F BEUKMAN: Madam Speaker, I give notice that on the next sitting day I shall move:

That the House -

(1) notes that the Constitutional Court has ruled that sections of the Aliens Control Act are unconstitutional, which confirms the fact that current legislation on migration and the Aliens Control Act do not address the needs of the South African labour market;

(2) welcomes the fact that no foreign marriage partner’s application for a work permit may be refused or rejected on the grounds that other citizens can do that work;

(3) appeals to Cabinet to submit the envisaged draft immigration Bill to the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs as soon as possible;

(4) confirms that the ruling of the Constitutional Court underlines the need for a new approach when dealing with immigration issues; and

(5) requests Cabinet to reconsider the merits of an independent immigration service which can control the management of migration matters.]

Mr D G MKONO: Madam Speaker, I give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes -

   (a)  with concern Cosatu's planned protest action against
       privatisation, including strike action against Eskom;


   (b)  that the possibility of job losses, a decline in job creation
       and a lack-demise of local ownership are valid concerns that
       should be addressed in a more constructive manner; and


   (c)  that the restructuring process must continue; and

(2) calls on -

   (a)  the Minister to urgently attend to the dismally failing National
       Framework Agreement; and


   (b)  Cosatu to address its concerns in a reasonable and constructive
       manner through the appropriate forums.

Mr B MTHEMBU: Madam Speaker, I give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes the announcement that Russia will be writing off a large portion of the debt owed to Russia by Ethiopia and is negotiating to further reduce the debt owed by Mozambique; and

(2) welcomes this action by the Russian government and calls on other nations to follow the example of Russia and so reduce the debt burden of the poorest nations of the world.

                    TAXI ACCIDENT IN JOHANNESBURG

                         (Draft Resolution)

Mr G Q M DOIDGE: Madam Speaker, I move without notice:

That the House -

(1) expresses its shock at the death of 12 people in Johannesburg recently in an accident involving a minibus taxi;

(2) extends its condolences to the families of those killed in this tragedy;

(3) further expresses its outrage at the fact that the taxi was not roadworthy, licensed or registered;

(4) calls on taxi owners, drivers and all road users to respect traffic regulations and be part of the Arrive Alive campaign; and

(5) further calls on traffic authorities all over South Africa to clamp down on vehicles that sow death and destruction on our roads.

Agreed to.

                RETURN OF BRONZE MEDAL TO SA SWIMMER

                         (Draft Resolution)

Mnr C AUCAMP: Mevrou die Speaker, ek gee hiermee sonder kennisgewing voor:

Dat die Huis -

(1) sy dank en waardering uitspreek teenoor mnre Randell Alexander en Randall Eksteen, twee werknemers van die Kaapstadse Metroraad, wat in die uitvoering van hul pligte, die bronsmedalje gevind het wat die Suid-Afrikaanse swemmer Marianne Kriel in die 100-meter borsslag by die Olimpiese Spele in Atlanta in 1996 gewen het;

(2) kennis neem dat hulle toe geen steen onaangeroer gelaat het om Marianne op te spoor en die medalje aan haar terug te besorg nie;

(3) die onbaatsugtige optrede van mnre Alexander en Eksteen teenoor alle Suid-Afrikaners aanprys as ‘n uitnemende voorbeeld van eerlikheid en integriteit; en

(4) deel in Marianne se vreugde, aangesien die hele land, in wese, die trotse mede-eienaar is van elke Olimpiese medalje wat deur ‘n Suid- Afrikaner verower is.

Goedgekeur. (Translation of Afrikaans draft resolution follows.)

[Mr C AUCAMP: Madam Speaker, I hereby move without notice:

That the House -

(1) expresses its thanks and appreciation to Messrs Randell Alexander and Randell Eksteen, two employees of the Cape Town Metropolitan Council who, in the execution of their duties, found the bronze medal won by the South African swimmer Marianne Kriel in 1996 in the 100 metres breaststroke at the Olympic Games in Atlanta; (2) notes that they left no stone unturned in their efforts to find Marianne and to return the medal to her;

(3) holds up the unselfish actions of Messrs Alexander and Eksteen to all South Africans as an outstanding example of honesty and integrity; and

(4) shares in Marianne’s joy since, in essence, the whole country is the proud co-owner of every Olympic medal won by a South African.

Agreed to.]

         SUPREME COURT DECREE, 1990 (CISKEI) AMENDMENT BILL

                       (Second Reading debate)

The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Madam Speaker, the Bill before the House is very interesting. It is a temporary measure that we are seeking to use to address one of the relics of our past as far as the judicial system is concerned. I was asked by the President of the Bisho High Court, Justice Pickard, if we could not start utilising the three court rooms that are available in East London - for which we are paying rent - because it was envisaged that they would be utilised by the Heath Unit, as it was popularly known.

The facilities right now are not being used at all, and yet we continue to pay rent for them. The ideal, we were advised by Justice Pickard, was to start using them as a seat of his High Court. For some short while I thought that the matter was very simple until the department brought to my attention the fact that the Bisho High Court functions under the Ciskei Supreme Court Decree of 1990, in terms of which the Judge President of that Court may, if he or she deems it expedient, direct that the Court sit at any other place in the Republic of Ciskei. In order to be able to deal with this situation, we have placed this Bill before hon members. I am aware that this can only be a temporary measure.

Eventually, the whole situation can appropriately be addressed in the context of a process of rationalisation of our courts, which we want to believe is beginning in earnest. With those few words, the Bill is before the House for discussion. It is not the only relic of apartheid that we have discovered. Earlier this afternoon the hon Delport informed this House about a judgment on the constitutionality of certain provisions of a 1993 Act. We are beginning a process of addressing some of the crudities that one finds in those pieces of legislation without conceding anything on the question of constitutionality, because the whole issue is fluid, pending finalisation by the Constitutional Court as provided for in the Constitution.

I am prepared to say that there is a process we are embarking upon to comb through the various laws and try to address these crudities. If the Constitutional Court confirms that the Act or certain provisions thereof are unconstitutional, we shall act with speed and address that. [Applause.]

Adv J H DE LANGE: Madam Speaker, I reluctantly stand before you today. The committee has decided that we should not participate in this debate. However, the programming committee apparently decided that the chairperson should say something in respect of this Bill. Therefore, the chair is saying hello to hon members.

The parties in the committee unanimously agreed to this Bill. We did so reluctantly because, as the hon the Minister has pointed out, the justice system should be restructured holistically. What is being followed in this case, is a piecemeal approach, and the Minister has explained practically why we have to do this. There are three courts standing empty in East London and by a little amendment such as this, the Bisho court can now go and sit in East London.

I just want to point out that we have received some submissions that in this Bill we are dealing with the jurisdiction of the courts. Please, this has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the courts: it only deals with where the courts, in the erstwhile Ciskei, are allowed to sit.

Lastly, there was also a request for further amendments. It was suggested that the word Supreme Court'' should not be used andHigh Court’’ was suggested. The word Chief Justice'' should also not be used, but rather Judge President’’. All these matters are already catered for in the Constitution. We did not want to touch Mr Gqozo’s little decree - which he passed as a dictator - any further than we had to. The committee therefore unanimously passed the Bill and I speak on behalf of all those members.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

                   AIRPORTS COMPANY AMENDMENT BILL

                       (Second Reading debate)

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT: Madam Speaker and hon members, the regulating committee was established in terms of section 11(1) of the Airports Company Act of 1993. The purpose of the regulating committee is the economic regulation of two entities, which are the Airports Company of South Africa and the Air Traffic and Navigation Service Company Limited.

Acsa may only levy charges if it is in possession of a valid permission to levy charges. The permission is issued by the regulating committee and is valid for five years. In the third year of the permission, Acsa must apply for new permission from the regulating committee to levy airport charges for the next five years. The regulating committee therefore looks at the last two years of the existing permission when it reviews the application for new permission.

Section 12(11)(a) of the Act states that the regulating committee may amend charges for the last two years of the existing permission only with the approval of the Minister of Transport and Acsa. In theory, this means that Acsa can veto a decision by the regulating committee. This has never happened, but the existence of such a veto right is untenable. It is contrary to the spirit and the intent of the Act, dealing with the regulation of a company which is a natural monopoly.

The proposed amendment seeks to remove the requirement that the regulating committee should obtain the approval of the company. This amendment will bring section 12(11)(a) of the Act in line with section 11(11) of the Air Traffic and Navigation Services Company Act, which prescribes that only the approval of the Minister of Transport is required for amendments of this nature.

I now want to turn to the question of the IPO of Acsa. Late last year, Cabinet agreed that I as Minister of Transport, should approach our strategic equity partner, Aeroporti di Roma, with a view to postponing the launch of the IPO. Together with officials from the Departments of Transport and of Public Enterprises, as well as the chairperson of the Airports Company, Mr Mashudu Ramano, I went to Rome to meet with the ADR. This was our second meeting and we were able to come to a complete agreement on the way forward in the next few years. We agreed that no IPO could be launched this year.

The regional agreement gave Government a right to initiate an IPO by April 2001, failing which ADR will have the right to launch the IPO. We have both agreed not to exercise this right and have further agreed to extend the timeframe for launching the IPO by a further three years. This means that the South African Government will not launch the IPO before 2004.

The reasons for this decisions are as follows. Firstly, not enough has been done to transform Acsa and its management at all airports to reflect the demographics of the South African population. Secondly, airports and business activities around airports provide opportunities for black economic empowerment in the form of contract procurement, airport-related activities and retail business opportunities. Up until now, not enough has been done, though some progress has been recorded. Thirdly, it is necessary for the overall economic growth and development of South Africa that airports countrywide be improved. There is a need for airports to create active synergies between provincial government, business, labour and civil societies generally to ensure that each provincial airport fully supports the economic and social development of that province.

We have come to the firm view that the immediate launch of the IPO will jeopardise Government’s chances of achieving these objectives, which require the use of significant portions of operational profit to enhance development, black economic empowerment and the training of black men and women in all airport-related activities. We are concerned that we can go a long way in achieving the above objectives. We are convinced that we can go a long way to achieve the objectives over the next three years. We will thereby be adding immense value to the company and achieving the Government’s social objectives. We also take into account as Government that airports constitute strategic infrastructural assets over which Government should always exercise a degree of control.

Acsa is a highly successful company and has once again registered impressive results. We recognise that the profits derived from Acsa have already been beneficial to the economy as a whole. We want to ensure that these benefits accrue to the country as a whole. We will do everything in our power to promote the objectives we have indicated and in doing so, we will steadfastly continue to develop our airports to the highest standards. The benefits for growth in tourism and economic development are self- evident, but need to be aligned. In so doing, major opportunities will open up for the private sector generally and for black economic empowerment in particular.

The Bill before the House is a measure designed to ensure that fair practices are entrenched.

Mr S B FARROW: Madam Speaker, unlike the Justice committee, we decided that we would give members a chance just to discuss some of the aspects of this particular Bill. I must say upfront that we support this Bill. We believe though that the amendment is of a regulatory nature, and it is important to establish the role of Acsa. As the hon the Minister has outlined, it is important to establish the role Acsa is currently playing in the management and development of our airports and where they are going to in the future.

Acsa was formed in 1993 to operate South Africa’s nine principal airports. Collectively, these airports handle more than 190 000 aircraft landings and 19 million passengers annually. Its prime task, since its formation, has been to upgrade infrastructure and service standards at our country’s airports. Its turnover for the five-year period 1995-2000 increased by 112% and operating profit by 132%, whilst investing nearly R1,6 billion in fixed assets, returning nearly R2 billion to the state via taxation dividends and share-sale proceeds. The most current figures available indicate an annual turnover of R884 million, with a R280 million profit after tax.

In 1999 Acsa won the 1999 African Airport of the Year award for its sustained effort in modernising Johannesburg International Airport, together with a number of prestigious awards for listed and nonlisted companies. With this sort of track record, it was no surprise that it attracted the interest of the private sector. The sale of 20% of the company’s shares to the Aeroporti di Roma for R819 million was voted Privatisation International’s Africa Private Sale of the Year for 1998.

The current ownership structure of Acsa is structured in such a way that the state holds 51% whilst the balance allocated to Aeroporti di Roma is 20%; to empowerment investors, 10%; to employees, 9%; and to NEF, 10%. On the acceptance that these empowerment investors and NEF shares had not been entirely enacted, it is of concern to the Democratic Alliance that this should cause the Minister to delay the privatisation process for a further three years, as he put it, because of the lack of transformation. My colleague, the hon Rudi Heine, in the debate on Public Enterprises last week indicated, and I quote:

Privatisation of state liabilities and assets is recognised as a critical element in increasing the efficiency and reducing the costs to Government, and it is a worldwide phenomenon.

A World Bank study of 61 privatisations in 18 countries showed that, on average, the efficiency of these companies had risen by 11% and they have taken on 6% more employees. In developing countries, increases in net employment levels have been more impressive. In developed countries privatised utilities are likely to seek profit by cutting labour costs, but in poorer countries the pursuit usually creates more jobs.

Within Acsa, employment equity and transformation is well on track, with 50% of senior management and middle management, 65% of supervisors and specialists and 75% of frontline staff affirmed. The company fully complies with the Skills Development Act and the Employment Equity Act, and 5% of the payroll goes towards training and accelerated development programmes. Acsa, by all accounts, is committed to black economic empowerment at both board and management levels by virtue of the fact that all executives are measured on their activities against these empowerment targets.

I am unaware of the real reasons for the Minister’s decision to postpone the privatisation of Acsa, but if he believes the transformation process has not yet adequately advanced, why then can he not make it conditional upon the sale of shares? The selling off of state assets has great benefits which far outweigh the running of these assets by the state. I would therefore appreciate the rationale behind the Minister’s decision to delay the target by three years. To put the process on ice or prevent Aeroporti di Roma from purchasing further options of shares in the company is questionable in today’s economic climate. I am surprised that on the basis of any business plan, no performance agreements in regard to the restructuring and transformation of Acsa were entered into.

Privatisation is good for business and useful in contributing to Government coffers, and introducing competition into a sector improves service and efficiency to the consumer. And that is precisely what we want and what the Minister asked for. Needless to say, delaying the privatisation of Acsa will, once again, send the wrong signal to international investors and another opportunity will be lost.

The amendment, we believe, must in many ways impact on the permissions allocated by this regulating committee, and we believe that certain of these sorts of matters will be looked at as part of the future process. [Applause.]

Mr J P CRONIN: Madam Speaker, Comrade Minister, hon members, as the Minister has well explained, in 1993 legislation was passed here in Parliament which was known as the Airport Companies Act, and it established Acsa. The legislation at the same time also established a regulating committee to oversee Acsa. This regulating committee, whose members are appointed by the Minister, has the special responsibility of regulating airport levies that are charged by Acsa at the airports that it manages.

Acsa has to submit business plans and other relevant information, and the regulating committee then issues, when it deems it appropriate, a five-year permission to charge levies. This permission will set limits on any particular airport charge. At the time of passing the law in 1993, the lawmakers wisely recognised that, given the unpredictable and fluctuating nature of markets, it might be better to establish the possibility of amending the permission in the final two years of a five-year period. We, as a portfolio committee and the ANC, continued to support this possibility. However, in the old 1993 legislation such amendments are made conditional, firstly, on the Minister and, secondly, on the company itself approving such an alteration. This wording, in effect, as the Minister has just said, gives the company a veto right, not in general but on the specific matter, over the very authority that is meant to regulate it. That cannot be right. It is for this reason that a very small amendment has been proposed, and this is the amendment we have before us today. I think in the portfolio committee we all undertook to accept the amendment and I thank the various parties for that.

However, as I have predicted, this debate - which is about amending the regulation of Acsa - has also been used as a platform to have the whole discussion about privatisation and the direction of the restructuring of Acsa. Therefore I was happy that the Minister took the opportunity to explain why he has postponed the initial public offering on Acsa for at least three years.

Mr Farrow has given a very interesting input, showing how successful and efficient Acsa - an 80% publicly owned company - has been and how profitable it is for Government. He mentioned some R2 billion income over the last few years from Acsa. And yet he says we should sell it!

We would like to ask the Minister a few questions. As we say, Acsa is an 80% publicly owned company with a 20% equity partner in the shape of Aeroporti di Roma. In 1998 Aeroporti di Roma paid a once-off R819 million for its 20% shareholding. In 2000 Acsa made a R292 million profit, which suggests that every two-and-a-half years Acsa could make as much, but over and over again, as it got once-off from Aeroporti di Roma. We would like to ask the Minister: Are there compelling reasons to continue to sell off more and more of Acsa?

HON MEMBERS: Yes!

Mr J P CRONIN: They say, yes.

In April this year, Acsa announced a restructuring and investment strategy which will see the enterprise pump R7 billion into airport operations over the next five years. This is very much in line with President Mbeki’s vision of major infrastructural investment, contributing through improved transport efficiencies to the overall lowering of input costs throughout our economy. As Business Map has noted, and I quote:

A fully privatised company would probably pay out a much higher proportion of profit as dividends to shareholders and not be putting this kind of money into infrastructural development.

Again, we would like to know from the Minister if there are compelling reasons to move inexorably towards selling off more and more of Acsa?

Finally, in asking the same question, it is important to note that fully privatised airports are not in fact the international norm. In the United States, as far as I know, there is not a single major airport which is privatised. Airports in the United States - we are not talking about somewhere else, but the United States - are typically owned by cities, by municipal governments. They provide an important revenue stream for cities, and they enhance the capacity of a municipality. I think, as the Minister implied, that they enhance the potential, in our case, of a provincial government, for instance, to set strategic agendas and to invest in infrastructure, rather than paying out dividends to fickle investors.

Some in the opposition will and are, of course, leaning on the Minister to sell, and to sell, and to sell, and we from the side of the ANC thought that we should lean on him a little from the other side. But all this has little to do with the Bill we are amending, the Bill we are seeking to pass and the airports.

The ANC supports the Airports Company Amendment Bill. [Applause.]

Mr J H SLABBERT: Madam Speaker, the Airports Company Amendment Bill before us today proposes an amendment to the Airports Company Act of 1993.

Soos dit tans staan, bepaal die wet dat die reguleringskomitee, ná oorleg met die maatskappy en ander belanghebbendes, enige vergunningsvoorwaardes aan die Lughawensmaatskappy om invorderings te hef, kan wysig indien die Minister en die maatskappy sodanige wysiging goedkeur.

Die voorgestelde wysiging beoog dat daar steeds met die maatskappy oorleg gepleeg moet word oor voorgenome veranderings, maar dat slegs die goedkeuring van die Minister verkry hoef te word en dat goedkeuring van die maatskappy nie meer nodig is nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[As it currently stands, the Act provides that the regulating committee, after consultation with the company and other interested parties, may amend any condition of the permission to levy charges issued to the Airports Company, if the Minister and the company approve such amendment.

The proposed amendment envisages that the company must still be consulted about intended changes, but that only the approval of the Minister needs to be obtained and that the approval of the company is no longer necessary.]

It appears that this amendment was only needed because of a possible oversight in the 1993 legislation, and it is now being corrected.

There was consensus in the portfolio committee and acceptance by all parties. But, while on Acsa, one could ask oneself why the dragging of feet with the privatisation of Acsa. Is it perhaps on hold and should it be? One would like to know why.

Another issue that I would like to raise, while the opportunity and time are there, is that Acsa must now really come clean, as to their attitude and intention about the proposed new King Shaka Airport at La Mercy in KwaZulu-Natal. If I look at the present level of building activity at Durban Airport, it leaves a question on the development of the proposed King Shaka Airport. It would be one’s express wish that this matter will now, once and for all, come to finality.

Nevertheless, the IFP supports the Airports Company Amendment Bill.

Dr W A ODENDAAL: Mevrou die Speaker, vanmiddag het ‘n episode in die geskiedenis van ons parlement hom voor ons afgespeel waarin die Regering probeer om debat te vermy.

Dit is ‘n eenvoudige wetswysiging. In die portefeuljekomitee is aan ons verduidelik dat dit ‘n tegniese wysiging is om die tydperk van vyf jaar te verander wat die Lughawensmaatskappy het om sy tariefverhogings deur die minister te laat goedkeur sodat dit kan oorvleuel na drie jaar. Daar is niks aan nie.

Ons het egter gesê ons voel ons moet die saak debatteer, aangesien die Minister ‘n paar weke gelede aangekondig het dat die privatisering van die Lughawensmaatskappy met drie jaar uitgestel word totdat die nodige aanpassings gedoen en daar genoeg swart gesigte in die bestuurskader van die Lughawensmaatskappy is.

Ek wil nou vir die agb voorsitter vra of hy sien wat ek bedoel het toe ek gesê het ons sal hieroor moet praat. Hier kom die Minister, anders as wat die departement aan ons verduidelik het, en hy motiveer presies die rede waarom hy dié tegniese wysiging aangebring het. Hy wil drie jaar kans hê om regstellende aksie binne die Lughawensmaatskappy toe te pas.

Ek het vir hom gesê ons gaan daaroor praat. Ons wil nie hê daar moet in die toekoms gesê word daar is nie debat hieroor nodig nie. Daar is áltyd debat oor dié sake nodig. Ons moet dit altyd doen.

Ek en die voorsitter kom taamlik goed oor die weg in die portefeuljekomitee. Ek wil hom vra, noudat die ANC dié privatisering ondersteun, ondersteun die SAKP dit ook, of staan hy dit teen? Is die SAKP daarteen gekant? Die voorsitter het dít in die komitee te kenne gegee.

Van DA-kant ondersteun ons die privatisering van die Lughawensmaatskappy, veral toe dit op ‘n punt was waar dit finansieel goed gefunksioneer en goeie dividende opgelewer het. Ek wil vir die agb mnr Cronin sê aandeelhouers moet die dividende kry, hulle betaal belasting daarop. Die belasting gaan na die staat en hy kan dit vir infrastruktuur gebruik. Daar is geen probleem mee nie.

Dit is net ‘n geharde Kommunis soos die agb mnr Cronin wat met dié soort praatjies by ons sal kom en dink ons sal dit nie kan glo nie. Waarteen ons gekant is, is die manier waarop die ANC-regering regstellende aksie in Suid- Afrika toepas. Dit is nie black economic empowerment'' nie, dit is enrichment of the inner elite circle of the ANC’’.

Dít is waarmee die ANC-regering hier besig is. Ek wil die Minister vra om ons die versekering te gee dat hy nie nou weer sy cronies' en buddies’ in die Lughawensmaatskappy gaan aanstel nie om seker te maak dat die gelukkige minderheid mense in Suid-Afrika verryk word terwyl daar honderde, duisende en miljoene mense is wat in armoede leef.

Ons is ten gunste van black economic empowerment', maar dan moet dit vir alle mense beskikbaar wees, nie net vir 'n klein minderheid binne ANC- geledere nie. Al die mense moet deur privatisering en black economic empowerment’ bevoordeel word. Hulle moet kan voel daar is vir hulle werk en selfrespek, dat hulle vir hulle huise kan laat bou en hul gesinne kan onderhou. Nie soos dit nou die geval is dat mense bakhand voor die ANC- regering moet staan en bedel terwyl hy net belang stel in die verryking van die mense in sy eie binnekring nie. [Tussenwerpsels.] [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)

[Dr W A ODENDAAL: Madam Speaker, today an episode in the history of our Parliament played itself out before us, in which the Government attempted to avoid a debate.

This is a simple statutory amendment. In the portfolio committee it was explained to us that it is a technical amendment to change the period of five years which the Airports Company has in which to have its tariff increases approved by the Minister so that it can overlap to three years. There is nothing to it.

However, we said that we feel we should debate the matter, as a few weeks ago the Minister announced that the privatisation of the Airports Company would be postponed for three years so that the necessary adjustments could be made and there were enough black faces in the management ranks of the Airports Company.

I now want to ask the hon chairperson whether he sees what I meant when I said that we would have to discuss this. The Minister comes along, unlike what the department explained to us, and he motivates precisely the reason why he made this technical amendment. He wants three years to implement affirmative action within the Airports Company.

I told him that we were going to discuss this. We do not want it to be said in future that a debate on this matter is not necessary. A debate on these matters is always necessary. We must always do this.

The chairperson and I get on fairly well in the portfolio committee. I want to ask him, now that the ANC supports this privatisation, does the SACP support it as well, or does it oppose it? Is the SACP opposed to it? The chairperson indicated this in the committee.

From the DA’s side, we support the privatisation of the Airports Company, particularly when it was at a stage where it was functioning well financially and delivering good dividends. I want to tell the hon Mr Cronin that shareholders must receive the dividends, they pay tax on them. The tax goes to the state and it can use it for infrastructure. There is no problem with that.

Only a hardened communist like the hon Mr Cronin would come to us with these types of stories and think that we would not be able to believe them. What we are opposed to, is the manner in which the ANC Government is implementing affirmative action in South Africa. It is not black economic empowerment, it is enrichment of the inner elite circle of the ANC. That is what the ANC Government is engaged in here. I want to ask the Minister to give us the assurance that he is now not once again going to appoint his cronies and buddies in the Airports Company to ensure that the fortunate minority of people in South Africa are enriched while there are hundreds, thousands and millions of people who are living in poverty.

We are in favour of black economic empowerment, but then it must be available to all people, not only to a small minority within the ranks of the ANC. All the people must benefit from privatisation and black economic empowerment. They must be able to feel that there is work for them and self- respect, that they can have houses built for themselves and can support their families. Not the situation that we currently have in which people have to stand before the ANC Government begging, while it is only interested in the enrichment of the people within its own inner circle. [Interjections.] [Applause.]]

Mr T ABRAHAMS: Madam Speaker, previous speakers have explained what this Bill is about, particularly the hon the Minister and the chairperson of the portfolio committee. So, I will not bore members with the details of what this is about, but rather just put it into context.

The Airports Company is listed in the Public Finance Management Act, under Schedule 2, as a major public entity. As such, a number of controls apply and conditions are spelled out. One of them is that in terms of the Act, a regulating committee was established which, unfortunately, had to seek the approval of both the Minister and the Airports Company before changing the conditions under which the company could levy charges.

The point I want to make is that we normally have such a fixation on making grand changes, tackling big projects, that we do not look at the simple little things that can be done with ease. This is an example of the streamlining of a procedure, the cutting of red tape, to simplify things and to make Government and business operate more smoothly. For this reason, the UDM supports this Bill because of the streamlining action.

When it comes to the matter of privatisation, I would like to make it very clear that the UDM supports the privatisation of Acsa, as it has been done, conditionally. Under no circumstances would we like to see privatisation take place at the expense of jobs.

With the 20% selling of Acsa, there has actually been an increase in the number of jobs that were made available. That is the route that we would like to hear being taken by private enterprise in the privatisation of state assets.

We would encourage the selling of more of this company as soon as possible, and we are somewhat disappointed that this move has been postponed. But the company is functioning more than viably. It is profitable, and, as Dr Odendaal has said, privatisation must not be feared because there is taxation that follows the profitable functioning of streamlined businesses.

The UDM supports this Bill.

Miss S RAJBALLY: Madam Speaker, the Airports Company Amendment Bill proposes to amend section 12(11) of the Airports Company Act of 1993. Since we are constantly travelling by plane, the MF believes that it is vitally important for necessary changes to be made so as to enhance service delivery. The MF is content with the amendment to the Bill since it allows the regulating committee to make its own decisions and changes without having to obtain approval from the company. However, it does make provision for the regulating committee always to consult with the company and always to obtain the approval of the Minister of Transport.

The MF supports the Airports Company Amendment Bill.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT: Mr Chairperson, I want to thank the chairperson and members of the portfolio committee, as well as all the members who participated in this debate.

There were just a couple of questions raised which I want to deal with. The first is the question of King Shaka Airport. I want to indicate that sometime ago the Airports Company and representatives of the provincial government of KwaZulu-Natal - with the participation of national Government

• engaged in a feasibility study with regard to King Shaka Airport.

There are a number of complexities, because it would mean transferring the international status of the airport from Durban International Airport to the new site. There would be a new ownership and management configuration, and there is also the question as to whether such an airport would be economically viable. One of the problems over the last few years has been that air traffic to Durban International Airport has declined consistently.

So those are all matters that need to be looked into. They are being considered at the moment. We as Government are favourably disposed towards developing the new airport, but it must be economically viable. So that is the area that we are looking into.

In the meanwhile, as members know, Durban International Airport has been improved. The improvements are nearing completion and Durban International will be able to cope with the existing traffic for the foreseeable future over the next few years. But it is a matter that we are looking at and then we will obviously report on this matter again.

With regard to the issue of privatisation, I think the problem on the part of those that consider themselves part of the DA is that they have an ideological approach to this matter. Therefore, no matter what happens one must privatise. On our side we do not have an ideological approach to privatisation. The simple question is whether it benefits our country and whether it benefits our people. If the statements of the Minister of Public Enterprises are taken into account, then members will know that there are certain priorities with regard to privatisation and restructuring of state assets.

In so far as Acsa is concerned, the position is very simple. This is a very profitable company. Do members know of any business person who simply disposes of a business when it is highly profitable? In our case we can use this entity to advance the social objectives of this Government, namely economic development of all the provinces, economic development of all the airports, black economic empowerment at many levels - I can give members examples - training of our people and capacity-building.

If we were to proceed at this stage with privatisation, we would have lost control over the board. We would no longer have been in a position to dictate who appoints the CEO and all the objectives which I have identified. [Interjections.]

Mr R J HEINE: It is not important! The MINISTER: It is not important to the hon member because he wants to retain the status quo. The hon member does not know what transformation is and he does not support it. The hon member likes privilege - he has enjoyed privilege and he wants privilege to continue. [Interjections.]

Dr W A ODENDAAL: Mr Chairperson, would the hon the Minister be prepared to take a question on this point?

The MINISTER: Mr Chairperson, I have listened to so much nonsense from the hon Odendaal that the less I hear his voice during this debate, the better. So I will not take his question.

As the hon Cronin has pointed out, there are very few examples of airports simply being privatised. Why? Because airports constitute strategic assets and therefore government at national, provincial or local level should have a role to play with regard to airports. And because of the profitability of our company, there is no reason why we should rush into privatisation. [Interjections.]

What we are doing, at the moment, is to ensure that every step we take with regard to our airports benefits our country and provides jobs. For example, as a result of the steps we have taken, Johannesburg International Airport has, for the first time in its history, a black manager who is in charge of that airport. For the first time in our history, Cape Town International Airport has a black manager and members will notice very shortly that, for the first time in the history of the company, the CEO of Acsa will be a black person. That is progress for us. [Applause.]

Debate concluded

Bill read a second time.

                  ROAD ACCIDENT FUND AMENDMENT BILL

                       (Second Reading debate)

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT: Mr Chairperson and hon members, the Road Accident Fund makes a financial contribution of R50 million per year to the Arrive Alive campaign. The Auditor-General has expressed reservations about the legality of that contribution to the Arrive Alive campaign.

The new board under the chairmanship of Adv Kessie Naidoo, SC, therefore took up the matter and sought legal opinion. The issue is whether section 4 of the Road Accident Fund Act of 1996, which sets out the powers and functions of the fund, authorises the fund to make such contributions. The legal opinion obtained by the board says it does not. The Chief State Law Adviser, in a separate opinion, says that the section does indeed give the fund the power to make contributions. The purpose of this amendment is to remove all uncertainty and to ensure that the Road Accident Fund does, indeed, have the authority to make funds available for road safety projects approved by the Minister, which would include the Arrive Alive campaign.

The Arrive Alive campaign is recognised throughout the country as having been a success. There is evidence from the available statistics, which reveal that in 1998 there was a 6,43% reduction in fatalities and a 7,78% reduction in serious injuries. There was also an estimated saving in that year of R475 million. The final figures for 1999 and 2000 are not available because there are still major delays and bottlenecks in the provincial accident reporting systems - this is a separate matter which is being urgently addressed. The statistics which are available for the Christmas and Easter holiday periods for the last two years again indicate a decline in the number of accidents and the number of fatalities.

Indeed, it has been apparent that there is greater awareness amongst road users that they need to comply with the rules of the road. There has also been better law enforcement, coupled with the use of mobile courts. This means that a combination of factors, tougher law enforcement, better law compliance generally, better co-ordination, better co-operation between different levels of government and co-operation with the justice system have together resulted in the significant reduction in accidents and fatalities which we have witnessed.

On 28 March, in reply to a question, I provided the available statistics to this honourable Court. Those statistics are still available. They indicate that, indeed, fatalities and the number of accidents have declined. The contribution of the Road Accident Fund has been an important factor in helping us reduce the number of accidents and fatalities on our roads, and I want to express my appreciation to the Road Accident Fund Board.

I can indicate that there are different levels of government and different traffic authorities involved in the performance of various functions impacting upon road safety. The planning and implementation of the Arrive Alive project, for example, are undertaken jointly by national, provincial and local traffic authorities. Law enforcement is undertaken by provincial and local traffic authorities, not national, while communications are mainly dealt with by national and provincial road safety communication and educational personnel. Information collection and analysis is the responsibility of all role-players involved in the project.

It is, perhaps, coincidental that this amendment comes before the House barely three days after another horrific accident. We are all aware of the head-on collision between a minibus taxi and a truck which took place in Muldersdrif in Gauteng on Monday, 4 June, killing all 12 occupants of the minibus taxi. The vehicle was unroadworthy and unlicensed. The police found traffic tickets showing that the driver had previously been booked for driving without a public permit, jumping a red robot, overloading, not wearing a seat belt and driving an unlicensed vehicle. This vehicle should never have been allowed on the road. [Interjections.] What is more shocking is that the brakes were faulty: A device holding them in place was tied with wire and not secured with bolts.

Members will recall that over the Easter holiday period, there was another horrific bus smash in KwaZulu-Natal. While such events continue to happen on a regular basis, it is little comfort that they do so in the context of improved road safety performance by our country as a whole. Therefore, what is very clear to us is that as useful and successful as the Arrive Alive campaign has been, it is not enough. There is much more that needs to be done. The Arrive Alive campaign has covered the areas of law enforcement, communication, education and information. It is because of this recognition of the need to have in place a more comprehensive road safety strategy, that a more all-embracing programme of action has been devised.

In terms of the strategy document entitled ``The Road to Safety 2001 to 2005’’, there is greater focus on the need to promote vehicle and driver fitness. Special attention is being given to upgrading vehicle testing stations. All of them fall under the jurisdiction of the provinces, but we cannot leave matters to provinces. Hence, an amount of just over R20 million is being made available and, in co-operation with provinces, their vehicle testing stations are urgently being upgraded. In the process we hope to eliminate corruption where it exists.

New measures to promote driver fitness are also provided for. There is a special focus on professional drivers, including drivers of minibus taxis and buses. According to proposals contained in the strategy document, the technical and practical criteria for a professional driver’s permit will be made much more stringent and will include mandatory training in advanced defensive driving skills. Over a phased period it will become compulsory for all candidate drivers to attend driving school. Driving schools themselves will be registered, and a fixed curriculum will have to be devised. There is a great emphasis on training to achieve conscious and voluntary law compliance.

We are also urgently looking at ways of creating the necessary capacity in our vehicle testing systems, to move from the current annual roadworthy test for public passenger vehicles, to twice-yearly tests. Again, the upgrading of vehicle testing stations and stringent controls on corrupt and fraudulent practices will help to promote vehicle fitness on our roads.

Therefore, this amendment which will authorise the Road Accident Fund to continue to make its contribution will help us to reduce fatalities and accidents on our roads once again. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! I think when the hon the Minister said that he had ``revealed the figures to the honourable court,’’ he meant the honourable House. That comes from long years at the Bar. [Laughter.]

Mr A R AINSLIE: Chairperson, Minister and members, I think we have to listen very carefully when Dr Odendaal speaks about affirmative action. He is an expert on affirmative action. His party promoted white affirmative action for 300 years, white affirmative action in neighbourhoods, white affirmative action in schools, jobs for whites on the railways, jobs for whites at SAA, jobs for whites at the harbours. [Interjections.] We ought to go to Dr Odendaal for tips on how we should apply affirmative action. [Interjections.]

The importance of this amendment, which we are discussing today, is that it will enable the Road Accident Fund to continue making contributions to the Arrive Alive campaign. That the Bill was passed unanimously by the Portfolio Committee on Transport is an indication that there is support across party-political lines for the Arrive Alive campaign and, indeed, for road safety generally.

It is true that the Road Accident Fund itself operates under severe financial constraints, largely as a result of the litigious environment in which it operates. We have great hopes that the commission of inquiry into the Road Accident Fund under Judge Cathy Satchwell will deal effectively with these matters and assist in putting the fund on a firm and sustainable financial footing. However, contributions by the fund to the Arrive Alive campaign need to be seen as money well spent, as investments directly benefiting the fund itself. Clearly, the lower the accident rate on our roads, the less the fund will have to pay out in compensation for injuries and deaths occurring as a result of road accident.

The CSIR has developed a model which distinguishes between four major types of accidents and calculates the monetary value for each type. According to this model, every single fatality costs the economy over R386 000; each serious injury over R100 000; minor injuries approximately R28 000; and damage to vehicles only, in the region of R20 000. The estimated total cost to the economy of our high accident rate is currently about R14 billion per annum.

These are the economic costs. What about the emotional costs? What about the emotional costs of losing a loved one, a friend, a colleague in a road accident? One cannot put a price tag on these emotional costs. So funding from the RAF to the Arrive Alive campaign is actually an investment in the reduction of road accidents.

During the past year, the fund contributed in excess of R54 million to the Arrive Alive campaign. In the current financial year, the fund has provisionally approved a sum of R15 million. These investments, as the Minister has indicated, are beginning to yield very positive results. For three consecutive years, over the December-January holiday period, the objective of the Arrive Alive campaign to reduce fatalities by at least 5% has been met. Over this period there has been a substantial decrease in the number of fatal road accidents. While progress is being made, there is definitely no reason for complacency, however, as we heard earlier when we passed a motion in the House and when the Minister referred to the horrific accident which took place at Muldersdrif on Monday. There is certainly no room for complacency. Our road safety campaign is designed, in fact, to put an end to these kinds of accidents as quickly as possible. We have a long way to go in this regard.

What is going to help, though, is the transformation of the Arrive Alive campaign into a year-round national campaign. This is a major boost to road safety in our country and forms part of a road safety strategy. The fundamental principles on which our road safety programmes are based are sound. We are seeing the positive results, which I have indicated and which the Minister has indicated, but the frequency with which speedsters, overloaded vehicles and public transport are still involved in accidents, which result in mass deaths, is unacceptable. The enforcement leg of the programme needs to be more vigorously implemented. There needs to be zero tolerance of all and any road offence.

In addition, legislation underpinning enforcement, in particular the administrative adjudication of the Road Traffic Offences Act, needs to be fully implemented as soon as possible. This Act is designed specifically for drivers who do not pay fines, and for drivers who collect traffic tickets like some people collect stamps.

The ANC supports this Bill. [Applause.]

Mr S B FARROW: Chair and Minister, I think the hon Mr Ainslie was one of the beneficiaries of that affirmative action in his past. [Interjections.] I just want to clarify something. When I talked about empowerment of the 49%, one can still hold the strategic share that the hon the Minister requires. Really, what we were talking about was empowering people for the balance.

The cost to the economy of the 512 000 traffic accidents a year, of which 28 000 are fatal or lead to serious injuries, is a massive R14 billion to the state. Some 9 100 people lost their lives on South African roads in

1. The amendment to the Road Accident Fund Act seeks to authorise and legitimise - and I stress ``legitimise’’ because up to now they have effectively been giving it out illegally - the fund to make financial contributions to road safety projects and programmes approved by the Minister. In this particular instance, it will allow the fund to continue contributing to the Arrive Alive campaign.

This is a commendable approach to road safety, provided that there is a noticeable reduction in the number of road accidents that end up as claims submitted to the fund. During 1998-99, the RAF paid out R2,05 billion in claims. Since 1996-97, claims have progressively been increasing from 17% to 25%, over the previous years to the latest figures in 1998-99. This could be, I might add, as a result of the backlog in claims not reflected in the Arrive Alive report, but I will comment on that. However, the impact of reduced claims on the fund, through the Arrive Alive campaign, has not yet had full effect, although I am aware, as the Minister said, that there has been an effective reduction of 67% in fatalities during 2000.

The RAF must be seen as a business and not just a milch cow for third party claim attorneys, for if it continues in this vein, any investments that it makes towards the Arrive Alive campaign would be wasted. At present, the fund contributes some R50 million to the Arrive Alive campaign, annually. This investment must show dividends, and these must be in the form of significant reductions in the accident claims against it. I am sure it might work. The Arrive Alive campaign must focus on the high accident areas of the country, in an effort to bring down accidents, fatalities and injuries while, at the same time, contributing to the promotion of road safety in general. That must be done throughout the year.

The RAF has, for many years, been subjected to various investigations and commissions in an attempt to rectify its financial crisis, which has been prevalent since the mid-eighties. As the more recent Satchwell commission drags its feet in coming to any constructive conclusion, we are no nearer to finding the solution to reducing its deficit, currently estimated to be over R10 billion and growing at a rate of R1 billion per year.

Settlement delays are between 34 and 46 months after the accident. After administration fees and legal fees, the balance available to the victim is further subjected to party and client fees, estimated at 30%. In essence, the percentage of total expenditure paid to the victim amounts to 52%, while the percentage to total expenditure used in administering the claim, is 48%.

As I have said before in previous debates on this topic, it must be the most inefficient insurance fund in the world, with liabilities exceeding its assets. These amounted to some R9 billion as of 30 April 1999, making this fund technically insolvent. I question, therefore, the need for another prolonged investigation into the fund, at great expenses, by legal professionals headed by Judge Satchwell. It is a fund that is designed, in effect, to pay attorneys.

The situation is totally unacceptable and the Minister needs to look more carefully to avoid a further depletion of the fund and, in particular, the excessive and continued exploitation of the fund by unscrupulous lawyers and agents, to the detriment of the victims. The DA suggests a more businesslike approach to the fund’s dilemma. Certainly, the inclusion in the commission of insurance-related businesspeople or actuaries would go a long way in helping the fund turn its operations around.

A starting point would be to investigate ways of decreasing the outflow from the fund and improving liquidity by, firstly, cutting out the middlemen and attorneys; secondly, eliminating disputes from the claiming system; thirdly, catching up with the backlog of claim arrears; and fourthly, clearly defining a funding policy and strategy for the fund. I say this particularly in the light of the increase in petrol levies which is being envisaged by the Minister of Finance, towards the money for the Road Accident Fund.

This will then avoid payouts of the general damages and the lump sums as an undertaking. If the latter was instituted alone, this would reflect a saving in the RAF cashflow of approximately R1,4 billion. This money could then really be channelled towards increased law enforcement and, in so doing, dramatically reduce the number of accidents on the road.

Finally, there has been a lot of concern in the media about the possible conflict of interest of certain office bearers employed by the RAF. I have brought this to the hon the Minister’s attention on a number of occasions, and I really feel that this aspect needs serious consideration, for as long as this problem prevails, there will be very little chance of the fund recovering from its present crisis. The fact that the Heath special investigating unit was prevented from investigating the tremendous amount of corruption taking place in and outside the fund by the Constitutional Court, should not stop the Minister from instituting and continuing to investigate the evidence handed to the Heath commission.

I would just like to say we support this particular Bill. [Time expired.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, I just want to query one point with Mr Ainslie. I think when he was here, he said something about a terrific accident. Was it terrific'' or did you mean horrific?’’ [Interjections.] Well, I thought that, in the context in which it happened, it would be horrific. If it is so, then I think we will just alert Hansard to record it as ``horrific.’’

Mr J H SLABBERT: Mr Chairperson and hon Minister, the Road Accident Fund Amendment Bill before us today is, to my mind, not a controversial Bill at all. It really needs very little debate, if any at all.

The Bill was discussed thoroughly in the portfolio committee and all parties reached a consensus. The Bill is to amend the Road Accident Fund Act of 1996, to authorise the fund to make financial contributions to road safety projects and other programmes approved by the Minister, including the Arrive Alive campaign.

Ek wil dit duidelik stel dat ek genoeg vertroue in die agb Minister het dat hy nie sy bevoegdhede onverantwoordelik sal gebruik en geld links en regs sal uitgee nie, maar dit laat by my die vraag ontstaan waar hy die fondse vandaan gaan kry om aan ander mense te skenk, want die fonds self is onder finansiële druk en is gedeeltelik of geheel en al bankrot. Ek hoop die agb Minister gaan vir my sê ek is verkeerd. Dit sal baie goed wees.

Iets waaroor ek nog steeds kla, is wetstoepassing. Alhoewel daar ‘n verbetering in wetstoepassing op ons paaie is, is dit op verre na nog nie voldoende nie. Die mense doen net die ligte werkies. Ek hoor oor die radio en ek lees in die koerant die wetstoepassers het nou ‘n nuwe naam. Hulle noem hulle nou die SS’e. Dit staan vir skaduweesoekers'' in die somer en virsonsitters’’ in die winter! (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.) [I want to state clearly that I have enough faith in the hon the Minister to believe that he will not use his powers irresponsibly and spend money left, right and centre, but this brings me to the question of where he will acquire the funds to donate to other people, because the fund itself is under financial pressure and is partially or totally bankrupt. I hope the hon the Minister is going to tell me that I am wrong. That would be very good.

Something about which I still want to complain is law enforcement. Although there is an improvement in law enforcement on our roads, it is still not nearly sufficient. The people are only doing the light jobs. I hear on the radio and read in the newspaper that the law enforcement officers now have a new name. They are now being called the SS’s. It stands for shade seekers'' in summer andsun sitters’’ in winter!]

The Road Accident Fund has been under discussion since 1994 and, after numerous public hearings, etc, no progress has been made up to today. Furthermore, after Judge Satchwell had been appointed by the previous Minister of Transport to compile a report on this controversial Road Accident Fund, she was granted a six month extension and it was said that the report would be available at the end of 2000, but it has not yet materialised.

I am of the opinion that the affairs of the fund are in absolute chaos, and I trust that something can now be done to overcome the deadlock situation.

The IFP, however, supports the amending Bill.

Dr W A ODENDAAL: Mr Chairman, the Bill before us seeks to legalise the contributions of the RAF to the Arrive Alive road safety programme.

We were briefed by the portfolio committee about this year’s contribution of R50 million from the RAF, to put the campaign on a permanent basis and move away from the previous stop-start nature of the campaign over the Easter and Christmas holidays. It has already led to a decrease in the claims against the Road Accident Fund in the amount of about R350 million during the first year.

If these figures are correct, we would like to sincerely congratulate everybody involved in the road safety plan on these wonderful achievements. Would the Minister please confirm the results, in terms of savings for the RAF, because I am not sure if my figures are correct. The DA will support this amending Bill.

Unfortunately, some bad reports about the fund appeared in the Mail & Guardian over the weekend. I have the articles with me, if the Minister has not had the opportunity to read them. If these allegations are true, one wonders how it is possible for the RAF to keep on supporting the Arrive Alive programme.

The following sound bites are quoted directly from these articles:

The RAF’s version is nothing else but sheer racism. No white advocates, attorneys or medical professionals may be used in the legal defence of the fund, which boils down to unfair discrimination. Stuff the whites. Now it is our turn. The scope of nepotism and favouritism is considerable.

The daughter of one of the fund’s senior office bearers is one of the chosen few. Some office bearers of the fund have a conflict of interest when acting as lawyers. Does the Minister know some of them? They also represent plaintiffs suing the fund. Members of the board are actively involved in the management of the fund. If this is true, that is indeed a bad state of affairs.

The question now is: What action has the Minister taken since the article appeared in the Mail & Guardian? Did he know about the corruption in the RAF, or was he not aware of what was going on in this fund?

The Mail & Guardian confirms exactly what the people on the ground are experiencing in respect of ANC rule on a daily basis. The actions of the ANC Government have nothing to do with black economic empowerment. It is all about self-enrichment of the fortunate few, within the elite inner circle of the ANC. A few blacks are getting richer and richer, while the masses out there are getting poorer and poorer. The DA will rectify this wrongdoing.

For the benefit of the hon Ainslie, I agree that apartheid was wrong, that is why we did away with it. He should ask the hon Manie Schoeman, who is now a member of the ANC. [Interjections.]

We will see to it that corruption, fraud and bribery get crunched and that the ordinary people share in the benefits of economic empowerment and privatisation. We will see to it that affirmative action is democratised and based on a process of adding value to existing expertise, fast-tracking the promotion of opportunities for members of previously disadvantaged communities. We will see to it that appointments and promotions take place on merit and not on nepotism. We will restore dignity to the ordinary citizen yearning for the opportunity to provide for his family, without having to resort to criminality and begging for favours. [Applause.]

Mr T ABRAHAMS: Chairperson, the Road Accident Fund is directly connected with what happens on our roads and streets, because claims are made against it. It is therefore the appropriate structure to be involved in the Government’s Arrive Alive campaign, particularly now that the campaign has been extended into a year-round effort. Where the money will come from, is another matter.

The Bill authorises the Road Accident Fund to make financial contributions to road safety programmes and projects which have been approved by the Minister. I just want to mention that the intention is that provinces must remain responsible for road safety. The Arrive Alive campaign, via the Road Accident Fund, is to budget funds for the provinces as a supplement to the existing budgets for road safety. The Road Accident Fund money is supposed to be additional to what the provinces budget for road safety. Is there not a danger that the provinces will be inclined to reduce their own budget spending on road safety? I just thought I would mention that to the Minister.

We have no problem with the amending Bill itself. The UDM supports it. I would like to point out, though, that one of the facts that we must take cognisance of is that there are 6,73 million licensed and registered vehicles on our roads today. There are others as well that are not licensed or registered. They travel over half a million kilometres of roads and streets in South Africa. They are driven by something like 6 million registered, licensed drivers and some unlicensed drivers as well. Of these half a million km of roads and streets, about 268 million kilometres are covered by the same vehicles and more than half of them are on rural roads.

This traffic leads to about 512 000 traffic accidents in a given year. That is about 10 accidents in a full week, like the one we had on Monday. While I am referring to that horrific accident, could I make an appeal to the Minister that during peak hours in the mornings, priority should be given to getting commuters to their workplaces. There is no place in peak hour traffic in the mornings for heavily laden trucks. Business can wait between the hours of 06:30 and 08:30 in the mornings, to allow the commuters to get to work on time. We should ban trucks from the roads between those hours in the mornings.

It is worth noting that between 80% and 90% of all accidents on the roads can be ascribed to driver failure. Driver failure simply means that drivers fail to use our roads and streets with the necessary care and attention. We are given to understand … [Time expired.]

Miss S RAJBALLY: Chairperson, the MF welcomes the Road Accident Fund Amendment Bill, as it aims to facilitate financial contributions to road safety projects, such as the Arrive Alive campaign.

This is a much-needed Bill as there are far too many accidents on our roads, especially during the festive period. These accidents are caused by reckless driving, speeding and drunken driving. By working closely with the Arrive Alive campaign, we will be able to reduce and prevent the number of accidents occurring.

The Road Accident Fund’s investment in projects can be effectively used towards developing a business plan with the provinces, as well as investing in traffic law enforcement, breathalyzers and speed cameras. The MF supports the Road Accident Fund Amendment Bill.

Mrs T P SHILUBANA: Chairperson, I do not want to waste my time by responding to what the hon Dr Odendaal has said. The facts were not well digested. As already mentioned by the Minister, the Bill seeks to amend the Road Accident Fund Act of 1996, in order to authorise the fund to make financial contributions to road safety projects and programmes, as approved by the Minister.

Since the start of the Arrive Alive road safety campaign, which the Minister announced in October 2000 would be a year-round programme from November 2000 onwards, statistics have shown that accidents and fatalities have been reduced. Over the period December 2000 to January 2001, a total of 1 152 persons were killed in 867 fatal road accidents involving 945 vehicles. This is 140 or 10,8% less persons than during the same two months of the previous year. The number of fatal accidents decreased by 82, which is 8,6%, and the number of vehicles involved in these accidents decreased by 309, which is 24,6%. We therefore believe that the contribution of the RAF to the Arrive Alive campaign will help reduce road fatalities.

The RAF is facing major financial challenges. While contributing to the Arrive Alive campaign may seem like an additional burden, it is in fact an important measure that can lessen the financial drain on the fund. By spending money on the prevention of road accidents, the fund can actually save money.

Funding is not the only RAF issue that has been in the news over the last few years. The police have been investigating the alleged fraudulent abuse of the fund by certain lawyers. I do not know whether Dr Odendaal has not heard about that. There is also the Judge Satchwell commission which is looking into the character of the fund and its sustainability.

In the last weeks an internal memorandum from the RAF’s committee for transformation has surfaced in the media. According to the reports, this committee has instructed branches of the RAF to deal only with black attorneys and medical specialists. The ANC obviously strongly supports affirmative action measures. However, the memorandum from the Road Accident Fund commission for transformation appears to apply affirmative action in a narrow and perhaps an unconstitutional way. The ANC welcomes the assurances of the chairperson of the fund, Percy Naidoo, that the memorandum had not been authorised by the RAF board and that the whole matter was under review.

The ANC supports the Road Accident Fund Amendment Bill. [Applause.]

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT: Chairperson and hon members, I would like to thank the portfolio committee and its chair for supporting the Bill. I also want to thank all members who participated in the debate, and the House for supporting the Bill. During the course of this discussion, a number of genuine concerns were raised. Firstly, is the R50 million per annum paid by the board a good investment? My view is that if this contribution helps to spread awareness, strengthen law enforcement, improve communications and thereby help reduce the number of accidents on our roads, then it is certainly a good investment. I was asked whether I can confirm certain figures and I am unable to do so. I have not looked at the figures, but I do think that if there is a significant reduction in accidents, then it would follow that this amount has been a good investment.

A second concern which has been raised - which I also believe is a genuine concern by members on all sides of the House - is the financial state of the Road Accident Fund. It is a matter which also concerns me. We are having discussions with the hon the Minister of Finance about the matter, so as to ensure that the unhealthy state of the finances of the fund can be properly addressed on a sustainable basis.

A third concern which has been raised is whether there are individuals - lawyers and others - who are profiteering from the fund and whether there is fraud, which we cannot tolerate. I support the view that action should be taken against any individual engaged in fraud and corruption. If our attention is drawn to any such activity, then we will not hesitate to report the matter to the law-enforcement authorities.

Another concern that was raised was whether there is a conflict of interest. Again we will not sit idly by if we discover that there is a conflict of interest. The hon Farrow is quite correct in drawing my attention to the issue of a conflict of interest, which has been of concern to him. At the time when we looked at the matter, we did not think that there was a conflict of interest, even though we thought there was a potential for a conflict of interest. Obviously, we will look into the matter continuously and if it appears that there is a conflict of interest, we will not hesitate to raise the matter and report back to Parliament.

The fourth concern that was raised was the article which appeared in the Mail & Guardian, which reported that the Road Accident Fund intends employing only black people in certain positions. Our policy is not to exclude persons or any group from employment, though we would like to see affirmative action policies vigorously implemented. There has been a situation in the RAF where people have benefited from the fund for many years and continue to benefit. It just so happens, these people appear to come from the white section. Whether they were lawyers or employed in other capacities, they did very well out of the fund. I know that it is the policy of this new board to address that particular problem and ensure that those inequalities are eradicated.

We support the board in this regard. We are certain that the chair of the board, who is a man of the highest integrity, will ensure that he implements programmes that are consistent with our Constitution. At the same time, we are saying that we are not excluding whites from appointments. I would say that, on merit, people such as the hon Odendaal would never qualify for appointment anywhere. So if he were to leave Parliament, I know that he probably has a lot to fall back on. If he were to rely on a job in the RAF, he would unfortunately never qualify. [Interjections.]

The next concern which was raised is the commission being headed by Judge Satchwell. I just wanted to say that I have every confidence in her and in her integrity. I am also anxious that she should submit a report as quickly as possible, but we must rely on her judgment. She has undertaken to deliver the report as soon as she has completed her investigations.

Lastly, I agree with the hon Slabbert that the issue of law enforcement must be addressed. I think our law enforcement is inadequate and weak, and it is an issue that I am taking up with the MECs when we meet in our Mincom meeting on 18 June.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

The House adjourned at 18:45. ____

            ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

National Assembly:

1. The Speaker:

 Message from National Council of Provinces to National Assembly:


 Bill passed by National Council of Provinces on 6 June 2001 and
 transmitted for concurrence:


 National Forest and Fire Laws Amendment Bill [B 14B - 2001] (National
Council of Provinces - sec 76).


     The Bill has been referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Environmental Affairs and Tourism of the National Assembly.

1. The Speaker:

 The following papers were tabled and are now referred to the relevant
 committees as mentioned below:


 (1)    The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Minerals and Energy, the Portfolio Committee on Environmental
     Affairs and Tourism and the Portfolio Committee on Provincial and
     Local Government for consideration and report. The committees must
     confer and the Portfolio Committee on Minerals and Energy to
     report:


     Petition from the Chairperson of the East Rand Mine Dust
     Eradication Committee concerning the dust problem caused by Gold
     Mine Slime Dumps.


 (2)    The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Labour:


     Report of the Department of Labour for 2000-2001 [RP 50-2001].


 (3)    The following papers are referred to the Standing Committee on
     Public Accounts for consideration and report and to the Portfolio
     Committee on Home Affairs for information:


     (a)     Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements
          of Vote No 16 - Home Affairs for 1999-2000 and the Performance
          Audit of the Migration Process [RP 125-2000].


     (b)     Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements
          of the Independent Electoral Commision for 1996-97 and 1997-98
          [RP 188-2000].


 (4)    The following papers are referred to the Standing Committee on
     Public Accounts for consideration and report and to the Portfolio
     Committee on Arts, Culture, Science and Technology for
     information:


     (a)     Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements
          of the National Cultural History Museum for 1998-99 [RP 8-
          2001].


     (b)     Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements
          of the National Arts Council of South Africa for the period 1
          November 1999 to 31 March 2000 [RP 35-2001].


     (c)     Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements
          of the National Zoological Gardens of South Africa for 1999-
          2000 [RP 32-2001].


 (5)    The following paper is referred to the Standing Committee on
     Public Accounts for consideration and report and to the Portfolio
     Committee on Trade and Industry for information:


     Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of the
     Re-insurance Fund for Export Credit and Foreign Investments for
     1998-99 [RP 183-2000].


 (6)    The following papers are referred to the Standing Committee on
     Public Accounts for consideration and report and to the Portfolio
     Committee on Agriculture and Land Affairs for information:


     (a)     Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements
          of the Land Bank of South Africa for 1999 [RP 24-2001].


     (b)     Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements
          of the National Agricultural Marketing Council for 1998-99 [RP
          36-2001].


 (7)    The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Finance:


     Forty-First Report and the Financial Statements of the Registrar
     of Pension Funds for 1999.


 (8)    The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Correctional Services for consideration and report:


     Draft Regulations made in terms of section 134 of the Correctional
     Services Act, 1998 (Act No 111 of 1998) submitted to Parliament in
     terms of section 134(5) of the Act.

TABLINGS:

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

Papers:

1. The Speaker and the Chairperson:

 Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of Vote No 35
 - Water Affairs and Forestry and Related Accounts for 1999-2000 and a
 Performance Audit of the Project Management of the Community Water
 Supply [RP 144-2000].