Hon members, while the hon Sogoni is coming to the podium, I want to indicate to you that I can hardly hear the speakers. There is too much noise in the House and I don't want to disrupt the hon member at the podium. This is not a classroom and we should not have to continue talking about the noise.
Thank you very much for protecting us, hon Deputy Speaker. It is ironic that this debate coincides with the Cosatu march that took place yesterday. The ANC-led government is sympathetic to the call by Cosatu. However, it is in the interests of the public that government build infrastructure - roads, in this case. It is important to note that the failure by the SA National Roads Agency Limited, Sanral, to pay its debt would have far-reaching consequences and could compromise all of us as road users. Once again, in the public interest, it is expedient that Parliament does its part in bettering the lives of the people by passing this Bill.
On behalf of many of our fellow South Africans, especially those living in Gauteng, we would like to express our appreciation to government for listening to the cries of our people that 66 cents per toll would have had a devastating effect on road users. As a result, public transport has been exempted. Our caring and responsive government intervened decisively to lower and cut the fees by half.
Government is a 100% shareholder of Sanral. Therefore if Sanral has made a financial commitment, the government must intervene and the credit rating would affect the rest of the country, not just Sanral. Roads are an important pillar of the economy. If there are no proper roads, there will be no economy. We cannot afford not to have good roads. However, the issue of affordability, which the public is raising, is important. As we have indicated above, the matter has been taken care of.
When the Minister tabled the Budget, he alluded to fluidity in the economy, caused by what is happening in Europe. This fluidity also has a negative impact on our country. We all know that government cannot afford to build all the roads at once. It is therefore necessary for government to partner with the private sector because it has limited resources. However, this government will continue to support the poorest of the poor.
I am sure that from now on we all understand that lessons were learnt from this process. In fact, the director-general highlighted this fact to the committee. The project should serve as a reference for future tolling. We therefore propose that this Bill be supported by this House. [Applause.]
Aha, the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project! I am the DA spokesperson on transport and I happen to live in Gauteng. So, this Bill affects me personally. While the DA will not object to the appropriation of R5,8 billion for the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project, we must place on record our objection in the strongest terms to the way in which this entire project was undertaken. [Interjections.] Our objection rests not with the concept of toll roads per se, or even with the user-pays principle, but with three key aspects of this programme: the financial structure and funding model, the public participation process, and the costly and inefficient collection system.
Firstly, the financial structure of this project was not tabled as part of the initial proposals. It only became clear much later on that Sanral was building extremely expensive freeways and that the payments were going to be extremely burdensome on commuters and the taxpayer. The Minister of Finance, who is not here, and the hon Jeremy Cronin have both appealed to us not to focus on how they got us into this mess, but to focus on how to get out of it. Unfortunately for both Ministers the DA has one in four South African voters demanding that we do our oversight job in this Parliament and ask those difficult questions. As such, I hereby call on the Minister of Finance and the Treasury to open an investigation into the Electronic Toll Collections consortium's contract and the contract with the Vienna-based Kapsch TrafficCom, which has 85% ownership of Electronic Toll Collections, ETC. We need to know all the details of why Sanral signed such an exorbitant toll collection contract with ETC and what Tolplan's role in this was.
We must know: one, who signed the contract; two, why the exorbitant costs were not initially tabled in the Gauteng province, in Parliament or with the Treasury before the contracts were agreed to; three, what the exact administrative costs will be as opposed to payments for the actual infrastructure, which our calculations show are exorbitant in the extreme; four, why the collection costs will be so much more than the costs of the actual infrastructure; and, finally, who was enriched in the process. [Interjections.]
The public-participation process was also extremely flawed. The Constitution, the Bill of Rights and numerous South African laws have clearly set down the need for the public to be informed and consulted in appropriate ways when major projects affecting the public are undertaken. In the case of the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project, public participation was either rushed through or nonexistent. In typical ruling- party style, the public in Gauteng were treated as cannon fodder for the political agenda of politicians and bureaucrats intent on another grand project.
Public roads and highways are crucial in providing public transport for goods and people, but this project has grown from a public necessity into another grand and overpriced edifice. Spending of this kind of taxpayers' and commuters' money without consulting the public is unforgivable. We cannot just let it go, hon Gordhan and hon Cronin. The public demands to know why so little consultation has occurred.
Finally, the DA objects most of all to the costly and inefficient system of collecting the toll fees. If an alternative, such as adding a fuel levy of 12 cents per litre of fuel, had been considered, it is our calculation that this would have cost the retailing industry approximately R4 million to collect the funds necessary to pay for the toll roads over a period of time. This would have been a reasonable cost. This toll scheme should be funded out of these levies.
However, according to our calculations, what is envisaged by this Gauteng toll scheme is a cost of R1 billion per annum just to collect the money. This amount adds up to R11 billion in administration fees over the cost period of this project. [Interjections.] This amount will be spent on just collecting toll fees from the consumer. Where does 85% of the profit from the collections process go? A private company, headquartered in Europe, will be taking 85% of the profit to line the pockets of foreigners. That's billions of rand of taxpayers' and motorists' money being flushed down the drain that could have been spent on highways or public transport, or even subsidising buses or taxis for the poor! That is not a caring government, Mr Speaker. That is a colossal waste of poor people's money, last seen in South Africa during the days of the Arms Deal. [Interjections.]
The DA cannot rest until we know who authorised this mess, why such huge fees were paid, and whether any kickbacks occurred. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
Hon member, you were so passionate that you didn't even hear me say there was a point of order, but that's fine. What is your point of order, hon member?
Deputy Speaker, I wanted to know if the member would take a question, but it's fine. [Interjections.]
No, he can't take a question because his time is up. [Interjections.]
Deputy Speaker, during the debate on the presentation of the 2012-13 Budget a Cabinet bailout proposal for SA National Road Agency Limited, Sanral, amounting to R5,7 billion for e-tolling on Gauteng toll roads, was presented in an extraordinary way. As we know, the debt was in fact made by Sanral and tariffs decided on without proper consultation with any stakeholders. The government argued in the presentation to the committee that section 30 of the Public Finance Management Act, PMFA, is a sound authority to permit this allocation. When you read this section, you can clearly see how skilful this provision has been stretched to suit this bail-out plan for Sanral and, by extension, the Gauteng provincial government. One wonders why Gauteng was not top-sliced to deal with this debt.
How do we support that public infrastructure is semiprivatised through payment made by the working class for life? This is an expense that is going to spiral out of control into infinity. The tariffs year on year will run out of control and government won't be able to control or regulate downwards the tariffs of Sanral from time to time.
Yesterday, Cosatu led an oppositional march. In fact, 32 marches in the major cities and towns were mounted and the message they were sending was clear: no e-tolling. It is our considered view that public infrastructure like roads is the responsibility and asset of government - the state. By extension, it is owned by the taxpayers, the workers and the people of our country. About 100 000 people marched yesterday. The question we are asking here is whether this march, which was in fact led or supported by the Minister of Higher Education and was in opposition to this, will mean anything. Since the people have now rejected e-tolling in Gauteng, what are we going to do? The General Secretary of Cosatu, Zwelinzima Vavi, had this to say:
We have been betrayed on tolling by our comrades. We were one on the issue before local government elections last year, but the party has since changed its tune.
One of the major objections that we in Cope have is e-tolling without alternative routes for people to use without paying exorbitant fees. We were told that alternative routes would be created in the future but that future should have happened before. Therefore, we do not support the bailout of Gauteng tolling, not without there being alternative routes for many people. For that matter, we don't support any e-tolling anywhere, given the exorbitant amounts involved and the resultant semiprivatisation of our roads. [Applause.]
Deputy Speaker, the proposed tolling of Gauteng's roads, otherwise known as the Freeway Improvement Plan, GFIP, has been a contentious issue for some time now. The majority of the citizens of Gauteng believe that they will be unable to carry the extra financial burden this tolling system will place on their shoulders. It is their voice and their concerns that we need to consider as we debate this highly emotive issue. While we have empathy for the need of the R5,7 billion relief that is being suggested to ease the financial burden on the users of these roads, we believe that the Bill is dealing with the symptoms rather than the cause, which is what needs to be addressed. It cannot be effectively addressed in the manner government is currently proposing.
The latest revelation, that every 10 cents of the 30 cents per kilometre that motorists will be charged will go to the collection of fees is totally scandalous considering that it will mean that R7 billion of the R20 billion will go to a foreign entity. Government must accept that this has been a costly mistake which could have been handled through a dedicated road fund established out of the current surcharge on fuel.
The IFP believes the toll structure will have detrimental consequences. In the seeking of alternative routes - not that there are many - road congestion will simply shift to other roads, which will have a negative impact on road safety and the maintenance of the alternative routes. This will simply mean the current problems will be exacerbated.
At the micro level, the IFP is concerned with the lack of evidence suggesting that alternative methods of subsidising the road networks in South Africa had been extensively explored. We believe that this Bill sets a dangerous precedent for other entities to now come to government, knock on the door and say, "We are in trouble." The IFP calls upon government to prioritise the roll-out of efficient, reliable, affordable and safe public transport for all the people of South Africa. Making a bad situation less bad is not the answer.
What we need is a holistic relook. Should the government of Gauteng also not have been made to carry part of this burden through a reduction of equitable share of the revenue? Was this considered? So, there are many factors that need to have been considered. The IFP will emphatically not support this Bill.
Deputy Speaker, hon members, government seems hell-bent on imposing the Gauteng e-tolling system, notwithstanding public opposition. Thus far, government concessions on the rationing of the e-tolling system in Gauteng has not gone far enough to address public concerns such as the following: A third of the money collected via the e-tolling system will go towards administration; the failure to use the fuel levy for the building and the maintenance of roads, which is by far the most effective and the more equitable way of doing it; the commoditisation of public roads; the inflationary effect of the e-tolling system on the domestic economy and so on. For these reasons, the UDM finds itself stuck between a rock and a hard place. In what way, one may ask.
We shall be seen to be insensitive to the attempt to reduce the cost burden to the taxpayers if we vote against the Bill on the one hand. On the other, we shall be misconstrued as being in tacit agreement with the e-tolling system if we do. However, after careful consideration, the UDM decided to support the Bill. [Applause.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, in 1991 the Supreme Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the Johannesburg City Council in an action brought by a very courageous city council to interdict the South African Roads Board from tolling the N13, known as the Southern Bypass, from Uncle Charlie's in the west to the Rand Airport in the east. What is important is that the court granted the interdict because the audi auteram partem principle had not been applied. That means that the council had not been given an opportunity to be heard regarding the consequences of the proposed tolling. This toll road was then stopped.
The ACDP believes that the present tolling project was also not preceded by a proper consultation process. Some have said the project was conceived in deceit, sold to the public as one of the benefits of hosting the 2010 Soccer World Cup and no mention was made of tolls. A much-belated consultation process was held following public outrage and after toll gates had already been erected. Taxpayers were told that there was a debt of R20 billion that could not be serviced unless taxpayers paid for the tolls. Surely consultation should have taken place before the debt was incurred. It would no doubt be argued in court again that the audi auteram partem principle has yet again not been complied with.
Tolls were introduced under two critical conditions: only new national roads would be tolled and alternative routes would always be available. Suburban roads are now sought to be tolled, with people expected to pay tolls for roads they have already paid for. This is on top of a massive 20c increase in the fuel levy. Minister, while the ACDP appreciates this additional adjustment is a step in the right direction, we believe the whole issue of levying tolls on existing roads must be reconsidered. While we thus support the Additional Adjustments Appropriation Bill, we do not support the Gauteng freeway tolling system.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we must be reminded that we are operating in global economic turmoil and be mindful that the deficit is part of the effect of the economic downturn. Despite the infrastructure programme that the President has outlined in the state of the nation address, which intends to push the economy, the MF emphasises the need for a comprehensive plan from government that takes into account the lessons learnt during the economic recession.
I wonder how government will ensure that this R5,75 billion bail-out of Sanral is the first and the last so that we can move on and focus on how to address our deficit. The Minister of Finance tabled austerity programme measures for government, addressing the issues of economic recession and urging departments to find savings in their programmes. What has the Minister done to ensure austerity programme measures improved and what lessons were learnt so that we do not experience this situation again in the future?
The MF notes that public participation consultation is still a challenge when it comes to these kinds of projects. This must be one of the projects that government must learn from and ensure that we do not continue to bail out and compromise the projects we are already financing, which undoubtedly will have a negative effect on service delivery. The Minority Front will support the Bill.
Deputy Speaker, hon members, we do not remember a time when this House was informed that government was going to take a loan or incur a debt to erect new toll gates in Gauteng. Azapo is opposed to the whole e- tolling saga and the way in which it was implemented. We are also disappointed that consultation with communities only started when costs to the users were discussed and then not to discuss the whole principle.
The whole e-tolling matter is messy and Azapo does not want to be involved in the mop-up operation. [Interjections.] Just on principle Azapo does not support the Additional Adjustments Appropriation Bill.
Deputy Speaker and hon members, it is interesting to observe that some of the members in the opposition benches do not use their constituency offices to explain the policies that are passed by this House as well as the Bills that are passed by this House. [Interjections.] The tolling of roads is a policy that was passed by this august House and mandated Sanral to implement that policy. [Interjections.] We cannot then turn around and say the tolling of roads had to be consulted on with communities when it is the responsibility of the very same members who passed that policy to use their constituency offices and inform their constituencies about the policies. [Interjections.]
The ANC has tasked me to speak on the "user pays" system and how that relates to sustainable development - a central pillar for building a developmental state. I will link that to today's debate on the allocation of R5,75 billion to Gauteng toll roads, announced by the Minister in his Budget Speech. [Interjections.] Due to limited time, I will focus on two issues: The first is the principles of the Masakhane Campaign and how they relate to sustainable development and the process of building a developmental state. The second is the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project, the implementation and funding thereof.
In February 1995, the first President of the democratic South Africa, Mr Nelson Mandela, launched the Masakhane Campaign as an ongoing campaign to raise awareness and facilitate a paradigm shift in society in relation to roads and responsibilities of the government, the private sector and society at large. It was also meant to instil a culture of responsibility in all sectors of our society in line with a sustainable development approach.
Three principles of the Masakhane Campaign relate to the debate today. Firstly, it is introducing a culture of payment for services rendered by government by those who can afford to pay. Secondly, there is the provision of services where they do not exist, the upgrading of inadequate and poor services and maintenance of adequate services to prevent them from degrading. Thirdly, the cross-subsidisation by the rich community of services rendered to the poor, because we believe that those who are rich were able to accumulate their riches by exploiting poor communities.
The Cabinet's intervention responds to issues raised by communities, the transport sector and the business sector about the fee structure that was initially announced by Sanral in March 2010. The allocation of R5,75 billion serves to reduce the costs from 66 cents per kilometre to 30 cents per kilometre for a light vehicle with an e-tag and 58 cents for a light vehicle without an e-tag. The reduced fee relates to the principle of affordability in payment for services and cross-subsidisation. All South Africans would, through the taxpayers' purse, pay the reduced cost of users of the Gauteng improved freeway.
The socioeconomic benefits of this project include less congestion on our roads, fewer road accidents, lower cost of goods because of less time spent on roads and the higher productivity of workers as a result of less stress due to the easy flow of traffic on world-class, improved freeways in the Gauteng province.
Uma uhamba kuleya migwaqo yase-Gauteng, ungathi uhamba ezitaladini zegolide esicula ngazo kuleli hubo elithi "Jerusalema Khaya lami engilithandayo". [Uhleko.]
Izithuthi ezisetshenziswa ngumphakathi - amabhasi namatekisi - azikhokhi lutho ngokusebenzisa le migwaqo esezingeni eliphezulu neyenza umuntu asheshe afike lapho eya khona. Lokhu kusho ukuthi abantu abampofu bakhokhelwa nguhulumeni nayilabo abadla izambane likapondo ngohlelo lwe- cross-subsidisation njengoba kucacisiwe kuMasakhane Campaign. (Translation of isiZulu paragraphs follows.)
[When you are driving on the roads in Gauteng, it is as if you are driving on the golden streets which we sing about in the hymn "Jerusalema Khaya lami engilithandayo". [Laughter.]
The transport used by commuters - buses and taxis - pay nothing for using high quality roads that make travelling easy and fast. This means that the poor people are subsidised by the government and those who are well off are assisted through the cross-subsidisation programme as stipulated in the Masakane Campaign.] The upgrading of Gauteng road infrastructure is in line with the Masakhane Campaign of upgrading inadequate services. Although the Gauteng province identified a toll-roads network in 1996, long before the national Department of Transport conducted a survey on national household public transport in 2003, the intervention responds to many of the issues raised in that report and seeks to improve transport services in South Africa. This project should therefore be viewed as part of the entire Integrated Transport Infrastructure Development that is taking place in Gauteng, which includes the Gautrain, the BRT, the improvement of the O R Tambo Airport and the upgrading of the railway transportation system.
Sanral is a state entity, established in terms of the South African National Roads Agency Limited and National Roads Act, Act No 7 of 1998. Sanral is responsible for operations of nontoll roads, which are funded by government allocations, and is not allowed to borrow. It is also responsible for toll operations, which are divided into two types: those that are funded by Sanral and operated on its behalf and roads concessioned to private parties under public-private partnership. Therefore, this project is in line with that national policy.
The ANC government is building a developmental state based on the principles of sustainable development, where government and communities work together to build their country. The ANC supports the Additional Appropriation Bill.
Thank you, Deputy Speaker, once again, and thanks to members who have supported this Additional Adjustments Appropriation Bill.
Let us get some facts straight. The hon Ollis, in his campaign for leadership of the DA in Gauteng ... [Interjections.] ... goes all out to speak against the policy of his organisation in the Western Cape. [Interjections.] He says that this is going to be a costly collection system.
Maar dis mos waar! [But surely that is true!]
He says that this matter must be investigated. [Interjections.] Without investigation, let us tell you, hon Ollis, that the cost of administering the tolls is about 5 percentage points below the international average. [Interjections.] To raise R1 billion ... [Interjections.] ... Let me turn to your alternative. [Interjections.] To raise R1 billion, the fuel levy would have to be increased by 5 cents per litre. To raise R19 billion, multiply that by 19 - without an investigation. A fuel levy would make people who do not benefit fully from the road pay for it. [Interjections.] That would also be unfair and inequitable. Raising the fuel levy to raise R19 billion, plus interest, would lead to a massive increase in public transport fares, which are currently exempted. [Interjections.] This would hurt the poor and the working class, for whom you have no regard. [Interjections.] If this is what the DA wants, if this is what Cope wants, it would also lead to inflation, which will also hurt the poor. [Interjections.]
Again ... [Interjections.] ... hon Ramatlakane says that this is a bail-out of Sanral. Hon member Ruth Bhengu has correctly pointed out that Sanral is a state-owned company with a specific task to perform. This is actually a bail-out of citizens, and not of Sanral. I find it churlish and petty for Mr Ramatlakane to try and punish his departed leader, who was premier in Gauteng at the time ... [Interjections.] Don't try to punish him by opposing this piece of legislation. [Interjections.] He says the tariff will spiral out of control. [Interjections.] We have stated in the package here that we are going to ensure that the increases will be capped within the inflation range.
Over R1 billion a year!
Speaker, is the Deputy Minister prepared to take a question? [Interjections.]
Yes, sir, at the end. [Interjections.]
Fortunately, a number of members that have raised the issue agreed with us that this is a matter that requires our attention. Where we differ is how we address this matter. I said I would put some of these things into perspective. Perhaps I should repeat some of these things because there is this notion that this is tolling without alternate routes. It is not true. It is not entirely true that it is without alternate routes. We are saying that, as part of the package, the R55 and the R101 roads must also receive attention, so that they are not in the state in which they are now and it would be the choice of the motorist to choose to use the tolled road. [Interjections.]
We have reduced the toll fee payable by motorcycles with e-tags to 20 cents, for light vehicles with e-tags to 30 cents, for nonarticulated trucks with e-tags to 75 cents, and for articulated trucks with e-tags to R1,51 per kilometre. With regard to exemption for public transport, as I have pointed out earlier, taxis and buses will not pay toll fees. Maximum toll fees payable per month are capped at R550 and 15% discount after R400 per month to remove the uncertainty and provide relief to frequent users. [Interjections.]
We have also introduced time-of-day savings of 20% for heavy vehicles to deal with the concerns of the freight industry. This allows for lower toll fees for off-peak times to reduce traffic congestion during peak hours and also to reduce the economic impact of the toll fees on consumers.
There will be a contribution from the fiscus to reduce the tariff without placing too much strain on Sanral's balance sheet of R5,75 billion as an adjustment appropriation this year. This adjustment is motivated in accordance with section 30 of the Public Finance Management Act, which provides for the adjustment due to significant unforeseeable economic and financial events affecting the fiscal targets set in the annual Budget. [Interjections.]
Mr Dikobo said there was never a time when this House was told about this. Hon member, I accept that your predecessors might not have given you a handover report. [Interjections.] We tabled these things in the Budget Review. At the bottom of page 94 of this year's Budget Review - if you are in a hurry, it is at the bottom - we refer to the exposure of these state- owned enterprises. Break the tradition of not reading documents. [Laughter.] Read it today, hon Dikobo, and thank you very much for the support we have received. [Applause.]
Deputy Speaker, the hon Deputy Minister said he would take a question. Why is he running away from the question? [Interjections.]
He's running away!
Hon member, I hadn't even given you permission to speak when you stood up and asked that question. So, even if the Deputy Minister was still on the podium, you were not going to ask that question. [Interjections.] Are there any objections to the Bill being read the first time? HON MEMBERS: No!
No objections. Agreed to. The Secretary will read the Bill a first time.
Deputy Speaker, that is not how we understand it. The question was not fully put because we would like to call for a division.
No, no, no! What do you mean by "the question was not fully put"?
Deputy Speaker, you did not say whether the ayes have it or the noes have it. [Interjections.]
No, there was no need for that. I asked: Are there any objections to the Bill being read the first time? Nobody said anything and then I said: No objection. Agreed to. [Applause.] Yes. [Interjections.] No, no, no, only if there were objections would I say "ayes" and "noes". You know the procedure.
But, Deputy Speaker, we did say we have objections. [Interjections.]
No, it must have been a small, shy voice that was saying that. I didn't hear that. And I think, hon member, if you said that and realised that I was proceeding, you should have raised your hand and said no then, not afterwards. Please! [Interjections.]
Deputy Speaker, with great respect, I did raise ... [Interjections.] ... and I did ask. Can you please minute Cope's objection?
No, thank you. I think Cope's objection will be recorded. But, I think, we need to do that in good time, not when I have already gone to the next item.
Deputy Speaker, I think I fell into the same trap because we were also going to call for a division. [Interjections.]
Order, hon member, order! You must have patience. Hon Mpontshane, speak to me.
Yes, hon Deputy Speaker, I am saying I sort of fell into the same trap because I thought that, procedurally, you would call for the ayes and the others. [Interjections.]
You have been here since 1994! [Interjections.]
That's what normally happens.
No! No!
I am giving my version, Deputy Speaker. I fell into that trap because that's what the convention is.
No! Hon Mpontshane, take your seat, please.
Deputy Speaker, can I therefore be allowed to register the IFP's objection, please.
Yes, your whatever will be registered. [Laughter.] I am terribly sorry that I moved on while you were still thinking of doing that. [Laughter.] No, the procedure is this: If I am asking if there are any objections and there is no reaction or there's a voice that I can't hear from the Table, you are supposed to stand up or raise your hand to indicate that there is an objection.
Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I don't know why you are stressing yourself because the Rules of the House stipulate that members should not sleep. Those members on the other side were sleeping, so they did not hear you. Can we please proceed? Thank you. [Laughter.]
That's not a point of order. [Interjections.] No, hon members, I really want to move on.
Uxolo kancane, Sihlalo. [Excuse me, Chairperson.]
Deputy Speaker, what we just wanted to say was that we did say no, but you didn't look at us ... [Interjections.] ... and therefore I had to rise. As long as the objections of Cope and the IFP are recorded ...
It is recorded, hon member.
Uxolo kancane, Sekela Somlomo, angiboni ukuthi kungakuhle ukuthi ilunga elihloniphekile lithi silele. Akubona ubuhlakani lobo, akuzwakali kahle kithina esesibadala kunaye. (Translation of isiZulu paragraph follows.)
[Mr V B NDLOVU: Excuse me, Deputy Speaker, but I do not think it is acceptable for the hon member to say that we are sleeping. That is not acceptable; it does not sit well with us since we are older than her.]
Hon member, hon Ndlovu was not sleeping in the House. Withdraw your remark, please.
Hhayi baba, ngoba nguwe sengizoxolisa nje. Ngiyabonga. [Uhleko.] [It's fine, sir, I will apologise because it is you. Thank you. [Laughter.]]
Debate concluded.
Bill read a first time (Congress of the People and Inkatha Freedom Party dissenting).