Hon Speaker, hon members, distinguished guests, and ladies and gentlemen, the Transport Laws and Related Matters Amendment Bill of 2012 has been necessitated by the development of the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project, GFIP, and future plans for the development of road infrastructure in the Republic.
The SA National Roads Agency Limited, Sanral, was established in terms of Sanral and the National Roads Act of 1988. The South African National Roads Agency Limited Act was brought into operation on 1 April 1998. It established Sanral to manage and control the Republic's national roads system and to take charge of the development, maintenance and rehabilitation of national roads within the framework of government policy. Apart from the physical infrastructure, the GFIP will result in the operation of a road network that involves the utilisation of intelligent transport systems. An important component of the network is the electronic toll collection system.
The Bill is essential for enabling the appropriate implementation of the electronic toll collection system. These measures are essential for implementing the GFIP, which is meant to upgrade transport infrastructure and to facilitate the provision of public transport and other projects in the Gauteng province.
The Bill seeks to do the following: firstly, to provide more effectively for the collection of toll fees; secondly, to amend the Cross-Border Road Transport Act of 1998 in order to empower the Cross-Border Road Transport Agency, CBRTA, to collect toll fees on behalf of Sanral; thirdly, to amend the South African National Roads Agency Limited Act to insert the definition of "owner"; fourthly, to provide for the differentiation in respect of the amount of toll that may be levied; fifthly, to provide that the regulations made by the Minister of Transport must be published by notice in the Government Gazette calling for comments from members of the public; sixthly, to empower the Minister of Transport to make regulations relating to the specified toll-related matters; seventhly, to provide for certain presumptions relating to the driving, operation and use of vehicles on toll roads, and the use of electronic evidence to prove the alleged contravention of the South African National Roads Agency Limited Act; eighthly, to exclude the levying and collection of toll from the ambit of the National Credit Act of 2005; and lastly, to amend the contents of the South African National Roads Agency Limited Act.
The noncollection of tolls may impact negatively on the ability of Sanral to raise capital for infrastructure development projects. The Bill must be seen in the context of government's plans to fund the envisaged infrastructure programme. Sanral has issued bonds to fund a project of R24 billion, plus capitalised interest amounting to approximately R3,4 billion that needs to be paid from the toll revenue. Failure to collect tolls and repay the bonds would have very serious financial implications for both Sanral and the national government, which approved guarantees in respect of most of the Sanral roads.
The inability to collect revenue will damage the credit reputation of Sanral amongst the investors, who may price the bonds higher to cover the risk. This in turn would have a negative impact on both Sanral and the government's credit ratings.
A draft Amendment Bill was published in Government Gazette No 13717 on 19 December 2008 as a mixed Bill, which was based on the legal opinion of the Office of the State Law Adviser. It was split into section 75 and 76 Bills and both were published in Government Gazettes No 33027 and 33028 respectively on 15 March 2010.
Public consultations on e-tolling were held in Gauteng with various stakeholders. During consultations, various alternatives such as a wealth tax, prescribed assets, vehicle licence fees and a few levies were mooted as possible alternatives to a toll levy. The most popular of these was the fuel levy, which its proponents argued could easily and cheaply be administered and collected.
The disadvantages of a fuel levy that were pointed out are as follows: firstly, it would affect everyone who buys fuel and not only the users of the Gauteng toll road; secondly, trucks would not pay more than light vehicles although they damage roads more; and thirdly, it would be impossible to exempt categories of users such as those who utilise public transport vehicles and those conveying persons with disabilities.
In conclusion, it is important to ensure Sanral's viability as a debt- erasing entity. Cabinet supports the use of toll tariffs as a method of raising revenue, but in a balanced approach that ensures the following: firstly, benefits of tolling for road traffic management, congestion control and future investment in new roads; secondly, affordability for users; thirdly, alternative routes' upgrades; fourthly, continued public transport investment; fifthly, regulatory environment strengthened to support enforcement; and sixthly, continued investment in national non-toll network and access roads.
In conclusion, I request the National Assembly to pass this Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]
Hon Speaker, hon members, fellow South Africans and ladies and gentlemen, the ANC has mandated me to explain to this august House and fellow South Africans the key aspects of the Transport Laws and Related Matters Amendment Bill, a section 75 Bill. Firstly, I will focus on the integrated transport transformation model of South Africa piloted in Gauteng. Secondly, I will speak about submissions made during the public hearings. Lastly, I will focus on the position of the ANC and the decision of the portfolio committee.
Firstly, with regard to the key aspects of the Bill, it seeks to amend section 4 of Act 4 of 1998, in respect of the Cross-Border Road Transport Agency, CBRTA, by extending the mandate of the cross-border agency to collect toll fees on behalf of the SA National Roads Agency Limited, Sanral, in terms of an agreement reached between Sanral and the CBRTA.
Secondly, the Bill also seeks to amend the SA National Roads Agency Limited and the National Roads Act of 1998 to allow Sanral to have the means by which the passage of a vehicle between or through a toll plaza is identified and the liability to pay is recorded and the means of payment, including prepayment of toll liability, is determined.
Lastly, the Bill also makes it a requirement for the Minister of Transport to declare an urban road as a toll road, but only after Sanral, together with the affected municipality and province, has conducted an assessment of traffic and socioeconomic impact on declaring a toll road.
The ANC supports the Bill and is asking the National Assembly to pass this Bill. [Applause.] It is unfortunate that each time this House debates the transformation process of transport infrastructure and services, tempers rise and issues are clouded by party politics instead of using the debate to explain key aspects of the Bill and, linked to that, the development agenda so as to make ordinary citizens understand the problems that are being addressed and how the Bill creates an enabling environment for development to take effect.
I just hope that this House will for once afford the people of South Africa an opportunity to understand the integrated transport transformation model, piloted in Gauteng. This model includes: firstly, the upgrading of the old Johannesburg Airport into a world-class international airport, including renaming it after the former president of the ANC, Oliver Reginald Tambo, who mobilised the international community to support the struggle for the liberation of this country. He was the 10th president of the ANC, who led the ANC during the most difficult times of our struggle for liberation, when the ANC had to operate from outside the borders of South Africa. He was the president of the ANC who served the longest period, from 1967 to 1991, and passed on at the dawn of democracy.
Secondly, the model includes introduction of fast-moving trains in South Africa, 46 years after Japan, a milestone that could only be achieved by the ANC-led government, through the building of the first railway line that connects to the airport in South Africa, and I want to repeat this, the building of the first railway line that connects to the airport in South Africa ... [Applause.]
There was the introduction of the bus rapid transit system, together with the taxi feeder system, and the integration of the taxi industry in the mainstream of the economy, a true broad-based black economic empowerment initiative. [Applause.]
The Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project, GFIP, addresses the problem of congestion on Gauteng roads, reduces the time of travelling and road accidents, and also reduces carbon emissions and fuel consumption. These are the socioeconomic benefits that are usually overlooked in arguments against the GFIP. A narrow perspective is unfortunately influencing perceptions against urban tolling and tolling of roads in general.
Those with the loudest voices and less of a development perspective have popularised such an important project as e-tolling, reducing it to a form of payment collection that results in a situation that denies people of this country an opportunity to understand an integrated transport system and appreciate the benefits of it. The isolation of the GFIP from the entire integrated transport model of South Africa denies members an opportunity to identify areas of improvement that require their suggestions in moving forward.
I also hope that members of the Portfolio Committee on Transport, from both the ANC and the opposition parties, would be responsible enough this time to speak about the key aspects of the Bill. We are debating an enabling Bill that seeks to create a conducive environment for development to take place. The ANC understands that it is not easy for members of the opposition parties to understand development-oriented programmes and how this Bill relates to them.
We therefore do not expect the opposition parties in the Portfolio Committee on Transport to address developmental issues in this debate because that is the field of the ANC and they would all be found wanting in that area. The opposition is therefore going to focus on the technical aspects of the Bill and its constitutionality, which was addressed by the legal team to the satisfaction of the entire committee, and they would threaten to take the Bill to the Constitutional Court.
We held public hearings and received four written submissions. Three presentations were made by the SA Local Government Association, Salga, Cosatu, and the FF Plus. We also had legal advice from both the parliamentary legal advisers and the state law advisers.
Cosatu did not focus on the objects of the Bill, because their presentation was too general and focused mainly on Cosatu's opposition to the tolling of roads and the user-pay system in general. Cosatu's presentation could not influence any amendment to this Bill as it is related to the user-pay system, which is a policy that was decided in 1995, and it is contained in the Masakhane Campaign document.
The user-pay system of toll roads forms the basis of the SA National Roads Agency Limited and National Roads Act, Act 7 of 1998. That is the Act that gave birth to Sanral and mandates Sanral to borrow money to build, maintain and rehabilitate roads, and also attracts private sector investment for road infrastructure development. That decision was informed by an in-depth understanding of the fact that governments alone do not have the capacity to fund infrastructure development projects. That is an international trend, and the South African government is no different from the rest of the world.
The issue of a funding model could therefore not be addressed in the process of public hearings related to this Bill. Cosatu has never approached the portfolio committee to make a separate presentation that seeks to review the mandate of Sanral in relation to the tolling of roads. Instead, Cosatu used the public hearings on this Bill to question the mandate of Sanral and tolling of roads in South Africa in general. The committee has an open-door policy of engagement that Cosatu could use to raise the issue of road tolling in South Africa.
Salga proposed that Sanral should, together with the affected municipalities and provinces, conduct a study of traffic and the socioeconomic impact of the proposed toll road and report the results of such a study before the Minister of Transport declares an urban toll road.
Salga also proposed that the Minister should, in the impact study report, spell out how the Department of Transport would mitigate the negative impact on traffic and socioeconomic conditions as a result of urban tolling. Salga's proposal is aimed at enabling the affected municipalities and provinces to form part of the planning process and allocate the required resources. The portfolio committee accepted the proposal made by Salga as valid. The committee therefore amended the Bill to include Salga's proposal.
This House would remember that this Bill was scheduled for debate on 23 November 2012. The Bill was withdrawn from the Announcements Tablings and Committee Reports, ATC, on the same day after the FF Plus, which is not part of the portfolio committee, had written a letter to the Speaker asking to make a presentation to the portfolio committee to propose amendments to the Bill. The Speaker acceded to that request.
The portfolio committee allocated two days to process the proposals made by the FF Plus. We want to thank hon Alberts from the FF Plus for the arguments he advanced during the discussions at portfolio committee level.
The FF Plus had raised the following issues: the need for the Minister of Transport and Sanral to consult all the interested parties to present the results of the impact assessment study on traffic and socioeconomic conditions; that the Bill be tagged as a section 76 Bill; and that the payment for using the toll road made through an electronic system, in the view of FF Plus, is a contract or agreement reached between the owner of the vehicle and Sanral, which in the FF Plus's view should be subjected to the National Credit Act.
All proposals presented by the FF Plus were discussed at length by the Portfolio Committee on Transport over two meetings held on 19 and 26 February 2013.
The portfolio committee was advised by both the parliamentary legal adviser and the state law advisers. The Department of Transport was also represented by Adv Masombuka, who gave a legal opinion. The legal team explained to the satisfaction of the portfolio committee why the Bill is tagged as a section 75 Bill and also explained to the satisfaction of the portfolio committee why there was no need for the National Credit Regulator to be part of the Bill. It is an amendment of the Transport Act.
The FF Plus had also raised that this Bill would be brought back to Parliament if subjected to the scrutiny of the Constitutional Court. That issue was also discussed, taking into consideration the views of the legal advisers, who all said that any Bill could be taken to the Constitutional Court by any person who has a strong different view, and that does not mean that a committee cannot decide on a Bill because of that. In the end, the committee approved the Bill, with all members supporting the Bill.
However, hon Ollis from the DA indicated that he supports the Bill even if his party may not support the Bill. [Interjections.] Yes, he said so. He also said that he does not entirely support the Bill as there are some aspects in the Bill that he does not support, but he failed to explain which parts of the Bill he did not support.
He also mentioned that the DA was against the funding model, which is not part of this Bill.
The FF Plus said that they were happy with the explanation given by the legal advisers and the processes of the discussion. However, the FF Plus is against the funding model. Again, this was not part of the Bill. Both the DA and the FF Plus were reminded by the ANC that the funding model was not part of the Bill. At the end, the views of the ANC in terms of the Bill were supported by the legal advisers and Cope.
The UDM and the IFP were part of the portfolio committee and did not participate in the process. It was only the FF Plus that made a presentation, out of the smaller parties that are not represented on the portfolio committee. Other parties did not bother themselves about the process. They would stand up here to debate in order to please their voters and justify their salaries. The truth of the matter is that those parties don't understand what was discussed in the portfolio committee and they do not contribute anything to this Bill; they are just posing for the cameras.
In conclusion, the ANC has one issue to raise in relation to the tolling of roads and the electronic system of collecting payment. The ANC believes that South Africa has the capacity to design and patent its own technology that is required to manage transport in South Africa.
The ANC is therefore calling on the Department of Transport to look deeply into the issue of building the internal capacity of the Department of Transport and its entities in terms of technology and engineering and reducing the overreliance of South Africa on other countries, and of the Department of Transport and its entities on consultants. The ANC supports the Bill and is asking the House to pass the Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]
Deputy Speaker, I think if we had called for the recording of the actual committee meeting, you would have found that I stated very clearly that I am personally against this Bill, and so is my colleague, the hon Greg Krumbock. But that's neither here nor there.
After 16 years of underinvestment by this government in road infrastructure, we cannot expect this year's motorists to make up the cash shortfall to bail the ANC out of a funding crisis that now besets the SA National Roads Agency Limited, Sanral.
We have long called for ring-fencing of fuel levies that should only be used for road maintenance. Unfortunately, the ANC hates heeding advice from the opposition, and therefore spent the fuel levies on bailing out the South African Airways with about R11 billion; building freeways to Nkandla - we don't know how many millions yet; and the jet fuel for people like hon Minister Sisulu - we lost count of how much that is. And now, as Minister Gordhan has just found out, the money has run out, and someone has to pay for the roads.
The DA will be making a very important demand today that this government, together with Premier Nomvula Mokonyane, conduct a referendum in Gauteng to offer the voters a choice as to whether they want the e-toll system to pay for the Gauteng freeways or whether they prefer a fuel levy to fund them.
The ANC government has bungled the entire process of developing the e-toll Bill and left the public feeling ripped off. The first lesson they should learn is not to take the public for granted. There was some public participation during the planning of the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project, but in one meeting, for example, only 14 people were present. This shows how little people understood the implications of this project earlier on. Voters have become tired of a form of public participation that is a one-way conversation. We will tell you what we are going to do. As Speaker Sisulu stated in his parliamentary budget speech last year, "the quality and effectiveness of public participation cannot rest on simply providing a space and an opportunity for submitting comments". Unless you have a robust public participation process and engage in a two-way conversation, you run the risk of street marches, legal action and widespread protest down the line.
The second lesson to be learnt is that we must not assume that what is affordable in the Western countries is affordable in South Africa. Open- road tolling is used mostly in Western, urban and First World environments. We have many toll roads in South Africa. The problem is that the people have balked at the costs of this e-toll. South Africans, apart from a few super-wealthy, are not earning the same as Germans, Australians and Americans. If an individual earns R6 000 a month and drives a second-hand car to work, that individual could be required to pay an extra R550 a month for toll fees. That is a big chunk out of that individual's salary, and that is the problem.
The third lesson that should be learnt from the e-tolling saga is that politicians cannot abdicate responsibilities to officials and public servants to get on with it. This leads to a lack of understanding and accountability. Cue video of Minister Ndebele shouting down the phone: "Is that how much it's going to cost?" Apparently, he didn't know. [Laughter.] The DA has consistently kept the public informed of the flaws, and the limitations of the e-toll, with our Toll-Free GP campaign and encouraging the formation of the Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance, Outa, consortium to take the matter to court. While doing so, we also worked on this legislation, and we argued for the inclusion of specific measures to improve this Bill at the same time. Firstly, the Bill will now require the Minister to send his draft toll fees to Parliament for our input before they are finally gazetted, allowing at least some oversight time for the toll fees, for the first time in South Africa. This was my proposal.
Secondly, Sanral and the department must perform socioeconomic and traffic impact studies, which will show the impact of the new toll roads on surrounding towns and cities. This would have prevented the degeneration of roads in towns like Parys, for example, where there is a toll road. Thirdly, the transport department will also need to table mitigating measures that will be put in place to prevent the negative traffic impact on socioeconomic and surrounding cities.
Fourthly, these studies under this new Bill will need to be published in the Government Gazette and on the Sanral website so that they cannot be hidden from the public or from the opposition. That was another thing that I argued for in the committee, and it was included.
Fifthly, Sanral agreed to the DA's request that they publish not only the cheapest e-toll rates up on those lovely billboards, but also the higher rates that people will need to pay if they do not register or purchase the e-tag. This was another one of the DA's proposals.
Finally, we requested that when this Bill goes to the NCOP, the provinces that have metro cities should be consulted on the content of the Bill before implementation because the Minister just said: "We are looking at other provinces too." KwaZulu-Natal, hold your breath.
Speaker, today we are faced with the vote on this piece of e-toll empowering legislation. The Minister of Transport announced on 22 February that after the vote today, he would urgently publish revised e-toll tariffs and then implement this within 14 days. The DA believes he has misunderstood the process of creating legislation in Parliament, however. This Bill will not become law today, Minister Martins. It will first go to the NCOP for further amendments. Then it will come back here and thereafter it will go to the President for his assent, and all that takes time. Your memorandum to this Bill says that you cannot implement the e-toll without this legislation. So why are you jumping the gun today? I don't understand.
Second to this, the Outa court case has not yet been finalised, and that may jeopardise the implementation if you rush ahead after today. This leaves plenty of time for the IEC to conduct a referendum in Gauteng on whether the e-toll funding model is acceptable to the public of Gauteng or whether they would prefer a fuel levy or some other funding model.
The DA is against the e-toll funding model for key reasons, hon Cronin. It is the world's most expensive toll collection system; we are not the world's wealthiest people. It may cost up to R11 billion over eight years, according to our calculations. Far too much of the profits go to Austria and not towards paying for roads in South Africa. We don't want to fund wealthy people in Austria, Minister Cronin. There are many more efficient funding models available, such as fuel levies or licence fees, where there aren't big fees to collect the money and, incidentally, I believe Sanral does not know how they are going to make people pay if they don't buy an e- tag. You can just see pictures of speed cops whizzing after a granny because she forgot to buy an e-tag. That is not the way to enforce this Bill.
Our calculations are that a fuel levy of 10 to 14 cents per litre would cover all the costs of the Gauteng freeway improvements. Yet Minister Gordhan announced on Wednesday that we are going to have a new fuel levy on 3 April, saying, and I quote: "This included an increase in the general fuel levy of 15 cents a litre." The question that the hon Gordhan fails to answer is why he is not using that fuel levy to pay for the Gauteng freeways instead of this e-toll system that we have been hearing about.
The public, hon Gordhan - who is not here - is not just a cash cow that you can keep on milking. Gauteng motorists will now have to pay a 23 cents additional fuel levy as well as the new toll fee of up to R550 per month per motor car - we have to pay twice!
Speaker, in the 19 years that the ANC has been in power, it has never conducted a single referendum; and it is high time we actually consulted Gauteng's voters on the e-toll. We therefore call on Premier Mokonyane, in conjunction with the IEC and government, to hold a referendum in Gauteng on the e-tolling system in April or in May, prior to the implementation of this Bill. [Interjections.] [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Deputy Speaker, through you to the hon Ollis; if I were you, I would not ask for the recordings of the meeting because with the ANC government, once you mention recordings or tapes, you will not get them. [Laughter.] Cope will not support this Bill, because the focus is entirely on the collection of tolls and not on any transparency relating to where the money will go to and what sort of profits will be permissible.
Every law that we make and every amendment that we consider must show that transparency and accountability are the pillars on which they rest. That this Bill will indeed facilitate the collection of tolls and the implementation of the Electronic Toll Collection, ETC, system is granted. It is also granted that this Bill will support the South African National Roads Agency Limited's business and financial plan. Unfortunately, this plan was not available for scrutiny, and the House would be reckless in giving direct support to a plan of which it has no intimate knowledge.
Squeezing our hard-pressed citizens from every angle for every development over and above the taxes directly and indirectly paid is becoming intolerable. To add insult to injury, there is little or no accountability of exactly how the money is spent. Government needs to understand that there are financial consequences for it as well as for citizens regarding the collection of tolls. Government is worried about the ineffective collection of tolls, but people are concerned about the cost of collecting tolls and particularly about the hidden costs. Government has become too big and too costly, and the delivery of the services is being outsourced at a further cost, and this is untenable.
Motorists are being called upon to pay an increased fuel levy as well as tolls which are heavier than they ought to be. The strain on them is enormous. Government needs to go back to the drawing board and undertake a cost-efficiency exercise. We agree with the Minister of Finance that we need more bang for our buck and real value for our money. The licence to print money is one thing that Cope cannot grant the government. We cannot, therefore, in good conscience, support this Bill as it stands.
If government wants more revenue, it must provide better transparency and better accountability. For your information, nothing has changed. Cope has never supported this Bill and will never support it in its current state. Thank you, Deputy Speaker. [Applause.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, the IFP member who served on this committee has resigned, and I was given the file. It took me only a few minutes to discover that this plan is a rip-off of the consumer. The amending Bill has been racked with controversy since its inception. It has been the subject of heated debate and robust exchanges between the government, public, labour and business. It was withdrawn as a result of pressure from opposition parties at one stage and is still today widely rejected.
At the heart of this Bill is the e-toll saga and by becoming law, this Bill confers the necessary powers upon Sanral to enforce payment of tolls. In particular, the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Plan has been diametrically opposed by all sectors. Cosatu members remain ready to embark on a massive campaign should the e-toll not ...
Hon Deputy Speaker, I think the members are really out of order here. If you listen to the chairperson of the committee, they are discussing - this why they keep on quoting the Minister of Finance because it is about e-tolling. The Bill is not about e-tolling.
I agree with you. That was not a point of order, but nonsense. [Laughter.]
Hon member, be careful.
Deputy Speaker, if this Bill becomes law, it will drive yet another nail into the coffin of the already stressed taxpayer. Business will also suffer and we will have no option but to pass on these costs to the consumers. That is you and me. The effect would be that we pay twice to be on the roads. The projected operational costs of the system remain outrageously high and one can only wonder: cui bono? In other words, who benefits? It is not the consumer. The IFP, like all other political parties, together with the people and business of South Africa, calls for the scrapping of this plan. It is simply unaffordable to the citizens of South Africa.
It is clear that the government has its back against the wall. The Public Investment Corporation, PIC, has already acquired billions of rands in Sanral bonds. The Government Employees Pension Fund holds financial interests. Who else holds interests? Deputy Speaker, you can imagine how many votes the ANC will lose in next year's election because of this rip- off of the consumer. [Interjections.]
The IFP submits, as from the beginning, that the entire plan has been ill- conceived and poorly planned. We do not support the plan, and we do not support the Bill. Instead of waiting to vote next year, we will be voting today against this Bill. [Applause.]
Deputy Speaker, hon Deputy President and hon members, hon Bhengu has told us to go to hell, and we are looking forward to that trip. [Laughter.] The Bill before us today deals with the controversial Electronic Tolling Collection system of roads in the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project. E-tolling has received massive public resistance. The people of Gauteng have mounted campaigns against the e-tolls. This occurred despite government's pledge of R5,8 billion, which was intended to cushion the blow of this project to motorists by lowering the tariff prices.
We have listened carefully to both sides of the argument, but we must confess to being puzzled by the role of Cosatu in this saga. Cosatu has been strongly contesting the controversial e-tolling system and the harsh impact it will have on motorists, yet it has benefited from the project through its investment arm, the Kopano Ke Matla Investment Company (Pty) Ltd, to the tune of R24 million. The same Cosatu has been encouraging people to engage in anarchy through their marches against the tolls, and threatening to remove the gantries.
We are not convinced that Cosatu, a tripartite alliance member, was not aware that the roads in question were going to be tolled when its investment arm got involved in the project. We are of the opinion that Cosatu's actions are part of a bigger power struggle between the ruling party's investment arm as well as Cosatu's investment arm as to who would receive what share of government business. The UDM will not allow itself to be used in the internal battles of such an exercise. We therefore call on government to hold further consultations with the public on this matter.
Mam'uBhengu ohloniphekileyo, kunyaka ophelileyo sasilapha, we endorsed iBhajethi kaMphathiswa wezeziMali, sonke futhi apha kule Ndlu, kuquka uCosatu. Kodwa u-ANC eLuthuli House noCosatu bahlaze aBaphathiswa benu bathi banesabo isicwangciso saze sarhoxiswa esi sicwangciso. Awukasixeleli ukuba baxabana ngantoni na. Ndiqinisekile ke ukuba yile nto kaChancellor House nale investment kaCosatu nokuba ngubani oza kutya kakhulu. Musani ukudlala ngathi. [Ixesha liphelile.] (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)
[Hon Mrs Bhengu, we were here last year, we endorsed the budget of the Minister of Finance, everyone present in this House today, including the Cosatu. But the ANC from Luthuli House and Cosatu have made a mockery of your Ministers by claiming that they have their own plan, and then this plan was withdrawn. You have not yet told us what the cause of their conflict is. I am sure it has to do with the issue of who is going to benefit more between the Chancellor House and the Cosatu investment. Please do not waste our time. [Time expired.]]
Hon Deputy Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the chairperson of the parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Transport for affording me and my party an opportunity to make an amending submission to the Bill. [Interjections.]
Although we did not get agreement on all of our submissions, at least one important change made it through, which requires disclosure to the public of all economic and traffic impact studies made by the authorities before they are invited to comment on any proposed tolling system.
However, the chair was not so happy when we later noted that we are still very much opposed to the Gauteng e-tolling system.
As has been stated before so many times by us, economists and the public, the e-tolling system is not an effective manner to increase revenue in order to pay for road upgrades and maintenance.
Hierdie wetsontwerp het steeds, soos in die komitee voorgel, vele gebreke. In die eerste plek is die deurhaal van die toepassing van die nasionale kredietwet op toltransaksies problematies, aangesien die kredietwet self gewysig moes gewees het ten einde sy jurisdiksie in te perk.
Ons het egter 'n verdere probleem ontdek en dit is dat die parlementre Portefeuljekomitee oor Handel en Nywerheid, wat oorsig oor die kredietwet het en die nasionale kredietreguleerder self nooit deur die vervoerkomitee ingelig is van die beoogde verandering van die kredietwet nie.
Die voorsitter en sekretaris van die nasionale kredietreguleerder het persoonlik aan my erken dat hulle geen kennis dra van die verandering en nooit gekonsulteer is nie. Hierdie is 'n verbreking van Rel 249(1) van die Nasionale Vergadering se Rels en maak die wetsontwerp aanvegbaar in die hof. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[This Bill, as submitted to the committee, still has many shortcomings. In the first instance, making the National Credit Act inapplicable to toll transactions is problematic, in view of the fact that the credit Act had to be amended in order to restrict its jurisdiction.
We have, however, discovered another problem, and that is that the parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry, which has oversight of the credit Act, and the National Credit Regulator have never been informed by the transport committee of the intended amendment to the credit Act.
The chairperson and the secretary of the National Credit Regulator have personally admitted to me that they have no knowledge of the amendment and have not been consulted. This is a breach of Rule 249(1) of the National Assembly's Rules and makes the Bill contestable in court.]
We also believe this Bill should partially be a section 77 or money Bill as only the Minister of Finance can impose a levy on the public. It was acknowledged by the state and parliamentary legal advisers that a toll is akin to a levy and that this Bill contemplates a public relationship with the state's subjects. The logic is thus that the imposition of toll tariffs, in terms of this Bill and the existing South African National Roads Agency Limited Act, is totally unconstitutional.
Die VF Plus het 'n skrywe aan die agb Speaker hieroor gerig en gevra om die wysigingswetsontwerp van vandag se tweede debat te onttrek, ten einde hierdie probleem aan te spreek. Dit is egter nie toegestaan nie en daarom sal ons nou 'n verto in di verband aan die President rig. Indien dit faal, sal ons saam met ander rolspelers die grondwetlikheid van di wetsontwerp en die Sanral-wet in die hof moet toets. Die feit is, as dit van ons afhang, sal die Gauteng e-tolstelsel en enige ander tolstelsel daarn nooit aanskakel nie. Ons sal aanhou stry teen hierdie onreg. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[The FF Plus wrote a letter to the hon Speaker about this and asked that the amending Bill be withdrawn from today's second debate, in order for this problem to be addressed. It was, however, not granted and therefore we will now make a representation to the President in this regard. If that is unsuccessful, we will have to test the constitutionality of this Bill and the Sanral Act in court, together with other role-players. The fact is that if it is up to us, the Gauteng e-tolling system and any other tolling system thereafter will never come into operation. We will continue to fight against this injustice.]
Let me finish by expressing my party's utter disgust at the tax burden laid upon the public to finance this government's incompetent and corrupt service delivery. You will in future see more tax revolts. And should you ever get to switch on the e-toll system in Gauteng, you will find that it will have no legitimacy in the eyes of the public and that it will be ignored in a mass civil disobedience drive unrivalled in the history of this country. The public will go to war against this government and, rest assured, you will lose. I thank you.
Deputy Speaker, Deputy President, the ACDP is on record as opposing the e-tolling system in Gauteng. Our argument lies with the exorbitant cost of the collection, albeit that the funding model is not part of the Bill before us.
We are also concerned that the e-tolling is sought to be rolled out to other provinces; there is significant reference in the Bill to that. However, we are fully aware that this matter is still the subject of litigation and that leave to appeal has been granted to the Outa consortium. It is thus possible that an appeal court may overturn the whole concept of e-tolling. However, in the interim, it has been deemed necessary by government to pass this Bill.
We, as the ACDP, also appreciate the financial implications for Sanral, which have been pointed out in the finance committee and, more particularly, its ability to repay its debt, which is partially guaranteed by government. That is a significant aspect. However, surely these consequences should have been properly considered by government way before this ambitious project was embarked upon.
Now, as a long-standing member of the Justice committee, and with the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development sitting here, I am sure he'll agree with me that we are painfully aware of the workload that the criminal justice sector is straining under at the moment. How will it be able to deal with tens, possibly hundreds of thousands, of further summonses that would be issued for the nonpayment of tolls? Surely this would cause our criminal justice sector to collapse. And, surely, it is also inherently wrong to make criminals of citizens who refuse to pay tolls after already paying for most of the costs of the construction of those roads. This is an issue we seriously need to consider. Surely the funding of the construction and maintenance of roads through a fuel levy would be more efficient because collection would be less complicated and less costly, and we are not persuaded by the arguments to the contrary.
As far as those specific clauses in the Bill are concerned, yes, we did not participate in the discussions; however, we note that the Bill has been substantially improved since the version was tabled. We particularly welcome the amendment requiring socioeconomic and traffic impact assessments pertaining to any proposed toll road. This includes the impact on alternative roads, and this is a major concern of the Gauteng e-tolling system. Regrettably, however, this will not apply to the present Gauteng e- tolling system as the Minister has already made a declaration in that regard.
Lastly, the ACDP also feels uncomfortable with leaving the offences and penalties applicable to regulations. Surely it is not sufficient that these regulations are merely referred to Parliament for comment and not approval. The question can rightfully be asked whether Parliament is not abrogating its law-making function to the executive in this manner. E-tolling was never intended for urban roads and most definitely not at this exorbitant cost, with most of the funds going to an Austrian consortium. The ACDP will not adopt this Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]
Hon Deputy Speaker, hon Deputy President, hon members, on the surface, the principle of user-pays is not a bad one. Where it is possible and practical, people are expected to pay for services that they receive. Perhaps the same could be said about toll-gate fees. Azapo has a problem where existing roads are changed into toll roads, pushing citizens onto obscure and badly maintained roads. We had expected that new toll roads would be created, roads that would be so good and efficient as to attract road users away from the existing roads. Azapo also has a problem with a system where the lion's share of the money collected will go to people or companies that have developed the collection system. We contend that the e-tolling system is inefficient and expensive. When roads were being improved before the 2010 Fifa World Cup, we were made to believe that the improvements were a part of the legacy that the World Cup would leave for the country. Nobody said then that the roads would be tolled. We were not told that part of that legacy would be the e-tolls that we are now inheriting.
But, for us as Azapo, hon Deputy Speaker, the question that the country should ask is: Why are we being asked now? Why is the National Assembly being approached now? The roads have been built. The gates have already been erected. Therefore, the system is already there and this House is being told to approve something that has already been created. In our view, we think that this House is being undermined. We pity the Minister because we know that the baby he is bringing to this House is not even his. We know the paternity of that child. Azapo is opposed to the Transport Laws and Related Matters Amendment Bill. Thank you.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the Deputy President of the country, Ministers, Deputy Ministers, ladies and gentlemen, I want to say upfront that the ANC supports the Bill. [Interjections.] [Applause.] As to the second matter that I want to raise, I will also speak a little bit of my language so that I take the message home.
Sihlalo, namhlanje sixoxa ngokuqulunqa nokuphumeza lo Mthetho osaYilwayo ojonge ukuphucula oohola beendlela bokuhamba izithuthi nokubagcina bekwimo ephucukileyo ngalo lonke ixesha. Ngokomthetho, iinkonzo ekubonelelwa ngazo kufuneka zihlawulelwe. Masiyithethe nale yokuba, ngalo Mthetho osaYilwayo sijonge ukuba kuhlawulelwe iindlela ezisetyenziswa ngumntu wonke njengoko kusenziwa kuwo onke amacandelo olawulo. Umzekelo, phaya emakhaya koomasipala, iinkonzo ziyahlawulelwa ngabantu xa bathe babonelelwa ngazo ngurhulumente wasekhaya. Ngoko ke, nakweli isebe makube njalo, kungakhethwa.
Kule Ndlu yoWiso-mthetho andiyikhumbuli eminye yale mibutho ivumelana norhulumente olawulayo kwimiba edla umzi. Asiyiyo yonke imibutho edla ngokuxhasa kuba kaloku imeko kunye nobume bayo kukuphikisana nenkqubela. Loo nto ndiyazela phaya kwezopolitiko. Ikhona intetho emfutshane enempembelelo ethi ... (Translation of isiXhosa paragraphs follows.)
[Chairperson, today we are debating this Bill that provides for the upgrading of our freeways and keeping them in a good condition. In terms of the law, services rendered have to be paid for.
Furthermore, with this Bill we aim to make sure that everybody pays for using our public roads in all tiers of government. For example, at municipal level people pay for the services when these have been provided by the local government. Therefore, the same should happen with this department for the sake of being consistent.
I do not recall some of these parties agreeing with the governing party on important matters in this House. Not all parties support the governing party because it is in their nature to oppose progress; that is my political experience. There is a slogan that goes ...]
... forward ever, backward never. Yet ...
... nalapha ke ngokunjalo ... [... even here ...]
... some of our political parties will never transform and be progressive because of their nature of design. Eli lilinge lokuba amasango odlula kuwo uwahlawulele - umzekelo, kweliya laseRhawutini, eGoli, kwabo hola beendlela, abafana nezitalato zegolide, ekuthiwa ukubizwa kwabo zii-e-toll, xa uhamba kubo uye uphumele kwii- tollgate. Okubalulekileyo kukuba, asinguye wonke ubani oza kuhlawula. Mandiyicacise le ndawo. Izithuthi zikawonke-wonke aziyi kuhlawula xa zihamba kwaba hola beendlela.
Iibhasi, iiteksi nazo zonke ezinye izithuthi ezifana nezi zichazwe ngasentla aziyi kuhlawula kuba zikhethiwe zabekwa bucala. Abantu abahlawulayo ngabantu abanezithuthi ezizezabo, hayi ezikawonke-wonke. Lilonke ke, kukhuthazwa abantu ukuba basebenzise noololiwe. Ngoko ke, le nto yokuhlawula mayingaqabi wonke umntu; kuhlawula kuphela abantu abathile nezithuthi ezithile. Iiteksi zigqitha nje simahla ngalo lonke ixesha. [Kwaqhwatywa.]
Njengoko besenditshilo, abantu abaza kuhlawula ngabo banezithuthi ezizezabo kuba bona noko banazo iintsiba zokuthenga izithuthi nokuba zikweyiphi na imeko. Yiyo loo nto kusithiwa mabahlawule.
Kananjalo ke, asinakho ukubonda abantu abangathathi ntweni sibadibanise naba bantu bakhankanywe ngentla apha. Umzekelo, umntu ohamba kumlimandlela emakhaya okanye kwindledlana, okwiphondo leMpuma Koloni, akuthiwa makahlawulele le e-toll. Abantu abakumaphondo akude neGauteng ababandakanyeki kule ntlawulo. Ngoko ke, masiwucacise lo mahluko ukuze umakhulu wam oseBhayi angakhalazi ngelithi uhlawulela indlela angayisebenzisiyo eseGauteng. Akunjalo, ndifuna ke siyiqonde loo nto.
Kwakhona, lo mcimbi wovavanyo-zimvo, awunakho ukwenzelwa iqaqobana labantu abakwikona ethile ukuze kuthiwe wenzelwa uMzantsi Afrika xa uwonke. (Translation of isiXhosa paragraphs follows.)
[In terms of this e-toll system, for instance in Johannesburg with its freeways like the "streets of gold," you go through a tollgate. What is important to note is that not everyone is going to pay the toll; let me emphasise this point. Public transport, namely buses, taxis and related transport will be exempted from paying the toll. People who will be paying the toll are people who will be travelling in their own vehicles. All in all, people are encouraged to also use trains. Therefore, the issue of paying the toll does not apply to everyone; only certain people and certain categories of vehicles will pay the toll. Taxis go through without paying. [Applause.]
As I said, people who will be paying the toll are those who will be driving their own vehicles because they can afford to buy their own vehicles whatever condition they might be in. It is for that reason they are made to pay.
Furthermore, we cannot paint indigents and the people mentioned above with the same brush. For instance, the idea is not to make a person who uses a footpath in the Eastern Cape pay for the e-toll in Gauteng. People who are in provinces that are far away from Gauteng are not involved in paying the toll. So let us emphasise this point so that my grandmother in Port Elizabeth is not concerned about paying for the maintenance of a road in Gauteng that she does not use. Not so, I want us to understand that.
In addition, with regard to the issue of the public survey, it cannot be organised only for people in a certain corner of South Africa and be touted to be for all South Africans.]
You can't hold a referendum for Gauteng and yet the results will have serious implications for the entire country. It is not on. [Applause.] It is very costly, because we are not a federal state.
Ngokokwam, iinjongo zokuhlawulwa azikho zininzi, zimbalwa. Umzekelo, ndiyeva ukuba le mali ingathi ayicaci apho iza kuya khona; kanti icacisiwe loo ndawo. Ndicinga ukuba uMphathiswa wezoThutho nosihlalo wale komiti uyicacisile injongo yayo yokuqala, ekukuphucula le ndlela uhamba kuyo. [Kwaqhwatywa.]
Okwesibini, kaloku masikhumbule ukuba, ukuba ndiboleke imali kuwe ingakumbi enesolotya lenzala, kufuneka ndiyibuyise. Akakho umntu obolekwa imali emva koko angafuni ukuyibuyisa kuba xa esenza njalo wandisa amanqina. Le mali ibolekwe ukuze kwakhiwe aba hola beendlela kuza kufuneka ibuyiswe kwaye urhulumente ophetheyo, ingakumbi eli Sebe loMphathiswa wezeziMali, uzamile ukuba asihlangabeze kulo mba ngesabelo asikhuphe kuhlalo-lwabiwo-mali lonyaka ophelileyo. Nithi ke ngoku, xa zingahlawulelwayo ezi nkonzo okanye le mali ingabuyiswa, nifuna ... [Uwelewele.] (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)
[In my view, the objectives of the e-toll fees are not many but few. I gather that for some people it is not clear what the e-toll fees are going to be used for, yet this has been explained. I think the Minister of Transport and the chairperson of the portfolio committee have explained the first objective; to maintain the road you are using. [Applause.]
Secondly, indeed we should remember that, if I get a loan from you with interest, I have to pay it back. If you get a loan and fail to pay it back in time, you are liable for more interest. A loan was obtained so that freeways could be built and the loan has to be paid back. The current government, especially the Department of Finance, tried to meet us halfway in this regard by providing a budgetary allocation in the past financial year. So, when these services are not paid for and the loan is not paid back, do you want ... [Interjections.]]
Is that a point of order?
Khawume, tata. [Just hold on, sir.]
Deputy Speaker, I just want to check whether the hon member will take a question?
Not now; after I have spoken or when I have finished delivering my speech.
SEKELA SOMLOMO: Enkosi. Qhubeka lungu elihloniphekileyo.
Okokugqibela, asisayi kuxhomekeka kurhulumente. Ngamanye amazwi sithi , uMphathiswa wezeziMali makaphinde athathe engxoweni ahlawule eli tyala. Oku kuthetha ukuba imali efanele ukuphucula ukunikezelwa kweenkonzo kubantu beli loMzantsi Afrika, mayimane incedisa abantu baseGauteng. Asiyivumi loo nto. Wonke umntu odlula kwaba hola beendlela zikawonke-wonke bahle nabaphuculwe bafana nezitalato zegolide ezabonwa eJerusalem, makabahlawulele. Mabahlawulelwe ngabahlali baseGauteng. [Kwaqhwatywa.]
Iinjongo zokuphuculwa kwaba hola beendlela kukujongana nezinye iimeko. Kaloku masikhumbule ukuba asiphili kwilizwe elilodwa kwaye njengokuba sithetha ngokuphuculwa kwaba hola beendlela, kukho ingxaki ekhoyo kwezoqoqosho kwihlabathi jikelele. Ngoku sifaka uxinzelelo olufanayo nolo luviwa ngurhulumente wethu. Noko masisebenzisane sicinge nangakumbi, sijonge izinto ngolunye uhlobo.
Kwakhona ke, Sekela-Somlomo, lo mcimbi u-ethe-ethe unjalo kuba kaloku siyazi ukuba likhona ihlakani lethu ebekufanele ukuba siyavumelana nalo. Ingxaki endinayo, iCosatu, elihlakani lethu, yiyo ekhokela olu gwayimbo, ngokutsho kwabantu, kodwa aba bantu banxamnye nalo mthetho asibaboni beluxhasa olu gwayimbo. Basebenzisa imbumba yethu ukufezekisa iimfuno zabo. Loo nto kufuneka isonjululwe kwakamsinya ukuze - kaloku kudala kwezopolitiko ... (Translation of isiXhosa paragraphs follows.)
[The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Continue, hon member.
Finally, we will not depend on government by saying that the Minister of Finance must again dip into the coffers and pay this debt. That would mean taking funding that was earmarked for improving service delivery for the people of South Africa and spending it on the people of Gauteng. We say no to that. Anyone using the upgraded freeways that look like "the golden streets of Jerusalem," must pay for their use. The residents of Gauteng must pay for using them. [Applause.]
The aim of upgrading these freeways is to meet various needs. Indeed, we must remember that we are not an island, and that as we speak there is a global economic crisis. Now by not paying the e-toll fees we are putting more pressure on government. We must work together, think out of the box and see things from a different perspective.
Furthermore, Deputy Speaker, this is a sensitive matter on which we ought to see eye to eye with our alliance partner, Cosatu. However, my problem is that Cosatu is the one leading the marches against e-tolling, according to some people, but we don't see the people opposed to this Bill at the marches. They use our alliance to further their own ends. We must soon put a stop to this. In the past we used to say, in politics ...]
... once the enemy agrees with one all the time, surely one should take one step back so as to advance two steps forward. It is homework for our organisation to look into the matter; because ...
... asinakho ukusetyenziselwa ezinye iinjongo, tat'uLekota, nimane ukuthi ecaleni "bethani", nibuye nina niye kuphunga iikofu ezimnandi, nize nithi "nabaya ke, baboneni". Asisayi kuyivumela loo nto. [Kwaqhwatywa.] Ndiyayiva le uMnu Ollis athetha ngayo, yokuphucullwa kweendlela zibe kwimo entle, kanti ke asithethi ngoko kuphela. Sithi masizenze, sizakhe, kuba uluntu lwaseMzantsi Afrika luyanda. Ngonyaka wama-2007, ngexa kwakuqulunqwa lo mthetho, ukubuya umva kancinci, amanani oluntu ayengalingani nangoku. Ubalo lwabantu luyasixelela ukuba ... (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)
[... we cannot allow ourselves to be used, with the likes of Mr Lekota saying from the sidelines, "go on," and thereafter, whilst having some nice coffee saying, "there they are, look at them". We will not allow that. [Applause.] I hear what Mr Ollis is talking about, the issue of upgrading and maintaining our roads, but that is not the only issue. We must build roads because the population is growing. In 2007, when this Bill was drafted, to go back a little, the population figures were not the same as they are now. The population census tells us that ...]
... we need to be a developmental state and to improve our infrastructure going forward with the population that grows. You can't have unmaintained roads which also do not accommodate population growth.
Ngoko ke, ndiyacela ukuba sicinge ngokuphangaleleyo. Asinazo iinjongo ezizezethu. Andikhumbuli i-ANC ingumbutho ongakhathaliyo. (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)
[Therefore, let us please think out of the box. As an organisation we are not motivated by self-interest. I don't remember the ANC being an uncaring organisation.]
We are a caring organisation and there is no party or organisation or government which would want to lead its people, especially the poor, to poverty. [Interjections.]
Ngoko ke, le nto yenziwa yi-ANC malunga nalo mthetho kukuzama ukuhlangabezana neenkonzo esisileleyo kuzo. [Therefore, with this Bill the ANC is trying to address the service delivery backlog.] In fact, we have inherited these service backlogs from the previous government. We are going to address and redress them. Now, we must not be scared ...
... yile mikhwazo ivakalayo. Masiqhube ngokuphucula abantu bethu, iindlela neziseko zophuhliso eziluncedo ngokubanzi. Ngaloo mazwi, Sekela Somlomo, ndiyabulela. Siyawuxhasa lo Mthetho osaYilwayo. [Kwaqhwatywa.] (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)
[... on account of the noises that we hear. Let us continue improving the lot of our people and upgrading roads and infrastructure generally. With those words, Deputy Speaker, we support the Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]]
Hon Deputy Speaker, I thank you once again for the opportunity for a rejoinder. I have listened carefully to the points that members of the opposition have made, but the fundamental question that we have to address, which, in my opinion, we have not adequately addressed, is how we pay for infrastructure in this country.
We have been very thin on how we do that. [Interjections.] The issues that you have raised - I have spoken about the fuel levy. The fuel levy can't be the responsibility of everyone who does not utilise the toll roads in Johannesburg. [Interjections.] As for the issue that we have to take responsibility, as the governing party, the very same people who criticise us today, if, we as a government, had to allow the roads of this country to deteriorate, would soon tell us that the roads under apartheid were in a better state.
We have the responsibility to maintain and develop infrastructure in this country, and we will continue to do so. [Interjections.] It's our responsibility as government to do so; it's our responsibility as government to take proper decisions that might be unpopular at certain times, but the responsibility that we have is to take proper decisions in the interests of this country for the next 50 years, for the next 100 years. That's what we seek to do, and that's what we will do. [Applause.]
Hon Deputy Speaker ...
Is that a point of order?
No, hon Deputy Speaker, it's not a point of order. I would like to know whether the hon Minister would be prepared to answer a question.
Hon Minister, do you want to ...
I will.
Hon Deputy Speaker, the Minister indicated that he's prepared to answer the question. Hon Minister, I know it's not your responsibility, but I would like to ask you a question, being the responsible Minister. Is it possible for you to give a guarantee to the House today that not a single member, representative, or official of the ruling party is going to benefit in terms of the monies to be paid ... [Interjections.] ... for e-tolling in South Africa because of his or her shareholding in a company or a subsidiary company involved in the e-toll saga? I think Parliament should know this, and I want to know if you can give such a guarantee today. Thank you.
Hon member, we are a legal state; we are governed by laws in this country. [Interjections.] Anybody who gains an untoward benefit illegally from this process would be breaking the law. So, the answer is as simple as that. [Applause.]
Continue, Minister.
Deputy Speaker, we have ... [Interjections.]
Hon members, please!
Deputy Speaker, we have a responsibility to ensure that South Africa's infrastructure develops and is on a par with the best in the world. We will not shirk that responsibility. In terms of the infrastructure development of this country, we will carry out that responsibility even if and when, at times, we take unpopular decisions in the best interests of the future of this country. I thank you, Deputy Speaker. [Applause.] Debate concluded.
Question put: That the Bill be read a second time.
Division demanded.
The House divided.
Ayes - 193: Abram, S; Adams, P E; Ainslie, A R; Bapela, K O; Bhengu, P; Bhengu, N R; Bhengu, F; Bonhomme, T; Booi, M S; Borman, G M; Boshigo, D F; Botha, Y R; Bothman, S G; Burgess, C V; Carrim, Y l; Cele, M A; Chabane, O C; Chikunga, S; Chili, D O; Chiloane, T D; Chohan, F I; Coleman, E M; Cronin, J P; Cwele, S C; Dambuza, B N; Daniels, P N; Davies, R H; Diale, L N; Dikgacwi, M M; Dlakude, D E; Dubazana, Z S; Dube, M C; Duma, N M; Dunjwa, M L; Ebrahim, E I; Fihla, N B; Frolick, C T; Fubbs, J L; Gasebonwe, T M A; Gaum, A H; Gcwabaza, N E; Gelderblom, J P; Gina, N; Gona, M F; Goqwana, M B; Gumede, D M; Hajaig, F; Holomisa, S P; Huang, S - B; Jacobus, L; Jeffery, J H; Johnson, M; Kekane, C D; Kenye, T E; Khoarai, L P; Kholwane, S E; Khumalo, F E; Khunou, N P; Koornhof, G W; Landers, L T; Lekgetho, G; Lesoma, R M M; Lishivha, T E; Luyenge, Z; Maake, J J; Mabasa, X; Mabedla, N R; Mabuza, M C; Madlala, N M; Madlopha, C Q; Mafolo, M V; Magubane, E; Magwanishe, G; Magwanishe, G; Makasi, X C; Makhubela-Mashele, L S; Makhubele, Z S; Malgas, H H; Maluleka, H P; Maluleke, J M; Manamela, K B; Mandela, Z M D; Manganye, J; Mashigo, R M; Mashishi, A C; Masilo, J M; Masutha, T M; Mathebe, P M; Mathebe, D H; Mathibela, N F; Matlanyane, H F; Matshoba, J M; Mavunda, D W; Mayatula, S M; Maziya, M; Mdakane, M R; Mentor, M P; Mfulo, A; Mgabadeli, H C; Mkhulusi, N N P; Mlambo, E M; Mmusi, S G; Mnisi, N A; Mocumi, P A; Moepeng, J K; Mohale, M C; Mohorosi, M; Mokoena, A D; Molebatsi, M A; Moloi-Moropa, J C; Moloto, K A; Moni, C M; Morutoa, M R; Moss, L N; Motimele, M S; Motlanthe, K P; Motsepe, R M; Motshekga, M S; Mthethwa, E M; Mufamadi, T A; Mushwana, F F; Muthambi, A F; N'wamitwa-Shilubana, T L P; Nchabeleng, M E; Ndebele, J S; Ndlanzi, A Z; Nel, A C; Nelson, W J; Nene, N M; Newhoudt-Druchen, W S; Ngcengwane, N D; Ngcobo, E N N; Ngcobo, B T; Ngele, N J; Ngubeni-Maluleka, J P; Ngwenya, W; Ngwenya-Mabila, P C; Nhlengethwa, D G; Njikelana, S J; Nkwinti, G E; November, N T; Ntuli, Z C; Nxesi, T W; Nxumalo, M D; Nyalungu, R E; Nyanda, S; Nyekemba, E; Oosthuizen, G C; Pandor, G N M; Peters, E D; Petersen- Maduna, P; Phaliso, M N; Pilusa-Mosoane, M E; Radebe, B A; Radebe, J T; Radebe, G S; Saal, G; Schneemann, G D; Segale-Diswai, M J; Selau, G J; September, C C; Sibanyoni, J B; Sibiya, D; Sisulu, L N; Sithole, S C N; Sizani, P S; Skosana, J J; Snell, G T; Sogoni, E M; Sonto, M R; Sosibo, J E; Suka, L; Sunduza, T B; Surty, M E; Thibedi, J D; Thobejane, S G; Tobias, T V; Tsebe, S R; Tsenoli, S L; Tshabalala, J; Tshwete, P; Tsotetsi, D R; Turok, B; Van der Merwe, S C; van Rooyen, D D; van Wyk, A; Williams, A J; Williams-De Bruyn, S T; Xaba, P P; Xasa, T; Ximbi, D L; Zulu, B Z.
Noes - 98: Adams, L H; Bosman, L L; Buthelezi, M G; Carter, D; Cebekhulu, R S; Coetzee, T W; Davidson, I O; De Freitas, M S F; Dikobo, K J; Ditshetelo, I C; Du Toit, N D; Dudley, C; Duncan, P C; Eloff, E H; Esau, S; Farrow, S B; Ferguson, B D; George, D T; George, M E; Greyling, L W; Hill-Lewis, G G; Hoosen, M H; Huang, C; James, W G; Kalyan, S V; Kganare, D A; Kilian, J D; Kloppers-Lourens, J C; Kohler-Banard, D; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kopane, S P; Kotsi, C M P; Krumbock, G R; Lee, T D; Lekota, M G P; Lorimer, J R B; Lotriet, A; Lovemore, A T; Mackenzie, G P D; Madisha, W M; Makhuba, H N; Marais, S J F; Marais, E J; Max, L H; Maynier, D H; Mbhele, P D; Mfundisi, I S; Michael, N W A; Mncwango, M A; Mnguni, P B; Mnqasela, M; Mokgalapa, S; More, E; Mosimane, C K K; Motau, S C; Mpontshane, A M; Msimang, C T; Msweli, H S; Mubu, K S; Mulder, C P; Ngonyama, L S; Njobe, M A A; Ntshiqela, P; Ollis, I M; Oriani-Ambrosini, M G; Plaatjies, S K; Rabie, P J; Rabotapi, M W; Ramatlakane, L; Robinson, D; Sayedali Shah, M R; Schmidt, H C; Selfe, J; Shinn, M R; Singh, N; Sithole, K P; Skosana, M B; Smalle, J F; Smiles, D C; Smuts, M; Steyn, A C; Steyn, A; Stubbe, D J; Swart, M; Swart, S N; Swathe, M M; Terblanche, J F; Trollip, R A P; Van Dalen, P; Van Den Berg, N J; Van Der Linde, J J; Van der Merwe, J H; Van Der Merwe, L L; Van Dyk, S M; Van Schalkwyk, H C; Waters, M; Wenger, M; Zikalala, C N Z.
Abstain - 2: Holomisa, B H; Ntapane, S Z.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a second time.