laid upon the Table:

1. (1) Water Amendment Bill [B 109—86 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Agricultural Economics and Water Affairs).
2. (2) Abolition of the Fisheries Development Corporation of South Africa, Limited, Bill [B 110—86 (GA)]— (Standing Committee on Environment Affairs and Tourism).

announced—

1. (1) that the following draft Bill had been submitted to him:

1. (2) that the Bill was accompanied by a certificate by the State President in terms of section 31 of the Constitution, 1983, that the Bill deals with matters which are own affairs of the House of Assembly; and
2. (3) that he had exercised the discretion conferred upon him by Standing Order No 1 (Private Bills) and had permitted the Bill, while retaining the form of a private measure, to be proceeded with as a public bill, and had accordingly in terms of Standing Order 51(3) referred the Bill to the Standing Select Committee on Private Members’ Draft Bills.

as Chairman, presented the Report of the Standing Select Committee on the Accounts of the South African Transport Services, dated 13 June 1986, as follows:

1. 1. Expenditure for validation

1. 2. Contracts

1. 3. Maintenance of permanent way and works

1. 4. Loans to Management and Commissioners

1. (a) the Minister’s written approval be obtained without delay for
2. the relative loans to the Commissioners and the General Manager;
3. (b) an appropriate regulation be drafted to cover these and similar arrangements, and that additional remuneration rather be effected by means of salary adjustments;
4. (c) loans of this nature not be kept in the Miscellaneous Debtors indefinitely, but that consideration be given to creating a more appropriate account for this purpose in order to reflect a clearer picture of all the financial transactions in the financial statements; and
5. (d) since in the case of the Commissioners doubt exists about whether the loans can in fact be recovered from pension benefits payable on retirement/demise, the necessary precautionary measures be taken to properly protect the interests of the South African Transport Services.

B. Other reports and papers

Report, proceedings and evidence to be printed and considered.

as Chairman, presented the Sixth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning, dated 19 June 1986, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Seventh Report of the Standing Select Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning, dated 19 June 1986, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

Mr Speaker, before the adjournment yesterday evening I was making certain general statements. Consequently you will surely allow me to refer in conclusion to a few statements made by one or two hon members and which, I believe, are relevant for purposes of discussing the Bill in question.

The hon member for Langlaagte—he is not here now—expressed his concern about the possibility of illegal squatting. I want to admit at once that I share the hon member’s concern. But I do not agree that the repeal of section 3C of the principal Act can cause an increase in squatting. While I am at it I am also addressing the hon member for Brakpan and all the other hon members who referred to this in the debate. The fact is that as the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act now reads, I believe that the legislation is adequate to deal with this problem which, I believe, is a real one.

I believe that the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act as it now reads is good enough to contend with any squatting. In terms of section 1 squatters may be prosecuted and removed. In terms of section 4 squatter farmers may be prosecuted and the relevant squatters may also be removed. In terms of section 5 an administrative order for the removal of squatters may be applied for. If the relevant organisation does not want to do its duty in this connection itself, in terms of a new section—ie section 11—the Minister may confes the powers on another Government organisation. The owner of land, which includes a local authority, may simply obtain an interdict against squatters in terms of common law. This has always been done. As a matter of fact it has been done since 1919.

I want to make only one reference to the speech of the hon member for Barberton. He alleged that the President’s Council had said that before a person could be allowed he had to have a house. If the hon member reads the report of the President’s Council and the White Paper arising from it, he will find that what the President’s Council did say was not what the hon member said, but that the Riekert Commission’s residence and employment requirements, if unamended, would not be able to solve the underlying problems and the disadvantages of influx control; as a matter of fact, that they would create many more problems than they were trying to solve. As a matter of fact the President’s Council rejected the employment requirement entirely, and as far as the accommodation requirement was concerned, the entire plan of the President’s Council report was conveyed in the White Paper.

Yesterday evening I said that the reason for urbanisation remained unchanged. There are basically two fundamental reasons for urbanisation. One of these is momentum. There is not a single hon member who does not really know what this implies. In the first place the momentum is the rapid growth in the population numbers. In this connection the growth in the rural areas is far higher than in the urban areas. Anyone who is concerned about the increase in numbers should consequently give strong support to the idea of urbanisation, because in the urban complexes the growth in numbers is usually lower than in the rural and decentralised areas.

A second element of this momentum is the limited carrying capacity of the rural areas. The hon member for Klip River referred to this.

A third element of this momentum is the greater mobility of people in community. It is simply true that with the economic development of our country and the improved transport and improved road systems as well as the higher incomes of people there is far greater mobility in the entire population than there was in the past.

A fourth element of this momentum is mechanisation in agriculture which implies that to an increasing extent agriculture is making less use of manpower and more use of mechanisation. We do not realise for a moment to what extent the drought we are experiencing and the consequent inability of agriculture and smaller towns to keep their workers employed, is strengthening urbanisation.

There is also another specific facet which is important. This is the attraction of the cities and the metropolises. There is the matter of employment opportunities, better housing and higher standards of living, for example. As far as this two forces is concerned, the Government has always accepted it as a point of departure that the national states and the independent states must be developed to the maximum.

In this specific connection the Government did not content itself with a declared objective. The fact is that the announcement of the new package of industrial decentralisation concessions did not imply anything but the neutralisation of these forces and the creation of more employment opportunities in and around the states in order to help at least to reduce the urbanisation problem, if it cannot be solved.

In this connection I want to refer to one figure only. It is a fact we cannot get away from that in the past few years disinvestment has really taken place in South Africa from an industrial point of view. The actual investment which did take place took place thanks to the Government’s decentralisation policy. This not only succeeded, but with a single figure I want to show hon members to what extent it succeeded.

The number of applications for decentralisation which were approved in the period from 1 April 1982—this was when the new system came into force—up to and including 31 March 1986 was 4 423. The envisaged employment was 298 764 workers. The envisaged investment was R4,7 billion. This illustrates the magnitude of the success of this specific programme of the Government.

But the fact remains that in the long run the drawing power of the metropolises still remains greater than all the ways and means we have used to stop or reduce it. There is one misconception. When we talk about urbanisation, we assume that urbanisation only takes place to the existing metropolises. This is not true. Let me give just a few examples in this connection to prove this.

As a result of these and other steps new metropolitan areas are developing in South Africa. New cities are springing up. A new city is developing at Mmabatho, for example. In the vicinity of King William’s Town a new city is developing, namely Bisho. A new city is also developing in the vicinity of Bloemfontein, namely Botshabelo. Consequently we have succeeded in ensuring that new cities are developing, and I submit that there are going to be further additions to the number of cities.

I want to tell hon members that in the face of these forces influx control as a direct statutory measure did not succeed. It is of no avail for the hon member for Barberton to tell me that this is because they left and this happened after 1982. If the hon member and his party want to take credit for what happened prior to 1982, they will surely also accept responsibility for what happened then.

What are the facts? Between 1960 and 1970 urbanisation took place at a rate of 42% whereas the increase in population in the Black communities was only 37%. Percentage-wise the urbanisation process in the period between 1960 and 1970 was greater than the increase in the Black population. With all due respect the hon member cannot then argue the way he did in this debate.

We can also go further. As far as the increase in the number of Black people in the cities and metropolises is concerned, the contribution of the natural increase to that growth was greater than the migration to the cities. Surely the hon member does not expect the Government to be able to put a stop to the natural increase.

There is something else I really want to say in all seriousness to the hon members who participated in the debate. The fact is that we must deal with the demographic pattern which originated in trends which started more than 40 years ago, not as we would like to but as it is. After all, no flight of imagination can change this reality.

Whether or not we apply influx control, we cannot change these facts and historic trends or tendencies. The maintenance of influx control which has no real influence on this reality is in my opinion not only senseless but is also bedeviling relations between communities.

I should like to raise another point. The hon members of the CP alleged in this connection that the granting of permanence to Black communities would speed up and encourage urbanisation. Unfortunately they are still working with a fiction, namely that one can define Blacks as temporary in legislation, and that those Black communities are going to disappear at some stage or other. It does not matter where to, but they are simply going to disappear.

As far as the permanence of Blacks in urban areas is concerned, matters did not take the course that hon members who participated in the debate argued it had. That permanence dates from the ’forties, and I now want to make a statement regarding which hon members will not disagree with me. I maintain that the statutory labelling of people does not detract in any way from the fact that they come to areas where there are opportunities. If we do not realise that necessity is a need and knows no laws, we will not understand the reactions of peoples. In my opinion to explain this away is totally senseless.

The last matter I want to refer to is the argument of the CP and other parties that we do not have a mandate to abolish influx control. They argue that we do not have that mandate because it is heading for a system of one man, one vote in our country. I have pointed out that every element of influx control, the permanence of urban Blacks and political participation dated back to long before the hon members left the NP. [Interjections.]

It is strange that we are saddled with a basic contradiction. On the one hand the hon members are arguing that the system is of necessity heading for a system of one man one vote, but on the other hand there are parties like the Official Opposition that are advocating the abolition of influx control be cause according to them a system of one man, one vote is the only acceptable system for South Africa.

I maintain that both these parties are making one fundamental mistake, namely that they believe that there is only one of two alternatives open to South Africa and that these must be defined in absolute terms. [Interjections.] The one is partition as a final, single answer and the other is the total negation of the group character of South Africa, but both are based on a false premise, namely that the system of government we can have in South Africa can only be based on the system of one man, one vote. The CP supports the standpoint of partition because they fear a system of one man, one vote in a composite state.

I submit that if we want to find a democratic solution for our country, we are not going to find it on the basis of the individualistic approach of Western Europe or North America. I maintain that a constitutional model which does not take into account the existence of groups cannot succeed. In conclusion I want to argue that group participation in politics cannot be based on numerical numbers, but on the essence of the existence of diversity.

That is not going to work.

The arguments raised by the opposition, and particularly by the CP, have no historical validity and have no validity on the basis of practice and future expectations.

In conclusion, the hon members who supported the Bill…

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister a question?

No, I should like to conclude with this argument. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister a question?

I have just refused a question.

*I want to thank the hon members who supported this legislation. I want to give all the hon members the assurance that participation in the debate was good. The legislation concerns cardinal problems in our country and that is why it is a good thing for us to debate it.

I want to address my final remark to the hon member for Sasolburg. That hon member would appear to have some or other fixation regarding the fact that he did not attend Sunday School with me. I can understand that. The hon member made a statement which I want to reply to in two sentences. I want to tell the hon member that the Afrikaner is not inferior. The Afrikaner is not in his puberty so that he wants to withdraw into a corner to come to terms with himself. The Afrikaner’s identity has already been determined.

In the second place I want to tell him that the Afrikaners are not an underprivileged group of people in this country. The Afrikaners are a privileged group of people in the country.

In the third place I want to tell him that as far as White politics is concerned, to a great extent formed the Afrikaner the leadership cadre in the political life of the country. There is every reason to believe that he is going to continue to do this. But I want to concede that he will not do so exclusively, as he did in the past, and that he will have to share leadership with other people.

In the fourth place, the Afrikaners have always been a minority group in South Africa, and there is every indication that they will be a diminishing minority group. But I cannot understand the panic-stricken little people who see a threat to themselves in the presence and rights of other people.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister a question?

No, Mr Speaker.

Order! Hon members must allow me to say that it has been a real pleasure to be the presiding officer here from 14h15 until now. It is a long time since I have seen a debate being conducted in as orderly a way as this one was. There was no shouting, no uproar, nothing to prevent the hon the Minister from making his speech. Let us keep the debate at that level. I felt I wanted to tell hon members this.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Hon members will understand that one introduces this legislation with mixed feelings. All of us who are active in public life know that some occasions are pleasant, others are less pleasant and now and then one has a mixture of the two.

I have just come from the Provincial Council, where I took leave of some former colleagues of mine.

†Therefore, hon members will understand that I could not possibly introduce this Bill without the emotional involvement about what has been and what will come.

I hope hon members will understand these sentiments of mine.

On the one hand, all of us experience occasions when we are filled with a deep sense of gratitude and humility. On the other hand, there is a sense of pulsating anticipation of what is to come. I would be failing in my duty if I did not pay tribute to the institutions that served this country for 76 years. I would be failing in my duty if I did not confess to hon members today what I, as a man, have gained because I was privileged enough to rub shoulders with people of wisdom and experience, who served our country with great distinction, on the councils that stand to be abolished.

I would like to repeat in this House what I said just a moment ago. Not only have institutions like the councils served this country well but I believe that our lives have also been enriched by the people who have served on those councils.

Not all!

I wonder if the hon member will allow me this one opportunity?

Sir, the fact that the provincial councils are to disappear must not be seen as evidence that they have been ineffective. This must be seen for what it is. As changes are inevitable, changes in those institutions will also come about. Therefore, in my view, this opportunity this afternoon must not be viewed as one to redress that which we consider to have been wrong. We should much rather acknowledge the past and build a new future. I believe that this is the responsibility of this House and all the hon members who serve in it.

I would like to make one general observation in this regard. I know that the people who come after us will probably also judge us to have been wrong. I do not think that is the final test. In my view the final test is whether we are personally satisfied that we did what we had to do. My plea to hon members is that when we discuss this Bill today, we should use this opportunity and this day to open a new future. I have come to address this House in that spirit. Hon members will therefore understand that in a certain sense this is indeed a sad day for me. It is not easy for me to introduce a Bill which will lead to the abolition of an institution in which I myself have served, and which has been part of the political structures of this beautiful country, South Africa.

Apartheid structures!

Order! Would the hon member for Dysselsdorp please repeat what he said?

Apartheid structures.

When it is the hon member’s turn to speak, he may use that word. The hon the Minister has appealed to hon members. I do not think the hon the Minister has made any controversial statements.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. These institutions have served this country since 1910. However, if the hon member is unable to understand the spirit in which I speak, perhaps he would understand…

[Inaudible.]

Order! I did not ask for the assistance of the hon member for Bosmont.

Mr Chairman, the fact remains that these institutions have served this country. Perhaps hon members will understand that at least my Government and I cannot be held responsible for the fact that those councils have been in existence since 1910.

†Indeed, the provincial councils represented, in a particular sense, another form of separateness which people preferred, strangely enough, namely a separateness which existed before the coming together at the time of Union. By this I mean they represent part of what has since been called unity in diversity. Maybe we should read our history again some time. We should be prepared to understand that the people who at that time were called upon to find unity in diversity, in fact dealt with a union of a different nature from today’s.

Just as it was not easy to part from the Senate some years ago, so it is not easy to part from institutions in which many members who have served in the House of Assembly received their initiation in the world of politics. Again, let me confess that I was first introduced to the world of politics in the provincial council. It was my privilege to hold office under the provincial system as we know it today. Not a single hon member would dispute it when I say that it has been a privilege for me to serve there.

The provincial councils have made a substantial contribution to the development of our country as a whole. Therefore, it is with a sense of the inevitability of historical change that I rise to deliver this Second Reading speech. That history and change are inseparable is a fact. That the provincial councils now have to leave the stage is in no way to their discredit. It is the circumstances which have changed and which necessitate their departure. I seek to give effect to that necessity. I confess to hon members that I take no pleasure whatsoever from its consequence in relation to the demise of these noble institutions.

*The change which is now being effected was certainly not occasioned by any inefficiency of the present system. Coming from your province, Sir, you will appreciate the truth of this statement. On the contrary, the role played by these authorities in regard to education, hospital and medical services, local government, road building and maintenance, nature conservation, etc, can hardly be exaggerated. Our provincial administrations have done splendid work. I believe that they are going to do so in future as well, because this Bill provides for an amended form of provincial government in line with the Government’s overall constitutional goal, which is that safety, order, peace and stability and the self-determination of every group should be maintained, while at the same time everybody should be given an effective say in decision-making processes affecting their interests.

We are therefore effecting a real change to the constitutional dispensation of the Republic of South Africa. It is a change which fills one with gratitude for the past, but which at the same time creates a feeling of expectancy about what the future may hold for the people of South Africa. In our process of constitutional reform, we focused at first on the central tier of government, on which hon members are now serving, and on the third tier, but since the end of 1984, we have been giving careful consideration to the provincial dispensation.

In consequence of the State President’s announcement in July 1982 that the Government intended to reform the provincial level, and that the details of that reform would be the subject of negotiation, in-depth discussions took place on various occasions between the administrators of the provinces, the leaders of the provincial councils, officials of all these bodies and myself.

On 30 April 1985, it was agreed with the representatives of the provinces to submit certain broad guidelines for provincial reform to the Cabinet. We submitted these proposals to the Cabinet virtually unchanged, and they were accepted in that form. On 6 May 1985, these proposals, as accepted by the Government, were made public by me in the House of Assembly.

After further discussions, it was possible to draft a Bill on the basis of the general principles which had been accepted and which had been announced on 6 May 1985. The main principles contained in this Bill for an amended provincial dispensation conforming to the general constitutional reform objective of the Government may be summarised as follows:

†In clause 2 provision is made for the dissolution of the provincial councils at the commencement of the Act and for the membership of existing members of those councils to cease. This has led to the accusation that this abolition of a democratically elected body is in direct contrast to the Government’s expressed goal of broadening the basis of democracy. On close scrutiny of the facts, however, one will find that this is not true. The very reason why the provincial councils were unacceptable to the Government was that the members of a government institution, dealing with matters affecting the lives of all the population groups in the province, were elected by only one population group.

In principle, provision has as far as possible been made to alter the functioning of this level of Government only insofar as such change is necessitated by the abolition of the provincial councils. This Bill thus provides that the present ordinances and other legislation of the existing provincial government shall remain in force in the various provinces and that the existing provinces shall remain in existence as they existed before the enactment of this Bill.

In clause 7(2) provision is made that the executive authority of a province shall continue to be constituted by the Administrator and other members of the executive committee who shall carry on the administration of the provincial affairs relating to that particular province.

Although the State President has appointed the administrator since 1910, members of the executive committee used to be elected by the members of the provincial councils. As this is no longer possible, the other members of the executive committee will, in terms of clause 7, be appointed by the State President. Both the number of members and who they are will be determined by the State President. They will hold office at the pleasure of the State President, with a maximum term of five years, but they can be reappointed.

The office of administrator and of the members of the executive committee will be a political one. Due cognisance will be taken of the composition of the population in the province, as well as other relevant considerations. The appointments are, however, at the discretion of the State President.

Decision-making by the executive committee will be based on the consensus principle. Clause 13 aims to make the process of consensus decision-making, as it exists in the Cabinet by convention, applicable to the decision-making of the executive committee. The draftsmen found it difficult to put this convention into words.

The administrator, acting in consultation with the executive committee, can however make rules to regulate the proceedings of the executive committee. This will no doubt allow for a convention in this regard to develop also in this committee. As a further result of the abolition of provincial councils, this level of government will lose its original legislative powers.

Parliament has always had residual legislative power in regard to provincial matters. In future this power which is not to be altered in this Bill will thus be the only legislative power in relation to provincial matters. However, in clause 14(2)(a) the administrator, acting in consultation with his executive committee, is enabled to amend, repeal or substitute any provision of an ordinance applicable to his province, or to regulate any matter which has been or is assigned to the provincial council or executive committee by or under an act of Parliament, or is declared by the State President to be of a provincial, regional, local or private nature in the province.

Should these powers of the administrator-in-executive committee be executed by proclamation in the official Gazette, such proclamation shall only be issued after it has been advertised for general information and comment and has been approved by a joint committee of Parliament as contemplated in section 64 of the Constitution Act, 1983. This legislative power is, however, not original with the result that such proclamations can be tested in a court of law in the same way as and on the same ground as any subordinate legislation.

*A further consequence of the abolition of the original legislative power at this level of government is that the existing provincial officials, that is, officials who are in service in terms of the provisions of provincial ordinances, will be transferred and appointed to the Public Service with effect from 1 July 1986, with protection of their salaries, pension rights, accumulated leave, etc. This will necessitate changes in provincial personnel management procedures which will have to be worked out in consultation with the Commission for Administration.

The disappearance of a legislature with original powers at the provincial level also necessitates changes in financial administration. In this connection, amendments are being proposed to the Constitution Act and the Exchequer and Audit Act. Provincial revenue accounts will replace the provincial revenue funds. The provincial secretary will remain the chief official and accounting officer, and will have to account to committees of Parliament, just like other heads of departments. However, it is the intention that these amendments should only take effect as from 1 April 1987, in order to effect an orderly transition.

Further principles in the Bill not necessitated by the abolition of a legislature with original powers, but aimed at the development of an effective system of regional government, are the following: In clause 5, the State President is authorised to subdivide existing provinces for the purposes of this Bill. However, this power may only be exercised on the recommendation of a joint standing committee of this Parliament after publication for public comment.

I should like to refer to the role and modus operandi of the proposed standing committee on provincial affairs. This principle was included by the Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs in order to make public accounting by the respective new provincial governments more effective. The standing committee took the following resolution on the manner in which this new committee will work, and I quote:

In clause 15(2), provision is made for the administrator-in-executive committee to authorise a member or members of the executive committee, or a person in the service of the provincial administration, to exercise any power, duty or function, either generally or in particular, on its behalf. These matters can similarly be delegated to a local authority or other statutory body which may in turn, with the necessary approval, delegate them further to persons in its service.

In order to make co-operation between provincial administrations and self-governing territories possible, clause 17 provides for the possibility of creating joint executive bodies between the respective regional governments.

†Mr Chairman, I said earlier that the abolition of the provincial system in its present form is not a pleasurable task, as it has left an indelible mark on the development of South Africa for 76 years. This step may also give rise to the accusation that this only leads to centralisation—in direct contrast to the announced goals of this Government.

But, Sir, I believe that in this Bill the possibility is created for the new second-tier government to become more efficient and effective. In the long run, an organisation can only survive if it succeeds in not only doing things right but also in doing the right things.

A recurrent theme in this Bill is the Government’s undertaking to devolve executive governmental functions to the lowest possible level of government. The provincial government is authorised to exercise in its own right or on behalf of a State Department or Minister those functions entrusted to it. This will result in the execution of certain functions at a level closer to the various communities, as well as to smaller, more specialised State departments whose functions will focus more on overhead planning and monitoring.

I believe that this will result in provincial government not only retaining its role as a level of government but also enhancing it. Instead of centralisation, this Bill will lead to decentralisation.

*Sir, I have on a number of occasions, both during negotiations and in public, expressed my gratitude to the administrators, members of the executive committees and personnel of the various provincial administrations for the exceptionally pleasant atmosphere in which the negotiations on the future of this level of government took place. I wish to repeat this in Parliament. It was indeed pleasant to negotiate with persons on their own futures without selfish interest playing any part.

Mr Speaker, I suppose that in terms of constitutional history this is a significant day because this House is considering the abolition of a constitutional structure that has served South Africa over the past 70 years. In that sense it is an important day.

Because of the importance of South Africa’s restructuring of its Constitution we first of all would like to protest against the way in which once again a very important constitutional measure is being streamrollered through the parliamentary process. The hon the Minister can tell us that he has had quiet negotiations with the Administrators and other people but the reality is that this Bill was produced, made public, presented to Parliament, within I think four days the standing committee was meeting, and after 36 hours the standing committee of Parliament had completed its work.

In all fairness I do not believe that it was possible for those people who are vitally affected by the provincial structures to react or to consider that Bill in a mature way, considering that short period of notice. It is interesting that there was only one memorandum before the standing committee and that came from the Federated Chamber of Industries. I recognise the skill of the hon the Minister to a certain extent but I have come to the conclusion that actually he has no real deep regard for Parliament as part of a legislative process. He sees Parliament as a rubber stamp. He does not sense the feeling of Parliament, that Parliament is a creative body and that Parliament in its own right should be able to operate effectively. He has no sensitivity or regard for Parliament.

Secondly, the way in which he has dealt with the public of South Africa in respect of this Bill shows that he has no respect for the attitude of the ordinary South African voter.

*He has no feeling for the attitude of the ordinary voter in the country. He knows what is right for South Africa and he wants the rubber stamp of Parliament on his way of thinking.

This Bill is about the abolition of a basic structure in the South African Constitution. The Bill ought to have been discussed by the general public. The people who are really affected by it should have had the opportunity of discussing it inter alia with one another and with the political parties.

†It is not good enough that the hon the Minister says he had consultations via various form of statutory bodies. When one looks at the explanatory memorandum one sees that there was very limited consultation even between the department and the relevant bodies.

This Bill was introduced by the hon the Minister in the House of Representatives. I have his speech here before me and although I agree with some of the mood of it I must say that I am quite frankly not impressed by the political crocodile tears. These are the crocodile tears of a hangman who is crying while he is busy adjusting the noose around someone’s neck and then springs the trap. That is what it is. I quote from the advance copy of his speech:

Who wrote this? Was it a public relations consultancy or was it the hon the Minister? He says that the changes are not a result of any inefficiency on the part of the role of these bodies. The hon the Minister says that their splendid work cannot be exaggerated.

Is this what we have to endure in the Parliament of South Africa by the person who is responsible for the scrapping of the provincial councils? No, we are not impressed by this kind of rhetoric on an important occasion such as this.

In a part of his address the hon the Minister did start to get down to the reasons for the scrapping. I quote:

We must make it quite clear that we do not share the general political goals of this Government. We do not believe that the mechanisms which they are introducing—getting rid of the “outdated concept of apartheid” on the one hand and reintroducing the updated concept of apartheid via the own affairs system on the other—are in the interests of the people of South Africa.

And you lose every time!

The hon the Minister then put forward the following ultra-specious argument. We should bear in mind that this was all said with a heavy heart as this Bill deals with the demise of a noble institution—

Now we are going to have people who are not elected at all dealing with the lives of all population groups! What speciousness! If this noble institution which the hon Minister finds so painful to abolish has to go in its present form because it is composed of representatives of only the White people, it should obviously have been expanded to include representatives of other population groups.

Hear, hear!

So the hon the Minister had the opportunity of expanding the representation in this structure but decided instead to scrap both the structure and what was left of the representation.

The narrow base of the existing provincial structure has never been acceptable to us, just as the narrow base of this Parliament is unacceptable. But we do not believe that the issue of second-tier government can be resolved by scrapping the existing structure as a representative body in toto on the grounds that it is inadequate in the degree to which it is representative of the people of South Africa.

There should have been a completely different approach, one in which one looked at the structure to see how one could improve it rather than to replace it with something else.

There are three essential reasons why we will be voting against this measure.

You surprise me!

The first reason is that this Bill extends the racial principles on which the tricameral system is based to second-tier government. It takes the whole concept of own affairs and general affairs as well the racial and racist principles of government which are contained in the Constitution, and tries to make them relevant to the needs of South Africa at the second tier of government.

I must be quite frank with the hon the Minister and tell him that I believe that this piece of legislation reflects both the policy and the attitude of the Government perfectly. This piece of legislation reflects its racial philosophy. Moreover, it reflects the Government’s authoritarian approach to government in South Africa. One can almost call it the Heunis syndrome—if one wants to get co-operation, one must co-opt at executive level and destroy the representative base. This is the way in which the Government says we can get together.

We want to say that this may be a short-term palliative but it will prove to be a long-term disaster for South Africa. If local government, central government and regional government is going to work, it has to be built on a representative base and not the type of co-optive base on which the State President wants to do it. Our first objection to this Bill is that it is an extension of what I call the racial concept involved in the tricameral system which is defined in the Constitution Act of 1983.

Although I know that the hon the Minister has a mandate to try to make this system work, the only glimmer of hope at the moment is in the draft Bill on the National Council with which the State President has at least leap-frogged ahead of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. The State President is talking about a new constitutional dispensation. It is our hope that before long a new, fully representative constitutional system is going to replace this highly dangerous and farcical system known as the tricameral system in South Africa.

The second point is that this Bill undermines the principle of elected representation. It places vast powers in the hands of the central Government and of its nominees.

We accept the inadequacies of the existing provincial system, but what is this Bill doing? It is part of the process being undertaken under the control of the hon the Minister. For 70 years our system of government in South Africa has operated in three horizontal layers, namely, provincial and local government. That is being scrapped for a new system of government in which there are four vertical layers—there are Indian, Coloured and White own affairs and there is general affairs. There is a structural change taking place in government in South Africa. In this process, whilst there still is limited representation at this level as well as the local government level, this Bill entirely removes representative government based on the electoral principle from the second tier of government in South Africa. It places—I could almost use the word “absolute”— enormous powers not in the hands of the people of a province but in the hands of the political appointees of the State President and the central Government. This is government by executive rule and not government on an elective basis. This is a different system of government whereby one co-opts people to the centre on an executive basis. This is the basis on which Africa is to be governed. [Interjections.]

Other hon members in my party will deal with the specific powers given to the Administrator via his appointment by the State President. Those powers are already enormous in terms of Acts we have considered during the past three years. The power of the Administrator is in any case much stronger than it has ever been, in the past there at least was a merit in the provincial government system—I will concede it was limited from its representational point of view—to the extent that structurally the Executive Committee of a province was responsible to the voters of that province for their election and for their continuation in office. In terms of this Bill, however, they will no longer be responsible to the voters of the province either for their election or their continuation in office. They will be political appointees of the State President, and, as the hon the Minister said in his Second Reading speech they can only be removed by the State President. They are not to be responsible to the voters of the province or to any other element within that province.

In the course of the discussions on the standing committee, a sop—a very weak sop—was included in respect of provincial control, in that when the Administrator amends an ordinance and therefore requires a proclamation amending or adding to an ordinance, then for that purpose he will have to have the approval of a standing committee of Parliament. However, that is in any event only a limited area of its jurisdiction. In fact, the people who make the appointments and who basically administer the province on a day-to-day basis will no longer be the representatives of the people. The people who administer the province are going to be the agents of the central Government in Pretoria. That is the reality, and thus, effectively, the concept of control by the people of the second tier of government is being taken away.

Even to the extent that there is this modicum of control in respect of proclamations in that the approval of the standing committee has to be obtained, we believe it is far, far too remote. First of all, this Bill does not make provision for the kind of standing committee we are going to have. The standing committee and its rules, orders, procedures and functions, are not determined in this element of the Constitution. They are going to be determined quite separately by the goodwill of the Joint Standing Committee on Rules and Orders of Parliament. However, even if that committee were to be effective, I believe that it removes government further and further from the people of South Africa. We are now going to have MP’s elected collectively for their general responsibilities towards South Africa and, in addition to that, they will have a specific role in considering provincial proclamations which the provincial executive may wish to pass. It is important to separate the second tier of government from the third and first tiers of government in South Africa. We have no doubt that this Bill undermines the principle of representative government in South Africa. [Interjections.] It places vast and inordinate powers in the hands of the political agents of the central Government and of the State President.

There is a third point which I want to raise. There is another reason why we will object to the passing of this Bill. We have the unique situation in South Africa that while White, Coloured and Indian people have their own affairs, in terms of this hon Minister’s political philosophy and the Constitution, Black people do not have own affairs. Black people’s own affairs are general affairs! In a statutory sense Black people’s own affairs are actually general affairs! So while this Bill is primarily designed to deal with general affairs, one must bear in mind that it is going to deal very largely with the control and the running of the lives, local government and so forth of the Black people of South Africa.

This Bill makes no provision whatsoever either directly or indirectly for elected representatives of Blacks to have any say at second-tier level. It may be argued that Whites, because they control the election of the State President, have some elective say in the executive, but that is a very slender bit of control. It may be held that, via the new standing committee system, Coloureds, Indians and Whites can apply some broke, of a limited kind, on the provincial executive. However, for Blacks there is nothing.

The hon the Minister can say that Blacks may be co-opted onto the executive but he must understand the difference between people being there, co-opted by a White executive, and people being there in their right as the elected representatives of their people. This Bill means that Black people are to have no direct elective say in the second tier of government. Furthermore, who is going to control the second tier of government? It is specifically stated here that it will be a standing committee of the tricameral Parliament from which Blacks have been specifically and deliberately excluded. Coloureds, Indians and Whites, through the tricameral system of Parliament’s standing committees are now going to control the affairs and the lives of Black people at the second tier of government.

This is a recipe for disaster. [Interjections.] The affairs at second-tier level of the Black people of Natal have to be controlled by a standing committee composed of Indians, Coloureds and Whites. What a farcical situation! We have said right from the word go that we believe this principle of own affairs is going to boomerang in the face of this Government, and the sooner we move away from it the better. We believe that the principle of elected government—an elective political base at the legislative level following through to the executive level—is the only sound base for government at all levels in South Africa. We also believe it is courting disaster to at this stage create a new tier of government in South Africa to deal in particular with the affairs of Black people and to deny Black people any direct representative say by way of elections to either the executive or the legislative branch of that government.

For those reasons I have no hesitation whatsoever in moving as an amendment:

Mr Speaker, the reform efforts of this Government came under strong attack from the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. In particular he based his criticism on the allegation that this new institution was not being established on a democratic basis. The PFP, however, has in fact rejected the decision of the voters, which was taken on a democratic basis, to accept this new system and the tricameral Parliament. In other words the PFP has rejected that democratic decision of the voters in any event. Consequently I do not think we can pay any serious attention to the objection of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. However, I shall come back to certain statements he made. First I want to refer to the changes which will now be brought about by the Bill under discussion.

I want to say that the change, which includes the disappearance of the provincial councils as we knew them, is not being brought about entirely without emotion. Nor will we take leave of the provincial councils without a degree of nostalgia. It is a system that has rendered valuable service to our people for 76 years. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has just been referring derisively to the hon the Minister, who said he had great appreciation for the provincial authorities and the services they were rendering and added that it was a pity that provincial authorities now had to go the way of all flesh. I think we must sometimes be prepared to accept the inevitable, particularly when circumstances necessitate changes taking place. This applies to many walks of life.

I myself was a member of a provincial authority for more than 20 years, and I have great appreciation for the services this form of government rendered to the people of the respective provinces. It was only a small province, nevertheless that provincial administration rendered services for which I think the people of that province had great appreciation. In particular I think they had great appreciation for the calibre of the services that were rendered.

Furthermore I should also like to mention the attitude of the members of the provincial councils, that have accepted the inevitable. I think they are accepting it with great responsibility and also realise that it forms part of a greater plan or system that inevitably had to come.

Then, too, I want to refer to the PFP. I want to say that no reform which is attempted on a well-balanced basis would be acceptable to the PFP. Surely it is clear that these people want things to happen suddenly, quickly and if possible even in a violent way.

Revolutionary!

Now that is really a ridiculous statement!

Successful reform is not in the interests of the aspirations of their leftist radical friends. The PFP’s dilemma is reflected in the unrestrained statements of their Leader, of the hon member for Sandton and of the hon member for Durban Central. This is the language of politically desperate people. That is why the PFP is rejected by moderate people from all the ethnic groups in this country. They let the cat out of the bag the moment they chose sides in favour of the radical Blacks against the moderates. The PFP has always adopted a standpoint of being the champions of the so-called underdogs and—as they claimed— of those Black people who were being oppressed. When the crunch came, however, they chose the side of the radicals.

Of the Comrades, yes!

Yes, then they took the part of the Comrades. That proves indisputably that they are not concerned about the welfare of the Black people as such, but that they side with the radicals—those who preach socialism, and even the communist-supported groups. However, this unrestrained language will not save the PFP from being rejected by normal and moderate people. Black people who have been ruined and plundered and whose relatives have been murdered by these radical elements, will remember that these gangs, whose object is the enslavement of the masses, are being cherished by the PFP. It is therefore strange that the hon members want to retain a White council.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition had a great deal to say here and wept crocodile tears over the abolition of the provincial councils. According to him they are also concerned about the fact that a system is now being established according to which people will be appointed and not elected. The hon the leader then went on to discuss the tremendous powers these people would receive—“enormous power” is the expression he used. He also said they were political agents.

The hon leader did not go into detail about these tremendous or enormous powers which this executive authority would receive, and it is therefore not clear to me what he had in mind. I myself am not aware of any tremendous powers which these people will be receiving.

Man, you are not aware of anything.

Go and play with the Comrades.

That hon member for Green Point, who has such a lot to say for himself now, should sit down for a while and reflect on the harm he and his party have done this country with the things some of his colleagues say. Is he not ashamed of the kind of things they say? I think these hon members realise that they are losing more and more voter support because of their conduct. Their conduct is alien and is definitely an indication that the PFP has realised that they are losing support. [Interjections.]

I want to refer to the provincial system. Over the years people have spoken about provincialism. But this system also had its advantages. The “rivalry” among the provinces was never of a serious nature or harmful, yet it had a stimulating effect on those involved in the task. In spite of the obvious deficiencies of the system, people in the provinces nevertheless attached great value to the service that was being rendered to them. But as I said, although we mention those services that were rendered with great appreciation, we realise that this new system within the greater structure is inevitable.

The new system will undoubtedly contribute to municipal authorities playing a more important role and undoubtedly being the recipient of greater interest and esteem. Members of Parliament will play an important task by ensuring the necessary interest in and liaison among the local authorities and the central authority.

I want to refer briefly to certain statements the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition made. He alleged inter alia that the hon the Minister had steamrolled this matter without paying any heed to Parliament and without showing any feeling for the voters. The hon the Minister is probably in a better position to react to that, but I do want to tell the hon member that surely he knows this matter has been pending for years. Besides, the hon member could have been expecting this to happen since 1981; and his party ought therefore to be aware of it. The hon the Minister and his department has been consulting the parties concerned about this matter for years, virtually, and we are all aware of it. I think the hon the leader is thoroughly aware of it. [Interjections.]

The hon leader also referred to certain own affairs and to the so-called “vertical structures”. We can understand that this is the approach of the PFP. They reject this entire system. We know the hon members have during the past few years been doing everything in their power to torpedo this system. That is very clear, but what is not clear is the final objective of the PFP as far as the constitutional dispensation in this country is concerned. The PFP cannot deny that with their ideology we shall eventually find ourselves in a unitary state of one man, one vote.

You already have it now.

They cannot prevent it.

Since the CP has not yet participated in the debate, I thought…

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member what their constitutional policy is in respect of the Blacks, Indians, Coloureds and Whites, if their constitutional solution is not one man, one vote, in the same state?

Mr Speaker, it is strange that the hon member who has listened to these debates so frequently and knows what the philosophy of the NP in this connection is, is asking such a question. The NP approaches it with the group context as point of departure. Within the group context there may perhaps be one man, one vote. The hon member and his side kick, the hon member for Sasolburg, would like to indicate that we have the same policy as the PFP. That is not true, and it will not happen. They are using this argument solely for political gain, because they know PFP policy is not acceptable to the NP.

Mr Speaker, thus far it has really been an interesting debate, if one can call it a debate as far as the NP is concerned. We listened attentively to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, and at the very outset I want to say that we shall be supporting his amendment. [Interjections.]

Regardless of the extent to which we disagree ideologically with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, and the degree to which we disagree with his basic political philosophy, I would at least have expected the NP to make an effort to reply to the hon Leader of the Official Opposition’s arguments. If that were not possible, I would at least have expected—apart from the Second Reading speech by the hon the Minister—an attempt by NP speakers to explain why this legislation is at all necessary. The only thing the hon member for Welkom told us was that this legislation was unavoidable. [Interjections.] He said it was unavoidable, but gave no reason or argument to indicate why it was unavoidable.

He said why. It was only a White council.

I am coming back to that.

It was my privilege to be a member of the provincial council for a short while. I subsequently came to Parliament. As far as the provincial council and the role and functioning of the executive authority at the second tier of government is concerned, there is one important difference that has struck me, something one encountered in practice.

Owing to the fact that the members of the executive authority at the second tier of government were democratically elected by their colleagues, one’s experience, as a member of the provincial council, when as an ordinary member one approached a member of the executive committee with the problems of one’s voters, was that one was given a much more sympathetic hearing by that member of the executive authority at that level than one is ever given in this Parliament.

The simple reason for this is that a Cabinet member in the House of Assembly is primarily responsible to the man who appointed him, i.e. at the time the Prime Minister and at present the State President. At the second tier of government those people, although serving on the executive authority, were always very conscious of the fact that they were elected by their colleagues. They constantly had to bear that in mind, also when dealing with the interests of their colleagues and their colleagues’ voters. That is something I noticed.

It is almost heart-rending to hear how sorry the hon the Minister is about being compelled to abolish the provincial councils. In his Second Reading speech he talks of the important work done by the provincial council system. About that I want to agree with him. I also want to state that it is simply not going to be possible in practice for members of the House of Assembly to step into the shoes and perform the tasks performed by members of the provincial councils.

It will be possible for NP MPs!

The poor hon member for Pretoria East does not have the vaguest idea of the tasks or duties of a rural provincial councillor, in particular. He has no idea. In the constituency I represented as an MPC, there were the following: 13 primary schools, four high schools, three hospital boards and three road boards. As an MPC one regularly had to attend management body meetings in the interests of one’s people because, if necessary, one had to act as mediator between them and the executive authority of the province. I want to state that it is impossible for a member of the House of Assembly to take over the tasks performed by an MPC. This is going to be a shortcoming in the future.

I want to tell the House an anecdote to illustrate how essential it is to have an elected representative as a mediator between the voters whom one represents and the bureaucratic machine. Years ago, when I was still an MPC, the school board in my constituency decided that the local girls’ hostel should be restored. Initially it was to be rebuilt from scratch, but then, after tenders had been called for, the MECs decided there was no money available. They decided that the building should be restored.

One Wednesday morning in August—in my part of the world it is still fairly cold at that time of the year—the school principal phoned me to tell me that pandemonium had broken out in the girls’ hostel. People from the Department of Works of the province had arrived at the hostel early that morning and had begun to saw through the water-pipes and remove the plumbing. The matron ran up to them and asked: “What are you doing?” They told her they had instructions to install a new plumbing system in the hostel. She told them the girls needed toilets and baths and that food had to be cooked for them. She asked how long the job would take them. They said it would take them 14 days. When she asked them what she was supposed to do, they said that had nothing to do with them.

The matron then went to the school principal and he went along to talk to the workers, but they said that they did not take instructions from him. The school principal then telephoned the head of the Works Department in Middelburg, but he also said he did not take instructions from the school principal. The poor school principal, desperate by that time, came to me as a young MPC. Eventually I was compelled to telephone the Administrator of the Transvaal who was then responsible for education in the Transvaal. He was able to stop the people and get them to reconnect the water supply to the school. [Interjections.]

I now want to know: How is the system going to work in the future? What is the rural member of the House of Assembly going to do if farmers have problems with their roads? I do not want to bore the House with all kinds of details, but there are, for example, also problems in regard to hospitals. Is an ordinary member of the House of Assembly going to be able to step into the shoes of an MPC? He is not even physically present! That is why I really would like the NP also to give me some practical reason why it has now become essential to abolish a system which, as the hon the Minister himself has confessed, worked well and made an important contribution.

The hon the Minister has only one reason. He says he is compelled to abolish the provincial councils because their members are elected by only one section of the population whose interests they represent, ie the Whites. He says it is a principle of the Government, a constitutional objective, that an elected body may not continue to exist if it is not representative of the people whose interests it should serve. I hope I am interpreting the hon the Minister correctly.

That is a good point you have made there.

He says the provincial councils cannot continue to exist because its members are elected solely by Whites and have thus far taken decisions affecting Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks. I take it it is now an NP principle which members of the NP want to implement throughout.

A grave for the Whites in South Africa!

The House of Assembly, the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives today constitute the highest legislative authority in South Africa, taking decisions affecting all the population groups in this country, including the Blacks outside the national states. The Government repeatedly told us that a fourth chamber for Blacks was taboo. It would never happen—it was out of the question.

Is the hon the Minister going to tell us one day, however, that it is a Government principle that a legislative authority may not continue to exist if it is not representative of everyone whose interests it serves and that if such a legislative authority does exist, it should be abolished?

The hon the Minister says the provincial councils must be abolished because they are only elected by Whites, because they now want executive committees that are representative of all population groups, but— and here I link up with the argument of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition— if that is actually the Government’s underlying motive or the driving force behind this, why does the Government not do something about it? I do, however, have just a suspicion that the Government generally, and that hon member in particular, does intend to do something about it at a later stage, because we get this so-called reform in small instalments, do we not.

On the “never-never”!

The Government does not have the guts—something those hon members spoke of at one stage—to go to the White voters of South Africa, particularly those in the Transvaal, and tell them that they will be obtaining multiracial provincial councils.

We won sixteen out of twenty-two by-elections!

They do not have the courage to do so. [Interjections.] Nor do they have the courage to tell the White voters they are going to change the constitution and establish multiracial provincial councils which will be able to elect the members of the executive committee, which will also be multiracial. At the second tier of government the Government is afraid—I say this unequivocally—to bring Coloured, Indians and Blacks into the executive authority by the front-door. They now want to bring them in through the back door.

Yes, they are going to be smuggled in. By stealth!

The hon the Minister tells us that abolishing democratically elected provincial councillors and MEC’s—well, they’re only elected by Whites—and replacing them with a new executive committee appointed by the State President is a broadening of the democratic base. If the hon Minister goes on broadening the base of democracy in this fashion, within the foreseeable future we are going to reach the stage at which South Africa will have only one voter, the State President.

That is, of course, what he would like.

He will eventually be the only one who can decide.

No, we shall no longer allow ourselves to be bluffed by our hon Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. This is merely part and parcel of his long-term programme aimed at firstly getting the White electorate accustomed to his systematic process of integration. He gradually gets the voters accustomed to this, and as soon as they are prepared to swallow it he comes along and says there is now a need for democratically elected second-tier government. Then we get the kind of multiracial government the PFP wants.

We on this side reject this legislation. Firstly it is unnecessary and abolishes a system which, for almost eight decades now, has furnished outstanding service in South Africa, as the hon the Minister himself has acknowledged.

Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon the hon member?

No.

The reason which the hon the Minister advances is completely inadequate for the abolition of this system. What is more, this Government states that it adheres to the policy of each group having the right to self-determination.

Do you also want to create provincial councils for the Coloureds and the Indians?

Of course, if they want them. [Interjections.] There is nothing wrong with that. They do not, however, have any say as far as I am concerned. [Interjections.]

The problem with this Government is that it has not given due consideration to its ultimate destination. It has not thought this all out. At the central government level there is now an ad hoc system in operation. In terms of the Bill now before the House, on paper there is still talk of second-tier government, but it will no longer be second-tier government. These people, the administrators and the executive committees, are nothing more than the appointed agents of the first-tier executive authority. They are nothing more than that.

What was the Administrator?

The Administrator was the representative of the Cabinet, that is true, but the executive committees were not. [Interjections.] They are nothing more than appointed political friends who will have to carry out the instructions of the State President and his central executive authority. All the more so, because they are appointed for a maximum period of five years, but only for as long as it pleases the State President. If one of them dared to thwart this hon Minister …

Not me …

Oh, surely the hon the Minister is the chief adviser. He need not be that modest.

And the head boy!

The hon the Minister need not be that modest. We do, after all, know what is going on in this country. [Interjections.] If they thwarted him, they would be on the way out.

These appointees are also given legislative authority—I do now know where in the Western world anything of this kind exists. They are given the right to amend or replace all existing provincial ordinances, subject to the built-in provisions of the standing committee, ie the approval of a nebulous standing committee that will now be called into being. This is another strange, unparalleled system in the annals of constitutional law with which we are probably going to make history in South Africa.

They have always been subject to central government approval.

When?

The provincial councils’ legislative powers were defined, and as long as it acted within the ambit of those powers, it was the provincial councils’ right to do so, subject to the final legislative authority of the central government. Surely we all know that.

[Inaudible.]

Since when?

As in the case of other instances we have dealt with in this House, in terms of this legislation the services of public representatives are now being terminated. Whereas, in the case of members of the House of Assembly, someone is expected to have at least 71 or 8 years’ service before he qualifies for certain gratuities or a pension, here we again have the so-called “golden handshake” in terms of which people who were elected as recently as 31 July 1982—I do not know how many of them were elected after 1981, but I take it there are a few of them—and have not even furnished five years’ public service, are receiving pensions and gratuities as if they had 8 years’ service. The argument that is being put forward is that these people are entitled to this because it is not their fault that the provincial councils are being abolished. [Interjections.]

If the hon member for Winburg had wanted to save the taxpayers in the Transvaal a great deal of money, all we should have done was to have held a provincial election in the Transvaal this year. Then very few of his party’s representatives in that provincial council would have qualified for that pension. [Interjections.]

This proposal, in particular, is also completely unacceptable to us. In the standing committee the Official Opposition was prepared to say—they also proposed this—that if we wanted to meet these people halfway, they would agree to these people being paid a kind of pro rata pension for the period during which they did render service as compared with that for the minimum period of 8 years. That proposal, however, was completely waved aside by the majority in the standing committee.

I also want to express my strongest possible objection to this measure, as we have done in the case of the defunct President’s Council where people, as far as my knowledge goes, are still receiving salaries and will shortly qualify for pensions after having furnished only two-and-a-half years’ service. The same absurdity is now being perpetuated here at the cost of the South African taxpayer.

I agree with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that this hon Minister discussed this important legislation—and it is not unimportant legislation—with NP representatives in the executive committees, the Administrators and, I take it, the people of Natal.

Fanie Ferreira!

Yes, probably with Fanie Ferreira too. I do not know of what particular significance he is, and I do not know since when he has been of such significance to that hon member. [Interjections.] To tell the truth, there was a stage when I thought a great deal more of the hon member for Randfontein than I did of Mr Fanie Ferreira. [Interjections.] I do not know whether I still should, but I shall leave the matter at that.

We should not see this legislation in isolation either, because in this legislation reference is made to other relevant legislation, ie legislation on the joint executive body that the Government still wants to establish with regard to Natal. In this legislation provision is specifically made for the fact that since there is, according to Government representatives, going to be a joint executive body for Natal, consisting of representatives of kwaZulu and Natal, that system—if the House of Assembly were to accept it; and I take it the other two Houses have already done so—can also be transferred to the other provinces of the country by way of a decision taken by the State President. Those are not small changes to the constitutional set-up in South Africa. They are radical changes. They are drastic changes. These changes are being bulldozed through by this Minister, by this Parliament, before a single congress of its party has been consulted. [Interjections.] The broadening of the democratic base, according to the Heunis method, works as follows: One first takes a decision, one first passes the Act, and then one presents the National Party Congress with a fait accompli.

And then they have to give one an ovation.

Yes, then they have to give one an ovation, and those who do not give a standing ovation, know what they can do. [Interjections.]

All the congresses have approved this legislation.

The hon member says that all the congresses have approved this legislation? Have they approved mixed executive committees?

They have approved this abolition.

Has your congress approved a mixed executive committee for the Transvaal? [Interjections.]

Come now, Lukas!

Is that what the hon member for Hercules is trying to tell me? He says that his congress has approved the abolition of the provincial council. I must conclude that that congress did not know what it was voting for, because it did not know what was to take its place.

Exactly!

They did not know that in its place there would also be a multiracial, mixed executive committee for the Transvaal. [Interjections.] I should like to know whether the hon member for Hercules, or any hon member, had spelled these consequences out to their voters. [Interjections.]

Not one!

Well, if the hon member Dr Odendaal spelled it out for his voters, we know what the result of the voters’ reply to that was. [Interjections.]

Let me conclude. We want to express the strongest possible objection to the fact that the Government is doing this without adequate reason. In fact, the arguments for the preservation of the provincial council system are overwhelmingly stronger than the arguments one can possibly advance for its abolition. Secondly it does not come down to the replacement of a present second-tier government system by another system of second-tier government. If one strips it of all the woolliness that is involved, second-tier government in South Africa is, in fact, being destroyed by this legislation, and that is why we cannot accept it.

Mr Speaker, I found it interesting that the hon member for Barberton was very worried about the fact that we had not submitted this matter of a so-called multiracial executive committee on provincial level to the provincial congresses. However, the principle of a multiracial committee was approved by all four congresses, and by the federal congress, when we told the people of South Africa—remember the two-thirds majority in the referendum—that non-Whites would have representation on the Cabinet of South Africa.

Blacks as well?

Surely this was agreed to. Why should we now take it once again … [Interjections.] I am talking about the principle about a mixed executive authority.

Coloureds and Indians only.

Surely this was agreed to in a referendum and also at our congresses. Why must we go back to our congresses with the same thing every time? However, I shall come back to the hon members of the Conservative Party.

I now want to refer very briefly to a few remarks the Leader of the Official Opposition made here. He put quite a number of objections to us here. He tried to indicate what their real objections to this new piece of legislation were.

The real objection of the Leader of the Official Opposition is in fact that we are not implementing the policy of his party on the second tier of government! That was basically what he was objecting to— not the minor matters he mentioned, that it would undermine the system of political representation, and that type of thing! What really matters is the fact that we are not prepared to introduce a second tier government which will lead to domination of those councils by a Black majority. That is the matter at issue. We are not prepared to agree to a common voters’ roll, on the basis of which a legislative assembly can be brought into existence for the provinces.

What the PFP policy amounts to very briefly is that provinces or parts thereof will have to comprise the constituent states of a federation. The PFP does not believe in the protection of ethnic groups although they do believe in the protection of political groupings in this country.

With the best will in the world I cannot understand why we cannot learn from the awakening of Africa! Africa has recently woken up and discovered nationalism. It is very clear that wherever the shackles of colonial authority are being shaken off, tribal nationalism is taking over, and the issue is then the struggle for the acquisition of absolute power. [Interjections.] The issue is not the protection of groups and political parties; the issue is ethnic groups that are grouping themselves into political parties. I cannot understand how the PFP can think that South Africa can escape this process of nationalism!

I want to return to the CP. I have examined their policy in connection with this matter. Their standpoint is that the provincial councils should be retained, that they should remain White and that they should govern the provinces after the Coloured, Indian and Black homelands have been excised from the White territory. They must then govern what remains. [Interjections.] They get rid of the inconvenience of Coloured and Indian political rights by conceiving of these people in homelands.

I have already asked a certain question in this House, and I am going to ask it again— in fact I promise the CP I shall ask it every time I get an opportunity to do so. Where is that Coloured homeland going to be situated? [Interjections.] Where is the Indian homeland going to be situated? [Interjections.] The CP has been a separate party for four years now. They depict their party as being the party which is going to take over the government of this country if we were to hold an election now. According to them, just about everyone in the country is going to vote for them! [Interjections.]

During the past four years, why have hon members of that party not yet shown us where these homelands are going to be situated? [Interjections.] Surely, this is not an unfair question to ask them to show us where they are going to be situated! We are asking them to draw lines on a map for us! I promised that we will give them the maps and all the necessary information …

And a few of us will cross over!

… if they would indicate to us what land will belong to the Indians and what land will belong to the Coloureds.

Mr Speaker, may I just ask the charming hon member for Parow whether he, after 38 years of NP government, can give us the final boundary lines of the Black homelands? [Interjections.]

Sir, in reply to the question of the stupid hon member—I mean the hon member for Kuruman—I just want to point out to him …

You should rather stay charming!

Yes, I shall! The hon member must just give me an opportunity to reply to the question. [Interjections.] Surely we have for years now been identifying central areas on a map. We are in the process of making additions to those territories.

Order! The hon member for Parow did in fact correct himself, but we know all about that kind of correction. The hon member must withdraw the word “stupid”.

I withdraw it, Mr Speaker. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Surely the hon member knows that maps are available that indicate the consolidation process. Surely we have already consolidated areas. We have already done this. To tell the truth, we are in the process of making further additions to those territories, but hon members of the CP do not want to tell us where their homelands will be situated. That is the point.

I venture to predict that those hon members will not tell us where they are going to be established. They will not tell us because in the first place they are too afraid that they will in that way alienate too many Whites and in the second place they are afraid the country will laugh at them. [Interjections.] They are afraid the country will laugh at them if they were to publish their map. [Interjections.]

Nevertheless I think there is a way out, because I understand that we now have cooperation between the AWB and the CP. That is what I have been given to understand. In this connection, I want to quote what Mr Robert van Tonder said at Excelsior:

Is the agreement entered into between the AWB and the CP that the AWB is going to help the CP, if they come into power, to form a Boer State? [Interjections.] Since we are debating provinces today, I am very pleased that the Cape leader of the CP is also present. I should like to know one little thing from him. During “question time” Mr Van Tonder also said:

That is what Mr Robert van Tonder, the bedfellow of the CP, said. [Interjections.] I see the hon member of the CP is also amused. I would also be. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

The AWB said a very interesting thing. They said they wanted to give the Cape Province to the Coloureds. Mr Van Tonder said that, and I shall quote him again:

That is why I should like to know from the Cape leader of the CP where the rest of us poor White people should go if the Cape is to be given to the Coloureds.

Wherever you like.

Where should we go? Does the CP have room for us in the Transvaal or Free State? Do they have room for us? [Interjections.] Is that the policy of those hon members now? [Interjections.] In all fairness I want to say that the hon member for Kuruman owes us an answer. Either the hon member stands by the CP policy, or he must repudiate Mr Van Tonder of the AWB, for surely the two do not go together. I think the hon member will concede that to me in all fairness. Does the hon member agree with me?

Yes.

Which one does the hon member choose? Does he want to turn the Western Cape into a Coloured Homeland, or does he want to establish Boer States and give the whole of this Cape of ours …

I do not want to give the whole of South Africa to the Blacks, as you people are doing. [Interjections.]

Jan, climb into your bakkie and drive away, man! That would be the best thing to do. [Interjections.]

We on this side of the House will wait until the hon member for Kuruman has repudiated Mr Van Tonder of the AWB. We are waiting for that. We are looking forward eagerly to being able to rest just a little easier at night, in view of the fact that they are going to be the next government, and we would really not like to have to leave the Cape. I really do hope they will allow us to stay on here, and that they will not drive us out of this country altogether. [Interjections.]

All of us could move to Sasolburg!

The Coloured homeland is of course not the end of their problem, not at all!

It is only the beginning!

It is indeed only the beginning of their problems. After all, those members say they are endeavouring to achieve a majority occupation of the Republic of South Africa by Whites. Outside the homelands, today, there are between 10 and 15 million Blacks. If we put the number of Blacks at five million, that is really a sizeable stream of people they would have to get rid of—a sizeable stream of Black people—in order to bring about Black majority occupation in the area concerned.

We were here before they were!

Do you see, sir, that is the kind of policy the Conservative Party is trying to sell the voters of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Unfortunately, I have now allowed myself to be led astray by hon members of the CP into talking politics. In that way I never got round to a discussion of the Bill itself. [Interjections.] I want to place it on record, however, that it is with sadness that we take leave of that old system. We are really parting with it sadly.

Crocodile tears!

This system worked well in South Africa. No, we are not shedding crocodile tears now. Perhaps we are shedding some other kind of tears, but definitely not crocodile tears. The hon member for Jeppe will know what I mean. [Interjections.] We are looking forward with expectation to the functioning of this new system, for in it we have an opportunity to centralise and to bring together people of all races and colours so that they can take joint decisions on matters of common concern. We on this side of the House are grateful that we are able to introduce the system because—and this is important—it is another milestone along the road of reform, which this side of the House has elected to pursue—a course which we as Nationalists are proud to pursue.

Mr Speaker, right at the outset I too should like to say a word in connection with the provincial councils, and in particular in connection with the Provincial Council of Natal, of which my party and its predecessors have always been extremely proud. The Natal Provincial Council has been governed by one party and its direct successors ever since Union in 1910, and I believe this is a record that has not yet been surpassed in any Western World country. It is quite unique that an official regional government with regular elections should have been governed by one party for 76 unbroken years. It is certainly unique in South Africa, and we know of no other comparative legislative body anywhere in the world which could boast of the same record.

Vause, yours is a “one-party state”!

Indeed a one-party state. Does the hon the Minister know what caused Natal to become a one-party state? That happened because Natal is unique in another sense, too. It is the only province or official organ of government which, I believe, exists in South Africa in which there has never ever been even a hint of scandal of any description—never a shadow of any dishonesty, any wrongful act, any abuse of power or any shameful conduct by any elected member of that provincial government or of its executive. That is indeed a record of which we can be proud.

When I say this, Sir, I am not casting any stones. When, however, one looks at city and town councils, at provincial councils, and even at central Government—I am not referring now to any particular political parties—there is not one single organ of government in which somewhere along the road somebody has not perhaps used Government equipment for the building of a private dam on a farm or for the building of a private road or done something else which is wrong. In the 76 years during which the South African Party, the United Party and the New Republic Party have governed Natal there has never been as much as a whisper or accusation of any dishonesty, any abuse of power or of nepotism. We are very proud of that record. Moreover, I believe that is why the electorate of Natal have sent this party and its predecessors back time after time, election after election, for 75 years to lead and control that province. Even now, although there are just a handful of us here in Parliament, 14 of the 20 members of the Natal Provincial Council belong to the NRP. That is an indication of the respect in which the voters of Natal hold that council. So the day it disappears will indeed be a sad day, and a day which Natal, as a province, will rue.

There is, however, something else about the government of Natal which has made it stand out and that is its relationship with people of other race groups—its relationship with the Zulus of kwaZulu and with the Indians and the Coloureds in Natal. Where there has been friction between central Government and those groups and between the municipal authorities and those groups, the administration of Natal has somehow welded links and contacts and an association which has always been fruitful.

So it was that the first ever signed constitutional agreement between different race groups in the history of South African politics came from Natal when the White provincial council, the elected members of the CRC and the SAIC came together and drafted a plan for local government. Unfortunately, however, this Government vetoed that plan. That was eight years ago, in September 1978. For the first time different races had sat together around a table and, starting with widely divergent viewpoints, gradually, by give and take, had reached agreement. Their agreement stands on record and is signed by those representatives. I believe that if the Government had allowed that agreement to be implemented, we would by now have been much further advanced in our political intergroup relationships.

Those representatives did not give up, however, and under the leadership of our Exco in Natal they continued to meet. My colleague, the hon member for Umbilo was one of the members of that executive. I am sure he would have loved to be here today participating in this debate. He is taking part in another debate, however. That debate is a continuation of the debate between groups. It was initiated once again by the Natal Provincial Administration, the NRP executive and the government of kwaZulu, under the leadership of Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi. That debate is going on today as the participants seek further agreement further along the constitutional road. I say with great pride, therefore, that the Natal Administration, under the leadership of the South African party, the United party and the NRP, has a very proud record, and has left its mark on history. It is a history that nothing can erase; a history they can be proud of and one that South Africa can be proud of. [Interjections.]

This brings me to this Bill before us. In its original form, the Bill was totally unacceptable, and we would have rejected it in much the same terms as the Official Opposition and the CP have done; in other words, we would have proposed that the Bill be read this day six months. However, it has since been considered by the standing committee. In this regard I think the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition does himself a disservice by going overboard and by always trying to exaggerate and to find strong words to express things. If that measure had gone through as it had been introduced he would have been right, but the standing committee eliminated many of the objectionable features from it. This was done by co-operation, by agreement and by debate, and I intend to deal with those objections. I will ask the hon leader as I get to each one whether he still thinks that is an objection. However, one insuperable objection has remained for this party. This is a major and fundamental objection which makes the Bill unacceptable in principle to us. To put our position clearly on record I move, as a further amendment:

That puts our view very clearly and I intend to motivate it.

Firstly, I want to deal with some of the arguments that were mentioned by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I agree with him that the Bill has been rushed. I think that too many of these important constitutional measures have to be considered right at the end of the session while there should be a much greater opportunity for their consideration and for people to comment. I agree with him on the record of provincial councils; he served in one, but I did not have that opportunity.

His main objections were that the Bill extends the racial provisions of this Parliament to provincial government. Whether he likes it or not and whether it is good or bad, the fact is that this Parliament comprises three Chambers. The PFP always wants to start from a position where it is not. When they want to go somewhere they do not start from where they are; they want to start from somewhere halfway there.

You also want an election …

I know. I am talking about the hon leader’s objection to the racial principles. One has to start with what is there. What is there is a tricameral system with three groups represented in Parliament and only one group in the provincial council. I believe the logical way for that to develop is to bring the other groups into some new structure which provides for representation of the three groups. However, the hon leader objects in principle because the Bill extends what he first called the “racist” and then changed to “racial” principles of the tricameral Parliament.

Then he dealt with co-opted executive rule. On that we have common ground because we both object to the nominated system of government which means that one has a purely nominated administration. I cannot, however, agree with the hon leader on the meaninglessness of the limitations on it. He said the only limitation was that the Administrator would have to put before the standing committee any amendment of ordinances, and that all that meant was that when he changed ordinances it had to go to the committee but that he was free to do what he liked with anything else. The hon leader has not read the Bill. Clause 14 states:

1. (1) The administrator of a province shall attend to provincial matters, including such matters—
   1. (a) as have been or are assigned to the provincial council concerned or the executive committee of the province by or under any Act of Parliament; or
   2. (b) as are declared by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette to be of a provincial nature or of a regional, local or private nature in the province.

1. (2) The administrator of a province may—
   1. (a) subject to the provisions of section 16 …

I will not read it all out but will come to the point—

1. (i) amend, repeal or substitute any provision of an ordinance of the province;

That is correct—that is one of its powers. What the hon leader apparently did not see was:

1. (ii) regulate any matters mentioned in subsection (1) …

1. (b) perform any functions …

In regard to all these matters he shall carry them into effect by way of a proclamation and act in consultation with the executive. How does he issue a regulation unless he publishes it in the Gazette?

What about appointments?

Anything material has to be recorded in the Gazette by proclamation and it has to be approved by the committee. This is a major limitation of the powers. I mention this point because it makes the major difference to us on whether we reject the Bill totally or whether we reject it on the grounds of the non-elective executive.

I do believe it introduces a measure—if not a satisfactory one—of accountability. The provincial executive will be responsible, accountable and will report to a special standing committee of Parliament which will meet in public. That is the essential element that gives it some credibility. It will meet and debate in public, the Administrator will account to it in public and the public will be able to see and know exactly what is happening.

I believe that makes a tremendous difference and has removed the second totally unacceptable aspect from the Bill by giving a form of public accountability but still not responsibility to an electorate.

I want to state our position in this matter clearly. In 1977 the NRP’s Aims and Principles were established. After dealing with the position of Blacks and where they would fit into the structure we said the following, and I quote:

This is a fundamental principle of this party. When the guidelines of the new dispensation were made known at its very start we established certain matters to which we objected. I will not go through them all but the one was the exclusion of non-homeland Blacks. Another one was any system of nominated provincial government. In our positive alternatives which we stated we committed ourselves to fight for, and I quote:

1. (c) the retention of the elective system of provincial government with increased powers and necessary adaptations to provide interracial responsibility.

So we accepted from the very start of the guidelines that the provincial system would have to be adapted and be changed to incorporate the other communities. However, the condition was that it should remain on an elective basis and that it would include all communities.

Having placed our attitude clearly on record, we followed it through in the debate on the Republic of South Africa Constitution Bill. I have here all the amendments we proposed but I am not going to delay the House by going into them in detail. We stuck to those objections throughout the referendum campaign. On every platform from which we spoke we listed our two main objections. The other three were partly or wholly eliminated by amendments which were accepted.

What we are doing now is, therefore, completely consistent with what we have said right from the start. Having reached the end of the constitutional debate in Parliament, and having looked at the new proposed constitution, we weighed it up and, because we saw it as a starting point for reform and an extension of the democratic system to two communities which had not shared it previously, we accepted it and supported it in the referendum. We recorded our objections throughout the process but accepted it as a starting point and a move forward.

We hoped that the Provisional Government Bill would also be a visible step forward which we could support and that it would retain the principle of elected government. We hoped that it would bring in the other communities but keep the essence of responsibility to the electorate, and so be part of the process of bringing people into the democratic structure without doing away with the strong advantages of second-tier government.

The hon the Minister will remember that I appealed to him not to be hasty in abolishing the provincial councils. I urged him not to abolish them until he had something workable to put in their place. There should be a bridging period bearing in mind that all four provincial councils have had the expertise and 75 years of experience of running provinces. I asked the hon the Minister not to wipe them out until he was certain that what was going to be put in their place would work.

What would work best would be a system of second-tier government directly or indirectly elected by the voters of each province, responsible to them by virtue of having been elected by them, but obviously also responsible, like the present provincial councils, to the central Government.

The provincial councils have not been legislatures. There has been a lot of misunderstanding about that, but they cannot legislate. They can pass ordinances subject to the approval of the central Government. They have never been independent legislative bodies. They have passed ordinances which have had to be approved by the Government. The Natal plan for local government, for example, was submitted to the Government for approval but was vetoed. Most ordinances are accepted but some are not. The councils have not had unlimited power, but what power there was should have been retained at that level.

As I have already said, the bottom line of provincial government is the direct or indirect elective base. We are not dogmatic so we looked at two or three options. Even the President’s Council considered alternatives and we would have looked at any of them, but we would not consider going below the bottom line of elective responsibility. That is why we will vote against the Bill and in favour of our amendment.

Finally, let me refer to one or two matters which have been much publicised and concerning which amendments have been effected by the standing committee. One suggested amendment which was regrettably not accepted would have allowed Administrators to continue in office until the end of their terms. Another aspect we found unacceptable was that the Administrator could in certain circumstances act entirely on his own on the grounds that it was not convenient to consult with the members of the executive. It has now been made clear from the definition that the Administrator acts in consultation with the executive—this is reflected in every one of the clauses—except when he acts as an individual agent on a matter not falling within the ambit of the province, in other words for a Minister in some field not falling within the ambit of provincial powers, in which case he can act on his own initiative. For the rest, however, he acts entirely in consultation with members of the executive. I do not want to give all the examples, but they are there. That has improved the position.

Similarly, in formulating decisions he acts in consultation with the executive, his powers to act alone having been deleted. That is one major change, the other being the question of the standing committee to which the Administrator and the executive will be responsible, to which they will report and which will have to approve any proclamations issued by the province. In the standing committee I proposed that we go one step further and, even if this were only an initial basis, we use that standing committee, which would comprise elected members of Parliament, elected by the provincial electorates, as the electoral college for choosing members of the executive. In other words, the executive should be chosen indirectly by persons who are directly elected by the public, so that indirectly one would at least be getting an executive chosen by people responsible to the electorate at ground level. I believe that would have been an improvement. It would not have been the ideal. It would not have been as good as direct election or the creation of some other form of electoral college—perhaps one involving all the members of a province from the three Houses. There are various alternatives. The original idea was an advisory committee. Another idea involved regional councils, but I do not think that would work. It would be far too clumsy and ineffective. So we suggested, as an initial base, the bringing in of the elective principle, i.e. that one’s standing committee of MPs do the nomination. That was rejected, and therefore we have no option but to oppose the measure.

Mr Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon member for Durban Point, as well as the hon member for Parow and the other hon members who spoke here. Although the hon member for Durban Point opposes the measure, I must honestly say that I have seldom seen such reluctant opposition to a measure as that contained in the speech of the hon member for Durban Point. [Interjections.] If I understood the hon member for Durban Point correctly, then in speaking about the legislative powers of the provincial councils in respect of ordinances, he said that Parliament had to endorse or approve such ordinances because Parliament most certainly had overriding legislative powers vis-a-vis the provincial councils and ordinances. However, Parliament has never formally approved the ordinances of provincial councils. In that sense the powers the provincial councils possessed were not secondary powers.

Frequent mention was made here of the question of reform. The hon member for Durban Point made mention of a starting point. The hon member for Parow and the hon member for Welkom also spoke about reform. Sooner or later we in this House will have to define what we mean by reform, otherwise it will become a term of abuse and we shall use it to justify every conceivable thing; whether it is good or bad, we shall do it in the name of reform. I now ask myself wherein lies the reform in this measure. I want to come back to that during the discussion of the Bill.

I agree, Oom Nic.

I should like to continue by adding my own objection to those raised here by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition advanced some really convincing reasons as to why this House ought not to support the Bill.

What we object to, is that important legislation of this nature should come before the House at this late stage of the session. That does not apply only to this legislation, because this House has been kept busy for the past ten days with what I consider to be probably one of the most important pieces of legislation we have had in years. However, it has come at the end of a session, when, due to the pressures of time, there is in fact simply no opportunity for a peaceful, calm consideration and discussion. [Interjections.]

I want to talk about the importance of this measure. When one looks at the provincial council system, one can honestly say that it is with sadness that we are being confronted with this legislation. It is not merely an institution that we are doing away with, because this institution is deeply routed in the history of South Africa. It is an institution which, judging by the loyalty of people, has really made its mark and which is close to the hearts of the people—yes, the hearts of the White people. It is close to the hearts of the White people of this country, but I shall come back to that later.

As you know, Sir, the provincial system actually represents a compromise reached at the time of the National Convention, between those people who were advocating a central government system and those who wanted a federal system. That was the compromise, and if the Government is saying that we must give recognition to the “own” concept, then I cannot understand why this system is simply being swept away in this manner, because at that time, and throughout its 76-year existence, this system essentialy represented an acknowledgement of the provincial character of our society. This system was a very necessary compromise because I doubt whether we would ever have had the Union of South Africa without it. I doubt it. [Interjections.]

That compromise is embodied in the Constitution Act of the Union of South Africa which provides that the boundaries of a province may not be changed and that a provincial council may not be abolished without the approval of that particular provincial council by way of a petition to Parliament. We retained that provision when South Africa became a Republic in 1961. It was retained in section 114 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1961. Even in 1983 when the new Constitution came into being and the remaining provisions of the Constitution Act of 1961 were embodied in the new Provincial Affairs Act, section 114 was retained in that Act, although it did in fact form part of the Constitution Act of 1961 and should be viewed in that light. Even in 1983, when we adopted a new Constitution, we still retained this provision.

Which section is that?

Section 114 of the Constitution Act of 1961, although it is now contained in the Provincial Affairs Act which replaced the Constitution Act of 1961. The remaining provisions are of course contained in the Provincial Affairs Act. Although it was not legally compelled to do so, this Parliament did in fact feel morally committed to that provision in the 1909 Act, as well as the 1961 and 1983 Acts as contained in the Provincial Affairs Act. When it wanted to incorporate Griqualand East into Natal, it waited until a petition had been received from the two provincial councils concerned, namely those of the Cape and Natal. Therefore, despite the fact that the legal sovereignty of Parliament was just as firmly established at that stage as it is now, this Parliament felt committed to those provisions.

What I am trying to say, then, is that we are not concerned here with the sovereignty of Parliament or the right of Parliament to promulgate sovereign legislation. In fact, there are even certain court judgements in that regard. The sober fact is, however, that the sovereignty of Parliament has existed for a long time. It existed when Griqualand East was incorporated into Natal. Nevertheless, we maintained, accepted and respected the binding nature of that undertaking. We did so in spite of the jurisprudential position.

I want to continue. Not only did we fail to receive a request from any of the provincial councils, but neither was there any insistence, agitation or pressure on the part of the provincial councils or any other party of which I am aware. There was no pressure for the provincial councils to be abolished. [Interjections.]

I want to continue. Not only was there no petition or insistence or agitation on their part, but the provincial councils were in fact not even consulted in this matter. This legislation was not submitted to those provincial councils in order to obtain their comments on it.

I am sorry but I must say that quite frankly, I have seldom in the political life of this country come across such a glaring example of contempt on the part of the Government for historical, established, highly respected political bodies such as the provincial councils. Hon members will understand, if they have any respect for statesmanship, constitutional development and the constitutional processes, that it grieves me that we should have to dispose of these institutions in this manner. [Interjections.]

What is more, as the hon member for Durban Point has just indicated, Parliament as such did in fact in the final analysis have legislative powers. Parliament still has them, although in practice today we have a system whereby Parliament is in effect excluded, except in the form of the standing committees. I shall come back to that later.

We have to face the sober fact that apart from referral to the standing committee, the State President can today abolish provinces and determine provincial boundaries by way of proclamation. This can occur, not even by means of legislation of this Parliament but by way of a proclamation. [Interjections.] Can hon members now see how far removed we are from that original provision that this Parliament may not even abolish provincial councils without that petition from the provincial councils, to the system we now have, in terms of which the State President is empowered to create or abolish provinces et cetera, by way of a proclamation? If that gap is not clear to everyone in this House, then I cannot understand it.

Someone—I do not know whether it was the hon member for Parow or the hon member for Welkom—asked what the wide powers were that are contained in the Bill and which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition referred to. Permit me to point out those wide powers specifically, so that we may see where we stand. As the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition indicated, they can only be described as authoritarian powers in the hands of the State President and the administrator.

Let us look firstly at the powers of the State President. Firstly, in terms of clause 7 of the Bill, the State President appoints the administrator as well as the members of the executive committee. From the ranks of those members of the executive committee an acting administrator may also be appointed if necessary. It is the State President who does this.

Secondly, in terms of clause 10, the State President fixes their salaries and allowances.

Thirdly, the State President may at any time dismiss the administrator or a member of the executive committee. That could not happen in terms of the old system! The members of the executive committee were of course responsible to the administrator, but they were elected persons. Their term of office was determined by the elected body, the provincial council. The situation now is that in terms of clause 11 the State President may, for whatever reason—he may do as he sees fit—dismiss both the administrator and the members of the executive committee.

Let us look at clause 14(1)(b), which deals further with what the State President can do:

Can any hon member furnish me with a definition of what is meant by the words “of a regional, local or private nature”? Of course, we can say that these matters or those matters naturally fall into that category, but that is not my question. As it is formulated here, no limitations are imposed. It can deal with matters of a regional, local or private nature. The State President may entrust those matters to the administrator and the new executive committee by way of proclamation in the Gazette.

Naturally, he may only issue that proclamation after it has been approved by the standing committee. In this regard I should now like to air my views on the standing committees because the standing committee is also involved insofar as the administrator’s powers are concerned. There is a fundamental difference between the management of a matter by a standing committee of this Parliament and the management thereof by Parliament itself! As far as I could establish, it has not been stated either in the Bill or in the hon the Minister’s speech that the standing committee must report to this Parliament. I assume that the committee will be obliged to do so in terms of the Joint Rules and Standing Orders of this House.

In considering the composition of a standing committee, I want to ask hon members whether we can honestly say that a standing committee represents an effective means of controlling the exercise of the powers of the State President. I want to say in all honesty that with all my respect for the system, I do not consider a standing committee qualified to perform that sort of function.

I am speaking about the powers of the State President in this regard. Permit me now to refer to clause 15(1):

That is to say any general affair which has been entrusted to a Minister by the State President, may in terms of clause 15(1) be assigned to the administrator of a province, either specifically or by way of a general assignment of the administration of any law. The administration of any general law may thus be taken away from a Minister by the State President and be assigned to an administrator. That is what the clause provides.

1. (b) Either generally or in so far as such provision, law or laws relate to any population group or matter mentioned in such assignment;
2. (c) subject to such amendments, adaptations and modifications, as the State President may deem fit.

I hope someone in this House can tell me how we can maintain that this Bill does not afford the State President tremendous comprehensive authoritarian powers. What hon member can say that after reading this?

Let us also take a look at the powers of the administrator under this dispensation. I want to repeat that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has said that the administrator has already been given extensive additional powers in terms of other legislation, such as the Regional Services Councils Act and the legislation pertaining to the abolition of development boards and other bodies. The administrator has therefore already received a tremendous number of additional new powers in terms of other legislation. Firstly, according to the specific Bill from which I have just read, all those powers which the State President has assigned to the administrator fall within his executive authority.

Secondly, I refer to clause 14(1)(b) of the Bill which provides that any powers that have been or are assigned to him in terms of an Act of Parliament or an ordinance of the provincial council, fall within his authority.

Thirdly, clause 14(2) sets out the wide powers of the administrator. I quote:

1. (a) subject to the provisions of section 16 …

This deals with the question of consultation by way of publications—

1. (i) amend, repeal or substitute any provision of an ordinance of the province.

In terms of this the administrator and his executive committee may amend, repeal or substitute any provision of any ordinance and secondly, he may regulate all the matters mentioned in subsection 11 of clause 14 by way of proclamation; that is to say those matters which have been assigned to him by the State President. Therefore, there is the question of publication and that of the standing committee to which reference has been made here.

Fourthly, I should like to quote from clause 14(3), so that hon members may take note of the wide powers of the administrator:

I quote further from clause 16:

1. (a) may, if he considers it essential or desirable; and
2. (b) shall, before a proclamation referred to in section 14(2)(a) is issued, cause to be published in a newspaper, in order to obtain the views of interested persons …

However, he only does this at his own discretion. To make matters worse, such an administrator is given unlimited powers of delegation in terms of clause 15(2). He may assign his powers and authority to:

1. (a) any member or members of the executive committee of that province;
2. (b) any member or members of such executive committee and the provincial secretary of that province jointly;
3. (c) the said provincial secretary;
4. (d) any person in the service of the provincial administration concerned.

If that does not in fact mean that authoritarian powers are being placed in the hands of the State President and the administrator, then I really do not know what is meant by this.

A question that was asked here earlier was to whom the administrator is responsible. I referred to the standing committee, to which the hon the Minister also referred in his Second Reading speech. I have already pointed out that no one can in fact rationally state that accountability to and consideration by the standing committee really guarantees adequate control over the exercise of powers by the administrator, particularly when we take into consideration that those new bodies will apparently have to deal with thousands of millions of rand.

With reference to the objections raised by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, I now ask what the Government’s considerations and approach are to these matters. In this regard, the hon the Minister has said on various occasions, including his Second Reading speech—I have taken note of it and I was also struck by it—that this new system of provincial government complies with the Government’s general constitutional goals, namely that in conjunction with the maintenance, safety, stability and the self-determination of every group, everyone must be given a say in the decision-making processes affecting their interests.

In all honesty, Mr Chairman, I am not so sure about that. To maintain that this system will bring about stability and the maintenance of safety, totally dumbfounds me. In terms of the present legislation, it appears to me to be an entirely irrelevant argument—it is entirely meaningless. Moreover, how the hon the Minister can talk about the self-determination of every group, when all that will happen is that that executive committee will apparently consist of Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks, is another enigma to me. That this can in any way be equated to the self-determination of each group, I really fail to understand. After all, those functions are general functions. Therefore, how the hon the Minister can say these things with reference to this proposed body, I cannot understand.

Then, with reference to the dissolution of the provincial councils and the termination of the membership of existing members, the hon the Minister went on to say the following in his Second Reading speech:

Therefore, as the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has indicated, we shall now have a body which will have to serve the interests of all the people in the province. What does that body consist of? It consists of an administrator and an executive committee on which appointed individuals will serve. I cannot quite understand—and that is why I say that we shall have to come back to the terminology—what the hon the Minister means when he argues that this represents an attempt to broaden democracy. When we talk about democracy and the broadening thereof, there are after all two essential requirements which hold. The first is that a democratic body must be representative of all the people. That is the first requirement. Without that, one cannot talk about democracy. After all, what does the word demos mean? It means the people. It must therefore be representative of the people.

The second fundamental element is that that representation must take place by way of a process of election.

Can the hon member Prof Olivier tell me whether, in his opinion, the provincial councils were representative of all the people in the country on the basis he proposes?

I am coming to that. The hon member for Mossel Bay should just exercise a little patience. [Interjections.] At this stage I just want to say that the question which the hon member for Mossel Bay has asked, is irrelevant to the point I am making.

The point I am now making, is that the Government is defending this body on the basis that it is broadening democracy. How, I ask, can democracy be broadened when there are not even any representative bodies? Apart from that, these bodies are not even elected by the people. We are therefore just playing with words. That is all it amounts to. I simply cannot take it seriously.

How anyone can say that democracy is being broadened by way of this system, is beyond me. If the hon member for Parow or the hon the Minister can answer me in this regard, I shall be glad. This step is by no means an attempt to broaden democracy; at least not as I understand democracy. If the hon the Minister would like me to give his own definition of democracy, I can do nothing about that. However, according to the normal concept of democracy, I fail to see how it can be said of this body that it will broaden democracy.

However, permit me to come back to the hon member for Mossel Bay’s question. He asked me whether the present provincial councils were representative of all the people. The hon the Minister has indicated that one of the considerations was that those provincial councils represented only one group. Of course that was so. However, I immediately ask: Whose fault was that?

What does it matter?

No, the hon member for Mossel Bay must now wait a moment. In any event, he cannot escape this fact. This Parliament has always had the power and the right to constitute those provincial councils as it wished. The provincial councils themselves did not have that power. The provincial councils could not dictate how they were to be constituted. This Parliament had that right. [Interjections.]

Permit me to continue. The Cape Provincial Council and the Natal Provincial Council were at least basically representative of all the people. When I say “basically”, I mean according to the principles. Until 1936 Blacks were included on the voters’ roll in the Cape and in fact they could also elect members to the provincial councils.

Dr Abdurahman.

Up to the time that we removed the Coloureds from the voters’ rolls, the Coloureds and the Asians had the franchise in the Cape, and they could elect people to the Cape Provincial Council. As the hon member for Bezuidenhout has just indicated, it did in fact happen that a Coloured was elected to the Cape Provincial Council.

Yes, Dr Abdurahman.

Yes, Dr Abdurahman.

The same applied to the Coloureds in Natal. They, too, had the right to participate in the Natal provincial system. However, the hon member for Mossel Bay’s Government saw fit to remove that. [Interjections.] Therefore, the hon member for Mossel Bay cannot tell me now that the councils are unrepresentative.

They made it so.

Yes, it was in fact the hon member’s Government which did so.

Look, he is conceding it.

I ask the hon member whether that is correct.

Order! The hon member Prof Olivier will have to let that suffice because his time has expired.

Mr Speaker, while I was listening to the hon member Prof Olivier, I could not help recalling in my mind’s eye a time, 40 years ago, when I sat at the feet of this hon member as a young student at Stellenbosch, and listened to him giving his lectures. This afternoon he again regaled us with a lecture on what precisely the Bill under discussion entailed, but the hon member’s lectures of the past at Stellenbosch were far more interesting, and far better than his lecture this afternoon. In those days the hon member was able to speak with conviction, for then he also endorsed the standpoints which we on this side of the House accept. But I shall leave it at that. Towards the end of his speech the hon member also had a few things to say about the broadening of democracy. I shall return to this subject at a later stage of my speech.

At the outset of his speech the hon member asked what reform was. He said that at some stage or another we would have to clarify the terminology we were using. In this connection I suggest that the concept of reform is very closely associated with what one’s objectives are and what the norms are which one applies to judge the progress one is making towards the attainment of those objectives. When one has different objectives and applies different norms, what one person or party considers to be reform will of course be regarded as deterioration by others. Consequently the concept of reform is very closely associated with what one lays down as an objective and with what the norms are that one applies in this connection. I think the problem the hon member has with the concept of reform is implicit in what I have just said.

I come now to the hon member for Barberton. I am in agreement with him when he says that the Bill at present under discussion should not be viewed in isolation. The hon member is absolutely correct. This is not a measure with which the Government is coming to this House as though it were an isolated measure. It is part of the programme of constitutional reform in which the Government has been engaged for the past few years. Consequently it is completely unrealistic, and not relevant at all, to consider the provisions of this measure in isolation and then—as the hon member Prof Olivier did— to pontificate on how there is no broadening of democracy in this measure. This measure must be viewed in conjunction with the whole package of measures the Government is adopting for the very purpose of attaining this object.

The hon member for Barberton waxed lyrical about the advantages of the system of provincial administration. Once again I concede that the hon member is entirely correct. The system of provincial administration did indeed have material advantages, but what the hon member for Barberton appears to be overlooking is that this Bill is not doing away with provincial administration at all. [Interjections.] The advantages to which the hon member for Barberton referred will in future continue to exist in precisely the same way. The matters to which he referred will still continue to be dealt with on the provincial level. All that this measure entails is that there will be no provincial legislature, apart from the legislative powers which will, by way of proclamation, be vested in the executive committee. Only the provincial council, as legislature, will disappear. In the argument which the hon member for Barberton advanced in support of the provincial system, he did not refer to anything connected with the provincial council as a legislature. What he referred to was concerned with executive and administrative powers. In terms of this Bill, these remain exactly the same.

No, you were not listening to what I said.

I listened very carefully, because I knew I wanted to react to it.

The hon member also had a few things to say about pension benefits.

I shall remind the hon member for Barberton that when he was still on this side of the House, we had already taken preparatory steps to implement this tricameral system.

No! Never a tricameral parliament!

Yes, we took preparatory steps. We abolished the old Senate and the hon member was aware that that was done in preparation for the new dispensation that was to come.

No!

Yes! The hon member had no objection to the fact that we abolished the Senate because we were not able to establish three Senates. That was an essential step we had to take so that this dispensation …

[Inaudible:]

Yes, we can now argue about the subordinate points as to precisely what form this dispensation would take, but at that stage there was no longer any doubt about the fact that a tricameral dispensation was on its way.

Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon member?

No, I do not have unlimited time. I am sorry. If I have any time left over at the end, the hon member may put his question.

When did the President’s Council come into being?

I am not dealing with that matter now.

The point that I am making in response to the hon member for Barberton is that the Bill now before the House is part of a package to implement the Government’s policy to broaden democracy by implementing a new constitutional dispensation.

Not the tricameral system!

Yes, we can argue about the details, but it remains a fact that hon members on the opposite side of the House, including the hon member for Barberton, had no objection when we abolished the Senate precisely in order to attain this object. Today, however, they are very upset about the abolition of the provincial councils. [Interjections.]

†I want to revert to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. He levelled certain criticisms at the measure before the House and he said that the PFP did not share the political goals of the Government. I accept that. After debating several measures implementing the Government’s constitutional policy it must be clear to everybody in this House at least that the PFP does not support the Government’s constitutional goals. [Interjections.] What are those goals?

Dictatorship!

The first goal is the broadening of the base of democracy. The second is to maintain the self-determination of the different peoples and at the same time to confer upon all the peoples of South Africa a meaningful say in the governing of the country insofar as it affects the quality of their fives.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member a question?

No, I do not have the time to answer questions.

When the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition states that the PFP does not agree with the Government’s political or constitutional goals then he is in fact saying that the PFP is not in favour of broadening the base of democracy.

This is not broadening the base of democracy!

Then the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition should say that they accept the Government’s goals but that they differ from the Government insofar as the steps proposed by the Government to reach those goals are concerned. However, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition stated categorically that they do not agree with the Government’s goals. It is to that statement that I am responding.

Secondly, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition suggested that this Bill was being steam-rollered through Parliament, and this sentiment was echoed by the hon members for Durban Point and Barberton. I simply cannot believe that the implications of this Bill only became clear to hon members on the other side a couple of days ago when the Bill was tabled. Ever since July 1982, when the State President laid down certain guidelines at the NP Federal Congress in Bloemfontein, it was clear that the provincial council as a legislative body would have to go.

As it was then.

Yes, it would have to go, as it was at that time.

The legislative body …

The debate on second-tier government has been going on since then and, as the debate developed, the provisions which would eventually be contained in the Bill became clear to everybody. The argument of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that the Bill is being steam-rollered through Parliament, therefore, has no justification or substance.

Mr Speaker, during all the discussions which have taken place over the years, did the hon member ever become aware that a standing committee of Parliament was going to be appointed to deal with this particular provision?

No, Sir. I concede to the hon the leader that I was not aware of all the details of the Bill, but that is not what he has been complaining about.

Of course I was!

The hon the Leader complained about the fact that the provincial councils were being abolished.

[Inaudible.]

If the hon the leader had argued that he would have supported the Bill if the detail had been different, then he would have had an argument, but he has rejected the Bill out of hand. He asked me whether I was acquainted with all the details of the Bill beforehand, and I obviously was not. His question was just a red herring by which he tried to obscure the fact that he rejects the Bill out of hand.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition also said: “Die agb Minister weet wat vir die Suid-Afrikaanse kiesers goed is.” He went on to say that the consultations which the hon the Minister had had were not good enough. The hon the Minister has been consulting on an ongoing basis ever since 1982 with, inter alia, all the provincial councils involved, because one of the guidelines laid down by the State President was that the provincial councils would not be abolished without consulting them. He also made other stipulations, among them that the councils would not be abolished before a certain date. All these guidelines were followed.

I voted in favour of that.

The provincial councils all accepted the guidelines.

The provincial councils or the executives?

Members of the provincial councils accepted the fact that the abolition of the provincial councils would be part and parcel of the Government’s constitutional reform process.

What the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is actually saying is that neither the hon the Minister nor the provincial councils themselves knew what was good for the provincial councils. Apparently nobody knew what would be in the interests of the people of South Africa except the hon members of the PFP.

Unfortunately the people of South Africa do not believe that.

I am coming to that point. Then the hon Leader suggested that the fives of all groups were to be dealt with by people who had not been elected at all. They will not be elected directly, but indirect representation is not alien to democracy, not even America, the so-called leader of Western democracy. Even the president of America is elected on an indirect basis by an electoral college. [Interjections.] By an electoral college, exactly. [Interjections.]

He is elected by popular vote.

Yes, by popular vote, but through an electoral college—in other words, the principle of indirect representation applies.

So the State President is now an electoral college?

Our State President is also elected by an electoral college consisting of hon members of this Parliament who have been elected by the electorate of the country. [Interjections.]

But is he himself now an electoral college?

The point I am making …

It is not a point, it is a question mark. [Interjections.]

The Administrators and the members of the executive committees will, in terms of the provisions of this measure, be appointed by the State President who, in his turn, is elected by hon members of this Parliament who, in their turn, are elected by the voters of this country. [Interjections.] In the final analysis …

Is it third hand?

Yes, it may be “third hand”, but in the final analysis: Where is the ultimate authority situated? [Interjections.] In this case it is situated with the voters of the country.

That is the problem hon members of the Official Opposition have. They cannot persuade the voters of this country to accept their standpoints. Over the years the voters of this country have consistently rejected them, and now in fact they want to thwart the wishes of the voters of this country with technical arguments such as this argument about direct representation. Yet the voters of this country, at a referendum and with a two thirds majority, expressed themselves in favour of the constitutional reform plans of this side of the House. [Interjections.] Yes, Sir. Now they want to defeat those expressed wishes of the voters with technical arguments about direct representation—we can all become technical about this matter if we wish.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition gave three reasons …

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member a question? The question is very simple. What was the question at the referendum? [Interjections.]

The question at the referendum was whether the voters were in favour of the Government’s constitutional proposals.

No, no.

Yes!

As approved by Parliament.

Yes, Sir.

It is no wonder you voted the wrong way. [Interjections.]

The hon member Prof Olivier now reminds me of a former colleague of his at Stellenbosch who once put a question to a class. He wanted a specific wording, and when no one in the class could reproduce his specific wording, he said they were all wrong. [Interjections.]

The referendum was concerned with the Government’s constitutional proposals. Whatever way it was worded; that is what it was concerned with.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member a question.

Oh well, the hon member may as well ask his question too.

Mr Chairman, I want to ask the hon member for Mossel Bay whether he also told the voters of Natal, during the referendum, that the Government was going to abolish the provincial council of Natal.

No, Mr Chairman. Firstly I never spoke to the voters of Natal. [Interjections.] After all, the hon member asked me whether I said that to them. [Interjections.] No, I am not indulging in glib talk now. I did not speak to the voters of Natal, and at that stage this matter was not relevant. [Interjections.]

But you said a referendum was held on this matter!

We held a referendum on the Government’s constitutional proposals, as embodied inter alia in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.

The statement I want to make to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition concerning his three grounds for objecting to this legislation is the following. He said: “The Bill extends the Government’s principles of the tricameral system to second tier government.”

Racial principles!

Very well, then.

†The hon member for Durban Point has already reacted to that statement and he put the case very well. He said, as I also suggested, that this is in fact all part and parcel of the Government’s policy to implement on the one hand co-responsibility and joint decision-making, and on the other hand self-determination. It is all part and parcel of that policy.

Secondly, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition alleged that the Bill undermines the principle of elected representation. I have already dealt with that allegation. Apart from the fact—and this has also already been argued—that the provincial executive will be subject to the supervision of Parliament through the standing committee …

Only in respect of the proclamations.

No, both in respect of the financial and the political aspects the provincial executive will be responsible to Parliament. That point has also been made.

Then the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s third and final argument was that the Black people do not have control over their own affairs and that their own affairs are general affairs. The hon member for Durban Point dealt with that argument as well when he suggested that, because the hon members of the Official Opposition cannot succeed in having their views implemented they are dissatisfied.

*Because they were unable to have their own way, they decry everything which does not comply with their requirements. Consequently they do not want to recognise any kind of progress if it is not progress on their conditions.

Oh no, man. You know perfectly well that is not true.

No, Sir, surely it is true.

The hon members of the Official Opposition do not, like the hon member for Durban Point correctly maintained, want to admit that progress is in fact being made here, because they want their own way. They want a system of one man, one vote in a unitary state structure, so that it can culminate in Black majority rule. [Interjections.]

What do you want?

Oh please, Sir, for the sake of the hon member for Rissik I shall state it categorically once again. He knows just as well as any other hon member in this House what we want, but he is trying to score a little point. We do not want Black majority rule.

What do you want?

We want a joint say of all the people in this country in respect of those matters affecting the quality of their lives, as well as joint responsibility for that decision-making, and self-determination for each separate community in this country in respect of its own affairs. The hon member for Rissik knows this, but he is asking this question to see whether he cannot score a trivial point.

But I have scored points!

If the hon members of all the opposition parties would only accept that fact, as the hon member for Barberton correctly stated, that we should not view this measure in isolation, but that we should view it as part of a package of measures and as an essential step in the entire process …

Surely that is not what I said!

The hon member for Barberton said we should not view this measure in isolation.

But do not add other things to that!

Very well, then, the hon member need not accept responsibility for the rest of what I am going to say; I shall accept responsibility for it myself. [Interjections.]

I said the hon member pointed out correctly that we should not view this measure in isolation. In addition to that I say it is an essential measure for the implementation of the Government’s package of measures to give implementation to its constitutional reform plan and to attain those very objectives I have just spelt out again to the hon member for Rissik. When one sees the matter in this light, the criticism levelled by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that this measure in itself does not represent a broadening of the basis of democracy falls away.

We on this side of the House have no hesitation whatsoever in supporting this measure because we consider it to be an essential measure in the entire reform process.

Mr Speaker, all I want to tell the hon member for Mossel Bay is that it is very difficult getting any justification for a poor case. [Interjections.] In regard to Black people the hon member for Mossel Bay said there would be joint responsibility in regard to general affairs. The question of the election of the State President has, after all, been debated in this House. The State President is elected by an electoral college which, at present, consists of 50 White, 25 Coloured and 13 Indian members. The hon member for Innesdal has previously stated that the Black people, like the Coloureds and the Indians, should also have joint responsibility for the election of a State President. Surely we have debated here that if they obtained joint responsibility in that electoral college which elects the State President, the Head of State of everyone, of the South African nation, the Black people would only need 13 representatives in that electoral college to be able to elect a Black State President for South Africa. [Interjections.] That is the logical consequence of that hon member’s policy and the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs took that to its logical conclusion when he said that South Africa could have a Black State President.

Today the hon member for Mossel Bay referred to the abolition of the Senate, for which we were supposedly jointly responsible, in an effort to prove that the CP also had a hand in the creation of this multiracial tricameral Parliament. [Interjections.]

I have here a article from Rapport of 10 September 1978, an article which appeared after Mr Piet Marais had delivered a speech in which he said that we should not have three Parliaments for the three population groups, but that we should rather have one tricameral Parliament. The heading reads: “P W pak Piet oor driekamerparlement.” It is stated that Mr Botha issued the following statement:

[Interjections.] It was therefore not NP policy that there should be a tricameral Parliament, and now he tries to involve us in that. The 1977 proposals were embodied in another document drawn up by the hon the Minister of National Education. In that document the three Parliaments were set out and it was said that there would be a Cabinet with a Prime Minister and 17 Ministers for the Whites, that the House of Assembly— this House—would be the Parliament for the Whites and that the provincial councils and administrations would be retained in their present form.

In the document it was also stated that there would be a Cabinet and a Prime Minister with five Ministers for the Coloureds. Mention was also made of a Coloured Parliament, regional administrations under the leadership of regional administrators for the Coloureds and Coloured city and town councils in their own geographic areas where Coloured proprietary rights would be offered to them.

In regard to the Indians, mention was made of a Cabinet with three Ministers, an Indian Parliament, regional administrations under the leadership of regional administrators and Indian city and town councils in their own geographic areas where Indians would obtain their own proprietary rights. [Interjections.] Provincial councils and the projected regional administrations are being done away with. Surely that is something totally different to what we have before this Parliament today! The Government is now abolishing the provincial councils and replacing them with multiracial second-tier authorities. Surely that is totally different! That hon member, however, is trying to tie the CP up with the multiracial bodies which they are creating at present, and that whilst the NP is deviating completely from its previous policy! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member whether he still endorses the standpoint that that Council of Cabinets would contain the representatives of the three Parliaments, having the same function as the present-day Cabinet? [Interjections.]

Sir, I want to quote the hon the Minister something from an official NP document:

The most important function of the Cabinet is described as follows:

[Interjections.] Are there, at present, ethnic parliaments to which the Council of Cabinets can refer decisions? [Interjections.] Surely we do not, at present, have a Council of Cabinets, three Cabinets! Today we have only one multiracial Cabinet of which Rev Hendrickse and Mr Rajbansi are also members! [Interjections.] After all, legislation is no longer submitted to three ethnic Parliaments! The hon the Minister says, does he not, that there is no such thing as a Coloured people or an Indian people; he says the Whites, Coloureds and the Indians, and now the Black people too, are all part of the South African nation!

Jan, you have really put him in his place! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Mossel Bay spoke of an election and the charming hon member for Parow referred to the referendum. Yesterday there was a referendum in Port Elizabeth in connection with the opening up of the beaches. At the moment beaches fall under the jurisdiction of provincial administrations. With a view to the referendum held yesterday in Port Elizabeth, the PFP issued a pamphlet in which it was stated:

Hear, hear!

In this referendum the CP and HNP went all out in their fight to preserve White beaches in Port Elizabeth. Interjections.] The PFP went all-out in its fight for opening up the beaches.

The Nats sat on the fence!

Yes, that party with the many members, but little power, did not have a political standpoint! [Interjections.] They have become a lot of political fence-sitters!

Hermaphrodites! [Interjections.]

South Africa’s beaches will now be under the control of the new provincial government which is to be established. What was the result of the referendum in Port Elizabeth? There were 6 104 votes in favour of retaining the beaches for Whites alone. The PFP, with the assistance it obtained from the NP …

No, no! [Interjections.]

… drew 4 909 votes. Hereby the majority of the people in Port Elizabeth said yesterday …

What was the percentage vote?

The hon member asks what the percentage vote was. I just want to give him a friendly reminder that some of his parliamentary colleagues in the House of Representatives are sitting there on the strength of a 4% vote!

Yes, we are also opposed to that! [Interjections.] But what was the percentage?

It was 16%.

Oh!

If the PFP had won, they would not have asked what the percentage vote was! [Interjections.]

The majority of the people in Port Elizabeth expressed themselves in favour of separate beaches for the respective population groups in Port Elizabeth. [Interjections.]

And the Nats sit on the fence!

Yes, the hon member for Algoa also sits on the fence!

He swims there too! [Interjections.]

The Nats are heading for the deep sea!

The hon member for Parow said that multiracial bodies and executive committees, such as those which are to be implemented by this legislation, were approved in the referendum. I should like to quote the hon member the following from a letter from the hon member for Hercules:

Prior to the referendum the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said that South Africa would be destroyed if Black people were involved in this dispensation.

[Inaudible.]

That hon member nevertheless uses this as an argument for the establishment of multiracial second-tier government in which Black people can also be represented.

The hon members for Welkom and Mossel Bay said the PFP stood for a system of one person, one vote in a unitary state in South Africa. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs says in this connection:

But that is the difference!

The only difference between the NP and the PFP is that the PFP says that South Africa is an undivided country and that a Government should be elected on the basis of common voters’ lists, whilst the NP says that the country is a unitary state in which people should elect a multiracial government on separate voters’ lists.

No, Jan, that is not the only difference.

That is the difference. On separate voters’ lists the Coloureds and Indians obtained representation in Parliament. On separate voters’ lists at the present time the Coloureds are serving on 26 Parliamentary standing committees consisting of 11 Whites, 7 Coloureds and 5 Indians. On separate voters’ lists two Coloureds and Indians and a Coloured Deputy Minister and an Indian Minister have seats in the general affairs Cabinet. Through the separate voters’ lists they succeeded in doing so.

As a result of separate voters’ lists the situation that has arisen is that during the past week security legislation was not passed in the other Houses, with extraordinary measures of the President’s Council having to be used to have this legislation passed. What is more, with separate voters’ lists section 16 of the Immorality Act and legislation involving mixed marriages were abolished and the national service of White boys was extended from three to six months’ duty on the border. Separate voters’ lists being the order of the day, the Prohibition of Political Interference Act was abolished. [Interjections.]

Do hon members know what I am trying to say? By this system of separate voters’ lists, in terms of which Black people can now also participate and be jointly responsible for the system of government in South Africa, the NP has committed South Africa to a very dangerous course.

I want to tell the hon members for Mossel Bay and Welkom that the White people in Rhodesia are also on separate voters’ roles, but they elect 20 members out of a Parliament of 100 members. The White people still retain their identity, as the hon the Minister is so fond of saying, but those White people have no self-determination in the fatherland in which they are living. [Interjections.]

But they have more money.

Mr Speaker, if the hon member for Kuruman is saying that all this has happened as a result of separate voters’ lists, would he concede that this implies that the Whites approved all this, because there are separate voters’ lists and the Whites still have the majority in the tricameral Parliament?

The Rev Hendrickse and Mr Rajbansi forced the Government to concede to all their demands prior to the election and their coming to this Parliament. The Government, including the hon member for Mossel Bay, is jointly responsible for the fact that all demands that have thus far been made upon them have been acceded to.

The charming hon member for Parow asked me a question about the White land area.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon member for Kuruman repeatedly take it upon himself to refer to my bench-mate as the charming member for Parow, whereas you ruling was that my bench-mate had to withdraw certain words which he ascribed to the hon member for Kuruman?

Order! I directed the hon member to withdraw the word “stupid” because it was unparliamentary. The word “charming” does not have a negative connotation but the hon member for Kuruman should now stop using that word.

Mr Speaker, I am really being sincere when I use that little word. The hon member for Parow is really a charming fellow. [Interjections.]

Sir, I am speaking here today on behalf of the Conservative Party, and I am saying that the Conservative Party states that every piece of land to which the Whites in South Africa have title is part of the White fatherland.

Yes, of course! [Interjections.]

I think I have now said enough for the edification of the hon member for Parow.

Do repeat it for his benefit! Do you think he understands it?

Perhaps he does understand it by now. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning’s Second Reading speech on the Bill, in terms of which White second-tier government is being abolished, was delivered in the Coloured Chamber of Parliament. The funeral oration for White second-tier government was held in the Coloured Chamber!

Yes! Just imagine!

This Bill destroys White self-determination at the second tier of government. I now want to quote what Prof Piet Cillié once said in connection with matters of this nature:

White self-determination is a definite prerequisite that is laid down here. The Conservative Party view of self-determination is embodied in our own policy statement, and now quote:

Correct!

That is our definition of self-determination. I had thorough, firsthand knowledge of the old National Party, Mr Speaker. What was its standpoint with regard to self-determination? In this connection let me quote from an information document drawn up by the hon the Minister of National Education:

The Black peoples have therefore obtained their freedom and self-determination by way of independent States. When I say this, it is surely clear, in terms of the definitions of the Conservative Party and the old National Party, that this legislation is an arrow that pierces White self-determination to the very heart.

Undoubtedly!

This legislation—and I want to put this to the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs, in particular—is an arrow piercing White self-determination to the very heart. White second-tier government is hereby laid to rest. Apartheid, separate White government, is hereby being laid to rest by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. [Interjections.] This hon Minister is not crucifying apartheid, as the hon member for Randburg said the other day. He is simply burying it.

In the cradle there is a new arrival—this legislation, fathered by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, who says he has an exciting feeling of expectation about the future. [Interjections.] In the cradle of that proud parent it lies, the product of power-sharing and of political intergration. In that cradle lies the National Party’s hope for the future—multiracial second-tier government. [Interjections.] I now want to ask the hon member for Randfontein whether that is separate development.

Provision is being made for separate representative councillors. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Randfontein must wake up, because in second-tier government, as far as I know, there is no self-determination for Whites as far as own affairs are concerned.

No representation!

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Randfontein cannot tell me, however, whether this is separate development. Yesterday he said the National Party still stood for separate development. The hon member for Randfontein must really wake up now.

Prof Piet Cillié also states in this document of his:

Who said that, Jan?

Prof Piet Cillié.

Gosh!

That was the British liberal idea. In the cradle of the baby fathered by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning …

If I am the father, you are the mother.

No, there is no one in the CP who would want to admit to being the mother of such a monstrosity. [Interjections.] In the cradle of the baby fathered by that hon Minister lies the realisation of the ideal of the 1910 liberalists—British and South African liberalists. That is an ideal which has been thwarted over the years by White Afrikaner nationalism. [Interjections.] Over the years White Afrikaner nationalism prevented the birth of multiracial government in South Africa. Today, however, the NP accepts responsibility for the realisation of that ideal.

Let us now look at the regional services councils which are local government bodies. All race groups participate in the regional services councils—the Whites, the Coloureds, the Indians and the Blacks.

Is that just?

All four race groups have joint responsibility at the local tier of government. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning also said that a Black man serving on a regional services council could be appointed to the position of chairman of such a regional services council.

Yes, of course.

The hon member Dr Vilonel says of course. [Interjections.]

I contend that if a Black man can be appointed as chairman of a regional services council, membership of which is open to all race groups, he can also be appointed administrator of a province. [Interjections.]

Constitutionally that is possible.

The hon member says that constitutionally it is possible. Let me now simply put the question to the hon the Minister. [Interjections.]

He will not reply.

Yes, I shall answer the question.

If this policy is then taken to its logical conclusion, it means that a Black man could, for example, be appointed Administrator of the Cape, Natal, the Orange Free State or the Transvaal. [Interjections.] A Black man could become Administrator of any of those provinces, because Black people can also serve on the executive committees of these provinces. [Interjections.] The introduction of multiracial second-tier government implements the NP’s policy of power-sharing which now includes Blacks: This forms part of the realisation of the liberal ideal of the nation united in one country.

I now want to quote from the State President’s letter. This also implements the liberal ideal. I quote:

The State President goes on to state:

Therefore, if a White person can become Administrator of a province, a Black person can also become Administrator of a province. Does the hon member for Turffontein agree with me?

Man, you make your own speech. [Interjections.]

The State President goes on to say:

“One nation”, the realisation of the liberal ideal in South Africa.

What does the hon member for Hercules say? He says:

[Interjections.]

That is true, after all.

This hon Minister says: “It is true, after all.” But we spent millions upon millions of rand of White taxpayers’ money to establish fatherlands for the Black peoples. Do hon members know that my district sacrificed 633 000 morgan of land to create a fatherland for the Tswanas on which they alone have a say and where they can govern themselves today? Yet this hon Minister says that what is left of South Africa is eveyone’s fatherland. [Interjections.]

If, by the end of the year, the Ndebele say we must excise 500 000 ha for them, it is theirs and they can govern themselves there without hindrance. But in regard to the fatherland of the Whites, the land to which the Whites have title, the hon the Minister says, by way of this legislation, and by way of the regional services councils, that Black people can now have joint responsibility at the second tier of government, and this also applies to the property of Whites in South Africa.

What is that, if not treachery!

Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon member?

No, Sir, I do not have the time at the moment.

Blacks, Coloureds and Indians are now becoming partners in this multiracial second-tier government. I should now like to quote the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. On 2 May 1986, during an NP youth conference at the Calitzdorp Spa, he said:

In 1985!

I quote further!:

Up to 1985 the official policy of the NP was that the Black people should exercise their political rights in their own fatherlands.

Jan, that is a coup de grace!

By this legislation and the legislation concerning regional services councils, the abolition of influx control and the granting of South African citizenship to Blacks, political rights are being given to the Blacks in the White portion of South Africa. [Interjections.] The hon member for Winburg is laughing—that is all he has ever done in this House.

In his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister says that the office of Administrator and that of the other members of the executive committee will be political ones and that proper cognisance would be taken of the composition of the population in the province. Proper notice would be taken of that.

I now want to ask the hon the Minister what the position of White members of the executive committeee in the Transvaal is going to be. Let us suppose the CP obtains the majority of the House of Assembly seats in the Transvaal, which would be an indication to the hon the Minister that the majority of the people in the Transvaal support the CP’s way of thinking and its policy, but in a democratic manner the NP is still the governing party in the House of Assembly—perhaps by way of a coalition with the PFP— and still has parliamentary control in its hands. I now want to ask the hon the Minister whether he would appoint a CP Administrator in the Transvaal, with the White members of the executive committee. [Interjections.] No, the hon the Minister would appoint NP State employees to carry out his policy of integration in a province which rejects integration.

I now want to tell hon members of the PFP that that is the reason why democratically elected provincial councils have not been incorporated in this legislation. That is one of the important reasons why we have this legislation before us.

I am a Cape man and I have known the hon the Minister well for many years now. Let me tell hon members who come from the Transvaal that he is leading the Transvalers by the nose. They go just where he wants them to go and they give him an ovation. The Transvaal Provincial Council accepted the fact that it was to disband even before it knew where it was going. Yesterday evening the Cape Provincial Council did the same, also without knowing where it was going. [Interjections.]

Let us look at the composition of these executive committees. The hon the Minister says that with the appointment of members of the executive committee due cognisance would be taken of the composition of the population in the province. The hon the Minister is nodding his head in agreement. I must say that I think it sounds very fair. It is very just. If the Black people still believe this Minister, they ought to say: But we must participate in this dispensation, because then in each province we ought to have the majority of executive committee posts.

Write, Chris, write!

They ought to be able to get those posts because, after all, this is a fair and just dispensation. [Interjections.] These are the consequences of this legislation which the hon the Minister is presenting to us here. That is why I am saying that this little baby in this cradle is a Frankenstein which is going to destroy the self-determination of the White man in this country. [Interjections.]

Let us look at the composition in the provinces. In the Cape there are 2,1 million Black people, 1,2 million White people, 2,1 million Coloureds and 27 000 Asians. In the Cape there are twice as many Blacks and twice as many Coloureds as there are Whites. If he is going to keep his word as far as this is concerned—and I accept the fact that he will—the Black people and the Coloureds of the Cape can claim a majority of the representatives in the executive committee of the Cape. [Interjections.]

What about Natal? In Natal there are 4,4 million Black people, 560 000 Whites, 89 000 Coloureds and approximately 655 000 Indians. In Natal the Zulus have kwaZulu which is their own and where they can govern themselves. In the executive committee of Natal the Zulus are, after all, now also going to be represented, or they can be, and there are 4 million of them, five times more than the Whites of Natal.

Now I come to the Transvaal. In the Transvaal there are 7,7 million Black people, 2,2 million Whites, 217 000 Coloureds and 112 000 Asians. According to this formula—if the hon the Minister keeps his word—surely the Black people in the Transvaal can claim the majority of the executive committee seats for Black people, ie if this hon Minister is going to honour his State President’s undertaking, ie: We are committed to equal opportunities, equal treatment and justice for all. If he does that, he is committed to that course of action. [Interjections.]

Clause 17 presents the possibility of co-operation between self-governing states and provincial councils. At present kwaZulu and Natal are engaged in an Indaba, and already there is legislation on the Order Paper. KwaZulu is represented in this combined government and kwaZulu’s government, which is represented in this combined government, is democratically constituted by 5 million Zulus who elect their representatives. The Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians, and also the Blacks living outside kwaZulu, are represented by executive committee members appointed by the State President, and I must accept the fact that he will not appoint one of the NRP members unless such an NRP member quickly walks over to his party. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, it is a pleasure to react to what the hon member for Kuruman said. Apart from the fact that we are both in the right-wing of politics, we were in the same residence in Stellenbosch. We therefore have a number of common interests.

I also have a long association with the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, and first of all I want to express the hope this afternoon that I am not making an incorrect interpretation of certain statements he made and which I want to react to, because he placed an incorrect interpretation on something I said yesterday. I mention this so that the hon the Minister will understand that I do not want to make the same mistake regarding him as he made regarding me yesterday. He said that what my quotation in connection with the swing to the right in France amounts to, is that France should not institute sanctions against us. I never implied in the least that the swing to the right in France and the comparison of that with the swing to the right in South Africa, has any relation to sanctions. France can swing to the right and still apply sanctions against us. The fact that countries all endorsed the Christian religion in the past did not mean that they did not wage very serious and bloody wars against one another at times.

I merely want to point out to hon members that if the hon the Minister had not placed that interpretation on the basic political meaning of my comparison between the swing to the right in France and the swing to the right here, he actually had no reply to the point I had put.

As usual!

Either this afternoon or yesterday the hon the Minister said he wanted to tell the hon member for Sasolburg that the Afrikaner had passed his puberty. He said something in this connection.

I said it this afternoon.

Was that what the hon the Minister said?

Yes, that was what I said.

I want to ask the hon the Minister when the Afrikaner people was in a stage of puberty.

Good heavens!

I want to tell the hon member for Kimberley South one can very easily make the mistake of personalising the existence and continued existence of a state or even a people to such an extent that one has to speak in terms of birth, puberty and so on. [Interjections.] I know we often talk about the birth of the Afrikaner people, but it cannot be pinned down to any specific time.

Does the hon the Minister want to tell me the Afrikaner people was in its puberty during its stock farming period? That is possible. Were we still in a stage of puberty during the Great Trek? If that is what he thinks, my reply is that no person who is still in his puberty reacts to the dangers that threaten him as the people did on the Great Trek.

Order! Can the hon member for Sasolburg just explain what the puberty of the Afrikaner people has to do with the Bill under discussion?

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister mentioned it in connection with the changes in our constitutional dispensation.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Do you think it is fair for a member who took part in a debate to take the Chair during that debate?

Order! I took the Chair at the request of Mr Speaker after I had consulted the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition and he had indicated that he had no objection to my doing so. I then took the Chair at the request of Mr Speaker. The hon member for Sasolburg may proceed.

We are dealing with a Bill which is introducing far-reaching and radical changes to our Constitution. The hon the Minister made this remark in connection with the period of change which we are experiencing, in the broad sense. I therefore want to tell him again he cannot tell me the Afrikaner people was in a stage of puberty during the Great Trek or the Boer War. The Afrikaner people’s maturity as a people was fully defined by the time of the Great Trek at least or even before then. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister must not get fidgety now.

With the words “stage of puberty” he indicated that we should not insist on things as we do. He implied that it was really someone in his puberty who screamed and whined about this and that. He said we should act like adults and in saying that, implied that we, the right-wingers in politics or otherwise, did not act as befits a mature Afrikaner. That is why he referred to me, and to our conduct yesterday afternoon, as being attributable to a puberty stage.

I now want to tell him the Afrikaner people passed its puberty generations ago, and this is not the first time the Afrikaner people has fought for rights and things it regards as its own. I want to go so far as to say it is in fact a mature person who knows when he has to fight for his rights. It is a mature people that knows when the time has come to get up and fight for what is its own. The puberty story that the hon Minister reproached us with yesterday afternoon, was really one of the poorest efforts he has yet made in this House. [Interjections.] This hon Minister is pre-eminently the demolisher of the constitutional rights of the Afrikaner and the Whites in South Africa.

The provincial council is a White institution in a special sense. It is not only a White institution, however. The hon member also sat at the feet of old Prof Verloren van The maat at Stellenbosch who could wax lyrical about the fact that the provincial system had arisen from our Dutch heritage and that the Constitution of the Union was a combination of principles and ideas from the British Westminster system and the Dutch system which accepted the principle of an executive committee. Old Prof Verloren van Themaat waxed lyrical about this, and I cannot forget that. The accusation that this is a Westminster system is not true, therefore. Our system is not only … [Interjections.] The hon the Minister must keep quiet now. He always prides himself upon not interrupting people, and it is the first time this afternoon …

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member?

No, I cannot permit a question now, because I have to address a meeting in Caledon at half past seven tonight. [Interjections.]

To create a favourable climate among our voters for the acceptance of the present Constitution, the Afrikaners were told from the beginning that the old system was a Westminster affair, but that was not true. If that hon Minister argues with me, he did not listen to what old Prof Verloren van Themaat told him.

He never listened.

Our system is not only a Westminster system. What we as Afrikaners are objecting to now—puberty or not—is that the very association with our Dutch heritage in our politics is having its neck wrung by that hon Minister without his or any member of the Cabinet’s knowing what they were doing. Not one of them knew what they were doing. [Interjections.]

They act like people who have absolutely no respect for the Afrikaner’s heritage. Their hearts bleed for every little bit of sympathy they have to show to the non-Whites, but when it comes to the Afrikaner’s deep-rooted heritage which extends to our Germanic past in Europe, this hon Minister treads it underfoot. [Interjections.]

The result of this is reflected inter alia in the result of the referendum in Port Elizabeth yesterday afternoon on the throwing open of the beaches. I am pleased the hon member for Kuruman referred to that. I want to refer to it as well.

This result has an extremely direct connection with what we are doing at the moment. Fortunately that city council’s constitution makes it possible for only 26 people to command a referendum. When the right-wingers realised this, they grasped the opportunity. A meeting was held under the chairmanship of the mayor, and the referendum took place.

Right here in the House I told the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central they were going to lose the referendum, and I must say that when I had said it, I wondered if I had not stuck my neck out a little too far. Yesterday morning the hon member for Newton Park still jokingly told me we were going to lose it, and I did not react, because frankly I must say we did not know what the result would be.

The result was, however, that 6 104 people voted against throwing open the beaches, whereas 4 957 voted for doing so.

Where is our strength? Our strength resides in the three NP seats. In the Newton Park constituency, 830 people voted against throwing the beaches open—which is the NP’s policy—and only 572 voted for doing so. In Algoa—the hon member is sitting there …

He has left now.

He has left. He ran away, because he did not want to listen to the result. [Interjections.] In the hon member for Algoa’s constituency, 2 253 people voted against throwing open the beaches and only 399 voted for it.

Good-bye, Oom Frans.

In Port Elizabeth North—I see the hon member for Port Elizabeth North is not here either; not one of them is here—820 people voted against throwing open the beaches and 224 people for doing so. The right-wingers won five of the eight ballot-boxes, and lost only three. The three they lost were not lost with the margin by which the left-wingers lost against us.

I am going to tell this House something this afternoon, although I am hesitant because I do not want to go too far and one should not say too much about one’s own party’s affairs. What were we up against? We had two English newspapers in Port Elizabeth against us. In addition we had the NP, which gave its people to understand they would give Humewood away, against us. We also had the whole climate prevailing in South Africa against us. Our effort consisted of one organiser, one public meeting, two pamphlets and two posters—and we won that referendum!

What relevance does this have to this Bill?

Order! That is what I should like to know.

That is what I want to discuss, but I had to sketch the background and state the facts.

I concede that.

In the meantime the Administrator of the Cape had to take a decision on the Cape beaches and everyone sat waiting for him to decide whether he was going to throw the beaches open or not. Let us suppose the referendum had taken place, the Whites in Port Elizabeth had voted on the local level as they did, and the provincial government was a multiracial executive body or the Administrator of the Cape Province was a non-White. This would have led to racial conflict, but this is being evaded because it is still in a White political dispensation.

If we had lost in Port Elizabeth, we would have known we had to fight until we won, because it has been our policy for 17 years to win by persuasion. What would the position be if we were to win by persuasion in Port Elizabeth, but were blocked by people, who had not been descended from our people and our race, because of totally different political views and approaches? That is asking for trouble. That is looking for explosive points in South African politics, as if there are not enough already.

I want to read the hon the Minister a piece from Machiavelli’s work The Prince. It is about inter alia the question of change. It is the chapter titled: “Concerning those who have obtained a principality by wickedness”. I think it is quite appropriate in the times we are living in. [Interjections.] I support no one’s theories, but I can say that Machiavelli’s work contains a great deal of political knowledge and wisdom, and those who read it benefit from it, and those who do not, lose. In the last paragraph of that chapter we read:

That is the hon the Minister—

Such as now—

The hon the Minister realises he is doing something because of pressure from the left-wing powers, Blacks and non-Whites who want political power in White areas and want to rule over Whites. No one will be grateful to that hon Minister, particularly not the Afrikaners and the Whites. The hon the Minister should read this book—it contains other words of wisdom too—which will make him shudder when he realises that he makes nearly every mistake warned against in Machiavelli’s book. I want to tell him in anticipation, I know him! He will say Machiavelli wrote only about “principalities” and not about “republics”. Of course that is what he will do. We know, however, that Machiavelli’s statements apply to any state and the political life in any country in the world.

The hon the Minister made another statement. He said need and desire know no law. I think he said that yesterday.

I said that about influx control!

Yes, that is correct, it was about influx control. It was in connection with influx control that he said need and desire know no law. I accept that what he meant was that the need and desire—particularly the desire of the non-Whites to obtain political rights in White areas—know no law.

I was talking about the need to eat to live!

I am telling that hon Minister: The man who has the urge and the need to murder is not stopped by the law either. Are we going to abolish the law which bears reference to murder?

If what the hon the Minister said yesterday is true, I want to tell him with reference to the abolition of this measure and the amendment of these rules and regulations, this section of our Constitution, that if the need among the Blacks, the left-wingers, the liberals or whoever, knows no law, neither does the need of the Afrikaner today and our desire to govern ourselves in our own fatherland. [Interjections.] It cuts both ways. He must not think he is going to present the need only of other people to us here.

I want to take up another point with the hon the Minister. He has said on more than one occasion that there has never been a White South Africa. He said it recently, and he will say it again in future. He and the State President said South Africa was not a White man’s country. By that they meant there was not one section of South Africa, whether a magistrate’s district or a province, in which the Whites were in the majority. They are basing the right of the Blacks who are rushing into the country, on what they regard as their majority right. [Interjections.]

Through all the years I was in the NP under the leadership of a brilliant man such as Dr Verwoerd, and through all the years in which the apartheid policy and the policy of separate development were spelt out to us, when the issue was White political rights alongside those of the non-Whites, emphasis was placed on our taking into account that when we took the non-Whites into service and they moved into our area from their areas and lived here even for decades and generations, neither they nor we thought it would take place with the prospect of their getting political rights. Never in the past, not in the old Republics and not in the Colonies, were non-Whites taken into service by us while being brought under the impression or having the impression that political rights, even over the Whites, would be granted to them here. [Interjections.]

Dr Verwoerd said a striking thing in this House one day. I heard him say it myself. If one accepts this situation now and then says afterwards one has to do so because the world is putting pressure on one and there is one thing after another, one must know that was not the case. The NP cannot deny that, because my facts are correct. If they do so nevertheless, I say what Dr Verwoerd said in this House: “If you do so, you are accepting the quiet conquest of your fatherland by the non-Whites.” And we are not prepared to accept that. We are simply not prepared to do so. We do not accept this legislation. We are not going to submit to the dismantling of White political institutions such as the provincial councils. I want the hon the Minister to know that.

Do you want me to be scared of you?

No, I am not asking the hon the Minister to be scared of me, not at all.

Just to hold an election?

Yes, that is all. We merely want to beat him with our arguments, and we want to beat him as we beat him in Port Elizabeth. That is all we want to do. [Interjections.] Why does he think I am putting everything on record in Hansard?

The hon member for Johannesburg West, whose speeches I have listened to very attentively recently, made a certain statement today. Take note of the words he used. I am not saying they are exactly correct, but I hope I am not far wrong. The tenor is correct in any case. He said that the Government had decided at a stage that the policy of separate development was not succeeding and that alternatives had to be considered. He used the plural form.

I am asking the hon the Minister today, therefore, if that young hon Whip, who is responsible member of the NP, could make such a statement, whether the hon the Minister can tell us where and when the NP or the Cabinet or he alone, decided—place and date …

Where is his mandate?

No, leave the mandate for the moment. Where did they decide that the Verwoerd policy had failed?

With respect, such a decision was never formally taken. We are being faced here by a “change by stealth”. That is what we have to contend with. They began gradually, and then looked back time and again to see how far they had progressed. Now, afterwards, the NP tells us that even when Dr Connie Mulder’s 99-year leasehold system was under discussion, they had decided the Verwoerd policy had failed.

I am afraid that is not honest as far as the people are concerned. [Interjections.] If these hon Ministers there and in the NP had come to the decision at any time—and they are entitled to do so—that the direction indicated by Verwoerd, Malan or Strijdom was wrong and had failed, because the Blacks were not returning to the Black homelands on their own—naturally this is not something Dr Verwoerd ever said would happen—they should have informed the whole of the NP at least and in my opinion also the people about this, and held an election or a referendum. [Interjections.]

The NP did not do so! They are taking us along with them while they deviate from and change our constitutional system. They are abolishing our provincial councils, and introducing a tricameral system. The NP Government is taking this course without ever having laid its cards on the table at the cardinal moment! We are not prepared to let ourselves be cheated out of our constitutional heritage in such a quiet way!

The hon member for Helderkruin made a statement which I should like to quote. I listened to him carefully, but he must tell me if I am quoting him incorrectly. He said: “The realisation that the facts proved that the Blacks were not moving back cause a crisis of conscience in the NP.” He said it was “a crisis of conscience” in the NP. According to him the great moving away of the Blacks was the turning point and the starting point of all these constitutional changes. The NP experienced a crisis of conscience about this, and told us nothing about it!

The NP bases this whole approach that the Constitution of South Africa can be changed so drastically, as is imminent now by means of this legislation—it has already been done by means of other amendments, and is going to be done in future—on the failure theory by the NP. They say the whole policy of a Malan, a Strijdom and a Verwoerd failed. I am prepared to make a statement to that hon Minister this afternoon, and it is linked to the last point I want to make. The hon the Minister said:

[Interjections.] The hon the Minister is very fond of compressing what is apparently a great truth into a nutshell, into one sentence. The effect of this is such that it is seldom followed by an immediate reaction or interjection. Notice that he said it was a fact that history and change were inseparable. Sir, that is not a fact! History teaches that there are times when people have not accepted the threatening changes, but have made a stand and fought against them! In this way they sent the whole course of history in a different direction. [Interjections.] What did our ancestors do in Holland? They fought the Spaniards’ tyranny for 80 years! In the tenth, twentieth and sixtieth year the NP followers of today would have said: “Chaps, we have lost. We must leave it now; the Spaniards are too strong!” [Interjections.] Yes, they would have given up. The Dutch kept on fighting for 80 years.

The hon the Minister spoke about the inevitability of history, but in our own history, on the eve of the Great Trek, there were people who stayed behind in the Eastern Cape because they had decided they simply had to accept the British dispensation. If everyone had done so, there would have been no Afrikaner people! That we have an Afrikaner people today is thanks to people who did not want to accept the change, and wanted to bend history according to their will instead of allowing history to bend them to its will. N P van Wyk Louw said “nie soos hul geweld dit wou nie.” The success of the Great Trek was in the balance in Natal at one stage, had it not been for a few women who said they would rather walk barefoot over the Drakensberg than give up the struggle. [Interjections.] What about Gen Hertzog in 1912? How easy would it not have been for him? What a wonderful life he would have led! What esteem he would have received if he had remained with Botha in 1912! But no, only Hertzog walked out. Only Hertzog was not prepared to remain under that mighty British empire. Only Hertzog placed the Afrikaners’ political ideals first.

That is why I am concluding by telling the hon the Minister that it is not true that, as he said, history and changes are inseparable. We in the HNP and the right-wing circles accept that instead of saying that, it is much more true to say that life is the struggle. The man who is prepared to enter the struggle against these constitutional changes is bending history and that hon Minister to his wishes.

Which is easy.

Port Elizabeth is merely an omen and the beginning of his and his Government’s end.

Mr Chairman, at the beginning of his speech the hon member for Sasolburg said he and the hon member for Kuruman had quite a lot in common. He said they both came from Stellenbosch, which is a good association. In addition he said they both came from Wilgenhof, a connection which I personally would rather have said nothing about. Despite these similarities, there is one great point of difference between these hon members, which they will have to settle with one another. I do not think the idea of a White homeland or a Boer state is one of the things they have in common. [Interjections.] I leave that to them, however.

Before the hon member for Sasolburg leaves for Caledon, I merely want to refer to his standpoint that it is not history that causes change. His example was that our ancestors had fought the Spaniards successfully for 80 years. It was in fact the change in history that made that victory possible. [Interjections.]

The hon member also asked who had decided that the homeland policy had failed. No one has ever said that that policy had failed. [Interjections.] I never said the homeland policy had failed. We said that was not the final, last answer. No one passed judgement on that. When Dr Verwoerd debated the homeland policy in this House in 1959, it rested on one very important prerequisite. In that year he forecast that only two million Blacks would be physically present in the Republic in 1978, because everyone would have returned to their states. When 1978 came, there were not two million Blacks in the Republic, but almost 13 million. [Interjections.] No one decided about that, therefore; it was an inevitable necessity that one had to take into account politically. [Interjections.]

Order! Now that the debate on the homeland policy and influx control has been concluded, we can return to the Bill. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, can the hon member for Randfontein tell us whether there is any truth in the rumour that the hon member for Rissik was ill the day he and the hon member for Sasolburg had to resign from the NP?

Mr Chairman, I do not know the hon member for Rissik well enough to comment on those details.

Why do you not ask me yourself? [Interjections.]

Order!

Daan, you are always ill.

On this occasion I should also like to pay tribute to all those men and women who served in the provincial council with distinction over a period of 76 years, to the great benefit of the voters they represented there. I should also like to express my personal thanks to the member of the provincial council for the Randfontein constituency, who has represented Randfontein for 20 years, and also did excellent work in the executive committee.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr Speaker, during the suspension of business the hon member for Koedoespoort pointed out a factual mistake I had made earlier in my speech. The MPC for Randfontein represented this constituency for 16 years, and not 20 years. This does not detract from my appreciation of his good work, however.

The fact that a political structure in a specific form is being abolished after 76 years confirms that the constitutional process is never static; that politics in particular must make allowances for new challenges because of changed circumstances. I believe it would be wrong to try to absolutise a specific constitutional model, which was designed to comply with the specific requirements of a specific time, as valid for all times. I believe that when one does that, one is falling into what the Hollanders—and specifically the cultural philosophers—call substantialisme. I believe that is exactly what the Afrikaner-Weerstandsbeweging is falling into. The AWB takes a specific constitutional model, which was designed at the end of the previous century to comply with the specific requirements of that time, gives it substance, absolutises it, and tries to apply it in completely different circumstances a century later.

Then the CP will be all right again!

Mr Speaker, I support the Bill under discussion, because in my opinion it in fact complies with the constitutional objectives of the National Party, which in turn makes allowances for the constitutional demands of our day. I believe there are two realities with reference to South Africa which no one can deny. The first is the heterogeneity of the South African society. The second is the interdependence of these heterogeneous groups and peoples. Every constitutional model that wants to succeed in future will have to take these two facts into account. I believe this Provincial Government Bill complies with these facts and takes them into account.

The best method of accommodating these two realities constitutionally as well, is on the basis of self-determination over own affairs and co-responsibility with reference to communal affairs. I emphasise the fact that the Bill under discussion also complies with these two principles. Indirectly it complies with the principle of self-determination over own affairs in that it removes those exclusively own affairs from the second tier of government and either transfers them to the Ministers’ Councils on the first tier of government, or devolves them to the respective own local authorities. Directly, however, it confirms the principle of co-responsibility also on the second tier of government.

I do not believe anyone here can deny that there are any clearly definable joint affairs on the second tier of government. For argument’s sake, one can never have three provincial councils which administer roads, for example, which are used by everyone. That is not feasible. The recognition of the communality of railway lines was in fact one of the reasons that preference was given to a Union rather than a Federation in 1909, for example.

In conclusion I merely want to remark that the composition of the executive committee …

Mr Speaker, I merely want to ask the hon member for Randfontein whether he does not think the Bill will lead to the destruction of democratic values and a system of one man, one vote.

Mr Speaker, in the first place this Bill does not make any provision for a voting procedure. It stipulates very clearly that consensus has to be reached. That is the first point. [Interjections.]

The second point is that up to one stage the CP’s own constitutional model…

Just say yes or no.

I am not going to do that. I cannot ask the hon member, for example, whether he still hits his wife, and then merely say he must answer yes or no. [Interjections.] The fact is that in respect of this Bill, there is no question of voting. In my opinion that is in fact the key to the future. Constitutional structures must be created, which provide for a decision-making process which is not based on a system of one man, one vote.

Will this not lead to that?

No, it will not.

Will it not also destroy the democratic values?

No, it will not.

Thank you very much!

It was a pleasure! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I merely want to make a last remark in respect of this Bill. The composition of this executive committee makes provision for the possibility of the overall management of the development of Blacks outside the national states to be the responsibility of Blacks themselves in future. It appears that the function performed by development boards thus far will also become the function of this second tier or middle tier government. I should be pleased if the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning could elaborate on this specific point.

If I may repeat this to the hon the Minister—the point I made is that the composition of this executive committee provides the possibility that the overall management of the development of Blacks outside the national states can be the responsibility of Blacks themselves in future; viz Blacks who serve in such a committee. I should be pleased if the hon the Minister could elaborate on that in his reply.

Mr Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Randfontein, together with the hon member for Mossel Bay earlier this afternoon, made rather curious speeches in support of this measure.

The hon member for Randfontein made the point that nobody can say that provincial system can be relevant for all time. Sir, I do not think anyone has said that the existing provincial system in its present form need be relevant for all time. What we have suggested and do suggest, however, is that the system should be considered good enough to be adapted and modified to deal with changing circumstances. Instead of doing this, however, the Government has come forward with legislation that proposes to abolish the system altogether.

The hon member for Randfontein also sought to make the point that it was impossible to have three provincial councils for the various racial groups. Surely, then, by the same argument it is impossible and illogical to have three Chambers of Parliament for three racial groups. [Interjections.] Why have three of anything? Why not have one, and deal with the situation in a logical way?

It was interesting, too, to hear the hon member for Randfontein ask the hon the Minister to try to explain in his reply how the aspirations and the development of Blacks could be catered for in the new system. It is quite clear that hon members on the hon the Minister’s own benches find this a great void in this legislation. I think, therefore, that the whole country would be interested to know how the hon the Minister believes he is going to fill that void. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Mossel Bay this afternoon also made a number of curious statements, many of which have been explained in the answers he gave to some of the questions he was asked. He said for example that this legislation was part of the Constitution which had been accepted and voted for by the people at the referendum in 1981.

It is part of the constitutional package.

It is clear that it was not part of the package. The package that people were voting for in the referendum was a specific question put to the people by the Government in terms of the Constitution which had been passed. That was the deal in respect of which people were asked to express their option. The hon member also went on this afternoon to claim that there had been considerable consultation. He said that provincial councils had all been consulted over a period of months or years. He must then know more than the draftsmen of the parliamentary White Paper know because when one looks at page 25 of the memorandum to the White Paper one sees the following:

I know for a fact of one senior member of a provincial executive who said the first sight that he had of this Bill was couple of weeks ago when it was tabled in Parliament. I therefore do not believe there has been great consultation with the provincial councils, and the provincial councils certainly have not not any degree expressed an opinion on this specific legislation.

I now want to deal with the Bill itself and the background against which it has been introduced into this House. I think in any normal situation in South Africa the introduction of a Bill of this kind would have attracted widespread attention and widespread condemnation. The fact that we are not in a normal situation at the present time, that we have been in a state of unrest for 18 months or more, that we are presently in a state of general emergency and that there is confusion and uncertainty as never before in South Africa, must not allow us to let our consciences be dimmed by what we are doing in this Bill. Both in the perspective of history and in the reality of the present time this is a Bill of the utmost significance to the governmental structures of South Africa. It is in itself in my view a dramatic signpost underlying the direction in which the Government is pushing us, not towards broadening the basis of democracy—the hon the Minister and his Government have claimed this from time to time—and not towards decentralising powers but it is a signpost in the direction towards government by central executive decree in South Africa. That cries out more loudly the more one reads legislation of this kind.

Provincial powers, provincial sentiment and provincial diversity cannot be lightly ignored as they are being ignored in this Bill they are founded in our history; they exists, they are a reality; and they need to be catered for.

The great debate before Union was whether the coming together of the four provinces had to be based on a strictly’ unitary constitution or a federal constitution. The hon the Minister will know and the Government should know that particularly on the part of the two smaller provinces there were great fears and strong feelings on this issue. That was more particularly so I believe on the part of the Colony of Natal, as it was known at that time, because they felt that, attractive though the form of union was, they did not want to lose every aspect of their individual identity. It was a critical issue at the time of the National Convention. They were fearful of being swallowed up by the larger and more powerful components of the proposed union. They were fearful of having to forfeit their own traditions, their own way of life and their own culture. It is for this reason, when one looks back at history, that in particular in Natal the federal system of Government was favoured. They believed it would preserve some control over the things that mattered for the people of that colony. We know that the majority at the National Convention felt otherwise and opted for a constitution that was unitary inform but which, as a compromise, would include a component providing for certain legislative powers to remain within the domain of the provinces. That was the beginning of the provincial system which we are now in the process of abolishing.

When the Natal Legislative Assembly agreed to go into union, they did so on the basis of that compromise. Moreover, they were not happy at taking the decision themselves but they submitted the proposals to the electorate of Natal by way of referendum. Here again the issue of the retention of defined provincial powers was a critical factor in persuading the voting public or the electorate in Natal to accept the proposals by a majority vote at the time. It was therefore a compromise.

The House will know that Natal has been particularly jealous since then of the degree of provincial autonomy which it managed to wring out of the national convention and out of the Act of union. While it is true that that autonomy has been truncated to a considerable extent over the years, it is equally true that each time provincial rights have been threatened, that diminution of provincial powers has been vigorously resisted by the Natal electorate.

In terms of this Bill, however, it would seem that we are now being confronted with the ultimate coupe de grâce. In spite of past assurances and past compromises entered into in the utmost good faith we are told in this Bill and in the hon the Minister’s speech that the Government has decided that the provincial system must be swept aside.

I believe it is a sad and tragic day for us all. I think it is tragic and sad because of the historical background—some of which I have attempted to outline. I think it is tragic and sad because of our experience in this country of the existing system. Imperfect and inadequate as it is, it at least provided a sound and effective base on which to build better and far more representative second-tier government in South Africa.

I think it is also sad for us in Natal in particular, and not only because of considerations of the past and the present which concern us. It is also the ominous foreboding which this Bill presents regarding our hopes for the future of second-tier government in the Province of Natal. This causes great anxiety when one looks at the Bill. I shall return to that later.

Let me return first to the existing situation. The hon the Minister is most revealing in his Second Reading speech. Apart from the soppy and sentimental sophistry in his introductory remarks the hon the Minister spoke with apparent candour. He did not say that the provincial system had been a failure; on the contrary, he paid it high tribute. He said: “Their role in regard to the powers which they exercised cannot be exaggerated”, and he paid them tribute. He said that they “have done splendid work”—those were his words.

They were therefore not going because they have been a failure but because—and I quote the words of the hon the Minister— “they must meet the requirements of the general political goal of the Government”, not in the interests of South Africa. It does not matter what their past record has been; they just do not fit in with the pattern of the political goal which this Government has set itself. The hon the Minister emphasised that goal and other speakers defined it as well. The hon the Minister described the goal as one—

What we are concerned with here, therefore, is again the moulding of every form of representation into a compartmentalised group based on race to conform with the disastrous tricameral system. This is what we are doing. We are trying to conform with a system which has been in operation for only a few years but which most people in this House and most observers believe cannot work and cannot endure. Despite that fact and because the hon the Minister is committed to the system and is perhaps the father of the system we are asked to break up another institution in order to try to conform with the tricameral pattern.

I believe this is in line with a rigid mind firmly made up—there is no flexibility. This is the hon the Minister’s tricameral system, and whether we like it or not or whether it works or not, he is going to bend, twist and mould every other structure to fit into it.

There has been reaction to the Bill. There has been reference to the way in which it has been hurried through this House and through the standing committee. We have criticised the Bill on its merits and we have also criticised the way the hon the Minister has handled it and other legislation of this kind, but I think it would also be useful to place on record one piece of evidence which the standing committee considered, namely the comments of the South Africa Federated Chamber of Industries. I would like to quote from their evidence, as follows:

That is the view the South African Federated Chamber of Industries has of the hon the Minister’s Bill.

They produce the wealth and the jobs.

It seems there is no point in the Chamber of Industries’ submitting those views because the hon the Minister knows better. He always knows better.

Mr Know-all!

He has made up his mind that he is going for this system no matter what the cost for South Africa may be.

One man, one consensus!

We can look further at what the hon the Minister told us in his Second Reading speech. He made the following clear:

He went on to say that it would “no longer be possible” for the executive to be elected, because of the system which he is proposing. [Interjections.] He said that the executive would hold office “at the pleasure of the State President” and he conceded that they would be political appointments. Then he blandly said the following:

That is the second tier of government:

Lovely!

Of course this is so. In terms of the Bill we will have an administrator and an executive appointed by and accountable to the State President and not to the people. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether his statement that one had to accept the fact that second-tier government “would lose its original legislative powers” was his and his Government’s final word on the matter. Is that what the hon the Minister actually intends for South Africa for all time by introducing this legislation?

The hon the Minister said that this level of government should have no original legislative power in regard to provincial matters. It is true, as the hon the Minister argued, that “Parliament has always had residual legislative power in regard to provincial matters”. The hon the Minister has, however, now introduced a Bill which removes any form of original power from second-tier government, and he has conceded with pride that this is a result of this Bill. I again ask if that is his final word. I think it is very important that we should know what the hon the Minister’s intentions are. A reading of the Bill makes it perfectly clear that he has decided finally that there will be no original legislative powers at second-tier level. If that is his final word, I want to ask him a question of particular interest to us in Natal. I hope the hon the Minister will be frank and honest when he answers this question. How does he reconcile that situation with his comments and those the State President made a few months ago regarding the attitude of the Government towards the Natal Indaba which is taking place now?

The State President has said that this legislation will not pre-empt decisions made at that Indaba and that the Government’s door remains open to representations from the Indaba. It is not for me to anticipate the recommendations of that constituent assembly which is currently meeting every week in Durban. It has been sitting for some three months now. Its deliberations are of very great significance to the people of Natal. In fact, we are doing in Natal what the hon the Minister should have done with this legislation. We are actually sitting and talking to people who are interested. We are talking to Coloured people, Asian people and Black people, and the hon the Minister should learn that lesson. If he had done that with this legislation and with other legislation we would possibly have been in a far better position at the present time.

Collectively, and not separately.

Yes, he should have been doing it sitting around a table collectively, talking to people who are themselves directly involved in the sort of legislation which is being discussed.

However, I want to go back to the Indaba, and I want the hon the Minister again to be absolutely clear in the answer which he gives, because the purpose of the Indaba and its deliberations is crystal clear. The invitation to the Indaba—to which this Government is sending observers each week—was to participate in an Indaba which was going to meet in order to formulate proposals for submission to the central Government for the establishment of a single legislative authority at second-tier level for the combined area of Natal-kwaZulu. There is no doubt about that. What we are doing is to talk about a single legislative authority for NatalkwaZulu. I want to ask the hon the Minister again whether, when he says original powers of legislature will be removed from the provinces, he means that he is closing the door on that prospect, because he claims that as one of the virtues of this Bill. He says:

I want the hon the Minister to explain very clearly how he reconciles that situation with the Government’s suggestion that the NatalkwaZulu Indaba can go on and that the Government will keep an open mind in regard to the recommendations which may come from that Indaba.

There is no question of the Indaba being involved in a discussion about an executive administrative authority for Natal. That is not what the Indaba is about. The Indaba is about the possibility of producing recommendations to the Government for a single legislative authority. We are certainly very interested in dealing with original legislative powers at second-tier government level. I want the hon the Minister to be specific in his answers to those questions.

I also want to refer to the hon member for Durban Point who indicated that the Bill in its original form would have met with the same opposition from the NRP as has been expressed from these benches this afternoon, but that he and his party had decided that because of the amendments which had been accepted in the standing committee, they could now go along much further with the Bill, hence the reasoned amendment which he moved this afternoon.

We specified our particular, specific objections.

Yes, but the hon member in moving towards that amendment indicated that he had been somewhat satisfied and thought the Bill was considerably improved in relation to provincial council matters because of the involvement of the parliamentary standing committee. That is how I understood his speech he made this afternoon.

Do you not agree?

I want to refer to that. I think the hon member was referring to clause 14 of the Bill and he said that this would mean that Parliament and the representatives of the people would therefore have a far greater say in what was happening at provincial level in regard to general affairs than they would have had before. I want to tell the hon member that I think he is giving far too much credit…

You do not have it right.

The hon member is not listening to me. If he listens to me he will know whether I have it right or not. [Interjections.] I think if the hon member for Durban Point really reads clause 14, as amended, he will find that the functions of the parliamentary standing committee are going to be very limited indeed, because clause 14(2) reads:

1. (i) amend, repeal or substitute any provision of an ordinance of the province;
2. (ii) regulate any matters mentioned in subsection (1);

So, the joint committee of Parliament is only going to be concerned with a very limited area relating to proclamations. Matters in respect of which a proclamation is issued will have to come before the standing committee of Parliament, but all the other powers which will be exercised by the Administrator and the appointed executive in the province are excluded.

Finance.

Finance and all those sorts of things are excluded. It is merely matters in respect of which proclamations are issued …

And regulations!

No, it reads:

It is a very limited power that the standing committee is going to have, and the hon the Minister does not claim in his speech that it is going to have any greater powers than that. For that reason I say to the hon member for Durban Point that while he may be satisfied with that concession and while it might be a minor improvement, that is all that it is. We are still left with the fact that this legislation before the House which is going to provide us with a provincial council system which is going to be totally inadequate for the needs. I believe it is going to be divisive …

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member whether it is also not so that the Administrator and the executive, will also be accountable to that standing committee whose proceedings will be public? [Interjections.] Will the Administrator in Executive Committee not also be accountable to that body?

No, I do not think that that is the case at all. As I read the Bill they will be accountable to the body only in respect of a very limited range of matters. That standing committee will be dealing with proclamations relating to some of the actions of the Administrator only in respect of a very limited range of matters. [Interjections.]

Then you have not read the Bill!

I certainly have read the Bill, and I would like hon members to tell me where in the Bill it says that there is going to be an accountability on the part of the Administrator and executive committee on things that matter. [Interjections.]

Can they vote them out of office?

Can they? No, they cannot. Who are they accountable to? The executive committee and the Administrator are accountable to the State President and they still have overriding powers in that regard. [Interjections.] In terms of certain very limited areas they will have to refer to the standing committee of Parliament.

Therefore, the more one looks at this Bill, the more one realises that its intention is to provide provincial government which is totally unacceptable, which excludes the vast majority of the people of the provinces, namely the Black people and which locks us into a permanent situation of the apartheid compartmentalised legislation of the Government in respect of own affairs. We believe it is a piece of legislation which breaks faith with the past and which extends the racially-based tricameral system, undermines the principle of elected representation and ignores the rights of Blacks at provincial government level.

For these reasons there is no doubt that this Bill has to be rejected as far as we are concerned.

Mr Speaker, if there were any contributions to this debate from hon members on the Government side which to my mind bordered on the comical, then the first of them must surely have been the contribution of the hon member for Randfontein who explained how the new constitutional system made provision for self-determination in respect of own affairs and joint responsibility in respect of general affairs in an appointed and mixed system of provincial government. As he explained this, I really began to wonder whether that hon member still recognises the baby in that shawl.

The photograph is a little blurred!

The other contribution I found rather astonishing was that of the hon member for Mossel Bay. With the explanations he advanced and the accusations he hurled at the CP in regard to the establishment of the present Constitution, he seemed to me to be quite grotesque. It was also quite apparent from his reply to the question of the hon member Prof Olivier towards the end of his speech that he did not even read the ballot-paper when he voted “yes” in the referendum. [Interjections.] He did not know what was printed on that ballot-paper.

As was the case with the previous legislation we discussed, namely the abolition of influx control, the legislation we are discussing this evening proposes to remove another cornerstone from the existing structural order in South Africa. This structural order, this system, came into being as a result of tremendous effort and often a great struggle. Time and again during this process the struggle was one between the fervour of nationalism, particularly Afrikaner nationalism, and the chill frigidity of liberalism. This struggle often led to some of the fiercest political conflicts in the entire history of this country and is going to result in the political struggle becoming even fiercer in future. This time, however, the struggle will not only be fiercer amongst the Whites, but will in fact lead to the most serious racial conflict this country has ever experienced.

What is the Government now doing with the legislation before us? It is removing the last remaining tier of White government and replacing it with an appointed political body which, in terms of clause 14(2)(a), is even being granted legislative powers without its being obliged to account to the voters of this country—the White voters of South Africa whom we have to represent in this House! This is why, on behalf of the White voters of South Africa, we have to protest against this measure here in the strongest possible terms. [Interjections.]

When we discussed the previous Bill hon members were somewhat uncertain about whether or not separate development was still NP policy. Some said: “Yes, it is”. Others again said: “No”, while still others said: “Yes and no” (Ja nee). It is a pity the hon member for Innesdal is not here now. I saw him a moment ago, but he has left the Chamber again.

He has probably gone to America!

He seems to be in and out all the time. I should like to refer to what he said. The hon member for Innesdal said the following—and did so quite clearly—and I quote:

I would have liked to ask the member whether he means by this that separate development has now been done away with. Other hon members say it has not been done away with. The hon member for Potgietersrus—and the hon member for Helderkruin, I think—hinted that it is still his policy. [Interjections.] One can definitely espy a split personality amongst those hon members.

I should like to ask those hon members a question. They have in the meantime had an opportunity of holding a caucus meeting this morning, so perhaps they have reached consensus in regard to this issue. The hon the Minister probably attended that meeting as well. Could he tell us if an agreement has been reached over the question of whether or not separate development is still the policy of the Government? Is it still the Government’s policy, yes or no? [Interjections.] If the hon the Minister does not want to answer, perhaps I could ask the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid. Would the hon the Minister of Education and Development mind listening while I am addressing him? [Interjections.] I should like him to tell us whether separate development is still the policy of the NP. What does the hon the Minister of Environment Affairs and Tourism say? After having attended the caucus meeting this morning would he say that separate development is still the policy of the NP? [Interjections.] The hon the Minister does not want to answer me; so we are still completely in the dark.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member a question?

If the hon member will just let me complete my speech, I will give him a chance. [Interjections.]

We are just going to have to accept, then, that we are going to be left in a state of complete uncertainty as far as the Government’s standpoint in respect of separate development is concerned. If I were them, I would rather try to clear up this issue this morning, otherwise it will only be little Red Riding Hood who still believes them when they start distributing their placards and pamphlets bearing the slogan “Separate development is our policy”. [Interjections.]

When we consider the history of provincial government, we find that it goes back to the National Convention of 1908. At that Convention it was this very issue of the franchise for separate race groups in one body or system which revealed how divided the people of the respective areas were.

Non-Whites had the franchise in the Cape Colony, but had no constitutional rights in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. From the time of General Hertzog, however, the Nationalist-inspired section of Afrikanerdom worked tirelessly and energetically towards bringing about a political and social order based on separate development.

Without a doubt Dr H F Verwoerd was the greatest exponent and trail-blazer for the ultimate realisation of this ideal. In the speech he delivered on 20 May 1959, he said inter alia the following, addressing himself to the Leader of the Official Opposition (Hansard col 6224):

This is exactly what we want to say to the hon members in the Government Party tonight. This is exactly what is happening, and we are not prepared to accept it! The acceptance of this legislation entails the bloodless conquest of this White country—in this case, its second-tier government.

This was, after all, the most important reason for the abolition of provincial councils. The hon the Minister said so himself. His words were:

Now this is unacceptable under the new system. The Government is now broadening democracy by replaing the provincial councils with a body that is favourably disposed towards the Government but which has not been elected by anyone! This is how democracy is being broadened under the new system! [Interjections.]

In that extremely important speech he delivered in this House on 20 May 1959, Dr Verwoerd went on to say, and I quote from page 261 of Verwoerd aan die Woord:

[Interjections.] Dr Verwoerd then went on to elaborate on the various examples of what had happened in the European communities. At one point he asked:

Surely that has not been actualised!

The hon member says it has not been actualised. We were in the process of doing so, however! [Interjections.] This Government decided that it did not see its way clear to adhering to that policy!

It became powerless! [Interjections.]

Sir, just as the nations in Dr Verwoerd’s example went their separate ways, so the nations in South Africa will eventually go their separate ways again when the CP comes into power. [Interjections.] I want to tell the member Dr Vilonel that that day is no longer far away! [Interjections.] After all, hon members saw what happened yesterday during the referendum on the throwing open of the beaches in Port Elizabeth.

Mr Speaker, is the hon member allowed to read his speech all the time?

He is not reading it; you are blind.

What happened in Port Elizabeth yesterday?

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: May one hon member tell another hon member he is blind?

Order! The hon member does not mean it literally. The hon member for Pietersburg may proceed. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon member Dr Vilonel that the writing is on the wall. We need only judge by what has happened in this area where the people had to vote on their own living-space. After all, this was what it was all about—and we have now seen what has happened! If this is how the people feel about open beaches, especially in that part of the country, then I want to tell those hon members that open provincial authorities will be even less acceptable in the rest of South Africa. If the Government wants to be honest and honour the promises made by the State President, it must first test public opinion before it can go ahead and pass the legislation before us.

I should like to refer now to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. When he reacted to the previous debate yesterday, he indicated to us that he would give us sufficient time today to put questions to him.

That is so, yes.

Yet the hon the Minister has not reacted to a single question. [Interjections.] I should like to ask him now very directly and very courteously please to answer the question I am now going to put to him, since it also has a bearing on the legislation before us.

On page 16 of the White Paper on Urbanisation, the Government indicated that it accepted the following as a standpoint of policy:

This is a standpoint of policy of the Government and so I should like to put a question to the hon the Minister.

He is not even looking at you!

If the Whites, as a minority group in this country, were to decide that their choice was to accept independence in Southern Africa, would the Government’s standpoint then be “All right, that is our policy, that is our standpoint, you can have that if that is what you want”? Or does the Government only grant this to the smaller groups of peoples, such as the kwaNdebele or other Black peoples who have already received it? I ask this specifically because I know that our people are going to demand their territory from the Government in future. [Interjections.] According to the White Paper on Urbanisation, the Government has accepted in principle that minority groups such as these have the right to become independent. [Interjections.]

I want to refer next to a single provision in the legislation before us in respect of which I should like to express my appreciation to the hon the Minister. I want to express my appreciation because there are measures that have been included in this legislation that affect a few former members of the House of Assembly who were subsequently elected to the provincial councils but who did not receive any recognition for pension purposes for their public service in Parliament. I think this was a serious anomaly, but it is now being rectified by a provision in chapter IV of the Bill, under the heading “General”. I quote from clause 20(4):

I want to refer specifically here to a member of the Provincial Council for Pietersburg, Oom Piet Niemand. When I think about this extraordinary leading figure in my community—he has been rendering public service of exceptional quality on the cultural and political levels since the ’forties—I find myself thinking that it is only fair and right that his years of service, including the service he rendered in this Parliament of the South Africa from 1961 up to and including the 1966 election, should be recognised for pension purposes. His exemplary decision to subsequently occupy an ordinary office-bearer’s position in his party and to render public service in the provincial council, deserves special mention. I think it is only fair, then, that this anomaly is going to be rectified by the legislation before us.

Unfortunately this is the only part of this legislation for which I can feel any appreciation. The whole essence of this legislation is entirely in conflict with the fundamental standpoint of this side of the House. In his speech the hon the Minister himself said:

In other words, this Bill in fact provides for a kind of boundary—erasing process between the RSA and the self-governing territories. The essence of this provision in the Bill before us is that those territories will not develop any further towards independence. After all, why should they if they have already been brought into the central administration of South Africa on the second tier of Government? This Government is working frenetically on this little goggamobil of the hon member for Helderkruin. They are working so frenetically on getting this contraption going that they make laws and discover afterwards that the laws cannot work. The laws then have to be amended even before they come into effect. A particular example that springs to mind is the Regional Services Councils Act. We have already made a law. It was referred to a standing committee, was amended and has now come back to us. Last year it was Bill no 109 of 1985. It was piloted through the House; but now, before the end of this session and before even a single regional services council has been established, it has come back to this House with an amendment to almost every clause of the legislation. [Interjections.]

I want to mention another example, and here I am referring to the whole issue concerning one of the functions of second-tier government, namely hospital services. In terms of the Constitution, hospital services is an own affair. Yet hospital services has always been a provincial matter. I should now like to put a question to the hon the Minister. As recently as yesterday, provincial hospitals could not say whether they were going to fall under the jurisdiction of the own administration of the House of Assembly or whether they were going to continue to be a second-tier government function. At this late stage I should like to know from the hon the Minister what the position is in regard to those provincial hospitals who have to accommodate the own affairs of Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks in one institution.

He does not know yet.

Are hospital services going to be incorporated into the second-tier of government or are they going to be incorporated into the various administrations, in which case the Black section of the hospital would provisionally fall under the control of the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid. I should like some clarity on this.

Our objection is of a fundamental nature in that we feel this legislation forms part of the process of dismantling the policy of separate development. It contradicts the Christian-national philosophy of life that is the basic point of departure of the people we represent here.

Dr J L Basson put this view very movingly in his article that was published in Tydskrif vir Rasse-aangeleenthede in September last year. I should like to quote from that article:

[Interjections.] As it is being jeopardised by the discussion of this legislation before us. Dr Basson concluded as follows:

Sir, it this life blood to which Dr Basson is referring here …

Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon member?

No, Sir, I will give the hon member a chance in just a moment, but I want to complete my speech first.

It is this life blood to which Dr Basson is referring that rises in bitter revolt at the sight of the destruction of a way of life and against capitulation through entwinement with other peoples of Africa, and which makes us revolt against the principles contained in this legislation. That is why we shall vote against this legislation now, and shall do so whenever the opportunity presents itself. The hon member may put his question now.

Mr Speaker, I should like to ask the hon member whether Afrikaner sovereignty exists anywhere in the world at present?

The hon member asks whether Afrikaner sovereignty existed. I can only say to him that with the commencement of the 1961 Constitution it became a generally accepted concept—not only of Dr Verwoerd, but also of the NP of that time—and it was recognised by the world that this was a White Republic in which the Afrikaners’ sovereignty was accommodated.

Mr Speaker, it is clear to me that the CP rejects the measure before the House … [Interjections.] … merely because provision is being made for all groups in the structure that is replacing the provincial councils. I shall return to the arguments advanced by opposition parties during the course of my speech.

I want to say tonight that the political vision of the CP in particular has diminished considerably during the past few months. That party no longer takes the realities of our country, South Africa, into account.

In referring to the measure under discussion, I should like to refer to the first paragraph of the Second Reading speech made by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. The hon the Minister said:

Indeed, I do not think it was easy for the hon the Minister to make that Second Reading speech. I regard this as proof that the course taken by the National Government, the course of reform, is being taken so that order and justice will be done to South Africa and all its people, and to ensure that this country in which we are living will be governed effectively.

From the side of the Conservative Party we heard the hon member for Kuruman point out tonight that the funeral oration on the abolition of provincial councils had been made in the House of Representatives. In reply to that statement, I should like to read something to hon members of the Conservative Party tonight. It is a quotation from a reader’s letter that appeared in Die Burger on 18 February 1986. I believe the statements made by this letter-writer should once again be taken to heart by hon members of the Conservative Party. This person wrote:

[Inaudible.]

Mr Speaker, I want to tell the hon member for Rissik tonight that his conduct in this House, especially during this session, harms the dignity of this House of Assembly. It does neither his party nor this House credit. [Interjections.]

Tonight I should like to read a quotation to hon members of the Conservative Party— and especially the hon member for Rissik, who is so talkative—from a published reaction of a minister of one of the three Sister Churches, who acts as a mouthpiece for the AWB. He is one of those right-wing people who wants to take others in South Africa in tow. I want to put a question to hon members of the Conservative Party who were present in the House when the State President made his opening address on 25 January this year. After reading the quotation to which I am referring, hon members should read the State President’s opening address once again to determine whether a man like this minister sticks to the truth.

That is the reaction we got from the ranks of the CP tonight. I ask them to test this gentleman’s reaction.

We shall.

I ask them, when they test the reaction of this gentleman— after all, this gentleman reacts on behalf of the people who have taken the CP in tow— to test it according to the truth of the contents of that speech. [Interjections.]

We must bring about change in South Africa, and the Government has placed itself irrevocably on the course of reform. Mr Cloete, an expert in the sphere of central, provincial and local government, said inter alia-.

The hon member for Sasolburg referred to Verloren van Themaat here tonight. I should like just to quote one statement from the legal works of Verloren van Themaat. In his work, Staatsreg, Verloren van Themaat says:

He then says something very important:

That is exactly the point we are at tonight. I want to say here tonight, the Government has placed itself irrevocably on the course of reform. In accepting the Constitution in a referendum, two thirds of the White voters told the Government to proceed with implementing the Constitution. Surely hon members of the opposition parties are aware that the possible abolition of the provincial government system was in question long before the Senate was abolished.

We do not know that.

The NP will continue on the course of reform. The Senate has been abolished, the President’s Council has been established and the White Parliament has made way for a tricameral Parliament. We have made provision for separate local authorities for every group on the third tier of government. We have also made provision for regional services councils. The hon member for Pietersburg said that this measure will be amended again. When we find a measure does not work out in practice, we have to have the courage of our convictions to amend it to make it workable.

It is a privilege for me to be able to take part in the discussion of this measure tonight, because, with a number of hon colleagues on this side of the House, as well as colleagues on the other side of the House, I took my place in the provincial council. It was my privilege to take my place in Pretoria on 12 June when the last sitting of the Provincial Council of the Transvaal took place. Many things went through one’s mind when one walked into that place. On the course of reform one must ensure that there is fair play and justice for all one’s people, and one has to take that into account.

When we consider the functions of provincial councils—the hon member for Barberton referred to that today and said the duties … [Interjections.]

Order!

Order! The hon members should not give an hon member such a fright. [Interjections.] Order! Hon members will be talking about people who are disappearing in a moment.

When we think about hospital services—the hon member for Pietersburg referred to that—education, local authorities and the building of roads, …

Those are all general affairs

… I want to tell hon members tonight that more and more people will be involved in a government system by the structures we are establishing. In effect this will mean that the workload of a Member of Parliament will be lightened in the process because the Government of the day will be getting nearer to the people in its communities.

I should like to give the hon the Minister something to consider. Hon members on the opposition side referred tonight to the events in Port Elizabeth. I think it is necessary for us to draw up a charter for the structure we are establishing in the provinces. We must also draw up a charter for the third tier of government to ensure that we implement the policy of the central government right down to the lowest level. The idea of devolution of authority up to the local level is in fact to give people in the local community the right to take decisions on those matters that are their own. I am of the conviction, however, that this should take place within the broad framework of a charter.

In concluding my speech I want to tell the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning tonight that despite all the derogatory remarks that have come from the opposition benches, I want to express my appreciation to the hon the Minister and all his officials who spent hours getting this legislation on the Statute Book. I want to express my appreciation and wish them the best of luck in their great task.

In all earnestness I want to tell the opposition parties tonight that the NP will continue with daring and confidence to bring about reform in this country. I should like to express my appreciation to the State President, the chief leader of the NP, for the courage he is displaying in implementing reform in this country. I want to make use of the opportunity to wish the State President and the Cabinet tranquillity, courage and wisdom on the road ahead. I should like to support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I listened carefully to the hon member for Witbank and especially to his comments about the future existence of Afrikanerdom. I think there is a lot of truth in those remarks for Afrikaners, English-speakers and all of us in this country and I can only hope that we will all take note of his remarks.

I hope that I will be allowed to deviate somewhat from the Bill under discussion in order to respond to one or two items that were raised by hon members of the CP today. It relates to the question of the beach referendum in Port Elizabeth that was held yesterday. My colleagues in the CP saw this as a victory over the PFP.

I must tell them that it is not a tragedy for the PFP but a tragedy for the whole country. What message does such a referendum send out to the world? The type of message that goes out to the world is absolutely shocking. I have here a copy of Newsweek writing about what they call “South Africa’s civil war”. The readers oversea will see that South Africans in a town called Port Elizabeth still had a referendum on the issue of beach apartheid and that this reformist Government was not even prepared to stand up and be countered on the issue of beach apartheid.

So-called reformist!

The unrest is the result of power-sharing!

I think it is shocking that the Government cannot stand up and be counted on this issue. Of the voters in Port Elizabeth 83% could not be bothered to vote, as much as anybody else I pray and hope that there will be no further escalation of problems in Port Elizabeth. If there are, however, I hope that those 83% of the voters will examine their own consciences to find out where they were lacking or wanting.

They are CP too! [Interjections.]

During the course of the debate today the hon member for Mossel Bay and I think the hon member for Randfontein said—I am sure the hon the Minister will also agree—that the new executive committee as it is to be set up is actually a logical consequence of the Government’s policy. Does the hon the Minister agree with that?

Everybody of knowledge—whether it is mathematics, economics or sociology—always rests on certain basic axioms. The body of knowledge is then built up upon that. The trouble with the Government and this hon Minister and his constitutional policy is the fact that he has built up his whole constitution on certain axioms which he has taken to be true, namely that politics must be structured on a group basis.

We in the PFP have no problem with that but the hon the Minister takes it further and says that politics must be structured on a compulsory group basis. That is where the difference lies. The hon the Minister has based the construction of his whole constitutional dispensation on this axiom. If we accept this axiom, there is nothing at all wrong with the way in which the hon the Minister proceeds logically from it.

Why do I say that the basic axion of structuring politics on compulsory groups is flawed? Firstly, and the hon the Minister can correct me if I am wrong, I think that the other two Houses of this Parliament are on record as saying that they do not accept the tricameral system. That is true unless they have changed their opinion recently, is that still what they say? [Interjections.] Perhaps my hon friends in the CP can tell me as the hon members of the Government obviously do not want to.

Yes, you are right.

[Inaudible.]

Most groups outside the tricameral system, like KwaZulu, have said that they do not accept it and the principle on which it is based. Why the hon the Minister then proceeds, I do not know. Perhaps he hopes to co-opt enough people to help him make it work. In the process he might well define anybody who will not be co-opted as part of the enemy and let the hon the Minister of Law and Order deal with them.

As I have already said, it is the tricameral system which has led to the structure of the exco proposed in this Bill. The hon the Minister himself has said that it is obviously impossible to hold elections for a tricameral government at provincial level. One can go further. The position of Blacks has as yet not even been decided on the first tier. So how on earth we are going to start fitting Blacks into that second tier is completely beyond me.

Regarding the position of Blacks, the State President has already set up a National Statutory Council. One might ask what the purpose of that council is. Is the hon the Minister going to proceed with the current set-up of which every element has so far been rejected? The tricameral Parliament and the RSC’s have been rejected and the proposed exco’s are going to be rejected, and yet he carries on implementing this system when he has acknowledged, by virtue of the fact that the National Statutory Council has been set up that we need to look for a new constitutional dispensation.

Another issue which the hon the Minister raised in his speech was the question of the broadening of democracy. The hon member Prof Oliver has already mentioned that, so I will not go into it in any detail. In the present system, at least Whites are democratically elected in a limited sense. I think that even the hon member for Durban Point will agree that Whites are democratically elected. The hon the Minister apparently intends to broaden democracy by removing the little bit of democracy that there is at present and appointing people from different groups into his exco!

Then he says he is broadening democracy.

I would like to ask the hon the Minister a question, and perhaps he will answer it. Will the PFP be represented in the new exco? Will the NRP be represented?

He won’t answer you! [Interjections.]

There will only the Government appointees.

The hon the Minister just sits there. I am willing to bet that if the hon the Minister holds a referendum or an election in Natal, the PFP has a very good chance of winning a majority among the White electorate. That is not, however, the argument I want to pursue with him tonight. The only point I wish to argue is that, given a chance, the PFP could represent the majority of Whites in Natal. However, the hon the Minister will probably not put us there.

Would you accept the appointment?

Would I? [Interjections.]

Would you offer it? [Interjections.] That is the first question. [Interjections.]

Are you offering it? [Interjections.]

Would you accept the appointment? [Interjections.]

If the hon the Minister answers my question, I will answer his. [Interjections.]

Put it in writing! [Interjections.]

We believe in democracy and in elections; our answer is as simple as that. [Interjections.]

Don’t try to save him, Harry!

He doesn’t need saving.

I wonder when the hon the Minister will come to the realisation that the only way the bodies he is creating can acquire any credibility is to have the members of those bodies democratically elected by the people they represent.

He doesn’t believe that.

He doesn’t believe in democracy.

Until such time as the hon the Minister does that, he will be facing an uphill battle the whole way.

Mr Chairman, the hon member says his party represents the majority of the electorate in Natal. Now I want to ask whether they will accept nominations to the executive committee. [Interjections.]

I stick to my original answer. We believe in democratically elected bodies, and if the hon the Minister is prepared to set up a structure in which people can be democratically elected, we shall participate and do our best to become …

Then why did you put that question to me?

The hon the Minister claimed that this was a broadening of democracy, and I was just trying to point out to him that he was going to appoint his own people to this structure and that is not a broadening of democracy at all. [Interjections.]

Again we find that the Government and the hon the Minister are totally blinded by the group concept. Now, I have said to him before that we in the PFP do not deny the existence of groups, and we have no problem with structuring politics around groups as long as the groups are formed voluntarily and such groups can then go out and organise themselves politically if they want to. There are also constitutional mechanisms which can be used to protect those groups. I hope that the hon the Minister has read our policy. I want to tell him he can wriggle as much as he likes but he will eventually come to it. I know.

He will eventually adopt it.

The way in which the hon the Minister protects groups is actually through coercion. There is no other way. I shall give the hon the Minister an example. I see him lifting his eyes and looking to the heavens. Two security Bills were before this House last week. They were rejected by a majority of members of Parliament, but I am willing to bet the hon the Minister that those two Bills will be law within the next couple of weeks.

The next couple of days.

They do not have the guts. They will not do it.

How can the hon the Minister turn round to us and say that that is not one group dominating the other?

That is democracy— one horse, one rabbit!

Is that broadening the base of democracy?

I want to repeat that as long as we carry on structuring our policies on this group basis we are going up a blind alley. It is not going to work, and the longer the hon the Minister persists with it the more difficult it is going to be for us to put things right on some future occasion.

My colleague the hon member for Berea has already mentioned the Natal Indaba, and I do not want to go into it in any depth. In any case, I do not want to pre-empt any of the findings. However, I should like to…

I doubt whether he has even read the Bill. [Interjections.]

I have read the Bill. You tell me where … [Interjections.]

I just want to raise a few points with the hon the Minister, and perhaps he will answer very clearly on these because they are actually very important to us in Natal.

First of all, we are implementing a new system. Now, is the hon the Minister actually saying that he is going to impose this new structure with the exco as it is envisaged in this Bill and with RSC’s as they are envisaged in this Bill, irrespective of what the Natal Indaba may decide? I must tell the hon the Minister …

There is no reference in this Bill to RSC’s at all.

No, I am just taking it a bit further, but is the hon the Minister going to impose this exco as it is envisaged in the Bill on Natal even if the Natal Indaba say the majority of the people in Natal have something different in mind? I can tell the hon the Minister that whatever that Indaba comes out with, it is going to be some form of democratically elected body. It must be, and it is going to be such a body. Now, is the hon the Minister going to say that that is too bad and that he is going to force this on those people and they can like it or lump it? Perhaps the hon the Minister can answer that question for us tonight.

The other question is that as far as the Natal Indaba is concerned, one of the main bodies in that is the current provincial administration. Now what is their status as far as the balance of the Indaba is concerned? Perhaps the hon the Minister can make a few comments on that as well.

Finally, talking about these new exco’s, one of the functions of the new exco’s will presumably be to co-ordinate and to oversee the functions of whatever regional services councils come into being. Those RSC’s as far as Natal is concerned are not acceptable. They have been rejected. It was not the PFP that said “no”; it was the people of Natal who said that they did not want it. I must tell the hon the Minister straight away that I think he could get quite broad consensus on the functions that the RSCs are going to perform, but it is the method of election onto RSCs that is the problem. If the hon the Minister wants RSCs to work, he must find a democratic way of electing people onto those RSCs, either from wards or some other way. Nominating them onto the RSCs from racially exclusive constituencies is not going to work. The hon the Minister shakes his head. Hon members on that side of the House have for such a long time said to us that we were wrong, and we have always been proved right. We were proved right about influx control, job reservation, the Immorality Act, pass laws and many other issues in the past. [Interjections.] Perhaps for once before they learn the hard way those hon member might concede that we might be right. [Interjections.] We have been right on nearly everything one may care to mention up to now. Again the hon the Minister sits there and shakes his head indicating that I am wrong.

I want to make a few final points concerning the National Statutory Council. I have mentioned that it has been set up to negotiate a new constitutional dispensation. Presumably there is no clarity yet as to how Blacks are going to be represented in central Government. We are also not clear on how Blacks are going to be represented on second-tier government. Why then the hon the Minister is proceeding with this before the National Statutory Council has sat is a complete mystery to us in these benches.

One other issue I intended dealing with was the powers of the State President, but these have been dealt with very adequately by other hon members on this side of the House. Anybody who claims that they are not putting dictatorial powers in the hands of the State President is either completely blind or completely stupid.

I want to make just one final comment arising from what the hon member for Berea said earlier tonight when he dealt with the control over the executive committee by a standing committee of Parliament. The standing committee is mentioned twice in the Bill, namely in clause 5(3) and 14(2). However, reading those clauses I believe that the interpretation put on this Bill by the hon member for Berea is quite correct. The hon the Minister started interjecting across the floor during the hon member for Berea’s speech, and I concede that in the hon the Minister’s speech, he makes reference to a Standing Committee on Provincial Affairs. However, there is no mention of that standing committee in the Bill at all, and I would like to ask the hon the Minister, if that reference to the standing committee is going to be included in the Bill, why is it not in the Bill right now? I hope he will elaborate on that point because, according to clauses 5(3) and 14(2) the interpretation by the hon member for Berea is quite correct. For that reason I hope the hon the Minister would not mind elaborating on the paragraph in his speech which mentions the Standing Committee on Provincial Affairs.

In conclusion, for the reasons my colleagues and I have given this afternoon and tonight, I will be happy to support the amendment of my leader.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pietermaritzburg-South is concerned about whether there will be a democratic election and whether they will be able to participate. I want to tell him, in any event, that he does not have to worry about anything. The gap between his party and the governing party is rapidly narrowing, and they will have to pull out all the stops in future if they are to have anything worth presenting to the electorate, because one of these days they will have nothing left. [Interjections.]

As a result of the urgent need, and for very sound reasons, provincial councils were established in 1910. That was 76 years ago.

One can actually say that those provincial councils are wise old greybeards who have suddenly become redundant and unnecessary, according to the architects of this new dispensation. I myself, who served on a provincial council for five-and-a-half years, find it very strange indeed that the work that these people did has, in fact, become unnecessary and redundant. Because the Government’s work chiefly involved basic affairs of the country, and because of the wide expanses of the country, with the diversity of the needs and interests of the various regions, provincial councils came into being.

Provincial councils were very good links in the chain of administration of the country. So, too, the city councils and town councils. Through this chain with its many links, a very effective means or method was created for the individual, the group and the region to have its needs and interests met up to the highest level and in the highest council chamber in the land.

The central government could not give attention to every facet of society, and this resulted in MPCs having to give attention to the very important sphere of education. The MPCs have such a multiplicity of tasks, having to give attention to: Schools, the renovation of buildings, the functions of school boards, school committees, control boards, city councils, hospital boards, college boards—everywhere the MPCs must focus their attention, must make contributions and must act as a liaison between the educational institutions of their specific provinces and the executive committees.

I have in mind, for example, hospital services and all the many spheres in which MPCs have to play their role and ensure that things go smoothly. It is much easier for people to contact the MPC to ask for help, because most of the time he is at least in their own constituency. We are not even talking about local authorities with the many spheres in which service has to be rendered.

What about roads, large and small roads throughout the country, which were largely under the control of the provincial councils? Then there is also nature conservation. Thinking of our beautiful nature reserves, holiday resorts and hot water springs—I have a knowledge of those in the Transvaal, in particular—let me say that these provincial councils have created a paradise for tourists and holiday-makers.

Each constituency does, after all, have its own unique problems that crop up from time to time, and who are the people who have helped, have assisted in solving those problems?

Boland, Boland Bank! [Interjections.]

People occupying from the most junior to the most senior positions could approach their provincial councillors, could be assisted and told how to channel their problems to the right quarters.

Particularly in the case of the CP MPCs. [Interjections.]

These people were the link between the voters and the MPs who had to convene in the Cape to deal with Government matters.

I therefore want to ask whether the Government is going to replace this system with something else. If so, what will there be to meet people’s needs? Who is going to do this? That is a question I should very much like to ask, a question that certainly deserves to be answered.

In his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister says it is difficult for him to have to introduce this Bill. Why does he do so then? A council which has, for 76 years now, taken young and old through many crises, had to close its doors with a golden key last week. The doors of that beautiful council chamber in Pretoria with its historic artefacts, appearance and individual character had to be closed, thus bringing to an end, too, a people’s heritage, but then there are even people who think that attending that funeral was a very great occasion. All this had to be done for the sake of the new dispensation. Even its supporters have their doubts about the success of this new dispensation.

I just want to quote to hon members an article that appeared in Rapport of 11 May 1986 about Die Nasionalis, the mouthpiece of the Government:

I now want to ask whether it is not being reckless to experiment like this with the future, a people’s enigmatic future.

The hon the Minister goes on to say that this Bill makes provision for the establishment of an amended form of provincial government that is in line with the Government’s overall objective, ie that in the maintenance of the security, stability and self-determination of each group, everyone should be given a say in the decision-making processes affecting their interests. We say: What a farce! If one has to share power and responsibility, the enterprise suffers, because one person shifts the responsibility off onto another and no one, in point of fact, accepts any responsibility. [Interjections.]

According to the hon the Minister, on the one hand these changes generate a feeling of gratitude, and on the other a feeling of exhilarating expectation. That is how the hon the Minister feels about that.

I say that if exhilarating expectation is what we see on the faces opposite us, I do not want to see what people look like when they experience a feeling of complete disbelief and uncertainty! [Interjections.] It would not be a pretty sight, I am very certain of that! [Interjections.]

In the new provincial dispensation the State President appoints the Administrator. That was also previously the case, but now he will also determine who the members of the executive committees will be, how many there will be and what the length of their term of office will be. That will all take place at the behest of the State President …

State employees!

… with the contributions made by the one who planned it all, the architect of this entire plan! The voters who have always had to elect the representatives now no longer have any say about who will represent them in those committees.

The hon the Minister also says:

Sir, they must not make us laugh! I am thinking, for example, of the security legislation we have just been discussing. What consensus did we achieve as far as that was concerned? [Interjections.] What kind of consensus are we going to have in these mixed committees? [Interjections.] I shall tell hon members how consensus is achieved. The Whites will have to make one concession after another! That is the only kind of consensus we shall have! [Interjections.]

A further consequence of the abolition of the provincial councils is that this tier of government will lose its original powers. That is what the hon the Minister says. Why are these councils losing their original powers? Let me tell hon members why: Step by step the Whites must lose all powers in regard to their own affairs! Provincial councils must also be sacrificed on the alter of reform! In our day the word “reform” had a sweet ring to it. The reform we are now experiencing actually means deforming or distorting the very essence of our Republic which is, as far as we are concerned, the very foundation of the existence of the Whites. [Interjections.]

Is the eventual product of this search for something else also going to resemble the tricameral Parliament, which is neither fish nor fowl? It has really created chaos; everyone must agree with me about this. [Interjections.] Very few people in the ranks of the NP really know what is happening at the moment. We can read it on their faces! [Interjections.] That is why they simply accept the inevitable and wait for complete surrender. What a long, exhausting, debilitating and nerve-racking wait that is going to be!

We, the CP, will not give in. We shall fight to the death or until we have won! [Interjections.] Hon members must now listen carefully. The golden key with which the council chamber was locked is not worth much today; not if one bears in mind the present gold price. We shall again unlock that door with a golden key whose value will be much greater under another, steadfast, stable government.

Hear, hear!

Mr Chairman, I am pleased to follow the hon member for Germiston District, particularly in her references to the failure of the tricameral system and the policy of the Government in misreforming progress in this country. [Interjections.] However, I do not want the hon the Minister to get the idea that he must be doing the correct thing if he is being hit from both the left and the right. I do not want him to get that idea at all.

I should like to quote from Thomas Paine on The Rights of Man and I quote from Devenish’s lecture on the new constitutional proposals in 1982-83, before they were in fact implemented. I quote Thomas Paine:

That is exactly what this Government has failed to see. They have created a constitution and now, in the fight of that constitution, we have a Bill abolishing provincial councils, not because the nation wants it but because it aids those who exercise government, and that is all.

Hon members of this party have repeated constantly that this abolition of the provincial councils and the substitution of a nominated Administrator and executive are to be seen in the shadow of the tricameral Parliament. They impose on second-level government of South Africa a permanence of separation. They in fact entrench racial exclusivity; they certainly do not aid remaining it. If we turn to the possible legislative functions that should exist at second-level government, these in fact do not exist at all—they have been permanently removed.

Reference has been made by the hon member for Durban Point, by the hon the Minister in his speech, and other hon members to the position of the standing committee and the extension of the powers of that committee. We have taken note of these and we refer to clauses 5(3) and 14(2) of the legislation and I think I should just quote the latter:

1. (a) subject to the provisions of section 16 …
   1. (i) amend, repeal or substitute any provision of an ordinance …
   2. (ii) regulate any matters …

That is only proclamations; it is not the executive government of the province itself. There are no testing rights. To that can be added—on page 19 of the Bill, Part 1 of the Schedule B(b)—the fact that the proclamations have to be laid before Parliament within 14 days. We have noted this, but as the hon the Minister and other hon members in this House are well aware, tabling such proclamations is virtually a meaningless ritual performed in the Parliamentary tradition. So we have to ask what can happen to the standing committee, because we must consider what the composition of the standing committee is going to be. In the hon the Minister’s introductory speech he makes reference to the report of the Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs:

Now let us assume …

Have you read clause 19?

Yes, I have. That standing committee is to consist, as has been suggested, of members from each province in proportion or according to the numbers to be found in the tricameral Parliament. Without going into detail—because I do not want to touch on that detail—let me ask the hon the Minister directly: We are apparently going to have members of the executive committee possibly chosen from all racial groups in South Africa. Is that correct? I ask the hon the Minister again: Is that correct? We have read his previous speeches and know that that is, in fact, correct. So it is possible that we are going to have Black members of the executive committee. [Interjections.] Black members of the executive committee will be responsible to the standing committee that constitutionally cannot contain Blacks. There is something slightly absurd about this. People have hinted at Alice in Wonderland. It is certainly a case of Alice in Blunderland as far as this is concerned. If the standing committee has the kind of powers that are suggested here, why has the hon the Minister not grasped the nettle and said “Come on, let us have a legislature!”? Let us have some real representative authority. Why has he not confronted the need to sit down with people in a particular province to have the second tier of government responsible to the people of all races in that province? That is the key issue. I shall tell hon members why. It is because he has not yet wished—he himself may have been able to, but his party has not been able to—to face up to the issue of non-racial politics, because non-racial politics, in terms of elections at the second tier of government, will mean that the NP would not, in fact, rule those provinces. That is what it means. He has not addressed the issue of possible proportional representation on those executives. It may be that we will have representation by persons of other races. On what basis? A proportional basis? On a basis of merit? Elected by the State President, through the Minister?

Now, certain of my colleagues from the province of Natal, both in this party and in the NRP, have made suggestions and references to the Indaba, and here I do believe that we have the key elements of a structural change at the second tier of government, facing up to the reality of non-racial politics to the question of proportional representation on a non-racial roll—a single roll at that—with a bill of rights protecting the rights of minorities. That is the area we should be advancing towards, and not in fact doing what this Bill is doing, and that is abolishing the last vestiges of democracy, “White democracy”, in the province. I want to emphasise that last point, because the whole question of the failure of provincial government today is that it is White only. In his speech the hon the Minister has said that it is not possible to make provision and so on. I do not believe that it is not possible. I just believe that the hon the Minister has not thought it to be timeous, because if we consider what may be in the Minister’s mind, in his grand scheme of things, concerning this Parliament, an extension of this Parliament to include possible Black representation, the logical extension is that the standing committees, which will consider second-tier legislation, will also contain Blacks at some future time. So what we are, in fact, going to do is create a non-racial second-tier legislature. Why do we not face up to that possibility now? As I have said, in reality this is because the NP caucus, the NP itself, cannot face up to that thought.

I should now like to turn to the question of changes in the province itself, and I should like to use education as my example. Education has been removed from provincial council control as an own affairs concept and is now directly the responsibility of this House, but the interesting thing is that the provincial education departments continue. It has therefore been necessary for the Government, in terms of education, to actually reinvent a provincial council. Today we abolish them but in two months’ time we reinvent the provincial councils in education because, and I quote from the National Education Policy Amendment Bill (House of Assembly)—it is an own affairs Bill—where the following section is substituted:

It shall consist of various representatives, elected parents, the organised profession and the organised parent bodies who will consider education within that province.

Why do we have this? We have this because there is an insistence from grassroots level that people want to control education themselves within their particular province. The Minister of Home Affairs will be well aware of this because he was instrumental in investigating the direction of education councils in the provinces. What they are, is nothing more than specialist provincial councils. Looking at the kind of functions those education councils have we see that they may advise the Minister and the department as well as the provincial education department on various matters. That is all very well. We set it up for a White department. In a province we set up a White education council but I want to tell the hon the Minister that the reaction within the other departments—and I say this to the hon member here on my right—is that they object most strongly to the Whites’ department setting up education councils when there are no education councils for any of the other education departments. What is the logical answer? The logical answer is to have one education council to consider education in a province. This is in fact being called for.

Again a logical connection—and the hon the Minister, I am sure, will be interested in this—is to consider what a Black member of the executive council can do. He can—and the hon the Minister will be aware of this— consider Black education in a province because it is a general affair. So one can have a member of the executive committee who is Black running Black education in a particular province. It makes sense. However, of what use is it to create a mixed race executive when we racially split off the rest of education from that provincial control? What powers—and I ask this of the Minister and the party in power—will a Black executive member have in stopping the detention of people under the emergency regulations; for example, the detention of a prominent educationist like Mr H H Dlamlenzi, general secretary of the African Teachers’ Association of South Africa. He was detained last Sunday. What powers will a Black executive have to stop that? This man is a Soweto school principal, a man who, within the past month, has consulted with the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid and the hon the Minister of National Education before that. H H Dlamlenzi is one of the most respected educationists in South Africa but he was detained last Sunday and nobody in this country knows about it, and a Black MEC will have no control over that. [Interjections.] It can happen, Mr Chairman. The National Education Crisis Committee at large has probably been detained. Certainly, if 600 people can be detained during a church service in Graaff Reinet, then anyone can be detained.

I turn now to the appointment of the Administrator and the executive committee.

Are you trying to shut him up, Chris—sending your man to see Mr Speaker?

The appointment of the Administrator and the executive committee is also covered in this Bill.

Do you want to cover up, Chris?

Why do you not get sober?

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning allowed to accuse an hon member on this side of the House of not being sober?

He did say that!

Yes, I did. However, my remark did not have anything to do with liquor; it had to do with the hon member’s mind.

Oh, no!

No, that is not so! You said the hon member is not sober. [Interjections.]

You ran away from what you said! [Interjections.]

Oh, nonsense!

No, you are trying to run away from what you said!

The hon the Minister said the hon member is not sober.

The hon the Minister is intoxicated!

Order!

Why do you not admit what you said?

Nonsense! Who would be able to say that man is not sober? [Interjections.]

What does that mean?

I take it the hon the Minister was not speaking to me.

Oh, in any case, you would not know the difference! [Interjections.]

Order! Unfortunately, I did not hear the hon the Minister’s remark. What did the hon the Minister say?

Mr Chairman, I asked: “Why do you not get sober?” And I still mean it. Why does he not use his brains?

That is not what “sober” means. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, with great respect, I believe the hon member construed the hon the Minister’s remark in quite a different way to the way the hon the Minister is trying to make out now. I want to ask you, Sir, to direct the hon the Minister to withdraw what he said. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to make it clear that each reference to alleged abuse of liquor by an hon member is not parliamentarily acceptable. However, in the context in which the hon the Minister has explained it now—and I must accept his word—it is not unparliamentary.

The hon the Minister is intoxicated! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Pinetown may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I continue in relation to the appointment of the Administrator and the executive committee, and I should like to refer to clause 14(3) of the Bill in order to highlight one of the particular problems of this measure. The particular subsection reads as follows:

Here again, Mr Chairman, we have an abolition of a convention which has been upheld in South Africa for 76 years, viz that the administrator of a province acts in executive committee. This is now being stripped away in order to allow a single nominated official to act on his own, without his executive committee having powers.

I turn also to other related matters concerning provincial control at the present moment, and I ask whether the hon the Minister can supply us with some detailed answers. One of those matters has been referred to by the hon member for Pietersburg. That is the question of hospitals. What is going to happen to hospitals on 1 July of this year? Will they remain under provincial control? Will they come under the jurisdiction of this House and the other two Houses as own affairs? What does the hon the Minister intend to do?

Secondly, what is going to happen to libraries and museums after 1 July? The hon the Minister of Education and Culture has said that they will no longer fall under the control of the provincial councils but will become own affairs. Will these services, then, be administered in those provinces, or will the administration of them be shifted on 30 June?

Thirdly, what is to happen in respect of the residual local government control measures that are applied within a particular province? I cite, in particular, the control of local government by-laws. At present that control vests with the provincial councils. Will such control still reside within each particular province or not? Those are all direct questions, Sir.

Another question I should like to ask relates to clause 15(1)(c). Clause 15(1) reads as follows:

Are we to understand by that that the administration may be adapted, or is it the law itself that may be adapted? Certainly, if it is the latter, we may strongly oppose that part of the measure.

Lastly, I turn to the concept of the golden handshake provided the Bill, the golden handshake is designed so that people who were elected before or on 31 July 1982 shall be “deemed to have eight years’ … service”. The PFP did propose an amendment in the standing committee in this regard, but unfortunately our amendment was negatived. The import of our amendment was that, instead of the particular member being entitled to the payment of the abovementioned pension benefits he should be entitled only to the payment of pension benefits proportional to the number of years served by that member on the provincial council. We still believe that is the right attitude to adopt. After all, what we are effectively doing is extending the service of a large number of members serving on the provincial councils around South Africa from a maximum of five and a quarter years, if they were elected in April, 1981, to eight years. I wonder whether the hon the Minister could give us a quantitative figure as to the cost of that golden handshake. What is the cost of extending the period of pensionable service by two and three quarter years for those particular people?

The Provincial Government Bill will bring an end, as my colleague the hon member for Berea has said, to the last vestiges of federation which is what the province of Natal called for in 1908-1909. The hon the Minister will be well aware that the strength of feeling in that province on this Bill is extremely high. They are opposed to the abolition of provincial government, not because they wish to preserve a White provincial council but because they wish to preserve a second-tier elected legislature. On that basis I support the amendment moved by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pinetown put a number of questions to the hon the Minister and I assume the hon the Minister will respond to them because they were very specific. There was one little matter which I can perhaps respond to in order to save the hon the Minister a little time later on. The hon member inquired about the clause according to which the Administrator can act on his own. That is solely reserved for cases, as is stated there, “in which the executive committee of a province has no powers”. We are therefore talking about other responsibilities apart from those assigned to the provincial government which may be assigned by the State President to the Administrator. He is more or less acting in his personal capacity and therefore he needs no…

He could never do that in the past.

The fact is that there was no provision in the past for other duties to be assigned to him. That does, however, not relate to his duties as head of a provincial administration.

The main problem of the PFP with this Bill seems to be the fact that it is in their reading of the situation not an extension of democracy.

Not at all.

At a later stage during my speech I shall return to that specific aspect of the extension of democracy.

Firstly I just want to pick up a few loose ends which came to the fore during the debate. The hon member for Soutpansberg, who unfortunately left the Chamber a few moments ago, as well as the hon member for Pietersburg, paid me a compliment by referring to a speech which I made in the House three and a half years ago. As is typical of the CP, they only have a vague idea of what is going on. They quote a speech of mine, but they quote it inaccurately. They miss the whole idea of that speech.

In that speech I compared two chaps who go on a journey. Both of them chose a vehicle for themselves.

You did not like the fact that they referred to your ridiculous example!

The point is that they referred incorrectly to the example. I did not mention a “goggamobil” as the hon member for Pietersburg said, or a “skedonk” as the hon member for Soutpansberg said. I specifically referred to a “Unimog”, which as hon members know is a cross-country vehicle. The whole point is that one cannot use a luxury car to cross the rugged terrain which we have to travel over and that one is much better off with a cross-country vehicle than with a luxury car.

You must quote yourself correctly! You did not refer to a “Unimog”.

That is how it is recorded in Hansard!

Then you changed it!

That is how it is written in Hansard and it has always been written like that!

You did not use those words!

That is how it has been recorded in Hansard for the past three and a half years.

Then you changed it.

I did not change it!

Bring me your original Hansard!

I do not know if the hon member for Rissik thinks that I should keep my unrevised Hansard for three and a half years. [Interjections.]

Order!

The point is: If the hon members want to refer to my speeches, they can really take the trouble to check on how it has been recorded in Hansard instead of depending on their pathetic memories. [Interjections.]

On what date was this made?

The hon member for Soutpansberg even remembered the exact date.

Yes, but what is the date?

I made the speech on 18 February 1983. I have my Hansard here in front of me, and I can send it to the hon member for Kuruman.

That is really not a bad memory! [Interjections.]

When the hon member for Pietersburg spoke about the concept of homelands and the separation of different peoples, he referred to a speech of Dr Verwoerd. He then made the following statement, and I quote his words as I wrote them down: “Volke sal weer uitmekaar gaan as die KP aan die bewind kom”, or words to this effect. In other words, there will again be separation. The hon member for Pietersburg should just bear in mind that where partition has succeeded, as in Europe, it only succeeded as a result of bloody wars which were waged over decades and centuries.

Where has integration succeeded?

The hon member for Kuruman’s question is completely off the point, because we do not stand for integration.

For what do you stand then? [Interjections.]

If the hon member for Pietersburg has a partitioned South Africa in mind, he should just take into account the fact that nowhere in the world is there an example to be found of partition arising in a peaceful way.

What about the Transkei?

The Transkei is not an example of partition.

The TBVC countries were partitioned without war. You do not know what you are talking about.

Order!

A second point which I just want to clarify for a moment, is the question of the whole discussion surrounding apartheid and separate development which was raised by the hon member for Sasolburg and with which the hon members of the CP agree. Is separate development still the policy of the NP now? Are hon members of the NP now definitely saying that separate development has failed? In reply to this I again want to quote from an NP publication.

Who wrote it?

I wrote it myself, but it was published under the auspices of the NP. [Interjections.] It is a publication which is very familiar to hon members of the CP because some of them quoted from it in this House. The following is written …

When was it written?

A year ago. It reads as follows:

Mr Chairman, the hon member therefore says that homelands are not part of the solution.

Yes.

Then I want to ask him if he agrees with what the hon member for Innesdal said:

The point is that the original idea of separate development was that one would then have a White South Africa in which a small number of Blacks would stay temporarily. They would be mainly migrant labourers who would come and go. Then in other words one could speak of a White South Africa where the Whites were in the majority and in command. [Interjections.] That part of it did not become reality and cannot become a reality. That is the extent to which I go along with that statement.

Do the homelands still exist?

Of course the homelands still exist. [Interjections.] The homelands are still part of the solution, and that is why kwaNdebele is becoming independent later on this year, and that is why money is still being spent and trouble is still being taken to consolidate homelands. It is still part of the solution, but it is not the whole solution and it can never be.

In other words, you agree with the hon member for Innesdal.

I do not entirely agree with the hon member.

Not entirely. Fine!

I think it was the hon member for Sasolburg who referred to the 80-year War. By doing so he insinuated that the NP simply lost heart up too soon as far as the policy of separate development is concerned. If the NP had really just tried for another 50 years …

Not so long!

That is the difference between 80 and 30 years. [Interjections.]

The hon member said that if one persevered, it would become a reality, but I am afraid that it is simply not possible. One does after all know at what stage something becomes a physical impossibility. We are prepared to confront those realities and to ask ourselves what the best approach would be under this set of circumstances.

Dr Verwoerd did the same in his time. At the beginning of his career Dr Verwoerd made a statement which amounted to the fact that independent homelands as part of the former South Africa was not something which could be considered. A few years later he himself drew up the policy which eventually led to independent homelands. In his own lifetime Dr Verwoerd examined the policy which he inherited from his predecessors and decided that that policy was no longer good enough for the circumstances prevailing in his time. As a consequence he adapted that policy and extended it to form a new policy. But we really cannot cling to what existed in 1966 just because Dr Verwoerd died tragically in 1966. [Interjections.]

I now want to come to the speech of the hon member for Kuruman, who in reply to a question on where the White homelands were, said that all the land to which the Whites had title, formed part of the White homeland.

Of the White fatherland!

It is part of the White fatherland.

If all the land for which the Whites had title, is part of the White fatherland, where would the Coloured fatherland then be? [Interjections.] It is therefore those pieces of land which are at the moment in the possession of the Coloureds. This brings us back to the point about which we argued with each other four years ago—the CP’s mottled homeland. They have now returned to that. I should like to have a further answer on that. [Interjections.]

Order! There is far too much of a commotion.

The hon member for Germiston District quoted from Die Nasionalis in which it is more or less stated that the question of reform succeeding is far from being settled. She then asked that if this is the case, why we are continuing with reform.

It is obviously no foregone conclusion. Reform is by definition a process of which the final result, to a certain extent in any case, is uncertain. The reason why one continues with reform, is because one knows in one’s heart that the alternative to it is certain destruction. One is therefore in a fix, like the Voortrekkers in earlier years, with an uncertain future ahead. Precisely because one is in a fix, and because one knows one is not going to manage, one takes a chance with that reform.

You are giving in! [Interjections.]

It is not a matter of giving in; it is accepting a challenge, and not backtracking to the solutions of the past.

I just want to return for a moment…

Mr Chairman, I just want to ask the hon member for Helderkruin whether one may experiment with a people’s future. [Interjections.]

It is unfortunately the case that in reality, and in politics, it is not possible to carry out experiments as one would in a laboratory. In that sense, however, the whole of life is an experiment. When one marries, one has no guarantee that one is going to be happy with that woman for ever! [Interjections.] In that sense one must therefore surely take a chance by not shying away from the future! [Interjections.]

On a more serious note, I now want to return to the PFP’s standpoint on democracy. What situation have we had? We have had a provincial council, consisting exclusively of Whites, with an executive committee to which they were responsible on which only Whites served as well, but which dealt with matters affecting all population groups.

The situation is now going to be one where we will have an executive committee—the possibility of it at least exists, although I would say that that is how it will be in all probability—on which different population groups will serve. This executive committee will be responsible to an elected body, ie a standing committee of this Parliament, on which members of all three the ethnic groups who are represented here will serve. We are therefore going to have an executive committee, consisting of more ethnic groups, which will be responsible to a body on which more ethnic groups would be represented.

But not Blacks!

It is consequently an extension of democracy! [Interjections.] The mere fact that a number of representative councils of the Whites are being abolished, simple means that a number of people have disappeared from the process of representation. They are becoming quantitively less. If one wanted to argue the other way around, one would have to argue that the more members of Parliament there are, the more democracy there is! [Interjections.] That is not how it works!

It is certainly a fact that with this one has a body which is composed of more people and peoples and is responsible to an elected body which likewise consists of more peoples. I will concede the problem of how one is going to accommodate Blacks in this does exist. It is a fact, and we all accept it, that the dispensation at the first tier is not yet complete because there is no Black participation at the highest level yet. Because we carry out the responsibility of second-tier government at the first tier, it must of necessity be incomplete at that level too.

This matter, however, also has another facet to it. It is not only the representative aspect which is of importance to people, but who carries out the decisions is also important to them. What do those people who carry out the decisions look like?

Pitch black.

That is why the matter of who exactly the State President is is important to us, because the process of government is also an important facet. [Interjections.] In the past we had the situation where executive action was taken by Whites, responsible Whites. Now it is going to be taken by an executive committee, however, in which different population groups are represented. Whereas in the past the Coloureds came up against a White executive committee, they can now possibly turn to a Coloured on the executive committee, someone who would therefore be more sympathetic towards them and with whom they in turn would have more emphathy. [Interjections.] In that respect, in the fullest sense of the word, the executive action is consequently brought closer to the people in a visible and important way because each group is present on that body which takes the executive decisions. Let us once again take the example of Coloureds who before have come up against a White executive committee, responsible to a White council. If in the new system a Coloured has problems with the executive committee, he can go to a Coloured on the executive committee, and if he does not receive satisfaction there, he can go to his Coloured member of Parliament who either has direct representation on the standing committee which keeps an eye on things, or whose colleague has such representation on that committee. [Interjections.] Consequently he has a direct line of participation in the deliberations through the people who control that executive committee’s affairs. That is why I regard this as a meaningful and realistic extension of democracy. It is not necessarily the final step. There is a possibility that we may extend this pattern further at a later stage, but at this stage it is a step in that direction, and that is why I have no problem with wholeheartedly supporting this measure.

Mr Chairman, supposing the representation in an executive committee in Cape Town is handled by a Xhosa, and a Zulu who is present here refuses to talk to a Xhosa. Do hon members not think a Zulu should also be appointed to that committee?

Mr Chairman, it will probably not be possible to place a representative from every individual population group on such a committee. The Zulu who lives in the Cape, however, would have found before that he was only confronted by a group of White faces, but now he will at least have a little more of a choice. He would still be able to go to a White, or also to a Coloured of course. Due to the narrow scope of this, it is certainly not possible at the moment to accommodate all population groups. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member will concede that the success of a system depends on legitimacy, in other words the acceptability of the institution, and what guarantee is there that any institution of which the staff are appointed, ever has any hope of having that measure of legitimacy?

Mr Chairman, the answer to that lies in the fact that the legitimacy of an institution is two-pronged. On the one hand there is the public accountability to the standing committee of Parliament, which will place the activities of the executive committee under a spotlight. It is therefore accountability to elected representatives. But there is a second leg. Although such a body might not have that legitimacy at the outset, it can earn it by the way in which it deals with the interests of people, and the answer will lie in that.

Mr Chairman, with reference to the question of the hon member for Kuruman I should like to put a question to the hon member: Supposing the executive committee consists of Whites who are Afrikaners, is the hon member of the opinion that an English-speaker would make representations to the committee? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, it will probably depend on what kind of English-speaker or Afrikaner is present there. I can for example imagine that there would be a particular kind of Afrikaner who would find it very difficult to go to an English-speaker, Coloured or Black. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, does the hon member know if the hon member for Kuruman has found the Unimog yet? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I want to put a question to the hon member in connection with the pattern of second-tier government. Does the pattern have to accord more or less with the pattern which is at present accepted at the central tier of government which has built-in factor of proportionality underlying it? Does the hon member foresee that at the second-tier of government—the executive committee level—a measure of fairness, in other words proportional representation, would also be built into it?

Order! Unfortunately the hon member has taken too long to put his question. The time has now expired.