laid upon the Table:

as Chairman, presented the First and Second Reports of the Standing Select Committee on Public Accounts, dated 4 June 1986.

Reports, proceedings and evidence to be printed and considered.

as Chairman, presented the Report of the Standing Select Committee on Public Accounts (Own Affairs: House of Assembly), dated 23 April 1986.

Report, proceedings and evidence to be printed and considered.

on behalf of the Chairman, presented the Fourth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Education and Development Aid, dated 20 June 1986, as follows:

Report to be considered.

as Chairman, presented the printed Tenth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Home Affairs, dated 18 June 1986, as follows:

1. 1. Terms of Reference

1. 2. Modus operandi
   1. 2.1 Your Committee heard expert evidence from several Government Departments in connection with the whole question of citizenship.
   2. 2.2 A number of memoranda were also submitted to the Committee.
2. 3. Observations
   1. 3.1 Certain members of the Committee were in principle opposed to the Bill as a whole and adopted the point of view that full South African citizenship should automatically be granted to all citizens of the TBVC states, that is to say citizens inside as well as outside such states.
   2. 3.2 Other members were opposed to the Bill for other reasons.
   3. 3.3 The Committee conducted its deliberations within the framework of the given constitutional premise, namely the existence of geographically sovereign independent states which in terms of laws of the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa have the sole say over the citizenship of people within their areas.
   4. 3.4 The Status Acts of the TBVC states (Transkei (Act No 100 of 1976), Ciskei (Act No 110 of 1981), Venda (Act No 107 of 1979) and Bophuthatswana (Act No 89 of 1977) were also taken into account.
   5. 3.5 The Committee respected the existing international agreements between the South African Government and the governments of the independent states. Compare for example the agreement with Bophuthatswana whereby its citizens in the Republic of South Africa (see section 6(3) of the Status of Bophuthatswana Act) must indicate that they renounce their citizenship of Bophuthatswana.
   6. 3.6 The Committee felt that there might be specific categories of TBVC citizens within such states whose citizenship position in respect of the Republic of South Africa should be further regulated by means of intergovernmental agreements.
   7. 3.7 The Committee’s terms of reference did not include the consideration of the citizenship of Blacks of the national states in terms of the National States Citizenship Act (Act No 26 of 1970) outside those states.
3. 4. Findings
   1. 4.1 The Committee is convinced that in respect of the restoration of South African citizenship the provisions of the Bill give the benefit of the doubt to citizens of the TBVC states who apply for South African citizenship. The Committee is therefore of the opinion that the interpretation of the words “permanent residence”, in the ordinary sense of the words, will not adversely affect people with TBVC citizenship who apply for South African citizenship in terms of the Act.
   2. 4.2 The Committee finds that the categories which qualify for citizenship, as contained in the Bill, namely birth, descent, registration and naturalisation, will cover all the people who may possibly qualify.
4. 5. Recommendations
   1. 5.1 The Committee recommends that clause 6 of the Bill be amended to ensure beyond all doubt that a person who obtains South African citizenship in terms of the provisions of this Bill, cannot lose it in terms of other laws.
   2. 5.2 For the rest the Committee recommends the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The customary comprehensive explanatory memorandum on the Bill has already been made available, and it is therefore unnecessary for me to go through the legislation clause by clause. Instead, I shall deal with certain taxation-related measures and certain features of the Bill.

The Margo Commission is nearing the end of its mammoth task and is presently engaged in drawing up its report and recommendations. Just when the commission’s report will become available is not known, and it would be idle to speculate on the contents of that report. Suffice it to say that the report is likely to require months of careful study before its implications can be fully weighed and decisions taken. The Government will, however, move as quickly as possible to implement such recommendations of the commission as it is able to accept.

Firstly, I want to deal with sponsorships. Much criticism has already been voiced in public in connection with these proposals. The decision to grant a measure of tax relief to those companies which have chosen to sponsor certain international events was not lightly taken. It is to be expected that those persons who have no interest in sport or other forms of international competition will feel that some portion of their contribution to the fisc has been misapplied. Others—and there are many of them—will argue that it is money well spent and will plead for more events of the type we have seen during the past months. The Government feels strongly that, particularly at a time like the present, some fostering of international events can only be in the public interest. Hon members will note that the concession is not confined to sporting events but extends also to those of a cultural or educational nature.

As hon members will know, the second schedule to the Act lays down rules for determining what portion—if any—of the lump sum benefit paid by a pension, provident or retirement annuity fund is subject to tax. It is customary to review from time to time the figures used in the formulas found in the schedule and to increase them in such a way as to bring them more or less into line with current conditions. The last adjustment to the figures was made in 1983 and, since the Budget Speech on 17 March this year, the figures have again been reviewed. It has been decided to increase all the figures by 50% thus affording relief to persons who retire from now onwards and who, because of inflation will be receiving larger lump sum benefits than would otherwise have been the case.

And now a few words on the subject of tax avoidance. As King Solomon pointed out, there is nothing new under the sun, and this is certainly true when it comes to tax avoidance. During the Napoleonic Wars the wealthy in Britain avoided the new window tax by the simple expedient of bricking up some of the windows in their houses. When, some time during the last century, the Turks imposed a tree tax in the Middle East, the response was to cut down trees on a large scale with disastrous results.

In our country we have had to make material amendments to our law during the past couple of years in order to staunch the loss of revenue arising from involved schemes worked out by tax experts. In some cases taxation provisions are interpreted so as to provide benefits not intended by the legislation. While it is conceded that legislation which affects transactions retrospectively should be avoided where possible, the need for all taxpayers to be accorded equal treatment must also be borne in mind. We have therefore been obliged in terms of clause 14 of this Bill to make further amendments to section 22 of the Act in order to clarify the meaning of certain provisions relating to the determination of the Lifo stock reserve, provision which were acceptable to most persons but which were being challenged by a few taxpayers with a view to securing a double tax advantage.

As hon members will note, this particular amendment is retrospective to 1 April 1984. This is in the interests of the majority of taxpayers who applied the 1984 amendment in the spirit of the legislation and affects only those taxpayers who are seeking to claim a double advantage.

Hon members will note that clauses 31 and 32 introduce further amendments to the sixth schedule to the Act. Full details of these amendments are given in the explanatory memorandum. Unhappily, another attempt has been made by certain sectors of the insurance industry to exploit what is regarded as a weakness in the schedule. The Commissioner for Inland Revenue has already informed the Life Officers Association that the loophole would be closed, which means that this amendment comes as no surprise to anyone.

Other forms of tax avoidance are taking place at present which are causing a loss of revenue, besides having undesirable side effects. These schemes are being examined and, when the time is ripe, suitable amending legislation will be introduced.

Finally I would draw the attention of hon members to clause 23 of the Bill which introduces a new section 105A into the Act. The need for such a provision, which empowers the Commissioner to report unprofessional conduct relating to taxation matters, has been felt for some years now, and the legislation was drawn up after consultation with the accounting and legal professions which understand the need for such a provision and are not opposed to it. While the new section may not be welcome in all quarters, it will serve to raise the high standards set by the professions even further, and enable any persons who do not abide by those standards to be dealt with by their peers.

Hon members have my assurance that the section will only be invoked in aggravated cases and that the decision to report a professional man to his controlling body will be taken by the Commissioner personally. The power to act under the section will in no circumstances be delegated to any other officer.

To sum up, the Bill gives effect to our Budget proposals, provides for certain concessions and introduces amendments for the better administration of the Act.

Mr Speaker, I should like to begin my speech by paying tribute to Mr Schweppenhäuser who, we were informed the other day, is about to retire. Mr Schweppenhäuser is actually, to my mind, the epitome of the gentle tough guy. He is a gentleman in the true sense of the word. One must not underestimate him, though, because while he is courteous and helpful, he actually is not only extremely competent but can also be extremely tough. Those, I believe, are the qualities which one requires from the Commissioner for Inland Revenue. I must tell you, Sir, I have great respect for him, and I believe we will miss him after his departure from the particular office he has held. I only want to warn him though that there is a tendency on the part of retiring Commissioners for Inland Revenue to join the other side in order to provide assistance on how to avoid tax. I should prefer that he stayed on our side and rather made himself available for consultation and for assistance in relation to future tax measures which may be forthcoming.

While I am addressing myself to this specific aspect, I also want to point out that the staff of the Commissioner for Inland Revenue, and particularly the people with whom we deal as parliamentarians, I believe, are not only helpful and courteous, but also able and competent. I believe they provide an extremely good service to our community in order to ensure that there is not only a proper administration of the taxes but equity in the application of taxes too. In paying tribute to Mr Schweppenhäuser I should therefore like also to include his colleagues.

Having said that, Sir, I now move the following amendment to the hon the Minister’s motion:

Having said what I said about the Commissioner for Inland Revenue, I should like now to enter round number three of this boxing match which began the other day. I want to say right at the very beginning that insofar as I am concerned I have always believed in the concept that if one cannot stand the heat in the kitchen one must get out. I, for one, enjoy the heat in the kitchen. I also enjoy the cooking. I enjoy what goes on in the kitchen, and I do not intend to get out.

I should like to refer now to the hon the Minister himself, Sir. The other day he quoted a list of what he thought were examples of the terminology used by me. I want to tell you, Sir, that when it comes to being the master of invective and of nastiness, I believe I take second place to the hon the Minister, and I concede that he is better than I am. I want to list now, Sir, some of the words and phrases the hon the Minister used in his references to me such as “gross incompetence”, “that is rubbish”, “we shall try to find you a job next time as well”, “we will announce something for you, too”, “ranted and raved”, “foul mood”, “outburst”, “pent-up frustration”, “meanness” and “a destroying, all-consuming frustration at having to sit in opposition benches for a long time”.

Sir, one has to go far in order to beat that. I should like to say to the hon the Minister I do not pretend that I am lily-white. I should like to say, for instance, to the hon the Minister of Communications that, without having been asked to do so, I want to withdraw what I said about him, and I want to apologise. When he intervened in this debate and told me to shut up, I thought that that was inappropriate. On reflection, however, I think it was wrong of me to refer to him in the way I did. So I apologise for it and I withdraw it. Likewise, if there are other hon members who felt offended at something I said, I apologise for that too. I really did not intend to offend people.

Still, Sir, when it comes to invective, I get back more than I dish out. Whereas I do not agree with the hon the Minister’s claims in other respects, I take second place to him and his colleagues when it comes to invective. That much I will concede.

There is, however, something else I should like to tell the hon the Minister, which is why I moved the amendment I did. He said I was angry and frustrated. That is quite true. I should, however, like to tell him why I am angry and frustrated. I am angry and frustrated because South Africa does not belong to the NP. South Africa belongs to all of us. It belongs to the people here, and it is in an unbelievable mess. As far as we are concerned, we have tried hard over the years to make constructive suggestions in regard to how matters should be improved in South Africa, but our pleas have fallen on deaf ears year after year. What has been happening, however, is that years later the NP comes along and does the very thing we suggested at the outset. Unfortunately, those actions then no longer have the effect they would have had at the time we suggested them.

We have classic examples of that, not only in the fields of economics and finance, but also in the field of politics. I want the hon the Minister to tell me today whether, looking at things in retrospect, his Government would still have abolished exchange control when it did. Would his Government have abolished the financial rand when it did? Looking back now, would he not have introduced measures to alleviate unemployment earlier than he did? I should also like to ask him whether he realises now that, once unemployment has started on this massive scale, it is far more difficult to deal with it. Furthermore, does he not realise yet that unemployment is one of the major causes of the turmoil and unrest that all of us are so unhappy about in South Africa?

I can cite another example, this time in the political field. The other day in this House we passed a Bill which will lead to the abolition of influx control. People then congratulated my colleague, the hon member for Houghton. Why did they congratulate her? They did so because she had the foresight, the intelligence and the reasoning ability to realise that, if one does not do things at the right time, by the time one eventually does them it is too late. We can just look at the effect which the repeal of the influx control measures has now. It has had very little impact on South Africa.

If the Government had listened to us—I say this with great respect and I want the hon members on the other side of the House to think about it—at the time when we protested lawfully and properly in the streets of Johannesburg against the removal of Coloured representation from Parliament, how different would South Africa not have been today? If the Government had listened to us when, way back, we appealed for the repeal of the influx control measures, if it had listened to the hon member for Houghton when she stood here alone, how different would South Africa not have been today? This is why I appeal to the hon members on that side of the House to try to understand our frustration and our strength of feeling. We feel frustrated, but not because of sitting in the Opposition benches, as the hon the Minister suggested. We sit here in the Opposition benches by choice. We have certain beliefs which we feel are in the interests of the country. Hon members must understand that, when we on these benches see our country in trouble—not the Nationalist Party’s country, but the country of everyone in South Africa—we become frustrated and feel strongly that something must be done in the interests of South Africa.

There are also two other things which need to be said. The hon the Minister and others have been talking about the need for us to make a joint effort in order to set South Africa right. The hon members on that side of the House, however, seem to think that co-operative effort means agreeing with them! What co-operative effort really means, however, is getting together and trying to devise a method of solving a problem. It does not mean that one looks for power or position. Rather, it means that one believes that one can contribute—and should indeed be allowed to contribute—to the formulation of solution for the problems of South Africa. Nobody has the monopoly of wisdom, not even the hon the Minister of Finance. Nobody has it; I do not claim to have it. If the Government want to solve the problems of South African they should not say co-operation means agreeing with them. They should say: “This is our view; let us try to get together and work out a way of solving the problems of South Africa.” The hon the Minister knows that that has been my attitude from the day that he came into office. That has been my attitude throughout; it is also the attitude I expressed to him. Despite all the fighting, arguments and abuse, that is still my attitude. My attitude is still today that if the hon the Minister wants co-operation and he wants us to help, we will give our co-operation and assistance. We expect nothing in return except that he should listen to us and should at least try to formulate ideas in which he includes our input. That does not mean membership of committees, or jobs; it means merely the ordinary parliamentary procedure and the co-operation between human beings who see their country in flames and see the turmoil and trouble and want to avoid it at all costs. That is all we ask in this regard.

There is another thing that I want to point out, with respect, to the hon the Minister, and it is very relevant to this issue. He used the words that he was “sick and tired”—I can quote the exact words but this is a fair paraphrase—of attacks that were actually attacks upon his advisers. He said we should not attack his advisers. The advisers are not being attacked. The political responsibility for decisions rests with the hon the Minister and his Government. He takes advice, but the issue of whether or not a decision is made is not the responsibility of the officials; it is the responsibility of the political heads. It is no use to do as his predecessor did. Every time one attacked his predecessor, he said one was attacking his officials. Now this hon the Minister is doing the same thing. I think it ill becomes him and it ill becomes the Government. There are other Ministers who do not do that. The hon the Minister of Transport Affairs does not do it. When one attacks him, he takes the responsibility and he says that is what he is here for and that is his decision.

You are making an excellent speech. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of Finance would do well to follow the example of the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs in this regard. Political responsibility is responsibility for decisions. One takes advice and listens to one’s officials; they make the input, but the final decision is that of the political head and the final responsibility is his as well.

Let us now come to the Bill itself. I want to say at the outset that I invite the hon the Minister to tell us where in this measure there is anything effective or substantial to deal with unemployment, to encourage investment, to restore confidence, to give people the incentive to save and to invest in a meaningful fashion, and to create jobs. Those are the things that we need in South Africa and unfortunately we do not find them in this particular measure.

Let us examine some of the things which are contained in this Bill and deal with some of the issues which are pertinent to this. I want to say right at the beginning that in so far as taxation is concerned we are now told that we have to wait for the Margo Commission’s report in respect of major things which have to be altered. We obviously await that report with expectation, but we think that when the report is tabled it should immediately be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and that committee should consider it together with the officials of the department and should actually make recommendations to the hon the Minister. That is machinery which exists; it is machinery through which there can be the co-operation and input that we referred to, and we believe that that is how that report should be dealt with. However, what worries me in regard to taxation proposals, and what worries me in anticipation of the report, is whether any new taxation package for South Africa will be, as it must, a taxation package for the new South Africa, for the kind of South Africa there is going to be in the years ahead. It should not be a textbook package which relates to other countries with other problems. It has to relate to South Africa and the major problems which confront us. These are the problems of job creation, and the problems of incentives to work and invest and the problems of seeing to it that the aspirations of the South African people are fulfilled. That is what a taxation system needs to give us. It must certainly feature a method of providing revenue for the State equity and all the other principles of taxation; but that is what has to be done in the South African circumstances. We do not have an ordinary, normal situation that can be applied to other countries. We have a particular issue in South Africa that needs to be dealt with.

Let me deal for example with the question of incentives in respect of machinery and plant. There are issues in South Africa which make the position quite different today, in 1986, and will make it different in 1987 to what it was in the past in regard to these incentives. Firstly we have to deal with the question of how we are going to get the kind of high-technology machinery that we will need if there are going to be sanctions against South Africa. One not only has to look at how one is going to obtain it, but one has to give people the incentive, at a time when the economy is depressed, to equip themselves for the day when there will have to be greater local manufacture and greater import replacement and when it may be more difficult to obtain that machinery. We have to plan for that today. It is no use if we come along in a few years time and say that we did not plan for it, that we did not realise what would happen and that our industries are not equipped to cope with the situation.

We have to deal with this problem. If necessary, we have to provide assistance to prevent our being caught with our trousers down. Sanctions are a real issue today—they are no longer purely academic. We have to face this situation and plan accordingly for the future.

Secondly I want to repeat what has been said time and time again, namely that while it is very nice to deal purely with concepts of efficiency in industry—I am a great believer in efficiency—we also have to realise in South Africa that we will have 300 000 people entering the job market every year. Do hon members realise how many Black matriculants will enter the job market in the year 2000? There are going to be over 250 000 compared to the 20 000 of today. How are we going to employ those people? The worst situation possible is to educate and train people and, in doing so, raise their expectations that they will do better in their lives, and then have no jobs to offer them.

We have to plan for that and it is no use planning for it in the year 2000 or in the year 1999. Whether we are old or young—and I am almost certain that I will not be around any more then—our job here today is to plan for that. We all have a duty to see to it that we do not get caught in that situation. I have to say that the Bill before us does not provide adequate incentives to deal with the two serious problems that I mentioned.

I think there are a number of matters that are contentious in regard to this legislation and I would like to deal with them now. I find it remarkable that we cannot get people to accept the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance. We will now be in the position that we will enshrine in our legislation the principle that tax avoidance is wrong. According to clause 23, which deals with the reporting of people to professional and other associations, it is wrong that somebody should do anything which—and I quote—

I wish to make the point that it is one thing to avoid a duty and an obligation but quite another to avoid tax. In his Second Reading speech which was delivered in another House and which we have read, the hon The Minister used the following example:

I think a reading of the history books would show that this happened a little earlier, but that does not matter. I would like to ask the hon the Minister whether it was wrong of those people to brick up their windows in order to avoid the payment of tax. To my mind, it was not wrong. There is a difference between avoidance and evasion. I have in front of me an interesting booklet issued by one of the building societies. I do not want to advertise it so I shall not provide the name, but if I say that it is the one which is going to remain mutual, hon members may be able to work out which building society it is. I would like to quote from this pamphlet as follows:

I think that is a very simple and useful layman’s definition of tax evasion. As far as tax avoidance is concerned, allow me to quote further:

That distinction is important and we cannot get away from it. I am not saying it is not the job of the Commissioner for Inland Revenue to look for the loopholes and tie them up by legislation. That is perfectly legitimate, and it is being done in this Bill, but one cannot penalise people who have arranged their affairs legitimately in order to reduce the amount of tax which they have to pay. Evading tax illegitimately is a completely different ball game.

The other matter which needs attention is the whole question of the contentious issue of sponsorship. I want to assure the hon the Minister that we do not pretend for one moment that there are no problems in respect of international sport which will overflow and in fact have already overflowed into the cultural and educational fields. Those problems are likely to be aggravated in the future and we might find ourselves in even greater difficulty in this regard. The issue that I want to put to the hon the Minister, however, is that if an allowance is given which allows someone to pay less tax, someone else has to pay more tax because money has to be available to the Exchequer for the services it intends to provide. That is why there is now a completely new approach in the United States to the whole issue of allowances and special conditions. They have new tax legislation by which they intend to reduce the general level of taxation by doing away with all the special interest allowances. They perceive clearly that if somebody is granted a benefit or an allowance, somebody else has to pay more tax in order to balance the situation. In taxation there is no such thing as a free lunch. Whoever receives a concession, somebody else has to pay for it.

One therefore has to look at one’s society as a whole in order to see where one’s greatest needs are and where one should grant concessions and allowances and where not. The interests of the broader society have to be looked at in this light.

The provision for allowances in this Bill amounts virtually to free advertising because the 100% and 80% allowances mean that the actual cost of advertising to a sponsor is minimal relative to the benefit he gains.

I would like to test this point against two recent major sponsorship issues. I would like to establish what the advertising costs would have been in the normal course of events and set them off against the benefits which these people have gained and their resulting lower expenses. Let us take rugby as an example. I happen to enjoy rugby. I like rugby and in my youth I played rugby. Today I can only watch it, and I like watching it. I am a rugby fan, but the advertising which was obtained by that sponsor was certainly worth more—if I may use the term—than the actual 10% cost involved. I have no doubt about this. However, if that is so, there is something wrong.

There is another question which we have to ask. If I want to watch rugby, whether by going to the match or on television, it costs money. What are the prices of the tickets and what does the SABC pay in order to get those rights? Then I have to ask what profit is actually being made by the sporting bodies which are involved in this.

These are amateurs too …

These are amateurs yes, but I am talking about the profits of the sporting bodies. Only then can I decide whether in fact the allowance ought to be given. I suggest with great respect that this is a problem which needs to be looked at objectively and reasonably because there is no question that one can have a situation here whereby somebody gets a special benefit from a negotiated situation. It is not put out, to tender and it is not open to people generally. When one bears in mind that the public are paying fairly high prices at the moment to attend rugby or cricket matches or these other things …

Beware of Burger Geldenhuys!

No, Burger Geldenhuys has met his match in the hon the Minister because he also comes from behind! There is no need to worry. [Interjections.] I am not calling him Burger Geldenhuys today. If I call him Burger Geldenhuys, I am little afraid of what he is going to call me thereafter. [Interjections.] He is better at that than I am so I am not going to fall for the taunts of the hon the Minister’s colleagues. They may think the hon the Minister is Burger Geldenhuys but I may want to use a different expression.

However, we need to look at this and we need to look at it far more carefully than has been done. There must be a distinction made between what is really in the national interest, what is really required in order to assist in South Africa and what is in the particular interest of a particular group of people; in other words, we have to see what we need to do for South Africa and what we are in fact doing in order to serve particular interest groups. The hon the Minister has picked up a hot potato in regard to this sponsorship clause, and it is going to burn his fingers. He is going to be subject to pressures concerning assistance in this regard which are going to be unbelievable. So I must tell the hon the Minister that this clause is going to create a major problem.

I want to return to the question of unprofessional conduct and the issue which arises in regard to reporting people to their so-called professional bodies. I have no difficulty with the question of reporting people to professional bodies which are incorporated by statute—accountants, lawyers etc. I have no difficulty with that because I believe that we have a certain code of ethics there which needs to be obeyed. When somebody behaves improperly in the circumstances, he has to take the consequences. I have no problem with that, but I have a very serious problem if we are dealing with bodies which are not established by statute but are voluntary bodies. Here we are dealing not only with professions but also with callings and occupations where anybody can in fact create an association of people which is not incorporated by a statute but merely created because of certain circumstances. Perhaps a good example of this is coin dealers. I do not want to comment on coin dealers one way or the other, but let us assume that the coin dealers of South Africa form an association—not by statute—and they exercise certain control and give certain advice and assistance to people in connection with the buying and selling of coins in order to try to pretend that they are capital gains and not trading profits. One is going to have to report people to a coin dealers’ association which will consist of coin dealers only who are all going to be competitors of the people reported to this association. They will all know what is going on. What penalties can they impose? It is a voluntary association and can therefore suspend a member but so what? He can go and do his business without being a member of the association. They can expel him, but so what? It does not mean anything.

A statutory body is a completely different thing. If a lawyer is struck off the roll we all know he cannot practise. A coin dealer who is expelled from a coin dealer’s association can sell coins and do what he likes thereafter. There is no control where there is a voluntary association. To my mind therefore it is absolutely wrong to try to equate the two.

The second point which is important is that the secrecy in terms of income tax legislation is enshrined in our Law and it is a fundamental principle which must exist. Once we do away with that secrecy provision we will have a totally different bail-game with regard to tax returns. It is very important that that provision is there. That secrecy does not apply to the professional adviser or the Commissioner or the hon the Minister; it concerns the secrecy of the taxpayer. It is his right and privilege to use that provision. He may choose whether to waive it or not. That is why I have an amendment on the Order Paper in terms of which it is necessary to get his consent, and if he does not give his consent the secrecy should not be waived.

Similarly, this should also be applied when one appears before a body of one’s peers, particularly in regard to associations that are not registered. It is all very well to say that they should not disclose what they hear. It is very easy to say that, but our experience in life is that there is always gossip and there are always leaks. There is an NP caucus and its members are not supposed to tell anybody outside anything that goes on in the caucus. However, Mr Chairman, you, these gentlemen in the CP and I know that the members of the CP sometimes know what goes on in the NP caucus before the NP members know what has been decided in their caucus. [Interjections.] That means that one has to be very careful about what one is able to keep confidential in such a body. That is why, if there is going to be such a tribunal, there must be the heaviest of penalties in order to ensure that those who break the secrecy provision in those circumstances are penalised to the harshest extent.

I know that there will not be time for us to have a Committee Stage on this Bill. We have not had a Committee Stage on the Income Tax Bill that I can remember because we have only two hours to deal with the whole thing. However, I do hope that the hon Minister will accept some of these amendments and will move them as he is the only one who can decide how to deal with this situation.

Order! I think the hon member’s time has now expired.

I just want to say this to the member for Yeoville: I do not know why he is so pessimistic about old age because I know that in his faith, on birthdays, they wish one another 120 years! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak after the hon member for Yeoville. He is generally regarded as very knowledgeable in the sphere of finance. What a wonderful contribution that hon member would have made if he could have been just a little more positive. The only thing that hon member did in his speech was to be negative all the time. The hon member is very worried that there are no incentives in the income tax legislation for employment creation inter alia. The hon member must concede, however, that an exceptionally large concession was made in the Budget for this purpose under the Vote of the hon the Minister of Manpower. I think the Government is working wonders as far as this matter is concerned at the moment.

The Bill before the House contains a number of amendments aimed at making all the changes announced by the hon the Minister during his Budget speech, possible. Perhaps the most important of these are certain tax concessions, of which the most important in the first place is the discount of 5% as amended in clauses 1 and 3 of the Bill, as well as the amount from interest and building society dividens which is deductible and is being increased from R250 to R500 in terms of clause 7.

Another very important concession which the Bill makes provision for, is the increase of the amount in respect of deductions by married women from R1 600 to R1 800 or 20% of the net earnings, whichever is the most. There may be uncertainty about the applications of the latter, viz the 20% of the net earnings which may be deducted, but if the example made available in the explanatory memorandum is used, it should solve this problem so that there will be no uncertainty about the application of this section of the Bill.

The Bill also makes provision for other concessions, and I think we must be very grateful that despite the present economic conditions and despite hon members’ pessimism, at least the Bill makes no provision for any increases as far as individuals are concerned. In my opinion this means the Bill is no contentious matter at all.

The income tax legislation is one of those Acts which has to be considered constantly, not only to make the necessary annual rectifications and adjustments according to the announcement in the Budget, but also to ensure that man, with his ingenuity, does not find loopholes to avoid tax in some way or another.

As hon members know, the whole matter concerning the tax legislation was referred to the Margo Commission for inquiry and recommendations, and we trust, as the hon member for Yeoville has said, that this matter of tax avoidance will also receive the necessary attention.

In saying that I do not want to imply that the present tax system in South Africa is obsolete. There is not doubt, however, that there is much room for improvement.

The question of supertax, for example, has been a problem for many years, despite the matter’s being revised and adjusted repeatedly. I want to concede immediately that there has been great relief in this respect during recent years, both with the ceiling that was set and the minimum rate payable.

In 1978, for example, the ceiling was only R28 000 and the maximum rate was 72%. The taxpayer therefore kept only 28 cents in the rand in respect of his net income after tax, which left him no incentive to earn more. In 1980 the ceiling was only R30 000, whereas the tax rate was 60,5%. In 1981 the tax rate was further decreased to 50% and the ceiling was raised to R40 000.

After the hon the Minister’s announcement about the tax on fringe benefits which will be phased in over a period, this ceiling was increased again, however, to R60 000 while the rate of 50% remained unchanged. I trust that as tax on fringe benefits is phased in, the rate in respect of supertax will also be revised to an acceptable level so that it will no longer be necessary for people constantly to seek loopholes in order to avoid tax.

I use the word “avoid”—this is a matter to which the hon member for Yeoville has referred—because there is a difference between avoidance and evasion. Tax avoidance can be quite legal, and a great deal of ingenuity is applied to seek such loopholes which in many cases give rise to confrontation between the private sector and the treasury. This also causes a disparity in the payment of supertax because someone who has the correct advice can pay much less than someone who does not have such advice. [Interjections.]

Tax evasion is in fact a criminal offence. It is a matter which should be drawn much more closely to the public’s attention, since very few, if any, of these matters come to the attention of the general public in terms of the present system because there is a fine which has to be paid after such an offence, and nobody is any the wiser afterwards. As a result of the fact that information about tax evasion in whatever form, whether income tax or sales tax is not brought to the attention of the general public, it is really regarded as an ordinary offence and not a criminal offence.

I also want to point out that not all tax concessions hold advantages for the taxpayer. In this respect I want to refer specifically to a concession made to the agricultural sector a few years ago. This was that all implements and machinery as well as improvements could be written off completely in the year of purchase. At that stage it may have involved great relief for the farmers, but in the process it was to the serious detriment of their cash flow. [Interjections.]

An additional result was that instead of the farmers’ building up cash reserves during the prosperous years, they built up tax reserves instead in many cases by purchasing machinery and implements.

That is correct! [Interjections.]

This position plunged many farmers into great financial crises because, with the advent of the droughts during the past few years, their cash had really been invested in machinery, which they could not convert into cash. It was a dead loss to them, therefore.

Many farmers went even further, and bought machinery and implements not only for cash, but also on hire purchase. According to the clever salesmen, they would effect a tax avoidance of 50 cents in a rand in this way. I want to give hon members the assurance today that where unfortunately some of the farmers are succumbing, this was one of the greatest causes of the misery our farmers have experienced.

Quite right!

I do not want to say this arrangement must be summarily cancelled or repealed, but there is not doubt that it will have to be reviewed.

Another matter about which the agricultural unions have made representations to the department is the question of investments from farmers’ profits at the Land Bank inter alia, which the farmers feel should not be taxable, while only the interest should be taxable. I really think this matter deserves the attention of the hon the Minister. I hope he will consider it.

Another matter we should consider is that where inter alia there are compulsory investments in the shape of levies or membership fees at our co-operatives, the interest earned on those investments should not be regarded as interest on investments, but rather as farming revenue, so that it makes up part of the total farming revenue, and farmers are not assessed on that interest separately [Interjections.]

I want to conclude by referring to the question of estate duty. In the first place I want to thank the hon the Minister for the additional relief in this connection, as well as for the promise that estate duty will eventually be phased out as a whole. As hon members know, the amount upon which the maximum tax of 35% is payable has been increased to R800 000 and the permissable deductions have been increased as well. The primary discount has been increased from R50 000 to R100 000; the discount for wives also from R50 000 to R100 000; and the discount for every living child from R40 000 to R80 000.

I want to say immediately that hon members must not simply get the impression that estate duty is payable only on amounts that exceed R800 000. As I have mentioned, estate duty is payable on all amounts that exceed the permissible deductions, according to a sliding scale that starts at 10% and increases by 3% per R100 000 up to a maximum of 35%.

As I have said, I hope it will be possible for the hon the Minister to announce in his Budget speech next year that estate duty has been abolished. [Interjections.]

In his Second Reading speech in one of the other Houses the hon the Minister said the Margo Commission was working at its report and recommendations, which we are looking forward to with great interest. We trust that some of the matters to which I have referred will also receive the Commission’s attention.

I believe the South African economy is on the eve of a great upswing, despite what all the prophets of doom have to say about our economy. [Interjections.] Despite the declared state of emergency and the terrible fuss kicked up that our rand would again drop to the lowest level, it had risen to a strong 42 American cents this morning. That is the proof for my belief.

We look forward to getting a tax system which will enable every enterprising citizen in this country to make a concrete contribution to the progress of our country and all its people.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: According to section 106 of the Standing Rules and Orders, an hon member must bow to the Chair when leaving his seat. Was it in order therefore, for the hon member for Worcester to leave the Chamber without bowing last night? [Interjections.]

Order! In my view, he made a quick bow before leaving the Chamber. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister of Finance announced a package in his Third Reading speech on the Budget and said how he was going to finance it. I quote him from his unrevised Hansard:

It is therefore obtained from the return on assets. The only way in which one can get a return from an asset is by selling it. I made that point clear, and I quote from my Hansard:

The hon the Minister then made a vicious attack on me. I quote him again:

Can the hon the Minister not read? Does he not know what the return on assets means? He attacked me on that point, but the fact is that some of those assets will be sold.

Who says they are being sold?

But I quoted the hon the Minister’s reference to “the return on certain assets”.

What about interest and dividends?

Interests and dividends are something quite different. [Interjections.] That is something quite different.

The hon the Minister is definitely also going to make use of bank credit through this system. He does not know that, but I shall explain it to him. The money of the IDC and the Central Energy Fund is not in the bank interest-free; it earns interest. To transfer that money they will have to collect money in other ways, but indirectly it does come from there eventually. The hon the Minister is arrogant, and I say this with reference to his attack on the hon member for Lichtenburg, Dr Hartzenberg. Then the hon the Minister mentioned those figures, and as sure as fate, he attacked the officials! He does not have the courage or the decency to endure a hiding himself. Now the hon the Minister says the officials gave him that figure of R1 182 million. No, I shall pursue the hon the Minister for many years to come! [Interjections.] The hon the Minister said that and it is on record that he was going to see a certain bank about those officials who supposedly supplied incorrect information. That is the kind of action that is taken—he goes to the employer! That hon Minister must tell us which bank and also which officials are involved in this, because the newspapers went to town with other stories. The hon the Minister wants to prosecute people who have nothing to do with the whole matter. I regard that as being just as low and scurrilous as the action of these Blacks who bum their own people. I do not expect such threats from a Minister. I was watching him that day, and he ranted and raved so that he reminded me of what the angel told Hagar: You are going to have a son, and you will name him Ishmael. And he said: But your son will live like a wild donkey; he will be against everyone and everyone will be against him. He will live apart from all his relatives. No, the hon the Minister must make peace with the Whites and remember that the Whites are his relatives. [Interjections.]

I want to thank the hon member for Bethlehem for saying good things about the estate duty. My hon leader advocated that matter at the Natal congress two years ago. It is a matter we have been advocating for a long time. I think the question of estate duty should get attention very soon. Another matter which should receive attention very soon is the separate taxation of husbands and wives. We need only look at what is happening throughout the world, how many women are being employed in all the countries, whereas professional women in South Africa are being kept out of the labour force as a result of taxes that are too high. [Interjections.]

Oom Jan, but you were always against that!

That was what I said and it is on record. The hon member can check my Hansard.

The hon the Minister announced a figure of R1 205, but said only R700 would be paid out now. I want to tell the hon the Minister things will not be that rosy. I want to quote two extracts by two different people from Business Day of 19 June. The first reads as follows:

Is the hon the Minister going to have this Sanlam man prosecuted because he gave incorrect information? After all, the hon the Minister is prosecuting. I continue:

I want to tell the hon the Minister I merely hope something better will come from this, that the hon the Minister will find ways in which to stimulate the economy.

The hon the Minister launched a fierce attack on me the other day when I said so many White taxes were being used for non-Whites while they were burning down schools, etc. I object to the fact that schools are being burnt down and the fact that Black children are not going to school. The hon the Minister said that Afrikaners had paid so much tax and English-speaking people had paid so much. He carried on like a racist! I want to tell the hon the Minister: Cut it out! I did not mention Afrikaners at all. I was talking about Whites. The figures are available. In 1984 the Whites paid 88,8% of the taxes, the Indians 2,3%, the Coloureds 2,4% and the Blacks 6,5%. The Whites pay for their own schools, and the issue was not whether or not a man can pay for all his children. I told the hon the Minister the Whites paid for their own education. I asked the hon the Minister’s department for a copy of the document he had presented here. He let me know that he was still refining it. I asked for it again, but the hon the Minister has still not sent me that document. I do not know whether he has refined it to such an extent that it has disappeared completely!

The hon the Minister must stimulate the economy, and if he wants to help the individuals in this country, he must increase this 5% discount to 10%. The gold mines, the diamond mines, other mines and all the companies together pay 43% of the direct taxes—that is the figure for 1985—while the individual pays 57% of the taxes. The hon the Minister must increase that percentage. If he were to do so, there would be greater hope for people in future.

I want to broach a few other matters. The hon member for Yeoville also referred to one of them. Inevitably the sponsorship allowance which is coming into effect causes certain questions to arise. In this connection I refer to clause 11 of the Bill, in terms of which a new section 18B stands to be included in the principal Act. I should like the hon the Minister to tell me why the earlier provision in this connection was repealed. This was done in terms of Act No 94 of 1983 and Act No 121 of 1984. What motive applied for doing so at the time? Why was it done? The provision in question has reference to advertising or obtaining publicity in some other way in an export country, except in relation to expenses incurred on or after 1 January 1984 with a view to promoting any sport or any other matter in the country, except an export country, or in connection with getting orders for or participating in trade exhibitions in the export country. I should like the hon the Minister to tell this House today why the provisions in this connection were repealed at that time and why they are being re-instituted again all of a sudden. What is behind this?

As far as married woman are concerned, we thank the hon the Minister for the increase from R1 600 to R1 800, or 20% of a married woman’s net income, whichever is the most. I believe this matter has been receiving the attention of a succession of Ministers of Finance for decades. Can the hon the Minister tell us whether the Margo Commission is going to make a specific recommendation in this regard. Whatever the case may be, we should be able to tell the public at large exactly what is going on.

Clause 30 of the Bill deals with the repayment of credit balances. It is true, of course, that a change in this connection is very welcome. In the past credit balances in favour of provisional taxpayers caused problems. Provisional taxpayers who applied in the past for refunds of their credit balances were visited by a tax inspector almost immediately. I think that is shocking. I have knowledge of a number of such cases. I hope that kind of policy will not be applied in future. When the State owes someone money, it must repay it. This hon Minister does not sit back when someone owes the Treasury money. Such people are simply forced to pay up very quickly.

Another matter I want to refer to is the official interest rate which has been decreased from 18% to 15%. This is a fixed rate. Naturally we do not know what is going to happen to interest rates in future. If interest rates drop very quickly in the near future, I want to know whether the hon the Minister will continue to maintain the present rate of 15%. What does he intend doing if the interest rates rise very quickly? Is there any indication of a possible adjustment of interest rates on an interim basis? Is that kind of thing practically possible? Is it possible administratively? What is the hon the Minister’s opinion in this connection?

With reference to clause 10 of the Bill I should like to know from the hon the Minister what happens when the subsidiary of a shipping company is taxed abroad. Do the rules and arrangements for the elimination of double tax internationally also apply in this connection? It appears that the guidelines are not very clear as far as this matter is concerned. I should appreciate it if the hon the Minister would give a clear answer on this for the sake of the people involved in this practice.

I also want to raise certain aspects with the hon the Minister in connection with the question of the reporting of professional bodies—clause 23 is relevant here. As an auditor and an accountant I have said in the past—and it is on record—that I would lock up my own father if he stole. It was also placed on record in this House that I had said a professional auditor who was guilty of misconduct, fraud or any other form of corruption—for example the misapplication of trust funds—should be struck off the profession’s roll for life. It seems the idea is that a professional man, who is merely applying his knowledge to help someone to avoid tax, has to be reported. To avoid means to prevent, after all. When I am driving on a public road, therefore, and someone is heading straight for me, I must not try to avoid a collision, but must simply drive straight into that person. If I drive in front of the man on the other side of the road, however, I am causing the accident. Naturally I must be punished for doing so. In my opinion this word “avoid” must be replaced, therefore. I agree, however, that if someone is evading tax, he must be brought to book.

I want to point out to the hon the Minister that these people’s tax returns are not drawn up only by professional bodies, and auditors and lawyers in particular. A number of bookkeeprs and other private people do this too. Some of them have not even had a proper training, but have merely made a part-time study of the tax laws. In my professional career I found that these people are really the people who cause the problems, because they are the ones who submit incorrect statements and give incorrect information on behalf of their clients.

The point I am making is that no provision is being made in this Bill for bringing that kind of offender to book, if I may put it that way. Not all of them are guilty of this, but some of them are not honest in working with these affairs. I know of bookkeepers and so on whom I have worked with through the years, who submit some of the best drawn up statements and details, but there are a number of people who do not deal with this kind of matter in the correct way. I should like to know what the hon the Minister is going to do to keep this dishonest element in check.

As far as our economy is concerned, I was very pleased to see that when the hon the Minister of National Education spoke at Brits the other day, he appealed to the people to buy South African. Sir, it is on record that that is what I have been saying in this House for years. I still say so. I therefore want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon the Minister of National Education for coming forward after two or three years and making that appeal as well. It looks as though he is coming round. We can establish economic growth here only if we wage a “Buy South African” campaign. If we do so, we can get our own factories going again in some cases, and have others producing more.

We also have to consider introducing import control for the present, however. After all, we cannot bring about any economic growth outside our balance of payments. If we want to effect any economic growth in this country, we must do so by means of our balance of payments. That is why I say there should be import control. I wonder whether the hon member for Waterkloof agrees with me on this point. Oh, I see he is not here. In any case, I hope he will agree with me.

I examined a list of goods we import the other day. It is really shocking to see what we import to this country. There are dusters, underpants, shirts and other clothes, coat-hangers, plugs, etc, all things that can be manufactured here. At the beginning of the year, the price of milk was increased by 6 cents per litre and this increase was ascribed to the containers not being manufactured here. If the private sector wants to grow and flourish, surely they can manufacture those goods here. Why are those factories and industries not encouraged to undertake projects in respect of goods which can be manufactured here?

If we buy South African, we are giving more of our people the opportunity to earn money and are assisting in solving the problem of unemployment. In addition some people will earn more money and therefore pay more tax. In this way the State will collect more money from people who are employed and can afford food, clothing and a house. Surely that is better than the State’s spending money on telling unemployed people they are filling up one hole today and will fill up another tomorrow, just to create employment for them and keep them going.

Where money is spent today, it must be spent in such a way that it can promote production tomorrow. None of us is against anyone’s buying a house, but if for example the State spends all its money on supplying the people with housing, they are stimulating the building industry only in the short-term. The expenditure ends there, however. The resident has his house, but the money spent on it cannot be used for anything else. That house is not going to produce, after all, In my opinion that is where the Government is mainly at fault at the moment. They do not have a purposeful economic policy that provides employment in such a way that there can be production tomorrow, for example. As I said, we must grow via our balance of payments. If we do not do so, we shall definitely not be capable of redeeming our foreign debts and paying our debts. We must ensure that we export more. The outside world lacks some of the minerals we have. We can earn foreign exchange by exporting those minerals. Our balance of payments will grow, enabling us to pay our debts in future.

There are a few other small points with reference to various clauses which I should like to elaborate on during the Committee Stage of this Bill if there is time to do so.

Mr Chairman, I would like to associate the NRP with the remarks of the spokesman of the Official Opposition regarding the retirement of Mr Schweppenhäuser. We would like to add our good wishes to him and we wish him a very fruitful and enjoyable retirement. I think South Africa has been very fortunate with its Commissioners for Inland Revenue. Certainly those whom I have know have been of the highest standard. Perhaps the best compliment that I have heard paid to Mr Schweppenhäuser is that he is “damn tough”. I think that is one of the hallmarks of a good Commissioner!

I must admit that I have not had much professional contact with the Commissioners for Inland Revenue and that I am not really an expert on this subject. When I came to Parliament over 30 years ago, my salary immediately dropped from over £200 a month to £109 a month and I lost my free motorcar, my entertainment allowance, my travelling allowance, and all the rest. Since then my dream has always been to have an income tax problem, but I have never had a problem because I have been an MP all the time and I have never earned enough money to have a problem. However, I have learned something about taxation. Whereas before I used to work out how much money I had left at the end of the month, when I became an MP I had to start working out how much month I had left at the end of my money.

You have an income problem.

That is the way I have learnt what I know about tax and salary. What I learnt was that, as one’s salary increased, so one’s tax increased and one could buy less with the money that was left. That is what I believe is called “fiscal drag”. That is one of the lessons that an MP has to learn: The more one earns, the less one has to spend. Under these circumstances tax does not become a problem because one does not see it; it is just income that isn’t there.

Between inflation and fiscal drag I have learnt what one has left of your income when the State has finished with it. When the hon the Minister’s Government have finished with taxing one’s income, and when the administration has finished with inflating the cost of everything, there is one certain law and that is that one is always worse off.

In connection with this Bill I want to say that, in the absence of the hon member for Umbilo, I have taken a crash course and become an instant expert on the Bill. I know the hon member for Umbilo would like me also to associate him personally with the remarks made about Mr Schweppenhäuser. We welcome a number of the items in this Bill, such as the 5% discount. However, fiscal drag, which I referred to, is of course going to wipe that out and most people will pay more than they paid before despite the 5% discount. However, we do welcome the discount.

What we have always said and still say, and I repeat it again today, is that the rate of company tax at 50% is too high. It is not an inducement to growth and it is not an incentive for companies to make more profit, or plough their money back into expansion which creates more jobs or to create reserves for a rainy day. The figure may sound reasonable, but it is not an inducement to businesses to do more than they have to do. It is not an inducement for them to risk their own savings, to put in more money or to borrow money, because the return on it when the tax has been deducted is not worth the candle. Be that as it may, that is what we feel and we know that the hon the Minister disagrees.

We accept clause 2 concerning the Friendly Societies Act, 1956, because that clause closes a gap. Clause 4 refers to the spread of gratuities. The three-year spread of gratuities disappears if a person dies whilst still in office. Most people who expect a gratuity, plan for it and they look on it as part of their insurance policy. If one has a bond on one’s house—as most of us have—or debts, one knows that when one dies one’s widow will be able to pay off from the gratuity the amount which is owing. The house will become rent-free and such a widow will have a home to live in without having to pay rent. She can also clear other liabilities in the estate.

However, if one now dies before one retires, one is not going to be able to spread that gratuity over the three-year period. I think it is penalising not the person in question, but his widow and family that are left behind. Unless I have read it wrongly, I want to ask the hon the Minister to look into that again. Note should be taken of that at least in the situation where a wife or dependent children are involved.

Clause 5 provides a clarification. Clause 6 deals with tax avoidance associated with building societies in the TBVC countries, and we go along with that.

Clause 7 deals with a concession in the form of tax-free shared income from a building society. The dividends are doubled but I think the hon the Minister could have been more generous in that respect. We want people to save and to invest, but the amount that is tax-free is still very limited. We would like to see a greater concession made in that respect.

Clasue 10 concerns shipowners. This is part of the price that South Africa is paying for its isolation. We now have to use back doors. I remember how we used to laugh about people such as the Panamanians who had flags of convenience. The governing party once had a senator whose ships flew flags of convenience and I had a great deal of fun when I discovered this and questioned his patriotism. The man used to be a communist too before he joined the NP. [Interjections.] Yes, he was an open communist! He stood and sang on the steps of the Durban City Hall and he said he lived for the day when the Red Flag would fly over South Africa. I am referring to ex-Senator Pettersen. He owned ships that sailed under a flag of convenience. It is understandable and we accept it, but I simply want to put on record that it is the price we have to pay for the isolation South Africa suffers. We recognise the fact that South Africa has to use these subterfuges in order to trade normally in the world.

The next issue I want to raise is a hardy annual, and perhaps it is worth noting that the number of the clause is 13! It increases the part of a wife’s earnings deductible from the husband’s taxable income to the greater of R1 800 or 20% of the net earnings, but I want to add to the pleas that have already been made for the right to separate taxation. We hope that the matter will be settled finally by the Margo Commission, so we are not going to make a major issue of it here. I merely want to place on record that we welcome this slight concession but would like to see the full option.

I have received some criticism about clauses 22, 27, 28 and 30 which are seen as putting an extra squeeze on companies. Companies are the wealth-producers of South Africa, and one has to ask whether it will be worthwhile to squeeze these companies for the sake of what would appear to be very little extra revenue.

We welcome the reduction in the official rate of interest from 18% to 15%. We are in favour of this move.

Most of the remaining provisions in the Bill either close gaps or are technical and I was told during my crash course that we accept them all.

As far as clause 11, the clause dealing with sponsorship, is concerned, I am going to be out of step with the Official Opposition.

I wonder why!

The hon member wonders why. I believe that, if there is one field in which the enemies of South Africa practise total hypocrisy, it is in their treatment of South African sport. There was a time when we all accepted that our sporting bodies deserved such treatment because of apartheid practices and the exclusion of other groups, but since then sportmen have led the field in removing that discrimination. The sportsmen of South Africa were even way ahead of the reforms relating to labour and trade unionism.

Yes, but we do not want to be governed by a lot of sportsmen. We are politicians and we have the responsibility to govern.

I believe that our sportsmen should have enjoyed the international credit that they deserved for leading the way in removing discrimination. Instead of their being congratulated and welcomed back into the world family of sport, politics took over. [Interjections.]

I would like to tell the hon member for Rissik, who spoke of politics, that we in this country are just as guilty of dragging politics into sport as anyone else.

We cannot be governed by sportsmen.

Dr Verwoerd did not want to allow the Maoris to come.

[Inaudible.]

That was a brilliant Nat idea!

There was also the incident involving Mr Lourens Muller and the Japanese jockey. I remember arguing with him about it in the passage behind the Chair. So, the hon member for Rissik should not talk to me about politics. It was the people in that party who were responsible for these political aspects of the attack on South Africa, but it was the sportsmen who pulled us out of that situation and put us back on the road.

I think it is mealy-mouthed hypocrisy for a country to play sport or have associations in cultural fields such as a ballet with the USSR, to treat them as a normal sporting country open to all the sporting bodies of the world except S.A. It is hypocritical to play with and accept dictatorships such as Uganda in which more people were slaughtered in months than have been killed in years and years of war in civilised countries. They were accepted, however. Ruthless military dictatorships and régimes are all accepted, but South Africa where the sportsmen integrated their sports and opened them to all races, is still the “muishond van die sportwêreld.”

It is the governments who do this, not the sporting bodies. I believe that most of the sporting bodies would welcome South Africa and would play in South Africa themselves— as we have seen. However, it is the governments which apply the pressure and such government pressure is brought about by professional protest groups. There is a professional anti-apartheid set-up, co-ordinated, manipulated, helped and supported by the United Nations. Those organisations have become job-creating, self-perpetuating organisations. They are there to give jobs to people, and more they can get rent-a-crowds, create demonstrations and influence governments, the more secure is the job.

In the face of that hypocrisy and that manipulation, I believe South Africa is entitled to use its own form of tactics to bring international sport and culture to South Africa. It cannot be done directly by direct Government subsidies because of the antagonism towards the Government. So, it is done by way of tax concessions. It then becomes a private affair and is not associated with Government. We accept that.

I am sure that a former candidate of the Official Opposition in Simonstown, a man who now sits in London, fighting for our sports interests there, helping to organise tours and contacts to try to get us back, would not agree with this rejection. [Interjections.] I would not ask him, but I am sure he would not. I can think of a few other sportsmen, sportsmen like Morné du Plessis, Tommie Bedford and Vince Van der Byl who openly support that party, but who, I am sure, will not agree with the rejection of this concession which can help to bring international sport to South Africa. [Interjections.] We regret that that party always seems to be on the side of the anti-South Africans; whether it be people in South Africa or sports teams outside South Africa, they always seem to oppose anything that hurts the people who are anti-South African. [Interjections.]

We are not on the side of the racists and the boycotters of open sport or the internal organisation which boycotts or forbids intergroup sport. We oppose that, and we are happy to support this clause.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he does not believe that to subsidise sport in this way, is wrong when one considers the number of people who are starving and the fact that subsidising starving people is not allowed as a tax-deductible expense?

They are two quite different issues. That money is not being taken away from hungry people. It would be spent anyway, because it is part of the advertising budget. That money is not being taken away from starving children so that people can play sport. It is a concession which makes no difference. There is provision and the Government makes money available directly for welfare, feeding schemes and anything like that. There are some tax concessions available but they are not this sort of concession. However, by giving this concession, one is not taking it away elsewhere. It is a totally false argument. If we were taking the money away from an institution that feeds children in order to do so I would agree with the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. However, whether one gives a concession or not this money will be spent, and I believe we are entitled to give this concession.

We will support this measure and I have nothing further to add.

Mr Chairman, regarding the remarks just made by the hon member for Durban Point I should like to say that I can associate myself with some of his remarks. First of all, sportsmen have been subjected to the most appalling double standards. Secondly, I believe that sportsmen have been at the forefront in making a lot of progress in bringing about change in South Africa. However, the hon member for Durban Point is confusing two issues. We as much as anybody else in this House would like to see sports tours taking place. That is one issue. The other issue concerns the question of the sponsorship and how it is actually paid for. I would like to return to that a little later on.

I want to make just a brief comment to the hon member for Sunnyside. Something which I am tired of hearing about in this House and which is a constant refrain from hon members of the CP in those benches, is the fact that White taxpayers are subsidising Blacks in education, housing or whatever it may be. That hon member and the other hon members of his party seem to resent this fact. There is only one thing I can say, namely, that that hon member obviously does not have the slightest knowledge whatsoever of economics. He holds himself out to be an alternative Minister of Finance in this country one day. What he knows about economics is nothing because he should know that the more the economy can grow and the bigger the gross domestic product in the economy is, the better off we all are. One of the most limiting factors in respect of growth in our economy is the lack of education, skills and training. The very best investment any White taxpayer can make, is to invest money in skills and education of all the population groups throughout the economy. We are interdependent. We cannot isolate each group in a separate little box. I hope the hon member will avail himself of the opportunity in the recess to go and take a few elementary economics lessons.

I would like to return now to the question of the sponsorship allowance which the hon the Minister mentioned in his speech and which has also been dealt with by other speakers here today. To start with, I want to point out that I take exception to the comments which the hon the Minister made in his Second Reading speech where he says the following:

This is an argument which the Government often uses. It implies that anybody who does not approve of what the Government does or of the way it spends our money, is therefore opposed to sporting contacts and sporting links. The Government uses that argument everywhere. We are opposed to the Internal Security Amendment Bill and therefore, so they argue, we are in favour of the forces of violence in the country. We are so tired of that argument. We in this party look forward to having sporting links with other countries as much as anybody else. If the Government in the past had followed our advice and had made some of the changes that we would have liked to have seen, we would still been able to hold our heads up in international competition. We could be proud to send teams anywhere at all. Other countries would be falling over themselves to send teams to come and compete in this country. We look forward to the day when we can create a society where that can happen and where it will not be necessary for us to revert to massive sponsorships to encourage people to come here.

The other matter relating to sponsorship is the way in which it was done. We believe that the way the hon the Minister did this displayed a complete contempt for this Parliament. He decided long ago that he was going to do this.

Prove it!

The teams that are going to benefit by this sponsorship have been and gone. Moreover, the companies that are to benefit by this sponsorship have already derived their benefits and the teams have already gone, and only now does he come to this House to use it as a rubber stamp to pass the legislation.

Have the companies had their benefits? Is that what the hon member is saying?

I can only assume that Yellow Pages have. Please correct me if they have not, or will not, derive any such benefits.

They have had the exposure.

Yes, they have had the exposure. They have had the advertising and they have had an undertaking from the Government. [Interjections.] If the hon the Minister is going to say that that is not the case, then I want him to tell this House that those companies involved will not receive the allowance as set out in this particular Bill, in respect of the last two tours. I want him to tell us that.

The other issue is that in making a sponsorship concession of this nature, the hon the Minister is displaying a complete insensitivity towards the position of the South African taxpayer at the present juncture. In fact, I think it could be said that he is doing a Burger Geldenhuys on the South African taxpayer.

From the back! [Interjections.]

Yes, from the back as well. The hon member is quite right. Permit me to highlight a few figures to illustrate my point.

In 1975, direct taxes constituted 8,6% of personal disposable income. In 1985, this figure had risen to 13,3%. In the 1981-82 financial year, individuals paid R3,1 billion in tax and only five years later, in the 1986-87 financial year, individuals paid R10,2 billion in tax—an increase of 224%. Salaries have risen by nowhere near as much.

In the 1981-82 financial year, sales tax amounted to R2,1 billion and in 1986-87 it amounted to R9,4 billion. Therefore, over that period—from the 1981-82 to the 1986— 87 financial year—individual tax plus GST— we all know that most GST is paid by individuals—has risen to some 64% of total revenue.

Over the same period companies have been remarkably successful in keeping their tax rates down to some 22,2%. Now the hon the Minister is coming to this House and asking individuals to effect a massive transfer of funds to the benefit of companies. There is simply no equity in that whatsoever.

Permit me to highlight a few further points. A person earning R10 000 per annum in 1972 now has to earn R40 700 per annum to stay at the same level. In 1972, however, that individual paid only 14,2% of his income in tax, whereas today he pays 30,9%. In real terms, however, his income has not risen at all, and yet the hon the Minister still sees fit to make this sponsorship allowance payable directly out of the South African taxpayer’s pocket in order to subsidise companies which are in fact getting off virtually scot-free.

Individuals are now buying less furniture and fewer household appliances than they did in 1975, and yet he still sees fit to effect this transfer of income from one group to another. It is just as the hon member for Yeoville said—there is no free ride. If we give one group concessions then another group has to pay, and the group that is receiving the concessions in this instance is in fact the one which is most capable of paying.

The hon the Minister may be aware of a World Bank study undertaken by a certain Mr Keith Marsden, and which I think was published in 1983. He compared the growth and investment rates in low and high tax countries, and I think hon members will be interested in a few of the following figures. He found, for example, that the growth in domestic product was 6% higher per annum in low tax countries than it was in high tax countries. I do not think anyone in his wildest dreams would call South Africa a low tax country. Gross domestic investment per capita in low tax countries was 8,9% per annum whereas in high tax countries it was only 0,8% per annum. I think the individual taxpayer in this country has got to the stage now where he is saying: “Enough, no more!” In view of the figures I have just quoted, where are the incentives which are going to encourage investment in this country?

A further point I want to make is that this hon Minister not only shows a complete insensitivity to the taxpayer of this country but he also shows a complete insensitivity to the other groups in this country who do not happen to be represented in this House. They, therefore, do not have an opportunity to speak up for themselves. They also do not have any say in how money is actually allocated. When I talk about other groups, I am not talking about the radicals; I am talking about the average Black man in the township or wherever it may be.

The hon the Minister obviously does not know of the Human Sciences Research Council’s report which showed the vast inequities with regard to the provision of sporting facilities in Black areas. Sporting facilities are simply not available to a vast number of people in this country! I want to ask the hon the Minister a question: Would he be prepared to make the same concessions to a company which came along and said, for example, that they wanted to put up the Yellow Pages stadium in Soweto? The hon the Minister shakes his head; he says “no”. [Interjections.] Well, that is exactly how those people see it!

This is for international sporting events. [Interjections.]

Of course! [Interjections.] The hon the Minister obviously does not understand! All those Black people see it differently. They see concessions as being for the “fat cats”. However, when it comes to concessions for themselves, to the provision of a very necessary facility which they do not even have, then the hon the Minister says no, but then he is surprised when resentment builds up among other groups in this country!

And boycotts from overseas! [Interjections.]

I am referring here again to groups who are not represented in this House who feel that they have no say in what is done and how taxpayers’ money is allocated or spent. Yet, the hon the Minister says no. That is exactly what the problem is and exactly the point I am trying to make. [Interjections.]

Furthermore, I find it most extraordinary that a company which qualifies for these concessions can actually call itself a sponsor. That company ends up paying only some 10% of the cost! The real sponsor is the South African taxpayer or the South African Government. It does not matter how one launders that money; the sponsor eventually ends up being the South African taxpayer. When one sees those advertisements on the TV screens, it should be specified that the event is held by courtesy of the South African taxpayer because that is exactly what it is! [Interjections.]

There are two other issues I should like to touch on very briefly. Other hon members have dealt with them as well, so I will not go into any detail. The one is clause 13 which has to do with that hardy old perennial of the taxation of married women. The standpoint of the PFP on this issue is very clear. We believe that they should be taxed separately. We hope that the Margo Commission will submit recommendations to this effect. As far as the present Bill is concerned, we see no reason at all why the earnings which married women make from private companies of which their husbands are the sole shareholders should be excluded from their income.

With those few words, I will be supporting the amendment as moved by the hon member for Yeoville. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, it is a very great temptation to reply to all the arguments put by the previous speakers—from the hon member for Yeoville right up to the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South.

I did not quite follow the argument of the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South in particular, who was against the tax discount on sponsorships. He is a sportsman himself and he knows that kind of life. As a sportsman he should know the value of this concession. [Interjections.]

I also want to tell the hon member for Yeoville there is a big difference between Burger Geldenhuys and the hon the Minister of Finance. The hon the Minister of Finance would hit one from the front every time. [Interjections.]

We have heard so much that was negative today about legislation with so many positive characteristics that this atmosphere created by the speakers of the opposition parties can really not be understood. The atmosphere they are creating is in glaring contrast with the positive aspects of this Bill. This Bill has two positive characteristics in particular. The first is tax concessions on a wide front. That is a positive characteristic after all. The other characteristic is further efforts to eliminate tax avoidance, which is another positive characteristic. These are the two outstanding characteristics of this legislation, yet there are so many hon members who see the Bill in a negative light.

I should like to broach three matters concerning the concessions contained in the Bill. In the first place there is the tax concession on interest. Thousands of people in our country are in the privileged position of being able to benefit from pension funds, relief funds and retirement annuities. There are also a number of aged people, however, who live only on their interest. These are people who saved money in their productive years— this is money on which tax has already been paid—to earn interest to provide for their old age. On their behalf I want to convey my thanks for the increase in tax-free interest up to R500. I must also say, however, that one has only to save R3 333 to earn R500 tax-free interest at the prevailing interest rate, as set out in the legislation.

Married couples pay no income tax on earnings up to R7 000 and unmarried people on earnings up to R5 000. I now want to argue that we should make it our ideal to try to make further provision for aged people who live only on their interest in future. If we take the return on the available tax-free investments—for example R70 000 at the Post Office Savings Bank and other tax-free investments at building societies—and perhaps decide on an average annual income of R5 000 for the aged on that basis, we can possibly make it our ideal to increase the present concession of R500 to the amount which will be necessary to give one an income of R5 000 by means of interest on investments.

Strong representations were made by members of the opposition parties, all part of the pressure that has been experienced for many years, to tax couples separately. One thing must always be kept in mind, however, and that is that the cost of collecting the tax should not be greater than the tax itself. To tax couples separately would entail additional costs, large costs. If we argued that 50% of the taxpayers were couples, and these couples had to be taxed separately, it would mean that separate forms would have to be printed, that additional staff would have to be appointed, with the associated costs in respect of salaries and housing subsidies which I want to talk about later. Then there are other associated things, office rental, for example, etc. So many additional costs are involved in realising the ideal cherished by the opposition parties—that of a separate return—that one does not know whether that would hold more advantages then the concession in this Bill which exempts the first 20% of a married woman’s income from tax.

Before we tax couples separately—and I want to advocate this very strongly—we must rather do one of two things. We must either increase this 20% concession or increase the monthly contributions to the pay-as-you-earn tax system for married women so that the eventual effect of a higher return can be eliminated to a great extent, and I should like to put this to the hon the Minister. If we could consider this proposal, in my opinion we could derive much more benefit from this and incur fewer costs than would be the case if we were to tax couples separately. After this announcement by the hon the Minister, we found that the pressure from couples—particularly the women—to be taxed separately, had diminished to a great extent.

I shall like to broach a third matter. I am referring to the housing subsidy up to an amount of R50 000 for officials of the State and associated organisations. At present the position is such that an official can buy a home at a price he can afford, and the interest on the first R50 000 of his bond will be subsidised. That is being abolished. In other words, the total interest on the bond will be subsidised, up to 15%. Naturally that is a very great concession to our officials. It is only a small provision in the Act that is being scrapped and perhaps that is why the matter did not receive the attention it deserved in the media. When I say it is a very great concession to our officials, I do, however, want to issue a word of warning that this matter not be abused. I issue this warning to all our officials. If abuses were to occur in this connection, it would not only place a very great extra burden on the finances of the State, but there would also be the great danger that by purchasing housing in an irresponsible way, officials could plunge themselves into some or other kind of dilemma.

In conclusion I want to refer to the question of the sponsorships. I believe that companies that sponsor international meetings make a very great contribution in the spheres of sport and culture. They do this for international occasions. I believe they deserve only our thanks and appreciation, and no unnecessary criticisms, because in the final analysis they are merely rendering a community service to the benefit of the whole community, and not only that of the sports community.

While I am talking about sport, in the first place I also want to congratulate our professional sportsmen—I am thinking of our golfers and tennis players for example—on their achievements abroad, and in the second place to thank them for the foreign exchange the are earning for us overseas. When I talk about our excellent sportsmen who are earning foreign exchange for us abroad. I also want to say, however, that is is really not necessary for us to bring sportsmen here from abroad—boxers and wrestlers for example—who are really not of the standard we expect, taking into account the large sums of money they take from here in the end.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Hercules will excuse me if I do not comment directly on his speech. There is, however, very limited time available.

I want to begin by referring to the amendment to section 9 of the Act, which will mean that interest earned on building society investments in Ciskei and in other foreign countries will be subject to the application of the deemed source provision. That situation will become quite watertight now. Previously quite a ridiculous situation existed in that someone could invest in a building society in Ciskei while having his investment guaranteed by the South African Government without it being taxable. The only tax that was perhaps payable was a 15% withholding tax on the income earned in Ciskei. In fact, Sir, I was offered an investment like that. That is why I know that that was exactly the situation. It put local building societies and financial institutions in an uncompetitive position. They could offer no additional security, and very much less in return by way of interest.

This is a very interesting situation because it involved the whole question of taxation in the independent Black territories—the TBVC countries—and also draw attention to the fact that Ciskei has already introduced a system which exempts companies which operate there from tax. I happen to believe that the hon the Minister will have to pay attention to this situation. It could completely upset the tax base in South Africa. We have the anomaly that those countries which were allegedly independent are not in the true sense of the word, independent countries at all. They are in fact totally dependent on South Africa but they can make an arbitrary, self-interested and independent decision such as the decision Ciskei made not to tax companies that have established themselves in those territories. That, Sir, can distort our whole tax base. This could also be done in Bophuthatswana. There are parts of Bophuthatswana that are cheek by jowl with Pretoria. It could be attractive to any major industrial company to move its operations 50 km down the road and establish itself there. It could then be able to operate without having to pay tax. It is actually quite a sophisticated move in the part of Ciskei. Tucked away in a little corner of the Eastern Cape, Ciskei realised that the decentralisation incentives were totally unaffordable even though Ciskei paid only 50% and South Africa the balance of those benefits. They did a 10-year projection and found that there was no way that the economy could afford to pay those incentive benefits.

They were also concerned about the fact that many of the companies and industries that had moved there were not very sound. Ciskei was doubtful about their ability to survive after incentive benefits ceased. They realised, however, that if they offered a tax exemption in Ciskei, the only companies that would respond to that—indeed, the only companies for which the tax exemption would be of great benefit—would be profitable and successful companies. These companies would then be lost to South Africa. They would go to Ciskei, and Ciskei would gain from their presence there, since the Ciskeian Government would derive its income by taxing the people who worked for these companies and also from GST.

When I was in East London the other day I found that there were numerous attorneys, consulting engineers and other professional people who had offices in both Ciskei and East London. I defy any ordinary officer of the Receiver’s department to say where these professionals and companies made their profits. Obviously, a large number will declare their profits as having been earned in Ciskei.

Since Ciskei is remote enough and small enough, this practice can still be contained. If, however, it were to happen in all the TBVC countries—I see no reason why it should not—this practice could seriously influence the South African tax base.

What Ciskei is doing is of course related to incentives. It is an alternative to incentives. We in the Eastern Cape are confronted with the ridiculous situation where Transkei and Ciskei have to approve changes in the incentive basis that are offered, for example, to an industrial community like the Port Elizabeth/Uitenhage region. This kind of distortion can only lead to misallocation of scarce resources.

Next, I should just like to touch on the question of international events and the sponsorship of these events. This topic was raised by both my hon colleagues. There is, however, one aspect of it which I think is illustrative of a problem that is developing. It concerns the discretion given the Minister. There are too many areas now in which the Minister has discretion. He has discretion in respect of the Lifo reserve, the debtor allowance, the allowance for long-term credit sales—this is in terms of section 24—provision for the 80% sponsorship that has just been mentioned and also many other areas. In fact, somebody has calculated that there are now 200 areas of discretion provided for in the Act.

Retrospective legislation is also something about which one is concerned. In a sense this also involves a ministerial discretion. It is relevant too to the question of tax avoidance and tax evasion. Increasingly we see the department moving into an area where it attempts to control tax avoidance, which is legitimate and, at the discretion of the Minister, bring in retrospective legislation. I think the hon the Minister should be very careful about doing this. I advise this caution because it has further implications that are not immediately apparent. One should not tamper with the principle that one can adjust one’s financial affairs within the law so that one pays the least tax possible.

Another point I want to raise—in this regard I want to endorse what has been done but to ask for something additional—is that a provisional taxpayer will now for the very first time be paid interest on overpayments that he has made. He has always been charged interest when he has made underpayments but now he is going to be paid interest on overpayments. The anomaly here though is that when he pays interest the amount that he pays is not deductible for tax but when he earns interest the amount is subject to tax. Two things should happen. Firstly, the interest rate that is used should be frequently and regularly adjusted to have a relevance to the current rates of the market. Secondly, I think that both the payment of interest by the State and the payment of interest by the taxpayer should be treated in exactly the same way. Either the payment to the taxpayer of interest on his overpayment should be tax-free or else the payment to the State of interest in the event of an underpayment should be deductible from a tax point of view.

At 12h05, business interrupted in accordance with Rule 46.

Mr Speaker, this is the kind of legislation which covers such a wide field that one can expect that there will be agreement between the Government and the Opposition in certain respects, but that there will also be drastic differences between us in other respects.

I should like to thank all the hon members who have made a constructive contribution to this debate, and on behalf of Mr Schweppenhaüser I also wish to thank those hon members who paid tribute to this highly esteemed senior official of our department. I agree with the hon member for Yeoville that we would have a formidable opponent if he were to decide to join the other side, for if he is going to be just as tough on the side of the opposition as he is in his present position—although in a gentle way—he is going to make things difficult for us.

†I also thank the hon member for Yeoville for having been complimentary towards our staff. I particularly appreciate this remark because the kind of legislation that we are dealing with today is the kind of legislation that requires a very special ability and expertise to put into words in the first place. These officials have been working under tremendous pressure to produce the Bills that we have here before us. I therefore happily endorse that complimentary remark.

*I want to refer briefly to what happened between the hon member for Yeoville and myself. I am very glad that he has apologised to my colleague, the hon the Minister of Communications. I think it is appreciated by all of us on this side of the House and by the rest of the House as well.

I am very sorry that he did not take the opportunity of withdrawing what I consider to be a very disparaging remark about the hon member for Amanzimtoti as well. The hon member for Amanzimtoti was a member of another party and he then came over to the NP. The position he was offered was a relatively modest one which carried no remuneration. I really thought that was a remark which did not become the hon member for Yeoville.

Did you listen to the rest of what I said?

I just want to say that I can also take the heat in the kitchen and I shall go on taking it. Regarding my own reaction yesterday, under extreme provocation, to the hon member for Yeoville, I want to tell him that if I had the choice today of making that remark again, I would gladly choose not to make it.

Well said, Barend!

I would prefer not to make the remark. I would gladly have withdrawn unconditionally the remark I made to the hon member for Yeoville, and I would gladly have rendered my sincere apologies, if he had shown the same courtesy to the hon member for Amanzimtoti that he showed to my colleague, the hon the Minister of Communications.

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

No, let us just leave it at that.

No, let me ask it. Did you not hear me say that if anybody else in the House took offence to what I had said I apologized? This was in addition to what I had said about the hon the Minister. Did you not hear me?

Yes, I heard that.

Well?

I do think that in terms of the provocation that that remark elicited it would have been fitting to have done that specifically.

*I want to repeat that for my part, I do not wish to debate with the hon member for Yeoville in the way which is typified by the remark I made to him. That is why I found my own remark regrettable, and I have been prepared to say so.

†The hon member for Yeoville and myself have frequently debated the question of unemployment in the past. I have previously made a point that I want reiterate now. At the time when I was appointed to this particular position the economy of South Africa was in a fatally overheated position. We had a choice either of allowing that position in the economy to perpetuate itself or to bring about a drastic about-turn in the various tendencies of the various parameters. We were facing a severe deficit on the current account of our balance of payments. We were facing demand forces in our economy which were tending towards catapulting our inflation rate into an orbit which would have reduced us to one of the banana republics of the world.

After very wide consultation we argued that it would be necessary for us—however unfortunate it would be in terms of job creation—to take rather drastic action to cool down the economy. There is no question that those measures resulted in unemployment. However, what we chose was to get the economy back into shape again and then to address the whole question of unemployment on the basis of a relatively healthy economy. It was a question of choice and policy. We opted for the one and it cannot credibly be argued that any alternative route which would have been more accommodating of an overheated economy would have given us a better chance to retain a high level of employment. I argue that a high level of unhealthy employment that results in adverse conditions developing in our balance of payments and adverse forces developing in our inflation equation is not a solution.

Who created the overheated economy?

The hon member for Yeoville has asked a very important question: “Who created the overheating?” I will not say that the monetary and fiscal authorities are innocent in this regard. With the wisdom of hindsight we can obviously apportion blame left, right and centre for having overheated the economy. That is why, in the package that we announced this week, we can rightfully be accused of being overcautious. We do not want to overheat the economy again which is the very thing that the hon member has just accused us of.

The hon member said: “The hon the Minister does not have a monopoly of wisdom.” In my position which I have held for over one year I have never for a moment said that or acted in such a way. All the people I have consulted can testify to this fact, even the hon member for Yeoville himself. I have consulted him confidentially on a number of occasions, and I shall continue to do so if he gives me the kind of objective response that he used to. If he does not want to give me that co-operation, it will be a loss not only for me but for the country and the hon member will be abrogating a basic responsibility. [Interjections.]

The hon member said that he expected nothing from us except that we should listen to him and to the Opposition. I can say here and now that we in the Ministry and in the department take due cognisance of what Opposition speakers say about economic and financial matters. The degree to which, in this very session, we accepted amendments generated in the Standing Committee on Finance—and the hon member for Yeoville was the chief architect of many of these— proves the extent to which we take heed of the wise counsel of opposition parties when that counsel is wise.

That proves that we should be the Government.

I accept the point the hon member made when he said that we did not have a normal situation in South Africa. Obviously the economic situation is not normal right now, and the hon member for Waterkloof argued the other day that even in our overall macro-economic approach we cannot assume that even the market mechnism can operate adequately in the kind of conditions which we are experiencing now. I find myself in agreement with both of these hon gentlemen.

I do not agree with the hon member for Yeoville that our package of incentives is insufficient. It is the best that we can provide at the moment. I do not want to list the incentives, but I believe that it is significant, when compared with the situation at the beginning of last year that we now have a maximum marginal rate of 47,5% for individuals and that the maximum amount at which the marginal rate becomes operational has been increased from R40 000 to R60 000.

I would like to deal with some of the contentious issues in the Bill, as the hon member put it. In this Bill, the word “avoid” has been used in its ordinary sense and not in the technical sense which has been accepted by other countries when referring to taxation. According to the information I have, the words “avoid” and “evade” have not yet finally been accepted by our courts of law as having the same meaning they have in other countries. As far as the sense of the word “avoid” as it is used in this Bill is concerned, however, I have no objection to changing the word to “evade”. I have no problem with that because we use it in its ordinary sense and, according to the best dictionaries we consulted, the words are synonymous in their ordinary sense. I am therefore quite prepared to consider that alteration.

I do not want to say much about sponsorships because it is a sensitive issue. When we set about drafting this clause, all we were trying to do was to find the best way of financing sponsorship, and we believe we found the best way.

Sportsmen who come to our country are called to account for their visits and, unless they are financed in this way, they will find it very difficult to accept such invitations. I really do not want to say any more on this subject.

The basic question is whether one would like the sports boycott, the cultural boycott and even the academic boycott to be broken. I believe that the majority of people in South Africa want this to happen. All they have to decide, therefore, is what method is the best to break the boycott, and the sponsorship clause was the best method that we could devise.

The cheapest and the best is to get rid of apartheid.

I reject out of hand the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North’s accusation that we acted in contempt of Parliament. I have said this in a public statement, but apparently the hon member does not accept our word in a public statement. So there is no reason why he should accept our word today. I can just repeat the basic truth—neither the ministry nor the department ever conducted any negotiations with any company. As I stand here today we do not have an obligation to any company, and those companies that did sponsor sport after having negotiated with the sporting bodies, did so in the full knowledge that if Parliament rejected this amendment they would stand to lose. These are the facts, and if I cannot convince the hon member by giving him the same facts again, then I must just leave the matter as it stands.

I agree with the hon member for Yeoville that this is a hot potato, and I have said in the other Houses also that this is the kind of responsibility that no Minister of Finance would like to have. I tell you now, Sir, that I do not like to have this responsibility. It provides an avenue for representations which is not only time-consuming but also puts one in a very difficult position indeed. Unfortunately that is the only way out, and we shall have to handle this with extreme care.

With regard to the hon member’s suggestion that we should penalise members of any professional body who leak information about other people’s tax position, I think there can be nothing wrong with the principle of what he says, but I should not like to commit myself to anything until such time as we have had an opportunity to discuss it again with professional bodies. I think there should also be no objection as far as they are concerned. However, I should not like to pre-empt it because we should like to consult with them, which is only fair.

*I thank hon members on my side of the House. The hon member for Bethlehem raised some matters to which we are already giving attention. He referred to that himself. I share his wish that we should have a system of taxation which would properly serve the country as a whole.

†I share the hon member for Durban Point’s desire for the privilege of having an income tax problem in my life, but when one chooses a career as a politician, that is a privilege one will have to forfeit. However, the hon member correctly referred to the problem of fiscal drag. I agree with him, but we are doing a balancing act between, on the one hand, indexing which is acceptance of failure against inflation and, on the other hand, the problem of fiscal drag. So, I think we have been trying to do it as well as we possibly could by increasing the maximum amount from R40 000 to R60 000. I also agree that it is not enough and that the individual still contributes too high a percentage of total State revenue. However, when we look at what has happened to companies over the past five years or so, we see that our tax base has been materially reduced as far as companies are concerned and, of necessity, that vacuum had to be filled. That is one of the main reasons why we had to appoint the Margo Commission to look into this.

The hon member also argued that certain percentages are not enough. We did not limit those percentages because we derived any particular pleasure from doing it. However, that was the only way that we could balance the books of the Budget in these particular circumstances. Let me just point out to the hon member that very few companies—or categories of companies—even approach 50%. The highest figure comes from stores. They pay an average of 47% in tax as a percentage of book profits. For engineering the figure is 40% and for industrial holdings 27%, banking 40%, printing 28%, motor vehicles 36%, fishing 30%. So there is something to be said for a review of all the tax concessions in order to get this on a proper footing. I thank the hon member for his support of the sponsorship clause.

Let me just make one last remark as far as the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South is concerned. It is not true to say, as an unqualified statement, that the major portion of GST is paid by individuals. It is simply not true. Companies pay a very high percentage. I cannot recall having received a note on this, but one certainly cannot simply make that kind of statement.

This brings me to the question of Soweto Stadium. If a stadium in Soweto is an absolute priority—like so many other things—we need not resort to sponsorships and spend taxpayers’ money through those channels. We could openly go and say to the Sowetan people: We think you need this, that or the other; here is a Government grant—go and do it! It is not possible to do this in the case of international sporting events, and that is why we chose the avenue we did.

*I thank the hon member for Hercules for his contribution and support. He made an important remark about the taxation of married women and the fact that considerable relief could be obtained in two ways. There is the relief which we are now granting by exempting 20% of her income, with a minimum of R1 800, but the marginal tax rate is another factor, and since we have reduced that to 47,5%, I wholeheartedly agree with the hon member that considerable relief has indeed been provided.

There is one thing that I should like to point out. After we had raised the tax threshold for persons over 65 by 70% last year, it stood at R9 113. Add to that the R500 in tax-free interest, and one sees that a person over the age of 65 only begins to pay tax when he has an income of R9 613. This is really the best we can do at this particular stage.

†I thank the hon member for Walmer for his contribution in connection with the tax problem that we have with the Ciskei. We are looking into that. We are looking into it on a world basis or, in terms of our environment, on a Southern African basis. It is a gross distortion of the tax base that is taking place, and I can give him the assurance that we are doing our level best to harmonise tax in our country as far as possible because this could give rise to a very skew development pattern as far as the industry is concerned. That is, however, receiving our on-going attention.

I content myself with that and thank hon members who support the Bill for their support.

Order! I shall report the Bill without amendments.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: How can you do that? You must put each clause. There are amendments on the Order Paper, and the hon the Minister has indicated that he will accept some of them; so he will move them. Therefore, the Bill cannot be put to the Committee as a whole. There are specific clauses to which we want to object and we therefore want the Bill to be dealt with clause by clause. [Interjections.]

Order! I have been told that the hon the Minister will not accept any amendments. May I ask the hon the Minister whether he is prepared to accept any of the proposed amendments? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I have said that I am prepared to give positive consideration to two specific things. One is the question of the terms “avoid” and “evade”. It is a question of synonyms and I said that I should give positive consideration to the matter, but I did not mean that the Bill should be changed at this stage. In the second place, there is a whole question of the penalty provision in case of a leakage. I did say that I supported this in principle, but I want to discuss it with the professional bodies first. Consequently there is no amendment before the Committee in respect of the present Bill which I am prepared to support today.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Even if that is so, the House is entitled to consider each clause. Even though we cannot speak on it, we are entitled to have each clause dealt with individually, and to vote against it if we want to. That is our right.

Order! I refer the hon member for Yeoville to Standing Order No 154 (1)(b)(iii) on page 153 of the Joint Rules and Orders which reads as follows:

[Interjections.] I accordingly put the question that all the clauses and schedules stand part of the Bill. There are no amendments which the hon the Minister is prepared to accept. Consequently, as the presiding officer, I am entitled to put the question in this way.

Sir, then we want to vote against it. To my mind it has never been the practice in this House that individual clauses have not been put. It has never been done and, if it is done in that way now, Sir, then we want a division on that, because we will not accept it. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: With great respect, do you realise that your ruling in this matter has very wide implications? It means that political parties have no means of indicating that they object to certain clauses. [Interjections.]

Order! We are dealing with an Income Tax Bill and there are specific provisions relating to an Income Tax Bill. Any objections are mentioned during the debate, but the provisions are set out clearly. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister has indicated that he has no objection to my putting the clauses individually. I shall then do so, by the way it has been done is correct in terms of the Standing Orders.

Clauses 1 to 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting.)

Clauses 12 to 22 agreed to.

Clause 23 agreed to (Official Opposition and Conservative Party dissenting).

Remaining clauses and title agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported.

Bill read a third time (Official Opposition dissenting).

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr Chairman, before the adjournment yesterday evening the hon member for Helderkruin was answering a few questions. In the course of his speech the hon member also made a few statements. Among other things, he said his party had identified certain core areas with regard to the Black people. He then asked us what the policy of the CP was as far as the Coloureds were concerned.

I should like to quote just a few points from our policy document. In respect of the Coloureds and Indians, we have in mind own authorities with legislative, executive and judicial functions, which can develop to full self-determination in scientifically determined and defined geographical areas of jurisdiction or heartlands, if one wishes to put it like that.

Ferdi, how high above ground are you?

Furthermore, I wish to emphasise that the group or rural areas of Coloured and Indian communities situated outside their own areas of jurisdiction will form part of the area governed by the Republic of South Africa, which will be governed by a White government. [Interjections.] I also wish to emphasise that Coloureds and Indians will obtain and exercise political rights only in the areas of jurisdiction or heartlands of their respective authorities. That will be the case irrespective of whether they live and work inside or outside the areas. I mention this because it is an aspect which is referred to constantly. The hon members on the Government side should really do a little homework and take note of certain areas which are presently in the possession of Coloureds. They should go there and see what is happening—the development which is already taking place and the potential…

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

No, Sir, I do not want to answer a question now. If there is still time at the end of my speech, I shall give the hon member an opportunity to put his question.

As I said, Mr Chairman, the vast potential which exists for development in those areas is simply not noticed. Hon members on the Government side just do not take heed of it. The hon member for Helderkruin also referred to this, however, and said the NP’s policy of reform occasionally created uncertainty. I put it to the hon member that it is definitely not merely a question of uncertainty; this policy also creates confusion amongst his own people. We saw a number of examples of this yesterday. There was the example of the hon member for Helderkruin who had to repudiate the hon member for Innesdal himself, and had to tell him he did not quite agree with the hon member’s view that all forms of apartheid had to be thrown overboard.

I wonder if he agrees with Sakkie Louw.

I put it to the hon member that it is not merely a question of uncertainty and confusion; it also concerns the fact that this policy—the reform policy of the NP—has brought about revolution in this country.

Oh, nonsense, man!

No, it is not nonsense! [Interjections.] It is not nonsense at all! There is instability in this country, and those tales which are being told which suggest that there are still some shreds of apartheid left in this country, are not true. [Interjections.] When the Government took firm action during the state of emergency, conditions in the country stabilised. Influx control was lifted yesterday, and then a curfew had to be introduced. I do not blame the Government for doing so. [Interjections.] It is, after all, a way in which order can be restored. Therefore I do not blame the Government. There is a point I want to make, however. As soon as the Government acted and stability was restored in the country, there were also signs that the economy was on the mend. I am talking about the value of the rand etc. [Interjections.]

You are evading the truth.

No, I am sticking to the truth. The hon member does not know what it is all about. That hon member should not talk about matters he knows nothing about. The hon member said there was confusion. He said there was uncertainty. I say there is not only uncertainty but also confusion in his own party, because there are people in his party who say that apartheid is alive while others say it is dead. Some say separate development is half alive and others say it is half dead. [Interjections.] One can go from one hon member to another in this way, and one will find uncertainty. The hon member for Newton Park voted in favour of throwing open the beaches. [Interjections.] Other hon members abstained. The governing party did not provide the people in Port Elizabeth with any kind of guidance. Some said that those who believed that separate development still lived and breathed should lend their support there, while others said they should stay away; they supported the Progs. Fortunately there were a few supporters of the hon member’s party who did vote no in Port Elizabeth, who rejected the opening of beaches.

The hon member for Helderkruin said there was uncertainty. I say there has been confusion and even rebellion in this country for the last two years as a result of the Government’s reforms.

There is a question which occurs to one. We had peace through the years with a policy of partition, separation or separate development. Why take another course now the course which will eventually result in complete integration? Why reform, if one already had a policy? Surely the NP has to admit that we in the NP had a viable policy or, as they like to put it and in the words of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, a policy which was attainable. [Interjections.] The policy was indeed attainable from as far back as 1948 until 1982 when the State President and the fellows around him decided it was no longer attainable. [Interjections.]

When the old NP took office in 1948, policy change took place by means of a change of government. By a gradual change in standpoint by that party, which still bears the same name but does not pursue the same principles and policy any more, the voters were given the impression that separate development was still the crux of the NP’s policy. Today there is a Babel of confusion, even among members of the NP. They do not know whether separate development is still alive or already dead. The language which is associated with separate development has been retained however. Separate development is already dead but the language of separate development has remained, and deviations from this policy—for example, the establishment of the present Constitution—have been put forward to the voters as progress or reform. There is resistance to this change among the voters. It is, interesting however, to see how this resistance has gradually been whittled away over the past four years.

Let us take a few examples. Power-sharing was first introduced with the Coloured and Indian peoples, which are smaller groups, Black involvement in the new dispensation was denied until the 1983 referendum and was still denied then. The voters were not told that it was also the intention of the ruling party to bring blacks into the highest councils of the country.

Where did you read that?

That hon Minister should not talk now. He knows that right until the end of the referendum campaign he was holding meetings based on an old version of the Constitution and not the one signed by the State President. [Interjections.] He knows very well he did that at Cradock. [Interjections.] Therefore the hon the Minister knows he is not in a position to talk about this. [Interjections.]

Order!

Oh Sir, the hon the Minister was pointing something out to me.

Morrie, where is one’s appendix?

Yours is in your head! [Interjections.]

Now then, hon members should leave the hon the Minister’s appendix alone. I know where his political appendix is. [Interjections.]

In any case, the hon the Minister knows quite well that not one of them told the voters during the 1983 referendum that it was also their plan to bring the Blacks into the highest legislative and executive authority. If they had indeed told the voters …

Morrie says he did so.

Did the hon the Minister do so?

No!

The hon the Minister says “no”. Then we agree on that matter. [Interjections.] Why is the hon the Minister arguing with me then? [Interjections.] The hon the Minister and I agree on this point, but he is quarrelling with me. I said they did not tell the voters about it. As I also said, however, this thing is being discredited and disparaged gradually.

Similarly, influx control has gradually come to be applied to a lesser extent. The people streamed into the Cape Peninsula by the thousand. Then the law was no longer applied, and now Parliament has swept it aside by repealing it.

The right of Blacks to own land in White areas is another example.

Order! This debate has been in progress for longer than six hours, and until now a fairly wide-ranging discussion on political matters in general has taken place. This is not in accordance with the rules, however, and I now wish to request hon members—by this I mean all future speakers as well—not to react any more to comments which concern purely political matters and have nothing to do with the contents of this Bill. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May I address you on that ruling?

Just don’t cry, Daan.

Order! The hon member for Rissik may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I just want to say that these hon members will be sitting here for a long time yet…

No, that is not a point of order.

Mr Chairman, I submit that the Government party has been allowed to put forward certain standpoints up to now. What we on this side of the House are trying to do is to reply to all those arguments and to debate them— both in view of the Bill and in view of your ruling. I therefore crave your indulgence because this Bill is very important to us. It is being rushed through at the end of the first part of this session, and we cannot allow our opportunity of debating it to be curtailed.

Order! I have given the hon member a hearing. I rule that the debate shall now be confined to matters relevant to the Provincial Government Bill. The hon member for De Aar may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I defer to your ruling. The point I was dealing with was the fact that, with the abolition of provincial councils by this legislation, we shall now have a racially mixed Administrator-in-Executive Committee in place of the present system of White provincial councils.

What is a racially mixed Administrator? [Interjections.]

They are going to deal with general affairs in the provinces. The hon members ought not to reveal their ignorance in public. They must wait until I have finished speaking. [Interjections.]

I said that we would have in its place an executive committee and an Administrator who would occupy themselves with general affairs. One of the important matters which are going to be entrusted to them is that of the development boards for Blacks which are now to be phased out. That is the point I want to make, because the officials of these development boards are going to be transferred to this second tier government. They will have everything in the world to do with the local management functions of the Blacks.

That is the point I want to make.

Before long, Blacks will obtain full property rights in White areas. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has already decided to transfer land to 13 local authorities.

Order! That is a matter that is relevant to a Bill which is still on the Order Paper and has not yet been debated. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, with all respect, provincial councils are to be abolished in terms of the Bill we are discussing. In their place there will be Administrators with new executive committees which will be appointed by the State President on the recommendation of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has already announced—this has nothing to do with the Bill before us—that the development boards are to be phased out and the officials concerned transferred to the new provincial administrations. That is the point I am making.

Order! As I pointed out, that matter concerns a statement by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning regarding a Bill which is on the Order Paper in his name and which is still to be debated.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: For the sake of the orderly conduct of proceedings, I want to say that if hon members of the governing party continue, against the rules, to persist in making comments about us, we shall hit back in the same manner. [Interjections.]

Order! I now forbid any more interjections during the speech of the hon member for De Aar. The hon member may proceed.

In terms of this Government policy which is being introduced so gradually, we had workers’ committees first which were gradually replaced by Black trade unions. Government-controlled integration gradually led to open universities. The political python of liberalism and humanism gradually crushed the proponents of separate development in the NP, so that there are only a few hon members of the NP in this House today who still believe, deep in their hearts, in partition and separate development. One looks at the hon members with sadness, and one cringes when one thinks of the political expediency of the past four years in particular and realises the terrible power of the political python with squeezes and squeezes then until they are so conditioned that they too will walk the path of political extinction.

This creeping gradualism of the coalition government can also be observed in other ways. Comprehensive deviations in principle are announced, but their execution or application is delayed until emotions have subsided. Examples of this are the referendum and the sharing of power with Blacks. This creeping gradualism is also achieved by applying integration initially where it is least visible so that it can later gradually be extended to sensitive areas.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member if he is not underestimating the intelligence of the voters?

No, I have only a few minutes left.

The Constitution was first introduced at the highest level, viz the level of the legislative and executive authority. This level is far removed from most voters. Now, two or three years later, the spotlight is being cast on the second and third tiers of government. These levels are more sensitive than the first level, and I believe the coalition government will find that the shoulder-rubbing situations which are going to arise will mean the end of this Government.

Integration is not acceptable to the right-thinking Whites. The legislation before us, which deals with the dissolution of the provincial councils, is the next phase on the road towards political integration. The Government has deprived the Whites of their right on the level of second tier or provincial government as well. This right of the Whites to govern themselves was theirs for many years.

The Government says it wants to broaden democracy, but in the process it is abolishing democratically elected bodies. The Government says it has abolished the provincial councils because they deal with matters which affect the lives of all population groups in the provinces. The Government also says the provincial councils are no longer acceptable to it because these provincial councils were elected by only one population group.

Let me see what matters the provincial councils dealt with which affected the lives of all the population groups to such a degree that their interests could not be served by separate institutions. The provincial councils were responsible for White education. White education has now become one of the own affairs of the House of Assembly, but it is my opinion that the White provincial councils could just as well have continued to deal with it. Or had the situation perhaps arisen that the racially mixed private and provincial schools had already enrolled so many pupils of other colours that the situation was getting out of control, so that this separation was necessary and our own affairs had to take over the schools from the provincial councils?

Hospital services were dealt with by the provincial councils. Separate development was also applied in this respect in the past, and there are beautiful examples of this here in Cape Town. When Tygerberg Hospital was inaugurated, it was the perfect example of separate development. That was apartheid. Yes, the hon the Minister is shaking his head, but he ought to ask the hon the Minister sitting opposite me, who was involved in it in those days, about the matter. I say it was a beautiful example of separate development.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May I request that the hon member look at you rather than at us, because he is tempting us to make interjections?

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon member may proceed.

Tygerberg Hospital was a beautiful example. There were identical facilities there for Whites and for people of colour, but the Government is in a dilemma now. What is it going to do with the hospitals, because it has already been decided that they are not going to fall under the jurisdiction of the new provincial governments. [Interjections.] I am not prepared to answer a question now.

I think that the Government is going to privatise hospitals, because that is one way in which it can escape the dilemma of miscegenation and integration at that level. When they have been privatised and complaints are received because the patients in those wards are lying together higgledy-piggledy, the Government can easily state that they have no say because the hospitals are private property. The Government will tell the complainants to go to the individuals or companies which own the hospitals. That is one way of escaping the dilemma.

I want to continue by referring to the question of ordinances which concerned local government, Under the old dispensation, the provinces dealt with White local government because the Coloureds and Indians had their own departments to liaise with. There was also contact between White local government and, Coloured local government, for example.

The Bill before us makes provision for the retention of the existing ordinances, but I assume that this will not be for long, because they will have to make way for the new dispensation in which the racially mixed Admistrator-in Executive Committee will rule.

The second-tier government deals with general affairs and, in terms of the Bill, it now has immense powers, both executive and legislative, by means of proclamations.

I have just referred to the development boards about which the hon the Minister made an announcement in a message to the provincial councils at the time. I believe the hon the Minister will give attention to the White officials, and that they will be treated fairly under the new dispensation, also with regard to conditions of service.

I referred to the political python which was squeezing certain hon members so. I should like to talk in all earnest today to those hon members for whom it is not too late yet.

I wonder which clause he is referring to now.

I should like to invite those people who still believe in the pure principles of separated development, to free themselves from the grip of the political python before it is too late. I should like to invite them into this party which still stands by the principles which were applied by the NP for all those years.

Order! Hon members are conversing much too loudly among themselves.

I want to invite the hon members, and it is interesting to see the reaction of hon members, even of those to whom the invitation is not being addressed as it is already too late for them, because they are still entwined in that snake of liberalism and humanism which is squeezing them to a pulp.

I am directing my invitation to those hon members to whom it still matters that the Whites must regain their right of self-determination. I invite them to come over to us, to strengthen our hand and to help us. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon member for De Aar.

After the hon member for Welkom had spoken, all hon Government speakers who spoke after him sang the same tune, viz abolish the provincial councils. This was accompanied by large crocodile tears. It did not work, because none of those hon Government speakers who have spoken thus far are really sad about the abolition of the provincial councils, nor do they wish to retain those councils. It went no further than “I, your obedient servant” and “I, his master’s voice”.

Most of the hon Government speakers rejoiced about this and presented the referendum result as if it had given them a mandate. I spoke about this in an earlier debate, not so long ago. Those people who are rejoicing about the referendum report are rejoicing about a victory on paper, since we know the people were misled in an atrocious way at the time, as never before in the history of South Africa. The people were told that this atrocity that is taking place now, would never occur and we were told there would be peace throughout the whole world if we voted “yes”. We were also told that money would stream into the country. Many trusting people thought the beginning of the millenium was at hand. Then this legislation came onto the Statute Book and miscegenation, which no one in South Africa wanted, is going to take place. That is why we on this side of the House are damning this legislation, because it deserves to be damned. [Interjections.]

The Provincial Council of the Transvaal made a strong impression on the people of South Africa. It is a historical council, and its abolition is a violation of established rights. The people who are going to suffer will be the Whites and no one else. That is why we are completely opposed to the abolition of the legislation we have before us.

It is true that there is always a chorus from Government circles when anything is taken from the Whites by this Government. Then all these little “his Master’s voice” dogs’ hackles rise and they try to break down everything. In addition they are trying to take the process even further. The people of South Africa have realised this and in time the people of South Africa will deal with them as they deserve to be dealt with. [Interjections.]

Today we are saddled with more problems than ever before. We have more problems than before the referendum, and in addition we have this Bill which we are discussing. It is never too late to rectify things, however, and we shall do so in our own time!

The hon member for Mossel Bay said last night that hon members on this side of the House, who were in that party at the time, would have known of these terrible things which are taking place. That is not true. I do not know how the hon member for Mossel Bay can say that. It may be that the hon member for Mossel Bay sat in a different caucus than the one I was in at the time, because we never discussed these topics. We connected the abolition of the Senate with the establishment of the President’s Council and never the tricameral system; we were still unaware of it at that time.

When I got here years ago, I heard that there was a “Sunday Club” where great liberal subjects were discussed. I do not know whether the club ever existed, but perhaps that club took decisions which the hon member for Mossel Bay is confusing with the decisions taken by the caucus, in which he and I were together. I do now know. But that is the only solution I can think of. [Interjections.]

Is the hon member aware of the Kubus Club? [Interjections.]

No, I am not replying to questions now. I have a long speech. [Interjections.]

The abolition of the provincial system is a serious mistake, and it is one of the very big mistakes that will be entered in the annals of history, when people write about established rights of Whites that have been given away, which is simply scandalous.

We are not rejoicing about what is happening. I am in honour bound to my voters, who sent me here in 1981 to vote against this kind of legislation. That is why I am doing so.

I also received an invitation to attend the political funeral of the Provincial Council in the Transvaal. I know there are people here who are very fond of attending funerals, especially on Sundays, but I refuse to go there.

Did you at least send a wreath?

I shall not ask the hon member to do so, because he might not send a wreath, but something else instead. [Interjections.] I refused to go, and wrote this letter to the Chairman of the Provincial Council; I quote sections from it:

That is how I feel about these matters.

What is happening here at the moment, is that funerals of provincial councils are taking place, but the provincial councils did not die as a result of natural causes; their death resulted from blatant murder which is being committed here on a South African White man’s system which has served us for years.

White constituencies are going to lose a great deal as a result of the abolition of this system. We know how large our constituencies are. Now every constituency is dependent on one man, viz the member in Parliament. We are going to do everything possible to manage everything. We accept challenges if we have to, but the people who are going to lose, are the people who have received good service from the provincial council members throughout South Africa. The voters are going to lose a great deal. How is one White representative going to manage to make regular visits to all the people in his constituency who have problems?

Let us take schools as an example. There are certain school functions that a provincial council member has to attend. A provincial council member does a great deal for schools. During the period in which I was a provincial council member—I can remember this—I had three schools built in my constituency over a period of years. I had many schools repaired. In the same way I did many other things for schools. It was my job as a provincial council member to convince the executive committee or the Administrator of a matter.

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

Mr Chairman, I am not replying to questions now.

It was my task to convince executive committees or the Administrator to build schools and perform certain services. I managed to do so. The provincial council members will no longer be there, however, and we as members of Parliament will simply not have sufficient time to do so, no matter how dearly we should want to.

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

Mr Chairman, I said I was not replying to questions. I am making my speech.

The people and the voters of South Africa are going to suffer a loss. Let us take roads as another example. It is very easy to say a road has been built, but do hon members know how much work a provincial council member has to do before that road becomes a reality? Sometimes it takes years. It requires persuasion, and if there is no one who supports this matter, it will simply not happen. The public is being neglected now because there is no longer sufficient representation. [Interjections.] That is true, and it is merely the irrefutable truth!

In addition there are award evenings that provincial council members have to attend, at which children who have done well at school receive awards. Their parents are present, and a provincial council member enjoys being happy with his voters. He is being denied this opportunity. One can still attend this kind of function in one’s capacity as a Member of Parliament, but how can one person attend all the provincial schools as well as all the other schools which do not fall under the province? It is simply impossible!

Then there are hospital affairs. Hospitals are very important in a constituency. All these matters are now being taken away from the care of the one who was there in the past, the provincial council member. In addition there are city councils, and they are very important. That is why I say it is a bad day today on which provincial councils in South Africa are being abolished.

This legislation is the beginning of a process which is heading for a dictatorship in South Africa. The situation has deteriorated to such an extent that many people will use this new system only to seek positions for themselves in future. Because they will no longer be elected, they will have to grovel to get certain positions. This kind of obsequiousness is found too often in public life. It is no longer a reform effort that is taking place; instead a deformation and a distortion is in progress in South Africa at present.

It is true that in terms of clause 5 of the Bill the provinces can be subdivided. The Transvaal is the largest province and once again it is the Transvaal which is going to suffer because it can be divided into various provinces, if that is the State President’s wish. What does the Government have against the Transvaal? I do not know what the Government has against the Transvaal!

They hate the Transvaal?

I cannot but think the Transvaal is hated. [Interjections.] In any case, let it happen.

Those people who may end up in a different province as a result of that division in terms of clause 5 may be in another section, but as true as fate they will not vote for this Government! It does not matter where they are. I also know the authority of the hon leader of the NP in the Transvaal will be undermined in this respect; not that I am worried about that—not at all. [Interjections.] It is also a way of breaking him with a view to the great power struggle that lies ahead.

Chris wants to be president!

Apart from that I also have certain qualms that prevent me from supporting this legislation, and I am going to mention them to hon members. I am in honour bound. When I was elected to this House on 29 April 1981, I made certain promises to my voters, and I am not going to break them. I did not deviate one jot or tittle from the principles in terms of which I was elected. I am not a breaker of promises like my colleagues who are sitting on the opposite side of the House today. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member said we were murderers. [Interjections.] That is what he said and I say it is unparliamentary and not true.

Who would want to murder you? No one!

Order! Unfortunately, because of the commotion, I did not hear what the hon member for Nigel said.

Mr Chairman, I said “breakers of promises”. The hon member cannot hear well, and I want to suggest that he see a doctor. [Interjections.]

I have my election manifesto here with me, and with this election manifesto I can hold an election with the same standpoints tomorrow. In it I made certain promises to my voters, and that is why I have qualms against supporting legislation such as this. I want to quote brief sections from it to hon members:

This is disappearing with this legislation and with the abolition of provincial councils. I continue:

In addition it says we reject Marxist ideas, etcetera, and then carries on:

My honourable member of the provincial council and I endorsed all this, and 20 000 copies of this document I have in my hand were distributed. It was not only because of my cleverness that it was drawn up in this way, however. Hon members will remember that the former hon member for Maraisburg, Mr A C van Wyk, worked out a concept for us Transvalers after discussions. Each one of our NP candidates in the Transvaal had to have our manifestos approved by the NP head office in the Transvaal. This document was approved by the NP’s head office in the Transvaal! I stand and fall by this. Should I support this legislation, my voters in my constituency would have the right to say: “Hannes Visagie, you are a traitor!” They would be justified in saying that! I am not prepared to put myself in the position in which my voters can point at me reproachfully and say: “You lied to us in 1981; you left us in the lurch in the highest Council of the country!”

That is why I would rather sit in the opposition benches today, but with a clear conscience so that I can vote and work against this matter and other sell-out legislation with all the strength and all the power at my disposal! I do that, and I say: So help me God! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, one can hold a variety of views on the idea and the desirability of the abolition of the provincial councils. However, I think what is of greater importance in this Bill than the abolition of provincial councils, despite the historical importance of these councils and the role which they played in the country’s history, is what we are putting in their place.

Sir, you will know that over the years a great deal of speculation has taken place as to what would be established in the place of provincial councils and what type of government would replace them. I think the conviction was prevalent to a large extent amongst many people that the powers of the provincial councils were, in terms of the 1983 Constitution, being included to such an extent among the powers of the so-called own affairs departments that in fact there would be nothing left over which the provincial councils would retain any authority, and, that for that reason, there would perhaps be no justification for the maintenance of second tier government, of one kind or another. That school of thought has, however, been proved to be wrong. It has perhaps been proved to be wrong in a way which was far more shocking; and which brought about far more disillusionment than many people had expected.

I think that the system as set out in this Bill, is a travesty of the concept of second-tier government! [Interjections.] It is a travesty of the whole idea of representative government, because there is absolutely nothing contained herein which can be described as such or be justified on that basis.

Over the years this hon Minister has committed himself in his speeches and statements to bringing about certain constitutional changes in South Africa.

He has in one sense committed himself to the devolution of power. Unfortunately, the accepted constitutional terminology has at times started to become somewhat confusing over the past year. Constitutional terminology is often distorted and abused to such an extent that words often do not retain their original meaning.

Yet, despite that, I want to say that to suggest that the introduction of this new system of a so-called second tier of government is going to give effect to the idea of devolution of power, is a total violation of the truth. [Interjections.] What it amounts to is, is that all those powers are concentrated on the central level of government. These officials or functionaries, who were to a certain extent representative and who now remain behind in the name of a second-tier level of government are, as it were, being transformed into persons with a status which amounts to their being nothing more than a kind of public servant who retain their positions thanks to the grace of the State President.

To a certain extent the Administrators of the four provinces are still appointed by the Government. However, to a certain extent, too, they were held accountable to the provincial councils whom they represented, and especially to their executive committees.

The hon member for Barberton took great pains to indicate that the members of the executive committees and of the provincial councils definitely acted in a representative capacity, more so than the Cabinet Ministers in the central government. That point is absolutely valid; there is no doubt about it.

Even after the NP came into office, the situation was still such that some of the executive committee members were drawn from the ranks of the opposition, which once again illustrates that the idea of representative government on provincial council level was respected and implemented to a significant extent.

During the course of this debate attempts have been made to justify this Bill, but I must honestly say that very little has been forthcoming from the NP which amounted to any meaningful attempt to justify the new system.

The hon member for Helderkruin was perhaps an exception. With his keen intellect and his good intentions the hon member tried hard to justify this system, on the basis that it amounted to a broadening of democracy, since that is still one of the goals which the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has set himself. It is correct that the provincial system has up to now represented the standpoint of one race only and that it has therefore fallen short, to a certain extent, of the demands made on the tricameral parliament. [Interjections.]

Then, too, the hon member for Helderkruin said that the fact that the Administrator, in respect of certain functions which he will have to perform in future, has to act on the advice of a parliamentary standing committee which represents three of this country’s population groups, amounted to a broadening of democracy.

The hon members for Helderkruin will probably in due course become very involved in arguments with his former academic colleagues and his present political colleagues in order to give that argument a bit more substance and to justify it. The hon member tried hard but believe me he had to stretch, elongate and distort his credibility to an impossible extent in order to give real substance to that argument.

How can one speak of the broadening of democracy by saying that the system had previously represented one population group only, but that the present one represented three. It is not merely concerned with a broadening per se, but more specifically with the broadening of democracy, and how one can use the word democracy for such a system, goodness alone knows. Cases where the Administrator would in terms of this Bill be bound to act on the advice of such a standing committee are virtually limited to legislative cases, but in his daily administrative functions he need take no cognisance at all of the standpoint which such a standing committee adopts.

What is the value of such a standing committee on the provincial government level in any case? In the first place those people are not elected for the purpose of achieving a specific goal. They are not elected for the control of provincial matters. In future those members may perhaps be appointed to an executive committee at a stage in which it is not even clear which powers do in fact fall under provincial government. How that is supposed to fulfil the requirements of democracy, is quite beyond me.

There is also the question of who may serve on the standing committee which will act in a specific province in conjunction with the Administrators. The hon members of the Conservative Party made the point that a Black could have representation on such a committee. Then we had an astonishing reaction from the hon the Deputy Minister of Health. His reaction was of such a nature that I had no doubt that the hon the Deputy Minister did not know about it, that he was not aware of it. [Interjections.] I found it to be an astonishing reaction.

Who was that Deputy Minister?

Deputy Minister Dr Morrison.

But surely he is a Minister.

I apologise. I was not trying to get at the hon the Minister, but I would not like to give an hon Minister a job in a constitutional field either if he makes that kind of faux pas across the floor of the House. He should confine himself to health. I would not like a man’s appendix to be part of own affairs either. Let us rather keep it part of general affairs. It might perhaps be safer.

It is clear to me from the speeches and the reactions which were forthcoming from many of those hon members, that they are not quite sure what this Bill is all about, not at all.

There is a specific question I should like to put to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and planning. It has to do with a phenomenon we are finding to an increasing extent in government in South Africa. Is it once again a case—and this is my question to the hon the Minister—of parliamentary control which we are going to replace with political control? I think it is terribly important to draw a distinction between those two concepts. There are many examples which come to mind today in South Africa. The SABC is possibly the first example that springs to mind, but there are a number of other bodies as well which are always said to be under parliamentary control, because those people submit an annual report which is tabled in Parliament. However, if an hon member of the opposition puts a question about the SABC across the floor of the House, he is told that he should write to the Director of the SABC because it is an independent statutory board. He is independent of Parliament. In other words, its activities are not exposed to the same degree to the debates and criticism of parliamentary democracy. Political control is, however, exercised because every member on the SABC board is at the mercy of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I am mentioning this by way of an example. The same applies to a host of other bodies which fall under Government control in South Africa, where parliamentary control, has in the full sense of the word, been replaced by political control which is for less direct, control to which the opposition has far less access and very little say, something which greatly undermines the quality of democratic control. I am therefore asking the hon the Minister specifically if we are not dealing with such a case here. The appointment of Administrators and now of executive committee members as well, is completely in the hands of the State President. They are left to his mercy and are ultimately accountable to him, not to Parliament. I conceded that with regard to what the hon member for Helderkruin said, there were certain limited spheres in which that Administrator and his committee have to act in accordance with the advice of the standing committee of Parliament, but that is not full Parliamentary control either. That is not direct Parliamentary control as we understand it. That is why I wish to state that it is a system which does not comply with the normal standards required by democracy. I am of the opinion that the hon the Minister owes us a reply on that.

This also applies to future Vote discussions …

In what year do you want me to do it…

No, I was hoping the hon the Minister would give us a reply now. I should prefer him to give us a reply every year because I have a premonition that that reply will change, but I should be happy if he were at least to give us a reply now. As regards Vote discussions, it is important that the House be informed as to the extent to which we shall be able to participate, the extent to which Parliament will be entitled to have access to this kind of information which we require—in order to exercise meaningful control over provincial matters. Provincial councils will nevertheless not be there anymore to do it.

I want to put another specific question to the hon the Minister. At the moment the provincial councils fall under the control of the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning. I now ask him specifically whether it is not being envisaged that in future it is going to be the same. It is very important that the hon the Minister reply to this.

The reply is “yes”.

The hon the Minister says the reply is yes. You see, Sir, this hon Minister has over the last few years had legislation passed by this House in terms of which the Administrators of the provinces have acquired greater powers over a wider variety of spheres than was previously the case. Here the Regional Services Act in particular comes to mind. Now of course, those Administrators are being drawn even closer to the Central Government, and particularly so under the control of the department of this hon Minister. It is therefore very difficult to avoid the conclusion that this hon Minister is engaged in a relatively dramatic and particularly rapid process of empire building for his own department.

The Administrator, insofar as it includes the exercise of his powers in terms of the relevant legislation, is nothing but an attendant of the State President, and perhaps of the hon the Minister as well. So I wonder just how the Administrator is going to exercise his powers in any way which does not meet with the approval of the hon the Minister.

Another important point is of course that this system, as has already been indicated, is a continuation of the whole idea of a distinction between own and general affairs, and in that regard I should like to issue a warning to the hon the Minister. He is continuing to create new constitutional structures and expanding them in accordance with the dividing lines between own and general affairs. I want to ask the hon the Minister to take specific note of the decision recently adopted at the congress of the Cape Teachers’ Professional Association.

As the hon the Minister himself knows, it is a very powerful organisation among Coloured teachers in the Cape. It is an organisation which functions under the most moderate control which we could expect to find in South Africa today. Nevertheless that congress decided to sever all ties with the own affairs department of education of the House of Representatives. It is a very serious development when an organisation which represented by far the majority of teachers and which has thus far co-operated with that department and with the Department of National Education, adopts a resolution which amounts to its terminating its co-operation completely with the two departments mentioned. I think it is a very serious development. It is a development which means that education is going to experience problems in that sphere. It also means that the measure of real control which the Minister of Education and Culture in the House of Representatives is going to exercise in future on education in general is going to be undermined in his community, and that he will find it extremely difficult to function in accordance with the guidelines which have applied up to now in regard to own and general affairs.

Furthermore I should like to refer briefly to a matter which has been raised here before. That is the fact that this Bill is being discussed in the House of Assembly at this late stage of this session. I also want to express my criticism concerning this. I have long since ceased to accept that it is quite simply the result of the overloaded legislative programme of this House.

One would have to be naïve to accept that, because it has happened countless times that this hon the Minister inundates Parliament at the end of a session with reams of new Bills. They are then piloted quickly through Parliament. There is a lot of frenetic activity because everyone wants to go home; they are tired and want to get done. The last sitting day has already been postponed. The Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs is sitting almost every day. It is sitting while this House is in session.

I therefore wish to tell the hon the Minister in conclusion that it has become for him a specific and deliberate strategy to pilot legislation through Parliament in this way. I do not think that he can expect it of anyone to arrive at any other conclusion at this stage. I think he is doing the entire Parliamentary system in South Africa a disservice by functioning in this manner.

It is you who want so much time to talk.

The hon member for Welkom is trying to suggest that we waste time. Sir, the legislation before us was not published all that long ago. Are hon members perhaps able to remember when it was before the standing committee for the first time?

I am not talking about this legislation. I am talking about legislation in general.

The hon members says he is talking about legislation in general. My complaint is specifically that this Parliament is virtually inundated at the end of every session with legislation orginating from the department of this hon the Minister. It is a totally unacceptable situation. Nor can it give rise to worthwhile legislation being enacted. It has already been proved, because as has been indicated already, there was legislation which was agreed to last year, but which has not yet been implemented, and to which drastic and extensive amendments are now being effected.

I want to tell the hon the Minister that he may achieve his short-term goals by adopting this procedure, but he is undermining parliamentary democracy in South Africa by acting in this way. He had better bear this in mind in future. [Interjections.] I think it is very unlikely that this situation occurs by chance. I truly believe the hon the Minister deliberately allows it to happen. I hope that in future he will bear in mind what I am saying now.

Mr Chairman, I agree with quite a few of the arguments raised by the hon member for Greenpoint, and I shall deal with them during the course of my speech.

You are moving closer to each other all the time. [Interjections.]

We agree wholeheartedly with the hon member for Greenpoint on the question of the so-called broadening of democracy, the question of parliamentary control being replaced by political control, on the question of steamroller tactics. We are not mindless yes-men who agree with what the Cabinet Ministers and especially the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning decide, like the hon member for Welkom. We decide on matters in principle and in accordance with our ideology.

It does not bother him that hon member that 177 fellow Whites, who together exercised the right of self-determination of this country in four provincial councils, are now about to disappear from the scene. He does not care one iota, just as long as he can hurtle down into the abyss with these NP leaders.

The interests of the country are more important. [Interjections.]

By the way, I just want to say apropos of what the hon the Minister said to me, namely that my quoting from the Bible was unbecoming, that I take it from whence it comes. However, I should like to add that I shudder when I think that the future of my people is in the hands of someone who can sink to such depths.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said yesterday that the conduct of the hon the Minister was indicative of an attitude of contempt towards Parliament in that this legislation was being steamrollered through the standing committee and Parliament. The hon member for Greenpoint also referred to it. We agree with their assertions. However, I wish to point out another example of the negation of this House. The proof of that is contained in clause 14 of the Bill.

Clause 14(2)(a) provides that the Administrator may amend, repeal or substitute certain ordinances “provided that such a proclamation shall only be issued after it has just been approved by a joint committee of Parliament contemplated in section 64 of the Constitution Act”. It must not be approved by Parliament, but rather by a joint committee of Parliament. Parliament, which is in fact the authority to whom the provincial government will be responsible, both politically and financially, according to paragraph 3 of the memorandum on the objects of the Bill, and which is not the controlling authority in this case, but a mixed standing committee consisting of 11 Whites, 7 Coloureds and 5 Indians. They are the controlling body.

When the representatives of the Houses differ with one another, no provision is being made for the State President to refer the matter to the President’s Council. The mixed executive committee can therefore have its controversial ordinance implemented with the help of a mixed standing committe. Alternatively a deadlock may arise, thereby causing this amendment of an ordinance or the promulgation of a new ordinance to miscarry, because if their is a deadlock on the standing committee then it cannot be resolved. Besides this, it is a negation of Parliament and for this reason, too, unacceptable.

Furthermore it is being made subject to a procedural provision in that the proposed measure has to be made public in a particular way. That is by displaying notices on notice boards and by publishing the notices in certain publications. However, there is no right of veto given to the public or the voters in order to veto the will of the Administrator and the executive committee. It is an unacceptable situation.

I come next to the so-called broadening of democracy. The hon the Minister asserted in his introductory speech that this legislation was another example of the broadening of democracy. He said that democracy was now being broadened in that instead of only one population group electing members of the provincial council, no population groups are now being permitted to elect members of the provincial councils! While members of the executive committees were in the past elected by the provincial council members, democracy is now being broadened by granting this power to the State President! What utter nonsense!

Did you listen to Stoffel yesterday evening?

Let us look at how democracy has been “broadened” since 1983. I shall start with Act No 10 of 1983. According to section 16(1) of the Act, only the State President may in the final instance determine whether a matter is an own affair or a general affair. That decision which he gives, is not subject to the testing right of the courts. One fallible human being determines whether a matter is an own affair or a general affair. He does of course act in consultation with members of his Cabinet, but he appoints the Cabinet himself. In section 18(2) of the Constitution Act we read that a court may only enquire into whether the State President has complied with the provisions of section 17(2), and not whether his decision is valid or not. That is part of the “broadening” of democracy.

To indicate how fallible the State President is I want to refer once again to the conduct in regard to the initial stages of this Parliament. Although the State President was required, with the promulgation of the Constitution under section 103(1), to announce the date of commencement of the Parliamentary term under section 102(a), he first, in Proclamation 9303 of 6 June 1984, omitted to do so and only put Act 110 of 1983 into effect. Two years later, on 2 May 1986, he decided to tell us what the commencement date of this Parliament was.

However, do hon members know who the co-signatory of that proclamation was? None other than the infallible hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. At an early stage he was told: “I was obnoxious but now I am absolutely perfect”. It seems to me to be a dereliction of duty on the part of a fallible State President and a fallible Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

It should be viewed in its entirety according to the argument of prof Van der Vyver in an article in Rapport of 10 February 1985. I want to quote sections of this article because he gives examples of how democracy had been abused from the start. I quote:

We are, being told however that democracy is being broadened.

The second example has a bearing on the so-called Coventry Four. The report reads as follows:

Then the professor continued and I quote:

In spite of that, arbitrary action by the authorities continues, as we are experiencing with this legislation.

I am still talking about the broadening of democracy. When the state of emergency was announced, at least two Cabinet members, according to Rev Hendrickse, were informed of it only 12 hours later. It is stipulated in the Constitution that this is something which the State President can do only after consultation with his Cabinet.

Last year we had the example of the Local Government Affairs Amendment Bill, which was referred to the President’s Council before it had been dealt with by all three Houses. We are, however, dealing with the broadening of democracy.

As far as the Public Safety Amendment Bill is concerned, the welfare committee of the President’s Council—please note, the welfare committee—had already been requested on Wednesday to be ready to discuss the Bill. It was then still under discussion in the House of Representatives.

Consensus!

We must also remember that the constitutional committee was not asked to examine the Bill, because they are too busy with other activities, instead the welfare committee had to do it!

That is pure democracy for you!

The “socials”!

That is a broadening of democracy!

They do not have available committees.

In his second reading speech the hon the Minister spoke about self-determination in terms of own affairs and joint responsibility in respect of general affairs. Those words have now become clichés. Own and general affairs were brought into existence by means of an artificial distinction in Act 110 of 1983. Local authorities, which always fell under provincial councils, and so-called own affairs now fall under the ministries for own affairs of each Ministers’ Council, in accordance with schedule 1, but apart from this, the Administrator plus a mixed executive committee also administer ordinances. That is held up to us as self-determination. The 177 provincial council members were themselves part-and-parcel of White self-determination. What is now going to happen is unacceptable to us.

But what also astounds me is that the NP members of the provincial councils, as well as the NP members of this House, accepted this conduct and these steps like lambs being led to the slaughter. [Interjections.] When the system was terminated in the Transvaal they sang Die Stem, and as happily Auld Lang Syne, here in the Cape and that was the end of the provincial councils in those provinces. [interjections.]

They are singing “For Chris is a jolly good fellow”. [Interjections.]

At those ceremonies the magnificent Council Chambers …

“Bobbejaan klim die berg”!

There is the one who is climbing the mountain.

He is singing ’Nkosi Sikelel’i Afrika! [Interjections.]

He does not understand what it is all about. [Interjections.] His name is immortalised on the Vroue Monument in Bloemfontein. [Interjections.] He does not understand what it is all about, and he tags along. [Interjections.]

Those four magnificent chambers in which history was made over the years, some of which were already in use before the first Anglo-Boer War have been locked and it is all over. [Interjections.] The Government and its followers are happy with that situation. They just sit there with, as the hon member Mr Theunissen says, “verwagtinglose blymoedigheid” (benign complacency), staring into the future. [Interjections.] They sit there in the hope that there might be a little niche for them, but they have no expectations because those niches are going to be given to the provincial council members, and not to them because the Government is not about to have a by-election, they are too afraid of the. [Interjections.] Would the hon member for Middelburg perhaps sacrifice his constituency in order to become an executive committee member of the Transvaal and to go and serve on a mixed standing committee? Would he sacrifice his constituency for that?

Is it in your power?

Fortunately it is not within my power. [Interjections.] Is it not tragic how 116 of them (just) sit there? They follow the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning cheerfully, without rhyme or reason and without a peep. Without knowing what is going to happen in the political game of the Government tomorrow, they accept the situation as it comes. [Interjections.] It is disgraceful, it is a sad day when not even a single Nationalist on that side can fight for this cause. Four hon members on the side of the opposition got up on succession in order to prevent this legislation being passed. There the hon member for Vasco sits, who was an MEC himself, and there is the hon member for Welkom, who, I think was even a member of a Provincial Council. [Interjections.] They simply relinquish all these things, but oh, what a superficial swan song was sung. They did not even remain in the House to fight for the NP’s cause. [Interjections.]

We reject this legislation with the contempt that it deserves!

Mr Chairman, as the hon the Minister said, I was also a functionary in the Cape Provincial Council, but in a more limited sense, and to me too there is some sentiment involved in ties with the council. I too have appreciation for what the council did during its existence, at least during the period of which I have a fairly intimate knowledge when I myself was a member of that council. [Interjections.]

When we speak appreciatively of the functions of provincial councils, however, we should also be sober in our judgments. In the same way as the House of Assembly acted in regard to the Senate, which also played an honourable role since its inception, we should also look at this situation and evaluate it according to the demands of the present. In the public life bodies which no longer serve their purpose, can surely not continue to exist simply for the sake of tradition.

If we look at the past of provincial councils, we find that changes have been made to the system over the year. I just want to mention a few aspects.

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

No, Sir, my time is limited. [Interjections.] As far back as 1938 one of the functions of the provincial councils was taken away in that national roads were transferred to the Central Government. After that Black education was removed from the provincial administrations’ control and likewise Coloured education. [Interjections.] Quite a short while ago provincial councils lost their powers of taxation. When that side of the House therefore accuses us of shedding crocodile tears when we say that it is with sadness that we are doing away with provincial councils, I similarly want to accuse them of shedding crocodile tears.

Up until now only the hon member for Brakpan confined himself to the provisions of the Bill to any extent. Not one of the other hon members kept to the provisions of the Bill, but instead attacked the Bill on a variety of other grounds which in the final analysis had nothing or very little to do with the provisions of the Bill. [Interjections.] I must exclude the hon member for Green Point, because he at least confined himself to the provisions of the Bill. [Interjections.]

As I have said, provincial councils have been changed over the years. Their constitution, composition and their activities were changed, and in the same way this Parliament and this House of Assembly’s composition has constantly been changed over the years. While a great fuss is now being made about vested rights, I want to ask the hon member for Nigel what about previous vested rights that were changed. [Interjections.] Did I hear his voice then? Did I then hear the voice of the hon member for Brakpan? Did I then hear the voice of the hon member for De Aar? No, then they remained silent!

Have the hon members in all fairness thought about the fact that the Coloureds, who at one stage had a franchise and representation on the provincial councils, were deprived of their vested rights of representation in the provincial councils?

We are pleased they are out of it! [Interjections.]

Yes! Exactly!

Racist!

That is typical! The hon members have no respect for other people’s rights! [Interjections.] Other people’s rights may be trampled upon as if they are not worth anything, as long as the rights and their supposed rights of those hon members remain intact! [Interjections.]

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

Mr Chairman, I said I was not prepared to reply to questions. [Interjections.]

What is meant by own and restricted rights in terms of the narrowmindedness of the CP? It specifically means disregard from the outset of a good characteristic of the Afrikaner, and that is his Christianity. It is not a Christian only to want to recognise one’s own rights.

Yes! [Interjections.]

Against the backdrop of the Government’s reform programme the one principle is that the base of democracy has to be broadened. The hon member for Brakpan spent a great deal of time on speaking about it and, in connection with that he specifically referred to the provisions in this legislation. The broadening of democracy does after all not only take place within the four corners of the specifications of this legislation. There is after all other legislation in terms of which the relevance of democracy is extended and it is made possible for more people to participate in the process of democracy.

One aspect which really links up very closely to this, is precisely that the powers of the local authorities, the administrative bodies which are closest to the members of the public, will be extended. Provincial councils had powers over local authorities, but in many respects it inhibited the powers of local authorities. In that regard the abolition of the provincial councils means a broadening of the powers of the local authorities, and is therefore precisely a broadening of democracy at that particular level.

One thinks of the regional services councils by means of which attempts will now also be made at that level to co-ordinate the interests of a group of towns. It is also legislation which is intended to make it possible for more people to participate in the process of democracy and to make it available to more people.

I find it interesting that the legislation under discussion is not merely negative legislation which simply abolishes the provincial councils and that is all there is to it. In this legislation something else is also being proposed for the future.

We know that by now that there has been such regular criticism of the provincial boundaries which have existed since 1910. I as a Cape man particularly know a lot about this in the sense that the boundaries of the Cape Province have actually resulted in unnatural divisions in certain respects. I as a Cape man have often felt that we in the Eastern Cape were too far removed from Cape Town. I think the people of the Northern Cape and Kimberley had similar feelings about the distance between Kimberley and Cape Town. [Interjections.]

How did these boundaries come about? As the hon the Minister pointed out, these boundaries date from the conditions which prevailed before 1910 when all four provinces fell under British rule. Once again, as a result of the past history, these four entities came into existence. It is right that after 76 years we should now investigate these boundaries to establish how effective they are and if those borders which we delineated in the past, still satisfy the necessary requirements of today. In this regard I welcome the legislation, because now at least it also creates the possibility of setting this matter to right.

The new authorities can also do other things. Reference has incidentally been made to the fact that certain functions of the development boards could be transferred to them. There are also other matters such as regional tourism, public works, regional planning and employment provision bureaux, just to mention a few. These are matters which probably do not require a council; matters which could really best be handled by a small authority.

I therefore support this legislation wholeheartedly.

Mr Chairman, I can understand why the hon member for Port Elizabeth became so excited. I would sum it up as follows: The hon member is slightly shamefacedly angry about this Bill. Years ago people spoke about being shamefacedly angry, and not only is he shamefacedly angry about this Bill, but it is also clear to me that he has asked at a very late stage to participate in this debate. I want to congratulate the hon member in that respect. I think he came to put his case at very short notice, because it is not a strong case he has to put. He did his best. [Interjections.] I want to react to a few statements made by the hon member.

The hon member implied or stated directly that when councils or bodies no longer fulfil their functions, they should be abolished. By implication the provincial councils therefore no longer served their necessary purpose according to the hon member. But that is not so, is it?

We on this side of the House have a problem, and that is that over the past few years we have learnt that the Government is inclined to abolish. We therefore ask ourselves what will replace these things. One should surely not change things simply for the sake of changing. One only changes a system which is working well when one is certain that one can improve on it, otherwise the risk is too great.

The Government started by changing our parliamentary system, and what has that brought us? We saw that it brought chaos to the country as far as the security of the country in many spheres is concerned, for example the labour sphere—unemployment has increased—and also in the financial sphere. That is why it will not be held against me if as a result of the experience which we have gained in the past with the changes made by the Government, I now ask broadly speaking in regard to this Bill before us—I shall go into this in more detail now—what financial and other implications the amendment of this Bill will bring about for South Africa and its people. [Interjections.]

The changing of our parliamentary system was accompanied by the following problems amongst other things. In this regard I quote a financial expert, Mr David Meads. He says South Africa’s economy is a tragedy. In connection with this I want to return to the hon member for Port Elizabeth North. Let me tell him that the Transvaal Provincial Council functioned as efficiently as a government institution could hope to function. I know this is also true of the Orange Free State, Cape and Natal. This is how these four provincial authorities functioned over the years. [Interjections.] But when one now suffers from the inclination to change everything for the sake of change, one starts to scratch where it is not itching. This is the problem.

The change to our parliamentary system, financially and economically amongst other things, had the following results for South Africa. Mr David Meads, a financial expert—not a CP member—says:

I now want to come to the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech. There are words and ideas used in that speech on which I totally agree with the hon the Minister. I quote from the advanced copy forwarded to members of Parliament:

I hope the hon member for Port Elizabeth North takes note of this! [Interjections.]

The functioning of the four provincial councils of the Republic of South Africa, the role which they played and the job they did, are according to the hon the Minister, in his own words, not to be exaggerated.

I completely associate myself with the hon the Minister to the provincial councils tributes because in the same way as he was an MPC in the Cape, it was my privilege to be an MPC in the Transvaal for a year.

The members of the provincial councils are the people amongst the representatives of our people who in my view are very close to their people, their corps of voters, because it is they who see to the roads on which their voters travel every day. They are the people who see to the schools where their voters’ children receive their education every day, and it is they who help see to the pleasure resorts and parks where after a week’s hard work, a month’s hard work, a year’s hard toiling and moiling, one can go and relax and enjoy life. They are also the people who see to the hospitals to which one unfortunately has to go when eventually things are no longer going all that well for one.

In many ways it was a privilege for me to be an MPC, in the first place because I could be an MPC for the province of Transvaal. In the second place it was a privilege for me to represent the voters of my constituency. It was also a privilege for me to be the MPC of my great MP at that time, the late Dr Hendrik Verwoerd. [Interjections.] That was unforgettable privilege. It was an education in itself, a political education, no other institution could teach one what one learnt there by spending a period of one’s fife working and living with Hendrik Verwoerd. In the third place it was a privilege to take my place in the historic old council chamber in Pretoria, where the province of Transvaal’s provincial council was situated, and where the last President of the Transvaalse Boererepubliek—Paul Kruger—and his members of Parliament had their seat of government. There one breathed in the culture of the past of one’s people, and one’s own heritage took root even more strongly and grew deeper, the urge to maintain one’s heritage and to fight for it. [Interjections.]

While I sat quietly and listened and watched during this session, which is now coming to an end, for most of the time, on many days—two ideas arose in my mind. One day I asked myself whether I could believe my eyes and ears that I had to hear here that colleagues of mine in the NP—former colleagues—were now speaking about change which three, four years ago would have been completely out of the question and totally incomprehensible to us. [Interjections.] It then felt to me as if I were perhaps participating here in this Parliament in a macabre play, as someone once said. The following day I again asked myself whether I would perhaps wake up and tell myself that I had been living in a dreamworld because what I had heard and seen, is what colleagues opposite and I had been proclaiming for many decades. [Interjections.] Then one asks how it is now possible for them to now reject it.

This piece legislation before us today, is one of many that have contributed to the feeling I often had during the past session while sitting here in my bench, a feeling that one simply could not believe what one saw or heard. I want to tell hon members of the NP that I do not blame them for what they are doing; I am not angry about it, because I am someone who firmly believes in the following philosophy of life: No reasonable person should do something without having a reason or without conviction.

I want to give hon members of the NP credit for that. We on this side of the House differ radically with hon members on that side of the House. We are poles apart. That is why they sit where they do and we sit where we do, but what I cannot understand, is that one’s political convictions, standpoints and principles can change so drastically over a few years that one can come up with legislation such as we are debating here now. [Interjections.]

This legislation represents power-sharing in the fullest sense of the word. According to the old system of provincial councils the voters of every province had the right to elect their MEC via their MPC, because the MPCs elected the MECs and in this way the voters indirectly participated in the appointment of the executive committee of their province. This legislation specifies that, like the administrator in the past, the MECs too will in future be appointed by the State President. That democratic franchise of the voter therefore falls away in terms of this Bill.

I therefore say it is power-sharing taken to its logical conclusion, because the executive committee will very probably also consist of people of colour. As far as that is concerned, it is power-sharing in the fullest sense of the word which is something I do understand. As recently as three years ago a very prominent and influential man in the political sphere of the Republic of South Africa said the following, and I am not the one who say this. It is one of the Government newspapers which the hon leader of the NP in Transvaal quoted. I quote from Die Transvaler of 14 March 1983:

Where is FW?

Let me therefore tell my colleagues on this occasion: I do not blame you for adopting the standpoint which you have adopted. I hope, however, that the hon the Minister will be able to tell me how it could be possible that one could change one’s political standpoint so completely within the short space of three years. I know he will tell me: Go back to the 1977 manifesto, the election. How is it possible that a leader of the National Party could say a brief three years ago that the National Party did not want power-sharing? It was at this gathering that the hon leader of the Transvaal said that, a gathering which was attended by seven members of Parliament, approximately 15 MECs and MPCs who took the lead in group discussions after every speaker. Other politicians present were amongst others Ministers such as Gen Magnus Malan and Dr Gerrit Viljoen, MPs such as Mr Chris Rencken, Adriaan Vlok, Roelf Meyer and Dr Stoffel van der Merwe as well as various MECs, MPCs and other well-known persons. In what was described by the MPs present as one of Mr d Klerk’s best speeches ever, Mr De Klerk said that it was time that we started acting aggressively against blatant lies about the National Party, for example that the National Party was in favour of mixed government and power-sharing. [Interjections.] These are the kinds of things which bother us. If the hon members believe this now and do this with conviction, I shall try to understand it. But if I had to go to church next Sunday, however, and my Minister holds up the creed according to which I was baptised, confirmed and grew up and he states that that creed was no longer correct—the opposite is now true—I would surely question the man’s statement. Three years ago Minister De Klerk said the NP does not want power-sharing:

[Interjections.] I now ask a simple question, and I hope the hon the Minister will be able to give me an answer: How is it possible that one could change so radically?

On many days as I sit here in my bench and see the superior numbers of our opponents opposite me, I nonetheless experience a feeling of courage and pride and a vision arises before me, and do hon members know why? Because I know the voters in South Africa, the heartbeat and pulse of the Afrikaner people—the White public in South Africa—because I know that if we hold an election, these people, as usual will not turn their backs on their idealism, their past, their culture, their own—that which entitled them to be White—and that they will cast their votes and place their crosses where they should be placed, and that is in favour of the old principles and ideals of my colleagues and I when we still sat together in that party, the old NP.

Mr Speaker, it is a special pleasure for me to speak after my colleague, the hon member for Meyerton. I also think that I will be able to associate myself in many respects with what he said. What I found significant, while he was speaking, were the constant whimpering noises from the hon members on the Government side in reaction to the statements the hon member was making. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister enjoys one advantage in this debate, as he also did in other debates in which he acted as the responsible Minister. It is that he has the right to have the last say. In his replies he usually exploits that right of his, with great self-satisfaction, in order to conjure the irrational into the rational, the illogical into the logical, the policy of the PFP into the policy of the NP, the absurd into the meaningful. Then there is no one to reply to those arguments of his, and at the end he resumes his seat with great self-satisfaction. Of course I am saying this without any rancour, Mr Speaker. I expect the same thing to happen in this debate, and I also anticipate, as do most of his colleagues in fact, that in his reply he will neither be able to reply point for point, nor in general, to the standpoints and debating points of speakers in these benches.

Furthermore I put it to the hon the Minister that if he intends to try to score direct political points by way of witticisms, he is welcome to do so. He must realise however that his replies—including the absurd replies, of the kind we had to listen to in the previous debate as well—will remain on record in the annals of this Parliament, and that one day he will quite possibly be weighed up as a politician on the strength of that record. I should like him to consider this thought, Mr Speaker.

Discuss the Bill instead, and leave the hon the Minister alone!

Mr Speaker, I shall gladly comply with the request of the hon member that I discuss the Bill. [Interjections.]

The National Convention, with great circumspection and sensitivity, created a Union of South Africa out of two Boer Republics and two British Crown Colonies.

And now you are so keen to go back to the Boer Republics!

Oh please, Mr Speaker, I do not know why that hon member is forever obsessed with all kinds of strange things.

He is simply allergic to a republic! Particularly to a White republic!

It is very clear that there are certain hon members on the Government side who would actually have liked to have retained their Victorian Crown Colony status—people who have for generations almost paid a kind of lip-service to the party that was the strongest at that moment. [Interjections.]

The constitution that was worked out by 33 really wise men at the National Convention emerged with something that was described by General Smuts, and I am quoting from Thompson’s Unification of South Africa, 1902-1910:

This was directed at Natal—

Thompson then went on to recount how the ideas in regard to provincial statuses had developed. I think the forces of the provinces featured very prominently in the National Convention, and for that reason this was something that was debated for a very long time, very intensively and with great sensitivity in the meetings of the National Convention. In any case they eventually reached the stage in which General Smuts and John X Merriman introduced a motion which read as follows:

That was the initial idea. At the end of the convention a change had occurred, and we shall dwell on it in a moment. But what happened in the process? On page 252 it is written:

He then went on to deal with another point. At the end we are told what they then decided upon. I quote:

Against this background I should like to refer to the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech. In the copy of the speech I received the hon the Minister said in the House of Representatives that “a feeling of exciting expectation for the future is being created” by this new system. The only exciting expectation I was able to discern in this debate was when one Nationalist who had lost his bearings broke the fine. There was excitement among the Nationalists when they called him to order. [Interjections.] That was the only excitement I was able to discern during the whole course of this debate among the scores of hon members on that side of the House. [Interjections.]

I want to tell these hon members—the initiators, the formers or reformers, whatever they are called—that they have failed dismally in all their attempts in this entire process of theirs to conjure up a little excitement. Actually it was pathetic to observe all their puny efforts during this entire process, and everything fell flat, just as their attempt to conjure up excitement, fell flat. [Interjections.]

Initially it was said among their number that the provincial councils themselves would have to decide about their own position. It was therefore a very interesting admission on the part of the hon the Minister when he told us in his Second Reading speech how the provincial councils had arrived at that decision. He stated here that after the State President had announced that the Government was going to reform the provincial level and that the particulars of that reform could be negotiated, “in-depth talks took place on several occasions between myself and the administrators and leaders of the respective provincial councils”. Then he made the following important statement:

Unfortunately this is the way this country is being governed at the moment. There is a President’s Council which should in fact provide certain institutions with advice. From the moment the President’s Council began its activities, however, they have been told from the Cabinet in what way they should provide their advice. Unfortunately we now have a repetition of this here, with the hon the Minister telling us that he reached agreement with the provinces on the general guidelines which they would submit to the Cabinet on how they would be transformed, “which proposals”—lo and behold!—were accepted “virtually unchanged” by the Cabinet.

In his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister then denied the statement that the abolition of the provincial councils was in fact a frustration of the broadening of democracy. He said, however, the reason for the abolition of the provincial councils was that they were for Whites only. In the midst of the great reform efforts, and the great excitement which should have accompanied these efforts, one wonders whether the provincial councils could not have been retained as institutions for own affairs. I charge the hon the Minister and the Government here with having deprived the Whites of a constitutional right which was 76 years old and which had been given to the Whites in the provinces by Britain under the South Africa Act, 1909. I charge the NP Government with having deprived the Whites of South Africa of that representation, representation in respect of those things which are closest to home for the voter and which affect him the most and the most regularly. My colleague, the hon member for Barberton, presented excellent illustrations of these things.

The public representative is the man who stands between John Citizen and the bureaucracy. It is he who forms the buffer between the State and the member of the public. The closer to the everyday and ordinary, the more indispensable that public representative is, for the more stringent the regulations of bureaucracy can be. The further the bureaucrat is removed from the target of his decision—one is saying this clinically—the more uninvolved and therefore the more insensitive he sometimes, in the nature of things, is to the consequences of his decision. That is why the public intermediary is so important. Consequently the more there are of such people, the better it is for the public and the broader the democracy becomes.

That right of representation on provincial level, which was such a sensitive aspect and was dealt with with so much circumspection by the fathers, the 33 wise men of the National Convention, is now being wiped off the table with a single piece of legislation in the dying hours of a session of Parliament by people who probably, in their dreams, want to call themselves the heirs of the “Founding Fathers”. I shall come back to this later, because I charge them with a serious breach in the constitutional history of South Africa.

I now want to turn to the hon member for Port Elizabeth North. Apparently he simply stormed in, quickly made a speech, and then disappeared.

You yourself are very seldom here!

The hon member had a great deal to say here about the removal of the Coloureds from the common voters’ rolls, to the accompaniment of loud “hear, hears” from quite a number of hon members on that side of the House. In particular the “hear, hear” of the hon member for Kimberley South was very loud. What is more, the hon member labelled this removal at that juncture as “unchristian”.

I now want to ask the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to reply to us on this matter. I want to ask the hon member for Port Elizabeth North in which party he, the State President, the present Cabinet members and the frontbenchers—I am now excluding people like the hon member for De Kuilen and the hon Minister of Environment Affairs and Tourism—were when the late Dr T E Dönges removed the Coloureds from the common voters’ roll. Were they at the time silent, hypocritical Christians? If the Christians to whom the hon member for Port Elizabeth was referring, realised at the time with their Christian consciences that they were voting the wrong way, surely they were being hypocritical.

In what party were they and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning when in 1967 the NP Government removed the Coloured representatives from this Parliament? Where were they and all the “hear, hear-ers” then? I see the hon the Deputy Minister is now engaged in a very profound discussion with a Transvaal colleague of his, and is not listening to what I am saying to him.

[Inaudible.]

Where was the then hon member for Krugersdorp, who is now an indirectly elected member? Where was he when these laws were being passed, and for which party did he vote? [Interjections.] Perhaps I really ought to do something better than to refer to the then hon member for Krugersdorp. That is perhaps correct; perhaps I should rather have ignored him.

All you ever do is indulge in personal remarks! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Innesdal said I was indulging in personal remarks, but I am not only referring to people. I am dealing with people who state political standpoints in this place … [Interjections.]

You are always engaged solely in making personal remarks. It is always personal political remarks! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Innesdal is one of those people. When the NP designated him as their candidate in Innesdal, they did so for the one reason that he leaned enough to the right to keep Mr Jaap Marais, the HNP candidate out. [Interjections.]

You do not know what you are talking about!

That was in fact his only qualification for becoming the NP candidate for Innesdal.

Order! The hon member must come back to the Bill. [Interjections.]

As it pleases you, Sir. The hon the Minister said he was abolishing the provincial councils because they were elected by one population group only. If one now considers what the provincial councils dealt with primarily, and Schedule 1 of the Constitution which in terms of section 14 of the Constitution Act identifies own affairs, it is striking how many of the affairs stipulated in Schedule 1, were in fact being dealt with by the provincial councils. Schedule 1 refers to “education on all levels” and the provincial councils probably dealt with 80% of secondary, primary and pre-primary education. The Schedule then refers to art, culture and recreation. Through their performing arts councils they control museums and through education, also as regards recreation, the provincial councils were already dealing with a very large percentage—in some cases all— of these matters. Certain aspects of community development, such as those specified in section item 5(2) of Schedule 1 to the Constitution Act, fell under the provincial councils. Item 6 of Schedule 1 deals with local government which was probably the most important function of the provincial councils. So one can continue.

These are functions of which a large number were already the responsibility of provincial councils, and by adding some more of the own affairs specified in Schedule 1, one could to a very large extent have had a true broadening of the democracy. Even though we do not agree with the dispensation in which this would have occurred there could then have been really imaginative planning.

If the hon the Minister’s only reason for the abolition of the provincial councils was the fact that they served only one population group, it has failed utterly, and it is in fact completely at variance with the objective of the broadening of democracy; on the contrary, it makes a complete farce of this objective of the Government. In fact we are at present witnessing a narrowing of democracy throughout. Our system is becoming increasingly monolithic, autocratic and dictatorial. If we look at the performance that is taking place in front of us, it is the game of a group of power-hungry persons who want to grab everything that looks like power for themselves, and centralise it in themselves.

Let us now consider the position of the Administrator. In this Bill he is still being called an Administrator, but if one looks at the rest of the Bill, one should rather call him a lieutenant-governor like Lord Milner was. Then call him what he is, a lieutenant-governor, and not an Administrator.

Why not call the Minister Lord Roberts.

This Administrator is now being entrusted with the absolute power which was first situated in an entire provincial council. He is now just like a lieutenant-governor or a military governor. He has legislative power, and what is more, clause 13 provides that he takes decisions for the executive committee.

If one considers the painful process of Union and one reads the descriptions of this process, one becomes aware of the greatness of those 33 men and of the empathy that existed in them for the sensitivity of the four entities, for the sake of which, with so much sensitivity, they introduced specific elements, alien in form, into that great ideal of theirs, precisely in order to cause the system to work. I am sorry to have to say this, also with apologies to the hon member for Innesdal, but it is a fact that this Government is now, with disdainful arrogance and insensitivity, destroying the most sacrosanct of the most solemn agreements of the national convention. [Interjections.] When I say this, I do so on authority. [Interjections.]

I think he is asleep on his feet.

I repeat that this Government, with disdainful arrogance and insensitivity, is destroying the most sacrosanct and the most solemn of the agreements of the National Convention. [Interjections.] All I want to add is that those hon members apparently have no concept of what happened at the National Convention. They are the destroyers of the history of South Africa.

As with the establishment of a Republic in 1961.

Yes, as with the establishment of the Republic in 1961, but the members of the National Convention, the Boers and the Britons, went into it with open eyes, and the English-speaking persons who participated in it, knew that it would happen one day. [Interjections.] However, they never tampered with the components of the provinces. They respected Natal’s identity, its provincial council and its executive committee, as well as those of the Cape, the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. [Interjections.]

†Those most sensitive aspects were respected and honoured, even in the Republic, until today. Now this hon member and his party are supporting them in their proposals to abolish this system. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, once again it is clear that this hon Minister and the Government are caught up in the pincer movement of a strong attack from their right and a strong attack from their left.

Do you call that strong?

Well, I have listened to the hon member for Soutpansberg and eight other hon members who expressed their opposition to this Bill, and seven of us are doing the same …

You are referring to the quantity, and not to the quality.

Well, that may be so. [Interjections.] However, at this stage it is important for me, as the last speaker on our side of the House, just to distinguish between the opposition of the PFP to this Bill and that of our friends in the CP and in the NRP as well. [Interjections.]

We oppose this Bill—I strongly support the amendment of my hon leader—because we regard it as an extension of the racial principles contained in the present constitution to second-tier government. It is an aspect of the policy and attitude of the Government with its authoritarian syndrome, and in addition it destroys the responsible base of elected people. Therefore we oppose it on that basis, and also because it adopts the whole principle of own affairs and general affairs by taking own affairs away from the provincial administration and leaving it with some semblance of general affairs.

The hon member for Soutpansberg and his colleagues in the CP oppose the Bill for a different reason. While they agree that the idea is that there will not be direct representation, they are opposing it, as I understand it from having listened to them, because this Bill is abolishing a provincial system of elected White representatives. They have also argued that it is a type of power-sharing. We do not agree that it is a type of power-sharing and we do not hold with the idea that we are opposing the Bill because it is abolishing a system which elected only Whites to the provincial councils.

As far as the NRP are concerned I must say I am somewhat disappointed at the amendment that they have moved because if anyone should have supported the amendment that the Bill should be read this day six months it should have been the NRP. They have for many years elected their own people and held the power in the Natal provincial council and controlled the executive of that provincial council. For them to come with an amendment accepting the abolition of provincial councils in principle but merely moving in the words of the hon member for Durban Point the amendment that “this House declines to pass the Second Reading of the Provincial Government Bill unless and until members of executive committees are elected either directly or indirectly by the registered voters of each province” is something I find strange.

Do I detect in this a not very strong opposition from the NRP, and do I just possibly get the feeling that one of their members who is presently in the executive committee is perhaps waiting to be appointed to this new executive committee and that they do not want to embarrass that member or other members of their party who may be seeking nomination and who are on the provincial executive at the moment; and that that is why they are not going the whole hog by voting that this Bill be read this day six months? I think that that may be the case because if anyone has a strong reason to reject this Bill it is the NRP.

Would you oppose elected MEC’s?

The whole basis must change.

By what racial groups?

Multiracial.

The hon member says the members of the executive committee should be multiracial, but he did not say so in his amendment. The hon member is still agreeing with the abolition of the provincial system as such.

Are Blacks registered voters?

Yes, they should also be voters.

In that case I think it is important to us to have enunciated our differences.

I do not want to wax sentimental over this abolition of provincial councils although, perhaps with 18 years’ experience in that body, one could wax a little sentimental, but I do not. One has seen the powers and functions of the provincial council diminished over the years and its powers whittled away. However, warts and all, it was an elected body in which members of the provincial council played a part. In the Orange Grove constituency that I represented there were something like 9 schools, a home for the aged and a hospital board on which I served. The people living in the area as voters had someone at hand to whom they could come with their complaints and who in his turn could bring those complaints to the provincial council where they could be voiced and perhaps dealt with, even though one was a member of the opposition. From that point of view, certainly, it is a pity.

In spite of the diminution of powers, it did have certain powers. Our main difficulty is: What are we replacing the provincial council with? We are replacing the provincial council with a nominated executive Administrator and a nominated executive committee. They are going to carry out certain limited functions. We are not told much about the new system. Perhaps I am a little pragmatic and I hope the hon the Minister is a little pragmatic as well and will spell out a few things to us. There will not be a Committee Stage to deal with this Bill, and in the circumstances we are very much up in the air.

In the first place, where is the Government taking us? What is the package deal? What is the main objective in having RSC’s, in abolishing the provincial councils, in giving limited powers to the provincial councils, and how is all this going to fit into the constitution when the Government itself says that the tricameral system of Parliament is not a holy cow and that the tricameral system itself may disappear, perhaps in the not too distant future? All these ad hoc measures are being applied and institutions that have withstood the test of time for 75 years are being abolished without our knowing exactly where we are going. Moreover, in these very troubled times when all the people of South Africa are most concerned and worried about their future and their children’s future in the country, we are fiddling around and doing a little here and a little there, abolishing this and introducing that, and not giving any real hope or any real indication as to where the Government is taking us. That is the main difficulty as I see it.

If we are going to have the provincial executives we do not know at this stage, for example, how many people are to be appointed to this provincial executive. We have not been told, and it could be any number in terms of the Bill before us. It can be any number which the State President may decide on. Furthermore, apart from the number of people involved—which we are not aware of—we do not know who they are, for example, and neither do we know to which race group they belong or what their functions are. Nothing has been spelt out to us as everything has been stated in broad principle.

Let us look at the provincial council as it exists at the moment. Let us look at hospitals. Even at this moment while we are abolishing the provincial councils and passing a Bill in that respect, we still do not know where control over hospitals will lie in the future. Is it an own affair or is it a general affair? The last we heard from that side of the House was that a committee of the Commission for Administration was considering the future of hospitals. We therefore do not know at this stage what control this executive will have over hospitals, or who will control them. We only know that provincial councils go out of commission on 30 June, and we do not know who is going to control the hospitals. That is only a few days away. It is an absolute joke that the provincial councils are to be abolished on 30 June and here we are on 20 June still none the wiser as to who is going to control hospitals and hospital administration. [Interjections.] It is a joke. With great respect, it is laughable. It is also sad, however. What about all the people involved in hospitals?

It is a crime!

Yes, I agree with the hon member for Jeppe that it is a crime.

As I see it, then, the Government has removed local government and those functions have now been transferred to the central Government under this hon Minister. What are they left with at the moment? They are left with roads—provincial roads which are subject to the national board. They are left with control of the traffic ordinance, nature conservation and libraries and museums, which may fall under the regional services councils. They are also left with holiday resorts—places in the Transvaal such as Blyde River Canyon and the Warmbaths—and horseracing from which they derive a substantial amount in betting and other taxes. They are also responsible for certain public works which I think the Department of Public Works under this hon Minister will be administering. Therefore, what exactly will their functions be? That has not been spelt out to us. We would like to know, and perhaps the hon the Minister can tell us.

Mention is also made in the Bill of certain other functions which may be assigned to them. We read in clause 14 that—

1. (a) as have been …

Which is what I have just mentioned—

Would the hon the Minister be so kind as to tell us what he has in mind and what functions are likely to be assigned to this provincial executive in the future?

Were you not here when I discussed my Vote?

I was here when you discussed your Vote, but I still do not know what you have in mind. You never bothered to answer me. [Interjections.]

In addition to that, those people who are appointed to the executive, are appointed in terms of clause 11(1), which reads as follows:

I think the Afrikaans is clearer. It reads as follows:

At his whim and fancy, therefore, he can appoint a person today and fire him tomorrow. [Interjections.] Moreover, when it comes to this appointment, let us be honest with each other about whom the State President is going to appoint. Who is he going to appoint apart from members of the NP and those members who will be loyal to the NP and who will listen to the whims and instructions of the Government from time to time? Those are the people he is going to appoint. I ask with great respect: Is that fair representation? It is not fair representation at all.

It reminds me of the time when they wanted to introduce a system of local government where there would have been a city boss. One would simply stick a city boss in, and he would then run the whole show! This is virtually what they are doing now.

That brings me to the hon the Minister’s speech. I want to take the hon the Minister up on two points. Firstly, I want to quote what he said:

He then said:

My word, Sir!

My word!

If this is a broadening of democracy, then what does the hon the Minister and the Government understand by democracy? If ever there was a diminution of democracy or, at least, evidence of a diminution of democracy, then it is to take away the right of the people to vote for those who are to represent them at local government level and simply to appoint people ad hoc! [Interjections.]

I have taken the trouble to take a look at the International Dictionary’s definition of democracy. The word “democracy” is derived from the Greek words for “people” and “power” and—

These are …

Now read the rest of that, and read it aloud!

Fine, I shall read it aloud. It continues as follows:

[Interjections.] It goes on still further and perhaps I should quote the following too, although it is not directly relevant. With regard to the rule of law it gives the following example:

No imprisonment or restriction of a citizen’s liberty without a fair trial…

How about that?

Read more!

It goes on:

Yes!

Now, Sir, will the hon the Minister please explain to this House how the principles of democracy are being broadened in terms of this Bill? [Interjections.]

If the hon the Minister is going to appoint the members of the executive committees in the provinces, how is he, in any way, going to respect the wishes of the people? Let us say that the Free State, for example, supports the CP, the Transvaal supports the NP, Natal is NRP and the Cape Province supports the PFP. Is the hon the Minister going to appoint people to the executive committees who will reflect the wishes of the majority of the voters in the four provinces? [Interjections.] Is he going to do that?

Is this a broadening of the democracy, Sir? If ever I have heard of a misconception of democracy, we have it here! However, we are asked to believe that this is a broadening of democracy!

The second point I should like to raise has to do with the following words of the hon the Minister:

Now is that not a very sound argument for abolishing the tricameral system? If one is going to take into consideration the fact that bodies must be elected and must represent all the population groups, then the biggest population group in South Africa is not represented in this tricameral system! In his own words, therefore, the hon the Minister has given us a very sound reason for the abolition of the present tricameral system of Parliament! [Interjections.]

Perhaps hon members would like to hear some additional details with regard to the Bill. There is, for example, the question of the assignment of powers.

In assigning powers in terms of clause 14, to which I referred a moment ago, what is the future of Black local government? The provincial councils did administer Black local government in the sense that they fell under the local government ordinance under the White provincial councils.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, until the hon the Minister took it away in terms of the tricameral system. [Interjections.] That is considered to be a general affair, not an own affair. Now, if that local government is a general affair, is it the intention … The hon the Minister is getting impatient and shaking his head …

I am not impatient. Since 1982 they have not been under the provinces.

I said that before. I said that, but before that they were. I am not talking …

What about the Black local authorities?

But I am saying that. I am saying that is where they were. In 1982 they were taken away and put under the central Government. That is what I am saying. That is considered to be a general affair in terms of the Constitution.

Since 1982 local government has been under the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning. Surely the hon member knows that. [Interjections.]

It has been a general affair since 1983, under the tricameral system. Local government Black affairs …

But that is still not under the provinces.

It is not an own affair. It is stipulated by the Constitution. If one has a Bill dealing with Blacks before Parliament it is a general affairs Bill not an own affairs Bill. They are all general affairs Bills.

But the provinces never had control of Black local Government.

But will they have it now?

They do not have it now.

But will they?

That is not the point I am arguing. [Interjections.]

Will they in the future? [Interjections.]

I served on the management committee of Johannesburg for many years. Soweto was under their control. We controlled Soweto. We built Soweto; we built the houses in Soweto; we got the ground for Soweto; we got the money for Soweto; we built the houses, the clinics, the nursing homes and schools for them. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister must not tell me Black local authorities were not under provincial government. If they were under the local authorities like the city council they were under provincial government. The hon the Minister does not know his history; he does not know his own facts. [Interjections.]

Let us get back to the point. Is it the hon the Minister’s intention to place Black local authorities under the executive that is to be appointed, because this a general affair? Is it his intention to interfere with Black education in any way and to put that under the Administrators as well? Own affairs are being taken out of local government; they are left with general affairs, and I am dealing with general affairs, which is Black education and Black local government and it is fair for me to ask, with respect, whether there is going to be any change in the future when these bodies are appointed. The clause states that additional functions are going to be assigned and I want to know what those additional functions are and I am guessing. I am asking whether these are additional functions that can be assigned to the executive that is going to be appointed.

I would like to move on to clause 17 of the Bill. This involves co-operation with the self-governing territories and also with foreign states. What do we have in mind with this? Are we going to create new areas which involve the self-governing territories and will the executives cover areas of local government and parts of the self-governing territories as well? If so, what sort of functions does the hon the Minister visualise that the executives are going to administer which involve self-governing territories and local government areas? Although he will retain the existing boundaries of provincial councils he has the power, through the State President, to appoint these executive bodies for areas which do not relate specifically to the provinces. In this regard I think the hon member for East London City made a speech to the Rapportryers, which I read the other day, and he visualised that there would be executive bodies in East London and Port Elizabeth. Is that right? In other words the Eastern Cape will then be divided with an executive in East London, one In Port Elizabeth, one in Cape Town and I do not know where else. This is the time to tell us. We do not have a Committee Stage. The hon the Minister should tell us, should take us into his confidence. Let us not wake up one morning and find out that the whole system has changed, whilst we as members of Parliament know nothing about it. The hon the Minister is not taking us into his confidence. He is not telling us what the Bill means, there is no Committee Stage, we do not know what we are voting for and yet the hon the Minister is asking us to support the Bill. That is not the way to legislate.

I do not want to delay the House any longer, but very briefly let me say that we are being asked to agree to the abolition of provincial councils. It is an exercise that has been anticipated. We know that the Cape Provincial Council has had its last sitting, the Transvaal Provincial Council has had its last sitting and I think the Free State Provincial Council has as well. It is a fait accompli. The other two Houses have passed this Bill, and here we are making a last-ditch stand because we do believe in the things that we believe in. We believe in democracy. We believe in giving the people the right to elect their people to bodies to represent them. For all those reasons we totally reject the Bill before us and stand by our request that it be read this day six months.

Mr Speaker, the crux of the hon member for Hillbrow’s speech was the very apt question: Where is the Government taking South Africa? I should like to start at that point today by telling the hon the Minister that this legislation and all the other legislation forming part of this package contains the same inherent problem which gives rise to the question: Where is the Government heading? Our problem is precisely that the hon the Minister who deals with Constitutional Development and Planning does not reply to questions put to him. At a certain stage he sat here taking copious notes. I do not know why he did this because he did not use them. Today he is taking hardly any notes at all. He is walking up and down and not paying any attention to what Opposition speakers are saying. [Interjections.] He is apparently upset that we are exercising our right to oppose this measure. I heard his attempt at discouraging the Opposition from using more speakers. He looks disgruntled about this; he is not replying to questions; from start to finish, however, he is the cause that we did not adjourn yesterday or today. After all, he is the one who introduced this legislation.

Nevertheless the worst is that he does not reply to our questions. [Interjections.] I am directing a very serious accusation at the hon the Minister and that is that he promised repeatedly to reply to our questions on past Acts. The questions we are putting come down to one which we shall repeat: Where is he heading with South Africa? In particular, where is he heading with the White? We put the question to him and he told the hon member for Pietersburg he would reply to his questions. I put questions to the hon the Minister in previous debates which he has not answered to date. What is his standpoint on Mr Pik Botha’s remark that we could have a Black State President? [Interjections.] The hon the Minister said he would reply to my question but he has not done so. I put a question to him on the protection mechanisms built into their new plan. What are these protection mechanisms—they are totally relevant to this legislation—to prevent one group from dominating another? I questioned him on section 3 of the twelve-point plan and said he was deviating from his mandate with this type of legislation. He did not give me a reply.

[Inaudible.]

I shall quote because the hon the Minister also has a Hansard. I wish to give only a few quotations from Hansard. The following was said on the 18th:

At some other stage came the following:

His reply was something irrelevant again. Then again:

And then came the point:

To which the Minister replied:

Then I said:

Then the Minister added:

The hon the Minister said in previous debates I had no cause for concern as he would answer the questions but he does not do so.

Mr Chairman, I wish to ask the hon member whether he was here when I replied in the debate on the legislation on influx control and discussed the repeal of section 3C as well as the legislation on squatting.

Sir, that is not what I asked. The hon the Minister has not replied to my questions nor to those of the hon member for Pietersburg. He can beat about the bush and try to get out of this with his usual vocabulary but it will be of no avail to him. He does not reply to questions. I then ask myself what the use is of this debating. What purpose does it serve for Parliamentarians to rise in opposition and put questions while the Minister responsible does not reply to them?

And that is broadening democracy!

I found the reply to this question in the article Reform and Stability in a Modernising Multi-Ethnic Society by Samuel P Huntington. Prof Huntington presented this article in the form of a paper at RAU on 17 September 1981. Hon members would benefit from reading it. It was published in Politicon of December 1981.

Order! No, the hon member must confine himself to the Bill under discussion.

Mr Speaker, I am…

Order! I do not wish to interfere with the way in which the hon member participates in the debating here. Nevertheless we cannot range so far off the subject.

Mr Speaker, I wish to indicate to you—and these are my motives for this—why the hon the Minister pilots through this type of legislation without ever replying to questions. It is directly related to this provincial legislation as you will gather as I develop my argument. It says here and I quote:

What actually happened was this. On Sunday, 15 June, the question was put in the Sunday Times: “How’s he doing so far?”, and Mr Richard Steyn, editor of the Natal Witness, wrote in the Sunday Times on this formula of political fraud as diagnosed by Prof Huntington. When I read from this article, you will see its relevance regarding the hon the Minister and the standpoints of the hon member for Helderkruin and others.

Order! Does the hon member mean that what he wishes to read aloud has a bearing on the Bill under discussion?

Yes, Mr Speaker.

Order! As long as it does not refer to someone’s person, the hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Steyn writes as follows:

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Will you permit me to address you briefly on this aspect? The Government and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning tell this House and the country it is busy with reform. We have to discuss the entire Government argument concerning its plans for reform. The relevant question is why the hon the Minister wants to carry out reform, how he does this and what the consequence is. I wish to request that you grant us the opportunity of attempting to obtain a reply to this question.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Obviously hon members may participate in the debate but within the limits of the Rules of this House. I submit with great respect that the Government reform proposals are the subject under discussion, as contained in the legislation we are considering. Consequently I wish to agree with your initial statement, Mr Speaker, that this is in fact what is relevant.

Order! Of course, that is right. That is why I told the hon member for Jeppe to indicate the relevance of this to the legislation under discussion. I shall permit the hon member to proceed but he is to provide clear indication of the relevance of his quotation to the legislation.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I shall read the quotation as follows:

The principle underlying the Bill under discussion is one of reform—reform of the provincial system in its entire essence—and I wish to indicate what type of reform this comprises. I shall quote further:

The hon member for Hillbrow put questions throughout his speech. He also said inter alia: “We are guessing what they are up to next.” I am now indicating that this is the formula according to which reform is taking place:

Now we are putting questions but receiving no answers to them because the process has only been set in motion. We do not know where it is heading. We are putting questions like the hon member for Hillbrow. We are asking: Quo vadis? We are asking him where he is heading.

This brings me to the hon member for Helderkruin. He made the very comment in this debate last night that it was more important to get the process going than to know where one was heading. [Interjections.] He then used the splendid example of the Great Trek. He said the Voortrekkers had simply started the Great Trek just as we were embarking on our process of reform today. With great respect, I wish to differ with the hon member. The Voortrekkers knew exactly where they were heading in their reform process. [Interjections.] Of course they knew. They sent out numerous reconnaissance commandos. They sent numerous persons inland who negotiated on a small scale and knew where they were heading. They did not—and this is my argument regarding this “getting the process to start without really knowing where you are going”—gamble with the matters on which they had embarked. They did not run the risk of creating a monster. This gentleman continues:

This is definitely relevant to this matter—

They therefore have to employ ambiguity, deception and concealment. I now accuse the hon the Minister of concealing his true goals. What better example do we have of ambiguity and deception on the side of the NP in the shape of this formula than these quotations? On 14 March 1983 Die Transvaler reported:

He therefore said the CP had disseminated a downright he that the NP was in favour of power-sharing. [Interjections.] The State President…

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is it not a rule of this House that arguments should not be repeated? The hon member for Soutpansberg quoted those exact words and put forward that very argument. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a further point of order: I in no way referred to anything like that. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I was also present here and I can testify that the hon member for Soutpansberg did not put forward this argument at all. Perhaps the hon member Dr Vilonel should just wake up.

On getting the process started, Prof Huntington refers to a deception. The State President and the hon the Minister of National Education adopt absolutely polarised standpoints on this. The hon the Minister of National Education calls it a lie that the NP is a proponent of power-sharing. The State President says, however:

Now we are approaching closer to this legislation. I agree with the hon Leader of the Official Opposition. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has no respect for voters’ opinions. Let me put it like this: The NP has no respect for democracy. [Interjections.] I shall cite one example, which is the HSRC finding as it appeared in the 1984 edition of Race Relations Survey. The HSRC found that 78,9% of Afrikaans-speaking people were in favour of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. As regards section 16 of the Immorality Act, the HSRC found that 81,3% of Afrikaans-speaking people were in favour of it. Nonetheless that legislation was abolished. That is an example of how the NP despises the wishes of White voters.

We now reach the specific provisions of this legislation. [Interjections.] The NP contends that it is broadening democracy by means of this legislation. The hon member for Helderkruin put forward his argument on this yesterday evening and I should like to meet him on it.

My standpoint is that this legislation deprives 2 978 000 White voters of their right to elect 180 provincial councillors. They are being deprived of that right. It is a right written into the Constitution. The constitutional dispensation therefore provides for these South African voters to have the right to elect their provincial councillors.

Then elect your MPC. [Interjections.]

I can tell this hon member I have an MPC, Mr Hennie Bekker, who is a member of the NP and my very good friend. He is a good MPC. Did the hon member want to know something more about him? [Interjections.]

How can this be a broadening of democracy if three million people barring a few thousand are deprived of their right to elect 180 public representatives for themselves? One man is then substituted for the three millions voters—Pieter Willem Botha, the State President. He is now replacing three million voters and he does not appoint 180 provincial councillors but whomever he likes. And this is still called broadening democracy!

Order! I wish to point out that we have frequently heard this argument before. No following speaker will repeat this argument; we have finished with it. It has been used by all hon members participating in the debate up to this point.

With respect, Mr Speaker …

Order! With or without respect, I am putting my foot down here. The hon member will not use this argument any further!

Mr Speaker, I merely wish to tell you that the hon member for Helderkruin used an argument for which I specially prepared myself and on which nobody has replied to him so far. I should like to reply to that…

Order! The hon member is being repetitive. The argument of “broadening democracy” has been used time and again. It has been said repeatedly that people are being deprived of their right to vote because one man is now to decide who shall serve on provincial executive committees.

Mr Speaker, I cannot recall that any hon member mentioned the number of voters, which I did.

I shall permit the hon member to add the number of voters.

I wish to reply to the hon member for Helderkruin. He said the following … [Interjections.] I thought he was present as I looked in that direction and confused him with someone else. That hon member adopted the standpoint that Coloureds, Indians and Blacks were not part of provincial government. Now democracy was being broadened by giving these people a form of representation. Even if the State President were able to appoint those of colour to those executive committees through the standing committee of Parliament, this remained a form of democracy according to the hon member. I wish to state two standpoints in this regard. The first is that democracy deals with the people— “demos”—and nobody who is to be a member of the provincial government will be elected by the people. They are replacing persons actually elected by the people. Secondly, this also applies to the hon member Dr Vilonel as his standpoint is the same— NP insensitivity regarding the rights of these 2 978 000 White voters amazes me.

Hon members of the NP regard it as broadening of democracy when one gives Coloureds, Indians and Blacks a form of “something” in this inadequate manner. When they say democracy is being broadened, they take no cognisance of the fact that the rights of three million people have been swept away. Consequently I say that this legislation proves that the Government has no respect for democracy.

The following point I wish to touch upon is the principle underlying the executive committee. Some hon members said the underlying principle was separate development; others implied it was mixed government. I want to debate these matters thoroughly now because this is obscure and we have the right to obtain clarity on it. I wish to ask what difference has sprung up between separate development and apartheid. Over the years we have been under the impression that they were one and the same thing. We have now experienced the hon member for Bellville’s saying apartheid is dead.

That is true.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: That argument was used by at least ten other members. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Jeppe may proceed.

The hon member had better remain calm for a while as I shall return to him.

In sum, I wish to say there are hon members of that side saying apartheid is dead and others saying separate development is alive. The hon member for Innesdal said homelands had been erased but the hon member for Helderkruin said he differed with him.

We now ask what the principle underlying the executive committee is. Is the philosophical substructure of the clause—the one on which it is built—separate development, apartheid or what is it? Are we proceeding with the homeland policy or not in consequence of this legislation? I wish to ask whether the executive committee is a separate development committee. We have had two versions of this. The first was that anyone could be appointed to the executive committee.

We shall not appoint you.

I do not wish to serve on it. I have a pleasant little job and I am satisfied here. [Interjections.]

The hon member Dr Vilonel said the hon members to serve on it could be Black, Coloured or Indian members. It made no difference who they were. I now wish to ask the hon member Dr Vilonel whether the Administrator may also be White, Coloured, Indian or Black. [Interjections.] The hon member Dr Vilonel says yes and the hon member for Krugersdorp says it is an old argument they have long since conceded.

Why did the hon member for Helderkruin therefore put another construction on this executive committee last night? He said one could have a Zulu on that executive committee to see to Zulu affairs, a Xhosa to see to Xhosa affairs and so on. So we are back to separate development boots and all. Now I ask: Is there vertical differentiation in the executive committee? I understood the hon member for Helderkruin to say that. This means that a person’s representative from one’s ethnic group sees to one’s interests. Surely that brings us back to separate development—vertical differentiation.

I do not think this will be the case, however; I think it is merely a pretext to bring about ambiguity again according to Prof Huntington’s recipe. Armed with the ambiguity of their reform process, hon members can then return to their voters—this is strictly according to Prof Huntington—and tell rural constituents they should read what Dr Stoffel van der Merwe says; he says a Zulu will look after a Zulu and a Xhosa see to a Xhosa. Nevertheless they tell other people there is no racial difference in it; it is an integration model. Now I ask: What is the underlying principle? Is it separate development or integration?

An objection of mine against this executive committee is that it is basically a consociative democratic model; it is a consociation model. It is the same model we have in this Parliament, in which one gathers the elite representatives of the various groups and they have to govern.

[Inaudible.]

If it is constructed on that principle, it is certainly a model of it. My objection to any consociative democratic model is that it is one of conflict. The system of executive committees we are going to build into the provincial system is inherently a model of conflict. [Interjections.] I do not know whether hon members agree with me. Does the hon member for Winburg agree? [Interjections.] He says he does not agree; I think he should put on his gumboots now.

I wish to quote to the House from Hansard of 6 February 1980 (Hansard: House of Assembly, 1980, col 247). The Prime Minister at the time, now the State President, said:

Incidentally, I do not know which expert does not know what he is talking about!

Then followed his reasons—

My authority for saying the executive committees are a model for conflict because they are of a consociative nature is the State President.

I can furnish a few reasons why I can see there will be conflict. In the first place, minimum demands of the various component groups are irreconcilable with one another. We experienced that here: The splendid dream of consensus was shattered when it was put to a real test. This was when it came to security legislation which is truly important to people. There was no consensus then. [Interjections.]

Now we shall see what happens to the other examples but hon members may note that when it concerns something which is not negotiable to a group and another group wants to take it away from the first, one cannot reach consensus.

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

Oh no, do remain seated so that I can speak. Pardon me, but that hon member has risen four times already and must wait a bit now.

The only way in which one does reach consensus in a consociative democracy is by way of concessions. While something remains in the NP bank account with which it can make concessions, it will ward off conflict, but the day will dawn when it no longer has anything to sacrifice or abolish; what then?

I should like to cite an example. The Administrator may now be a Black and we hear rumours that Dr Phatudi is being considered as a possible Administrator for the Transvaal. [Interjections.] I like this reaction. [Interjections.] I hope Dr Phatudi and the Blacks will read it in Hansard that the hon member Dr Vilonel and others laughed when I mentioned his name.

Laughed derisively! [Interjections.]

They laughed derisively. [Interjections.]

We are only laughing at you because you are so ridiculous!

The count of the Blacks in the Transvaal is definitely larger than that of other population groups.

That is…

The hon the Minister and I are friendly enough for him to keep quiet.

In consequence of numbers, a Black has to be appointed as the Administrator of the Transvaal. If this is not done, the Blacks will be upset and, if there are insufficient Blacks, Coloureds or Indians on the executive committee, those people will be unhappy. If a White is appointed as the Administrator, the Blacks will be upset. We shall then be saddled with the problem against which the State President warned according to this Hansard from which I quoted. [Interjections.]

I wish to address my next words to the hon the Minister. He does not reply to me but I shall have to keep trying. I have three objections to the Bill. The first of these is that it will lead to the destruction of democratic values. Does he agree with me? [Interjections.] My second objection is that it will lead to a system of one-man-one-vote. The third is that it will destroy South Africa.

The hon the Minister is laughing at me.

Yes!

Hon members say they are laughing at me. Do they think I am wrong? [Interjections.] I do not accept questions from that hon member at all. [Interjections.]

I have put my three objections and hon members are laughing at me. They are therefore telling me this will not lead to the destruction of democratic values, to one-man-one-vote and to the destruction of South Africa. [Interjections.] May I add a little authority in that case? I should like to quote from The Cape Times of 10 November 1982 in reference to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. This time the hon the Minister is my authoritative source:

Anyone saying that Blacks would become part of the constitutional dispensation was a deliberate liar—

Order! Hon members must not speak aloud.

Then the hon the Minister continued: If they …

That is the Blacks—

I should like to deal with the second point first and refer to Die Burger of 28 August 1982 in which the hon the Minister said it would destroy South Africa if Blacks became part of the new constitutional dispensation.

I should like to quote what the hon the Minister said according to Die Transvaler of 6 October 1982. He was not referring to the new constitutional dispensation but merely making a general statement; that gate is therefore closed to him:

This is a broad generalisation—

At one stage the hon the Minister adopted the standpoint that, if Blacks were involved—my authority is the same report from which I have just quoted according to which the NP would never grant rights to Blacks in White South Africa outside their national states …

That is not true!

Oh, it is not true? Good gracious! [Interjections.] I can show it to him. [Interjections.]

He will soon be yearning for Sunday school days.

This is a very good one. [Interjections.] Here it is:

The hon the Minister is the liar if there is one. I was quoting from The Cape Times of 10 November 1982.

Can the hon the Minister see that he cannot erase the sins of the past? Today the Minister stands branded together with the NP as regards this legislation and all the other legislation as directionless people who are wiping out democracy from the South African constitutional dispensation. Worst of all is that they are also branded as people who have inherently lost their credibility— the credibility gap is so great that nobody in South Africa believes an NP leader any longer. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: is the hon member permitted to say people inherently lack credibility?

Order! Yes, the hon member may say that.

Mr Speaker, I do not think it necessary to respond to the hon member for Jeppe’s tirade at the end of his speech. It is definitely not worthwhile reacting to it. I shall reply to a few of his arguments but it is not worth responding to the way in which he works himself up emotionally for no reason.

He is competing with Eugène Terre’blanche.

Yes, it looks exactly as if he is trying to work himself up to compete with Mr Eugène Terre’blanche.

The hon member referred to Huntington’s speech to which the hon member for Rissik has also frequently referred. Huntington’s speech is an old favourite of the hon member for Rissik.

Anonymous or not anonymous.

By coincidence I also have Huntington’s speech in my office and my hon colleague is fetching it quickly. [Interjections.] It is interesting to read this speech which Huntington made in 1981 because it is very clear that the hon member for Jeppe has just quoted it in a context to suit himself. The entire spirit and crux of what Huntington said in his speech on that occasion are contained in the following explanation which he gave himself on the theme of his speech:

I think this explains the point of departure of his speech. If one sees it against that background, the hon member for Jeppe has a totally different speech there. [Interjections.]

I wish to go further because it is interesting that Huntington also says in the same speech:

That was in 1981, a few months before the CP was founded, so it was obviously excluded—

Against this background I think the hon member for Jeppe’s arguments based on Huntington’s speech fall away entirely.

I should like to make one further comment on the hon member for Jeppe’s speech. He referred to concessions and said the Government was distributing gifts and consensus politics would work only as long as it could make concessions and had something to concede. I would rather secure my future and survival in this country by means of negotiation than by not taking any steps, burying my head in the sand, not accomplishing any reform and so going under in any case. [Interjections.] Consequently I say it is clever and ingenious of any government today to negotiate and plan to achieve a future and survival for every population group and also for the White in this country.

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

No, Sir.

Hon members of the CP as well as the hon member for Sasolburg have made fairly general reference to Dr Verwoerd so far to indicate that Dr Verwoerd is still respected and recognised as the authority and expert on everything which is occurring in South Africa even today. I share the hon member for Meyerton’s view on Dr Verwoerd as a person and a leader. I share his view 100%. It is not fitting for me or the hon member, however, to misuse Dr Verwoerd or hawk him about because sooner or later we shall come to grief if we wish to do this. Permit me to quote to the hon member for Meyerton from the book Verwoerd aan die Woord. What did Dr Verwoerd say in 1961 as regards the Coloureds? His words were:

I am not trying to say more with those words than merely this: The hon member and other hon members in that party should not try to misuse Dr Verwoerd. In the same way I can say that it is true that Dr Verwoerd made a mistake as regards his standpoint that no White capital should be used in the national states. We realise—I am sure the hon member will agree with me—that Dr Verwoerd made a mistake there. Because of that very standpoint of Dr Verwoerd’s, no development took place in the national states in the economic sphere. We should therefore not clutch at Dr Verwoerd and misuse him for our own political arguments of today.

Yesterday the hon member for Sasolburg referred to the speech I made earlier this week. Arising from my speech, he asked when the Government had discovered that the Verwoerd policy had failed. I made no such statement. What I said was that the Government had realised in the seventies that the national states were not the perfect answer as regards the Blacks. By coincidence that hon member is not present in the Chamber; I do not know where he is at the moment. The hon member for Sasolburg and his leaders, both the present and the previous leaders of that party, are known for the cloak-and-dagger meetings they held to inflame people even in Dr Verwoerd’s time.

If you say that, you are a liar! [Interjections.]

That is the truth! I have first-hand evidence of this. [Interjections.] That is a fact. The hon member for Sasolburg was probably opposed to every leader of the NP since joining the party. He was opposed to Dr Verwoerd, Mr Vorster and so on …

Get back to the legislation!

Now you are crying! [Interjections.] Cowboys don’t cry! [Interjections.]

Let us revert to my argument. The point is that a leader who is not capable of adapting to the given circumstances of his time is not worthy of being a leader. Dr Verwoerd proved this as did Mr Vorster in his time as well as the present State President. The hon member for Helderkruin referred last night to Dr Verwoerd’s changing the homeland policy in his own time to make provision for independence.

The hon member for Sasolburg said that, when the Government discovered certain policy measures were not working, it should have informed the people about the changes which had to come in consequence of the acknowledgement that certain policy measures had not worked in the past. But that is precisely what was done! That is exactly what was done when those hon members were still sitting in the same party with us. The permanence of Blacks in White areas was recognised in Dr Connie Mulder’s time. That acknowledgement was made at the very time Dr Connie Mulder was the Minister holding that portfolio.

With his “mooiste stad in Afrika”.

He wanted to make Soweto the “mooiste stad in Afrika”. What did that mean unless it was that those people should be able to live there forever and a day?

I think the arguments of the hon member for Sasolburg and all the hon members of the CP who have so far participated in the debate on this specific aspect do not hold water at all.

May I refer to what the hon member for Soutpansberg said earlier? He stated that the provincial system which was being destroyed now according to him was a sacred convention. Let us examine the type of sacred convention it is. As far as I know and as far as I have understood and read history, the system of provincial councils arose as a compromise. This compromise was developed during the National Convention between the former Boer Republics and the British dominions. The National Convention gave it substance and it was then settled by means of a British law. That sacred cow to which the hon member for Soutpansberg referred was a British law. [Interjections.] That creation, that Afrikaner holy of holies to which he referred, was a British law.

What is more, the same sacred cow was changed on numerous occasions in which he was involved. This was the case in 1961 when the South Africa Act was changed into the Republican Constitution. He was also an hon member of this party when the Senate was abolished and that sacred convention therefore broken earlier too. [Interjections.] That hon member cannot present that as a valid argument at any stage.

I should like to examine a few arguments already raised on the legislation and put them into perspective. The hon member for Sasolburg and other hon members argued that the Government had come up with something here that it had not put to the test among the people. That is the statement which is generally made but what are the facts?

On 31 July 1982 during the federal congress, the Prime Minister at the time announced in public what was envisaged as regards a new constitutional dispensation in South Africa for the White, the Coloured and the Indian and what the effect of this would be on the provincial system. I think it is necessary for me to have the following quotation fully recorded. On that occasion the Prime Minister said:

Secondly, he said:

I want to argue that the Government has done exactly what was undertaken here. This is precisely what it has done since 1982. It held consultations, after which it took matters further and submitted its findings. Nevertheless the important point is: What arose from this? Popular feeling was tested by means of a referendum and that was one of the subjects on the agenda in the testing process of the 1983 referendum. In reply to this the Government received an overwhelming majority ruling to proceed. [Interjections.] These hon members say, however, that the Government does not have a mandate for what it is doing now.

To pursue the detail, public notice was given from May 1985 so there are no grounds for the argument that no one knew what was to happen regarding the provincial system before this Bill was tabled. That is not true. This Bill is merely an expression of what has been known in broad outline since 1982 and what has been detailed general knowledge more specifically since May 1985.

As regards broadening democracy, hon members on the other side of the House constantly came up with the argument that it was not a broadening of democracy. What are the considerations regarding a provincial system which could be subjects for discussion to the Government?

The first consideration would be the abolition of the present system of provincial councils; that is, to scrap provincial councils and replace them with a different system which might still serve at the second tier of government but simultaneously provide for the delegation of necessary functions to the third tier as well as the upgrading of others to the first tier. That is the first possible option.

The second possible option would be to create a similar council for every population group, therefore to create at least three additional councils in each province, although it would probably have to be more in many cases in order to institute the equivalent of the White provincial council.

The third possibility would be to transform the existing provincial council to provide for all population groups on a basis of direct election.

When one places these three possibilities side by side and analyses them, it becomes clear that the Government made the right decision in taking this step. It made the right decision not to broaden democracy in the sense of giving the vote to all groups as regards the second representative tier of government but by at least extending the existing essence—I shall revert to that in a moment—of the second tier of government to the other population groups. The essence was not so much vested in the elected legislators who served on those councils; it was vested in the functions which they carried out as delegates. I should like to return to this point in a while.

In consequence, I say the Government exercised a clear choice by broadening democracy at the second tier of government in the sphere where it is fundamentally and really important, which is in the sphere of the executive authority. [Interjections.] It has therefore given the other population groups the opportunity of reaching that level as well. This is the first choice which I mentioned that the Government had exercised.

Mention is very frequently made by the Opposition, including the Official Opposition, of the question of the abolition of legislative powers. The hon member for Jeppe said it was monstrous that the voters were being deprived of their right to elect members to provincial councils in future. That is true but let us judge for ourselves what powers provincial councils had! Let us examine them clinically.

You mean they sat there for 76 years for nothing!

The hon the Minister mentioned it in his speech and every hon member on this side of the House who spoke emphasised the fact that we had the greatest appreciation of all the tasks undertaken by provincial councils in their individual and collective capacity.

It is clear that the hon member for Langlaagte missed what I said a while back so I shall repeat it for his sake. Provincial councils were a system of compromise of 1910. I want to say it would have been feasible in any case to judge whether that system justified its existence or not at any given point between 1910 and today. It was a continuous subject for debate from 1910 in national life in general, particularly when viewed in the light of its origin.

Let us examine the legislative powers of provincial councils. As they will exist until 30 June, they have primary legislative powers in respect of the following spheres: Certain hospitals; education—that is at the pre-primary, primary and secondary level; local government for Whites; city and regional planning for White, Coloured and Indian areas; certain roads and certain aspects of road transport; traffic matters, although only outside local authority areas; stocking libraries; certain aspects of nature conservation; certain aspects of licensing and control over horse racing.

With the greatest appreciation and respect, if we view all these legislative powers together, surely we have to admit that the amount of dust kicked up by Opposition parties on the abolition of legislative powers was unnecessary! It was not worth their while to do so.

We should further take into account that the national policy on all these aspects is instituted by Parliament by means of legislation in any case and carried out through Cabinet decisions.

[Inaudible.]

Sir, the hon member mumbles so badly; I cannot hear anything!

Then tell us why we have local authorities!

In that respect provincial councils as they exist in their present form are a delegation of Parliament anyway.

As regards finances, 85% of provincial budgets are voted from the central Government Revenue Fund at this stage. Therefore this is something this Parliament controls in the first place.

How long ago did this become operative? This Government reduced their powers year after year! [Interjections.]

Sir, permit me to reply to the member on that. It was just because of substantive problems in the collection and administration of taxation that that power was earlier largely channelled through the central Government. The hon member is well aware of that and formed part of that side of the House when it happened. [Interjections.]

A further point is that official representative functions will be assigned to Administrators at the moment by the State President to be exercised on his behalf and that of the central Government in the various provinces. Currently that is the position in any case and those Administrators and their executive committees therefore in addition act as the delegated, with full power in the sense of executive and administrative discretion in functions assigned to them. That is the present state of affairs.

In consequence, my argument is that fundamentally no change takes place from 1 July as regards all the points mentioned before. I have just illustrated the legislative powers to those hon members. Legislative powers which are of basic importance are vested in Parliament in any case as matters stand at present. No less than 85% of funds are voted by Parliament and the Administrator and his executive committee act as the executive delegated authority of the central Government in the various provinces anyway.

All the arguments about which those hon members created such a fuss therefore make no sense against that background. If one judges the matter in this light, one has to admit that we are certainly justified in saying that it (Joes mean a broadening of democracy because not only White decision-makers …

But you are taking the Whites’ away, brother.

The White decision-maker is not being deprived of any function because the fundamental decision-making power of Parliament already exists and will proceed as usual. It seems that those hon members do not want to listen or understand reason at all. [Interjections.] What is relevant? According to Government points of departure, as already set out in its 1982 guidelines, it pursued the approach that maximal self-determination should be maintained by every group in its own affairs and that there should be joint decision-making on matters of common concern. After all, that point of departure is contained in the 12-point plan which was the 1981 election manifesto and according to which this party fought when those hon members were still with us. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister stated the points of departure in his Second Reading speech as being the maintenance of security, stability and the maximal self-determination of every group. At the same time the point of departure is that there should be maximal sharing of decision-making in matters of common concern. Consequently I say this is a broadening of democracy because the other population groups are at least obtaining the right of participating in it.

Mr Speaker, as the hon member says that democracy is being extended to all peoples, may I ask him whether they will then have the right to elect their representatives themselves—even if there are only four?

Bravo! That is a good question. [Interjections.]

Just as the White has the right to elect his members of Parliament, the Brown people and the Indians have the right to elect their Parliamentary representatives. I do not have to argue it with the hon member that Parliament, in terms of current legislation and current constitutional structures, is the competent central authority which has to carry out this task. [Interjections.]

And Black people?

In reply to that question, I can tell hon members in particular that, whereas the current provincial authority is composed unilaterally and only by Whites and certainly exercises power on certain aspects affecting Brown people and Indians, democracy is being broadened by this very legislation because at least the other two Houses of Parliament are also obtaining the right in terms of this legislation to participate in this joint process by which the actions of the executive committees can be monitored in the standing committee which is also provided for in the legislation.

That is why my argument is that this new legislation, viewed broadly, is the most desirable system of provincial government to replace the existing system for the present.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Johannesburg West thought he was going to score a point against us if he quoted Dr Verwoerd’s speech to us to indicate that Dr Verwoerd did not accept a Coloured homeland. In the time allotted to him, I want to tell the hon member, Dr Verwoerd gave attention primarily to the Black peoples. He worked out a system for the Black peoples.

For all times?

Yes, for all times. He did not deviate from the policy of separate development, as has happened today. Subsequently he also began to pay attention to the Coloured population. If one reads in his speeches what he had to say about the Coloured people, one sees that he said inter alia the following:

This, he said, should not be excluded.

That is power-sharing.

Oh please, with what kind of childishness is power-sharing now being discussed! [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, I now want you to allow me to quote a further three passages from what Dr Verwoerd said to point out that Dr Verwoerd never had in mind that the White fatherland and White self-determination in the White Parliament, or White power would ever be shared with Coloureds or Indians. [Interjections.] In the first place Dr Verwoerd said:

And a Coloured or Black or Indian person is not White:

On 5 February 1965 he also said the following:

Of the White Republic, which he established on 31 May 1961, he said:

When hon members on the opposite side want to confront us on this side with Dr Verwoerd, they should be very careful, because they are then venturing into territory which is perilous for them, with their power-sharing policy of today. For a moment I wish to leave the hon member for Johannesburg West at that, because I am in a slightly embarrassing position now because the hon member again spoke about the broadening of democracy.

Order! I want to point out to the hon member at once that I have looked into this matter. What he in fact did was to criticise a previous speaker, and that is why I subsequently allowed the hon member for Jeppe to continue, because I found out that he was dealing with the hon member for Helderkruin.

I shall reply to him …

Order! The hon member may elaborate on his argument. I shall listen to it, up to the point where I think the hon member has gone far enough.

Mr Speaker, I promise I am going to try very carefully to stick to the legislation and not repeat anything or to venture into areas you have already ruled out of order. Before I do so, however, I want to come back to the hon member for Port Elizabeth North. In respect of our resistance to the abolition of the system of provincial councils, he said: It is typical of the Conservative Party—they have no respect for the rights of others. I now want to ask him who removed the Coloureds from this Parliament? Who terminated direct Coloured representation in this Parliament?

Oh please, that old argument is so threadbare by now!

Nevertheless it remains a relevant argument. [Interjections.] I just want to put a relevant question to hon members of the National Party. The day Dr Verwoerd’s government decided that the Coloureds should be removed from the common voters’ roll, the day Advocate J G Strijdom loaded the Senate so that the Coloureds could in fact be removed from the common voters’ roll, and the day Advocate John Vorster decided that the White representatives of the Coloured should be removed from this Parliament so that this could become a pure and sovereign White Parliament, did they then not have any respect for the rights of other people either? I am putting this question specifically to the hon member for Port Elizabeth North. After all, he was already active in politics then.

Come on, Gert, answer the question!

Did that hon member at the time, with the same moral conviction with which he now expresses this opinion, have the courage to approach Advocate John Vorster and to tell him: “You are acting without any respect for the rights of other population groups in this country”? No, Sir, he did not do that. Very conveniently, he sat back and did nothing, because it has after all become the fashion in this country of ours that people no longer adhere to their principles and policy. No! These days, one listens to what is said by the man at the head of the government, and what he says is simply echoed. Zoo zongen de ouden, zoo piepen de jongen that is precisely what is happening, Mr Speaker. That is what people are doing these days, without even thinking about principles or policy.

The hon member for Port Elizabeth North also referred to the abolition of the Senate, compared with the abolition of the provincial councils. I put it to him that these two bodies are not comparable at all. The Senate was the second Chamber of Parliament, and its capacity was purely that of a review body. The provincial councils, on the other hand, are bodies with legislative powers, and their members are elected by the voters of South Africa, while the members of the Senate were indirectly elected by the elected representatives in Parliament and the provincial councils.

I now wish to turn to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. After all, he is nostalgic and is mourning the abolition of the provincial councils, just as—so he said—he was moved by the abolition of the Senate. I also want to ask him whether he was moved the day he abolished the sovereign White Parliament and substituted for it a tricameral system of power-sharing and political integration. Did he also mourn the day he gave away the sovereign rights of the Whites; when he abolished that highest authoritative body of the Whites, and put another body in its place?

Just like Kaunda! He mourns just as easily as Kaunda!

One should rather mourn for the things that are of real value, and not for something like the Senate, which was of no real value.

Kaunda Heunis!

Mr Speaker, I now wanted to confine myself briefly to the hon member for Johannesburg West. As regards the broadening of democracy and the powers of the provincial councils, the hon member argued that those matters over which the provincial councils had legislative authority were allegedly so small in scope and so minor that it did not really make much difference. He also argued that the power of making ordinances had after all been subject to the authority of Parliament. I put it to the hon member that those things to which he referred, and the powers which every province had to make ordinances in that regard, were more than we have today in this Parliament which are own affairs over which we ourselves can decide and over which we have the authority to make laws. Besides those laws are still subject to the general law of Parliament. What it amounts to, therefore, is a total dismantling and destruction of democracy. That is what is happening, and it avails us nothing to try to argue that when we create a nominated body in which we are involving more population groups, we are for that reason broadening democracy. The fact of the matter is that we are in this way depriving thousands—if not millions—of voters of their franchise, of their electoral powers to choose the representative each voter wants to represent him on the provincial council. In addition the voter has the right…

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

No, Sir, the hon member must resume his seat for awhile. I am developing an argument. Whenever one is developing an argument, that hon member jumps to his feet. [Interjections.]

We had the position that when a provincial council was re-elected every five years, the voter then had the right to decide, in terms of his political standpoint, which party he wanted to return to office in that provincial council. The voter therefore had the right to decide that he would not vote for a certain party again because that party had perhaps not done its work well enough. Then, too, the voter may perhaps have changed his political viewpoint and may therefore have decided to vote for another party with a different policy. However that may be, the voter had that democratic right to decide who he wanted in the provincial council after every general provincial election. If the voter was then of the opinion that the party that had previously been in power was still good enough, he could vote for that party again. If he decided, however, that he wanted to see another party in office, he was able to vote this old party out, as the voters in fact got rid of the old UP Government from the Transvaal province in 1949. The voters are now being deprived of that right, and what the voters will now have over them is merely a nominated body holding office by the grace of the State President. The voter has no say over the composition of that body. He simply has to accept the body that has been appointed, and reconcile himself to it. This ostensible broadening of democracy therefore amounts to a deprivation of democracy. It really does not hold water.

Underlying the abolition of the provincial councils is the Government’s new policy of political power-sharing and political integration among Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks. It means mixed government. It means the destruction of separate development. We need not argue any longer about separate development and apartheid. After all, they are synonymous. I just want to quote a short passage to hon members to prove to them that separate development and apartheid are synonymous. In the 1981 election manifesto of the NP, the manifesto on the basis of which we were elected, we presented this policy to the voter. It is on this basis that the NP asked the voter for a mandate. I quote:

Sir, vertical differentiation means a line running from top to bottom and separating what lies on either side. It is not horizontal. The manifesto also mentions the integral principle of self-determination. The explanation of this reads as follows:

Now comes the important part:

Separate does not, after all, together. Separate means detached, apart. The manifesto continued:

It means on the one hand apart, separated, isolated—

Not in the same way, but every separate people will—

And that also means its political potential. I repeat, not together, but apart, separately. This is what separate development means, and not something else.

The day the NP accepted power-sharing, political integration and integrated governmental systems, it took leave of separate development. It is no use the hon member for Helderkruin arguing that we have gotten rid of apartheid, but not of separate development. That argument simply does not hold water.

You people do not understand the difference.

I have just explained the difference to the hon member. Apparently he does not understand Afrikaans. I do not know whether I should quote it to him in Zulu, because I could try to do that as well. [Interjections.]

One principle which is an inherent part of this Bill for the new system of provincial government, the system of an Administrator with an executive committee, is the principle of consensus. In the system of provincial government the principle of consensus therefore replaces that of “principle and policy”. The situation was that the voters could choose which political party, with its principles and policy, they wanted to vote into office. The voters therefore gave the party with the majority of seats a mandate to implement those principles and policies in the provincial council. Those principles and policies then applied to that elected party, enabling it to govern there. When it deviated from those principles and policies, it deviated from its mandate and then the voters had the right to call it to account. What we have here now is the principle of consensus. We are no longer concerned with principles and policy, but with consensus. One now has to reach a compromise between people with differing standpoints and differing policies, as we now have in this Parliament. The Labour Party and the NP still differs on some points in respect of policy. They are struggling to achieve a consensus, and we have just seen what happened to that consensus.

That argument has already been used.

Conflict is built into consensus except when one capitulates. I am afraid that what we are witnessing is the NP capitulating to the demands made by the others. Consensus is also a violation of the principle of self-determination. Self-determination means that a person has the right to reach a decision and to decide all matters affecting one, because that person alone, without interference from anyone else, has that right.

That argument has whiskers.

I just want to tell the hon Dr Vilonel, who is carrying on like a radio commentator in this House, that if these things are beyond his comprehension, he is welcome to come to my office and I shall try to explain them to him.

Another matter I want to touch on is the possible division of existing provinces into more, smaller provinces. According to the National Convention the provincial boundaries could only be altered by way of petition. A province had to submit a petition for that purpose, and the provinces affected had to be consulted in the matter. This has now fallen away, but in this connection I want to mention another matter. After repeated reference is made in the other paragraphs to “a province”, it is stated in clause 5(1)(d): “(may) include in any province any other territory”. At the same time it is also stated: “or include any portion of a province into any other province”. I have a problem with this expression “other territory”. If this does not refer to Walvis Bay or to the islands, my question is what else outside the four provinces belongs to us? What else forms part of the Republic of South Africa? What other territory could be incorporated into a province?

The hon the Minister may tell me now this is the way one states certain legal matters. If we keep on looking, however, and we see that it is also provided in this Bill that there may be joint authorities among the provinces and the self-governing national states, then I begin to wonder. That hon Minister is shrewd; he sits there watching one in a certain way. He uses a certain word at a certain time in a certain place, and if one does not ask him about it that same day, he tells one the day after you accepted it the previous day. [Interjections.]

I am now asking him in all honesty about that “territory”. I also want to know why he kept on referring in his Second Reading speech to “regional government” when he was referring to the province, or to the province and the self-governing national states. What does the hon Minister have in mind? Does he have in mind that the four provinces, after they have been divided up into smaller territories, are simply going to become regions automatically so that his regional government, which he keeps on talking about, can be included in that? What is meant by this territory, and why does the hon Minister keep on talking about “regional government”?

Does he have in mind to carry through to the regions this whole system of the expansion of the provinces into smaller territories? The hon the Minister also caused to be inserted in the Bill that the new provinces that are created shall be allocated a name and a seat. I know the hon the Minister is now going to tell me that what I am now pointing out is merely for the purpose of this Bill.

I have another problem as well that I want to put to the hon the Minister. The Constitution Act of 1983 refers in section 1 to the territory of the RSA as comprising the four provinces, which it specifies by name. In sections 41(2), 42(2), 43(4) and 45 provision is being made for the number of constituencies in the various provinces. The number of constituencies are specified and may under section 45 only be redelimitated and changed after a period of five years. The hon the Minister may now tell me that the smaller provinces are only for the purpose of this legislation and for provincial government, and do not affect general elections. I now want to know from the hon the Minister: If one creates new provinces with new names and new seats, how long is it going to take before these are going to be dominant and what has been specified in the Constitution Act concerning the provinces is slowly going to disappear? Ultimately one is going to argue about boundaries.

If this is the view of the hon the Minister, why does he not simply amend the Constitution Act to comply with the regional system he would like to introduce? Why should we first have the dualism of one kind of provincial system in the Constitution Act with a view to parliamentary elections, and another system of provinces with a view to provincial authorities in this legislation? I think we should look one another in the eyes in this House as well, and be candid and frank with one another. We must tell one another what we mean and what our goal is, and then we either do it or not. Otherwise the hon the Minister must give us the assurance that the four provinces are at all times going to remain unassailable. If we do not have that, we are still uncertain where the hon the Minister with his particular choice of words, and his way of choosing a certain word to denote a certain thing …

Semantic or romantic.

Subsequently he turns on one and says we did not object when he said it. He says we did not protest when he spoke about including areas and of regional governments and that we therefore accepted it. [Interjections.] Let us now clarify this matter a little.

He is a Minister on the road to nowhere.

I should like to associate myself with what the hon member for Barberton said yesterday in connection with clause 20.

Do not repeat it, that’s all! [Interjections.]

I accept that there is only one Mr Speaker in this House, and that I should therefore pay no heed to hon members who are constantly shouting at me that I should not repeat it.

He repeats himself all the time.

However, I do not want to repeat it; I shall prefer to state a completely different standpoint. The date 29 April 1981 was contained in the original Bill, that is to say when the last provincial election took place. That was then changed to 31 July 1982. I do not know whether this is considered to be the date on which the possibility of the abolition of the provincial councils was mentioned for the first time, but I want to ask a question in this regard. The hon the Minister is now going to abolish the provincial councils, and he now wants to give these people a golden handshake and a pension with which he can send them away happily in the hope that they will not subsequently turn their backs on the hon the Minister and join the CP. Does it make any difference now … [Interjections.]

You promised it, Chris!

Hon members must not become upset now because I am saying they will join the CP.

How petty can one become? [Interjections.]

You promised it!

It is not as petty as he thinks. It is perhaps a little more than that. Even if the precise date is irrelevant, I want to ask the hon the Minister why he did not choose that date on which he decided that no further by-elections would be held for the provincial councils. In that way he could therefore have given every member of the provincial council, who is in any case being sent away jobless now, an equal opportunity. If the hon the Minister had not abolished the provincial councils, those people would gladly have remained on to serve out their time for pension purposes, for as long as the voters wanted them there. The people who were elected after 31 July 1982 are not being afforded an opportunity now to receive pensions. Since the hon Minister is dishing out golden handshakes now, he should dish them out to everyone. He should not discriminate, but should rather be honest to everyone.

Give it to Hendrik Schoeman! [Interjections.]

If the hon the Minister does in fact want to dish out these golden handshakes, then that is only fair. [Interjections.]

That’s telling them, Frans!

I want to raise a final point. In his speech the hon the Minister said the staff of the provincial councils, who will possibly be transferred and who, in other words, will be redundant for provincial service, will be accommodated with full salary, pension benefits, accumulated leave and so on. Because I am intensely interested in the welfare of public servants, and therefore, too, in the welfare of provincial officials, I want to thank him for the assurance that he is going to take care of those officials. I only hope we do not find that some of the officials cannot perhaps be accommodated elsewhere and that they will then have to find some other livelihood. I trust that these words of the hon the Minister may be an assurance to us that the officials are at all times going to have the same benefits and happy service they had in the provincial councils, and with the same security. I want to thank the hon the Minister for that assurance in his speech. I think it is something positive. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the hon member for Koedoespoort, very sincerely for his well-planned speech. As a Whip of the CP and, to a degree, of the hon member for Sasolburg’s party, I want to say that I am grateful for the quality of the speeches of principle we have had from this side of the House, and for the fact that we have been able to state our views.

I want to tell you, Mr Speaker, that I can comprehend your ruling and I shall be the first man to comply with it. At this point, just before the supper break, I should like to tell you that the problem we on this side of the House have as opposition members, is that this House is a place for debate in which one party, the governing party, introduces its legislation, states its principles and tells us what the consequences of the specific piece of legislation will be. We in turn have a responsibility as representatives of another section of the population, to state our standpoints of principle on a particular Bill and to state the reasons why we agree or do not agree with it. Our problem lately with this debate has been that the governing party has not replied to our arguments. This sometimes forces us in our argumentation to repeat certain arguments which we have already stated.

After we have stated them, hon speakers of the governing party …

They do not have any speakers.

… who are about as sparsely distributed as maize kernels on a cob during a drought in the Western Transvaal, come forward without any arguments. We are not receiving any answers to our arguments. In addition one has arguments such as those of the hon members for Helderkruin, Johannesburg West, Randfontein and elsewhere, which are contradictory. If we have created the impression that we have from time to time repeated certain arguments, the reason for that repetition was the fact that we have not had any response to our arguments.

In the absence of my colleague, the hon member for Lichtenburg, who is in America as a guest of the American government, I want to repeat what he told us at the outset, after we had been thrown out of the NP. He told us he wanted to give us some advice about two things that would be important in the years to come. One of these was that we should not feel hurt if the NP were to deviate from one principle after another. He said that we predicted it, but that when it happened, we should not feel hurt about it. However, it is sometimes difficult not to feel hurt when the hon the Minister simply deletes one measure after another from the Statute Book. It is almost the same feeling as when someone close to you is suffering from an incurable disease and you know he is close to death, but the moment death overtakes him, it still comes as a shock. Let me put it this way, one never really gets used to it even though he does it often, and every time he does so, it comes as a shock to us; we who consider ourselves to be the exponents of the old NP principles.

The second thing the hon member for Lichtenburg told us was this: “My friends, this is the party that has the greatest endurance”. The CP has only just begun; we are like Zola Budd on her first lap.

Are you going to become British citizens?

May I ask the hon member whether the hon member for Kuruman has given him any pills?

Pills? [Interjections.] Oh, I heard about pills but I did not receive any. [Interjections.] I want to tell the Government, however, that in my view the NP is very shortwinded, and the hon the Minister has become impatient with these debates lately, but I want to tell him that the worst is yet to come. The political debate in South Africa is only now beginning. The hon the Minister may try to silence us here and to cut short our arguments, but from here we are going to the country.

His Pietersburg lies ahead.

We shall go from one platform to another …

But I am not cutting you short. I am not Mr Speaker.

No, Mr Speaker, I know the hon the Minister. After all, I was his chairman and I should just like to remind him of that. I know the hon the Minister very well. He is impatient with us, not because he does not want us to speak, because if we can speak and make mistakes which he can pounce on, he will be only too glad to have us speak. However, the hon the Minister knows that neither he in his Second Reading speech or in his reply later this evening, nor his honourable co-party members …

Order! I wanted to give the hon member a chance to finish that sentence, but it is now becoming too long. [Interjections.]

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr Speaker, during the course of his speech, the hon member for Johannesburg West referred to a number of matters to which I should also like to return. The hon member referred to the relationship which inter alia the hon member for Meyerton and I had with Dr Verwoerd. The hon member for Johannesburg West told some stories about scheming on my part even in those years, and said he had proof in this regard. A few weeks ago, that hon member came to this House after attending a meeting in Pietersburg. The hon member stood up in this House and said that he was present when a White man— most probably a member of the AWB or in any event one of the right-wing groups— threatened a police officer with a revolver. Did the hon member say that?

I never said I was there!

You did say so!

Let us not become technical about it. The hon member nevertheless made the contention here that it happened. I subsequently asked the hon the Minister certain questions and according to the hon the Minister’s replies, no officer nor the hon the Minister nor the hon the Deputy Minister were aware of it, and furthermore the hon member had shamefully neglected his duty by not reporting the matter. Now that hon member comes and accuses me of things that happened more than 20 years ago. As Paul said, let no one scorn your youth …

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member whether he will concede that it is possible that a police officer told me that a fire-arm had been pointed at him? [Interjections.]

No, I do not believe it! [Interjections.]

I must accept that the possibility exists. That hon member is so quick to speak about other people in this House, but he should not be so quick to talk about the hon member for Meyerton and me in the old days.

[Inaudible.]

No, I just want to tell the hon member that he and the hon the Minister have a way of simply saying things about people, and not only do they say those things here, but they repeat them to the voters outside this House as well. I want to point out, however, that if there is one person in this House who for many years had a very close association with Dr Verwoerd, it was my colleague the hon member for Meyerton. I shall leave the matter at that, however. [Interjections.]

I now come to my next point. The hon member referred to the National Convention at the turn of the century, which led to Union. If the hon member were to make an analysis of the events which preceded and followed the convention, he would find that the one important thing which comes to the fore, is the fact that those people who stated the views of the vanquished Boer republics at that convention, were not “joiners” or quitters (hensoppers). They were people who, throughout the war, had fought for the freedom of their two republics. Even in those days the die-hards (bittereinders) who, after three years of warfare, emerged as the losers and, as the vanquished had to reconcile themselves to their fate, still said that the non-Whites would not be granted the franchise in the Free State and Transvaal. I now want to tell that hon member and hon members of the NP that history is dying in the hearts of some people who are not Nationalists. We who are Nationalists, however, live from within the historical context, and the lessons of history are also carrying us on to the future. [Interjections.] If the “joiners” and the quitters had been at that national convention, their plan would most probably have resembled the plan which the NP is coming forward with here tonight. I want to tell the hon member something which I have already said on a previous occasion: In White Afrikanerdom there are two streams, namely the conservative and the liberal streams. That Union was brought about by the die-hards. They never gave up in their struggle for a free, independent republic. That was an integral part of the history of the NP that we had in 1960 and 1961. I remember those years very well. Let me tell the hon member one thing tonight…

Mr Speaker, I should like to ask the hon member whether he denies that the convention—the establishment of the 1910 Constitution—was nothing but a compromise between the former Boer republics and the British dominions.

I have just told the hon member that the agreement that was reached, was negotiated by the Bittereinders. Even as the vanquished after a war, they said that the non-Whites would not be drawn into the Government in the Transvaal and the Free State. [Interjections.] From then on, the standpoint of the NP, which was born of the standpoints of Genl Hertzog, was to establish a Republic in South Africa which would be a White Republic. It is true that there were many problems in respect of those non-Whites who came to sell us their labour, and it is true that Dr Verwoerd, due to his assassination by Tsafendas, did not live long enough to carry through the complete plan of multinationalism in South Africa.

Mr Speaker, I want to ask the hon member whether he is aware that from 1924 to 1929 the late Dr Malan and the NP Government were in fact in favour of the extension of the Coloured franchise to Coloured women as well.

I concede that. Dr Malan did say that. [Interjections.] In spite of that, and the search for a solution, I want to tell the hon member Prof Olivier that those were the principles that prevailed in the NP—the NP of which President P W Botha and hon members sitting there, formed an integral part—even when the White representatives of the Coloured people were removed from this Parliament. [Interjections.] While I grant him that, I do not concede that what he is doing today can be viewed in the same light as the National Convention held at the beginning of this century.

Further to that, Mr Speaker, I should like to ask the hon member whether Dr Verwoerd, when he decided to remove the Coloured as well as the Black representatives from Parliament, had a mandate from the NP caucus and the Congresses to do so. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon member that I was not in the caucus and that I was not all that active within the NP Congresses. Therefore I cannot furnish him with the answer to that question now. [Interjections.] I am giving an honest answer. When an occasion presents itself, I shall question those men who sat here, and we can discuss this matter again. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Johannesburg West said that it was a kind of consensus or agreement that had been reached. I want to point out to the hon member that he said the standpoint of the NP was in fact to negotiate an agreement with the other population groups in South Africa by means of which we could all live together in peace and safety. We then asked him by way of interjection whether the NP’s principles were also on the table for negotiation. After all, if I understand him correctly, the NP say that there are certain matters that are non-negotiable. There are certain things in respect of which they still maintain to this day—I do not know what they will say the day after tomorrow—that they consider them to be absolutely non-negotiable. One of these is separate residential areas; another is separate primary and secondary schools; another is population registration; and yet another is separate voters’ rolls.

I just want to make the statement that the NP has now reduced the self-determination of the Whites to these four thin threads from which it is dangling. I differ fundamentally from this, because a people which asserts that it wants self-determination, strives for self-determination in every facet of its pattern of life. I now want to ask the hon member whether these few non-negotiables which I have mentioned will form part of the negotiation process in his future negotiations. Will he forfeit certain of these non-negotiables in order to comply with the wishes of Black or Brown moderates—to use his terminology? He need not answer now. I shall leave it at that for the moment because it is a very, very important question.

There are a few technical questions which I should like to put to the hon the Minister in a calm manner, and then we shall come back to the more serious matters a little later on.

Are the technical things not serious, then?

They are serious, but I do not think we shall argue at length about them. [Interjections.]

We accept that the hon the Minister is going to carry through this legislation, but although we accepted in the caucus at the time that we were in the minority, we did not stop working and striving to rectify those things we did not consider to be right. I have been informed that the pensions of the widows of provincial council members have been reduced. I do not know whether it is true, and I should just like to know from the hon the Minister whether this is the case. [Interjections.]

No, it is not true.

Very well. That was the first point.

Secondly, I would like the hon the Minister to deal with this portion of history in such a way that the buildings and cultural treasures—in this regard I am referring to portraits, paintings, documents and so forth—are preserved, and in such a way that researchers and visitors may have access to them. Furthermore, I want to ask the hon the Minister since he has such a large department and since he wrote the final chapter on matters relating to the provincial councils— we shall begin to write the next chapter when we are governing—whether he will not assist us by asking historians or certain institutions to write the history of the provincial councils and to ensure that the documentation is maintained on a sound scientific level.

Well said, Daan! [Interjections.]

I should like to pay a personal tribute to those people who in the past few decades have played a part in the provincial councils. I am thinking about the men who sat there themselves, the representatives of all the parties, the officials and others. I want to say that they did some very good work for us; work to which some of my hon colleagues have already referred.

I have now dealt with the few technical matters, and I should like to come back to the hon the Minister. [Interjections.] We are saddled with the problem that due to the way in which our debates take place, the hon the Minister only gives his reply at the end, when everyone else has already spoken. This makes it difficult to take issue with an hon Minister on what he has said.

There are one or two things which I should like to clear up with the hon the Minister personally. When I referred to Cicero on a previous occasion, the hon the Minister told me that I should confine myself to the New Testament instead. I could easily do that, but I am very wary in that regard, because the NP is very quick to tell us that we are dragging politics into religion. In the history of mankind words of wisdom have also been uttered by people who are not Christians. I just want to tell the hon the Minister that those words of wisdom may sometimes, in a particular perspective, be quoted with justification.

A second point which I should like to put to the hon the Minister has to do with the period to which he referred when I was the chairman of his study committee. The hon the Minister is making the same type of statement as the Cabinet made after the hon members for Waterberg and Lichtenburg were forced to resign. At that time they spoke about the “silent” Ministers. (Swygsame.) The other day the hon the Minister made the same type of remark about me in saying that I was not a talkative person. Sir, surely you know me! I am not one of the most talkative people in this Parliament … [Interjections.] The fact that hon members are laughing, must serve as proof that sometimes in his ad hominem speeches—I do not want to say “attacks”—when we have driven him into a corner, he will say things simply to get free!

I now want to tell the hon the Minister that he cannot say of me that I was not talkative enough. At that time he had only been a Minister for a short time and I, as chairman, allowed the members of the study group to have their say, although I maintained order. I shall take up this matter again, however, particularly with the hon member for Randfontein who is not here this evening. I just want to say that at the last meeting of which I was chairman, the hon member for Randfontein was the last man to speak, and he left with the greatest concern, precisely as a result of the proposed constitution were discussing.

The hon the Minister also referred to the document which I distributed with regard to his hon colleagues. I just want to tell him that I did not sign it. I quoted from it in my own speech. The hon the Minister asked me who the author was, and I told him. Student groups visit us in Parliament and I hear the hon the Minister is telling those students that Daan van der Merwe is not to be trusted, because he distributes anonymous documents and the like with reference to his colleagues. He tells them that without putting the matter in its correct perspective.

That is typical of Chris Heunis.

That kind of talk does not give me any problems; it gives the hon the Minister problems.

It is typical Jan Christiaan Heunis. [Interjections.]

To continue, I should like to come back to clause 5(1) of the Bill which reads as follows:

do certain things. It could happen, therefore, that these provinces could partially disappear and that new ones could come into existence. [Interjections.] We have often said that one of the great dilemmas of the NP was their lack of credibility, and that it would lead to their eventual demise. This legislation provides that the State President may terminate the provincial boundaries and create new provinces, with new names.

The State President attended a federal congress in Bloemfontein on 31 July, 1982. On page 21 of the congress report the words “the provincial system” appear, under which it is stated that: “provincial boundaries remain unchanged.’,’ That was said in 1982. I now want to tell the hon the Minister that he and the liberal Afrikaners do not have any appreciation, understanding or respect for the history of this country. The hon the Minister comes from the Cape, and I have the greatest respect for the people of the Cape. Some of the best men in the Anglo-Boer War were Cape rebels.

Not him! [Interjections.]

For many years, after my altercations with Prof Piet Cillié in my student leader days, I was not allowed to speak in the Cape. At one stage, therefore, I thought there were practically no conservatives left in the Cape. My experience over the past four years has been that the CP has already won over the Transvaal and the Free State. [Interjections.] I now maintain that the Cape is coming round, and hon members would be amazed to know how many seats the CP are going to win in the Cape. [Interjections.] But let us say nothing further about it now.

In a time of crisis in any nation, people reach back to their origins. That is an ethnological fact. They reach back to their origins and in recent times, particularly in the Transvaal, we have experienced an upsurge of feeling among young, not among old, people. In this regard I am referring to Mr Eugene Terre’blanche who says that we should reinstate the old republics.

In the Transvaal and the Free State there is a revival in progress among young Afrikaners and many Whites who are identifying themselves with the aspirations and struggle for liberty of those people who founded those republics. [Interjections.] The Transvaal flag and the Transvaal volkslied are once again coming into prominence and these symbols cannot simply be negated by the hon the Minister. The same holds for the Free State flag and volkslied. It is true.

The “establishment” is still in the hands of the liberalists. That is true, and even at Tukkies and Kovsies there is still a large group of young people who are siding with the liberalists. [Interjections.] In fact, the conservative idea is now emerging on the campuses. The contempt with which …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Did the hon member not undertake to confine himself to the Bill. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Rissik may proceed.

Mr Speaker, I want to give the hon the Minister a friendly warning, as I have been doing for the past four years, that he is meddling with the freedom of a people. With all these things, he is now meddling … [Interjections.]

Oh, watch, Daan!

Look who wants to speak!

Mr Speaker, I have only a few more minutes at my disposal.

Mr Speaker, … [Interjections.] I just want to ask the hon member why he does not have his Tukkie alumni tie on this evening. [Interjections.]

I just want to tell the hon the Minister that my wife is not here with me, and I cannot look after myself all that well. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Constitutional and Development Planning is not only meddling with the values and symbols of a people, but in fact he is also causing a people to feel threatened. I want to issue a very serious warning to the hon the Minister this evening—it is not a threat only a warning. The hon the Minister is embarking on a course which is going to cause us, and him in particular, tremendous problems in South Africa. Hon members are very derisive about Morgenson. They do not grant the Afrikaner a Morgenson, nor do they grant him an Avondson. They do not grant him anything. [Interjections.] In forthcoming debates we shall be discussing these matters. [Interjections.] In all the years I have been sitting here, neither the members of the PFP nor the NRP who are sitting here next to me have ever come forward with the contemptuous remarks with which the NP is coming forward, and they were the real exponents of the liberal school of thought? [Interjections.] I have never heard anything like that coming from any of these hon members. As far as the opposition is concerned, Prof Olivier for example spoke in the friendliest and most accurate manner about the old Transvaal republics—about the provincial systems, if I may put it like that—but we did not get that from the Government. That of course makes the judgment that is going to be passed on them, all the greater. Here we have the members of the House of Assembly of the Free State. I want to ask them: Can you go back and tell the Free State: “Heft burgers ’t lied der Vryheid aan”. It is only the quitters who are being so derisive. Their province bears the name “Free State”, but this hon Minister tells us in this legislation that he can change the provincial boundaries. He can also change the name—and they are prepared to allow the Free State to be transformed completely into a slave state, a quitter state, a “joiner” state! [Interjections.]

You cannot hold a meeting under the auspices of the Defence Force.

Order! I have now given the hon member for Rissik 22 minutes for his introduction. He must now come to the legislation.

I am discussing clause 5 in which the provincial boundaries may be done away with and new boundaries drawn. [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, you have been patient with me. I shall resume my seat, but firstly I just want to say this evening—I want to say this to the Transvalers—that we also had a volkslied which asked this question: “Kent gij dat volk vol heldenmoed?” [Interjections.] Those hon members may speak disparagingly about these things tonight, but the substance and significance of this legislation goes far further than merely the contents of this clause. It is an attack on the history of a people, on its struggle for survival and its freedom in it’s own fatherland. I want to tell the hon the Minister: You are depriving it of these things. You will reap the whirlwind!

Mr Speaker, the hon member who has just resumed his seat made the most negative of speeches on this legislation. I think hon members will understand that if I have to reply to all the relevant and irrelevant remarks that have been made, we would probably have to delay the House for a very long time.

I want to start—and then have done with it—by quoting from Hansard what the hon member for Brakpan said.

He has left.

Yes, I expected him to leave. I want to begin by quoting what the hon member for Brakpan said. The hon member made the following statement in this debate:

Then I said to the hon member: “The Bible is not suited to your tongue.”

That was not very nice!

Could we just wait a moment. I shall respond to that hon member at a later stage. Now, however, I am being serious. Then the hon member for Soutpansberg came along and referred to that—for the moment I shall not take his crude remarks any further—by stating that I allegedly said that the hon member for Brakpan dared not quote from the Bible. I then told the hon member that I had not said anything of the kind, but then the hon member said he had written down what I had said. I then told him please to check what I had said in his Hansard speech. I did not say the hon member was not allowed to quote from the Bible. I concede that the circumstances in which the hon member spoke perhaps did not enable him to understand fully what I did say.

What do you mean by that?

Precisely what I am saying. The fact of the matter is that the hon member for Brakpan accused me, in Biblical terms, of being one of the treacherous dealers who deals treacherously and arrogated to himself the right to pass a judgement of Caiaphas in terms of the hon member for Soutpansberg’s definition. When I cautioned him, however, the hon member for Soutpansberg was not even prepared to accept the fact that he had quoted me incorrectly. That is all I want to say about the hon member for Soutpansberg.

And now I am telling you that you quoted me incorrectly, because what you said that I said, is not what is documented in my Hansard speech!

I am so glad the hon member is saying that now, because I have his Hansard speech here. [Interjections.] Now you can understand, of course, why I have said that the hon member could not judge for himself, Sir. I have the hon member’s Hansard speech here. Here, in all its splendour, is his statement to which I objected. [Interjections.]

Your glasses are perched too firmly on your nose!

Oh, why don’t you go and play ping-pong?

I am one for the Old Testament!

Sir, what did the hon member for Soutpansberg say in his speech? Let me quote what he said:

Thereupon the hon member for Rissik exclaimed that what I had said was scandalous. My reaction was that I had not used those words.

Then we asked you what you had, in fact, said and you simply kept quiet! [Interjections.]

Frank, who are you referring to as “jy” and “jou”?

Brave man! You then kept quiet! [Interjections.]

Sir, I just want to make one further remark about this and then I am finished with it. [Interjections.] The hon member for Brakpan is the last man on earth who can accuse one of dealing treacherously. The very last man!

Who says so? [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the Bill makes provision …

Chris is starting to crack up!

… for the disbanding of the provincial councils and for the administration of provincial affairs …

Long after they have been abolished!

Oh, Sir …

Order! I have been sitting here for probably the major part of this debate. The hon the Minister had to listen to one hon member of the Conservative Party after another. He listened to everything they said. If hon members now want to listen to him, let them remain seated here. If they do not want to listen to him, they are entitled to walk out. Let everyone now understand me very clearly—those who do not want to listen to the hon the Minister, should rather leave of their own accord. I am now making an earnest appeal to hon members. The hon the Minister may proceed.

I repeat, Sir, that the Bill’s principles aim at making provision for the disbanding of provincial councils, for the administration of provincial matters and for the appointment of an Administrator and members of his executive committee by the State President. I now honestly want to say, Sir, that you will understand that in my analysis of the debate on the basis of the principles embodied in the Bill, I do understand the difficulty of your task. It was, after all, very difficult for you to confine hon members to a discussion of the principles of the legislation, whilst still upholding the rule that people may formulate their various standpoints. I therefore also want to thank you for your exceptional patience in this respect, Mr Speaker.

I want to point out, however, that there are certain characteristics of the debate that upset me tremendously.

†I should like to start with the hon Leader of the Official Opposition. The Leader of the Official Opposition in this institution has a very responsible role to play. What concerns me deeply, however, is that in particular debates this session there was a most alarming feature, namely that personal attacks, personal abuse and vilification have become a feature of the contributions to debates by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and his party. With your permission, Sir, I should like to discuss that.

Firstly we had the performance of the hon member for Sandton.

He did not speak in this debate.

Sir, I am talking about a feature of the debates in this House. That hon member was a proponent of vilification and abuse to an extent I have never experienced in this hon House before. I listened to the hon member for Yeoville attacking the hon the Minister of Finance in terms which I say do not behave hon members of this House.

You are the last one to talk.

Sir, may I with your permission take it a bit further. Then, Sir, when you have a free moment I wish you would read the introductionary speech made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to this Bill. I confess immediately that for me it was indeed a sad moment when I had to introduce this Bill because, in contrast with the hon member who served there very temporarily and in no capacity other than that of a member, there are other members in this House who served in a provincial council as chairman of the council or as members of the executive for long periods.

Like you.

Yes, including me. I felt as sad, Sir, when we abolished the Senate—I think we did so with your assistance—as I feel at the abolition of the provincial system. However, what does the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, who sets the example, do in this regard? With due respect, he does not discipline the members of his party, but perpetrates the same things they do.

You are talking nonsense.

He says I am talking nonsense. Let me just take it a bit further. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition addressed a public meeting which was advertised by a pamphlet that read as follows:

We read that out the other day. We discussed all this in another debate.

You were in another place.

No, he was not; he participated in the debate.

This is tedious repetition.

Order! I just want to point out to the hon the Minister that we are dealing here with a specific Bill that provides for the abolition of the provincial council system, and the hon the Minister is accusing the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition of speeches he made that have nothing to do with this debate.

No, Sir. With due respect, I am not accusing the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition of any speech he made outside of this debate. I am talking about a feature that has come to light during recent debates, as well as in this debate. I am saying the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition perpetrates this sort of thing in debates. May I just quote this pamphlet, Sir? You may stop me if you think it is not relevant.

Yes.

I quote:

[Interjections.] Sir, I say the man who says this is a liar, and I will say so inside and outside this House. [Interjections.] All I am trying to say, Sir, is that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition condones this sort of attitude and these pronouncements.

Will you agree to have a judicial inquiry into what happened?

That is not the point!

It is the point!

The point is that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition holds a public meeting at which these statements are made without his having checked them.

You prove that it is a he.

How does one prove a he? [Interjections.]

Let us take it a step further.

*The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition thinks insults are a substitute for arguments. It was indeed a tragic day when he replaced the previous Leader of the Official Opposition. With the previous Leader of the Official Opposition it was at least possible to debate matters, even though we disagreed with each other. It was possible to argue with him without his making personal insults a method of expressing himself. It seems to me as if this hon Leader thinks that being a leader means that one does not need to argue a point, but that one can merely be aggressive. [Interjections.]

Let us take this a little further. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition did not confront the hon member for Yeoville about his conduct towards the hon the Minister of Finance. Nor did the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition confront the hon member for Sandton about his conduct; on the contrary, he sets an example of this kind of conduct to these hon members.

Yes.

He also sets an example for the hon member for Berea.

Sir, with all the seriousness at my command this evening let me say that conditions in this country are serious. [Interjections.] The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition will, however, concede one point: I did at least listen to him. His first statement was that I was treating Parliament as a rubber stamp for my standpoint. He said that I failed to negotiate and was using Parliament as a rubber stamp for my standpoints. [Interjections.] The hon Leader made that statement; he can go and read his Hansard speech. [Interjections.] Please, may I not just reply to the hon member’s speech.

The hon Leader went on to make a further statement. He said I was using Parliament as a rubber stamp for my own ideas. Let us examine this. The hon member’s objection to the legislation is based on the fact that it gives further substance to the principles of the Constitution of this country. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition says he is a democrat. As a democrat he would surely concede that he acts within the ambit of the country’s Constitution until the Constitution is changed. When I implement the Constitution of the country I am therefore working within the framework of democratic principles. He has not, however, accepted the referendum decision on the Constitution. That is his fundamental problem. He is now asking us, with the legislative steps we have to take, not to implement the Constitution, but rather the PFP’s policy. Surely the referendum did not endorse the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s policy. [Interjections.] I shall come to that if the hon member would just be patient. After all, the referendum directed us to implement our policy. If it is therefore true that the Bill before us extends the principles of the Constitution, I should not stand accused.

Not true.

I now want to take the argument about the handling of the Bill further. He says we “bulldozed” the Bill through, to use his expression.

“Gestoomroller.”

Yes, “gestoomroller”. That is a fantastic statement. He said it was not only the case with this Bill, but that it has become a characteristic pattern in my way of doing things.

Every year.

He says it is the case every year. Let us, for just a moment, weigh this statement up against the facts. In 1983 the Select Committee on the Constitution considered three Bills. Three hundred and fifty six amendments were accepted. The hon the Leader, however, says we bulldozed the Bills through.

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

No, Sir, now he must keep quiet.

How many clauses were discussed here?

Let us go a bit further. In 1984 the Select Committee on the Constitution also discussed three Bills. They were accepted and there were not amendments. In 1985 the Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs considered one Bill and there were 82 amendments accepted. The Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning, under the chairmanship of the hon member for Klip River, considered 10 Bills and there were 55 amendments. In 1986—the present session— the Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs considered two Bills and there were 30 amendments. The Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning has, to date, considered 8 Bills and there were 61 amendments. Is that evidence of legislation that has been bulldozed through?

What is interesting, as far as the handling of this specific legislation is concerned, seen in the light of the pattern of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s arguments this evening? The fact is that the hon member for Durban Point had certain amendments. He will confirm this. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and his party, however, did not move one amendment.

There was one.

Which one?

The amendment concerning the pension benefits.

That is correct—my apologies. I am actually discussing the principle of the matter, but the hon member is quite correct. My apologies, and I concede the point. I am, however, actually discussing the substance of the legislation.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister whether the problem, as far as this situation is concerned, is not the fact that when one moves amendments in the standing committee one may not, in terms of the rules, again move those amendments here in the Committee Stage at a later date?

That is not the point I want to make. The point I want to make is that if legislation is being bulldozed through Parliament, it is not possible for these amendments to have been accepted over a period of three years. That is all I am saying.

I should like to take the matter further with the hon Leader, because here we have a very critical facet that we have to discuss. The next item on the Order Paper is the Joint Executive Authority for kwaZulu and Natal Bill. It was discussed in the standing committee after the Bill we are now dealing with had been discussed. In terms of the hon Leader’s definition, that legislation was late in reaching the standing committee. Do hon members know what? That legislation was dispatched in a question of 15 minutes. It is very interesting that in the standing committee…

But we could refer it to the two bodies involved!

That is not the point! The point is that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition says we are bulldozing legislation through Parliament.

No, man!

May I please speak? Does the hon member know what the difference between the different pieces of legislation is? As soon a legislation comes from another quarter, it is acceptable. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition also has another fundamental problem as far as legislation is concerned, including this legislation. It is not true that the legislation was bulldozed through, and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition knows that it is not true. He must, however, present a facade.

What is the essence of the PFP’s objection to the legislation? Up to and including the 1983 Constitution and its implementation in 1984, the PFP has regarded itself as the mouthpiece for all those not represented here. Then they were the people who could speak about Coloured, Asian and Black rights. Since the Coloureds and Asians have come to Parliament, they can speak for themselves in terms of the Constitution and the PFP has lost a power-base.

A supposed power-base!

Yes, what it considered to be a power-base. The best proof of that is that the PFP agitated for the abolition of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act. They began with a big campaign to recruit people from population groups other than that of the Whites as members of their party. What was the result? It was such that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and his party are silent on that score. Why are they silent about their success? Because it was a failure! Why was it a failure? Because this Government has created instruments such as this in terms of which the various population groups in the country can look after themselves and formulate their own standpoints. [Interjections.]

The essence of the criticism levelled by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and his party is therefore fundamentally that they are losing another forum which they could use in the past to pretend that they were talking to other people about their interests. Those are the facts.

When we therefore pass judgment on their criticism of the legislation, we must take note of the fact that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and his party have, to an increasing extent, become irrelevant in the political council chambers of this country.

Come back to the Bill!

I am dealing with the Bill; what I am saying is is related to it. [Interjections.]

We now come to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s next argument. He says we have removed the representative basis of the system. He goes further and speaks about our authoritarian conduct. Let us deal with the question of accountability, because that is all relevant.

Let us begin by saying—and this is also my reply to hon members of the CP and others—that the functions performed by the provincial councils and their executive committees were functions relating to services for all communities. One would therefore expect the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to argue the point that we should be obtaining institutions in which all communities could participate. [Interjections.]

†The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition must just listen for a moment to a definition of democracy the hon member for Hillbrow read out. There are two very important points at issue. In terms of its Greek roots, the concept of democracy can be defined as participation in the act of government.

By election!

Oh, please! That participation in the administration of government of the country took place in various bodies, ie the executive authority, a government body, and the legislative authority, which determines the rules according to which the Government must act. He did not, however, say: “Provided that the rights of other people are not prejudiced”. If he did say so, he said it softly. He should have done so a little more loudly. The fundamental dilemma of democracy—for us, too, at this tier of government—is to obtain a system in which people can participate without adversely affecting the rights of other people. [Interjections.]

What about the other five points?

I want to take it a step further, thereby replying to all the hon members who made this point. The fact is that in spite of all the pronouncements we made, it was not possible for people other than Whites to function in the executive authority of the provinces.

According to the hon member for Hillbrow’s own definition, participation in the executive authority is a democratic right.

Absolute nonsense!

Order!

What about the five points you did not mention?

It is a democratic right.

[Inaudible.]

Oh, please! [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that not all communities were able to participate in the executive authority.

My second point concerns accountability. It is of tremendous importance that we speak about that. What does accountability mean? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon the Minister which he put to himself? [Interjections.]

No, Sir, I am sorry.

Order! The hon the Minister does not want to reply to a question.

No, he cannot.

Order! [Interjections.] Order! Notwithstanding the fact that I am continually calling the House to order, certain hon members are still sitting there talking. The hon member for Sundays River must control himself! This cannot go on, because the hon the Minister has the floor. I call the House to order, but discussions between the hon members for Sundays River and Bloemfontein North continue. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Accountability is an important principle. The hon member for Johannesburg West has already referred to that, but I just want to speak about it for a moment. In the system that existed, the major portion of the funds for the implementation of the functions of that system were voted by this Parliament.

Not primarily!

I am speaking of the system that is in operation at the moment. What accountability was there to Parliament on the part of those people who spent or employed those funds? There was no accountability whatsoever. So there was no accountability to the elected members of the bodies that voted the funds.

A good point!

In terms of this Bill there is, for the first time, going to be accountability to the body which votes the funds and can therefore call for some measure of accountability.

Now the Official Opposition again comes to light with a specious argument by saying that accountability to a standing committee of Parliament is not accountability to Parliament. Let us analyse that statement on the grounds of processes which hon members themselves have participated in.

[Inaudible.]

I am not speaking merely of the hon member. After all, he was not the only one to speak. Does he think he is omnipotent? What are the facts?

Hon members have themselves participated in the proceedings of standing committees of this House on various Votes. They ultimately approved or did not approved those Votes. Was that not done on behalf of Parliament? And was that not effective parliamentary control of the body concerned, the executive authority, which spent the funds? What are we arguing with one another about? Such arguments are really so naive.

I just want to refer to a single sentence of the hon member for Green Point. He said we were now replacing parliamentary control with political control. Let us analyse that statement.

Yes, political lackeys.

He has just made a snide remark about political lackeys, so let me ask him whether the record of the Administrators of the various provinces over the past 67 years—and they were all appointed to their posts—have given any indication of their being lackeys?

They worked with their elected colleagues. [Interjections.]

I am asking whether they were lackeys. [Interjections.] They were nominated, appointed people. [Interjections.] I want to go further and say that the very opposite is true. After all, there was no parliamentary control over the executive authority in the provinces. [Interjections.] Those are, after all, the facts. There was no parliamentary control, because in the system that has existed up to the present moment, there was no accountability to the parliamentary institution. The hon member says there is now political control, but the question is whether parliamentary control is not political control too. Is Parliament not comprised of politicians? I hope hon members understand the speciousness of the arguments put forward by the Official Opposition.

I am now coming to another important point, and that is the philosophy of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and his party about what they want the legislation to be, in contrast to the philosophy of the NP which is embodied in the Bill. The fact of the matter is that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and his party—and they have every right to do so—insist on majority government. The implication of majority government for our country would ultimately be a one-man government. [Interjections.] They have every right to say that, but then they must please merely acknowledge the fact when they pass judgement on the legislation.

I thought the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition would welcome at least one further step being done so that communities which did not previously have the right to demand accountability for the spending of their money and the administration of their affairs, will now be obtaining the right to insist upon having such accountability. [Interjections.] As far as the hon member is concerned, I concede …

[Inaudible.]

I am not speaking about the proclamations. I am speaking of the Administrators and those controlling the funds appearing before a standing committee of Parliament, just as Ministers must appear before the standing committees of Parliament.

Is that contained in the Bill?

I do not think the hon member has read the Bill. Let us concede, for the sake of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, that as far as his philosophy is concerned, certain groups are excluded from the process of accountability. Is it not better, on the basis of what he wants for South Africa, for us at least to succeed in including more groups? What, however, is the point? Because it does not take place in accordance with his pattern, it is unacceptable to him.

It is very interesting—and I want to refer to this—that before the Bill was discussed in the standing committee, it was announced as being the subject of a major crisis between the three Houses. I have it on the good authority of hon members of the other two Houses of Parliament that they did not have any part in the talk of a crisis. I just want to ask who it was who supplied the information indicating that: “Another crisis is looming about the Bill.” [Interjections.] What are the facts? Members of the hon member’s party did everything in their power to influence hon members in the other two Houses to oppose the legislation.

That is not true!

It is true, yes. [Interjections.]

A further contention is that we as the Government do not have the terms of reference to proceed with this kind of legislation. The hon member for Johannesburg West has already quoted the fact, but for the sake of placing my argument in the proper context I just want to refer to it again. On 30 and 31 July a congress of the NP’s federal council took place in Bloemfontein. Certain statements were made there. This also brings me to the hon members of the CP. I am not asking them to agree with the statements. I am just asking them to listen to the statements and weigh them up.

What year was that?

1982.

The first of the statements reads as follows:

In terms of the country’s Constitution the boundaries of the provinces remain unchanged. That undertaking was complied with.

The second statement was:

That statement was borne in mind. What is more, their term of office was extended. This undertaking was therefore also complied with.

The third statement I want to quote reads as follows:

I know the hon member does not agree with this:

I want to emphasise the following sentence:

That was your congress!

But of course it was my congress! That is not, however, the point. [Interjections.] Oh, Mr Speaker, the hon member for Berea does not even understand Afrikaans.

But you were quoting in English!

But my comments were in Afrikaans! [Interjections.]

The fourth statement was the following:

I want to emphasise this:

That undertaking was also complied with.

So every undertaking which the State President gave in connection with this level of administration has been complied with, and not only complied with—I did not only negotiate with those in authority, but in certain cases also with certain councils.

The hon member for Durban Point will confirm the fact that I received an invitation from the Natal Provincial Council—I am now speaking about the council and not the executive committee—to hold discussions with them about my views for the future. I addressed them and answered their questions inasmuch as I was able to answer them. Do hon members know, however, who was absent? The one who was absent was the PFP member in that council. All the other people, except the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s representative in the provincial council, were interested in what was to happen to the provincial system. That was now the essence of his interest in affair that really matter. Then he comes along and says I do not hold consultations!

It did not matter then!

Of course not. He was not there.

Even if he were there, it would not have made any difference.

Perhaps he could have made an impression. One never knows. If the impression he would have made by his presence there were the same as that made by the hon member who has just spoken it would, in any event, have been no impression at all. I immediately concede as much.

So it did not matter.

The fact of the matter is that when a contribution could have been made at council level, the representative of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s party was conspicuous by his absence. Then he comes along and says we have not held negotiations.

The fact remains that this standpoint has been held throughout. The negotiations took place with the provincial authority, in accordance with the undertakings. The hon member for Durban Point will confirm what I am now going to say. The leader of the party in that province is not a member of my party. The leader of the hon member for Durban Point’s party in the Natal Provincial Council attended all the discussions I held with the Provincial Administrators. He was present at all of them. All I am therefore trying to put forward this evening, for the purposes of this debate, is that that process was implemented in letter and in spirit.

I now come to the hon member for Berea. Do hon members know what the hon member for Berea says? He says the kwaZulu government is more democratic than the new system of second-tier government. I am so sorry we now have to drag kwaZulu into this debate.

I do not think you understand English. I did not say that.

Go and read your Hansard speech. [Interjections.]

The hon member’s argument was that there is more democracy in kwaZulu than in the executive authority. I just want to understand that. Could we please not leave other bodies and leaders out of our debates? [Interjections.] Let us look at the position in kwaZulu, just for the sake of the hon member’s argument.

The fact of the matter is that the kwaZulu legislative assembly consists of 76 chiefs and 65 elected members with no opposition.

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

No, I do not want to answer a question. [Interjections.]

Next I want to deal with the question of the democracy which is now being encroached upon. [Interjections.]

Tell us how those people got into the legislative body of kwaZulu.

In terms of an Act they passed.

Do they have a vote?

I have just said that the number of elected representatives was in the minority.

How does a chief obtain his position?

The chiefs obtain their positions in accordance with traditional rules and without being elected. [Interjections.]

Please, I do not want to discuss that matter any further. All I want to say is that we should not drag other people’s systems into our own debates.

I never made that point!

Well, then I would suggest, in all fairness, that the hon member go and read his Hansard speech. [Interjections.]

I want to say, too, that democracy also means something else. Democracy also means that we function within those systems which have been democratically established. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition knows that there are some of his fellow party members who do not want to function within the ambit of those systems. [Interjections.] They left because they said they did not believe in the system. Let me tell him that they have not all left yet; there are more who are going to leave. [Interjections.]

Who are they?

I now want to come to the hon members of the CP and the HNP.

Who are they?

Just look around you. [Interjections.]

I now want to come to the hon members of the CP and the HNP. It is terribly important for hon members to listen to me, as I listened to them. I do think the hon member for Rissik will at least accept that.

The first point I want to make relates to their debate on power-sharing. I think they are entitled to conduct that debate, and I should like to conduct the debate with the hon members in principle, and the principle is whether they believe at all in power-sharing with all population groups. [Interjections.] That is fair; I do not want to have an altercation about it.

The hon member for Soutpansberg says no, they do not believe in power-sharing at all. I take it the hon member is also telling me that they have never believed in it. It is therefore tremendously important for us to take a brief look at the pronouncements made earlier, in the first instance in the twelve-point plan.

Oh, no, please!

Sir, the hon member was perhaps asleep when other hon members of his party referred to the Twelve Point Plan in the course of the discussions about the legislation! Now he is telling me please to leave well alone!

That is already played out.

The hon member says it is played out. He therefore does not consider himself to be bound to the standpoints of the House. [Interjections.]

In terms of the concept of power-sharing the Twelve Point Plan states, in the first instance—first leave aside the question of who is involved—that we should share the decision-making with Coloureds and Indians when it comes to matters of common concern. Leave the Black people out of it for a moment, too, because hon members are not opposed to the participation of Black people; they are opposed to the concept of power-sharing to anyone who is not White! They are here in the House, however, on the basis of the principle of power-sharing in regard to matters of common concern.

That is untrue! [Interjections.]

Wait, give me a chance!

They go further. In paragraph 6 of the document they signed there is a very interesting statement. They say:

Remember, that is not merely with Coloureds and Asians, but here it is now a question of co-operating with all people on an equal basis. Those hon members, however, are opposed to power-sharing!

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

No, Sir, I am sorry, but I am now in the process of … [Interjections.]

There was no power-sharing in the 1981 draft!

I want to go a bit further. The hon member for Brakpan was a friend of the late Mr Vorster.

You probably were too!

I was, but I still acknowledge his standpoints.

I do too!

No, the hon member no longer does. I want to refer hon members to an occasion on which Mr Vorster was speaking in this House on the 1977 proposals.

12 April 1978.

That is correct, 12 April 1978. The hon member for Brakpan was present in the House. Mr Vorster was discussing the implications of his 1977 proposals—I am saying this in homage to him, not to disparage him—on the basis of which both he and the hon member for Brakpan were elected.

You know, do you not, what he subsequently said.

I am talking about what he said here—and the hon member for Brakpan accepted that.

Firstly the then Prime Minister said that the colour of a possible Prime Minister or head of State was not determined in the proposals. In other words, the principle was accepted … [Interjections.] What are the facts of the matter? I want to emphasise this aspect this evening so that we can have it on record, particularly for the sake of the hon member for Brakpan, because he did not question it whilst Mr Vorster was Prime Minister. [Interjections.] Since Mr Vorster’s death, however, they can simply say anything about what he allegedly said or did not say!

I said in Parliament what he meant by that!

But he was not present!

I spoke to him about that. [Interjections.] Go on, twist it as much as you like!

I do not want to twist anything; I want to quote Mr Vorster’s words! What I cannot understand is that the supposed friend of the late Mr Vorster is now not even prepared at least to acknowledge his statements. Let me quote Mr Vorster now, because it must be placed on record. [Interjections.] May I note quote the former Prime Minister to the hon member for Brakpan, or does he have so little respect for him that he does not even want to hear this? [Interjections.] I quote what Mr Vorster said (Hansard, House of Assembly, 1978, col 4548):

So Parliament will relinquish some of its sovereignty to other bodies. [Interjections.] I quote further:

This again means relinquishing power vested in the sovereign legislative authority of Parliament in 1977. [Interjections.] During that debate Dr Van Zyl Slabbert put a question to Mr Vorster, and now let me quote Mr Vorster’s reply (Hansard: House of Assembly, 1978, col 4548):

If I remember correctly, seven Coloureds and four Indians were to have served on that Cabinet. That Council of Cabinets, in terms of my definition, was not constituted. The hon member for Brakpan’s erstwhile leader said it would function in precisely the same way that this Cabinet functions. In the 1977 Cabinet, to which the then Prime Minister referred, people share decision-making powers with one another, but the hon member says they are opposed to power-sharing.

Mr Vorster went on to say:

The hon member for Bryanston then also put a question, as usual, to which Mr Vorster replied:

Hon members of the CP did not accept power-sharing, did they!

That was not power-sharing.

What was it then?

The Cabinet has no decision-making powers; only the State President has.

Mr Speaker, that is an interesting remark the hon member has just made. [Interjections.] He says the Cabinet has no executive decision-making powers— only the State President does. If that were true, however, why do hon members then advance the argument that because two Cabinet members did not agree to certain legislation, they should be kicked out of the Cabinet? Surely it is not their decision; surely it is then the State President’s decision.

They disagreed with the chairman of the Cabinet.

But that is not the point, is it, because the chairman of the Cabinet takes the decision, and no one else, according to that hon member. [Interjections.] There is another question I want to put to those hon members. The hon member for Kuruman is not here this evening, but he came along with the stereotyped question: Could the Administrator now be Black? Mr Vorster gave the reply in 1978.

Please, man, do you not have a leg to stand on?

You are sitting on your brains. [Interjections.]

I am standing on my own two feet and that hon member is sitting on his brains. [Interjections.]

Mr Vorster gave the answer, too. He said the State President could also be Black if Parliament were to decide that he could. [Interjections.] It is in Hansard. [Interjections.] The answer is that in terms of the legislation there could, of course, be a Black Administrator. I do not have a racist approach to matters, as do hon members on that side of the House. Not at all. In fact, there are certain White presidents under whom I would not like to serve.

Hear, hear!

There are certain White presidents under whom I do not want to serve.

Eglin is one.

There is one in Moscow, for example, and he is white. I would not want to serve under him. [Interjections.] I would not want to serve under the hon Leader of the Official Opposition either; I would rather clear out. And he is very white! Not only is he white, however, he is reddish-white! People say he is pinkish-white! [Interjections.]

You are yellow!

Now I again want to come to opposition members of the CP and the HNP.

Firstly I want to come to the hon member for Pietersburg and then simply link up, too, with the hon member for Koedoespoort’s question about the other areas. Do hon members know what question the hon member for Pietersburg asked? He asked: What incentive would there now be for the national states to become independant if those people were able to come and serve in these executive committees? That was his question. Let us answer the question. Does the hon member not realise that the area of jurisdiction of the legislative assemblies of the national states are excluded from the jurisdication of provincial councils? [Interjections.] Does he not understand that? In other words, those legislative assemblies have jurisdiction in areas that have nothing to do with provincial areas of jurisdiction. That, however, was the hon member’s total contribution to the debate—that we are now not going to have anyone wanting independance because they can become members of the executive committees here. The hon member says that, but he has never considered or studied the status laws of the national states. That is the kind of thing I have had to listen to for three days now.

The hon member for Koedoespoort talks about the definition of the area to be included in the provincial boundaries. He says he can understand Walvis Bay, but he says the other area makes him a bit suspicious. Has the hon member, however, never heard in this Parliament of areas excised from the national states and then added to the provinces? Has he never heard of that? Does he not know that the excision of those areas means their inclusion as part of provincial council or provincial administration areas? That, then, was the hon member’s contribution! The only contribution he made was to sow a little more unnecessary suspicion.

I want to go further. I now want to come to the hon member for Sasolburg. He told me he and the hon member for Kuruman were both in the same hostel. I can understand that! I think the hon member was probably in “Bekfluitjie”. [Interjections.] I hear the hon member saying yes. That also explains his performance in the House. I have an idea the hon member was probably one of those who went out in the night lights. [Interjections.] No reaction! It seems to me the hon member was one of those who went out in the night lights, but he simply does not want to acknowledge that. It seems to me he did not relinquish those habits when he started up in politics. He still goes out in the nightlights. The hon member for Sasolburg will forgive me for raking up a bit of old history, because did he not say that he had voted for me. I greatly appreciate that fact. The hon member, however, attended the party congress in Port Elizabeth. [Interjections.] Does the hon member remember that important congress, just before he left that party.

He sat in front of me.

Yes, he sat in front of the hon member. Mr Speaker, just permit me this brief digression, please, just for the sake of the record. The hon member for Sasolburg actually left the party because of newspaper cuttings, because of a Sunday Newspaper. [Interjections.] Really! Do you know what he did, Sir? He took a young academic from that university to plead his case. The hon member will remember that discussion. At the time I told him: But, my friend, why take this young man to plead your case for you? He replied: No, I was never opposed to these things. The hon member will remember that discussion. [Interjections.]

Talking about participation in the Government—and hon members have warned us—I get the impression that the concept of vested rights is only valid when the rights of Whites are involved. The hon member for Barberton and the hon member for Germiston District made a very good job of telling us— and I appreciate that, because I was also an MPC—how people could telephone their MPC about their roads, their schools and their hospitals, and of course that is true. However, who did the Coloureds, the Asians and the Black people have whom they could ring up?

Their White Member of Parliament.

You see, it does not matter that other population groups do not have access to someone they can ring up.

Create separate structures for them.

The hon member for Port Elizabeth North spoke about this. I should like to acknowledge that I was in favour of the removal of the Coloured representatives from the voters’ roll, but not for the reason put forward by other hon members. I was in favour of that because they were mercilessly being exploited by people who had no interest in them whatsoever. Secondly I was in favour of that because their political participation was used to settle the disputes between White political parties, and let me say that if they had not been removed from the voters’ roll, they would not have been back in Parliament today. That is why I am not apologising for this at all and cannot have the finger of guilt pointed at me either. [Interjections.]

What are the demographic facts? Let us just agree on this. Do hon members agree with me that people who have the right to live within a country’s borders should not only have the right to work there? Do hon members agree with me?

They should have the right to vote …

They should have the right to vote.

They must be able to vote for the same Government…

No, wait a moment, just wait a moment! [Interjections.] No, just a moment, this is an important point … [Interjections.] It is important for the hon member for Langlaagte to concede … [Interjections.]

No!

He says that a person who lives in a country should not only have the right to work there, but should also have the right to vote. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Langlaagte must not try to help the hon the Minister along.

Thank you very much, Sir. Yes, I am quite capable of helping myself. In other words, a person who has the right to vote also has another right, and that is to participate in the government of the country.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Would you please ask the hon the Minister not to twist my words? [Interjections.]

No, I am not twisting your words! [Interjections.]

Of course you are twisting my words!

Sir, the hon member and I come from the same area. I would never twist his words.

You could appear with me on the same platform at Helderberg or anywhere else! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member and I come from the same area. We therefore need not argue with each other. [Interjections.] No, I am not going to have an altercation with him. After all, he and I are in agreement in this debate. I do not know why the hon member is rowing with me now. [Interjections.]

What are the facts, however, Sir? The facts are that the majority of the citizens of South Africa are Black. That, Sir, is not in accordance with my own definition of citizenship. That is the definition of citizenship that applies throughout the world. The hon member for Langlaagte also says they are entitled to vote. I agree with him about that.

Well, why are they not here now?

If you give them citizenship—all of them in one country with one government—you must also, if you are being honest, give them the right to vote. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, again I agree with the hon member for Langlaagte. I do want to give them the right to vote. I want to give them the right to vote, but on the basis of the hon member for Hillbrow’s definition—we give them to right to vote in such a way that we do not thereby detract from the rights of other people. That is why I want to explain myself. I do not believe in majority government on the basis of one person, one vote in the same institutions. I do not believe in that. I am not a candidate as far as that is concerned. I do not think it can work. I believe it would destroy all rights.

What I actually want to tell hon members is that there is one thing I do not agree with, and that is that recognising other people’s rights also means disregarding my own rights.

Yes, definitely!

I want to go further, Sir. We can debate this issue until we are blue in the face—there is only one way in which White rights can be safeguarded, and that is to allow those of others to come into their own.

Hear, hear!

The surest way of losing Whites their rights, is to deprive other people of their rights. There is no surer way of doing just that.

Who is depriving other people of their rights?

You, Tom!

Oh, Lapa, you know altogether too little about these things to express any opinion! That is completely beyond you! [Interjections.]

Sir, this now brings me to the hon member for Barberton. Let us have a look at what he says. Mr Speaker, I have great respect for the hon member for Barberton.

No, wait! You just cut that out!

He does not belong over there!

No, but I do have a high regard for him! That is so, because normally he is intelligent.

Now you cut that out, Chris!

No, I do not want to! [Interjections.] Sir, the hon member for Barberton and I appeared on the same public platform. And I want to compliment the hon member for Barberton. I have never in my life come across a person who could deal more effectively with the HNP than specifically the hon member for Barberton. [Interjections.] You see, Sir, there was honestly no hon member of the National Party who could deal more efficiently with the HNP than the hon member for Barberton. [Interjections.] That evening I felt so inferior, Mr Speaker! What is more, in dealing with the HNP he was not simply dealing with one of the small fry. No!

It takes a thief to catch a thief!

Yes, Stoffies was too light-weight for him!

I must say that at that time the hon member for Sasolburg was still a chicken! The hon member for Barberton settled accounts with the leader of the HNP.

Well I never!

I honestly have to confess this evening that the hon member for Barberton really made me feel completely inferior that evening at not being able to compete with him.

But even today you are not as good as he is!

But today, Sir? What is the position today? Today the hon member for Barberton has joined with the HNP in defending their standpoints on the same basis on which he originally opposed them.

Now that is not nice, is it!

The same applies to you and the Progs, Chris!

Do you see, Sir, how strange it is? Just listen to the hon member for Brakpan. And he is one who speaks of acting treacherously. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I listened patiently to hon members of the CP. Whilst listening to them, I was constantly reminded of Louis Leipoldt’s “ou ramkietjie met nog net een snaar”. Honestly, Sir, the tune on that one string always stays the same. At one stage, however, I thought of another of Leipoldt’s poems, a poem that means a great deal to me personally. It is actually a prayer in which there are the following words: “Lei my uit bo die kranse van onwetendheid”. We in this country would thus have to receive a gift from God to be able to rise above the dark precipices of the mind—for the sake of our country.

Even when you pray, you are arrogant! Even in your prayers you are arrogant! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, is it not a fact…

[Inaudible.]

I shall be coming to the hon member for Sasolburg in a moment. [Interjections.] If the hon member for Sasolburg will only pay attention for a moment, I shall also get round to him. [Interjections.] The hon member for Sasolburg accuses me of using words to equate certain things. He alleged that I had said that history and change were synonymous.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, but that is what I said. The hon member actually took exception to that and referred to our European ancestry and to the wars that have been fought. Heavens above, Sir, those wars were fought over change! The hon member ought to know that the only consistency he can be sure of is, in fact, change. That is not, however, what it is all about. It is a question of whether one can control the change. It is a matter of whether one can administer the change. Administration by way of change is, after all, what development is all about.

I would, however, like to take this further, Sir. It is, after all, tremendously important. The hon member for Sasolburg blames me for talking about the Afrikaner. But what I said about the Afrikaner is true. I said the Afrikaner was no longer in the puberty stage.

[Inaudible.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member reproached me for having said that the Afrikaner was no longer in the puberty stage.

Hear that, Stoffies?

The hon member reproaches me for saying that, instead of commending me for doing so.

But he is in the late stages of puberty!

No, Sir, the hon member for Sasolburg is like a toddler who stands in the corner stamping his feet and shouting: “That is not true! There are no Black people here! There are no Coloureds here! There are no Asians here!”

That is not so!

Yes, it is not so! There has to be a tree!

And you only have half a tree-trunk!

Sir, I am now talking to the hon member for Sasolburg. Let me tell this hon member that his conduct is humiliating to the Afrikaner.

You are the only one who thinks so.

No, the majority of Afrikaners think so too.

According to that hon member’s mentality, if one comes into contact with other race groups, one is contaminated; if one comes into contact with other race groups, one’s identity is threatened. Let me tell the hon member this evening that the Afrikaner is not as inferior as that hon member makes him out to be. My contention is that even if the Afrikaner is a member of a minority group, the Afrikaners will largely determine the fate of South Africa.

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

No, let me first finish with the hon member. [Interjections.]

I just want to digress for a moment and come to the hon member for Barberton. That hon member says he is also opposed to the legislation because the MEC—members of the executive committees—are now to be appointed and not elected. Let us, however, look at what he says about his Transvaal MEC colleagues. He says that the fact that they were elected made them more accessible to members. [Interjections.] Does the hon member not understand that that is an indictment against his Transvaal colleagues in the executive committee? If that is true—I want to take the hon member up on that— what he is advocating is surely that Ministers should also be elected.

Yes, because then we would be better off than we are at present.

No, the hon member for Langlaagte must wait a moment—I am now speaking to the hon member for Barberton.

Is the hon member for Barberton advocating that both Ministers and members of Parliament be elected? That is surely the same principle. Those who are elected will, after all, be more accessible to members. So the hon member’s argument is not consistent. He is not adopting a logical standpoint. That is just something they came up with.

The hon member also said we should not give those people pensions; or, if we must do so, we should accept the PFP’s proposal. So much for that hon member’s contribution.

Now I come to the hon member sitting behind him, the hon member for Koedoespoort. That hon member asked why, if we wanted to do so, we did not give it to all of them, including those who came in after 30 July 1982. What do hon members want? Perhaps the hon member for Barberton and the hon member for Koedoespoort could settle the matter between them and let me know what their standpoint is.

I now come back to the hon member for Sasolburg. That hon member made a tremendously important statement that I want to deal with. He said that if people had not trekked away from the Eastern Cape there would not have been an Afrikaner people. I am now asking the hon member whether he did say that or not. He is nodding his head to indicate that he did, in fact, say so. In the same breath, however, he said that when they left they were already past the puberty stage. [Interjections.] And that is the meaning or significance of that hon member’s argument.

Let me now ask the hon member for Sasolburg where he comes from. [Interjections.] Did he not say that the Afrikaner people settled in the Transvaal and not here in the Cape.

Let us, however, take this a bit further. Let me now ask the hon member for Sasolburg: Is one of the most important distinguishing characteristics of a people not its language? [Interjections.] The hon member says yes. Let me now ask the hon member where the language monument is situated.[Interjections.] The language monument is situated in Paarl, is it not? [Interjections.] He said, however, that if we had not left, there would not have been an Afrikaner people. Have you ever heard such utter nonsense in your fife! [Interjections.]

Now I come to the hon member for Jeppe. He put his case very vociferously.

Gerrit, do you really agree with that argument? Do you think it is a wonderful argument? Are you impressed by it, Gerrit?

Order!

The hon member for Brakpan knows I am talking to his hon colleague. If he has no respect for me, let him at least have some respect for his colleague. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Jeppe put forward his case with enthusiasm. In all fairness, the hon member is now quoting me on standpoints about Black participation and on what I allegedly said or did not say. He knows, does he not, that in 1982 we were talking within the framework of the dispensation that came into being in 1983.

I told you I was closing the door.

The hon member cannot do so. He may perhaps close doors elsewhere, but he cannot close this one on me. [Interjections.] The hon member might as well listen to me now, because I have listened to him. I just want to prove how invalid was the passage quoted by the hon member out of context. The fact is that in 1982, when the guidelines were announced, the Cabinet decided on a special Cabinet committee to examine the question of Black rights.

Then you said they would …

The hon member must give me a chance. Was I not nice to him? The question was that the 1983 constitution made provision for participation by Whites, Coloureds and Asians because, at that stage, we did not yet have an answer in regard to the participation of Black communities. We adopted the standpoint that we could not accommodate them within the same dispensation, because there would be Black majority government if things were done on a numerical basis. In all fairness, we can always score points off one another, but can we not stick to the facts in regard to the overall context and the time at which events took place?

That is very difficult for you.

Are you going to talk it out this evening? Until half past ten?

Oh, yes, I have sat here for hours listening to everyone else. [Interjections.] Let us talk it out. [Interjections.]

There are some more of the cowboys who are crying!

The hon member for Meyerton put his case in strong but restrained terms, which I appreciate. I appreciate even more the fact that that is the pattern of the hon member’s life. I do not want to make any further references to Dr Verwoerd, except to say one thing. Every leader judges, within the context of the period in which he finds himself, what is best for the country and its people. I am the last one to question the motives underlying Dr Verwoerd’s judgement.

Is that all?

Could the hon member for Sasolburg not please just give me a chance? I am talking to a dignified hon member of the House. Let me tell the hon member for Meyerton that I—as he did— also supported Dr Verwoerd. Like the hon member, however, I also know today that Dr Verwoerd’s pronouncements were relevant to his time, but cannot tie one down as far as the future is concerned. The hon member for Meyerton, for whom I have a high regard, knows that he himself now has a standpoint about the Coloured people which is different to that propounded by Dr Verwoerd. I do not hold it against him, because his perception of reality is different to that of Dr Verwoerd.

Everyone has changed.

Of course! That is all I am trying to say. [Interjections.] I have no objection to people changing.

Stoffies has not changed.

There is one thing I want to ask the hon member: Let us just agree on one thing. We can disagree with each other about how we want to do things, but we must please not doubt one another’s motives when it comes to what we want to do or why we want to do it.

That is specifically what I said.

Yes, I agree with the hon member, but I want to ask him also to use his influence on his fellow party members.

I want to tell the hon member for Durban Point—I think I have now talked to most of the hon members—that I appreciate his standpoint, not because I agree with him, but because there is one thing one cannot say about the hon member, and that is that he is not in earnest as far as South Africa is concerned. I cannot pay anyone a greater compliment than that.

I want to conclude by referring to the point the hon member for Sasolburg made. The debate is actually concerned with survival and I should like to conclude with that idea.

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

No, I am sorry, but I really do not want to answer any questions now. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member wants to know whether he may ask a question afterwards.

No, Sir, I do not want to answer any questions from the hon member for Soutpansberg. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon member for Sasolburg that I agree that the urge to stay alive or survive is a normal instinct in human beings, communities and peoples. Neither individuals nor communities need feel guilty or be said to be guilty because they consciously and purposefully fight to extend or entrench their chances to stay alive or survive. This applies equally to the Afrikaner.

I content that self-destructive urges and acts of suicide are unnatural and not the urge to survive. A community or a people that does not reflect on the meaning of survival and devise methods to achieve this is not, in my view, of sound mind; such a community or people is sick.

How a community or a people gives expression to, and is concerned about its survival does make a difference. The measures a community adopts to extend or entrench its future or its chances of staying alive do make a difference. Whether it is merely a question of physical survival, the naked fact of survival, or whether it is also a matter of the underlying principle, of whether one is interested in the intrinsic content and the spiritual values of survival, also makes a difference.

Fundamentally what this difference comes down to is the distinction between civilisation and barbarity, between humanity and inhumanity and between moral responsibility and animal passions. We definitely see enough of the animal passion in our country! This difference is not a product of our natural instincts. My contention is—and I should like to debate the issue with hon members— that it depends on specific choices in the fight of our religious, cultural and moral values. I cannot understand our not being able to grasp the fact that those values have given the Afrikaner his viability.

Let me tell the hon member for Sasolburg that justice is such a value. When a community or a people chooses to base its survival on justice, it is placing its endeavours under the normative discipline of one of the most hard-won values in the history of civilisation.

It is not only necessary that I demand a place in the sun for myself, but it is also necessary for me, as an Afrikaner, to employ all possible means at my disposal to allow other peoples and people to have a just dispensation as well.

In separate structures!

I must use every means at my disposal to achieve this end. The object of justice is to have one’s fellow man come into his own. That is why it excludes the urge to conquer, unscrupulous exploitation and self-enrichment at the cost of others. I am now speaking of the grasping attitude of “what does it really matter?” The hon member for Kuruman is not here, but I want to confront him about the Black people on his farm. He says: “Yes, they work for me, but they are not allowed to vote.”

Yes! That is how things are in the world at large.

That is how we propagate the principle of justice!

It is an international principle. [Interjections.] If I go to work in America, I cannot vote there. [Interjections.]

If we understood what choices were, we would make some progress. I want to conclude with the following idea. Justice, if I understand it correctly, is one of the principle themes in the history of the Afrikaner people.

[Inaudible.]

The Afrikaner people has, since the moment of its birth, been locked in a struggle for survival, and the hon member for Langlaagte knows exactly what I am talking about.

Yes, I know exactly what you are talking about. You are talking nonsense!

The struggle for survival on the part of the Afrikaner people has never been a question of brutish or barbaric self-interest or morally undisciplined conduct. [Interjections.] It has never been a question of young men at meetings armed with revolvers. [Interjections.]

Exactly!

It was specifically in the name of justice that the Afrikaner waged his struggle and it was specifically in the name of justice that his struggle was given substance in the NP. That is specifically why it is entrenched in the NP’s constitution that it stands for justice for every sector of the population.

In separate structures! [Interjections.]

This also applies to the Black people. [Interjections.]

Undisciplined!

Let me say this to the hon member for Sasolburg: He does not understand it, but the Afrikaner has stirred the conscience of the international world when it comes to domination and depression. What are the hon member for Sasolburg and his fellow party members doing? [Interjections.] They are doing the very thing the Afrikaner rebelled against.

That is untrue!

Those are the facts. I am not apologising for the fact that on the basis of the principle that people are entitled to participate in the decision-making processes affecting their lives, I now propose that they be allowed to participate in the executive authority of the provinces.

Question put: That the words “the Bill be” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided.

As fewer than fifteen members (viz Messrs R W Hardingham, B W B Page, W V Raw and P R C Rogers) appeared on one side,

Question declared affirmed and amendment moved by Mr W V Raw dropped.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The beautiful countryside to the East of the Drakensberg has a strong symbolic value to a great number of South African communities.

For the Zulus, it is their ancestral land. The Afrikaners revere various beacons on their historical road in that area. The English-speaking South Africans played a cardinal role in the development of the area and they in turn commemorate heroes such as Dick King and the contribution of the established families in that part of the world.

South Africans of Indian origin remember Gandhi’s sojourn and their putting down roots, despite many difficulties and many obstacles.

Co-operation between neighbours is always important and always worthwhile. This Bill which I now address is to give statutory effect to co-operation between two neighbouring regional governments.

The proximity of the areas of jurisdiction of the provincial executive authority of Natal and of the Cabinet of kwaZulu makes co-operation between them in the administrative and executive spheres not only logical but, I believe, very necessary. The historical importance of that area also gives particular symbolic value to the Bill which I am now introducing.

A very important factor in this significant event is that the parties concerned have taken the initiative in working towards a cooperative mechanism which will provide for settling down to the job to be done without entering into the thorny area of political rights, group domination and the other many pitfalls which abound in our heterogeneous society. This places the proposed joint executive authority to a great extent outside the very important but sometimes heated debate on political reforms.

This meant that when Chief Minister Buthelezi and the Administrator, Mr Cadman, after having received approval from the kwaZulu Legislative Assembly and the Natal Provincial Council respectively, presented joint draft proposals during March this year, these could be considered by the Government on the grounds of their practical merits.

It is an important principle in this Bill that neither party is deprived of its powers and duties, but of its own initiative will ask the State President to authorise the joint executive authority to perform on a co-operative basis tasks the two governments would in any case have had to perform. This should lead I believe to the economical use of material resources and also the optimal use of human skills and human resources.

If asked to do so, the State President may even fully transfer the administration of a law, either a law of kwaZulu or a provincial law, to the joint executive authority, excluding any power to make regulations or otherwise enact subordinate legislation. Such a transfer is analogous to the transfer of functions from one Minister to another in terms of section 26 of the Constitution Act of 1983. It of course means that once a law is transferred, the kwaZulu minister concerned or the Administrator-in-Executive Committee is deprived of his powers under that law and they will then vest in the joint executive authority. Such transfer of legal powers is a matter to be approached with circumspection and will no doubt be used selectively.

On the other hand, as I have indicated, the joint executive authority may be authorised to administer a law on behalf of one of the parties, and the presidential authorisation can stipulate certain circumstances which, should they arise, would lead to the power in question automatically reverting to the original political functionary.

If a power is, however, assigned, the person from whom it is assigned retains such power. The power to decide on whether or not to lay down a rule or regulation which imposes an obligation on private persons, or which restricts them in any way, is a political responsibility.

For this reason this power may not be assigned to the joint executive authority, but the Bill, if enacted, gives that body the statutory right to make recommendations to the kwaZulu Chief Minister and his Government, and to the Administrator and his administration.

Thus the joint executive authority will have the right to recommend, say, that a speed limit be imposed, and the appropriate political authority must then give due consideration to that recommendation whilst retaining the final say as to whether it should be implemented or not. It will therefore clearly be seen that the joint executive authority is not a super government for the region. As I have said before, it is an instrument to be used by regional governments and does not replace those governments or administrations. This is further illustrated by the proposed personnel arrangements in terms of which the joint executive authority will have at its disposal staff from the establishments of the kwaZulu government service, the service of the Natal Provincial Administration, and by agreement, from statutory boards. One or other of the parties will second an officer of managerial rank to fulfil the duties of the joint executive authority’s chief executive officer. I would imagine that such a secondment would be on an indefinite basis for the sake of continuity, and particularly because the chief executive officer will also be the accounting officer for the joint executive authority, which is to have its own joint revenue fund. Other staff will be made available to the joint executive authority in relation to the functions with which it is to be entrusted from time to time.

When the joint executive authority has occasion to publish official notices, use will be made of the official gazettes of kwaZulu and of Natal and thus both official languages of the Republic of South Africa and the Zulu language will be used. Should a project or service be transferred to the joint executive authority during a financial year, the funds appropriated for that particular purpose may be moved to the joint revenue fund from the kwaZulu or the Natal Provincial Administration accounts, as the case may be.

The Bill prevents members of the authority or of the staff made available to it from disclosing confidential information, except as is necessary for the proper execution of their duties or with the express permission of the joint executive authority.

Mr Chairman, I have summarised the main principles of the Bill and have stated its underlying philosophy. The proposals in the Bill have been formulated after long and detailed negotiations between the communities involved and their administrations. They represent consensus between the Province of Natal, the kwaZulu executive and the South African Government. As such, the Bill is proof that negotiations can and do succeed and that different parties can reach agreement on crucial matters of common concern.

The proposed joint executive authority will provide a structured basis on which further negotiations and, in fact, joint decision-making on a regional level will take place. I regard it as a very important step towards greater structured regional co-operation as well as power-sharing between the Black and White communities in that area.

Finally, as a result of the expansion of the membership of the provincial executive committees, Coloured and Indian leaders will also become involved in this co-operative endeavour.

Mr Chairman, we are moving into somewhat quieter waters in respect of this Bill, as far as we on these benches are concerned, than those we experienced in respect of the previous Bill.

Having said that, may I simply place on record that the hon the Minister’s reply in respect of the last Bill left a lot to be desired because he did not answer a number of very vital questions which were put to him. In particular, I put certain specific questions relating to the situation in Natal and to the statement that the new provincial administration to be set up would now no longer have original powers. I also asked the hon the Minister specifically to give some indication as to how he reconciled that with what we were doing in Natal at the present time in relation to the Indaba. I merely want to place on record that he did not reply to that.

[Inaudible.]

Well, I asked a question in respect of the removal of provincial councils, and he should have replied in that debate. I am not going to pursue it in respect of this Bill. I think it was far more relevant to the last Bill and I think this is merely a chapter in the whole process. If the hon the Minister would like to reply, I would welcome it, because my reason for asking was that there is a great deal of interest in that regard.

I have said that we are moving into quieter waters. This Bill is, after all, the result of negotiations which have taken place between two elected authorities in Natal, namely the kwaZulu Government on the one hand and the provincial council on the other. We therefore want to indicate that we are going to support this legislation because we believe it is a practical, common-sense measure which relates to an administrative accord between two regional authorities operating in areas which are totally interdependent. It is nothing more than this by itself, although we would hope that it might be a first tentative step towards something far more meaningful as far as the combined region of Natal-kwaZulu is concerned.

The measure itself makes good sense as it stands. It will allow the two authorities—the provincial administration and the national state of kwaZulu—to act in concert in regard to the exercise of powers and functions in the combined area of jurisdiction.

Order! Hon members seem to be conversing at the tops of their voices for no reason that I can ascertain. Kindly give the hon member an opportunity to continue his speech.

Thank you, Sir. It will allow these two authorities to act in concert in regard to the exercise of powers and functions in the combined area of jurisdiction of the two regions. The Administrator and the Chief Minister respectively may, in terms of the Bill, recommend to the State President that the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning draw up a set of rules to provide for this eventuality. In terms of the legislation, it is then the prerogative of the State President to decide what to do with those recommendations. He may approve them, he may reject them, or he may refer them back for amendment. If he approves them in terms of the legislation, he publishes them by way of proclamation in the Gazette and they become effective. The proclamation provides for a joint executive authority with equal representation between the two regional bodies. It would provide in its turn for the composition, the appointment and the manner of operation of that joint executive authority.

The powers of the joint executive authority are set out in the Bill. They are confined to those enjoyed by the two authorities, and there can be co-ordination of functions. Provision is also made for joint committees and authorities to be established, and the State President may assign the administration of any law which entrusts either authority with power to that joint authority.

It also makes provision—which would seem to be appropriate—for joint staffing in regard to matters in respect of which the two authorities are operating. It also provides for a joint revenue fund from the funds of the State Revenue Fund as a charge against either the province or the government of kwaZulu or both. In its terms, it is a commen-sense measure, it is a practical measure relating to an administered accord between the two authorities.

As I have said, all of these provisions appear to be practical and sensible and one in fact wonders why it has taken so long for the need for these provisions to be recognised. I believe they should prove useful in the administration of the two regions which are totally interwoven and interdependent.

I also believe they would have been far more meaningful—this relates to the remark made by the hon the Minister a few minutes ago—had the previous Bill, the one with which we have just dealt, not been passed. Then one would at least have had an administrative accord between two elected regional authorities. They would have known that what they were doing reflected the wishes of the people whom they represented. However, now we are going to have an accord, useful though it may be, between one democratically elected regional authority on the one hand, the Government of kwaZulu, and one body nominated by the State President and the central Government on the other. I believe this provides an imbalance which would not have existed had the previous Bill not been passed because, if this had not happened, when dealing with the provincial administration the kwaZulu administration would have been dealing with an administration which was accountable to the people of the rest of the province of Natal. Instead, they will now be dealing with people who are accountable to the Head of State, the State President.

Therefore, it is a situation which may pose difficulties for the accord from time to time. It would clearly have been easier and, in my opinion, far more congenial and practical for two purely regional authorities to have negotiated and operated their administrative accord on that basis. We now have a different situation but, that situation notwithstanding, we regard the provisions of this Bill as a useful exercise. We believe, as I have said, that it makes common sense that there should be an administrative accord at this level. We hope that this accord will facilitate a rationalisation of the administrative functions operating in the two regions.

With those few words we are going to support the Bill. I hope it will be a prelude to something far more meaningful for the province of Natal. The hon the Minister knows what I mean and I believe he knows what the people of Natal want, namely that we are not merely looking for an administrative accord. We are working hard and are trying to deal on a negotiated basis in an attempt to present this Government with a package which can provide for a legislative assembly for Natal with original powers. Despite the fact that the hon the Minister, in the Bill we have just discussed, has abandoned those original powers, we believe that that is what the majority of people want, and I hope the hon the Minister will give us the assurance when he replies to the debate that the Government’s door is still open in regard to the representations which, in due course, will come from a widely representative body of Natal.

As far as this Bill is concerned, we are going to support it for what it is, namely merely to provide a sensible administrative accord between the two authorities. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, as far as this Bill is concerned, obviously one must refer to the fact that the negotiations to bring about this state of affairs were initiated by two authorities, namely the elected provincial authority of Natal, in which there is an NRP majority, and the Cabinet of kwaZulu, in which the participating persons were mainly Dr Oscar Dhlomo and Dr Frank Mdlaloze.

The role they played in the coming into existence of this is a logical consequence of the fact that there must of necessity be cooperation in a province. I submit that this is an institutionalised structure for co-operation. In the past co-operation was also essential, but a structure for co-operation has not yet been established on a formal basis or by means of legislation.

Recognition is now being given to the fact that the kwaZulu authority will co-operate officially with the White authority of the province of Natal to deliberate on certain matters of common interest, to take joint decisions and to make recommendations which can then be implemented. But the co-operation structure does not deprive either of the participating structures of their own identity and right of existence. As a matter of fact this reconfirms the separate right of existence of the kwaZulu legislative body and the authority for the rest of Natal.

If one studies cases in history where similar structures for co-operation are formalised, it is a good thing—for the sake of understanding in other countries—to endeavour under different circumstances to find similar structures for co-operation for specific cases. In Europe we have an ideal comparison, although it is not a parallel, which under many circumstances has a comparable structure for co-operation for specific matters of common interest.

I want to refer to NATO, which has a cooperation agreement for military purposes between quite a number of countries in which the representatives of the specific authority co-operate, deliberate and take decisions together, but none of the participating countries can be finally committed to a decision until it has agreed to it in its own right.

This is also the case with our own structure for co-operation. No decision can be taken, which will receive support and be binding, unless it receives the support of both participating authorities. Consequently no authority is being forfeited, but this is a recognition of the necessity for a formal structure to be established through which there can be co-operation regarding the common welfare of those involved.

In certain circles in Natal there are people who are opposed to such a structure for cooperation. They founded Aksie Blank Natal and opposed such a structure for co-operation. I know there is going to be opposition to this legislation. It is going to be said that we are dealing with power-sharing and that we must keep the authority of the Whites in the hands of the Whites only.

I now want to get back to our own history, that period when the land was bought with blood.

Whose land?

The land of Southern Africa. I want to refer specifically to Natal and the Battle of Blood River. Not one of those hon members will deny that there were not only Whites in the laager at the Battle of Blood River. There were also Blacks. They were there to perform a specific task—to serve the interests of the burghers. But at present a spirit is prevailing which could perhaps be compared with the mentality of the person at the founding of the Volkswag who said: “The Zulus are coming!”

There is a degree of interdependence in Natal which makes co-operation absolutely essential. There are roads which pass through White and Black areas alternately. There are also waterworks which serve both White and Black areas and there are essential health and inoculation services which of necessity require co-operation. In what other way can this be done effectively except by the establishment of an effective, institutionalised structure for co-operation, without forfeiting one’s own identity and the final participation where authority vests in kwaZulu on the one hand and the rest of Natal on the other, because they must agree to this co-operation. Even then no decision can be enforced, unless it is referred to the State President of the Republic of South Africa so that he can sanction that decision. In other words, at all times the co-operation takes place subject to the final say—if it must be put like that—of the State President.

But I have no doubt that this structure for co-operation will be of such a nature that the co-operating groups will be able to find common ground. It is not necessary for us in all respects always to seek solutions only in majority votes and confrontation with one another. There are so many matters regarding which we can co-operate. Let us endorse the fact that we are at least making an honest and sincere effort to co-operate in the case of this aspect with regard to which we can co-operate. We live in each other’s company, we have dealings with one another. There is interdependence. There was an interdependence, even in the battles which the Boers fought against the people who were their enemies at that stage.

I want to refer to Europe again. The war ended 41 years ago, a war in which Germany, Britain, France and Italy were enemies. There was no suggestion—or rather no expectation—-that they would find common ground to be able to co-operate. But today there is not only the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation where they co-operate on defence, but there is also the European Common Market where their economies are becoming increasingly interdependent, where they have a structure to co-operate officially.

There is the European Parliament where they deliberate on political matters and decide to co-operate. But not one of them is forfeiting its eventual sovereignty. I am not suggesting that there can never be a movement in the direction of a politically united Europe. But this will never come into existence until such times as the participating countries have arrived at the point of voluntarily mutual trust.

To the extent to which we build structures for co-operation, as is the case with this Bill, we are on our way to deciding whether we can have mutual trust, but to the extent to which we cannot have mutual trust, there will not be co-operation. But to the extent to which we can have mutual trust, let there for Heaven’s sake be co-operation! This is what we envisage with this legislation and it gives me pleasure to support the legislation.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of this side of the House, I move:

One can understand very well that the hon member for Berea is very happy about what appears in this Bill, about the fact that there are two bodies—an elected body of kwaZulu, which the hon the Minister said in connection with the previous legislation was not an elected body, and an at present still elected body of the province of Natal,…

I did not say that.

… which in future will also no longer be an elected body—two bodies which will make recommendations to the State President. The hon member for Berea called this a “useful exercise”. It is indeed a “useful exercise”. It is nothing more than that either.

It is a trick!

This matter is going to lead to further complications. The hon member for Klip River knows this just as well as I do.

He should know it even better!

This is only an interim measure to arrive at another objective. [Interjections.] The hon member for Klip River calls it a structure for co-operation, with the official co-operation of the Zulu Government and the province of Natal. But then he makes the astounding statement that this emphasises the concept of separate development. There we have another hon member who is saying that separate development is even built into this legislation. Then the hon member goes on to give various examples—European examples—with reference to this Bill; matters which according to him are analogous examples. There is as little likelihood of a political unitary situation ever developing in Europe, as there is of its developing here in South Africa.

Far less likelihood!

I take it seriously amiss of the hon member for Klip River that he dragged an incident in the history of Natal into the Bill under discussion here—the Battle of Blood River, of 16 December 1838.

Very bad!

Big liberalist!

Then he also puts forward the liberal idea that there were also Blacks and other people of colour in that lager.

When did you find that out, Tino?

If the hon member wants to refer to this as an important element of the Battle of Blood River, I am telling him now that he never understood the spirit of the Battle of Blood River.

Yes, but he is not an Afrikaner!

The Battle of Blood River concerned a people that in its hour of need prayed to the Lord and received deliverance. The Battle of Blood River was very closely linked to the Vow, and no one else was part of that Vow except the Trekkers in that lager—those persons who made that Vow. Consequently to allege that other peoples had a share in that Vow of Blood River is totally untrue. [Interjections.]

Sir, I should now like to talk about the Bill in front of us. The objective of this measure is to provide for the joint and co-ordinated performance of certain executive functions by the Government of kwaZulu and the provincial government of Natal. The Bill under discussion—as the hon member for Berea rightly set forth here—also makes provision for certain uses of staff, for the financing of this exercise, for the equipment and the facilities.

But then we come to the functions which are to be performed. We find an explanation of these functions in clause 6 of the Bill. This involves inter alia the exercise of the duties and powers allocated in terms of clause 7, as well as the exercise of the duties and functions of the Administrator or Chief Minister assigned to him by the State President.

But the very important function is the one contained in clause 6(1)(b), which reads as follows:

Recommendations, Sir! We must just remember for a moment that the original function of the President’s Council was also to act in an advisory capacity.

Such an innocent body!

A further function of the joint authority is to act in a co-ordinating capacity between the Natal Provincial Administration and the kwaZulu Government Service, and also to act as representative or mandatory of the Government of kwaZulu or the Administrator.

But the question remains, Sir, in whom the actual executive power in kwaZulu and in Natal vests—in the Chief Minister of kwaZulu or in the Administrator of Natal or in both of them or between them on a basis of consensus? I submit that this is just another experiment—in this case at regional government level to experiment with power-sharing between the White executive authority of a province and the Government of a self-governing national state.

Now the hon member for Helderkruin will probably tell us that this is separate development. It also seems to me he is on the same wavelength as the hon member for Klip River. Because, the hon member for Helderkruin will tell us, the Zulu voter can go to his elected representative, while at the moment the White voter from Natal may still go to his elected MPC. But in the near future that White voter from Natal must go to the Standing Committee on Provincial Matters via his elected MP in this House, and then eventually arrive at a White appointed member of an executive committee of Natal, when he follows the general course of democracy.