Mr. Speaker, it is quite some time since we last discussed this legislation. Therefore I suppose one should dwell for a moment on the three basic principles contained in this legislation.

In the first place, the measure is concerned with the establishment of a council for the co-ordination of local government affairs. In the second place, it is concerned with the establishment of a municipal development board, and in the third place, it is concerned with the improvement of communication between the Coloured and Indian committees on the one hand and the White local authorities on the other.

In order to refresh our memories even further, perhaps, hon. members will recall that I asked the hon. member for Pietersburg a question on that occasion. I asked him whether or not the Transvaal Municipal Association supported this draft Bill. There were quite a lot of interjections, and I only saw in Hansard what the hon. member’s answer actually was. He said that I should just have listened to what he had read in this House earlier on. Therefore I should like to afford the hon. member for Pietersburg another opportunity of telling us whether or not the Transvaal Municipal Association supports this Bill. [Interjections.]

Carry on with your speech.

Mr. Speaker, I really think the hon. member for Pietersburg should just say “Yes” or “No”. After all, the question is simply whether the Transvaal Municipal Association supports this Bill or not.

They do not support it …

Do they support it? [Interjections.] Of course, I can understand, Sir, why the hon. member for Pietersburg finds it difficult to answer with a simple “Yes” or “No”. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Pietersburg quoted at some length in this House from a memorandum on a proposed new constitutional dispensation for local authorities, published by the Transvaal Municipal Association and dated 31 August 1981. It was a submission made to the President’s Council by the Transvaal Municipal Association, therefore.

Yes, that is correct.

The hon. member for Pietersburg says this is correct, Mr. Speaker. However, what are the other facts concerning the extracts from this document quoted in this House by the hon. member for Pitersburg? I submit that not one of the extracts read to us by the hon. member was relevant to the legislation which is now before the House. [Interjections.] After all, we must take into consideration the fact that the document concerned was a submission to the President’s Council. When we examine the quotations which the hon. member read, we find that he steered clear altogether of the practical aspects which this legislation is really concerned with.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall, too, that on that occasion I read a telex containing the standpoint of the United Municipal Executive. Perhaps it is not quite clear to hon. members that the Transvaal Municipal Association also forms part of the United Municipal Executive. Therefore I think it would be a good thing …

Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member for Newcastle agree with me when I say that the principles contained in this memorandum—the memorandum of the Transvaal Municipal Association—are completely incompatible with the principles contained in the legislation which is now before the House?

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member has asked that question. I want to refer to a document produced by the Transvaal Municipal Association, a document in which the three principles contained in the Bill are very specifically dealt with. I am going to quote it verbatim. Mr. Speaker. I am referring to a document entitled “Aanbevelings en Kommentaar op die Gesamentlike Verslag van die Presidentsraad oor Plaaslike en Streekbestuurstelsels in die Republiek van SuidAfrika”. What I also want to mention in connection with this document is that it was approved by the management committee of the Transvaal Municipal Association on 18 June 1982, that it was approved by the executive committee on 3 July 1982, and that it was approved by the Transvaal Municipal Congress which took place between 4 and 7 October 1982. I want to refer specifically to the three principles which feature prominently in this Bill.

Recommendation No. 22 concerns the coordinating council and its function of arbitration. Hon. members may also go and read what the hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech. In it he referred specifically to this particular recommendation of the President’s Council.

Let us now examine the comment of the Transvaal Municipal Association with regard to this council and I quote from the official document which was also approved by their congress. I quote as follows—

Let us see what they resolved. I quote again—

Then the congress added the following interesting statement—

This is exactly what the nature of this council is, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.]

Let us examine the second aspect, and this is concerned with development boards. Due to a lack of time, I only want to mention that the recommendation of the President’s Council appears in paragraph 89, page 67, and the hon. the Minister referred to the development boards in his Second Reading Speech, as reported in column 8293 of Hansard. I just want to refer to the resolution passed by the TMA congress in this connection and specifically with regard to what is contained in this legislation. It reads as follows—

The congress made only one addition in respect of the number of representatives on that board. They added a representative appointed by the Minister. [Interjections.]

I submit that the standpoint adopted by the hon. members of the CP is one of the biggest political blunders they have committed in their short existence. They did this under the cloak of the TMA, in order to justify their standpoint, but it now appears that it was in fact not the standpoint of the TMA in respect of this legislation which was enunciated by the hon. member for Pietersburg.

Let us examine what has been happening outside this House, because I believe that we shall then understand more clearly the nature of the politics which the CP is practising. In this connection I want to refer to a report which appeared in Die Vaderland of Tuesday, 7 September. The heading of this report is “KP-verdagmakery kring uit na munisipale vlak”. I should like to quote from this report. It reads as follows—

Reference is made here to “selektiewe aanhalings”. I also want to quote selectively from the speech of the hon. member for Pietersburg which he made in this House on Wednesday, 1 June (Hansard, col. 8319), which reads as follows—

I explained to hon. members a short while ago what the standpoint of the TMA was in respect of this legislation. We are faced with this suspicion-mongering, therefore.

I now wish to quote further from the report in Die Vaderland. It goes on to say—

The question is, Sir, who particpated in this resolution passed by the TMA? In this connection I want to quote from the report again. It reads as follows—

It is very interesting to note that self-determination with regard to group affairs and coresponsibility with regard to matters of common concern are contained in the TMA proposals, and Mr. Ferreira supported these. Is this not incompatible with the policy of the CP which they enunciate in this House? [Interjections.] Is it not time Mr. Ferreira declared his interests by saying which standpoint he supported? Does he support the standpoint of the Transvaal Municipal Association or that of the CP? This is the kind of political suspicion-mongering in which the CP engages in order to confuse the public, but we shall expose them at every possible opportunity in order to enlighten the voters as to the true facts.

I conclude with a quotation from Prof. Hans Gildenhuys’s book Vrede, Vryheid en Voorspoed: ’n Uitdaging vir Munisipale Owerhede—

When we examine the legislation dealing with the promotion of local authorities, we realize that it is a measure which is aimed at upliftment. For this reason, I take great pleasure in supporting the legislation and the measures contained in it on behalf of this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to follow the hon. member for Newcastle in regard to his differences with the hon. members of the CP.

It is now three weeks since the Bill appeared fairly mysteriously in an advanced position on the Order Paper so that the Second Reading debate could commence in an allotted two-hour debate. At that time we in these benches drew attention to what we observed as an unusual procedure and questioned whether there had been adequate consultation with those directly concerned in the second and third tier levels of government in South Africa. At that time we referred specifically to the provincial administrations concerned, the larger local authorities and the other bodies who are obviously interested and involved in this legislation. Our query and criticism at that time in this regard drew interjections from the hon. the Minister and assertions from supporting speakers on the Government benches that criticism that there had not been proper consultation was ill founded and that in fact there had been extensive consultation before the introduction of the Bill. The record shows that the hon. member for Algoa, amongst others, went on at some length in order to try to convince us that there had been far-reaching consultation with interested parties before the introduction of this measure.

That was clearly not the case on the question of consultation because immediately after that debate there was immediate reaction from at least one provincial administration and there was reaction from other persons directly involved which indicated that there had not been proper consultation. There was, for example, the very trenchant criticism on behalf of the Labour Party from one of its leaders, Mr. David Curry. I want to quote from The Argus of 4 June 1983 where this is said—

It quotes Mr. Curry as saying—

So Mr. Curry goes on. Then he says, in fairly picturesque language—

That is Mr. Heunis—

I do not know if the hon. the Minister was supposed to be the groom, but if he was, what he is being accused of here is a serious breach of promise long before the wedding. He should take note of that.

We know that after these reactions, not only from Mr. Curry but also from other people concerned, after the Second Reading was introduced there were hurried attempts by the hon. the Minister to try to reassure those concerned. There were comings and goings, there were meetings, and the hon. the Minister tried to reassure them on the contents of this Bill. I want to say that these events confirmed our worst fears that this Bill was conceived with unseemly haste by the Minister and without proper consultation with those directly concerned in these two vital spheres of government. It was quite clear that this hon. Minister, whose arrogance, vanity and impetuosity seem to grow daily as he takes unto himself the task of deciding for South Africa on its constitutional future, had simply gone ahead with this meassure as a half-baked measure in order to get his own show on the road without proper consultation with those concerned and irrespective of the consequences.

Now we resume this Second Reading debate and the Minister comes crawling back to the House with a number of amendments on the Order Paper, some of which are badly drafted, in an attempt to retrieve the situation. We will have an opportunity of dealing with some of those amendments later during this debate and certainly during the Committee Stage, but I believe that if ever there was a case for a Bill of this kind to be referred to a Select Committee, it is the case represented by the chapter of events I have outlined, events such as the lack of consultation and the obvious doubt in the mind of the Minister who even during the course of the Second Reading debate has belatedly held consultations with people and then came with a series of amendments to the Bill, some of which are fairly material while others are not so material. I think that this reinforces more than ever the correctness of the attitude of this side of the House in asking that a measure of this kind should go to the Select Committee dealing with constitutional affairs before the Second Reading is passed, because clearly there is a great deal of uncertainty.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister: Why the haste with a measure of this kind which, notwithstanding the hon. the Minister’s proposed amendments, threatens to make serious inroads into provincial and municipal government in South Africa? Why the haste now when we are dealing with constitutional amendments primarily concerned with first-tier government in South Africa and the country has been told that matters relating to second-and third-tier government will subsequently be considered separately? Why must we push through this legislation now in this half-baked manner?

We have stated our objections to this Bill when it was first discussed. We stated our concern about the procedure the hon. the Minister was following. Here we have virtually an ad hoc situation where the Minister is creating new statutory bodies, which will vitally affect the powers of second-and third-tier government in South Africa, without there having been established a generally accepted basis for the future operation and development of these tiers of government in a new constitutional framework. Why must this Bill be forced through now? This was our first objection to the procedure which is being followed. This Bill clearly establishes a pattern of development for the future in regard to local and provincial government before the whole concept of the future operation of these two tiers of government has been properly canvassed and considered.

Then we expressed very real fear, which is still reinforced by what we see before us, about the future of the provincial system in South Africa. If one sees this Bill against the background of the Government’s constitutional guidelines and if one reads the hon. the Minister’s speech, it is apparent that this is a clear move in the direction of a downgrading of the provincial system in South Africa in favour of some sort of nominated regional authority presided over and controlled by this would-be omnipotent Minister.

But Eglin has made that speech already.

The Minister is going to be the No. 1 guru in South Africa in regard to local government. He may consult with the bodies to be set up in terms of this legislation. He may use those bodies to consult with other interested parties, for example the Administrator, the Administrator-in-executive, or whoever they may be, but in the end it is the Minister who hires and fires and who shall decide on matters relating to local government. It was therefore a clear move away from the authority of provincial council and a clear diminution of their rights and their powers in South Africa.

I believe it is time that this Minister should come clean with the public of South Africa on the question of his views of the future of the provincial system as part of our constitution. I believe the time has gone for innuendos and subterfuge on an issue of this kind. I ask the hon. the Minister to use the opportunity in this debate to give the country a declaration of his own intent in regard to the future of provincial government in South Africa. I believe that is very necessary at the present time.

This brings me to what we have enunciated as our third objection to this Bill, namely the whole question of the greater centralization of power rather than a devolution of power in favour of local authorities. There is as yet no provision made for autonomous local authorities in South Africa. Yet the hon. the Minister is setting up in this legislation co-ordinating councils relating to local authority affairs in a vacuum, without entrenching the authority and autonomy of local government in South Africa. Despite the hon. the Minister’s proposed amendment to clause 18 of the Bill, there is still no indication that the Government’s whole approach to the revolution of local authority government in South Africa is not still based on the apartheid system. That emerges despite the hon. the Minister’s proposed amendment to clause 18.

The other objection we illustrated was the exclusion of Blacks from the whole co-ordinating process. There is no doubt that they are specifically excluded in terms of this Bill. We believe this is totally unrealistic and impractical in the South African situation. In all our large metropolitan areas there is a community of interest between White, Black and other races in regard to a wide range of services provided by local authorities, which makes co-ordination between them essential. You cannot leave out Blacks when you talk about co-ordination at local government level.

Our basic objections, despite the hon. the Minister’s proposed amendments, to this legislation remain. We believe it is a matter which must be referred to a Select Committee if it is going to be an effective instrument and if it is going to be made an effective instrument of co-ordination at second and third tier level.

This might be an appropriate time to look at some of the amendments proposed by the hon. the Minister in order to facilitate the Committee Stage. He proposes an amendment to the definition of “Administrator” in clause 1. His amendment provides that the Administrator shall mean the Administrator of a province when it refers to the functions set out in clauses 3 and 5 of the legislation, namely the functions in regard to the Administrator’s membership of a co-ordinating council or a co-ordinating committee. But then he says—I would like the hon. the Minister to clarify this—that for the purposes of clause 17 the term “Administrator” shall mean the “Administrator-in-executive”. Surely this is either a printing error or a drafting error.

It is a consequential renumbering.

It cannot be clause 17. It should actually be clause 18 as we have it in the Bill, because there is no mention of the Administrator in clause 17. I just want to get clarity on this.

This simply means that the Minister is going to consult, not just with the Administrator, but in terms of his amendment also with the Administrator-in-executive, before making regulations applying to local authorities. But the Minister makes the regulations nonetheless. In terms of the hon. the Minister’s proposed amendment he wants to negative clause 14. That is the provision that he can declare any person or institution to be a local authority. I believe that this should never have been in the Bill in the first place and obviously the negativing of this clause is a sensible thing for the Minister to do.

As far as the hon. the Minister’s amendment to clause 18 is concerned, he proposes to omit subsection (1), namely the Minister’s power to convert a Coloured or Indian consultative or local affairs or management committee into a self-governing local authority. This is the provision which he had in the original Bill. By way of a ministerial wand he could simply convert such an authority into a full self-governing local authority. I want to ask the hon. the Minister why that was included in the first place and, secondly, what persuaded him to change his mind. I do not know who is going to take the credit for this. I just wonder what the hon. the Minister’s attitude is going to be to some of the supporting speakers on his own side, amongst others the hon. member for Algoa, who three weeks ago spent a good deal of his speech applauding this particular provision. The hon. the Minister has left his own members in the lurch. He has now done away with subsection (1). I want to know what made him change his mind. It obviously was one of the basic principles of the Bill as far as he was concerned and as far as hon. members on his side of the House were concerned who defended that provision so stoutly during the first part of this Second Reading debate. Why did the hon. the Minister change? What is his intention now, because once again, if one looks at the amendments which he has proposed, one sees that clause 18(2) of the Bill, which now becomes clause 18(1), will have to be rephrased? He talks about consultation between a local authority and a committee referred to in the former subsection (1) of clause 18. The hon. the Minister should tell us what his intention is going to be in regard to such consultation now that he has proposed his amendment as it stands on the Order Paper.

The more one looks at this legislation, despite the hon. the Minister’s proposed amendments, one realizes that it is legislation that lends itself absolutely and ideally to consideration by a Select Committee before the Second Reading. We have stated quite unequivocally that we believe that there is need for co-ordination of activities at local authority level. We believe there is need for some machinery to be set up for such co-ordination. I believe if that is to be set up and if it is to be effective, the whole history of this measure has shown that this matter should be referred to the Select Committee which is already sitting and dealing with constitutional issues relating to first tier of government. Until it is so referred and receives proper treatment, this cannot be effective legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the three Opposition parties on the other side of the House have levelled a great deal of criticism at this Bill. The one point that the hon. member for Berea makes is that this Bill should be referred to the Select Committee on the Constitution before the Second Reading. In fact, the principles contained in the Bill are so clear and obvious that I really cannot see why it should be referred before the Second Reading. Nor do I think it is necessary even to refer it after the Second Reading, for the simple reason that the Bill is really a very simple piece of legislation. If any further chopping and changing is necessary, it can very easily be done in the Committee Stage.

In passing, I could perhaps cast some light on the problem of the hon. member for Berea with regard to clause 18 which should really be clause 17. It is really very simple. One of the amendments that the hon. the Minister will propose is aimed at deleting clause 14. The hon. member for Berea also referred to that. Therefore it follows logically that clause 18 will become clause 17.

The hon. member for Berea built up a whole argument around the handling of the Bill, the question whether there had been sufficient consultation, etc. I cannot reply specifically to that. I shall leave it to the hon. the Minister to discuss the matter further himself.

If one is to counter the objections raised by the hon. member for Berea, one should perhaps take a closer look at where we stand now in this process and what we are doing at present. We are revising the entire constitutional structure of South Africa. We are retaining certain things and improving on them. We are extending them. This is the whole process we are engaged in, and in the process of extension and revision the third tier of government is of exceptional importance. As the hon. the Prime Minister also said—if I remember correctly, it was at Bloemfontein and on several other occasions—third-level government is indeed to a large extent the foundation on which government is built. Therefore it is important that in this process we are engaged in, third-level government should be developed as well as possible. For that reason it is important to be creating machinery already to develop the third level of government. That is why this Bill is being introduced now. That is why this machinery must be created now. By laying a foundation and by developing that foundation, we shall achieve greater success in ultimately giving our whole system a firm foundation. That is the aim of the councils that are to be established; viz. in the first place, to bring about co-ordination. In a development situation, co-ordination is of cardinal importance. Then, too, there are the development boards, the additional facet of development, which forms part and parcel of this whole situation, whereby to extend and develop the existing structure, the existing level of third-level government, until it is as strong as possible so as to serve as a foundation for the rest of the structure. The hon. member for Berea says that we cannot proceed with this before we have a clear picture of where second-level government is going to fit in. In his speech at Bloemfontein, however, the hon. the Prime Minister stated clearly that we were building from below and from above and that we were transferring certain powers held at present by the provincial authorities to the first level, whereas some were being transferred to the third level, and that it would be necessary to see what second-level government, the middle level government, would eventually look like. It is therefore impossible to begin by spelling out the second-level government now before we introduce these mechanisms. In this development process the co-ordinating council and the development boards are of great importance. They must therefore be introduced now so that the process can be facilitated.

Then there is a point that was raised by the hon. member for Sea Point. I regret to see that he has left the House, but I do just want to refer briefly to him. The hon. member for Berea and the hon. member for Pietersburg referred to this, too. They said that the hon. the Minister wanted to build himself an empire now by way of the proposed co-ordinating council. Let us just consider the way in which the hon. member for Sea Point stated this point (Hansard, col. 8303)—

However, when one considers the actual situation, viz. the composition of this co-ordinating council, one sees in the first place that apart from the Minister there are four Administrators. This is stipulated by statute. The Minister cannot appoint other people in their place. Then there are the four MPCs, and the Minister has no control over their appointment either. They are elected by their own elected councils. Then there are three officials—not just any officials, but officials identified in the Bill. Then there are three secretaries of municipal associations designated by those associations. Then there are three secretaries of professional associations. In their case, too, there is no lack of clarity as to whom they will be. Then there are 12 persons nominated by the United Municipal Executive. Then there are 10 members of the national ad hoc committee of the Association of Coloured and Indian Consultative, Local Affairs and Management Committees. If one takes into account the indirect influence that the Minister can exert in respect of the appointment of an Administrator, then in fact the Minister only has a say as regards the appointment of fewer than one-quarter of the members of the co-ordinating council. He has no say as regards the identity of the other members. The other members are all nominated by associations that are totally independent of the Minister. For the rest, the members who will serve on the council are identified in the Bill.

In the circumstances, the allegation of the hon. member for Sea Point, as confirmed by the hon. members for Berea and Pietersburg is malicious because it wrests the whole matter out of perspective.

As far as the development councils are concerned, it is true that they are largely composed by the hon. the Minister. He will also have the power to discharge them. But what is the function of these development councils? Their function will be purely to assist the municipalities. They have no real decision-making powers. They cannot force anything on any local authority. Therefore it is untrue to say that this Bill enables the Minister to build up an empire for himself.

If we consider the composition of the proposed co-ordinating council, we find that in this case as well this council will have no decision-making powers. Nevertheless the hon. member for Pietersburg goes so far as to say: “Never mind, that will come.” He said this with reference to the history of the President’s Council. But, Sir, he is drawing a totally unacceptable inference. The President’s Council, as we have known it up to now, was and is an advisory body. It advises the Government on certain matters, but the Government is autonomous as regards that advice. It can do with the recommendations what it likes, viz. it can accept or reject them. But the fact is that a new President’s Council is envisaged in the new Constitution Bill. The Constitution Bill provides that the present President’s Council must be dissolved and the President’s Council that will come in its place is a totally different body. Its functions, too, will be different. The fact that both bodies carry the name “President’s Council” is purely coincidental.

But surely that is a departure from the 1977 proposals, is it not?

That is not the point. The point is that the hon. member for Pietersburg drew from the history of the present President’s Council the inference that the proposed co-ordinating council for local authorities would also in due course develop into a decision-making body. That is a wrong inference. That co-ordinating council cannot be changed into anything other than a co-ordinating council, except by way of a decision of Parliament.

What guarantees are there …

There is no guarantee for anything in that regard. The only guarantee that exists is that that coordinating council cannot be changed into anything other than the co-ordinating council that it is without a decision by this Parliament. Therefore the mere fact that we are now agreeing to the co-ordinating council means nothing for the future, in the sense that before it can change it will have to be changed by this Parliament.

At this point I should just like to refer again briefly to a few other aspects, aspects touched on by the hon. member for Pitersburg. I want to do so since I am still speaking to him. He relied largely, among other things, on the standpoint of the Transvaal Municipal Executive, and said that that Municipal Executive would now in fact endorse the standpoint adopted by the CP. In his speech the hon. member for Pietersburg also referred inter alia to the Bloemfontein speech by the hon. the Prime Minister and in particular to the argument that the hon. the Prime Minister specifically advanced with regard to the establishment of a special joint committee in respect of common interests. In fact there was something else, too, in the sense that the President’s Council proposed that members of the Coloured and Indian management committees should serve on the management committees …

Are you now referring to recommendation No. 20.

That is recommendation No. 20, yes. Now the hon. member for Pietersburg is arguing that the Government should in fact have accepted this recommendation on the basis of what the hon. the Prime Minister said in his speech in Bloemfontein. That is what the hon. member contends. This is also the impression created by his speech as it appears in Hansard. That, of course, is very far from the truth.

What did in fact happen was that the hon. the Prime Minister said the following, and I quote him—

Now what does that mean?

It means that this is one way. The hon. member for Pietersburg should rather listen now. He must please just give me a chance to finish speaking. The hon. the Prime Minister goes on to mention six other possibilities. He says that recommendation No. 20 contains one possibility. That is one possibility, just as the system of one man, one vote is also a possibility in this country. I hope the hon. member understands that. [Interjections.] However, the question is whether it is indeed possible. The hon. the Prime Minister put forward this recommendation as one possibility. [Interjections.] If the hon. member for Pietersburg would just give me a chance to complete my argument he might grasp what I am trying to say. The hon. the Prime Minister put forward recommendation No. 20 as one possibility. However, he said that there were six other possibilities. This means that there are altogether seven possibilities.

Then we have here what is in fact the final word, when the hon. the Prime Minister says that this will only take place on the basis of the principles of self-determination and joint responsibility, in terms of which a choice ought to be left to local communities to take interim steps according to their needs in consultation with one another on the basis of the above possibilities.

Local option is NRP policy, is it not?

Therefore the hon. the Prime Minister is leaving it to the local communities to adopt interim measures at their discretion.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Helderkruin says that recommendation No. 20 of the President’s Council has been put forward here by the Prime Minister as one possibility while there are a number of other possibilities, is he thereby contending that recommendation No. 20 has not been accepted by the Government?

Mr. Speaker, recommendation No. 20 was aimed at showing the way. The President’s Council said that that was the way it ought to be done.

Was that recommendation rejected or accepted?

The recommendation was not accepted as the only way. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Pietersburg finds that difficult to understand then that is his own problem. [Interjections.] If one were to say that this was the only way in which things ought to be done, then arguments could be advanced to the effect that it is not, in fact, the only way. Let us apply this to the field of religion. If the Christian church says that the only path to salvation is through Christ and one reacts by saying that there are many other ways to salvation, has one thereby accepted Christ or rejected Him? [Interjections.] Precisely, Sir. If one were to say that there were seven other religions by which one could also find one’s way to heaven then one would in fact be rejecting the essence of Christianity. [Interjections.] Not one of them is accepted as the only possibility. That is the difference. The President’s Council put forward this proposal as the only way, and the hon. the Prime Minister rejected that proposal because he said that it was not the only way. He added: You can do this as an interim measure if you wish, until such time as something better is done. What we have here today is the beginning of the “something better” that is being done. Therefore what we have here is the beginning of the end of the interim measure, in any event.

Tell us, then, about the better way.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietersburg would do well to read the speech by the hon. the Prime Minister. As long as he does not overlook those other six points, he will know what the other ways are. This is one of many ways of co-ordinating the affairs of local authorities, viz. by way of this co-ordinating council. This is one of the most important facets in this development because development is something that does not always occur at an equal pace everywhere if one does not control it. Therefore, if one were to want to ensure that the development took place according to plan, one would need this kind of co-ordinating body which could serve as a forum in which people could exchange ideas on how to tackle a specific problem and what arrangements ought to be made to promote smooth development and to ensure that one eventually has a meaningful end product. One of the greatest difficulties in any development situation occurs when one facet develops more than another, or when one facet develops more in one direction than in another and eventually, in order to obtain a meaningful whole, one first has to break down what has already been developed and have it done in a different way. Then one encounters major problems with regard to development.

Taking all these matters into account it is clear to me that neither the objections to this Bill of the PFP nor those of the CP in any way reflect consideration based on true principles. No significant objection whatsoever could be advanced on the basis of the philosophies of those two parties to the development of a co-ordinating council or to the better development of local communities.

Another point I also wish to make is that the hon. member for Pietersburg also made specific reference in his speech to the founding of a special joint committee in respect of common interests. This is also mentioned in the guideline speech made in Bloemfontein by the hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. member intimated here that this was not permissible. A circular issued by the TME dated 3 February 1983, deals with interim measures. It reads as follows—

They then mention nine, of which (c) reads—

The hon. member for Pietersburg raised a whole song and dance about what kind of common interests there could possibly be among various municipalities, but surely it is logical. Here the TME says that the creation of a special joint committee for common interests is a recommended interim measure. I think the hon. member for Pietersburg should do his homework in this regard a little better, and if he does so, then both they and the PFP will see that in fact there are no diabolical ulterior motives in the Bill, but that it is a perfectly innocent Bill with a great deal of potential to assist us in developing further our basis of government. I therefore think this is a good measure which ought to be attended to now by this House and ought not first to be referred to a Select Committee. I therefore take pleasure in supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Helderkruin began his speech by saying that he did not believe that there was any need for the Bill to be referred to a Select Committee before or after the Second Reading. I want to point out to him that it has become customary, since the appointment of the Select Committee on the Constitution, for all matters relating to government affairs, whether they be local government affairs or central government affairs, to be referred to the Select Committee on the Constitution in order that it may discuss them, investigate them further and, if necessary, introduce new legislation. This has become customary, and the hon. member, who also serves on the Select Committee, ought to know that.

Furthermore, he says that the hon. the Minister has no say in the appointment of the members of the co-ordinating council. This may be so, but the hon. the Minister is the chairman of that council. After all, we know the hon. the Minister: When he is the chairman of a council, then he is the council. [Interjections.] I say this with all due respect to that hon. Minister. This has been our experience.

Are the other members of the council simply puppets, then?

The hon. member for Helderkruin does not seem to know what is provided in clause 6 either. I shall read it to him—

Does the hon. member see now what the power of this co-ordinating council is? Does the hon. member see that when the hon. member for Pietersburg calls it a miniature President’s Council, this is what he is referring to? Through the agency of the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, that co-ordinating council has access to the Cabinet. After all, we know what happened in February last year when those discussions of the Cabinet leaked out, i.e. that the Cabinet had decided on 26 January that in its negotiations with the President’s Council, the Minister of Internal Affairs was being instructed to spell out the viewpoints of the Cabinet and that they endorsed certain standpoints as set out in Beeld of 27 February 1982. After all, we know the role which the Cabinet plays under circumstances such as these.

But all Ministers provide access to the Cabinet.

The hon. member for Helderkruin went on to deal with the speech which the hon. the Prime Minister had made in Bloemfontein. He referred to the seven possibilities which there could be for the interim measures which could be taken. The hon. member conceded that the local communities could consult one another voluntarily in the meantime. However, he omitted the following sentence. He said on that occasion—

So the Cabinet was already thinking of this Bill which we are discussing today at the time when this speech was made. Therefore it is not true that the interim measure will first take its course and that a co-ordinating council will then be established, as the hon. member alleges.

I now want to deal with the hon. member for Newcastle, who referred to the standpoint of the Transvaal Municipal Association. Our information is that only the president and the vice-president of the TMA are in possession of this Bill at the moment. This Bill is only being discussed by the executive of the TMA this coming Saturday. How can they have taken a stand on this Bill, therefore? Surely that is nonsense. Therefore the TMA still stands by its general conclusion which it submitted to the President’s Council, namely that the total separation of autonomous governmental institutions for each ethnic group at the regional and local levels is the only solution to the situation in South Africa.

What about the congress resolution? [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister will agree that the circumstances surrounding this Bill are peculiar. First it was debated for two hours and then his Vote was discussed. Then three weeks passed and during these three weeks intensive consultations were held with various organizations after the legislation had met with fierce resistance in the House of Assembly and also from Coloured and Indian bodies outside this House. That is why the hon. the Minister has produced his amendments today. I think we are getting a foretaste here of how the Standing Committees are going to work. The Standing Committees are going to hold inner-circle discussions and we poor hon. members of the various chambers will have to wait to hear what these people are going to decide. In any event, on the morning on which the debate on this Bill was to be continued, a number of amendments were produced which had resulted from discussions—surely we cannot come to any other conclusion than that they have resulted from the discussions which the hon. the Minister has held. I do not think it is fair of the hon. the Minister to wait until today before placing these amendments on the Order Paper and revealing his line of thought. It is conduct such as this in the debate today which creates the impression in the mind of the ordinary man in the street—not specifically of the Opposition parties only—that there is uncertainty in the mind of the Government, that there is doubt and that they are not governing in a calm and relaxed manner that would inspire confidence.

Before advancing any further arguments with regard to the Bill as such, I want to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Algoa on 1 June. In it he said that it was not stated anywhere in the Bill that this legislation would sound the death knell for the provincial councils. A few sentences further on he said (col. 8309)—

If one detaches local government from provincial government, surely one is destroying one of the cornerstones of the provincial councils, because the Directorate of Local Government is one of the cornerstones of a provincial council. However, the hon. member says that this is not the beginning of the end for provincial councils.

I have dealt quite extensively with Ordinance 17 of 1939 in the Transvaal, the local government ordinance, and with other ordinances in terms of which similar legislation has been promulgated. That ordinance is the fundamental law of local authorities in the Transvaal and in the other provinces. The provincial councils, the administrators acting on the advice of the executive committees, are the supreme controlling and regulating authorities. The establishment of a co-ordinating council will eventually cause the Directorate of Local Government to become redundant. That is why it is sounding the death knell for provincial councils. That is why we are adopting this standpoint.

If the directorate does not become redundant it will at least give rise to duplication. I think the hon. member for Algoa will have to concede that to me. Which of these two bodies is going to survive: The Minister’s empire or one of the cornerstones of provincial administrations? I know which one will survive.

In Hansard, col. 8289, the hon. the Minister says that the United Municipal Executive will be retained in respect of White local authorities and that the same applies to the Indian and Coloured associations. Now the hon. the Minister is establishing a co-ordinating council on which only the four members of the executive committees of the provinces charged with local government affairs can really be regarded as representing the authoritative bodies with regard to local authorities. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that the Directorate of Local Government in the provinces, together with the United Municipal Executive, at present constitutes the total reservoir of expertise and experience with regard to local government affairs. The hon. the Minister is not making use of it in this co-ordinating council which he wishes to constitute.

When we examine clause 4, we can confidently state that the objects enumerated in it could be entrusted to the Directorate of local Government of the provinces in co-operation with the United Municipal Executive. In the same way, the Coloureds and Indians should organize themselves on a regional basis and form similar organizations, after which they can liaise with the White organizations on an ad hoc basis. This can be done without any disruption of or prejudice to the autonomy of the various government bodies.

I want to refer again to what the hon. member for Algoa said. He said that the autonomy of local authorities would not be affected by this legislation. However, has the hon. member examined clause 18, which is to become clause 17? Local authorities are being forced by regulation to communicate, and if they refuse, the Administrator takes over and the ratepayers of those local authorities have to foot the bill. If this does not interfere with the autonomy of local authorities, an hon. member speaking after me should explain to me what “autonomy” means.

What do we have here? We have a cumbersome council consisting of 41 members. It is not said how often they have to meet. They can be relieved of their duties at the-discretion of the Minister. After the negotiations conducted by the hon. the Minister, however, this provision is now being amended to provide that under certain circumstances he will be advised as to when he can relieve these persons of their duties. They can co-opt additional persons. Provision is made for town clerks, municipal treasurers and municipal engineers. They must serve on the council, but not the health people. No provision is made for these people. Nor is any provision made for the traffic people. We had the same problem when the Select Committee and the Commission on the Environment were sitting. The hon. member for Roodeplaat will know how we struggled to constitute such a co-ordinating council. The question is who should be omitted and who should be included. Eventually we decided that the membership of the council should be as small as possible so that it may be as effective as possible. Here, we now have a cumbersome council of 41 members.

Almost as cumbersome as the NP caucus.

As far as the objects are concerned, the hon. member for Pietersburg has already asked the Minister which matters will be matters of common concern. The hon. the Minister must spell them out to us. The hon. member for Helderkruin referred a short while ago to what the hon. the Prime Minister had said at the federal congress of the NP. Looking at those seven points, and at paragraph 7 of schedule 1 to the Constitution Bill of the Republic of South Africa, one can clearly see where the Government is headed. The Government is headed for integration. That is the eventual aim. We cannot get away from that. My hon. colleague will elaborate on this. This is an example of general legislation. Hon. members will recall that local government affairs, just like all other so-called own affairs, are subject to a general law and general policy. This Bill is going to become a general law. It does not hold water to suggest that this will be an advisory body. It has a Minister as chairman, and as I have already indicated, he is probably one of the most influential members of the Cabinet at the moment.

He is almost the entire Cabinet.

Yes, when one looks at his domain, he is almost the entire Cabinet. He can also get the message, just as in the case of the President’s Council, as I indicated earlier on.

The hon. member for Pietersburg is quite right in saying that this is the elite which is going to govern down to the third tier of government. Government will proceed from above and not from below, as it should in a democracy.

As far as clause 5 is concerned, we have the situation once again that the real experts, the Directorates of Local Government, are not represented on the Executive Committee which is to be established in terms of this legislation. The hon. the Minister fails to make use of the most important source of expertise and knowledge which exists at the moment. Moreover, he is not satisfied with what he already has and he provides for them to co-opt even more members.

I now wish to refer to Chapter 2, which deals with development aid. On page 15 of the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech in Bloemfontein he referred, as far as the Transvaal was concerned, to health committees, town councils, city councils and large city councils. I want to refer the hon. Minister who is charged with this Bill to the Transvaal ordinance in respect of peri-urban health boards. I suppose the hon. the Minister has read that ordinance and knows what the objects of those health boards are. I understand that Natal has similar ordinances and I assume that the Cape Province and the Free State also have them. Those peri-urban health boards are doing exactly what the hon. the Minister wants to achieve in terms of Chapter 2 of the Bill. Why this duplication? Just think of our shortage of manpower. At least as far as Nelspruit, Pietersburg, Pretoria and Pietermaritzburg are concerned, the hon. the Minister is duplicating the activities of the peri-urban health boards by the activities of these boards whose function it is to render aid.

The hon. member for Umbilo waxed eloquent on the effectiveness of the Transvaal Provincial Administration in respect of local government affairs. The hon. the Minister was a member of an Executive Committee himself and he knows how effective a province is in respect of local government matters. He knows the situation of confidence which exists between the Directorate of Local Government in the province and every town clerk in the country, that the information, advice and decisions are all subject to what the administrator says. The administrator is the Directorate of Local Government. This relationship has been built up over the years. This is where the easiest and most relaxed communication exists. There is close personal contact. The State has the benefit of this mechanism. What on earth is the reason for this totally unnecessary duplication?

I come now to Chapter 3. The hon. the Minister has caused me a lot of unnecessary work, because I had a great deal to say about clause 14, but unfortunately I had to find this morning that he had different plans. This is the way in which an ostensibly calm and relaxed Government conducts itself, a Government which inspires confidence. Now I shall have to leave out clause 14. The hon. the Minister knows how hard I have to work on that Constitution Bill of his at the moment.

But you do not have to work. After all, you say I am the whole committee.

I am going to try to prevent that. The CP is going to try to prevent that. The Bill is ill-considered. It is a further step towards the amalgamation of local government bodies, especially in the light of the assurances given to Coloured leaders, according to the Press, and to the vague reference to general affairs while no mention is made of own affairs. The CP cannot support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to react briefly to what the hon. member for Brakpan said. By way of comparison I should like to tell the hon. members of the CP that they have to accept that it is now 1983. It is a fact that over the past few years most of our churches have acquired new hymn books. The Afrikaans churches have acquired a new psalm and hymn book and the Pentecostal churches have acquired a new hymn book, the Deo Gloria, in the place of the gospel songs. The English churches have also acquired a new hymn book. It was decided that from a specific date the new hymn book would be used. But what do we find in 1983? One can take one’s old hymn book to whichever church one belongs on a Sunday morning but hon. members must remember, the words have changed and the melodies have changed. Today we have the position with the CP that they still want to take an old hymn book to church and sing the old words and the old melodies. They cannot sing along with us. It is easier to sing the old melodies and one still has a bit of trouble with the new melodies. However, one has to learn them. One cannot only sing those old well-known melodies, one has to learn to sing the new melodies as well. The hon. member for Koedoespoort as a former clergyman is well aware of the importance of an organist in the church. The organist is a person of great importance. Today I want to tell the hon. members of the CP: Let us at least bring things up to date. Then the hon. member for Pietersburg will not announce with great bravado what was submitted to the President’s Council in 1981 although he knows what the latest decisions are. The hon. member for Brakpan still does not understand things clearly. Perhaps I should read out to him the telegram I have here. It may have a salutary effect on him so that he can also understand this. The highest authority in the field of local government in the country is the United Municipal Executive. [Interjections.] Sir, the hon. member for Pietersburg can no longer get away with these lies he is disseminating. Let me say to him, that he is making such a fuss about local government …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw his allegation that the hon. member for Pietersburg is disseminating lies.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. I maintain that the CP will not get away with the way in which they are disseminating untruths. Sir, I have here a telegram from the Transvaal Municipal Association, and I shall read it out clearly so that the hon. member can understand it. The telegram reads as follows—

It was signed by the president of the association. Compare this, Sir, with the untruths being disseminated by those hon. members.

May I ask you a question?

I am not prepared to reply to a question by the hon. member. He must just be patient.

When we come to the fears of the CP and the PFP, we find that in the first place they are pretending that the proposed co-ordinating council is the precursor to the abolition of provincial councils. But that is far from the truth. I see the proposed co-ordinating council as the precursor to a separate ministry for local government in South Africa. The hon. member for Brakpan came here and reproached the hon. the Minister because he, viz. the Minister, placed amendments on the Order Paper. But this legislation was tabled on 19 May, more than a month ago. The hon. member therefore had plenty of time to acquaint himself with what appears in the legislation. But I do not think he understands it. He has problems because the Institute of Town Clerks will have a representative on the council, as will the Institute of Municipal Engineers and the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants. If the hon. member knew anything about local government, he would have known that at the executive level, the Institute of Town Clerks is the highest authority, followed by the technical and financial divisions. Why does the hon. member want to go further? He will eventually arrive at the stage where even the chief traffic officer will have representation on the council. The hon. member for Brakpan has problems with own and general affairs. Let me illustrate the activities of a local government to the hon. member in a very simple way. There is a road which serves all the population groups, a connecting road for the Whites, the Coloureds, the Asians and the Blacks. This is a road used by all of them. It is built jointly and maintained jointly. Or does the hon. member want us to build four parallel roads? Or we can compare the set-up with a single river containing a single dam in which the water is stored and from which the water is distributed to the various areas. The water is a general affair until it gets to the main metre from where it is distributed. In contrast internal utilization is an own affair.

The hon. member for Brakpan came up with the most ridiculous statement by comparing the envisaged co-ordinating council to the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas.

I was not discussing the co-ordinating council, but the development boards under Chapter 2. You are just being stupid (“onnosel”).

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “stupid”.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. I only meant that the hon. member is not very bright.

Sir, the hon. member for Brakpan has his problems. If he wants to compare this council with the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas and link this to the saving of manpower, I want to say that the first matter this proposed co-ordinating council has to go into is in fact the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas. Their engineer is stationed in Pretoria, and if there are water problems at Makwassie for example, he has to travel there from Pretoria, although there are larger local governments nearby. They could provide that service. Surely that is the reason why there has to be co-ordination. Sir, that is all I should like to say as far as the hon. member for Brakpan is concerned.

I whole-heartedly welcome this legislation before us. It meets a long-felt need, the need for closer liaison between the three tiers of government. A lack of co-ordination between the three tiers has already led to frustration and to great unhappiness among people. It is essential to have the necessary communication and liaison. As far as the constitution of the co-ordinating council is concerned, I feel that it will be properly representative of all three tiers of government. An important provision in the Bill is that recommendations can now be made on the functions which should be delegated to local governments. What is even more important is that the functions which may be delegated to the private sector can also be investigated. Local government is of the opinion that they can provide the cheapest service in connection with, for example, garbage removal. But I think we should also afford the private sector the opportunity to compete in order to make life easier for our people in the cities at the lowest possible cost.

Clause 4 provides that the proposed co-ordinating council has to be an advisory body. The idea of an advisory board is nothing new. In this connection I should like to mention the name of the MPC for Waterkloof, Mr. Steyn van der Spuy. He was the chairman of such an advisory board for many years. He introduced the management committee system in the Transvaal and there are many people who are grateful for that management system which has been established in the Transvaal. One of the major problems of local governments today is the fact that they are hampered by legislation. Sir, I am in favour of control, but the way in which that control is applied has to be investigated in depth by the proposed co-ordinating council. An individual has the right to decide about the alienation of his land. However, a local authority does not have that right. A local authority may decide to alienate land, but only subject to approval by the administrator of the province. I can also refer to the relaxation of building regulations, as well as the matter of the donation of land. When a local government, in appreciation for what its town’s commando is doing, or for what the Defence Force is doing, wants to donate land, it does not have the right to do so. Such a donation also remains subject to approval by the administrator of the province.

I now want to go further and take this through to the central Government. Last year legislation on financial relations, was passed in this House, in terms of which provision was made for an executive committee of a province to make a donation to another province or to an individual. This is a right that had previously existed. In terms of last year’s legislation an executive committee of a province may now make such a donation. However, it still remains subject to approval by the Minister of Finance. I feel we have to move away from this system, and I also feel that this new co-ordinating council, as far as legislation is concerned as well, has a very important task to perform. I also feel that as far as local authorities are concerned, it is most important for them to be granted greater responsibility. During the past few years experience has, however, taught us that experienced people do not want to make themselves available for service on the third tier of government, owing to the unnecessary control and excessive red tape associated with local authorities. I feel this is a matter which deserves urgent attention.

I want to refer next to financial planning, and specifically to the Browne Committee report, as well as the work done by the Croeser work group. This was excellent work. I think that financial planning at the local government level is important and has to receive urgent attention. I am also extremely grateful for the introduction of various committees, for example, technical and other committees.

Then there is one matter I want to refer to specifically, namely the matter of housing. Throughout the country the housing problem has become extremely urgent. We have to go beyond the boundaries of the areas of jurisdiction of local authorities, and look at the problem against the background of the report of the President’s Council on the demographic trends in this country. By the year 2050 we shall need R1 916 million for the provision of housing. In connection with joint provision of services I also feel it is essential for us to investigate the possibility of making use of joint computer services. Health services are also of the utmost importance, when we consider that by the year 2050 we shall need R2 800 million just to provide health services. I am also thinking of road building. Why should every separate local government have its own road building unit? In any case many local governments do not have the money to utilize that expensive road building equipment to the full and to maintain it. If we make inquiries we shall find out how low the utilization percentage of that road building machinery is. Why cannot this specific task be undertaken on a regional basis? These are matters to which urgent attention has to be given.

I also feel that it is important for us to reconsider the entire matter of regional development. For example, why cannot an international sports stadium be built for a specific region? Why cannot regional abattoirs be established? Why cannot other essential regional institutions be established? We have to bear in mind that our population is increasing steadily and the cost of living is rising continuously. After all, we have to make it possible for people to continue living in our towns and cities. Let us consider the population growth in our country. It is anticipated that by the year 2050 there will be 6,303 million Whites in South Africa, as apposed to 6,641 Asians, 50 million Coloureds and about 180 million Blacks. I want to link this to the increasingly important role local governments will have to play. At this stage 89% of our White population is urbanized, 90% of our Asian population is also urbanized, as is 77% of the Coloured population and 38% of the Black population in the White area. From this one can see what an important role local authorities will play in future. I am thinking of one thing which in my opinion we have to say to each other at every opportunity. When our local authorities provide health services, they also have to consider family planning. Local authorities also have to play their part. Let me give an example.

Last week a group of us visited the Paarl hospital where they have a sterilization unit. During the past 12 years 4 962 voluntary sterilizations have been carried out at that unit. When one considers sterilization figures throughout the world, one finds that in a country like Thailand with a population of 50 million, 200 000 sterilizations are performed annually. In a country like Sri Lanka with 15 million people 100 000 sterilizations are performed annually. In South Africa we have 28 million people and an annual population growth of 1 million. I feel that in this country with its population growth we should have a minimum of 200 000 voluntary sterilizations annually. I think this is also a field in which the co-ordinating council should get local governments together to consider this matter.

This afternoon I want to make a very serious appeal to our local authorities to cooperate on local government matters in our country. As has been pointed out, millions of people have become urbanized, not voluntarily, but because employment opportunities are created for people in and around the cities. The cost of living is increasing. I hope the co-ordinating council will be able to contribute to towns being absorbed into cities. If we take the Cape as an example, I can see no necessity why adjoining towns, for example Goodwood, Vasco, Parow and Bellville, should be separate towns. One can also mention towns in the Transvaal in this connection. I am now thinking of towns like Brakpan. Springs and Nigel. Why cannot these towns be amalgamated? Why cannot smaller local authorities be incorporated into larger local governments? If this is done, if we can get the co-operation of local governments in this connection, this will also lead to those empires which have been built up to local governments over many years being broken down in the interests of our country and its people. Then, and only then, will we succeed in making it worthwhile for our people to live in our cities and towns and will we succeed in keeping the people in our communities without taxing them out of their own homes.

I take pleasure in supporting the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Witbank covered a very wide area. In the course of my speech I shall refer to his speech from time to time but I am not going to reply to it specifically, apart from saying that the idea which he raised of a Minister of Local Government is a fairly good idea provided, of course, that one intends that Minister to bear the sole responsibility for those institutions and that it will not result in a centralization of power and decision-making. But I shall return to this point.

†Mr. Speaker, the NRP through the medium of the hon. member for Umbilo has already made the attitude of this party very clear as far as the Bill is concerned before any amendments appeared on the Order Paper. I think that if hon. members had taken the trouble to listen very carefully to the hon. member for Umbilo they would have discovered that there are certain cardinal or key factors that are of paramount importance to the NRP in any measure of constitutional reform, whether it be at Parliamentary, provincial or regional level or at local government level. We shall judge every Bill that comes to this House in terms of certain specific criteria.

I want in the first instance to say that we believe implicitly that any new constitutional dispensation in South Africa must conform with the principle of decentralization in respect of the decision-making power. That to us is very important. There should also be a real devolution of power to organs of government at the lowest possible level. It is only by subscribing to those two principles that it will be possible to allow for variations, changes and adaptations at the lowest level of government. In that way one will make the governed part of the process of government. There is no point in changing from a Westminster system of government if one is in fact going to aggravate or increase the centralization of power. Hon. members will remember from the speeches of my colleague, the hon. member for Umbilo, that one of the major objections we had to the Bill was that it gave the Minister power by regulation to overrule an ordinance of a provincial council. To us that smacks very strongly of an increased or aggravated centralization of power and we are certainly not to be found for that principle.

I should like to say as far as Natal is concerned—the hon. member for Berea was very shy actually to mention in his speech which provincial council had stopped the Minister dead in his tracks when it came to negotiating on this Bill—that it was the NRP controlled Provincial Council of Natal that took the initiative in this regard. [Interjections.] This we did because we have a total commitment to ensure that we have meaningful reform in South Africa, and in meaningful reform we include the all-important process of negotiation. As far as we are concerned, the spirit of reform is as important as the measures of reform themselves. We have said this on many occasions and specifically also with reference to the inclusion of Blacks in the President’s Council. The spirit of reform embodies within it real and proper negotiation. When it comes to the question of negotiation as far as Ministers are concerned we always prefer the term “in consultation with” rather than “after consultation with” and, of course, we will totally reject quasi-negotiations or assumed negotiations.

I think also that a fundamental difference between the approach of the NRP and other parties in this House is to be found in the fact that we believe, particularly as far as the PFP and the CP are concerned, that they believe in coercing the South African population into a preconceived political straitjacket whereas we believe in co-operation by means of genuine power-sharing at the lowest possible level. Reform with a process of real negotiation is of paramount importance to us. It came as no surprise to the hon. the Minister, therefore, I am sure, to discover that we were totally dissatisfied with the assumed negotiations that took place just prior to the hon. the Minister’s introductory speech in this House. We have stated before and we want to state again—and I wish to confirm it today—that the NRP at both parliamentary and provincial caucus levels accept the idea or the principle of co-ordinated councils. This is nothing new to us. If hon. members will read the Hansard of the hon. member for Umbilo they will see that the concept of a co-ordinating council is not alien or strange to the NRP. However, there are a number of provisos that accompany that concept, particularly in the context of the Bill before the House today, and one of those is that a co-ordinating council must of course be correctly formulated. That would make it a highly desirable body when it comes to the co-ordination of local government matters. The question, therefore, for the NRP is not so much one of whether a body such as is proposed in this Bill should be brought into being. What is important to us is how such a body is to be established, what its functions will be and what its relationship will be to other bodies and persons. That is of paramount importance to us.

The NRP has consistently over many years in fact itself attempted to bring about a restructuring of local government to conform with the principles which I enunciated earlier on in my speech. In fact, the hon. the Minister will remember that in 1978 this party petitioned the Cabinet—it did so subsequently as well—for us to be allowed to implement our metropolitan local authority policy in Natal. That document, that instrument, was the subject of many years of intense negotiation with Coloured, Indian and Black leaders in Natal and at the end of the process of negotiation we obtained, as a manifestation of the goodwill of the other population groups, the signatures of the Coloured and Indian leaders of that time, whereby they accepted in full measure what that document proposed, viz. the creation of a metropolitan authority plan. It is tragic that we have wasted so many good and valuable years and years of goodwill between the different groups by the Cabinet’s decision not to accede to that plan. Therefore co-ordinating bodies at local government level are not strange to us at all. I believe that, once again, the Government took very much of a short-term view of the very valuable process of the devolution of power.

We also believe in the process of negotiation. That is why we attach such great importance to the statements made by the hon. the Prime Minister and also the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that there will be no change to provincial or municipal structures without full consultation. Let me say also that we are a party of realists. We are not fundamentalists and we will not continue with a particular strategy if in fact reality dictates that there should be a change, particularly a well-motivated change. That is why the NRP welcomes the fact that the Minister has now agreed with us that the negotiations with the Executive Committe of Natal’s provincial council up to the time of the Minister’s Second Reading speech earlier this year were totally inadequate. They were not acceptable to us. We understand that this was due to certain administrative deficiencies. We have been in contact and constant communication with members of Natal’s Executive Committee and have established that further negotiations have taken place since then and that such negotiations between members of the Executive Committee and the Minister have been conducted on a far more acceptable basis.

We do not know whether the other provinces are satisfied with the negotiations between themselves and the Minister. We can only rely on the reports we receive from hon. members in the House, but let me say how disappointed we are that the official Opposistion, the PFP, who are also the official Opposition in the provincial council of Transvaal and Cape Province, have apparently not had any negotiations with their side or any insistence from their side that communication and negotiation between those councils and the hon. the Minister should be improved. I must confess, therefore, that our perspective is more or less limited to what we know has happened in Natal. We accepted, on the basis of our constant communication with members of the Executive Committee of Natal, that there has been a very considerable change in the hon. the Minister’s attitude to these negotiations and that finally we were able to get down to very meaningful negotiations in relation to this Bill.

Ron, have you or have you not been seduced yet?

You know, Sir, some hon. members are so infatuated with Order Papers, where this measure was on the Order Paper, why it did not come earlier and why it is now being rushed through that it is not surprising that they have missed the real gravamen of the argument in this particular case. [Interjections.]

What are they here for? They are a bunch of protest politicians who achieve nothing.

The NRP’s view is that, if any party is determined to produce solutions for south Africa they cannot act like political prima donnas as the PFP do. All you are trying to do then is to promote your own selfish party interests at the expense of the country. I think we have some time ago given the lie to the claims by the PFP that they stand for a new consensus form of Government in South Africa. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said on many occasions that they stand for reform through negotiation. This is exactly what this party’s members of the executive committee undertook with the hon. the Minister and his department. We have brought about meaningful reform in terms of the attitude of the Minister. If hon. members had taken the trouble to read the amendments of this party on the Order Paper, they would have seen how much work we have put into trying to improve this Bill and bring about a proper instrument for co-ordination at local government level, unlike the PFP who seem to spend their time here complaining about what is on the Order Paper when it is there, saying either that it is too late or that it is too early. The hon. member for Berea again asked today why the inordinate haste. Then he complains that it has been on the Order Paper for more than two weeks. With all the research facilities available to them, with a plethora of staff and money backing them up, one would think that they could cope with simple amendments on the Order Paper. The truth of the matter is that the PFP are unable to cope with the new politics of South Africa which centres around consensus. It is surprising that we get this from a party that claims to support the concept of consensus.

We in the NRP consider proper negotiation to be the corner-stone of reform at every level of government, hence the fact that, as I have said before, we welcome the statement by the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning for a total commitment to those negotiations.

I trust that hon. members, and the hon. the Minister in particular, have taken note of our determination and commitment to the principle of proper negotiation. No constitutional reform in South Africa will ever succeed unless it is preceded by full and fair negotiation with the relevant bodies. This Bill as it still is before us today without amendment would have had the effect of changing the powers and the authority of provincial government in South Africa. There is no question about it. The hon. the Minister should be reminded, as the hon. member for Brakpan told us earlier today, that one of the last real vested powers of provincial government is control over local government affairs. The effect of this Bill, as it is at the moment unamended, would be to reduce considerably the powers of the provincial council in this respect. The hon. the Minister will be able to reply a little later on and he can then tell us what his views are.

Let me wind up our insistence on negotiation and say that particularly in South Africa’s case, when it comes to reform, like Caesar’s wife, negotiated reform must be beyond suspicion. That is of course why negotiation and reform are so closely linked.

Will you concede that it works both ways?

Yes, of course, always. Negotiation is a two-way process. We have never believed in coercing people and then claiming that it was negotiation.

Are you supporting the Second Reading?

We cannot accept manipulation reform of any kind. That is total anathema to us. The hon. member for Berea is a very impatient man. I will get to that point very shortly. I listened to the hon. member’s speech very carefully. What did he do? He took the hon. member for Sea Point’s speech of a week ago, changed the order slightly and then regurgitated that speech. He took some small and irrelevant comment that the Press had made and incorporated that into his speech and then he spoke about all the amendments he had nothing to do with on the Order Paper. That was the sum total of his speech. We know that he did suffer some deprivation in the field of understanding what the amendments were about, but fortunately for him there is an effective Opposition in this House which will help him along with his understanding. One can see the agitation of hon. members on that side wanting to know whether we will support the Bill or not. Let me say to hon. members of the PFP that we will always support reform which is in the interests of South Africa and so they can follow us with confidence in that respect.

Our attitude to the Second Reading of this Bill has been modified since it was last debated in this House. This is in a large measure due to the fact that the hon. the Minister’s attitude towards negotiation has changed somewhat since then. We are of the opinion that the hon. the Minister would be prepared to accept certain amendments to this Bill. I look forward to listening to the hon. the Minister’s reply to the Second Reading debate today because that in a large measure will finally determine the direction in which we are going to vote on this Bill. [Interjections.] I hope the hon. the Minister is able to hear me while he is talking. I am sure he can. He is a man of many functions—very flexible and adaptable. [Interjections.] We are going to listen with great interest to what the hon. the Minister is going to have to say. We have studied his amendments on the Order Paper. We find many of them totally acceptable and in the spirit of the amendments which my hon. colleague for Umbilo has placed on the Order Paper. Although the hon. the Minister may not go far enough with his amendments we will certainly be listening very carefully to hear what his intentions are as far as our amendments are concerned. We know we are not dealing with the Committee Stage now, and therefore we ask the hon. the Minister to give us an indication of his intentions regarding our amendments.

We will be dealing with the details of our amendments during the Committee Stage. I believe if the hon. the Minister can see his way clear to accepting the majority of those amendments we will in fact be able to produce an instrument which will be of considerable value in the co-ordination of local government in South Africa. Unquestionably there will have to be changes to the structure at provincial or regional level as well, and this party is fully prepared for structural changes. However, there are certain cardinal principles to which I again refer the hon. the Minister. If he agrees with us in the spirit of those reform measures which we are proposing then I do not think we are going to have very much difficulty in agreeing with the hon. the Minister. Subject to what the hon. the Minister says we will reconsider our position on this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak after the hon. member for Durban North. He has such a pleasant way of speaking. It does not surprise me that there was such a peaceful atmosphere in this House while the hon. member was speaking. I think that is in fact in a debate of this nature, when we are conducting a debate on what is going to take place at the local authority level in South Africa, that that party’s policy falls flat. One could imagine what would happen in South Africa if local option were to be implemented at that level. On the one hand, one would have a city council controlled by the HNP, and on the other a city council controlled by the PFP. I am therefore not surprised that they said that they would wait to hear what the hon. the Minister had to say, since they always wait for us to take the lead in this country. They must not wait too long, though, before deciding to cross the floor.

I do not, however, want to spend the whole afternoon talking about those hon. members. I also have something I want to discuss with the hon. members of the CP, and with the hon. member for Brakpan in particular. He said this afternoon that if the hon. the Minister were chairman of the council, he would be that council. That hon. member was chairman of an NP study group on various occasions. Could he honestly say that he was that study group? That is completely ridiculous. That is not the way things work on this side of the House. Perhaps it is the case in their party that if he is chairman of a certain study group, he is that study group. I want to assure him that on this side of the House, things still work the way they have always done.

He also asked questions about the health departments of local authorities. This proves that the hon. member does not know a great deal about local government matters. Is he still ignorant of the fact that the State is intimately involved with the health departments of local authorities and that these co-ordinating activities are therefore already taking place? It would therefore be unnecessary to involve a health department in a council of this nature. Like the hon. member for Pietersburg, he also referred to government by an élite. I want to take a closer look at that statement both those hon. members made, and I shall consequently be coming back to it at a later stage. He also referred to peri-urban boards, and according to his concept of peri-urban boards, he said that they already existed in the Transvaal, that they were working there, and that that was all these proposed boards would be. Once again, this proves his ignorance of what is going on in the Transvaal. Peri-urban boards in the Transvaal deal with smaller communities, whereas the council that is to be created by this measure, is going to co-ordinate large city councils. So much for the hon. member for Brakpan.

I should now like to come to the hon. member for Pietersburg. I was not surprised that most hon. members on this side of the House found interesting things in the speech which the hon. member for Pietersburg made. Apparently he was acting as chief spokesman for his party. When one begins to analyse his speech, one realizes that it is full of mistakes and blunders. Consequently I am not going to spare the hon. member. He went so far in his accusations against this side of the House, that one was not surprised that he completely forgot about the 1977 proposals, proposals which he supported wholeheartedly. He also went so far as to support the hon. member for Sea Point in his statement that the hon. the Minister would have dictatorial powers in terms of this legislation. The hon. member said, inter alia,—

The hon. member for Brakpan said the same thing. Now I should like to ask the hon. member for Brakpan and the hon. member for Pietersburg: Is this not also the case at present, has this not been the case all these years and were hon. members of the CP not satisfied with this state of affairs during all that time, while they were still on this side of the House? Do we not at present have at the head of this country a President who is not elected by the voters? Do we not at present have in this House of Assembly a Prime Minister who has not been elected directly by the voters? Do we not at present have in this House of Assembly a Cabinet that has not been directly elected by the voters? Are there not also at present Members of Parliament in this House of Assembly that have not been elected by the voters? And did the hon. member for Pietersburg not also vote for these people? Did he not support them for many years? Does he agree that a Member of Parliament who has been elected by the House of Assembly, at times has even more powers than the State President? Does the hon. member agree that when we discuss legislation here and we pass it with a majority of one vote, that deciding vote could be the vote of such a nominated member?

In the new dispensation too?

Yes. I am asking the hon. member whether he agrees with me, since he apparently forgot about that aspect when he was referring to a governing élite. Does the hon. member agree with me that the hon. member Mr. Theunissen, who is sitting behind him, is such a member? If that is the standpoint of the party of the hon. member for Pietersburg, why do they not ask this governing élite to resign? Why do he and his party not ask the hon. member Mr. Theunissen to resign? I also want to ask the hon. member Mr. Theunissen a question: If it is also the hon. member’s standpoint that there is a governing élite of the kind the hon. member for Pietersburg described in his speech, why does he not resign? After all, he is part of that so-called governing élite, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Brakpan once again issued all kinds of challenges. I want to tell him, however, that he is the only hon. member …

Mr. Speaker, since there is a possibility that the CP will win a by-election in Middelburg, would the hon. member for Boksburg encourage the hon. member for Middelburg to tender his resignation as MP for that constituency? [Interjections.]

The question the hon. member is asking me, is just as silly as the statement he made earlier in his speech.

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to the statement the hon. member for Pietersburg made in his speech. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Brakpan is also making interjections now, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I should rather leave the hon. member for Brakpan and the hon. member for Pietersburg at that. I may just be nasty to them, and I do not want them to come crying to me because I treated them badly. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I do, however, want to make further reference to the speech of the hon. member for Pietersburg. He also said in his speech that the authority was going to be taken over by the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning, which was going to create institutions that are appointed from the top, and not from the bottom, from the people themselves. He added that that was contrary to the principles of democracy.

So much for the statements of the hon. member for Pietersburg. I want to put a question to him, however. Are these institutions he was talking about going to govern or advise? We have already heard from various sources that they are, in fact, only going to be advisory bodies. Who are the members of this council, and how are they elected? In order to answer this question, I want to refer to the Bill itself. Clause 3(1) provides as follows—

Then, in clause 3(2) further provision is made that—

Now I want to ask the hon. member for Pietersburg whether the Minister is not a person who is elected politically. He is therefore democratically placed in a certain position, and when he has been appointed as head of this co-ordinating council, surely this has still been done by way of a democratic process? Or may the Prime Minister of South Africa not be chairman of the Cabinet? [Interjections.] Further provision is made in clause 3(2) of the Bill that among those who will be ex officio members of the co-ordinating council, will be included members of the four executive committees of the provinces, who will be in charge of local government matters. They, too, are people who have been elected in terms of the political process, in the most democratic way possible. This same clause goes on to mention the Secretary of the United Municipal Executive of South Africa. As the hon. member for Witbank has, in fact, already indicated, the United Municipal Executive of South Africa is a body which is democratically elected, and which deals with the city councils of this country, which also consist of democratically elected people. All these bodies choose a person from their own ranks to serve on this co-ordinating council. When one reads through this list of names—various hon. members have already referred to this list—it appears that the only people there could possibly be objections to, are the following members, who are mentioned in clause 3(3), viz. one member from the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants, one member from the Institute of Municipal Engineers, and one member from the Insitute of Town Clerks of Southern Africa, people who are all nominated by this body. Now I want to point out, however, that when one wants experts on a co-ordinating council of this nature, the institutions from whose ranks the members of that council are drawn, are requested to nominate expert and competent people for this purpose. Is it not true that, once again, these experts are acquired for this co-ordinating council in a democratic way?

Mr. Speaker, I do not think hon. members of the CP are people with whom one can conduct a really meaningful debate in this House. [Interjections.] When one drives them into a corner, they perform an egg dance, as the hon. member for Langlaagte did last night, simply because they have been hurt. And did they ever howl, Mr. Speaker! I therefore refuse to give those hon. members any further attention. They can sit back and relax now, since I want to continue with my speech.

That we have eventually come to deal with this legislation, marks a memorable occasion in the history of South Africa, since we in South Africa are really in the process of building bridges which, I believe, if we had built them five years ago, could have saved those living in a particular region in this country, particularly on the East Rand, a great deal of sorrow and heartache. Using a practical example, I want to explain to this hon. House this afternoon why I support this legislation, since I believe that it could prevent tragedies of this nature in future.

I am referring to the riots and the unrest that took place in Reigerpark in 1981. In my opinion, these riots took place because constitutional structures of this nature did not exist. This communication system of local affairs committees and city and town councils and town council management committees did not exist, and that is why these incidents occurred. I should like to refer to the conclusion of the report on the Reigerpark riots that was submitted by the HSRC. I quote—

Because the channels of communication between the Boksburg town council and the Regerpark management committee had certain shortcomings, the Coloureds living in Reigerpark attacked the Indians living in their area, and innocent people lost their lives. In turn, the Boksburg town council had its reasons for not having been able to see to the needs of the inhabitants of Reigerpark. Decades ago, the Boksburg town council agreed to include the Coloureds on the East Rand in its area of jurisdiction. That handful of Coloureds grew to a total of 26 000 people and besides that group, there were also between 18 000 and 19 000 Black mine-workers in the town. One can therefore understand that that town council, having all these additional people in its area of jurisdiction, could not meet the needs of everyone, nor could it create facilities for everyone. That is why they had problems. Because the communication channels between the town council and certain State departments were defective and had shortcomings, the town council was unable to communicate adequately the urgency of its dilemmas to the higher authority of either the region or the State.

I see this legislation as being symbolized as a telephone exchange, an instrument that can bring about communication between all people, so that we can have and maintain prosperity and progress at both ends of that telephone line. A telephone line could prevent my neighbour from jumping over the fence when my dog attacks his chickens. Whereas there is only a fence separating my neighbour and me, a telephone could prevent an incident in which my neighbour and I grabbed one another by the throat. Even though a telephone exchange is miles away, it enables people to communicate with one another so as to defuse a crisis situation. This lack of adequate channels of communication eventually caused two communities that had co-existed peacefully on the East Rand for many years, to become alienated from one another. I wonder how many other communities in South Africa have fallen prey to similar alienation and conflict situations due to these shortcomings. This was also the cause of people losing their lives.

It is ironic that after the unrest in Reigerpark, it was the official Opposition, through the hon. member for Edenvale, that attacked us in this House. It was they who blamed us for the unrest in Reigerpark. Today, however, when we want to build these bridges in South Africa, it is that party that is opposing the building of these bridges, and that does not want to co-operate. One cannot understand what such an Opposition is doing in this country.

When the Reigerpark unrest took place—the hon. member for Rissik would do well to listen to this; I think he is learning quite a lot this afternoon—the HNP, which is the present-day CP, rejoiced. Those of them living in our region rejoiced and shouted disparaging comments to the effect that these events had confirmed that Coloureds were unable to govern themselves, that they were unable to manage themselves.

The logic of the CP, which is just like that of the HNP, reminds me of a man in a mental institution who told his friend that a grasshopper hears with its legs. When his friend would not believe him, he told his friend that he would prove this to him. He caught a grasshopper and put it on his table. When he told the grasshoppers to jump, it jumped. He then grabbed the grasshopper and broke its legs off. Then he put the grasshopper back onto the table and told him to jump. When the grasshopper did not jump, the man turned to his friend and said: See, he has no legs; he cannot hear me. This story reminds me of the CP. [Interjections.]

The CP expects Coloured communities to make a success of local government, a success of all forms of government, without having the necessary structures and expert support. That is impossible, and I think that that is the reason hon. members of the CP do not want to serve on advisory councils with Coloureds and Asians. We have listened to those hon. members during the past week or two. We have listened to the reasons they do not want to serve on the advisory committees of universities and technikons. They look down on those people, but then they turn round and tell the public that we are capitulating in respect of the rights of the White man. They have no policy of their own with which they can go to the voters honestly to win support for their party. They want us to create heartlands for these people into which we will have to pump millions of rands and in which the Coloureds and the Indians will have to govern themselves without the necessary means and expert support. We cannot afford that. We do not have the trained manpower, the money or the time for that.

South Africa can benefit tremendously from the legislation the hon. the Minister has introduced, since the development of certain Coloured and Indian local authorities will be expedited by this, while the co-ordination of functions will hold out definite advantages for all local authorities. I repeat: For all local authorities; not only for the Coloured and the Indian local authorities, but for the White local authorities as well. The principles contained in this measure will contribute to the development of all South Africa’s communities. The objectives of the proposed co-ordinating council contain many advantages. They hold out the promise of effective local government, and that they will continue to be increasingly effective. Since the proposed co-ordinating council can make recommendations with regard to bringing about uniformity as regards ways in which local authorities ought to perform their functions, it can only be beneficial to local authorities and, consequently, to the man in the street. In particular one thinks here, for example, of the testing of vehicles for roadworthiness. Some hon. members have already referred to other departments that could be co-ordinated. I see this as another department one may well give consideration to, since it has the safety of all South Africa’s people as its objective. It could bring about the standardization of posts among city councils and it could standardize the designation of city council posts as well as the salaries linked to such posts.

Since the Bill refers to the co-ordination of functions, one immediately has visions of a national traffic body, a national fire brigade and ambulance service, an electricity department that can co-operate with Escom in a more integrated way, and even the distribution of water could be placed under the stricter supervision of the water boards, which would then assist in the more effective distribution and utilization of that resource. It is high time that an investigation be held into the functions that should fall under local authorities and those that should not. Certain functions and tasks that are at present being performed by the S.A. Police, should, in my opinion, be dealt with by local authorities. I have always found it illogical that the assistance of a policeman should be required to quieten a barking dog, when the local authority could simply cancel an owner’s licence or reprimand the owner. I think there are a number of cases of this nature one could look into. Another example that could be mentioned, is that the manpower shortage in the Department of Manpower could be alleviated by, for example, making use of city council health inspectors and building inspectors who could, at the same time, see to it that the provisions of the factory laws are being adhered to. This would alleviate the workload of that department.

The more one thinks about the advantages of this measure, the more one wants to cry out, as Louis Rive did: “The sky is the limit”. The improved service being brought about in this way contains benefits for this country in all respects as regards conserving manpower and saving on funds. At present, individual local authorities sometimes do not have the funds to allow the city councils to undertake certain investigations, and those investigations are consequently not carried out. Since a body is now being created that can function under a number of local authorities and the money available can therefore be distributed among more than one local authority, I think these investigations could be undertaken in the future, to the benefit of all local authorities. I could go on mentioning cases of this nature.

Chapter II of the Bill deals with the development boards in the regions into which our country is divided. Town councils with guardianship over Coloured and Indian township areas will certainly benefit from this—I want to refer here to my own town council in the area I represent—since their sources of income are often too limited to meet the needs of the other groups situated in their areas of jurisdiction. This principle is therefore also beneficial to such local authorities, as well as to their guardian areas. In my opinion the development of such areas can be expedited by this.

Sir, we on this side of the House support the creation of structures whereby our calling, which is summarized so well in the preamble to the proposed constitution, may be fulfilled, and I consequently take pleasure in supporting this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to enter into the argument the hon. member for Boksburg had with the CP. I do not know either whether the standpoint of the CP on the President’s Council or the election of the President has anything directly to do with this particular measure we are dealing with.

The hon. member for Boksburg referred to Reigerpark. He said that when the co-ordinating council is established, it will obviate the sort of problems that arose there. However, I understood the problems at Reigerpark to be overcrowding, the lack of housing and a lack of consultation between the local authority and the Reigerpark community. I think if the blame is to be placed anywhere, the hon. member should “steek sy hand in eie boesem”. I think the report clearly indicated this.

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. member? Does the hon. member disagree with the findings of the HSRC and with what I quoted here to him?

There may be certain recommendations, but there is nevertheless a relationship between the local authority and the community which should be set right first. I need not take that any further. So far as his other references to a lack of funds and the co-ordinating council are concerned, I will have quite a lot to say about that in the course of my speech.

At this stage I would like to react immediately to the speech of the hon. member for Durban North. Today we have seen the biggest volte-face, the biggest turn-about, the biggest summersault in the political history of this House. The hon. member for Durban North, the self-appointed hitman of the NRP, has not made one speech in this House where he has not attacked the PFP. I wonder why. Is it because he has no confidence that he will win the Durban North constituency again? Is that why he is always attacking the PFP? Is that why he is always looking in this direction? Today we have seen a performance by that hon. member which must be brought into question. In making this turn-about, he did not have the guts to get up in the House and say that they have made a summersault, that they have changed their minds and that they are going to support the Bill.

What summersault?

He said that they had had discussions with the hon. the Minister and that Natal had stopped the Minister in his tracks. The hon. the Minister can tell us whether that is correct.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the expression “he did not have the guts”

I withdraw it, Sir. He does not have the courage. If he stopped the hon. the Minister in his tracks and if by reason of that consultation with the hon. the Minister he found out just how far the hon. the Minister is going to go and he now knows what the attitude of his party is, he should have got up here today and said it. He said that they had put forward certain amendments and that they had worked very hard on the Bill. He said that the amendments would be considered by the hon. the Minister and depending on what the hon. the Minister had to say and how he reacted to those amendments, they would make their final attitude known. As if we do not know what their final attitude is going to be. [Interjections.] That is absolute nonsense. The NRP has put amendments on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Umbilo. In clause 1 he wants to substitute the definition of “Administrator” so that the Executive will have certain powers. The hon. the Minister is also going to move an amendment in this regard. The hon. the Minister has placed an amendment on the Order Paper to amend the definition. The hon. member said that they also objected to clause 14 and that they were going to move an amendment to that clause. The hon. the Minister wants to go even further. He wants to eliminate clause 14 completely by way of his amendment. I am sure that that will please them. They have also made recommendations in connection with clause 15. The hon. the Minister has exactly the same amendment on the Order Paper as they have that is also identical.

Their big objection is to clause 18(1). They are proposing that it be deleted. What does the hon. the Minister do? He also proposes that it be deleted. [Interjections.] Where is the difference? There is no room left for any argument and for the hon. the Minister to even indicate whether he will accept their amendments or not. They know where they stand. [Interjections.]

Order!

Talking about a summersault, the hon. member for Umbilo …

You are a misguided member of Parliament.

The hon. member is totally misguided. He is not even guided. The hon. member for Umbilo got very angry. He was so cross. I have never seen him so cross in this House. He went for this Government. What did he have to say about this Bill? He said (Hansard, 1 June 1983, col. 8331)—

From a “pernicious Bill” they now do a complete summersault in their attitude. They are not going to live this one down.

We have moved that this Bill be referred to the Select Committee on the Constitution before Second Reading. This is consistent with our attitude. The whole question of the proposed amendments and the whole discussion shows how right we were. I argued particularly that the Republic of South Africa Constitution Bill was premature because it did not provide for the future of provincial administrations and local government. Neither does this Bill provide for the total future of provincial administrations and local government.

In passing, let me make one point to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister apparently got very cross with the hon. member for Sea Point—I think the hon. member for Berea made reference to it today—when he asked why we adopted the procedure in this House of discussing a Bill knowing that it could not be finalized. The hon. the Minister got cross.

Was the procedure not arranged by the Whips?

I am coming to that. That is exactly what I am coming to. That is the point I want to make.

Why are you then taking such a long time?

We have plenty of time. If the hon. the Minister does not like it, he knows what to do. What happened was that the Whips were asked to arrange that this Bill be discussed at that particular stage, prior to the hon. the Minister’s Vote, knowing that it would not be finished. The Whips were also asked whether they had any objection to that. We discussed the matter among ourselves and agreed that if that was what the hon. the Minister wanted we would not stand in his way. However, that is not the argument. The argument is why, knowing that the Bill could not be finished prior to the Vote being taken, knowing it was going to be half-baked, that procedure was followed. That is the only point that was raised. There is no question of dishonouring an agreement. We stand by the agreement. We are quite happy to discuss it.

Why then are you arguing about it?

Because the hon. the Minister got very cross about it. I think he misunderstood the position. It is not a breach of an arrangement. It is merely a matter of asking the hon. the Minister—we still do not know the answer—why he thought it necessary to have this debate at that stage. That is the only thing which the hon. members were referring to.

The NRP, of course, painted themselves into a corner, because they supported the Republic of South Africa Constitution Bill, but when it came to this particular Bill they wanted to support the amendment that it be read in six months’ time. Surely they knew in supporting the Republic of South Africa Constitution Bill that they were in fact signing the death warrant of provincial administrations as we know them today. Did they only wake up when this Bill was introduced? Their attitude with regard to the two Bills is clearly inconsistent in regard to what they have shown in this House. If they argue that they were not consulted, then that is another story, but it is clear that provincial councils are to be phased out. What do they want? Do they want to support the new constitution and do they want to retain control of the Natal Provincial Administration in its present provincial form? They cannot have it both ways. Either the new constitution is going to change it—and hopefully it is going to change—or they want to hang on to control in the Natal Provincial Administration. This is inconsistent with their support of this Bill and it is also inconsistent with their support of the new constitution. In fact I would say that the NRP have clearly painted themselves into a corner.

Let us examine the rationale behind this particular argument. I refer to page 112 of the second report of the President’s Council. This is an extract from Annexure A of the report which was the speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister at the National Party Federal Congress, Bloemfontein, 30-31 July 1982. The hon. the Prime Minister stated—

1. 1. Provincial boundaries remain unchanged.
2. 2. Provincial councils will exist at least until the end of their present terms of office.

This is very clear. At the end of the present term of office they will no longer exist. It is the end of provincial administrations. The hon. the Prime Minister stated further—

1. 3. In order to achieve self-determination over community interests and co-responsibility for common interests on all governmental levels, the provincial system will inevitably have to be adapted eventually. The Government undertakes not to bring about changes in this regard without continuous consultation with provincial authorities.

I shall refer to that in a moment. He goes on to state

1. 4. In view of the changes which may be effected on the national and local levels, it is foreseen that—
   1. (a) certain provincial powers will be transferred to local authorities in order to assure self-determination within the respective communities.

It follows from that that certain powers of provincial administrations will be transferred to this administration, namely Parliament, which is the subject of this Bill that we are discussing now. Therefore we are witnessing the disappearance of provincial councils. So, for example, if the NRP complain that they were not consulted, I shall support them. In fact I do not think that they were consulted adequately and judging from Assomac, the Association of Management Committees, and others I do not think that they were consulted and that is why we asked that this matter be referred to the Select Committee on the Constitution so that representations could be made to that committee in the same way as representations are being made to that committee at present because all these matters go together.

The Bill, of course, affects local authorities directly. It is therefore necessary to refer again to the same speech that I referred to a moment ago and to take a look at the hon. the Prime Minister’s remarks in regard to Recommendation 20 on page 109 of the Second Report of the President’s Council to which the hon. the Minister referred in his speech as well. I quote—

The hon. member for Helderkruin mentioned that there were six others. But this was at the NP congress. In fact on page 108 the hon. the Prime Minister states—

This was the point made by the hon. member for Durban North—

Obviously the various population groups must include Black local authorities. Taking all this into consideration, what we need to have is a package deal. We need to see the full proposals of the Government with regard to the new constitution and with regard to second and third tier government. We want to see their full proposals with regard to the future of provincial administrations. We want to know whether there are going to be regional bodies or metropolitan bodies that are going to take their place. We do not want to see unfold, pieced together like a jigsaw puzzle, the different phases of the new system of local government which the Government has in mind. The Government acts in this matter in a way which reminds me, Mr. Speaker, of the Chinese saying: “Softly, softly, catchee monkey”. That is exactly the way in which the Government stealthily executes its future constitutional plans.

The Government’s whole new structure of local government should, I believe, not exclude totally the urban Blacks. Provision should by made for them to take part, in some way or another, in the new system envisaged by the hon. the Minister and the Government. The draft constitution which was referred to a Select Committee after Second Reading makes provision for the granting of local self-government to Black local authorities in the White urban areas. I submit to the hon. the Minister that a similar provision should be introduced into the Bill with which we are dealing at the moment. I feel that the whole structure of local authorities in South Africa has to be examined in order to establish exactly how representation in the whole system can be extended to Black people as well. Can the hon. the Minister tell us whether the Department of Cooperation and Development will disappear in due course? When that happens—if it happens—will Black local authorities then be placed under the jurisdiction of this hon. Minister? Will black local authorities then become part and parcel of the whole structure of local government, including also White, Coloured and Indian local authorities?

According to a report in The Citizen of 7 June this year the hon. the Minister of Cooperation and Development said here in this House during the discussion of his Vote that the preparatory work in connection with the establishment of the first 25 Black local authorities had almost been completed. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development also added that the establishment of a further 84 Black local authorities could become a reality as early as 1984. I should like to know what future these local authorities have. Where will they fit into the whole structure of the new constitutional dispensation in South Africa? Are these local authorities going to be established only to be left in limbo, or what is going to happen to them?

I should think that the Government’s policy in respect of the establishment of Coloured and Indian local authorities must in principle apply to Black local authorities as well. If that is indeed so, why does the Government not say so? Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is important that we should know what the Government’s plans are in this respect. The hon. the Minister must also tell us whether Blacks will eventually be granted representation on regional bodies, which will ultimately make it possible for a fourth chamber of Parliament—a chamber for Blacks—to be introduced as well.

Then there is of course yet another important question. Will Black local authorities in South Africa be in some way represented in the parliaments of the independent and self-governing national States?

It seems to be the clear intention of the Government to phase out provincial councils in due course. If that is not the intention, why then is reference made in this Bill to Coloured and Indian Consultative and Management committees? The Transvaal ordinance which provides for the establishment of such Consultative and Management committees has been operative for more than ten years. I was still a member of the Transvaal Provincial Council when that ordinance was passed. I happen to know—I am sure the hon. the Minister is also aware of it—that similar ordinances exist in the other three provinces of the Republic. The whole purpose behind the introduction of these consultative committees—the first of which came into being as long ago as 1962—was to afford Coloured and Indian people the opportunity of gaining experience of local government in their own areas in which they lived. Firstly, consultative committees were elected and they were followed by management committees that were elected on a similar basis. The aim was that these committees should in the course of time develop into fully-fledged local authorities.

The specific Transvaal provincial ordinance to which I have already referred states very clearly that the administrator is empowered, by notice in the Official Gazette, to establish such consultative and management committees, and also to issue regulations in respect of such committees. The administrator is also empowered by that same ordinance at any time to appoint a committee to investigate and report upon the desirability or otherwise of establishing a local authority for any area comprising the area administered by a particular management committee. It is therefore absolutely clear that the provincial administrations, in terms of powers they presently have, can in fact establish the very local authorities which the hon. the Minister seems to want to establish.

One wonders therefore why the Government should be so secretive about its real plans in respect of the whole question of these local authorities. I am sure some hon. members of this House have over the years gained quite some experience in respect of the establishment of local authorities for Coloureds and Indians. They will therefore know that it is the responsibility of the mother local authority to ensure that such younger local authorities develop successfully. The mother local authority could even act as an agent, so to speak, for the newly established local authority, guiding it through the initial difficulties that are invariably encountered by any such newly established and still inexperienced body. These local authorities such as Verulam, Isipingo and Umzinto were established in Natal. In Johannesburg, Lenasia lends itself to this sort of development. It has a population of some 50 000 people. There is also Eldorado Park with a population of 50 000. That is 100 000 altogether. These local authorities could be established on this basis. Under the existing ordinances we have what is known as a section 59 committee which is in fact a liaison committee between the local authority and the Coloured or Indian Management Committee. That has been going on for years and so therefore this sort of thing has been happening all the time. Why then, if this legislation is not going to phase out provincial administrations, is it necessary to bring that sort of administration under parliamentary control? It is clear from the reaction of the United Municipal Executive that they do not favour giving financial assistance to such newly established local authorities, and the recent conference of Town Clerks obviously showed a difference of opinion as to how they felt. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that if he wants to make a success of local authorities he will have to take a new look at all local authorities, not just the Coloured and Indian local authorities but the White local authorities as well. The White local authorities are experiencing problems as well. The first thing the hon. the Minister should consider is to provide a charter for large cities as against towns, cities like Johannesburg, Cape Town, Pretoria and so forth. [Interjections.] They should have charters so that the 95 provisions of the local government ordinance under which they are suffering at the moment in respect of every little thing that they have to do, can be eliminated. They would then be in a better position to assist Coloured or Indian local authorities in regard to administrative matters.

Local authorities are straining at the leash as far as their finances are concerned. Local authorities are saddled with GST. They are also saddled with customs and excise matters. It is the ratepayers who have to pay. In the case of Johannesburg, this amounts to R33 million per annum which is the equivalent of 40% of the rate income. How can such a local authority survive and develop on its own under those circumstances? There have to be adequate sources of revenue to which I shall return in a moment.

Let us take a look at the structure of provincial administrations since 1910. We are looking at the final phasing out of provincial administrations because what do we have left? There is the control of hospitals but these could quite easily be placed under the control of the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare. In the case of education, this is being reduced to education for Whites in primary and secondary schools, and education in respect of tertiary institutions as well as education for Blacks, Coloureds and Indians has now been placed under a different responsibility to that of the provincial administration. They could be placed under this department. There is no problem about that. Local government is now being attacked and is also being phased out because it is now being placed under direct parliamentary control. What are the functions of the provincial councils in respect of financial matters? All they have to rely on is the subsidy that has to be approved by this Parliament and therefore this Parliament will dictate just how much money those provinces will be able to spend because the income that they receive from other sources is so minimal that they could not possibly survive on that alone.

In view of the foregoing, I believe that this Government should state absolutely clearly and unequivocally what the future of provincial councils is to be. I want to know whether the Government will endorse its recommendations that I have mentioned which were made at the NP congress at Bloemfontein. I think that we are placing a tremendous strain upon these provincial councils. When one reads the debates that are being conducted in provincial councils at the moment, one gains the feeling that the sword of Damocles is haning over these provincial administrations. They do not know what future they have. There is no spirit in the provincial administrations. They know that they are being phased out and they know that they will only last until the next election. They do not know what powers they are going to have and they do not know what recommendations they are going to be able to make. They have no future. There is an aura of doom cast upon provincial administrations. He have to rectify the situation one way or another. Therefore a declaration of intent is clearly necessary. The Government and the hon. the Minister should make such a declaration of intent known as to how they regard the future.

When I look at the Bill more carefully, I notice that a co-ordinating council will be established to advise the central Government on matters of importance to local government. The hon. the Minister want to increase this council by another two members. These two members representing the Indian people will increase the members of the council to 42. There will also be an action committee comprising nine members.

I have argued up to this stage that provincial administrations can virtually do all that is necessary to promote local government for Coloureds and Indians, and now the question arises why we need this co-ordinating council. I think this is a very interesting innovation. In this regard one should refer to the part in the speech of the hon. the Minister where he spoke about the need to compel local authorities who do not toe the line to do so.

What is this all about? The CP and people who ideologically fit into that party do not want to allow this development taking place. They do not want integration among Coloured, Indian and White local authorities. The hon. the Minister is afraid of those people and maybe he has a point that they will not toe the line. This development may not take place because of their refusal. The hon. the Minister knows that many local authorities in certain parts of the Transvaal and other parts of the country will not co-operate. Therefore he has taken out the big stick, the whip in order to override them and to force them to do the things he wants them to do. This is the main reason for having this co-ordinating council.

The hon. the Minister has stressed the urgency in this matter by saying that a national interim liaison committee is being established. There is no reference in the Bill to such a committee and perhaps the hon. the Minister will be kind enough to give us some information in this regard.

The hon. the Minister will be the chairman of the co-ordinating council and therefore he will have complete control. This is then the first link between local government and Parliament. The hon. the Minister wants to set up direct contact both vertically and horizontally. In this connection again the hon. the Minister referred in his speech to own matters—they will be referred to Assomac and the UME—and to general matters which will be referred to the co-ordinating council. In other words, what the hon. the Minister is doing here is to perpetuate the vertical walls of apartheid in our system of local government because own matters belong to Coloureds, Indians and Whites in that particular manner and when matters are of a general nature, they will be referred to the co-ordinating council. Therefore there is no breaking down of apartheid; the walls of apartheid will remain. Where are we going to have liaison and where will those walls be broken down to allow liaison?

What does the hon. the Minister mean by the “overlapping of local authorities”? What does the hon. the Minister mean by “systematic”? To what end is it systematic? What does he mean by “co-ordination”? Is it coordinated to the region or is it co-ordinated to Parliament?

I think it is necessary here, in order to get a full picture of the package deal, to spell out the future of Black local authorities which are to be established. There may be direct or indirect representation for them and they may or may not receive financial aid from neighbouring local authorities. All that we know is that a special Cabinet committee has been appointed to look into the question of local government for Blacks outside the national States.

Although the Bill does not deal with the question of Black local government, I want to direct the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that the hon. the Minister of Finance last year had the Income Tax Act amended to allow Blacks to be taxed on the same basis as Whites. As at 30 March 1982 there were 2,5 million Black taxpayers paying R152,2 million into general revenue. Is it fair for this Government to take their money and then to propose that the Blacks of South Africa should not be involved with this Bill at all and should have nothing to do with the constitution?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hillbrow really made what one can term a fill-the-gap speech this afternoon because he really said very little which has not already been said by hon. members on that side of the House. He referred amongst other things to the section 59 committee of local authorities and maintained that that committee can in fact carry out the responsibilities envisaged in this Bill. I think the hon. member must first go and read the Bill again because the authority for which provision is made in this Bill goes much wider than the terms of responsibility provided for in section 59 in respect of local authorities. Then the hon. member for Hillbrow had the audacity to say, with reference to my hon. colleague from Boksburg, that the problems in Reigerpark were due to a shortage of housing and overcrowding. I should like to say to that hon. member that his track record as a member of the Johannesburg city council during his term of office leaves much to be desired as far as providing housing for other people in Johannesburg is concerned.

Then he made the remark that this Bill is the death-knell for provincial councils. I should like to deal with that in greater detail later on in my speech, but at this stage I just want to say that I do not know where in this Bill he sees the end of provincial councils. The hon. member said provincial councils have limited authority. If in terms of the hon. member’s argument they have limited authority, is that not a further reason for us to look at the functions of second tier government in South Africa? He said provincial councils provide what this Bill requires. He said that, if matters cannot be looked after by means of section 59, the provincial councils must look after them, but we do not need this Bill. We argue the contrary. We believe that, if we want a real devolution of power, we also have to involve central Government as part of the new constitutional development in South Africa and that we must have a look at the whole new restructuring of authority in this country.

*The hon. member for Hillbrow and the hon. member for Durban North also had a great deal to say about clause 14. What is so sinister about the hon. the Minister moving for the deletion of section 14? The intention of this clause is to have institutions, corporate bodies, such as Escom and the Rand Water Board, which are not local authorities, regarded as local authorities for the purposes of this legislation so that they can also be included in the co-ordinating council. In its recommendation No. 22 the President’s Council specifically proposed that some or other provision should be made by which those bodies could also be part of such a co-ordinating council. Coloured and Indian leaders, however, and also the Natal Executive Committee, interpreted that clause as being one that would be employed to establish new local authorities. In order to quash that idea the hon. the Minister wants to delete clause 14 and re-word clause 15 to make provision for additional appointments to the co-ordinating council. That is all the hon. the Minister wants to do. So only the hon. member for Hillbrow will know why he is creating such a fuss here.

It is surely strange that here, in the House of Assembly, such a fierce debate has suddenly sprung up around this legislation. What does the Bill make provision for? It makes provision for the establishment of a council for the co-ordination of local government affairs. Who can have any objection to that principle? Secondly, the Bill makes provision for the establishment of municipal development boards. Again I believe this to be a principle against which no one can raise any objection.

Thirdly this legislation authorizes the making of regulations in connection with interim measures for the improvement of communication between White local authorities and between Coloured and Asian committees. I can understand the PFP creating a great fuss about this, because they do not want people living in separate residential areas in South Africa. They advocate a hodge-podge, and for that reason we can understand their refusal to accept this kind of thing. I cannot, however, understand why the CP objects to this. We are entering upon a new constitutional despensation for South Africa. The CP is so obsessed with homelands that they simply want to waive aside any form of coordination between Whites, Coloureds and Asians at local Government level. These are surely the facts of reality that must be taken into account. Hon. members of the CP kick up a great fuss about what the Government is doing, but they do not tell us how they envisage co-ordination taking place in South Africa between White, Coloured and Asian local authorities. The establishment of this co-ordinating council is a proposal of the President’s Council, and therefore not something the Government has simply sucked out of its thumb. In terms of Government policy, local authorities will be paying an increasingly important role in South Africa. In the meantime this measure is necessary to bring about better co-ordination and better communication.

I think that the hon. member for Durban North adopted a much more responsible attitude here this afternoon than did his colleague, the hon. member for Umbilo. The hon. member tried to defend what the hon. member for Umbilo had said. I have, on past occasions, praised the hon. member for Umbilo as a good product of immigration to South Africa. I do think, however, that if the hon. member were to reread his speech, he would be very ashamed about certain statements of his in that speech. He made certain fairly heavy-handed statements in that speech of his, and I have some difficulty in reconciling those statements with my image of that hon. member. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Durban North must please give me a chance. The hon. member made two statements. Firstly he accused the hon. the Minister of a high-handed attitude. I do not think that is fair. Secondly he said that the hon. the Minister had broken certain promises. It is not an everyday occurrence for someone in this House to be accused of having broken his promises. The hon. member himself said that those were harsh words that he would rather not be using. I think the hon. member ought to apologize to the hon. the Minister.

In terms of your policy, he has an obligation to negotiate.

I do not think that when it comes to negotiation, the hon. member for Durban North is capable of setting an example to the hon. Minister. Since I have come back to this hon. House, the hon. the Minister has proved to anyone who wants to see what he has done, how negotiations should be conducted in South Africa.

*The hon. member for Umbilo referred to what the hon. member for Umlazi had quoted the hon. the Prime Minister as having said. In his speech of 16 May 1983 (Hansard, col. 7162), the hon. member for Umlazi quoted the hon. the Prime Minister. I want to quote what the hon. member for Umlazi said, because I do not think that the hon. member for Umbilo was being very fair. The hon. member for Umlazi quoted the hon. the Prime Minister as follows—

Let me now ask these hon. members where the hon. the Minister broke his promises. We are, after all, engaged in the process of negotiation in South Africa, and there ought not to be any doubt about that.

Sir, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I do not want to answer any of his questions now. The hon. member had a chance to make his own speech. The hon. the Prime Minister stands by what I have just quoted, and so does this hon. Minister; in fact, so does the whole Government. We shall not allow ourselves to be put off by hon. members of the Opposition.

It is not, after all, the intention of this legislation to replace provincial councils. So why is the general impression being created—the hon. member for Hillbrow has just done so again—that this legislation is aimed at replacing provincial councils per se? We must stop creating the impression that the NP is acting bureaucratically. That is not true.

This afternoon the hon. member for Durban North remarked here that we should work towards the decentralization and devolution of power. We have no objection to that. That is why I said, at the very outset, that the hon. member had made a very responsible speech this afternoon. It is specifically the aim of this legislation to promote governmental devolution and decentralization from the central tier to the second and third tiers of government.

I should just like to make a remark about what the hon. member for Sea Point had to say. He said that the actual key body would be the small action committee of nine members rather than the full council of 41 members. The hon. member says the Minister is now going to be the boss. Who will constitute this co-ordinating council? The four provincial administrators would be the first to be appointed to this council. Then there would be members of the provincial Executive Committees responsible for local government. Added to that, there would be representatives of the White, Coloured and Indian local communities in South Africa. Is the hon. member for Sea Point now saying that the Minister is going to prescribe to these people, to the provincial administrators, the MECs and the White, Coloured and Asian representatives? What is that other than the sowing of suspicion and unrest by the PFP?

The CP’s objection to this legislation is that we are going to appoint Coloureds and Asians to the proposed council, this advisory council which will not really have the power to take executive action. The CP, however, consistently objects to any form of representation by Coloureds and Asians on statutory bodies.

Except the SABC Board.

Yes, and let me now ask the hon. member for Pietersburg and the hon. member for Rissik whether they are going to terminate the representation of Coloureds and Blacks on the SABC Board.

In the new constitutional dispensation …

Now they start talking again of a constitutional dispensation. If that party wants to be consistent, it must also terminate the representation of Coloureds on statutory boards such as the SABC Board.

There was also the claim by the Opposition that not all the parties had been consulted. I will not be told that the hon. the Minister has been guilty of that.

The hon. member for Newcastle quoted here from a telex message in which the United Municipal Executive gave its full support to this legislation.

Who signed it?

Can the hon. member for Rissik tell me who the United Municipal Executive is? The United Municipal Executive consists of the four presidents of the provincial municipal associations. The other day, by way of an interjection, the hon. member for Umbilo said that they are just a lot of officials and that we should take no notice of them.

They have no political responsibility.

I have no concern about whether they have any political responsibility or not. All the hon. member for Newcastle said was that the United Municipal Executive had given its approval to this legislation. The hon. member for Umbilo criticized that. He did not criticize the fact that they are not politicians. He said they were a bunch of officials. The hon. member for Umbilo must go and tell the four presidents of the four municipal associations that they are mere officials who do not have the right to express any opinions. The hon. member for Durban North also asked the hon. Minister: “Did you consult with the Natal Executive?” and by implication the hon. the Minister replied: “I did.” The NRP therefore owes the hon. the Minister an apology. [Interjections.] What we in South Africa need is effective co-ordination between the central, provincial and local tiers of government, and that is precisely what this Bill is giving us. I think that the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning is pre-eminently suitable for playing such a co-ordinating role.

Also, in the light of the Government’s premise of each group having its own community life, its own local authorities and its own residential areas, the United Municipal Executive will continue to be the mouthpiece for White local authorities in South Africa. So, where exclusively White interests are at stake, the full UME will continue to negotiate with the relevant Ministers on behalf of the White community in South Africa. The same principle is to be made applicable to the Coloureds and the Asians. If one listens to the CP, however, one gains the impression that the Government is engaged in a large-scale integration campaign in South Africa. In terms of this measure the principle of individual group interests is therefore being re-confirmed in very clear terms. In addition, where matters of common concern are at issue, the co-ordinating council will also play its role in equally clear terms. So individual group interests and interests of common concern are being emphasized very clearly once again. The hon. members of the CP will simply have to clarify this for themselves. This side of the House expressly adheres to self-determination in regard to individual group affairs and co-responsibility in regard to matters of common concern. If the hon. members of the CP have renounced their approach or philosophy in regard to co-responsibility, they must square that with their consciences.

You were still an SAP man in 1977!

I am not ashamed of having been an SAP man. It seems to me the hon. member is ashamed of having been a Nationalist. [Interjections.] What is the hon. member’s difficulty?

Another accusation levelled by hon. members of the Opposition is that the proposed council would be a bureaucratic institution which would ostensibly prescribe to us here in South Africa. That is not true. That council is only going to be an advisory body. The council will carry out investigations and advise the Government from time to time. What are the actual functions of this council? We have to spell this out clearly once again, because it does not seem to me as if everyone is very clear about this yet, particularly those who have not yet read the Bill. Firstly, it will be this council’s function to advise the Government on priorities in regard to matters requiring co-ordination in South Africa. Secondly, it will be the council’s task to advise the Government on the co-ordination of functional activities such as civil defence. Thirdly, it will be the council’s task to advise the Government on the creation of metropolitan and/or regional institutions in South Africa, and also to advise the Government about what functions ought to be transferred to local authorities in a further effort at extending the principle of the devolution of power. In a nutshell then, the co-ordinating council will create an opportunity for direct contact between Whites, Coloureds and Asians. Looking at the CP, one would swear the end of the world had come because there is contact and communication between Whites and Coloureds in regard to joint services at the local level.

The hon. member for Brakpan again went scurrying around for the appointment of a Select Committee. I listened to the hon. member and could think of no single argument that he could raise in a Select Committee that he did not raise here this afternoon.

But you were not listening.

I was listening very carefully to the hon. member. The hon. member also said—this was in regard to the appointment of the council—that the hon. the Minister was also being given a bureaucratic right in regard to the appointment of members to the council.

Bureaucratic?

Bureaucratic, yes. That is the word the hon. member himself used. Let him go and read his own Hansard speech. He will find the word there.

No. [Interjections.]

The hon. member was arguing about the appointment of members of the council, but not about the powers of the council. I want to ask the hon. member what is wrong with the co-ordinating council having direct access to the Cabinet. One of the hon. member’s arguments was that this co-ordinating council was now suddenly being given direct access to the Cabinet. That was the hon. member’s argument.

Go and read clause 6. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I now want to know from the hon. member for Brakpan what is wrong with that. What is wrong with a statutory body having direct contact with the Cabinet? The hon. member also alleged that the Transvaal Municipal Association would only be discussing this legislation next week. I want to know from the hon. member whether the TMA is represented on the United Municipal Executive? The president of the TMA himself has a seat on the United Municipal Executive, does he not? The hon. member would do well to take another look at the telex quoted here by the hon. member for Newcastle. Then he can square the matter with his own conscience.

[Inaudible]

But of course, Mr. Speaker. That was the very day on which the hon. member for Newcastle spoke in this House. [Interjections.]

Let us now give a bit of attention to the TMA. After all, those hon. members made such a tremendous fuss about the TMA. In fact, they based their whole argument on what the TMA’s attitude would ostensibly be. I have here a schematic exposition of the TMA’s attitude to joint committees as an alternative to the proposed joint services committees recommended to us by the Croeser Working Group. The Government did not accept the Croeser Working Group’s proposal in connection with joint services committees. In Die Vaderland there was an article in which the points of correspondence between the TMA’s standpoint and those of the Government were set out very clearly. I would like to quote the relevant passage to the House. In Die Vaderland of Tuesday, 7 September 1982 …

Do you believe Die Vaderland?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rissik must not try to confuse me now. [Interjections.] Be that as it may, I am now going to quote to hon. members of the CP what the TMA’s and the Government’s standpoint is. Then those hon. members can decide for themselves whether they want to hide behind the TMA or not. The newspaper article to which I referred said the following, and I quote—

I now want to know from the hon. member for Rissik if he is still hiding behind the TMA. Here I have this schematic representation in which provision is made for Whites, Coloureds, Indians and the urban Black people in South Africa.

The TMA has never accepted integration.

No, definitely not. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, now the hon. member for Pietersburg is saying that the TMA has never accepted integration. The NP has equally never accepted integration. [Interjections.] If the NP is in favour of integration, why does it intend to appoint three separate chambers for one Parliament? [Interjections.] Why, if the NP accepts integration, is it establishing separate residential areas for people in South Africa? [Interjections.] That is what hon. members of the CP have to tell us.

Let us, however, look at the second point. Let me quote from the second point in the article, which reads as follows—

That is the standpoint of the TMA, and also the Government’s standpoint. I therefore again ask hon. members of the CP whether they are still hiding behind the TMA.

That brings me to the third and last point, and again I quote—

The article then goes on to state—

The MPC for Waterberg, Mr. Speaker, also just happens to be a member of that association. Now those hon. members can decide for themselves where they stand. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Waterberg must speak a little louder. He looks just like a fish gasping for air.

I want to conclude by coming round to the hon. member for Sea Point.

That hon. member was very much at home in the old United Party.

Mr. Speaker, I am very much at home in the NP. The hon. member Mr. Theunissen must not be jealous now. I did not tell them to leave, and those hon. members gave me just as hearty a welcome when I joined the NP. They must therefore not blame me for the fact that I am sitting here and they are sitting there. [Interjections.] Of course I feel very much at home, and let me tell those hon. members why I feel very much at home here. I feel very much at home here because I fought an election on the strength of the NP’s 1981 manifesto and I still stick to it. Those hon. members, however, do not. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Sea Point said that the PFP had five objections to this legislation. Its first objection involved its opposition to the procedure being adopted. They objected to a statutory body being established without consultation. Amongst other things—and this is very interesting—the hon. member for Sea Point said the following—

Can you believe it, Mr. Speaker? He said the Minister should have obtained the agreement of the various political parties for all the bodies to be established in terms of the new constitution. Let me ask the hon. member the following question: On what basis would we reach consensus with the PFP about this legislation? Does the PFP advocate separate residential areas? Does the PFP advocate separate local authorities for the individual groups? Does the PFP advocate a separate community life for each group in South Africa? Surely it is ridiculous to argue that the Government must achieve consensus amongst the various political parties. On what basis must that be done?

The hon. member for Sea Point’s second argument is that this legislation is sounding the death knell for provincial authorities in South Africa. I dealt with that at the beginning of my speech. I want to reiterate very clearly that the Government has taken no firm decision on the future of provincial councils in South Africa. Decisions have indeed been taken about the possible adaption of second-tier government and third-tier government in South Africa, but about the abolition of provincial councils as such no definite decision has yet been taken.

Still the crafty rogue (“skelm”) that you are!

Mr. Speaker. I am not such a crafty rogue as that hon. member. It is only by a crafty ruse that that hon. member is sitting in this House, because we elected him and then he ran away.

Order! The hon. member for Turffontein must withdraw the word “skelm”. There are no “skelms” in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. May I ask whether the hon. member Mr. Theunissen may say that I am a “skelm”?

Order! Did the hon. member Mr. Theunissen, say that?

Mr. Speaker, I said his party was engaged in a crafty policy. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member Mr. Theunissen said the hon. member for Turffontein was just as much of a crafty rogue as he had always been. [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon. member Mr. Theunissen say that?

Mr. Speaker, in order to clear up any misunderstanding, I shall withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: When the hon. member for Turffontein referred to hon. members of the CP as crafty rogues, the hon. the Minister of Law and Order said: “That is quite right.” [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw that remark.

Sir, I withdraw it.

The third point raised by the hon. member for Sea Point was why the council had to advise the Minister and not the administrators. The reason for that is simply that this council is a co-ordinating council for Whites, Coloureds and Asians, whilst the administrators in the provinces have no say whatsoever over Coloureds and Asians. That is the answer one can give to that.

The hon. member for Sea Point’s fourth argument was that it was a centralization measure since we are now wanting to centralize power, the executive authority. Surely that is not true. This council merely has a co-ordinating function. Its function is, amongst other things, to act in an advisory capacity when it comes to creating metropolitan and regional government institutions. For what purpose? Why would we establish metropolitan and regional institutions in South Africa if our ostensible aim was to centralize? Surely, if our aim were to centralize, we would not be doing that. The council must advise the Government on what powers should be transferred to local authorities. That is the very principle that underlies the devolution of power that is now being implemented in South Africa.

The fifth argument is that the future dispensation is based on apartheid. The NP makes no excuse for the fact that it is making provision for three identifiable communities in an orderly and stable system of Government in South Africa. That is why we envisage a tricameral Parliament. That is why we envisage a co-ordinating council, in terms of this measure, to co-ordinate matters involving the Whites, Coloureds and Indians. The PFP can protest until it is blue in the face. If they want to say that we are basing it on apartheid, they can go on saying it for as long as it makes them happy to do so.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Turffontein for the most part fought with his ex-colleagues who find themselves in the PFP and the NRP at present. I want to remind the hon. member that his old party, from which erstwhile colleagues of his are now in the PFP, the NRP and the NP …

And in the CP.

… whereas the best of the old United Party, the conservative Sappe, are in the CP today, at the time published a booklet “You want it, we have it”. By means of that booklet the old United Party tried to satisfy the hon. members who are now in the PFP, the hon. members who are now in the NRP and the hon. members who are now in the NP, but that policy of “you want it, we have it” led the once mighty United Party on the road to extinction and that is why it disappeared. The party to which the hon. member for Turffontein belongs at present also has such a “you want it, we have it” policy. The hon. member says his party stands for own decision-making on own affairs and common decision-making on common affairs. The hon. member said that they have a little apartheid and a little integration in order to satisfy certain people. For that reason I say to the hon. member that I fear he might be the Jonah in the NP to lead that mighty party, which now also proclaims the policy of “you want it, we have it”, on the road to extinction.

The hon. member for Witbank said that he was very fond of singing and then spoke about the old and the new hymns. When he did so, I was immediately reminded not only of this hymn: “Ieder woel hier om verandering en betreur dit dag na dag”, but another hymn as well: “Hoe ek dieper poog ek delf, hoe ek meer verderf ontmoet.” [Interjections.] The deeper one digs into the constitutional proposals of the Government party, the more rottenness and danger one comes across.

What is your song?

The hon. Chief Whip asks me what my song is, but I want to tell him that in the next general election he will be singing his swan song. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Helderkruin said that the third tier of government was a very important part of government in South Africa; that it was the foundation on which the whole future dispensation had to be built. The hon. member also said that it was very difficult to spell out the second tier of government, the present provincial system, at this stage. The hon. member for Hillbrow asked the Government party to state what it was going to do with provincial councils. The hon. member for Turffontein said that no decision had as yet been taken on the second tier of government. I want to venture a prediction here today. I predict that the provinces are going to disappear and are going to be replaced by eight regional authorities headed by multiracial managements.

The hon. member for Helderkruin said that the President’s Council was an advisory body and that the Government was now acting on the advice of the President’s Council. He added that this Bill formed part of the process of constitutional change in South Africa. Now, I find it interesting that while the President’s Council is making certain recommendations on the second and third tiers of government, the Government has taken no decision on them. The President’s Council is already an advisory body, and now the hon. the Minister is establishing a new advisory body. The President’s Council is making no recommendations on the first tier of government, and so the Government itself announced a plan of its own in respect of the first tier of government. In its guidelines, and in its draft legislation too, the Government says that in case of conflicts, among the three chambers the decisions of the President’s Council would be final.

What does the chairman of the President’s Council, which is now an advisory body, have to say? I have here an SABC report on what the chairman of the President’s Council said at a Rotary meeting at Kroonstad. On that occasion Mr. Schlebusch said—

It sounds like the AWB.

It almost sounds as if the chairman of the President’s Council is prescribing to the Government what it should do. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to push through these constitutional proposals with “all the means at its disposal”. What does this term “all the means”, to which the chairman of the President’s Council referred signify? The chairman of the President’s Council tells the people on behalf of the Government that “alle middele” at the disposal of the Government will be utilized to implement these proposals, and that is even before the proposals have been tested in a referendum by the people. The chairman of the President’s Council went on to say—

A new people!

I wonder whether the chairman of the President’s Council meant that the Afrikaner people was not, or had never been, a philanthropic people.

As far as some people are concerned, certainly not.

We want to state categorically here today that what has been brought about for the Brown and the Black people in this country came about by way of separate development through the intercession of an Afrikaner Government. This people does not hate the Brown people and the Indians.

. It was brought about by the NP.

Yes, by the NP before it accepted political integration and power-sharing and when, on the road of separate development for the various peoples, it was bringing new hope to South Africa. Or is this “mensliewender volk” of which the chairman of the President’s Council is talking, perhaps a new people? [Interjections.]

We should like to ask the hon. the Minister where the NP is taking South Africa. This legislation is part of the reform plan of the Government. It must be assumed that the same basic guidelines as those underlying the Government’s constitutional guidelines for a new constitutional dispensation at the central tier will also apply at the level of local government. Then, of course, one must necessarily bear in mind at all times the representational ratio of 4:2:1, based on population figures. Thus the representational ratio 4:2:1 must be seen in the light of the Government’s “striving for a more democratic dispensation in which domination of one group by another can be eliminated”. From what one can deduce from the Government’s guidelines in respect of local authority affairs, the principle of the maximum devolution of power to such authorities applies. Apparently it is also Government policy to establish their own institutions of local government for the various population groups. The idea is, then, to create at least three municipalities, viz. one White, one Coloured and one Indian, in a particular geographical area of jurisdiction in which Whites, Coloureds and Indians are living at present, a geographical area of jurisdiction which at present is served by one institution of local government.

The CP agrees with the development of policy in that direction, in other words, if the movement is in the direction of own local authorities for the various population groups. However, if one reviews the two premises of the Government, viz. self-determination of own affairs and joint responsibility in common affairs, it would appear as if there will have to be a definite liaison, cooperation and joint decision-making among the proposed institutions of local government for Whites, Coloureds and Indians. That, then, is joint decision-making on matters of common interest. This must be done by a joint, and therefore a multiracial institution or body. The question arises what the basis of representation of the participating local authorities will be on such a common body or institution. On what basis are the Whites, Coloureds and Indians going to be represented through their local authorities in this joint, and therefore multiracial, institution of local government? If the principle of proportionality in terms of group numbers is applied consistently, then it will not be possible to apply the ratio of 4:2:1, as applied on the central level, on the local level and on the provincial level. If this is, in fact, done, it will have the effect that the Coloureds in the areas of local authorities in the Cape, for example, will be in a far weaker negotiating position than the Coloureds in the Transvaal, for example. It is a fact that in virtually in every town and city in the Cape Province the number of Coloureds far exceeds that of Whites. In this regard I should like to refer to a few examples.

In the Beaufort West district there are 5 900 Whites as against 18 560 Coloureds. Clanwilliam has 4 360 Whites and 19 720 Coloureds. Graaff-Reinet has 5 160 White inhabitants and 15 760 Coloureds. Malmesbury has 12 700 Whites and 59 020 Coloureds.

Where are you going to establish the homeland?

I should like to tell the hon. the Minister who is now making such a noise, that we are not going to give the traditional home of the Coloured people on the Cape Flats to Blacks, as he is doing at the moment.

Oh, nonsense, man. You do not know what you are talking about.

The hon. member for Tygervallei says here, speaking from a Prog bench, that I am talking nonsense. He is telling me from the PFP benches, where he actually belongs, that I am talking nonsense. [Interjections.]

I say to you that you are a milksop (“meid”) if you say that.

The hon. Chief Whip of the NP can call me a milksop but this milksop is going to fight the influx of Blacks to the Cape Flats tooth and nail. That hon. member has given up fighting for it.

Mossel Bay has 8 040 Whites and 22 160 Coloureds. Willowmore has 1 300 Whites and 8 320 Coloureds, Mr. Speaker, I shall not quote the figures for Aliwal North. How then will the Government, in the name of fairness and justice, be able to explain to the Coloureds that although their numbers far exceed those of Whites in most of the local authority areas, their decision-making powers when it comes to common affairs will still be subordinate to those of a White minority? If the principle of proportionality based on the population ratio of 4:2:1 is applied to the second and third tier of government, it makes a force of the principle of self-determination and the maximum devolution of power. I am convinced that the Coloureds of the Cape Province will not accept such a system of representation.

The Government party has accepted population figures as the norm at the first tier of government. There are 4,5 million Whites, 2,5 million Coloureds and 1 million Asians. Hence the 4:2:1 ratio. I have just indicated why this formula cannot work at the second and third tiers of government.

Let us take a look at the numerical ratio in the Cape Province, for example. The Cape Province has 1 264 040 Whites and 2 226 160 Coloureds. So there are nearly twice as many Coloureds in the Cape as Whites. In addition there are 32 000 Indians in the Cape Province. In the new Parliament, according to the constitutional proposals, the Whites will have 56, the Coloureds 60 and the Indians 3 members of Parliament in the Cape Province. If the Coloureds and Indians are given representation on joint institutions of local government according to their numerical strength, and if fairness and justice are to prevail, Coloureds will have to receive majority representation in virtually every joint governmental institution in the Cape Province, whether on the second or the third tier. If such a co-ordinating body constituted from the proposed separate institutions of local government is going to reflect a say on the basis of numbers in a preconceived geographical area, then I ask: Whither White South Africa? In the Cape it will virtually only be Kuruman and the Strand where the Whites will have the majority vote when decisions on matters of common interest will have to be taken. It will only be in Kuruman and the Strand where the Whites in joint governmental institutions will have a majority vote.

Another possibility of representation in this council is an equal say. If there is an equal say, for example 2 Whites, 2 Coloureds and 2 Indians, I want to ask: Whither the Whites? Why not apply this representation to the first tier of government as well? So-called greater powers are being devolved to local authorities and no separate institution of local government, whether White, Brown or Indian, is autonomous in respect of common affairs, which include virtually everything. If the veto which is built in at the level of central government, is not built in here as well, the reality of group domination is obvious. The Government is very concerned that one group should not dominate another.