Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned yesterday evening I had indicated that in the Cape there were 1 164 040 Whites, 2 226 160 Coloureds and 32 120 Indians. In terms of the Constitution Bill, the Cape gets 56 White members of Parliament and 60 Coloured and three Indian members of Parliament. I pointed out that the Government’s principle of proportional representation in terms of group numbers as applied at the central level, could not be applied at the local government level or at the provincial government level. This would be in conflict with the Government’s endeavour to find a more democratic dispensation in which domination of one group by another has to be eliminated. I also indicated that if the principle of proportional representation in terms of group numbers were made applicable to the Cape in the joint deliberative and decision-making bodies in respect of general matters at the second and local levels of government, this would mean that in terms of the Government’s principle of justness, the Coloureds would be in the majority in all these bodies in the Cape. I asked the hon. the Minister whether he foresaw that the built-in veto right which had to eliminate group domination at the central government level, could also be built into the joint governing institutions at local government level. If not, we want to say that group domination is self-evident. If the veto right has in fact been built in, what procedure is going to be followed to resolve a stalemate in case of a conflict of interests between groups in connection with matters of common interest at local government level?

As an interim measure, while problem areas such as finances and the distribution thereof, uniform electoral qualifications and the recruiting of suitable staff and their training are being investigated, Coloured and Indian representation in existing White city councils, town councils and divisional councils is being proposed by the Government. We want to ask the hon. the Minister on what basis this will take place. It is very important for us to know, because it will not be possible to solve the problems I have mentioned and which have to be investigated in a year or two. All governing institutions, as well as own institutions, first have to be made viable.

The hon. the Minister once said that the President’s Council had proved one thing, and that was that different races could serve on the same bodies and that they could return home at night without sacrificing their identities. Here the hon. the Minister was telling us that integration could work. [Interjections.] I am convinced that if this interim measure of admitting people of colour to local government institutions is applied and if it works at all, that hon. Minister can come to us and say that further investigation of problem areas is not necessary because it works. Integration at local government level works. The voters of South Africa want to know this. We are not prepared to give the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning a blank cheque to move towards integration. That is why we want to know these things.

As far as the implementation of the Promotion of Local Government Affairs Bill is concerned, the willingness of the various population groups plays a fundamental role. The willingness of the Whites to accept integration at the first, second and third levels of government can only be tested by means of a White referendum in which the question is clearly formulated and drawn up in co-operation with all the parties and in which the same question, at our request, should be put to the Coloureds, the Whites and the Indians.

It first has to rain though.

We also ask the hon. the Minister to keep this Bill which is part of the constitutional reform in abeyance until such time as the Whites in South Africa have given their decision by means of a referendum. If the hon. the Minister needs advice in the interim the President’s Council is there and can serve him as an advisory body.

Now you are recognizing that council.

It is an institution of the Government. The Government should make use of the President’s Council and then it would not be necessary to create another advisory body.

In the 1960 referendum when we asked the people of South Africa to vote “Yes” so that South Africa could become a free, independent Republic, the White citizens of the Union of South Africa residing in South West also participated in the referendum. What I am asking the hon. the Minister is that in this referendum in which a decision has to be taken on this legislation and on the envisaged constitution, the Whites of South West Africa should also be asked to give their opinion. I have said that the willingness of the Whites has to be tested by means of the referendum…

What about the Whites in the Transkei and the Ciskei?

I hear the hon. the Deputy Minister asking about the Whites in the Transkei and the Ciskei. The willingness of the White citizens of the Republic of South Africa residing in the Transkei and the Ciskei should also be tested.

The willingness of the other groups with regard to the legislation and the envisaged constitution, is clear from certain reports in the Press. In Rapport of June 1983 I read—

What are these people, the Coloureds who have to co-operate to implement the Bill, asking for? According to Mr. Curry, the crux of the matter is that separate municipalities for separate population groups are not unacceptable at all. This was the decision of the congress of the Association of Management Committees in Kimberley. I am quoting further—

This is what the Coloureds are asking for. I now want to quote from Beeld of 1 June—

The Citizen wrote—

Whether the Bill is going to work and whether the Government’s ideals are going to succeed will depend solely on the co-operation of these people. The Coloureds were dissatisfied with the Bill which the hon. the Minister introduced without consulting them beforehand. Now I read in the Sunday Times, after they had held talks with the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning—

After the Coloureds had said they refused to accept clause 18, the clause in terms of which local authorities are introduced for Coloureds and Indians, the hon. the Minister held talks with them, and he then climbed down and met their demands.

He was despondent.

Sir, the CP expresses its strongest opposition to this legislation and asks that it not be implemented until the White voters of South Africa have by means of a referendum given the Government a mandate to proceed with it. Since the chairman of a committee of the President’s Council said on behalf of the Government that the Government intends to achieve its objective with all the means at its disposal, I want to say that the CP is going to fight these constitutional proposals of the Government with all the means at its disposal.

Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to react to the speech by the hon. member for Kuruman, because I cannot follow the logic of his arguments …

He is a blockhead (“houtkop”), man.

He attacked the Bill

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare, the leader of the NP in the Free State, allowed to say that an hon. member is a blockhead?

Of course he is a blockhead.

Order! This utterance was also questioned a few days ago. The hon. member must withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I shall withdraw it, but he should not scratch his head too much, because splinters can be sharp.

Nak, you are an old meathead.

Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order: I should like to ask you whether the hon. the Minister should not withdraw it unconditionally and, furthermore, whether the hon. member for Kimberley should not withdraw it as well.

Order! The hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare must withdraw the remark unconditionally.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it unconditionally.

Mr. Speaker, I too, withdraw it unconditionally and at the same time I should like to ask whether the hon. member for Kuruman is entitled to call the hon. the Minister meathead.

Order! I want to point out to hon. members that it can be a pleasure to hear witticisms in the House, but remarks such as these get us nowhere. They merely waste the time of this House. I ask the hon. member for Kuruman to withdraw the word “meathead”.

Mr. Speaker, I regret having said such a thing to the hon. the Minister. I do not think that it is fitting to hurl insults at one another. I withdraw it.

Order! The hon. member for Durban Point may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kuruman attacked the Bill because the hon. the Minister was supposedly using it to give effect to his policy of integration, but then he attacked the hon. the Minister because he was going to propose amendments to change the legislation. I do not know what the hon. member is objecting to. Is he objecting to the legislation or to the amendment? It seems to me as if the hon. member does not understand the amendments at all. I shall deal with them in a moment, and I want to ask the hon. member just to be a little patient.

I also want to react to what the hon. member for Turffontein said. He launched spiteful attacks on two hon. members of the NRP, as usual. I do not know whether he is seeking justification for a problem of conscience he is experiencing or whether he wants to prove himself. Whenever the hon. member speaks, he launches personal and spiteful attacks on other hon. members. If he does not know it, I want to point out to the hon. member that as far as his attack on the hon. member for Umbilo is concerned, the hon. member for Umbilo rose when next it was his turn to speak and in a dignified manner, according to the traditions of this House, stated that he withdrew any reflection on the integrity of the hon. the Minister and that he had not meant to cast a reflection. That was a dignified admission that he did not question the integrity of the hon. the Minister. He stood up personally and said so. The hon. member for Turffontein also attacked the hon. member for Durban North for having supposedly complained about consultation, but in fact he complained about the hon. the Minister. Our complaint was that there had been no consultation about the Bill itself. The hon. the Minister held further consultations subsequently, and I shall refer to that again. So the hon. member for Turffontein is in fact criticizing the hon. the Minister, because the hon. the Minister himself proceeded with further consultations, which we welcomed.

†I want to put the position of this party very clearly. This party is committed to fight for an elective form of provincial or regional government. That is the decision of this party and it is its approach and policy. When this Bill was introduced it clearly by-passed provincial authority and thereby diminished the rights of provincial councils. We attacked two aspects concerning this measure.

Firstly, it had not been subjected to the full consultation which had been agreed upon—i.e. consultation with the provincial councils themselves on the detail of the Bill. There had been general talk on the general principle of a consultative body; nobody disagrees with that. The hon. member for Umbilo himself said that this party accepts the principle of a co-ordinating body to replace the ad hoc committee. We have no quarrel with that.

Secondly, our quarrel was with the provisions which give to the Minister and the central Government powers to exercise functions that are currently the duty and functions of the provincial councils. Because this Bill thereby diminished the authority of the provinces indirectly by handing the same powers to the Minister, we attacked those two aspects, i.e. the lack of consultation on the detail of the Bill as printed and the effects of the Bill on the provincial councils. We called for further consultation, for further negotiation and discussion. We reacted strongly because we saw this as sidestepping the rights of the provinces, and we would do so again if we believed it necessary.

I have said, and I say again, that we are prepared to co-operate with the government on any issue which we see as being in South Africa’s interests, but we are not rubber stamps or door mats who are simply going to say “yes”. When we see something with which we disagree, we shall disagree, and we shall disagree strongly. The fact of the matter is—it is a fact; it is not a supposition—that this Bill was not seen by the provincial council which is controlled by this party, i.e. the Natal Executive, and not even by the leader of that Executive. That Executive Committee had not yet seen this measure when it was tabled in this House, and they did not see it until we sent a copy to them. They then studied it and came back to us and said that the measure went far beyond what was ever discussed. So we called for negotiation. This was a natural thing to do and we shall always do so. As watchdogs of the rights of the provincial council which we control, and of other provincial councils ipso facto, if we believe that provincial councils are being stalked by stealth we shall shoot on sight, as we did in regard to this measure, and I believe with good effect.

I think the course of this debate, and also of this Bill, has been an object lesson to South Africa. The debate was interrupted and negotiations took place between the hon. the Minister, the Administrator and the Executive Committee of the province of Natal. Discussions were also held with the Labour Party …

I did not have consultations with the Labour Party.

I mean the Association of Management Committees,—with Mr. Curry, who is also chairman of the Labour Party. As a result of these discussions problem areas were eliminated and consensus was reached. Surely this is what the whole new dispensation is all about: A new style of negotiation and consensus politics. This is what the whole story is about. If it is not, then we have been totally misled as to its real objective. Here we have a measure to which there were strong fundamental objections, but by negotiation agreement and consensus were reached. This is what the hon. the Minister himself says is the whole object of the new form of politics: the idea of sitting around a table and negotiating with the objective of gaining consensus. In this sense this measure has given us an object lesson in the new way of solving disputes and differences.

That is why the PFP is out on a limb. They do not understand this style of politics. They understand confrontation politics, confrontation by bluster, and not this form of talking together and seeking agreement.

Mr. Speaker, it ought to be obvious to anyone except a nitwit that the provincial system is going to have to be adapted to meet the new dispensation by providing for consultation, negotiation and joint decision-making.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member how he interprets the decision taken by the federal congress of the NP on 31 July 1982, to the effect that provincial councils and the boundaries of the provinces will remain unaltered until at least the end of their present term of office?

That decision goes hand in hand with the undertaking given by the hon. the Prime Minister, and repeated by the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development, that continuing negotiations and discussions with the provincial councils themselves will continue and that nothing will be done, for instance the councils will not be abolished, until these negotiations, followed by a technical examination of the various possibilities, have run their course. The minimum undertaking that was given was that the provincial councils would last their present life. I accept that. The provincial councils are engaged in the process of negotiation and a committee has been appointed, a committee on which the NRP is represented through a member of the Natal Executive Committee. So discussions are taking place. What we objected to as far as the Bill before the House is concerned was that it appeared to circumvent, to by-pass those discussions, those negotiations, and to forestall what ultimate decisions were going to be taken by the provincial councils themselves. That was our objection: We saw this as by-passing the procedures which were to be followed in determining the future of provincial councils.

Mr. Speaker, we have before us a Bill on which agreement has been reached, an agreement which has to a large measure removed the objections we had to the Bill. The points on which agreement has been reached correspond almost verbatim with the amendments which we have placed on the Order Paper. There is one with which I may as well deal now. It is one which is not included in the amendments of which the hon. the Minister has given notice. Nevertheless, we believe it is essential. That is the one dealing with the Municipal Development Board, specifically with the aspect indicating that the formation of that board could lead to the duplication of work being done by already existing bodies. In Natal there is the Development and Services Board, which does exactly this job. I understand that some agreement has been reached on this point, and I do hope the hon. the Minister will also deal with this because that is the one aspect that is not covered. This Bill, as it is proposed to be amended—I should like to stress that—will have removed from it those clauses and those provisions which sought to by-pass provincial authority. The Administrator will now be defined as “Administratorin-executive”, in the context of clause 18. Sub-clause 18(1) is expected to be deleted, and this new body which is to be formed can then only have its recommendations carried out by the hon. the Minister acting in consultation with an Administrator-in-executive. That is a specific term, a specific constitutional concept. “In any consultation” means “by consultation and agreement”. Therefore by-passing of a provincial authority will now be eliminated.

Clause 14 is also to be amended.

Clause 14 is not be amended; it is to be deleted altogether.

Yes, that is correct. Clause 14 is to be deleted. That clause empowered the hon. the Minister to declare a person or institution to be a local authority. Again that is specifically a power to be exercised by a provincial council. However, this whole provision is now to be deleted.

I could refer to various other aspects of this Bill in detail. There are, however, only a few specific aspects of our amendments to which I still want to refer. Owing to the proposed deletion of clause 14, references to “person” also fall away. Furthermore the hon. the Minister will now only receive advice but will act through provincial councils. The implementation of recommendations will take place through provincial councils.

That is the intention.

That is the intention, but the Bill was not originally worded as such. The hon. the Minister correctly states that it is the intention. It was, however, not originally the wording of the Bill. The wording is to be altered now, and the grey areas are to be eliminated. I believe that as a result of that, the threat to provincial councils has been obviated, which means that we cannot any longer claim, as the hon. member for Kuruman did, that a take-over of the powers of the provincial councils is imminent. That is a matter we can deal with later, and we will deal with it on merit when specific proposals are received. It is, however, no longer an issue in this Bill.

I do hope, Mr. Speaker, that certain newspapers, among which is The Daily News in Durban, will now stop the practice to which they have resorted lately. The Daily News in particular has published article after article in which it claims that this measure is going to lead to the demise of the provincial system; that the NRP is handing over Natal on a plate to the NP, etc. There has been a series of cartoons depicting me handing over Natal on a plate or throwing it into the depths of a canyon, etc. [Interjections.] Of Course I do not expect those newspapers to stop that practice. I do, however, hope that they will have the grace to concede that by negotiation instead of by confrontation consensus can ultimately be reached, and also that all those things of which they accuse us are in fact not true.

Through negotiation by the Natal Executive, and as a result of the attitude we have taken up, agreement through consultation and negotiation was reached and we have prevented those negative things happening. The truth is thus the exact opposite of what we have been accused of. However, I believe that would be expecting too much from those newspapers.

That is the result of their claim that the people have the right to know.

Yes. “The right to know” is a beautiful phrase, as long as they have the right to know what they want them to know.

The hon. member for Hillbrow asked us what our attitude is in view of these changes. I want to say immediately that we welcome the proposed amendments to the Bill. We welcome the procedure that has been followed by the hon. the Minister. If the Bill were before us as it is proposed to be amended, we would be able to support it in principle and at Second Reading, but unfortunately that is not the position, technically, at present. The technical position is that what is before the House now is the Bill as printed originally, and we cannot support or vote for it as such because then we would be voting for the very thing which the hon. the Minister and we ourselves agree should be eliminated. We would then be voting for the Bill as printed and that we cannot do because we are opposed to the printed provisions in the Bill before us.

That is not what Ron Miller said. [Interjections.]

Why do you not listen instead of showing your ignorance?

If the hon. member for Hillbrow would occasionally listen to what is being said, he would be able to make an intelligible contribution to the debate instead of some of the gobbledygook one usually hears from him and which nobody over here or over there seems to be able to understand.

I do my best.

The hon. member for Hillbrow does not understand what this Bill is about.

No!

Certainly, he does not understand what the amendments are about.

Who says so?

I repeat that, because of the technical situation, we cannot vote for the Bill as it stands, but we accept the bona fides of the hon. the Minister’s intention to amend it. However, an intention is not a legal provision.

You are differing from the hon. member for Durban North.

We have changed our views, and we say so clearly. We are no longer going to support the “confrontation and total rejection” amendment of the CP, the amendment that this Bill be read “this day six months”. That we are not going to support because we no longer go along with a total rejection. [Interjections.] The only way in which this Bill can be amended other than by passing it and then going into Committee would be to have it referred to a Select Committee before the Bill is read a Second Time. For totally different reasons, therefore, we would like to see this Bill come here including the proposed amendments when we could support it at Second Reading. So we will support the hon. members of the official Opposition. [Interjections.] We will support them … [Interjections.] But seeing that they have not put one single amendment on the Order paper, they obviously have no contribution to make in a Select Committee. It will be left to us to make the positive contribution. Then we could have an amended Bill before us which we could accept and support wholeheartedly. [Interjections.] We are going to support and vote for the amendment of the official Opposition, although for a different reason. We see it as the only way in which this Bill can be amended before it is read a Second Time and before it goes into the Committee Stage. If this proposal is not accepted, as we assume will be the case, we will not then support the proposal that this Bill be read “this day six months”.

Vause, it sounds very confusing.

When we then come to the Committee Stage, we will support the amendments put on the Order Paper by the hon. the Minister and will also move our own amendments. If those are accepted, as it appears they will be, then we will support the Third Reading, but we cannot now tie ourselves to voting for the Bill containing as it does provisions which have not yet been deleted. We will then help the official Opposition in asking for a Select Committee in order that these amendments may be passed. The Bill can then come back to the House and they can then vote with us for the Second Reading and for a measure which everyone accepts.

Mr. Speaker, we have almost come to the end of the Second Reading discussion of this Bill. I shall not disregard the Whips’ arrangements by making a long contribution to the debate. I promise that my contribution will be brief.

I listened attentively to the debate. There were contributions which were really most constructive, but hon. members will concede that a lot of nonsense was also spoken, on occasion even more than there were constructive contributions. When I say this I am referring in particular to the hon. member for Kuruman who is so eloquent these days and who ended where he ought in fact to have begun. [Interjections.] I shall await my opportunity to discuss matters with him. He knows that I am infinitely patient. I shall save it for another day.

I do not feel like quarrelling today. This is a day on which one would prefer to agree with people, rather than to quarrel with them. The hon. member for Hillbrow, who is now the acting Chief Whip of the PFP, simply cannot get away from what the hon. member for Durban Point described so effectively as his “gobbledygook”. For want of an argument, the hon. member for Hillbrow is quibbling with the hon. the Minister because he allowed the Second Reading of this legislation to continue for two hours and then allowed his Vote to come up for discussion. In all fairness I should like to ask whether it has now become a new practice for arrangements among the Whips, in regard to which parties have arrived at a mutual agreement, to be elevated into a public debate and that the Minister who is dealing with legislation is drawn into a debate on arrangements that were made between Whips? [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon. member for Hillbrow at once that I do not think he has ever been under the impression—nor need he ever have been under that impression—that any party is under any pressure whatsoever in discussions of this nature to agree to the sequence in which legislation and Votes should be discussed. If the hon. member is not satisfied with an arrangement of this kind, he must not tag along behind the hon. member for Sea Point and try to repeat what the hon. member said here in his ignorance. He should rather help to ensure that we clear up the matter among ourselves as responsible Whips.

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

No, I first want to ask the hon. member a question before he asks me one. He really has been a Whip long enough, and he really has enough responsibility, to know that when we discuss these matters he is entitled to ask his questions. He must not waste the time of this House so that I also have to waste the time of the House as a result in telling him this again. He should rather ensure that in future we dispose of this matter among ourselves as Whips.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister not to allow himself to be drawn into this argument, which is to a purely organizational level, and has now been raised by the hon. member in a very improper way. The hon. member for Hillbrow may now ask his question.

Sir, I want to ask two questions. Is the hon. the Chief Whip aware of the fact that we were accused of not keeping to the Whips’ arrangements, and secondly, can the hon. member, with all his experience in the House, give us a precedent of when a Bill was discussed in this way, knowing that the Second Reading could not be completed?

Let me begin with the second question. If the hon. member for Hillbrow had objected so strongly in principle to the legislation being dealt with for two hours before the Vote came up for discussion—this was the express agreement because it did not really have anything to do with the legislation as such, but primarily with the disposing of the Vote—he should have asked at that stage already whether there was any precedent for dealing with matters in that way. He should then have told me that they were not in favour of doing so. There is no sense in asking me today whether there is such a precedent. The hon. member is merely trying to be clever by asking me this question today. If he wishes to argue about the matter, then he has the channels for doing so. I shall not bite his head off if he comes and asks me.

As far as his first question is concerned, it is of such minor importance that I have almost forgotten what it was. I think the hon. member referred to his having been accused of having broken an agreement among the Whips. What agreement could he have broken? We spent two hours on a discussion of the Bill and then we went on to the discussion of the Vote. Consequently the hon. member could not have broken any agreement among the Whips. The argument which was raised by the hon. the Minister by way of interjection—for at that stage he had not yet had an opportunity to reply to the hon. member—was why the hon. member was questioning a meaningful arrangement among Whips and was putting questions in that connection to him, the Minister. I want to tell the hon. member that if he wants to put questions of that kind, he should put it to me as the Chief Whip on the Government side.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to refer briefly to certain remarks made by the hon. Leader of the NRP. I shall reply in detail when reacting to the speeches of the hon. member for Umbilo and Durban North.

I have never adopted the standpoint that negotiations should not take place. Indeed, I have repeatedly made the plea that the new style of government of the country should take place on the basis of negotiation. However, I want to say to the hon. member for Durban Point that it is not enough merely to pay lip service to the concept of negotiation. We shall also have to recognize that there are certain codes of conduct that have to apply when people who are parties to negotiation, co-operate with one another. It is a fact that at the meeting of the National Liaison Committee on 14 March of this year the principles of this legislation were accepted. This is recognized and conceded by all the parties that were present.

May I please ask a question?

I want to complete my argument first, and after that the hon. member can put his question. During that specific discussion certain rules of procedure were laid down in regard to the handling of the proposed legislation that was to give effect to the acceptance of three principles, viz. firstly, the establishment of the co-ordinating council, secondly, the establishment of municipal development boards and, thirdly, the handling of interim measures for better liaison at the local level. As far as this specific Bill is concerned, the arrangement was that discussions would take place between my department and the United Municipal Executive. It was also agreed that the final Bill would be referred to the Administrators of the provinces and the ad hoc committee for management and local affairs committees. When the minutes of that meeting were delivered to my desk for transmission to the other participating parties I issued a specific instruction to my department with regard to the further handling of the resolutions contained therein. It was to the effect that certain follow-up actions were necessary, that they had to be done and that the people who had to do them had to be identified. I myself forwarded this to the Administrators under my signature, if I remember correctly. Therefore I had no need to conceal the fact that there had been certain agreements. Having made this note I was able—I believe the hon. member will concede that—to draw the reasonable conclusion that those specific steps had been taken to follow up the matter. I believe the hon. member will concede that. I note that he does concede it. When I ascertained what happened, before the Natal Provincial Administration had contacted me, I immediately initiated the process of rectifying an obvious administrative error.

I now come to codes of conduct that apply, but I want to say in advance that I accept responsibility for the administrative error. The limited number of officials I have are working under greater pressure than any hon. member of this House. I say this on behalf of my officials and for that reason I want to convey my thanks to them for the success that they are nevertheless achieving.

A second agreement, among others, was reached at the same meeting on 14 March. It related to the issue of the use of sports-grounds by specific communities and sports bodies. A general standpoint was unanimously adopted to the effect that we should ensure that where sportsgrounds have been established for a specific community out of community funds, the community for whom it was intended should have the right to use it. It was agreed that the provinces should determine what their legislative power is in this regard in respect of contracts of lease entered into by them or by management committees or by local authorities where the beneficiary, in terms of such a contract, refuses other people participation in sports facilities.

The Cape Provincial Administration complied with its undertaking in this regard, but the Natal Provincial Administration did not. At that stage I did not…

But they have the power.

No, that is not correct. The hon. member must not say things that are wrong. I discussed this with his MPC. I do not want an argument now; it is unnecessary.

I did not propose a motion in this House against a member of an executive committee in which I accused him of having broken his word. I did not introduce a motion deploring his conduct, because I assumed that there could be reasons to explain people’s conduct.

I now come to the point, and this is what I meant by a code of conduct that must apply. It was as easy as picking up a telephone to say that we had agreed that the Bill should be sent to us for comment, but that was not done. In the nature of the matter I would have taken the corrective steps that are my responsibility. I want to ask the hon. the leader of the NRP something. He knows that I held a personal discussion with him in this regard. Does he as a Parliamentarian approve of the introduction of a motion questioning people’s integrity without any reference being made to another party involved in discussions and arguments? Is that the basis that is to apply in regard to people involved in negotiations? The hon. member can now ask his question.

My question actually concerns something said a moment ago, whether Natal does not already have authorization in regard to the use of facilities.

I should prefer not to reveal the contents of private discussions; I therefore think that the hon. member should leave it at that. However, Mr. Martin conceded that there had been an oversight. All I am arguing about now is the method adopted to rectify the matter. Let me tell the hon. member frankly that the conduct of his party to rectify what was wrong was not in the tradition of parliamentary conduct, nor was it in the tradition of people who chooses consultation and co-operation as a method of finding one another. That is all I want to say.

Tell us why.

Could that hon. member not please just go and perform an operation on himself?

I want to warn against one thing, and I do so in all earnest. It is in the interests of all of us and it applies to all of us. When parties differ with one another, we must not attack one another on such a personal basis. That gets us nowhere. I gave an undertaking that I would not do so because I know how delicate the negotiations are. The hon. member for Durban Point who served with me on the Select Committee knows how we struggle to obtain the optimum co-operation in that Committee so as to eliminate some of the divisions. The hon. member will be able to confirm that.

Yes, that is so.

If we understand that then we must really act according to our record when we have an objection. I shall leave the matter at that for the moment.

Can I ask the hon. the Minister a question? How could the Executive Committee of the province of Natal possibly have telephoned the hon. the Minister when they were not even given the Bill? They did not have the Bill before them.

That is not the point about which the province felt aggrieved. The province quite rightly felt aggrieved because the Bill had been introduced, quite apart from its contents, without reference to the Administrator. That was the omission and we conceded that. All I am arguing at the moment is the code of behaviour that should be applicable under circumstances like these. I accept responsibility for that omission and I have conveyed that fact to that institution and to the others. All I am suggesting in all fairness is that if there are, and there will be, mistakes and omissions in future, let us act in the spirit enunciated by the hon. leader of the NRP and by other members as well. I think that it will then not be necessary that we have this type of argument across the floor or a slamming match in the Press.

*The debate on this subject was interesting because it clarified the positions of the various parties for us. It was dangerous, too, because there were dangerous phenomena that manifested themselves not only in this debate but also outside this House. Mr. Speaker, with your permission I should very much like to refer to that. It is very clear—and here I want to address the hon. member for Sea Point—that in a fanatical effort to get away from their destructive image of a party that plays politics in respect of any reform proposals which, in the first place, are not reconcilable with their liberalist philosophy, to get away from their boycott policy and conduct, that is consistently manifested in respect of all reform proposals—and I shall deal with that with the hon. member—to get away, and I say this with all respect, from their pathetic performance in the constitutional debate, they had to find some other way to try and regain lost honour. Do hon. members know what that way is? It is to resort to personal attacks and mud-slinging as methods of undermining people.

†That is the only thing that I am going to say about the hon. member for Berea because nothing else that he has said requires an answer. All that he has done, was to repeat, much more inadequately, the arguments of the hon. member for Sea Point, as the hon. member for Turffontein already pointed out. However, I should like to tell the hon. member one thing. Vilification of persons has never been a substitute for an argument, and an advocate such as the hon. member would normally understand this. On the one hand I am being accused by that hon. member and by others of arrogance while on the other hand I am being accused by the CP of crawling before people. Both cannot be true. I have persistently said that I am prepared to do everything possible to try to get people through a process of negotiation to improve the constitutional dispensation in this country. I have not only said it. If the hon. member for Berea would inspect my record, he would find the tangible evidence of a process that has already started, a process for which I do not claim acknowledgment. However, what I do want to say is that the result of those efforts of my colleagues and of the department are tangible and have manifested something that the hon. member does not like, and that is that the leaders of Coloured parties who formerly were not prepared to work within a system are prepared to do so now. It is to be found in the fact that never before has the process of discussion and negotiation attained the extent it has attained during the past few years between the various levels of government, between the various institutions on those levels and also the organizations serving those institutions. The process may be inadequate, but let us then debate the inadequacy or otherwise and refrain from scurrilous attacks on people.

*It is also very clear that the official Opposition is gradually finding out that there is growing opposition, a growing distaste for their approach to reform, to the concept, the method and content of reform. The official Opposition and the people who tell them what to say and parrot them are finding out that their support is draining away like water in driftsand. This also explains other things, things that I want to call dangerous. Nowadays there are more people from all population groups who want to participate in a peaceful and orderly process of reform than ever before. If every one of them and if every one of us were, on the other hand, to adopt a non-negotiable standpoint as regards what the content of reform should be, what results would we ever achieve? What hope would we have?

It is also clear that there is grave concern in the ranks of the official Opposition about the increasing support won by the Government in the ranks of all population groups for its initiative with regard to reform. That is why they speak in such derogatory terms about political leaders who are prepared to participate in the process although they do not necessarily agree with it and have turned it down in the past. Surely the hon. member knows that that is true. The fact that there are political parties in the ranks of the Coloureds and the Indians that want to cooperate towards a new constitutional dispensation came as a shock to the official Opposition. They did not expect such a thing. At the same time they did not anticipate to what extent the voters, voters of members of this House, support the momentum of reform. We would be able to conduct a debate forever on whether it is adequate or inadequate, whether the methods are adequate or inadequate, but we should make no progress with such a debate. Instead of those people, who say they seek peaceful solutions for the country’s problems, welcoming and supporting the progress we are making, what we get from them is personal attacks. What other methods are there, from the point of view of the hon. member for Berea, of trying to recover the indwindling support, if not by making personal attacks? Surely there are other organizations and bodies in the world that use this pattern of undermining of people as a substitute for arguments.

You are too sensitive.

No, I am not sensitive. I am replying to the hon. member now without attacking him personally. I am discussing his conduct, and I am fully entitled to do so.

But consider the phase that has now begun in the approach of the hon. official Opposition. You will recall, Sir, their attitude was a total rejection of the constitutional proposals. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition—and this is interesting—intimated their total rejection of the proposals in the most drastic way possible in this Parliament …

Are you referring to the Bill before the House?

Surely this Bill does not contain constitutional proposals. It seems to me that I shall have to give the hon. member lectures on law as well.

It is a pity you are such a poor teacher.

I concede that, because it is difficult to teach anyone who needs a brain operation.

Let us see what has happened since the hon. the Leader of the Opposition intimated his rejection of the proposals. This is terribly interesting. Since then, three motions have been placed on the Order Paper, motions containing instructions to the Select Committee that is to consider the Constitution Bill. Two of those motions came from members of the PFP who had not even participated in the debate on the draft constitution, viz. the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Yeoville.

You are going to have to apologize again. Did not the hon. member for Houghton take part in that debate?

The point I want to make is that the two members who are furthest away from one another in the ranks of the PFP are the people who are now proposing to give instructions to the Select Committee. But it is also interesting that the hon. member for Sea Point, too, submitted one. [Interjections.] Yes, this afternoon the hon. member for Berea also introduced one. The point is that they could have moved the motions they are introducing in this way, as amendments to this Second Reading. If that was the substance of what they thought was lacking in the proposals, then that was the appropriate way to move their motions in this regard, viz. by way of amendments. It is obvious that the hon. member for Sea Point wants to outbid the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

I serve on the Select Committee; he does not. The question is, are we going to discuss those motions?

Just give me a chance. I want to ask the hon. member for Sea Point, and he must give me a reasonable reply: is there any domination of any party by any other party in the Select Committee?

We have not discussed the constitution yet.

I am speaking about the situation to date. After all, the Committee has met often. The Select Committee on the Constitution has been sitting for almost two years. Has there ever been domination at any stage, any domination of any parties by any other party in the Committee?

May I ask you a question?

First answer my question.

I want to answer your question by way of a question. [Interjections.] As far as that is concerned, I have no objections, but I do not know what the position is going to be in future.

I find that very interesting. The hon. member says he has no objection to the functioning of the Select Committee to date. Nevertheless he now says that he does not know how it will operate in future. [Interjections.]

However, Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude with a general remark in this regard. I now want to refer to something which I believe is very dangerous. I am sorry that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not in the House at the moment. There are growing indications that in the light of the acceptance by the PFP of its rejection by the public at large, a new method is developing with regard to the practice of politics. Interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, it always has its first origins in newspapers supporting the PFP. I contend that in the first place, deliberate efforts are being made to divide and polarize White politics on ethnic or language grounds. I see the hon. member for Sea Point is laughing. He can laugh if he likes, Mr. Speaker. However, I want to request him to go and read an article that appeared in The Cape Times on 18 June. I ask him please to go and read it.

What is the basic point of departure in that article? In the first instance, it is that the Afrikaner cannot be entrusted with the maintenance of individual rights. In the second instance, English-speaking people are warned that associating themselves with the reform proposals of the NP implies that they are dissociating themselves from their traditional values and conceptions. It is these people who are accusing others of expressing ethnicity in the constitution. I say in all earnest that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must consider his position as far as that standpoint is concerned. I want to know whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition associates himself with these efforts that are being made. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Will we be allowed during the Committee Stage to reply to what the hon. the Minister says now? The hon. the Minister is not speaking to the Bill now. Therefore I should like to know whether we will be allowed during the Committee Stage to reply to the points made by the hon. the Minister now. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hillbrow can reply to that during the Third Reading, too. He will have a lot of time to reply to this.

During the Third Reading of this Bill?

Of course, yes. What is the hon. member’s problem now?

Why do you not issue a statement, Alf? After all, that is what you usually do. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I contend that it is a transparent tactic in the part of the PFP to revive old divisions on the country again. [Interjections.] That is what they do while we are trying—and I do not apologize for this—to achieve greater unity across colour lines. While we are trying to do this, we encounter this transparent effort to revert to old divisions in the ranks of the Whites. I believe that this is tragic, and dangerous as well.

It is important that in reply to this debate we should provide clear replies to a few questions. The first concerns the needs that exist for which this legislation has to provide. The second concerns the processes that preceded the introduction of this legislation. I believe that these are important questions. I also believe that hon. members are entitled to ask these questions and, moreover, to require me to provide answers to them. The third question is whether this legislation can meet that need, at least to a reasonable extent. The fourth question is whether, contentwise, this legislation enjoys the support of the agencies concerned.

†I should like to reply to these and to other questions.

Include the provincial system.

I am coming to that. The first question is whether the need exists for which the Bill intends to make provision. In other words, does there exist a need, firstly, for co-ordination at various levels of government in relation to the subject matter of this Bill? Secondly, does there exist a need for co-ordination and consultation between the various institutions which exist on these levels?

We agree on that.

The hon. member agrees. Therefore he also agrees with the first component of this Bill, namely the establishment of a co-ordinating council. He agrees with that.

*I want to begin by referring to the need. In this regard I want to quote from a recommendation of the President’s Council, the body that the hon. member for Kuruman wants me to consult instead of this advisory council that I want to establish. The President’s Council states (P.C. 1/1982, Recommendation 3, p. 104)—

Therefore the President’s Council identifies this need for communication. It then refers to the national liaison committees and regional committees. The President’s Council goes on to say (P.C. 1/1982, par. 5.7)—

†Then the hon. member for Hillbrow says I want to establish procedures for interim measures, in terms of clause 18 of the Bill, between the various local authority’s communities. He said I am doing it because I want to force the supporters of the CP to consult. The evidence is, however, that in many cases the city councils are supporters of that hon. member’s party. I need hardly remind him of that. What basis does he then have for his statement? None whatsoever. I want to go further.

Why was Black administration taken away from local authorities?

I am coming to that.

*Recommendation 21 reads—

It does not state that he must perform a controlling function, but a developmental and co-ordinating function. What does the legislation propose if not that the Minister must thereby perform a developmental and co-ordinating function?

But read what you yourself said in your introductory speech.

With great respect, Sir, I am replying to the objections raised by the hon. members. I shall quote just one more recommendation by the President’s Council, viz. recommendation 22—

I take it that these are the provincial associations—

In other words, the need for the legislation has been identified. The hon. member for Berea agrees with me in this regard. However, that is not all. As far as liaison is concerned the President’s Council recommends in recommendation 22 the interim measures for which clause 18 of the legislation makes Provision. The three elements, namely coordination by a council, development aid by way of institutions and interim communication channels are identified and submitted to us in terms of those recommendations.

Apart from the fact that the President’s Council makes this recommendation—the President’s Council is not acceptable to everyone—I held discussions on 13 November 1980 with representatives of local authorities and local affairs committees concerning one subject exclusively, viz. the effective liaison between them and other local authorities, more specifically in the cities. I undertook to take the matter up with the Administrators, MEC’s and other bodies. On 9 February 1981 I held discussions with the Administrators of the provinces, with the MEC’s entrusted with local management, with representatives of the UME and with representatives of local authorities. I have with me the list of people who were present. The hon. member for Umbilo was one of them.

†At that stage he was, I presume, the member in charge of local government. I have the minutes of that meeting here. The whole purport of that meeting was a request for better liaison between the various institutions.

We have no problem with that.

I am merely trying to identify whether there is a need for this Bill and I am doing it in reply to the accusations addressed to me by the official Opposition. [Interjections.] Do not be so sentitive.

[Inaudible.]

No, I am just suggesting that he was there. I am trying to define the process that proceded the introduction of this Bill.

*On 22 May 1981 I held a meeting with representatives of the local management committees of Athlone, Kensington, Wynberg and Rylands, all of them with the area of jurisdiction of the Cape Town city council. What was the subject of the discussions? It was a request by representatives of management committees for attendance at meetings of committees of the Cape Town city council. I am not quarrelling with anyone about that now. I merely wish to sketch the historical course of the processes preceding this legislation. I do this because I was accused by the hon. member for Sea Point of not having consulted these people. He says that I did not consult the provincial bodies or local authorities of the larger cities.

Read Mr. Curry’s statement.

I am talking about what the hon. member said. I am not dealing with Mr. Curry now. Do not draw him into this debate.

Do you disagree with him?

Do not draw Mr. Curry into this debate. I will come back to that issue. I have the minutes of that meeting here. Consequently I had discussions on this issue and on 5 October I had a meeting with the executive of the City Council of Cape Town and representatives of the management committees of Athlone, Wynberg, Kensington and Rylands.

May I please ask you a question?

I just wish to complete this point and then the hon. member may put his question. At these discussions the same point was canvassed again. After the discussions, I inquired from the Executive Committee whether as an interim measure and pending the publication of the President’s Council’s report on local government, the city council would be prepared to allow management committees to have representation on their standing committees “in an advisory and consultative capacity”. The Mayor was also present. He indicated that requests for representation on the Standing Committees would have to be referred to the council. I accepted that. This meeting was held on 5 October but I did not receive a reply until December. What is more, I only received that reply after the Town Clerk of Cape Town had commented on those discussions that we had had on 5 October, on 8 October, and I had issued a statement on 1 December deprecating the action that had been taken by commenting on those discussions on 8 October before we had even had the courtesy of a reply. Then, all of a sudden, the reply arrived dated 2 December. Do you know what the result was, Sir? I want to refer to this question very briefly. The Executive Committee of the Council considered the proposals on 26 November and made certain recommendations to the full council. The council rejected the recommendations of the Executive Committee by 12 votes to 6. Then the hon. member for Hillbrow tells us that it is the areas in which the CP operates that I want to force to cooperate. That is patently not correct. The hon. member for Sea Point may now ask his question.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a catch question. After all we are dealing here with a very serious matter. Considering the history of the matter and the existence of big civic associations in the area of the Cape Flats, does the hon. the Minister honestly believe that the management committees to which he has referred are truly representative of the wishes of the ratepayers in that area?

I do not believe that they are less representative of the people that they serve than the local authorities that are elected by low percentages are. However, I want to concede another point to the hon. member because I am not here to score points. I do not believe that the system is effective.

And that is why you want to change it.

That is why I want to change it. However, before I can do so, I want to see whether I can not establish communication, and the people who resist me in this are supporters of that hon. member’s party.

Such as?

It is true. I had discussions with them.

With the civic associations?

I had discussions with the city council of Cape Town. I do not want to get into a row with them. What I am trying to tell the hon. member is that there has been a continuous process to find ways and means for consultation with all the authorities in order to meet this particular need pending final arrangements. That is all I am saying. Because of these needs and because of the resistance I had a meeting on 18 November 1981 with administrators, with executive members and with representatives of the various municipal organizations. I think that they were there. I do not want the hon. member to hold me to this because I do not have all the information available to me with me at this moment. We had this meeting to establish liaison committees. As a result of that a national liaison committee was established on which supporters of that party served and attended. We also established regional committees, four in the Cape Province, one in the Orange Free State, Natal and Transvaal. Since then the regional committees and the national liaison committee had some 20 meetings dealing with various matters which affect these authorities and communities. On what basis can it be said that we did not consult and that we are flouting those institutions? On the last meeting which was held on 14 March—this is the vexed meeting—we agreed on the establishment of a South African Co-ordinating Council for Local Authorities and development boards. We also reached agreement on the interim measures. All who were present at that meeting supported—I want to make myself perfectly clear because I do not want to be misunderstood—the concept.

I now come to the hon. member for Sea Point specifically. His first line of attack on me was not on the substance of the Bill or its provisions, but the first accusation that he made …

The process.

Yes, the process. The hon. member need not repeat his argument. I shall repeat it for him.

I was only trying to help you.

The hon. member need not help me. I shall repeat it for him.

The first accusation he made was not based on the substance of the Bill, but on an alleged lack of consultation with the bodies and organizations involved, viz. the provincial administrations and the local authorities to which he added a third one and that was the larger local authorities. What is the position in this regard?

*On 27 January 1983—I am sorry that I have to discuss this matter at such length but, for the sake of the truth and the facts, I must put these matters on record—I held discussions on the contents of the Bill. I have already referred to the other processes that had already been finalized at that stage. The discussions on 27 January were held with the four Administrators and the four MEC’s entrusted with local management. The following matters were discussed: The proposed introduction of a co-ordinating council; the introduction of boards for technical assistance to local authorities for purposes of development; and legislation to incorporate the interim steps as recommended by the President’s Council and as supplemented in the guidelines.

With reference to the meeting of 27 January 1983 the Administrators conducted correspondence with me. For example, in a letter dated 7 March the Administrator of Natal put to me ideas not concerning the principle of the establishment of the co-ordinating council, but concerning the composition of the council and the functions of the boards concerned with technical assistance. Therefore he accepted that.

Was he acting on his own?

The hon. member should ask the Administrator.

All I want to know is whether he acted on his own.

How do I know, when I receive a letter from an Administrator, whether he acts on his own or on behalf of his Executive Committee?

It is very important to know that.

But how would I know that? Must I act as a policeman in respect of the Administrators?

But did he agree with it?

Have we not agreed that the hon. member’s party is in agreement with the principles?

Subsequently.

Wait a minute, please.

*The fact is that the Administrators and the MEC’s entrusted with local management had already, five months before the time, been aware of the subject matter of the Bill, of the subject matter and not the details. The hon. member of Sea Point accused me of not consulting anyone. On 14 February 1983 I conducted discussions with the five municipal associations comprising the UME, and on that occasion, too, it was conveyed to them that it was the Government’s intention to establish a co-ordinating council for local government affairs and to establish municipal aid boards and implement interim measures. In other words, the Government bodies affected have been consulted while the other organizations have also been consulted. However, I am being accused of not having consulted anyone.

On 4 March the first draft of the Bill was discussed by a senior official of my department with the Bills committee of the UME, under the chairmanship of the town clerk of Johannesburg, and various amendments were made to the first draft at the suggestion of that committee. Nevertheless my department and I are accused of not having consulted with the bodies affected hereby. I ask the hon. member, in all fairness, on what basis he does that.

Where do the amendments come from then?

I shall come to the amendments. What I find strange is that the hon. member’s new attitude is now that there may not be any amendments. That is a new approach, because I had thought that that was what we did in this House. I think that that is what consultation implies.

On 14 March at the meeting of the National Liaison Committee on which the provincial administrations, the UME, the South African Indian Council and the Association of Coloured and Indian management committees were represented, the principles underlying this legislation were discussed, and it was agreed that legislation was necessary to make provision for three matters, viz. the establishment of the co-ordinating council, the establishment of municipal aid boards and the introduction of central legislation to provide that the Minister, in consultation with the administrators, may make regulations to implement the interim measures in cases where local authorities do not wish to do so, and that the regulations will be implemented by the Administrators and not by the Minister. That was agreed on there. Therefore, there is no truth in the complaint that we are depriving the administrations of their powers. I have explained that it was agreed that the legislation would be referred to these bodies in its final form. After all, I said that. The hon. member for Sea Point will understand when I say that this was an administrative omission. I added that when I ascertained—the first people to bring this to my attention were the ad hoc committee of Management and Local Affairs Committees—I immediately made an appointment with them to discuss it. I think that that is the right thing to do in a case where a mistake has crept in.

That was after our attack.

It had nothing to do with an attack. The hon. member did not attack me because I had given an undertaking concerning the final Bill. He did not know that. The hon. member must not be childish now. I now want to come back to the code of conduct to be followed. If one feels aggrieved about something, such as, in this case, the ommission, and one approaches the person concerned and he then arranges discussions to rectify the matter, is it necessary for us to initiate a “slamming match” in the Press? Is that conducive to negotiations?

Those were not the only agreements we reached. We also said that we would try to do other things. I did not adopt the stand-point that conduct of this nature was justified. I knew that if I had done so, nothing would come of discussions and co-operation. On 16 March 1983 the Director-General of Constitutional Development and Planning consulted with the action committee of the UME in accordance with the decision by the liaison commitee. On 18 March 1983 the annual meeting of the UME considered the matter and at this point I wish to quote from the minutes of that meeting of the UME. I also quote this for the edification of the hon. member for Brakpan and the hon. member for Pietersburg, if he would listen—

The President further reported that the action committee also considered the draft that morning, viz. 17 March (read 18 March), and made the following recommendations on behalf of the action committee—

All the proposals put forward by the UME were accepted and included in the Bill. In one instance the UME suggested that their deputation should consist of ten members with three attached to the large cities. Because I recognize the special position of the large cities and also local authorities, I went further than the proposals submitted to me. Therefore we now have 12 members of the UME, five of whom must be from the large cities. Have I, then, ignored the interests of these people? Then the hon. member for Sea Point insinuates that the metropolitan areas have not been accommodated. What does the hon. member say? He asks: “What about the larger local authorities? Have there been any in-depth discussions or some measure of agreement with the larger local authorities, especially in the metropolitan areas? We suspect not.” I have the minutes of the meeting of the UME with me and I note inter alia that the representation at that meeting to which I have just referred comprises the following: Cape: Mr. Immelman, Vice-president; Prof. Schumann, the mayor of Stellenbosch, if I am not mistaken; Mr. Yeld; Mr. Spring of East London, and I do not think that anybody has any doubt whatsoever what his political convictions are; Mr. Young of Port Elizabeth, and I do not think that there is any doubt as to what his political convictions are either; Mr. R. N. Friedlander from Cape Town, and I do not think anybody doubts his convictions and Miss Read, if I remember correctly, from Pietermaritzburg. For the information of the hon. member for Pietersburg, Mr. Ferreira was there too. Mr. Ferreira is also the MPC for Waterberg and he displays a far greater degree of maturity than his leader and his MP in Parliament.

Now you are getting personal.

No, I am not getting personal. I am being attacked here by the hon. members of the CP about things that are supported by some of their representatives in the provinces. No, Sir, if we are to conduct a debate here then we must do so on the facts and we must do so fairly.

What is the hon. member for Sea Point doing now? He could very easily have dispelled all these suspicions which he is now airing. After all, he talks to Mr. Friedlander.

Did he see the Bill in its final form?

Oh please, I am now discussing the principle of consultation. That is after all the basis of these attacks which are being made on me. I am not discussing the Bill now. I have already said that the draft Bill was submitted to them. I told the hon. member that the UME proposed amendments, which I accepted. I also told him that I went even further and gave the larger cities more representatives on the council than had been proposed by the UME. That is all I am doing. No, it will not help the hon. member for Sea Point to sit there shaking his head now. He attacked me with a whole lot of innuendos and insinuations …

Did they see the Bill in its final form?

Mr. Speaker, just listen to the nonsensical question the hon. member is now asking.

I want to know.

I now wish to put a further question to the hon. member. The final Bill only becomes law when it is passed by this House. Should I now refer every amendment proposed by the hon. members here in this House back to those people for approval?

Oh, nonsense!

Of course it is nonsense. The hon. member is quite correct. That is the first intelligent remark the hon. member for Greytown has made this session. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Mr. Friedlander I must say the following at once: He is a well-known public figure in Cape Town, and also in the Cape. He has been mayor of Cape Town. I received a request from him and two other councillors to see them. I received their request on 17 June. Now hon. members must realize that Mr. Friedlander and his political associates became aware of the details of this Bill on 18 March of this year. The first time I received the request from the Town Clerk of Cape Town to receive a delegation, however, was on 17 June. The delegation consisted of Mr. Friedlander, Mr. Osburn and Mr. Muiller, if I remember correctly. I think I met them the day before yesterday. Since 18 March, three months have elapsed in which representations could have been made to me. [Interjections.]

I am sorry that I have to say certain things now, but I am obliged to do so in view of the accusations the hon. member for Sea Point is making against me. I pointed out to the delegation that the UME, at their request and with the concurrence of the Government, is the official channel through which negotiations are conducted with the local authorities in South Africa. Now the hon. member for Sea Point is accusing me of not having consulted. I shall return to this point again. Incidently, the hon. member for Pietersburg, as well as the hon. member for Kuruman and the hon. member for Brakpan ought to find this enlightening.

For the sake of all these hon. members I also wish to point out that apart from the members whose names I mentioned, Mr. Ferreira, the MPC for Waterberg, also participated in consultations. Incidentally, I think that those hon. members will concede that the MPC for Waterberg must have a special relationship to the hon. member for Waterberg. This simply has to be the case. If those hon. members now have such serious objections to this legislation, which will ostensibly bring about integration, I would suggest that a discussion is necessary between them and certain other people.

As far as this matter is concerned, it seems that I am now being compelled, finally, to quote the following passage. As regards consultation with the UME—I have now finished elucidating the process with the administrators—the former president of the UME, Dr. Schlebusch, reported as follows to the congress of the Cape Municipal Association. This was in April 1982. I quote as follows—

And then I am accused of not having consulted! I am simply mentioning these facts to place in its correct perspective the charge levelled by the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Berea who accused me—a charge which has no substance whatsoever—of being insensitive to other bodies and persons affected by this Bill. The hon. member for Berea based his standpoint solely on a report which he read and on what, according to him, one of the leaders of the Labour Party had said. He did not come to see me that day, but I have already dealt with that issue.

†On this issue I should like to conclude by saying that, after consultation throughout with all the interested parties over a period of five months in the final analysis, there was still a bona fide omission. That I have accepted and for that I have expressed my regret to the parties concerned. However, I want to go further.

Therefore we were justified in saying there was a lack of adequate consultation.

No, that is not the point the hon. member made. Let him go and read his speech.

The whole principle has been changed.

What principle has been changed in this Bill?

Tell that to the NRP.

The second allegation against me is that this Bill is the death-knell of the provincial system. On what basis does the hon. member for Sea Point advance that argument? He said that this is the death-knell for the provinces if not explicitly, then at least in intention. Let us check that. Again he makes use of the tactic of reading something into the Bill that is simply not there. What are the facts? The hon. member read the Bill, and these facts could be ascertained by reading the Bill. I concede that maybe he did not know Mr. Friedlander well enough to discuss the Bill with him. I will grant him that. Concerning the position of the provincial administrations, he says the point of their abolition is being reached. What is the position provided for in the Bill? In terms of clause 3(2)(b) the four Administrators will serve on the co-ordinating council. In terms of clause 3(2)(c) that member of each of the four executive committees of the provinces entrusted with local government affairs will serve on the council.

To advise you.

No, to advise the Government, and that includes the provinces.

To advise the Minister.

No, not the Minister. Read the provision. Sir, look at the basis on which the hon. member argues. I dare him to read the Bill and tell me where it is proposed that they will advise the Minister only. He made an interjection to that effect. Will he apologize? [Interjections.]

You had better not argue with him because then you will never finish.

In terms of clause 3(5) an Administrator will act as acting chairman of the council. In terms of clause 5(1)(a)(ii) an Administrator will serve on the action committee of the council. In terms of clause 9(2)(a) it will be possible to appoint officials from the provincial administrations on municipal development boards, as I pointed out in my introductory speech. In terms of clause 18, which is to become clause 17, the Minister may only make regulations in consultation with the Administrators. As I have indicated, that provision was inserted at the behest of these people.

That was not there when I made my speech.

Of course it was there. The hon. member says it was not there when he made his speech, but all that has happened is that clause 18(1) has been deleted because it expresses an intention. Further, in terms of clause 18 provincial administrations are empowered to take certain steps where local authorities default. It is not the Minister, but the Administrators. But they say the Bill represents the abolition of provincial administrations, in spite of the fact that the Administrators, MECs and officials will play a prominent role in terms of the provisions set out. But then the hon. member says that the Administrators, provincial excutives and provincial councils are already downgraded in terms of this Bill. He says it paves the way for greater centralization. On what basis does the hon. member say that? There is nothing in the Bill that would indicate that. There is nothing whatsoever.

The hon. member also says clause 4(e) paves the way for centralization. Clause 4(e) determines that the council may make recommendations with regard to those functions which should be assigned to local authorities. What is more, the assignment of additional functions to local authorities is in line with the Government’s guidelines of maximum devolution of power, of the decentralization of administration at local level government and of minimum administrative control over local authorities. But the hon. member says the Bill implies centralization of power.

Certain functions which local governments perform today could in terms of the guidelines and attitude of the Government be handed over to the private sector. The Bill makes provision, in clause 4(e), that the council can advise the Government on what functions could be transferred to private enterprise. But the accusation is, with due respect, that we want centralization.

Let me conclude this argument. Neither the co-ordinating council nor the municipal development boards will have any executive power. Therefore to allege that this Bill will be paving the way for greater centralization is completely devoid of any factual basis. On the contrary, I believe that this council is specifically empowered to advise the government—not the Minister—on the steps to be taken to implement the principle of devolution of power to local authorities.

The hon. member also said that this is based on apartheid. I want to ask the hon. member for Sea Point one question. Did he and his party not support the legislation on Black local communities? Sir, you must understand that his objection is that this Bill is an instrument, what he terms, “structuring local government on apartheid”. That is the essence of his fourth objection to this Bill. His party, both in the Select Committee and in the House, supported the legislation on Black local authorities. Was that structuring local authorities on apartheid, and if it was, why did they not oppose it?

It is better than none. [Interjections.]

We have the same spectacle. The hon. member for Pietersburg assures the House, in contrast to the hon. member for Sea Point and others, that what the hon. member for Sea Point alleges is not true. He says the Bill is not intended to structure local authorities on apartheid. He says this Bill means that it will not take long before we have integrated local authorities.

You tell us who is right.

I shall tell you now, but the important thing is—and I should like to make this remark while the hon. members is interrupting me—with all respect that it is very strange that every proposal to improve the situation in this country is being opposed most vehemently by the extremes in this House. It therefore also explains the reaction to the National Republican Party. [Interjections.] I meant the New Republic Party. [Interjections.] This is not an insult.

*May I now come to the hon. member? He is arguing with me about separate local authorities and his other argument is that this Bill does not make-provision for the inclusion of representatives of Black local authorities on the co-ordinating council. He put a whole lot of questions to me, and I wish to reply to them. It is the standpoint of the Government that there should be autonomous local authorities on a local level for communities, with a direct say in local authorities, not the sham representation they had before.

That is not the point. This is a co-ordinating council.

I am coming to that now. I first wish to discuss the principle with the hon. member. This is the standpoint of the Government.

The Government accepts, moreover, that on the level of local government a need exists for institutions charged with the provision of community services to adjoining communities. Thirdly it accepts that the respective primary authorities should have representations on such institutions.

I want to put a question to the hon. member for Sea Point. He said they wanted integrated city councils with a direct say …

[Inaudible.]

Does the hon. member not want that? But now I do not understand the hon. member at all. The policy of the hon. member’s party is to have integrated local authorities. Surely that is his policy? He is saying it is not. But then I apologize, for then I am wrong. He wants something else and does not know what it is yet. Let me then argue on the basis of what I think he wants. If we were to have integrated local authorities, what becomes of this splendid philosophy, which is part of their principles, that there should be no domination of one group by another? What becomes of that? Perhaps the hon. member will furnish us with a reply during the Third Reading.

I want to come now to the hon. member for Pietersburg. The hon. member for Newcastle dealt effectively with a number of things the hon. member for Pietersburg said. I want to address a request to him and, to be honest, he will understand the spirit in which I am doing this. When we debate in this House let us debate on the basis of all the facts, not only selective facts. Let us do that. I want to tell the hon. member that he did not do his homework.

There is a second thing I want to say to him. He will agree and he is aware that Mr. Ferreira plays a leading role on the Transvaal Municipal Association, not so?

That is correct.

Moreover, the hon. member will concede that he has access to Mr. Ferreira. Is that not true? [Interjections.] The hon. member says “yes”. I do not want to score points off him, I merely wish to ask him a question. Did he try to establish what the standpoint of the TMA, of which Mr. Ferreira is a member, was in connection with this legislation?

I spoke to him yesterday. This legislation before us did not even come before the management committee of the TMA.

That is very interesting. I shall deal with that now. The hon. member spoke to him yesterday.

Again.

Yes, again, but the hon. member spoke to him yesterday. With reference to the conversation they had yesterday, the hon. member is telling me that the Bill has not yet come before the TMA.

Yes.

Thank you very much. We are coming to that. Then I just want to tell the hon. member that someone is dealing recklessly with the truth. [Interjections.] No, I accept what the hon. member for Pietersburg told me. Then I also have to accept, however, that that was what Mr. Ferreira conveyed to him. The hon. member says yes. I shall come to that again. I shall not forget about it.

The opposition of the hon. member for Pietersburg, who is the main CP speaker on this matter—or so I inferred—to this legislation is based on a standpoint which the TMA ostensibly adopted in the past. With regard to what the alleged standpoint of the TMA is, I want to ask the hon. member whether he has not, during the past year or two, taken cognizance of what their standpoint really is.

Yes, I knew it.

That makes it even worse. The hon. member says he knew it. Surely that makes the charge against the hon. member appalling. If the hon. member knew it, why does he base his arguments on the standpoint of the TMA in their evidence before the President’s Council? Why did he do that, although he knew that since that specific submission of evidence, the TMA has adopted a substantially different standpoint? According to his Hansard the hon. member said this—

What did the hon. member say? He said two things. He said the Transvaal municipalities did not support the proposed legislation. The hon. member said this on the basis of another fact which he admitted and that was that the TMA is the mouthpiece of the Transvaal municipalities. That is what he said. The modus operandi of the hon. member for Pietersburg, just like that of his colleagues, is apparently to use the oldest statements of any person or body, regardless of the particular circumstances that prevailed when that standpoint was adopted. The hon. member for Pietersburg, adhering faithfully to this method, quoted from an obsolete document of the TMA of August 1981, which they submitted to the President’s Council. By means of certain selective quotations and premises, the hon. member tried to indicate that the TMA was now, in 1983, opposed to these particular statutory provisions.

Does the hon. the Minister wish to imply that they have changed their standpoint?

I am saying that the hon. member made use of extracts which he quoted from a document dated August 1981 to suggest to this House that the TMA still endorsed the same standpoint in the year 1983. [Interjections.] Now the hon. member for Sunnyside is saying that it is only I who change so rapidly. Let us see whether that statement of his is true. If I were to adopt the same tactic as the hon. member for Pietersburg, if I were to quote people as selectively as he does, then I would tell him I should like to quote councillor Nel. The hon. members know him. I shall then quote from his presidential address for the 1978-’79 year of office before the TMA congress that was held in Pretoria. He was reporting on his association’s submission to the then Schlebusch Commission, which also investigated the constitution, and on page 15—I have that report here—councillor Nel summed up the TMA standpoint in 1979 as follows—

Would it have been correct for me to rise here and do what the hon. member for Pietersburg does and quote this report which the president made to the TMA and state that it is his standpont? Surely I would have been doing him a disservice if I had done that.

That was a personal standpoint.

The hon. member falls into the trap every time. [Interjections.]

I take it the hon. member does not support this standpoint. He is indicating that he does not support it. Listen to what this councillor had to say about the provinces—

This is what a leader of the local government system said at a specific stage in the Transvaal—

That was what Mr. Nel had to say. Would it be fair to quote him? No, it would not. Contained in it are further standpoints on new municipal political structures which I do not want to deal with now. I just wanted to make the point that it is wrong to deal so recklessly with the facts.

After the President’s Council had submitted its recommendations—I am now coming to the point—the TMA drew up a comprehensive study document. This is the 1982 document. I have this 1982 document here. It was dealt with at the congress held between 4 and 7 October 1982. The hon. member for Pietersburg said he knew what had happened in the TMA since 1981—he had kept up with events. Because he said that he had kept up with events, he admitted that he was aware of the contents of this study document. In spite of his assurance that he was aware of the contents of the document, he quoted from an earlier 1981 document as being the standpoint of the TMA. What kind of debating do we have here? What method of standpoint formulation are we dealing with here? What kind of disservice are we doing to an organization such as the TMA which is co-operating and struggling with the same problem. The study document was considered by the management committee of that association on 18 June 1982. It was also considered by the full congress held between 4 and 7 October, as I have stated. In fact, the congress agreed to it with a number of amendments. I shall be referring specifically to some of the congress amendments.

The TMA went further and posted a copy of this document to every Transvaal MP. I beg your pardon: The TMA posted a copy of it to every National Party MP. Did the hon. member for Pietersburg not receive one? Did he not have a copy in his hand?

I did not see that document.

Now that is interesting. The hon. member says he did not see that one, but a moment ago he said that he had kept himself informed of the TMA standpoint. This is the way in which a debate is being conducted.

The TMA went further and also sent a copy to every member of the Cabinet in an attempt to persuade the NP, as the governing party, to accept its recommendations. I am saying this to its credit and not in order to condemn the association. I do not intend to treat the TMA the way the hon. member for Pietersburg treated it. On page 32 of this document, recommendation No. 22 of the President’s Council is quoted, and commented on. I quote—

The hon. member for Newcastle referred to this. Since I will be the responsible Minister, the hon. member for Pietersburg says that I am empire-building. I want to refer to this document again. We will simply have to be patient with one another, because we must rectify these matters so that the hon. member cannot use Hansard selectively again. On page 33 I read the following—

That is precisely what is stated in this Bill. The hon. member, however, used the TMA to support his argument. The words that the council may act only in an advisory capacity are significant. They indicate that the congress discussed the recommendation in depth, because they made an addition to the recommendation, viz. that it should only be able to advise. The provisions of the Bill comply with this standpoint expressed by the TMA at that congress.

Let us now consider municipal development boards. In Hansard, col. 8413 of 1 June 1983, the hon. member for Pietersburg said—

The hon. member for Pietersburg was therefore reproaching the Government for the fact that statutory boards were being established. But what did the TMA say in this connection? On page 34 of the same document there is the following comment by the TMA on the President’s Council proposal that statutory boards of expert advisers should be established—

They then go on to refer to councillors, town clerks, civil engineers, etc. This is precisely the same as I said in my Second Reading speech. However, the hon. member for Pietersburg used the TMA to argue against the Bill.

On page 34 the TMA stated—

The Bill makes provision for this in clause 8, but the hon. member is opposed to it.

According to the hon. member and his colleagues to the interim measures were tantamount to integration. The third matter which this Bill deals with is the applicant of interim measures on local government level to improve communication between White councils and Coloured and Indian management and local affairs committees. I concede that the provinces would initially have to amend their ordinances to make provision for this. After talks with the Administrators and the MECs we decided to deal with the matter in this way, owing to technical considerations. Owing to technical considerations it was decided, on the request of the Transvaal Provincial Administration and of the TMA to do this by way of central legislation and to make provision for enabling legislation so that regulations could be made in consultation with the respective Administrators for their implementation. This was cleared on 14 March, as I explained to the hon. member.

The hon. member went on to say that we were not giving local authorities any choice. That is not factually correct, nor is it legally correct either, since the choice will be left in the regulations, and this legislation is purely enabling legislation. Then the hon. member referred in col. 8314 to one of the possible interim measures which the hon. the Prime Minister mentioned in his speech before the federal congress, namely the creation of a special joint committee for all matters of common interest. The hon. member will remember this. The hon. member then put a whole lot of questions to me. On page 54 of this TMA document I find that the TMA congress proposed one of the following interim measures to the Government, and I am quoting—

Not only did they take a resolution on this matter; they sent out a circular to all the municipalities in the Transvaal about it. But I am supposedly bringing about integration! This was mentioned in a circular of 3 February 1983. What is interesting however, is that in October 1982 the MPC for Waterberg was at the congress. In fact he was elected to the executive committee at that congress. On Friday, 18 March 1983, Mr. Ferreira was a member of a TMA team at the UME meeting which considered and supported the principle underlying this Bill.

Including clause 14?

Hon. members must remember what the hon. member said to me a moment ago. He said that he had spoken to him yesterday.

He probably ’phoned the wrong Ferreira.

Yesterday was 21 June. On Saturday, 18 June, four days ago, the executive committee of the TMA met at Boskburg to consider this Bill, and the Bill was before them verbatim.

With amendments?

Wait a minute. I am dealing with the hon. member for Pietersburg now.

It was discussed by them and it was indicated that the provisions were in line with the TMA’s own congress resolutions. Once again Mr. Ferreira had no objection. The position is simply that when these matters are considered on merit in municipal circles there is no objection to the provisions of the Bill. However, hon. members of the CP drag politics into this matter and then find objections in principle to the legislation. How long can we continue in this way?

On the basis of the congress resolutions to which I have referred, and others to which I have not referred, the president of the TMA and the vice-president of the UME, councillor Van der Spuy, were able to write to me on 8 June that they had taken cognizance of the joint declaration which I issued on 6 June in connection with the necessity for the Bill. I quote as follows—

Mr. Speaker, I wish to place on record that I have great appreciation for the spirit in which these organizations dealt with a thorny problem. I wish to place on record my appreciation of all the administrators and their executive committees for the way in which they co-operated. I also wish to place on record my appreciation for the support of the ad hoc committee. That it is possible for errors to creep in is something which I have never disputed. One thing I must emphasize however, and that is that we should please, when we discuss these matters, adhere to the facts.

I have furnished the hon. member for Pietersburg with the facts as I have them at my disposal. Let us now consider the statement which the hon. member for Brakpan made here. He said everyone knew that when I was the chairman of a council, I was the council. Now he must tell me what he and the hon. member for Rissik are doing on the Select Committee.

Do you really want me to give you an answer? [Interjections.]

In that case, Mr. Speaker, what are they doing there?

We get along well, Chris.

Of course we get along well. [Interjections.] What are the hon. members of the NRP doing on the Select Committee? What are the hon. members of the official Opposition doing there?

We are doing our duty.

Of course. Surely the hon. member is not a puppet. The hon. member for Rissik should take issue with the hon. member for Brakpan who is now making him out to be a puppet. The hon. member for Brakpan is insulting the hon. member for Rissik. I also think that it is unparliamentary of him to make insinuations of that kind. [Interjections.] Oh come now, surely one does not argue in this manner. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Brakpan reacted to what the hon. member for Newcastle said, and what did he say? I quote him as follows (Hansard, 21 June 1983)—

The hon. member for Brakpan should still remember this. This was after all his reason, as he said, for ’phoning the hon. member for Pietersburg. [Interjections.] Yes, Mr. Speaker, he can ask the hon. member for Sea Point how dangerous it is to make a telephone call. [Interjections.] I shall quote the hon. member for Brakpan further, as follows—

It seems that the hon. member for Brakpan and the hon. member for Pietersburg also need to talk to one another, Mr. Speaker. I quote further—

That is what the hon. member for Brakpan said, Mr. Speaker. Not only is his information incorrect; his communication with his fellow party members is also alarmingly defective. [Interjections.] It is terribly defective. [Interjections.] I shall also get round to the hon. member for Pietersburg presently. In any event I think I must bring the two together. It is definitely necessary. [Interjections.]

On 28 July 1982 (read 18 June 1983) the executive committee of the TMA met in Boksburg. This Bill in its entirety was before the meeting, which was attended by approximately 50 people, including Mr. Fanie Ferreira, MPC for Waterberg. [Interjections.] The Bill was discussed, and certain amendments were explained to the meeting by a senior official of this department, who also attended the meeting. There were no problems then. The hon. member for Brakpan however, said that he phoned yesterday, and that at that juncture they had still not discussed the Bill. [Interjections.] I want to ask with great respect, Mr. Speaker, what we are in fact doing. [Interjections.] What are we doing? Councillor Van Zyl—hon. members will know him—also said that he was a member of a Transvaal delegation who asked for central legislation on interim measures to be passed instead of ordinances, as provision is being made for in clause 18—it will be clause 17 if we accept the amendment concerned. The hon. member for Brakpan also said (Hansard 21 June)—

Let us see what he said in the document which is after all, the CP’s source. On page 31 it is recommended, and this is marvellous—

This is an authority that has this to say. I quote further—

[Interjections.] The hon. member went further and said that we had a cumbersome council of 41 members, but then he wanted to make it even more cumbersome. He wanted to appoint even more people to it. I am quoting what he said (Hansard, 21 June)—

You are quoting me selectively.

No, Sir. He said—

That is what he said. He knows just as well as I do that in terms of clause 5(3) those people may be involved in this matter. I referred to that. He wants to make the council even larger. He wants to add to the empire he says I am building. I thank him for his sympathy towards me. It confirms an old friendship spanning many years. [Interjections.] I just want to quote what I said in this connection. I am doing this in all earnest. I said (Hansard, 1 June, col. 8294)—

I stand by that. I maintain that local government is the most intimate form of government.

Then you agree with me.

The hon. member is quarrelling with me unnecessarily.

The hon. member also spoke about development boards. I wish to establish development boards, and his authority, the TMA, support me in this respect. Yet he quarrels with me about this as well. What did he say? He said (Hansard, 21 June)—

I gave the undertaking—I want the hon. member for Umbilo to listen to this as well—that in cases where boards that are able to undertake development are functioning effectively, I do not want to duplicate them. However, I should very much like to use scarce manpower effectively. Those development boards are intended to do this.

†As far as the hon. member for Umbilo is concerned, I concede immediately that he had in fact used the first opportunity to tender his apologies for what appeared to be an attack on the integrity of the hon. the Prime Minister and myself. I want to leave that matter there. [Interjections.] Let us show the hon. member the courtesy of replying to his contribution to this debate. I want to quote what he said (Hansard, 1 June 1983, col. 8326)—

These are serious words and they contain a very bad imputation. The hon. member will concede that. He was involved at the initial processes, that never existed before.

Do not forget there is also a Committee Stage and a Third Reading. I will come back. [Interjections.]

Why is the hon. member so sensitive? I was only quoting him. This is strange. I was merely quoting him and then he says he is going to come back in the Committee Stage and Third Reading. About what? About his own speech?

No, about the distortion.

This is not distortion.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of explanation: The hon. the Minister has indicated that I was involved in this from the very beginning …

Order! I cannot allow any explanations at this stage.

I am sorry, that is not what I said. Let me repeat. The hon. member was involved when the initial process of co-operation started. That is all what I said. The hon. member was present at that meeting. I have referred to the date of that meeting. He was then a member of the provincial executive. That is all I said. I do not know why the hon. member has taken exception to what I have said.

The concept is one thing and the delivery another.

No, in all fairness. I would agree that the hon. member has more experience of the process of delivery.

Precisely.

I would like to recommend to him that the other process might be as interesting. I am not making any accusations. The hon. member should know that when I assumed office as Minister of Internal Affairs, the department which was then responsible for provincial administrations, I started a process of consultation. All I am saying is that the hon. member was present when we had one of the first meetings in that process. That is all I am saying. However, the hon. member was unfair in this judgment, and he would concede that.

No.

Then I will take it further. After referring to the assurances the hon. the Prime Minister had given that provincial councils would be consulted as to their future before decisions are taken, the hon. member goes further and says—

That is not true. I have explained ad nauseam that the Bill …

Why then have you proposed all these amendments?

I will explain that to the hon. member as well. Just give me a chance. We are now dealing with an accusation that assurances given by the hon. the Prime Minister and myself are not being fulfilled.

You are dealing with the Bill as it was. [Interjections.]

I do not think the hon. member for Umbilo deserves assistance from that corner. It is not fair to him. It was not about the Bill; it was about the question that we did not consult them. I have explained to the hon. member, and he will accept my explanation in this regard. I have discussed this with Mr. Martin and the hon. member can confirm this with him.

I have.

All right. Then he would also have told you about the other problems that I did not take issue on, because I have to work under harassed circumstances. I conceded the point. That is all I am trying to establish. If the hon. member will accept that, then we can leave the matter at that. I mean this sincerely.

Secondly, I would say that criticism against me is generally based on an incorrect interpretation of the Bill. It is, more specifically, wrongly interpreted in respect of clause 18, because this clause does not make provision for the establishment of local authorities.

[Inaudible.]

I am dealing with clause 18 now. Subsection (1) of clause 18 expresses an intention, and I think the hon. member will concede that.

The intention is father to the act.

Just let me finish this argument. It expresses the intention that there must be proper communication between Coloured, Indian and White local authorities and it envisages—not authorizes—the establishment of such authorities. Secondly, it also envisages—again, not authorizes—the establishment of institutions for common matters. That is all. Subsection (2) makes provision for the empowering authority to promulgate regulations to give effect to these measures by the Administrator. However, because other hon. members have also interpreted it incorrectly, I said that we should remove any ambiguity that might be in this particular clause. This I have repeated. However, there is no substance whatsoever in the belief that we want to detract from the authority of local authorities. It is true—and I would like to repeat this—that the Bill was not sent for final comment. I have explained the circumstances and I think that the hon. member has accepted it.

In replying to the hon. member for Durban North, I would like to say that there is nothing that he had said that I do not subscribe to. However, I believe he would understand that people establish a pattern of behaviour, also in the process of consultation. I think he would concede that. I believe that we have established such a procedure since 1980 and that the bona fides of no party is in question. Therefore, my only complaint is that that pattern of behaviour had demanded another course of action. That is all. Having said this, I would like to leave the matter at that.

*Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kuruman had a dispute with the hon. member for Witbank over what hymns were being sung and over the organist. [Interjections.] I want to tell him that there is another tune as well, and that is “Op my ou ramkietjie met nog net een snaar”. It is monotonous, like the hon. member.

You play it very well on your string.

Now wait a minute. The hon. member rambled on about possible regional institutions and the basis of representation on those bodies. I quoted to him at length what organized local authorities had had to say on the subject. Since the TMA is the authoritative institution and source of reference, I want to furnish one quotation from that body. What did they say? They advocated joint institutions in 1979. Surely the hon. member is acquainted with the municipal ordinances of the Cape. We do not have an unqualified franchise in the Cape. Is that not true? The hon. member says he does not know. We have stated repeatedly and I have also asked in public on more than one occasion that the UME should advise us in the first place in respect of future electoral qualifications for local authorities. I did this because my own personal standpoint is that, unlike parliamentary elections, this cannot be done on the basis of an individual vote only and that there should be other qualifications for the election of local authorities. I am on record as having said this, and the hon. member knows it. The hon. member is nodding in affirmation. He says he is aware of that. In the second place, I argued that the institutions for joint services would quite probably fall into the category of primary local authorities and that this would have to be done on the basis of a specific financial or other formula, but because there is a technical enquiry which is taking place, I do not wish to anticipate it, for if I did I would be accused of not consulting. On the basis of a completely incorrect assumption, the hon. member began with the number of inhabitants of each town in the Cape, and on that basis he tried to indicate that they would all be dominated. No one ever said that, however. No one ever suggested that. Yet the hon. member carried on merrily with his argument. [Interjections.] Of what use is it to come forward with possibilities and then shoot them down oneself? We are dealing here with legislation which we have to assess.

The hon. members for Algoa, Welkom, Newcastle, Helderkruin, Witbank, Turffontein and Boksburg made contributions for which I wish to place my appreciation on record. There is one thing I wish to tell them. Their contributions revealed a knowledge of local government which was of great assistance to this House and which did them credit. Most of those hon. members were not speaking on the basis of academic knowledge, but were speaking from practical experience as councillors and mayors of their home towns. For that reason I thank them very sincerely. The hon. member for Welkom is not here. He tendered his apology. He has also had experience as a member of an executive committee.

In conclusion I just want to say this: This legislation meets a great need on which no hon. member in this House can really differ. Let us then leave our differences on the form which constitutional institutions should take until such time as they are being debated here. No one can deny the great need in this country for co-operation and consultation among the population groups living here. No one can deny this, and this legislation makes provision for that. No one can argue about the need for communication between people and the local government systems of the various communities. The hon. member for Boksburg referred to the example of Reigerpark. No one can deny that. Then why should we differ with one another on that score? No one will deny that if we wish to develop the local government system, we shall have to help them. Why then, are we quarrelling with one another?

Whatever the future constitutional pattern in the country may be, we shall all have a share in it. However, we should act carefully so as not to strain relations in this country. If I have erred and this has been brought to my attention, I shall rectify my mistakes. However, we should not oppose legislation which could create a climate conducive to order in this country, simply because we feel like opposing one another.

Question put: That the words “the Bill be” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Physical Planning Act, 1967, as it appears on the Statute Book at the moment, has come a long way in order to serve as an instrument for the promotion and co-ordination of environmental planning and the utilization of the country’s resources. From the time it was promulgated in 1967 until the recent rationalization of the Public Service in 1981, the Act was administered by one department. In the process of rationalization, however, it was decided to entrust certain sections of the Act to other Government departments which would be equipped, by virtue of their functions and the expertise they had acquired, to achieve certain objectives of the Act.

It was consequently decided that the provisions of section 2 of the Act, dealing with the zoning, subdivision and use of land for industrial purposes, should be entrusted to my colleague, the Minister of Community Development. Section 3, which is exclusively concerned with the establishment and extension of factories, naturally fits in with the Department of Industries and has consequently been transferred to the Minister concerned.

The provisions of section 4 of the Act deal with the reservation of land for specific purposes and provide for the reservation of land for the utilization of a specific natural resource as well as for nature areas. It should be clear to all that the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs is best equipped and has the necessary experience with regard to the former, while the Department of Environment Affairs is able to see to the conservation of the natural environment. The administration of areas reserved in terms of this section has consequently been entrusted to the respective departments, while the reservation of areas for this purpose, because of the overall national and regional importance of this function, will remain under the control of the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning.

The Magaliesberg area of approximately 101 000 ha was the first area reserved in terms of this legislation in 1977. During the past year or so, however, I have received several requests for the reservation of such nature areas in the Southern, Western and Northern Cape. Apart from the request in respect of the Southern Peninsula Mountain Chain with an area of approximately 29 000 ha, which I approved last year, requests have been received for the reservation of the following areas, in respect of which the necessary legal and other consultations are taking place at the moment—

1. 1. The Rooi Els—Betty’s Bay—Kleinmond area, including the Bot River lagoon, ± 11 400 ha.
2. 2. The Rietvlei area in the Milnerton vicinity, ±530 ha.
3. 3. An area in the Richtersveld in the north of Namaqualand and along the Orange River, ±75 000 ha. I hope the hon. member for Kuruman will not think that this is a homeland which I am proclaiming there.
4. 4. An area along the Southern Cape coast to the west of Agulhas, ±55 000 ha.
5. 5. An area along the Cape West Coast extending northwards from Bokbaai in the Atlantis vicinity up to the Langebaan lagoon, including several islands, such as Dassen Island, ±40 500 ha.

The areas to which I have referred are approximately 312 500 ha in extent.

Consultation which has already taken place with land-owners in some of the proposed nature areas indicates that most of them are basically in agreement with the principle of having their land reserved as nature areas. However, they insist that stronger assurances be provided, before the area is reserved, with regard to certain rights relating to the future utilization of their properties. I have discussed the matter with the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries, who will be responsible, by way of the issuing of permits, for control over any changes in the use of land in nature areas after reservation, and we decided on a modus operandi which should be followed in future in order to reassure land-owners in this connection—

1. (a) Land-owners will not be consulted on the possible reservation of a particular area as a nature area before the Department of Environment Affairs and Fisheries has given an indication of (i) The purpose for which the area is to be used; (ii) the merits of the proposed reservation; and (iii) general guidelines or requirements have been formulated with regard to the future utilization of the area. The idea here is that there should be prior consultation with the owners in this connection. Basic rights with regard to the utilization of individual properties, such as the building of a dwelling on each property, will be allowed subject to permits for the change in the use of land, provided that the desired use is compatible with the guidelines or directions that have been laid down for the future utilization of the nature area.
2. (b) Land-owners will be afforded the opportunity of commenting and making representations before reservation in connection with the general guidelines or directions relating to the future utilization of the area.
3. (c) If approval is given for the reservation of the area concerned, after proper consultation with land-owners and other interested parties, the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries will promulgate the general guidelines or directions with regard to the administration and development of the area together with the reservation notice in the same Gazette in terms of the power confirmed upon him by section 10(1) of the Environment Conservation Act, Act 100 of 1982.
   This course of action enabled a landowner or inhabitant, in terms of section 10 (5)(a) of the Environment Conservation Act, to recover compensation in respect of actual patrimonial loss suffered by him as a result of limitations placed by the guide*lines or directions on the purposes for which land in a nature area may be used.
4. (d) A management committee appointed by the Minister of Environment Affairs in respect of a particular nature area to advise him with regard to the administration and development of that nature area will have to perform its task in accordance with the guidelines or directions laid down by the Minister.
5. (e) It is the intention that the five cases which are at present being investigated with a view to reservation should also be dealt with on the basis set out above.

I trust that this approach will bring about a better understanding between land-owners and the State with regard to this very important question of conservation.

Section 6 of the Act places certain limitations on the use of land, in particular controlled areas which are mainly rural areas and can therefore best be dealt with by the respective provincial administrations. Therefore the implementation of the provisions of this section has been entrusted to the Administrators concerned.

Equally, it was felt that the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs was best equipped, in the case of section 6B, to exercise control over quarrying activities and the processing of minerals, and the said section 6 is therefore being administered by that department at the moment.

The rest of the Act, which is mainly concerned with the guide plan strategy on a country-wide basis, is administered by the Physical Planning Branch of the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning, which has acquired valuable expertise in this connection over the years. Guide planning in respect of the major metropolitan and other urban areas, as well as sensitive nature areas such as the Knysna-Wilderness-Plettenberg Bay area, is continually receiving the attention of the department. But, Mr. Speaker, a piece of legislation, just like any other instrument, sometimes needs minor technical adjustments in order to function effectively at all times. It is with this end in view, therefore, that I want to recommend that the Act be amended. In order to prevent separate Ministers from introducing amendments, in respect of the same Act, it has been agreed that I shall handle the amendments.

The proposed amendments have no drastic implications and are in no way incompatible with the Government’s accepted policy, which is aimed at the systematic devolution of power. Among the amendments, that are being proposed is the extension of the powers of the Minister concerned to grant exemptions, and provisions aimed at eliminating the dual control which exists at the moment.

The amendments to the provisions relating to guide planning are aimed at streamlining the administrative actions which it involves. In this connection, the Director-General is now also being authorized to nominate the chairman of a guide plan committee, and he will also be able to designate an official in the department to appoint the members of a guide plan committee on his behalf. In addition, provision is being made for the appointment of subcommittees to investigate specific matters relating to the drawing up of a guide plan, and to advise the guide plan committee concerned. Provision is also being made for the remuneration of the members of such committees if they are not in the full-time service of the State or any local authority.

Therefore you can see, Mr. Speaker, that these amendments will facilitate the appointment of members to guide plan committees, which will help to expedite the orderly planning of the country, which can only be of benefit to us all.

In addition, it is being provided that a provincial administration does not necessarily have to draw up detailed plans any more when a draft guide plan has been approved and promulgated as a guide plan. The reason for this amendment is that cases may occur where more detailed plans of this kind do not have to be drawn up for all areas within a particular guide plan area. Where the Minister considers it necessary that these detailed plans should in fact be drawn up, he can still request the provincial administration concerned to do so, or have it done himself.

†Presently, Mr. Speaker, the Act requires permit authoritzation for all quarrying activities in the Republic except in those areas in the Cape Province which have been reserved for that specific purpose or have been earmarked for such purposes in terms of a guide plan. In terms of the amendment being introduced, the said quarries in the Cape Province are now also being brought under permit control. For practical as well as for administrative reasons, it is necessary to have uniform control throughout the country in respect of all quarrying activities in order to permit not only the most effective utilization of the natural resources of the Republic but also to ensure that the landscape be rehabilitated in the most acceptable way after exploitation of such resources.

Prior to rationalization permits in terms of certain sections of the Act were issued only by the then Minister of Planning and the Environment. This not being the case anymore, as the control measures contained in the Act have been directed to various departments and agencies, reference to the Department of Planning and the Environment is no more relevant and is therefore being deleted in section 12 of the Act. This is yet another amendment in order to bring the existing legislation in line with the present situation.

That, Mr. Speaker, is a very brief outline of the Bill. I am convinced that the measure, if passed by Parliament, will contribute a great deal towards the smooth administration of the Act in future.

Mr. Speaker, it is to be hoped that this Bill will take up less of the House’s time than the previous Bill and also generate less heat. I want to say at once that we appreciate the advice we received from the officials of the department in connection with the implications of this Bill. After considering those particulars, as was also confirmed by the hon. the Minister in his introductory speech, we see no reason why we should oppose the Bill. On the contrary, we feel that in quite a number of respects the Bill is bringing relief in the spheres indicated by the hon. the Minister. It is clear from what the hon. the Minister said that we have entered a new phase here as regards the setting aside of areas as nature reserves and also the extent to which the departments co-operate in this connection and the extent to which the real rights of owners of the relevant areas are protected. As the hon. the Minister indicated, the other amendments are merely of a technical nature, and are in all respects entirely necessary. As a result there is not much else to say except that we agree with this.

There is just one minor question I want to put to the hon. the Minister. In a speech in 1981 the hon. the Minister said that he intended to introduce completely new legislation. The measure before us would not seem to be an interim measure. It is merely a measure to rectify certain matters which have become essential in practice. However, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister intends to introduce a Bill to replace the existing legislation. The hon. the Minister is probably aware of the fact that the original Act and the amending legislation were strongly opposed by this side of the House because we felt that they were in conflict with the principles of the free market mechanism in South Africa and helped to create a situation which led to our not being able to maintain the growth rate required by the specific conditions in our country and which was needed to prevent large-scale unemployment particularly among the Blacks. I should like the hon. the Minister to reply to this.

I just want to indicate that we agree with the amendments moved here by the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, it was a pleasant change to hear from the official Opposition that there was legislation which they supported wholeheartedly. I almost want to say that this came as a kind of discordant note from their side. I think it must feel strange to them to say that they support legislation. [Interjections.]

If you want it, you can have ten speakers. You may choose. Do not be so ungrateful.

The hon. member for Yeoville is becoming unnecessarily excited now. It is not that serious. I should like to thank the hon. member Prof. Olivier for supporting this Bill. We feel these amendments are necessary, and for that reason we on this side also want to support the hon. the Minister.

It is probably not necessary to speak for a long time when one wants to say that one supports a matter. For that reason I want to say briefly from this side that what the hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech was meaningful and that what was proposed was essential. For that reason we should like to agree with it.

In the first place, the hon. the Minister stated that dual control is being done away with where it exists. This is certainly very important. The hon. the Minister also mentioned that certain tasks are being allocated in a meaningful way to specific departments where they belong. I think this is a perfectly realistic approach.

I want to take this opportunity to refer again to co-ordination between the various Government departments. When I say this, I am not suggesting that there is absolutely no co-ordination. There is co-ordination. One is grateful for those cases where co-ordination takes place in a meaningful and timeous way. However, I am convinced that Government departments can be more successful in this regard. We are dealing with planning here, and for that reason it is important to emphasize this aspect again. For long-term planning in particular it is essential for departments to indicate at an early stage what projects or steps they are contemplating in a specific area so that the necessary infrastructure can receive timeous attention. This is very important for sound and good development in a specific area. This also ensures more streamlined and more rapidly developed projects if provision is made in good time for the related facilities which have to be created to serve a specific project.

As far as our present planning activities are concerned, I feel we have reached a stage in this country where special attention is being given to planning. One need only consider the various structures, mechanisms and methods which have been introduced to ensure proper planning. I do not think this Government can be reproached for not doing its duty in this regard.

Many kinds of plans are being discussed. There are guide plans, development plans, detailed plans and guideline plans. It would perhaps be a good thing if we reached a stage where we could have more clarity on the different plans. It could possibly be said that people are uninformed and are not familiar with what the various terms imply, and I feel this could sometimes lead to confusion among the general public, because some plans are only guideline plans indicating certain development possibilities, whereas others have statutory status and are enforced. I feel greater clarity in connection with this terminology will contribute greatly to meaningful planning.

As far as policy is concerned, planning should also be labelled as policy. Policy can be labelled as a programme of principles from which, on the one hand, particular objectives for organized action arise and, on the other a functional framework is provided into which the processes connected with implementation are fitted. In this connection there is also an important factor which plays a part, namely practical implementability. I am grateful for what the hon. the Minister also mentioned here in connection with nature areas, because it is in fact the objective of this legislation to take proper care of these areas, which are of great importance. I also want to say that plans, particularly guide plans, are also policy documents in which guidelines for the future development of areas are laid down. There is room for a broad spectrum of land uses in the guide plans. Now this narrower interpretation is also being deleted in this amending Bill.

In conclusion, I just want to emphasize again that planning can be an exceptional factor in the development of any civilized country and that the policy adopted in connection with the development of that country is to a major extent also reflected in its planning of the development of its respective areas. I also feel that the quality of life of the people in a country, and where they are settled, depends largely on meaningful planning, because development in terms of that planning will also be of such a nature that the standard of living and quality of life of those people can be developed to the maximum by means of meaningful planning. Any attempt by the hon. the Minister, who is in charge of this matter, to endeavour to achieve that ideal by means of legislation or any other action, will be supported to the hilt. For that reason we welcome this amendment Bill and support it wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member for Welkom is not going to reproach me as well because the CP also decided to support this Bill.

The amendments in this draft Bill are aimed at making the Act more streamlined and at making certain technical adjustments as a result of rationalization. One of the wonderful examples of this is that the reservation of areas for certain purposes will, for the sake and overall national and regional interests, be dealt with by the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning whereas nature areas in this case, of which I could mention examples, are now being transferred to the Department of Environment Affairs, which is in a position to take expert decisions on such areas. This is a major improvement, and we should like to support it. With regard to the planning and guide plans to which the hon. member for Welkom referred, I can say that the purpose of the guide plans is to give guidance on a co-ordinating basis to larger towns and cities in respect of future development. Since the guide plan system was introduced, quite a number of statutory and non-statutory guide plans have been published. Guide plans that were eventually approved have served as valuable references, particularly in the field of urban development and planning, both in the private and the public sectors. In the drawing up of guide plans the private sector and other local interested parties were also involved in the planning process. After their publication guide plans have many uses, they furnish guidance in connection with expected development and indicate general categories of land utilization. I want to agree with the hon. member that guide plans play a very important role, and that they will be essential to orderly development in South Africa in future. The CP would like to see the development of towns and cities, particularly the development of regions in South Africa, taking place in an orderly and planned way. For that reason the CP supports this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the general unanimity among all the parties on this legislation and in view of the obvious merits of the amendments proposed here, I shall confine myself to a few observations on one or two of the proposed amendments. In the first place I want to refer to clause 2, and clause 2(c) in particular, which I want to welcome specifically because I feel it contains a very meritorious improvement. It is a fact that when this specific measure was placed on the Statute Book in 1981 some of us were a little unhappy about the wording of subsection (13)(a). If one considers section 6A in its entirety one finds in it proof of a very flexible approach to the concept of guide plan planning. It is characterized by flexibility. It would seem as if the point of departure was to be as unprescriptive as possible. However, we felt that there was an exception to that rule in section (13)(a) in the sense that it was inclined to be a little prescriptive in that the Administrators were required to proceed to undertake detailed planning in connection with a draft guide plan, although at that stage it may perhaps not have been necessary yet and there may not have been urgent justification for this. For that reason we felt that this rather rigid approach in subsection 13A did not fit in well with the generally flexible approach of the rest of the section. We are therefore extremely glad that the hon. the Minister has come forward with this amendment which will mean that that prescriptive rigidness of the old subsection will be removed. This will also place the task and function of the Administrator in better perspective so that there will be greater clarity on this. I feel that this will very definitely facilitate the functioning of the section and the application of the principle.

I should also like to refer to clause 4, which amends section 7 of the principal Act. The hon. the Minister has already pointed out that this is aimed at eliminating the dual control which arose in certain cases in the transfer of certain executive functions. There is one aspect in connection with this control that I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. The question is whether it would not logically be more correct to place the designation and the declaration of nature areas in the hands of the Department of Environment Affairs and Fisheries. Perhaps the hon. the Minister is aware of the fact that this is a matter which was raised by the Select Committee on Environment Legislation. The Select Committee proposed that section 4 of the principal Act be amended in such a way that this function could be transferred to the Department of Environment Affairs and Fisheries.

I do not know whether the hon. the Minister will feel disposed to give consideration to this, but it does seem logical that it could at least be part of the task of the Department of Environment Affairs and Fisheries to undertake the investigation and then to identify certain areas. Having listened to what the hon. the Minister said today in regard to the progress which has been made in identifying nature areas, I realize that my plea may now be only of academic interest because I note that a great deal of progress has already been made. I nevertheless felt that I had to make this point.

Normally the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning would probably not proclaim a nature area without consulting the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries. The initiative is bound to lie with the latter department. Probably they have to identify it and then this department has to proclaim it, but immediately thereafter it is transferred to the Department of Environment Affairs and Fisheries to appoint the management committee and to deal with the control over it.

I am merely pointing this out although I have mentioned that this is of little more than academic interest at this stage. I admit that we cannot even think of the other department making such an announcement on its own, in view of the overall control function of this department. I assume that there will be consultation.

In addition to the hon. members in this House who supported this idea and to the fact that the Select Committee recommended this, it is interesting to note that there was also support for this idea from another quarter and I just want to point this out to the hon. the Minister as a matter of interest. In a recent article in De Rebus, Prof. André Rabie, who was also a much appreciated witness before the Select Committee, said the following—

I felt that I should quote this passage to the hon. the Minister as a matter of interest. However, I do not want to make any specific proposal in this connection.

With these few remarks we welcome the amendments proposed in this Bill and in conclusion I want to say that it is encouraging and one is gratified to hear about the good co-ordination which is taking place under the control of this department and the good co-operation existing between the departments concerned who are in some or other way involved in this important matter.

Mr. Speaker, although this is a relatively minor Bill, it is of very great importance indeed in that anything to do with guideplans is obviously of great interest to a very large number of people. I just want to say in passing that the enthusiasm with which this Bill is being supported by all parties is a clear indication to me that there was considerable consultation among a large number of people before the Bill was introduced into this House.

The hon. the Minister gave a comprehensive exposition of this Bill and, as far as I am concerned, I shall be quite happy to accept it. There is, however, one point in regard to which, being the defender of the Administrations and all that sort of thing, I am rather intrigued. I am referring to clause 2(d) which proposes to add a new paragraph (c) to section 6A(13). I was wondering about the necessity for this addition. I did not hear the hon. the Minister refer to it at all during his introductory speech. However, it does seem to me to indicate that somebody has not been doing his job properly. If that is the case, then the guideplan and physical planning system cannot, of course, come to a standstill and therefore the hon. the Minister has found it necessary to arrogate to himself this authority. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell me why this particular provision is necessary and, if it is not too much of a secret, which administration it is that is not doing its job, even if it is Natal. If that is the case, then I still say that they deserve a good kick where it will do them most good!

We in these benches are very happy to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank hon. members for their support of this legislation. I do not intend to repeat the arguments and ideas that have been raised.

I want to tell the hon. member Prof. Olivier that the initial idea was that we would introduce new legislation with a view to rationalization and because certain ministries had different executive functions after rationalization. It seems to me that the time is not ripe for new legislation and I think we should first wait until the departments are functioning properly and then see what we can do about it.

I want to thank the hon. member for Welkom for his contribution. He referred to the need for planning and said that planning should only take the form of guidelines and that there should not be any absolute centralized planning for the whole country. I do not agree with that and I believe that the hon. member is wrong. I think hon. members opposite will also agree with me. The hon. member referred to nature areas and their planning. I want to say that in my opinion, we have made enormous progress in recent years in the reservation of areas for conservation purposes.

The hon. member for Kuruman said that he supported the idea that we should have planning for various regions. I believe that as far as regional planning is concerned, we should also give further impetus to the development of particular regions by means of a regional development advisory committee. I believe that the hon. member agrees with me that this is a good thing. The regional development association performs an important function on a more limited local basis.

As far as the hon. member for Sundays River is concerned, I want to say that I always appreciate his viewpoint. He was in charge of local government in the Cape Province for a long time and he is aware of the problems which exist. I support the idea of greater flexibility and I support the idea that if detailed planning within a guideplan project is not yet essential, there is no reason why we should impose that burden on local authorities. I agree with the hon. member. As far as nature areas are concerned, I want to say at once that the initiative for the proclamation of nature areas does not necessarily proceed from a spesific department. Various departments and outside organizations can initiate such a process. However, such an area is not proclaimed before the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs, the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries, the Minister of Agriculture and all the departments dealing with land affairs have been consulted. There is very good co-operation between my department and the other departments in this connection and I should like to thank them for this. There is indeed a reason, which may sound academic, why the actual proclamation of nature areas should be entrusted to this department. This is because every other ministry or department has a specific task. The Department of Environment Affairs and Fisheries has a conservation task, for example. One may argue that theoretically, a specific aspect of conservation could be overemphasized because one has a specific responsibility. The same applies to the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs. The idea is that this department is the clinical department which does not have any specific executive functions and that it has to be responsible for the actual proclamation, but that when this has been done, the administration of those nature areas is transferred to the other departments. It seems to me that the system is functioning very well at the moment.

†I want to thank the hon. member for Umbilo for confirming that consultation does take place on a very extensive scale with regard to these matters. I also want to thank him for his support of this measure. I want to tell him that provision is made here in a more subtle way, as the hon. member for Sundays River has indicated, for taking over the present duty of the Administrator to prepare those detailed plans. On the other hand, provision must be made for that action to take place if required and if we have to negotiate with the provincial administration.

Not Natal, is it?

I do not want to comment on that. This is a peaceful process.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Rendering of assistance by local authorities: Clause 1(1)(a).

After the Laingsburg flood disaster in 1981, many local authorities approached the Transvaal Provincial Administration for approval to make donations to the disaster fund which had been started by the State President at the time. Although this provincial administration had in the past authorized local authorities to make donations, the jurisdiction of the Administrator in this connection has recently been re-examined. It has been found that in actual fact, the Local Authorities Ordinance, 1939, does not authorize the Administrator to give his approval for the making of such donations, since this is not a normal function of local authorities.

The jurisdiction of local authorities is limited to their respective areas of jurisdiction and they can only take action outside those areas if they are specifically authorized to do so by legislation. The proposed amendment will authorize provincial councils to pass legislation enabling local authorities to make grants or donations to institutions or individuals outside their areas of jurisdiction that have suffered loss or damage resulting from an event declared to be a disaster by the State President.

Administrative incorporation of non-contiguous towns and holiday resorts into areas of jurisdiction of local authorities: Clause 1(1)(b).

It is at present the practice in the Transvaal to place remote towns which cannot function independently, and holiday resorts situated outside the areas of jurisdiction of local authorities, under the control of the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas. Because a great deal of this development is not taking place in the vicinity of Pretoria, where the Board had its headquarters, this is not always the most practical arrangement, and I believe that if such areas could be administratively incorporated with the nearest local authority, many problems could be resolved. Such an administrative arrangement could be made by extending the area of jurisdiction of a local authority to include the nearby town or holiday resort.

According to legal advice which has been obtained, however, the area of jurisdiction of a local authority is at present limited to a contiguous area. I think hon. members will agree with me that it would be extremely impracticable to include large tracts of farming land in a municipal area of jurisdiction merely in order to be able to exercise control over a small town consisting of a number of plots or a holiday resort. The only solution lies in amending the Act in such a way that such isolated developments can be regarded and administered as part of the municipal area.

†A local authority surely has a manifested interest in holiday resorts operative in the surrounding district as these resorts can promote or impair the image of the town depending on the quality of services rendered. It is therefore of paramount importance that a local authority should have a say in the activities taking place in such resorts. This can be effected by providing local authorities with the necessary authority to exercise such control.

The proposed amendment, if approved, will also alleviate the burden on the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas by reducing their obligations which they are finding increasingly difficult to fulfil due to personnel, transport and other problems and which is also impracticable because of the distances involved.

Interest rates on arrear payments to local authorities in respect of motor licences: Clause 2.

One of the phenomena of the present inflationary conditions is a consistent rise in interest rates. As a result it has been found that, in the sphere of motor licensing in particular, the penalty rates provided for in the enabling Act and in the ordinances no longer constitute an incentive to pay overdue licence fees timeously as the money involved can be utilized by the debtor to earn a far higher rate of interest on investments. I am therefore of the opinion that an amendment to provide for a more effective penalty rate should be introduced, something similar to that already provided for in the Sales Tax Act. In view of the fact that some of the rates laid down in respect of certain licences and taxes already exceed the rate provided for in the Act, it is necessary that this amendment be made retrospective to legalize the position.

*Provincial assistance for overseas tours by youth orchestras and choirs: Clause 3.

In terms of the present dispensation, the provinces have no legal powers to incur expenditure in connection with overseas tours by youth orchestras and choirs. Since this discipline is used in the education of our young people, and since it undoubtedly makes an important contribution to the promotion of culture, I believe that the provinces should have the necessary powers in this connection. The proposed amendments make provision for this.

Transfer of powers to Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning: Clause 4.

A further amendment which I should like to propose is the transfer to the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning of the powers in terms of the Financial Relations Act to determine that a matter is a “matter of national interest”. Since the department is responsible for the provinces, it has been agreed with the Minister of Internal Affairs that this power will be exercised by the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

Secondment of municipal staff to an independent National State: Clause 5.

With the incorporation of Mafeking (now Mafikeng) into Bophuthatswana, certain officials stayed on in their posts with the municipality. In the process, special posts were created for them in the establishment of the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas to which they could be appointed, after which they were seconded to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information, which in turn seconded them to the Government of Bophuthatswana. According to legal advice, this arrangement is not legally valid in all respects, and therefore the matter is being rectified with retrospective effect in terms of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am only entering this debate in order to point out to the hon. the Minister that when he comes to this House with a well-considered piece of legislation, he can always count on the co-operation of the official Opposition. We on this side of the House will therefore support this legislation.

The amendments that are being made to the fundamental law with regard to local or provincial matters are reasonable and necessary, in our opinion, in the interests of good order and also in the interest of new circumstances which may develop. I do want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to one aspect in one of the clauses, however, because I do not want the hon. the Minister to tell us in a year or two that we supported a certain principle on this occasion without actually realizing what we were doing.

I promise you that I shall never hold this against you in future.

Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the retrospective effect of the provision in the clause dealing with the increased penalties for the non-payment of taxes. We are not in favour of a clause of this nature being made retrospective, especially in the light of the hon. the Minister’s explanation that this statutory amendment be made retrospective merely in order to legitimize a situation. I want to tell the hon. the Minister quite frankly that we do not like to have legislation passed by this Parliament by means of which the situation of another body is legitimized.

With those few reservations, therefore, we shall vote in favour of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I do not really need to add anything to what has already been said. I just want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that the steps taken in terms of this legislation are mainly aimed at accommodating problems experienced in the Transvaal. I want to refer in particular to one of the provisions, the one dealing with the incorporation of remote towns into the areas of jurisdiction of local authorities in the Transvaal. From the point of view of the Cape Province, I want to point out that if the Transvaal had also had the unique system of local government which we have here in the Cape Province, this step would not have been necessary at all. [Interjections.]

However, I whole-heartedly support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is our sincere wish, too, to co-operate with the hon. the Minister. Therefore I shall state very briefly—in a few sentences only—the standpoint of the CP in this connection.

That is a wonder.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke is going to start making interjections now, he is going to spoil everything again.

Yes, then I might join the debate too. [Interjections.]

I want to make only three statements, Mr. Speaker. In the first place, I want to say that we agree wholeheartedly with the provision which is being made in order to accommodate disasters such as the one at Laingsburg, in terms of which it will now be possible to render assistance beyond the provincial boarders as well.

As far as clause 3 is concerned, I just want to make one brief remark. In this clause, provision is being made for the payment from the Provincial Revenue Fund of expenditure incurred by choirs or orchestras in connection with tours abroad. This, too, has our support. However, I believe that in addition to academic achievements, more emphasis should be placed on the promotion of culture in our provincial schools, including singing and music, of course. Tours of this nature can only contribute, not only to cultural expression, but also to enabling these children to act as ambassadors for South Africa abroad, just as sports teams do, and to introduce to audiences abroad the beauty, the richness and the diversity of the singing and music of this country.

Clause 5, the last clause of the Bill, which makes possible the secondment of officials in the service of local authorities to the national States, also has our support. This will improve the circumstances and the development of the national States concerned. It is in line with the policy of the CP, and therefore we in the CP support the principles contained in this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this is yet another Bill which I find very disappointing because it does not enable me to fight with the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.] This is again a Bill with which we can agree. Any time the hon. the Minister wants to give additional authority to the provincial administrations I will doubtlessly be on his side.

In so far as this Bill is concerned one point of considerable interest is the increase that is being permitted in the interest rates on unpaid taxes. This is something that I feel is absolutely necessary. Certain businessmen with big taxes are really making quite a lot out of this. We found that this applied some years ago in provincial government and so far as the Natal local authorities are concerned they gave this authority a long time ago. Sir, we support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members for their support. I want to assure the hon. member for Sea Point that I shall not hold it against him as a precedent in any other debate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Before the Bill was read for the First Time copies of the draft Bill with explanatory notes were made available to certain hon. members on both sides of the House in order to enable them to study the contents.

Furthermore, I wish to mention that the proposed amendments to the text of the principal Act were submitted to representative bodies of commerce and industry such as the Afrikaanse Handelssinstituut, Assocom, FCI and SASAFAA for comments. Comments and proposals were received from some of these bodies and, where practicable, such proposals were incorporated in the Bill now before the House.

Since 1978, as hon. members will recall, all amendments to the schedules to the Customs and Excise Act during a year are bound in book form and, together with explanatory notes, are laid upon the Table in the form of a White Paper.

The proposed substitution of section 26, as embodied in clause 1, makes it clear that goods in a customs and excise warehouse which may serve as security for the outstanding duty thereon may not be pledged or hypothecated. This amendment does not place any impediment on the encumbrance of the goods in a customs and excise warehouse but merely prescribes that approval from the Commissioner for Customs and Excise must first be obtained for such action. The object of this action is to prevent an importer from alienating property in the form of imported goods in a customs and excise warehouse which would otherwise have been available as security in respect of duty due to the State, and it restricts losses in revenue in respect of irregular removals ex warehouses.

Clause 2 provides for a need that has always existed in the Customs and Excise Act. The effect of the proposed amendment of section 38(3) is that the time when goods shall be deemed to have been exported as well as the mode of export are clearly defined. In section 10 of the Customs and Excise Act the time when goods shall be deemed to have been imported is described in detail but no such provision exists in respect of exported goods. It has happened on more than one occasion in the past that attempts—normally to curcumvent the exchange control regulations or to illegally export hire purchase goods—are discovered, but that legal action failed as the export action and the intention to export could not be proved beyond doubt. With this provision it will, for example, ensure that carriers/hauliers produce acceptable evidence at the place of clearance to the effect that the goods being carried are from a destination beyond the borders of the Republic. This provision will be of prime importance in the law enforcement in cases where a discrepancy in either the documentation or quantity being exported is disclosed.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place clause 3 provides for two textual amendments which, I am sure, need no elaboration. Secondly, the object of the other amendments to section 40(3) is to provide for circumstances under which clearing documents may be substituted where retrospective amendments are made. In terms of the present provisions of section 40(3) an importer may apply to substitute a rebate bill of entry for a duty-paid bill of entry within three months from the date of the original duty-paid bill of entry. This enables the importer to claim a refund of the duty originally paid. Where a tariff determination or rebate provision is, however, amended with retrospective effect, the importer is normally not in a position to apply for substitution within three months of the date of the original bill of entry. The proposed amendment now provides that the importer may apply for substitution within three months of the date on which the tariff determination or rebate provision is amended. I may add that this confirms the practice which is presently being applied by Customs and Excise.

*The proposed amendment to section 57A, as contained in clause 4, brings the existing legislation into line with an amendment to the Revised GATT Anti-Dumping Code. The proposed amendment makes provision for the fact that on the recommendation of the Board of Trade and Industries the Minister of Finance can, by notice in the Gazette, impose a provisional charge in relation to anti-dumping duty on imported goods for a period not exceeding four months, instead of three months, from the date of publication of such notice or, if requested thereto by the exporter concerned before the expiry of the said period, for a further period not exceeding two months, instead of three months. The total period of six months remains unchanged. The proposed amendment to section 76(4) arises partly out of the proposed amendment to section 40(3) for which provision is being made in clause 3. In the normal course of events provision is made in section 76(4) for an importer to reclaim any excess duty he may have paid. It is provided that a claim for repayment must be submitted within a period of two years from the date on which the duty was paid. A duty could, however, be repayable as a result of a retrospective tariff provision or rebate. In the proposed amendment it is now being provided that in such cases an application for repayment must be submitted within two years from the date on which the tariff or rebate provision was amended.

In the proposed amendment of section 107(2), as contained in clause 6, it is clearly stated that the conditions that have to be borne in mind by the Commissioner for Customs and Excise before any goods can be allowed to pass from his control can include that of security. This is merely being done to confirm existing practice.

Clause 7 makes provision for the deletion of sections 113(5) and 113(6). As a result of an amendment, during 1982, of section 4 of the Armaments Development and Production Act, 1968 (Act No. 57 of 1968), the export or conveyance of armaments through the Republic, or their transportation along the coast, is regulated by the said Act, and sections 113(5) and 113(6) are therefore redundant.

As is customary, clause 8 makes provision for the continuance of the amendments to schedules Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 to the principal Act, which were published by Government Notice in the Gazette during the period 5 February 1982 to 14 January 1983 and on 25 February 1983.

Clauses 9 and 10 make provision for the commencement of certain Government Notices, with retrospective effect.

Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by referring to the initial statement of the hon. the Deputy Minister that documents were made available to us before the First Reading. We have always appreciated the courtesy which has been extended to us in this regard as well as the cooperation from the Commissioner for Customs and Excise. But I have always understood that this was done on a confidential basis. This is actually the first time that I can recollect, that a point has been made of it in the debate, namely that documents are made available before the First Reading. I am quite happy that it should not be on a confidential basis, but it does appear to be a new departure. However, as I say, I am quite happy and I do not have any complaints. The confidentiality was something we respected and would respect, but now that the matter is on a more formal basis, I am still appreciative of the courtesy.

The second point is that quite obviously this amending Bill is almost like an annual event, in the sense that every year we have a whole series of tariffs which have to be confirmed by law where there have been changes in the past year. Every year there is also a game being played between those who seek to avoid the payment of duty and the Commissioner for Customs and Excise who seeks to close the loopholes, and every year more loopholes are being closed. What is fascinating, is that despite every endeavour by the Commissioner for Customs and Excise to close all the loopholes every year, every year there are people who find new loopholes. So there seems to be no end to this type of legislation. Of course, the net gets tighter and tighter every year and, to some extent by tightening the net, not only does one catch the man who is trying to evade the payment of duty and the smart-aleck but there is also to some extent an effect upon commercial practice that has to adapt itself to new situations.

Let us take as an example the very first provision in this Bill which is to the effect that if a transaction contravenes the provisions of this legislation it will be regarded as being null and void. Instead of having a transaction that becomes null and void in this way, I would have preferred a transaction that only becomes null and void vis-à-vis the Commissioner for Customs and Excise This will be preferable to interfering with commercial law as well. The effect of the amendment is that where such a transaction is entered into without the permission of the Commissioner for Customs and Excise, not only is it null and void as against the Commissioner but it also has no legal effect against any third party either. There could be transactions which from a commercial point of view could and should take place even though they would not be effective as against the Commissioner for Customs and Excise. I use this as an illustration to show that we have to be careful in that while we seek to close the net in the case of the people who are trying to evade the law, we should not tighten the net to such an extent that it can affect ordinary commercial practice. I should just like to utter that word of caution to the hon. the Deputy Minister in respect of this matter.

The second matter that troubles me takes me back to a matter that I raised during the discussion on the Finance Vote and to which no answer was given at all. I am referring to the question of whether the concept of customs and excise duties is the raising of revenue, the protection of industries or both. In certain circumstances it does only one or the other and in others it does both. The example that I gave was the case of where local industry was being prejudiced very seriously and this point was not answered at all. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will reply to me in this regard this evening. I am referring to the importation of cheap Japanese motor cars into South Africa. This had a serious impact upon the job situation in the Eastern Cape. This is a very delicate situation and many members of Parliament representing the Eastern Cape are fully aware of it. They have made representations in this regard as well and yet we have this situation where motor cars are virtually being dumped in South Africa as a result of which jobs are being placed in jeopardy. Because these are cheap motor cars despite the 100% duty that is imposed upon them, these vehicles can still be sold competitvely in South Africa and, as I say, thus jeopardizes South African jobs. That is not something that we can leave unattended to and it is not something that we can allow to continue because it is a matter which jeopardizes jobs in one of the most sensitive areas in the whole of South Africa. I do not want to approach this matter from a political point of view. I want to approach it from the point of view of looking at a sensitive situation on the assumption that the hon. the Deputy Minister has the labour relations in that area as close to his heart as we do on this side of the House, and I hope that he will consider the matter from that particular point of view. As far as we are concerned, we are very disturbed about this matter.

There are a number of anti-dumping duties dealt with in this particular Bill and I should like to refer to some of them. Some of them may in fact need some explanation because I was quite amazed to note that a country like the Federal Republic of West Germany, for example, has anti-dumping duties imposed in respect of certain of its products. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to deal specifically with some of these. There is a ready reference to them on pages 7 and 8 et seq and also on page 16 of the explanatory memorandum. There are certain countries in respect of which one expects anti-dumping duties to be imposed, countries in which there is cheap labour and in respect of which there are a whole variety of matters necessitating the application of those duties. However, I should like to hear from the hon. the Deputy Minister why in respect of a country like the Federal Republic of West Germany and in respect of a manufacturer who is specifically named—it is an international name—these anti-dumping duties have to be applied. I assume there is a valid explanation but I should like to hear it from the hon. the Deputy Minister because we must obviously be concerned in regard to this.

I should also like to refer to a couple of the changes which concern one. If one turns to page 63 of the Explanatory Memorandum one finds there a change in respect of gift parcels. To suggest that under the modem conditions in the inflationary situation which exists in the world today one can actually deal with a gift parcel on the basis that its contents are worth not more than R30 is to some extent living in a dream world. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that certainly in respect of the unsolicited gift parcels of which many are received in South Africa, the amount of R30 needs to be increased to probably R100 to make it realistic. To suggest that anybody will in these conditions send a gift, for example on the occasion of a wedding, which costs R30 is really quite outside the realms of reality if one takes into account what inflation is today.

I now come back to an item about which I always feel strongly. Whereas we appear to be helping people who drink spirits, appear to be helping people who drink champagne …

Have you been drinking champagne today?

No, the hon. member is a champagne drinker.

What I cannot understand is that while the fat cats of the NP enjoy the relief which they give to champagne, when it comes to the working man’s drink which is beer, then they want to impose more duties to make it more expensive. Here again we find one item where the rebate of duty on malted barley for the brewing of beer is withdrawn. If it is done in order to protect the local industry in respect of the question of malted barley, then it is justified and then we are dealing with a local situation provided that there is no undue price increase.

I should like to appeal to hon. members on the Government side that they should cast their minds back to the old days when they were the representatives of the working people of South Africa and when they were concerned about beer. Now they have become a bunch of champagne drinkers and it is for us to defend the working man’s beer. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, they have had a little too much bubbly; that is why we have the noise.

We in the CP look after the rich and the poor.

This is not an acceptable situation.

I now want to deal with what I think is perhaps the most important issue and the one which is going to run right through all the financial legislation with which we are going to deal in the next couple of days and that is that we want to test the Government as to whether it is sincere in its endeavours to fight inflation, what it is doing in regard to fighting inflation and what it is doing in order to use the fiscal mechanisms which are at its disposal in order to fight inflation.

The Government is demonstrating that it is not really doing anything active to fight inflation. When it comes to the money supply, then they have failed miserably because the money supply is increasing at a rate which is utterly abnormal at the present moment. Therefore if they claim to be monetarists, they are a failure as monetarists. [Interjections.] If they deny that they are monetarists and they want to use fiscal methods, then they fail in the use of fiscal methods as well. The measure with which we are dealing now is another example. [Interjections.]

Order! We have an inflation of interjections at the moment.

The measure with which we are dealing tonight demonstrates it in a very clear fashion because I need only take one item out of this and that is the import levy.

Tell us about Wes-Bank.

What is your problem there?

Tell us about WesBank.

Would you like to say what you want to say about it because what you are is a despicable, rotten person …

Order! First of all, I would like to remind the hon. member for Yeoville that all remarks are made through the Chair.

But, Sir, I cannot call you a dishonourable and despicable person.

Secondly, the hon. member must withdraw the remarks he made.

Which remarks, Sir?

The words “dishonourable”, “rotten” and “despicable”.

I withdraw the words, Sir, and I say he is a person who is not worthy to sit in this House. [Interjections.]

Order! All members of this House are hon. members, and that remark is also not parliamentary. I ask the hon. member to withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir. I say then that the voters of Turffontein have made a very serious mistake in electing a man like that to this House. [Interjections.]

Order!

I think that is permissible, Sir. I am entitled to say that the voters of Turffontein have made a mistake.

I would not have asked the hon. member to withdraw that if he had made that statement by itself, but in terms of the context of what he has said I ask the hon. member to withdraw that remark unconditionally.

With great respect, Sir, I withdrew the remark which you ruled as being unparliamentary, but it is parliamentary practice to use words thereafter which are permissible. I can quote you the examples in the British House of Commons.

The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Sir.

What did he say that upset you?

You want me to repeat it? I will repeat it for you, because you are in the same category. [Interjections.] The words I am not allowed to use, apply equally to that hon. Deputy Minister, because he has the same kind of trait as that hon. member.

The hon. member may proceed. [Interjections.] Order! I want to ask hon. members to cease their interjections now.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

You may, and I will answer it with pleasure.

What is your problem?

My problem is that I am not allowed, in terms of parliamentary rules, to tell the public of South Africa what the calibre of the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. member for Turffontein actually is. [Interjections.] However, I rest content in the knowledge that I think the public know without my having to tell them. Mr. Speaker, may I continue with my speech now?

The hon. member may continue to speak on the Second Reading of the Bill.

Thank you, Sir.

Tell us about Harry Oppenheimer. [Interjections.]

The hon. member may proceed.

I am very happy to continue, but I think, Sir, that you have to make a choice. Either the hon. member for Turffontein is addressing the House, or I am addressing the House. You must make the choice, Sir, not I.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I submit that the hon. member is now making fun of the Chair.

Order! There must be order in this House now. I request all hon. members to stop making interjections while the hon. member for Yeoville is making his speech.

Then he must continue with his speech.

Mr. Speaker, would you mind telling the hon. Whip that the ruling applies to him as well?

Order! The hon. member may now proceed.

But does your ruling apply to the hon. Whip as well? Sir, either there is a ruling that applies to everybody in the House …

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I submit that the hon. member for Yeoville is blatantly poking fun at the Chair.

Order! I shall deal with this myself. The hon. member for Yeoville must continue with his speech now and I request hon. members to make no further interjections while the hon. member for Yeoville is making his speech.

Thank you, Sir. I will not be very long, because I want to make one simple point, namely that, as I have demonstrated in regard to the monetary measures that have to be taken, in regard to its fiscal measures this Government has also failed.

I now wish to deal with the import levy. If in fact the Government would abolish the import levy it would assist with the fight against inflation; it would reduce the cost of imported goods and it would enable people in very difficult times to deal with an inflationary situation which is taking an increasing toll in South Africa at present. Therefore I ask the question: Why does the Government not repeal the import levy in its entirety? If the Government is serious and really wants to use the fiscal tools which are available to it, it will do away with the import levy as a demonstration of the fact that it is serious in the fight against inflation. Either it really wants to fight inflation or it wants to talk about fighting inflation. At the present moment we are not convinced that this Government is able to use the fiscal tools which are available in order to deal with inflation which is so serious a problem in South Africa.

I accordingly wish to move the following amendment—

Mr. Speaker, the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville began by being a good speech and I thought that he was going to make a constructive contribution to this debate this evening. However, he went on to accuse this side of the House of being “champagne drinkers”, as he put it. I maintain that one should not judge others by oneself. I came to the conclusion that the hon. member for Yeoville had suddenly lost his head and that there were certain factors affecting him that had driven him to this state of hysteria.

In the first place it is a privilege for me to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on the fact that in the present economic climate, and particularly the economic climate of a few months ago when the budget was introduced in this House, he did not find it necessary to increase the general customs duties. This just goes to show once again how the hon. the Minister, the Department of Finance and the Government, viz. this side of the House, have succeeded by way of farsighted planning over the years in building financial and economic stability into the South African economy. Economic discipline, even in times of prosperity, remains a sound policy. The eventual dividends such a policy pays are always high, and this was again confirmed in that customs and excise tariffs were not increased. I repeat that it was only possible not to increase tariffs under the prevailing economic conditions because care, responsibility and firm financial discipline were applied consistently. This is also reason for rejecting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville.

The most important amendment in this Bill is probably the prohibition on the transfer of ownership of imported goods to any other person without the written permission of the commissioner. The goods may not be pledged or hypothecated in favour of any other person either. If permission is in fact given to pledge or hypothecate the goods, the person in whose favour permission was given may not cede the right obtained by him to a third person. In fact this measure is only a logical step to ensure that the State is not denied the right to attach such goods.

Goods may not be imported while the State as a result of the non-payment of tax forfeits the right to attach the relevant goods because they are no longer the property of the importer. This insertion in clause 1 which amends section 26 is therefore generally accepted by organised inter alia commerce and industry, that had the right to comment on it in advance.

I now want to refer briefly to the control function of the Commissariat of Customs and Excise. The control function exercised by customs officials at control points—both passenger and goods control points—is sometimes considered to be a nuisance; and unnecessary waste of time. It is a pity that this is the case, because the work done by these officials at the control points is not only aimed at levying customs tariffs; on the contrary, they are also the real guards at our import posts, people who have to prevent undesirable goods and articles from entering the country. The wonderful work done by these officials in preventing goods of this kind from entering the country is not always noticed and appreciated. If we only consider how much success has been achieved recently in combating the smuggling of narcotics, drugs, etc. as well as undesirable literature, I feel it is necessary for us to express our thanks to these fighters in the front line.

For that reason one is also grateful that the principle of occupational differentiation has been made applicable in this department. The fact that these officials were immediately singled out brought about a significant change in the staff position, which not only facilitated the primary function of the department, but also led to effective handling of the function of supervision and control. We should like to express our thanks to these silent workers who guard against the smuggling in of all manner of destructive evils. Accordingly we support the Bill under discussion.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, should like to express my sincere thanks to the department for the documents we received in advance. The activities of this department are of a highly technical nature, and if we did not receive these documents in advance, the task of all of us in this regard would be rendered far more difficult. Officials of this department did a tremendous amount of work in preparing these documents. I should like to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that they were of great use to us. I also feel that it makes our job far easier, particularly since we obtain all the necessary information in this way.

Of course, this is a very short Bill. It is aimed solely at rectifying certain aspects, as the hon. the Deputy Minister also indicated. We therefore do not have many problems with it. However, since the hon. member for Yeoville has just said that the NP is actually a champagne party that does not look after the workers of the country, I urge him to look to his left. To his left hon. members of the CP are sitting. In the future we shall look after the interests of the workers of South Africa. [Interjections.]

You are just a “sherry mob”. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I should also like to say a few words in connection with the surcharge. We discussed this earlier this year. It is a fact that in South Africa today we have an inflation rate of between 13% and 14%, whereas the inflation rate of all our overseas trading partners is only between 3% and 4%. [Interjections.] Of course, this brings me to the political head of this department. I am now approaching the matter from the political angle; I am not concentrating solely on the technical aspects of the department’s activities, or its officials. I want to concentrate on the responsibility of the Government and of this department’s political head. It is true that the Government could have done far more to combat inflation.

Tell us how. [Interjections.]

In the first place—this only concerns customs and excise—there is the surcharge. What would the effect be if the surcharge of 5%, or whatever it is, were to be abolished? The price of all imported goods are increased accordingly. This is obvious. One thinks, for example, of all the imported equipment and implements of the farmers. The cost of living is high and implements, tractors and the like are expensive. The prospect of the surcharge being abolished was mentioned. I admit that the hon. the Minister of Finance did mention it as a possibility. However, this should already have been done. Hon. members can laugh about this, but there is no one here who can deny that where an additional tax of 5% or 7,5% is levied, this pushes up the price of the goods.

The Blacks also pay it.

They pay far more. I hope that that hon. member will also enter the debate. Then he can tell us why he made such a remark. It is a fact that the CP allows the other population groups far more than the NP does. In this regard and in this spirit I want to make a strong plea on behalf of the CP that the hon. the Deputy Minister see to it that this surcharge is drastically reduced, if not abolished entirely, as soon as possible—I realize it cannot be done right away. The sooner this can be done, the better it will be, particularly for the workers and the poor people in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville was very worried about Wesbank. My benchmate wants to know: What about Boland Bank? I have nothing to hide. One can only thank them … [Interjections.]

Whom do we have to thank? [Interjections.]

It is always very interesting to listen to the hon. member for Sunnyside, but he always reminds me of a man who is walking in his sleep somewhat, and who is living in something of a dream world.

You are a real snob, you know. [Interjections.]

I just want to tell the hon. member for Sunnyside and, because the hon. member for Rissik has such a big mouth, I want to tell him as well, that they are living in an absolute dream world if they think that they can solve the problem of inflation overnight. The biggest dream of the hon. member for Sunnyside is that he thinks he still represents Sunnyside. I think this is really a nightmare for the voters of Sunnyside.

Is that a challenge for a by-election?

I challenge you: I shall resign if Fanie Botha will come and stand against me. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Sunnyside is very worried about the surcharge of 5%.

Are you glad about it?

No, but if the hon. member had listened to the budget speech of the hon. the Minister earlier this year and had seen this matter against the background that initially a surcharge of 10% was introduced and it has been progressively reduced to 5%, and that the hon. the Minister stated that he would try to abolish that 5%, possibly before the end of the year if financial conditions permitted …

I said that. Were you sitting there sleeping?

No, Sir, it sounded to me as if the hon. member for Sunnyside had never even heard about that possibility. [Interjections.]

I should very much like to come back to a remark made by the hon. member for Yeoville. He referred to the matter of the excise duty on malting barley. I want to tell him that this is a very important concession to the beer drinkers of South Africa. I feel it is also very important for this House to take cognizance of the reasons why this was done. We in South Africa are trying as far as possible to be self-sufficient as regards the supplying of the goods we need in this country.

It is interesting that as far as the provision of barely as a basic ingredient of beer is concerned—the hon. member for Caledon referred to this earlier—nowadays South Africa in actual fact produces sufficient barley to meet all the country’s requirements. The problem was that until fairly recently there were virtually no malting facilities available in South Africa. I want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that as far as I am concerned one of the praiseworthy success stories in the economic field during the past five years has been the partnership formed between one of the largest private companies in the country and one of the largest co-operatives in the winter grain industry in the country, and that this company has spent R30 million in the meanwhile to make South Africa approximately 50% self-sufficient with regard to malting barley at this stage. The company’s objective is ultimately to make South Africa 75% self-sufficient as far as malting barley is concerned. An eventual total investment in excess of R200 million is foreseen. In view of this I feel it is only right for a concession to be made and for the duty on malting barley to be abolished. This has been widely welcomed.

I also want to refer to another matter, about which the hon. member for Ceres is far better qualified to talk than I, namely the matter of the excise duty on brandy. Hon. Members will have read in the Press that this matter repeatedly came up for discussion at the annual general meeting of the KWV last week. The hon. member for Yeoville referred to the GATT agreement. I consider it to be an anomaly that we are in a position in South Africa today from which it will be very difficult for us to extricate ourselves, namely as regards the tax on brandy and whiskey which in point of fact were in the correct proportion to one another ten years ago. However, it was a monetary ratio. Percentage-wise that ratio is nowadays, of course, totally out of proportion in favour of whisky and at the expense of brandy. I want to take this opportunity to ask that some method be devised to rectify this anomaly in due course.

I also want to refer to another remark made by the hon. member for Yeoville, namely the matter of the anti-dumping arrangement, which in fact is only being arranged in a slightly more practical way in clause 4 of this Bill. I want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that as far as I personally am concerned, the levies and taxes on imported goods are in point of fact imposed with a combination of two things in mind. In the first place they are aimed at maintaining a balance between a product which can be produced locally and one which can be imported cheaply from abroad, and in the second place they are aimed at earning money for the country by means of customs and excise. As far as anti-dumping is concerned, I feel it is of the utmost importance for there always to be a balance between the protection of the local industry on the one hand and the protection of the consumer on the other. I have a great deal of sympathy for the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Industries Commerce and Tourism who have to give constant attention to these aspects.

In conclusion, permit me to mention a very interesting figure in connection with customs and excise. In 1972 the total amount collected in direct revenue was R1,7 billion, whereas the amount earned today from customs and excise adds R2,2 billion to the Treasury. I should like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister and his department and the officials in particular most sincerely for the work they are doing in this connection.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Yeoville said at the commencement of this debate, this amending Bill is an annual event and ratifies the changes which have taken place during the year when it comes to excise and import duties. As such, one would expect this to be a rather calm debate, a debate the Minister would hope to have over and done with very quickly. However, this evening there seems to have been a little heat generated and the hon. member for Yeoville has moved an amendment which I should like to say at the outset we are going to support.

The Bill itself is primarily concerned with administrative matters. Clauses 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 contain administrative provisions and these have been discussed. I do not intend to refer to them any further than that. There is one clause that I do not think has been referred to by any members other than the hon. the Minister and that is clause 6. This clause includes the provision that enables the Commissioner to lay down certain conditions relating to security before any goods can be passed from his control. I think it is worth noting that we live in difficult times and it is very wise that this provision has been included in this Bill because we should all be concerned about security.

A number of members referred to clause 4. This clause concerns the anti-dumping duty. I agree with the hon. member for Paarl when he says it is necessary for us to try to maintain a balance when it comes to this sort of duty. We do have local industries which do need some degree of protection. However, to overprotect them would be just as bad as to allow the dumping of goods which could destroy these local industries. I should like to put it to the hon. member for Paarl that one way to increase competition and to fight spiralling costs resulting from profiteering, is to allow imports into the country to an extent in order to provide competition for a lot of local manufacturers who may have a monopoly in South Africa in respect of the manufacturing of certain goods. We must look at this anti-dumping clause rather carefully in the light of the economic circumstances of the world today. There is a recession and quite a number of countries are finding that they are overproducing certain goods and in order to get rid of them they dump them. In the light of the fact that certain countries especially in the West are subsidizing certain goods very heavily, I think it is wise that we extend the period of these anti-dumping provisions as proposed. Therefore we go along with that.

The hon. member for Yeoville raised the point that it is rather interesting to note some of the countries against which we are applying these anti-dumping duties. As he said, there is for instance a country like West Germany which manufactures a number of products such as asbestos products that are being dumped in this country. This could be as a result of a tremendous manufacturing machine in that country which has overproduced and, as I have said, they want to get rid of the goods. Therefore, they are prepared to dump them. We also know that as far as agricultural products from Western Europe are concerned, here too there is dumping of agricultural products on the world market. This is lowering commodity prices and affecting very seriously the income of many Third World countries which rely very heavily on the sale of their agricultural products on world markets. In the case of West Germany we have a very highly sophisticated and developed economy that has seen fit to dump its products on the world market and certainly in South Africa. However, in the same schedule, we find that there are countries like Korea and others which are dumping other products such as soles for shoes and possibly textile products, again possibly because of a very high production and at prices that are extremely low, probably as a result of the fact that their labour costs are very much lower than ours are. It is for these reasons that I believe that a certain amount of protection must be given to local industries. Therefore, we support clause 6 which makes provision in this regard.

As I have said, the schedules are very extensive and were drawn up as a result of representations from the various commerce and industry institutions. We will therefore go along with them.

I want now to deal with the import surcharge. In this regard, as I have said, we will support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville. The surcharge that has been imposed upon imports is hitting many of our input costs in a large number of our own industries and certainly in agriculture. I believe that the 5% import surcharge is being escalated through the manufacturing process. Right at the end we must remember that we have to add to it a GST of a further 6%. I do feel that this multiplying effect tends to cause the prices of our own products to spiral. One may ask why the hon. the Minister of Finance introduced the surcharge in the first place. We do know that a few years ago we were in the red as far as our balance of payments was concerned. We were running at an annual deficit of several billions of dollars and this needed to be corrected. One of the reasons for the unfavourable balance of payments position was that South Africa had been on a spending spree and was importing tremendous amounts of goods from overseas. This led to a tremendous outflow of money from South Africa and I think that this was one of the main reasons why the hon. the Minister of Finance introduced the import surcharge a year or two ago.

However, we also know that our balance of payments position has now improved and we are now showing a surplus of about R1 billion per annum, so that is not a legitimate reason for the retention of this import surcharge. The fact that the hon. the Minister of Finance has relaxed exchange control regulations for non-resident investors in South Africa indicates that the balance of payments situation is no longer a problem. Therefore the retention of the surcharge is certainly not intended to improve the balance of payments position.

Another reason for retaining the surcharge could be to raise revenue for the State coffers. We know that we had a surplus last year and because of the fact that this surcharge adds to inflationary costs, I believe that it could be removed. I think it was the hon. member for Paarl who said that when the hon. the Minister of Finance introduced the surcharge it was of a temporary nature. The fact is that it is still with us this year. As the hon. member for Paarl said, the hon. the Minister of Finance expressed the hope that he would be able to remove it altogether. In this regard, I agree with the hon. member for Yeoville. The time to remove it is now.

While we accept all the other amendments that are contained in this Bill, I do believe that the hon. member for Yeoville has a very good point in regard to the import surcharge and for that reason we will support his amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank those hon. members who took part in the debate for their participation, even those hon. members who made the debate a little lively.

†I want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that we will continue on the accepted basis of confidentiality when we make certain information available. We have no objection in revealing that we have done that because it is certainly not an underhand matter; it is merely confidential information. Loopholes will always crop up. I do not think that will ever stop. The hon. member is quite correct when he says that we shall keep on trying to close loopholes. We certainly keep on trying to close them.

*We must remember that there are many people, including some in commerce, who are so clever that one could almost call them crafty rogues. It is true that the steps taken to put a stop to such things do, to a certain extent, put pressure on organized commerce because everyone is made subject to the measures we adopt. The hon. member’s word of caution has been taken note of.

I now come to the question of either protection by way of customs duties or revenue from customs duties. Initially customs duty was a source of revenue, but its protective function in a growing country, a country with growing industries, is as important as its revenue function. As the hon. member for Paarl has said, one would like to achieve a balance between these two.

The hon. member for Yeoville specifically referred to motor vehicles imported from Japan. He knows that those articles are not simply imported. He also knows that we have a Board of Trade and Industries which is an expert in this field and investigates matters very closely before a decision is taken about whether such articles can be imported. The hon. member must also bear in mind that those cheap motor vehicles do act as a curb to inflation. The fact is that this also acts towards persuading our people to produce at lower prices. It underlines the fact that in the same class there are vehicles that can be brought onto the market much more cheaply.

The hon. member is not presenting his anti-dumping argument in the right quarters, because it is a matter that is dealt with by the Department of Industries, Commerce and Tourism and also by the Board of Trade and Industries. I am satisfied that the matter is looked at from time to time. We also investigate it thoroughly. The hon. the Minister responsible for this matter, referred to the question of overprotection. In his speech this evening the hon. member for Amanzimtoti also referred to it. We are all only too conscious of the fact that over-protection is as detrimental.

The hon. member for Yeoville is also concerned about gift packages. I concede that a gift valued at R30 is not a very big gift. One could, of course, give two such gifts per year. That would, at least, bring it up to R60. In regard to the question of beer and malt, to which the hon. member referred, let me just tell him that it is only under this Government—I just want to say this to the hon. member for Sunnyside, too—that people can afford to drink beer.

The old NP, not the new NP. [Interjections.]

Hon. members—and not only the hon. member for Yeoville—thought fit to raise the question of inflation here. I am afraid, however, that I have not heard hon. members give a single alternative in connection with what the Government should be doing in contrast to what it has already done.

What about the surcharge?

Let me just tell the hon. member for Yeoville that we have already decreased the surcharge twice. What happened then? Nothing whatsoever happened as far as prices are concerned. I can tell him that we could remove that surcharge tomorrow and it would make not one iota of difference. All that would happen would be that the State would have to forfeit R274 million in revenue up to the end of the year. Because we would have to find that money, would the hon. member be prepared to suggest that we increase sales tax?

You do not need it, and you know it.

Let me thank the hon. member for Gezina for the positive contribution he made. He was right when he said that the rights of the State should be protected. One must guard against the State losing revenue. That is also in the taxpayers’ interests. I thank the hon. member for having expressed his appreciation for our controlling officers. They are people who frequently have to work under the most difficult of circumstances.

The hon. member for Sunnyside also spoke chiefly about the surcharge and about inflation. The abolition of the surcharge, however, would have absolutely no effect on inflation. Other hon. members rightly pointed out that in his budget speech the hon. the Minister of Finance had indicated that attention was being given to phasing out the surcharge by the end of the year, and I have already told hon. members what financial implications would be involved in such a phasing-out process.

I think the hon. members for Paarl gave sound replies on the anti-dumping question, whilst also making a fine contribution on the question of inflation.

†I want to thank the hon. member for Amanzimtoti for his contribution and his support for the measure. He also referred to anti-dumping and dumping, which is a World-wide phenomenon. Nowadays the industrial world is under pressure and there is the real fear of unemployment. If these countries do not export and even dump, they may face greater unemployment.

*This is one of the foremost reasons why we are saddled with the problem of dumping in our country, and also in other countries of the world.

Let me again thank hon. members who participated in the debate for their support.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question.

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister why this clause stipulates that the agreements would only be null and void in respect of the Commissioner for Customs and Excise, and not null and void in toto in terms of common law. The hon. the Deputy Minister failed to reply to this question during the Second Reading. I should like him to reply to it now because I submit that the same object would have been achieved if this transaction would only have been null and void in respect of the Commissioner for Customs and Excise, while the commercial implications would have been allowed to remain in force. Why has the hon. the Deputy Minister made the agreement void in respect of everybody instead of only void in respect of the Commissioner for Customs and Excise?

Mr. Chairman, I did not hear the hon. member’s question very clearly. Could he possibly repeat it?

Very well, Mr. Chairman, I shall repeat it.

†Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister says he did not hear me. Therefore I will repeat what I said. I hope, Mr. Chairman, you will ask hon. members to give me a chance to speak and the hon. the Deputy Minister a chance to hear. Then it will not be necessary for me to repeat what I have already said. [Interjections.] During the Second Reading I asked the question why the agreement referred to in this clause was not void only in respect of the Commissioner for Customs and Excise, and why it should be only null and void as a commercial transaction. I believe the same object would have been achieved if we would only have made the agreement void in respect of the Commissioner for Custom and Excise. Why should it be null and void in toto as a commercial transaction vis-à-vis innocent parties?

Mr. Chairman, the answer is very simple. The moment possession of the goods passes from the Commissioner’s hands, he has lost his rights and he has lost the retention. Then the measure means nothing at all any longer and there would be no use in saying one wanted to protect third parties. Validation must also be obtained in regard to third parties so as to protect the right of the State whilst the goods are in the Commissioner’s possession. One has no other choice. Otherwise one could just as well leave this out.

Mr. Chairman, that is the one answer I actually did not expect from the hon. the Deputy Minister, because in addition to being Deputy Minister of Finance he is also a lawyer and he knows that there can be a transfer of ownership without there being a physical delivery. We learned all of that in our first year at law school. One can leave the goods in the possession of the Commissioner for Customs and Excise and still change the ownership; it can be invalid in respect of the Commissioner, but the transaction can still be valid as between the parties. Therefore, with great respect, that is not an answer. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister should give the matter some consideration and after the debate give me the answer he feels should be given, because the answer he gave is no answer.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

This amendment deals purely with the period within which the substitution can be effected. In other words, instead of there being a prescriptive period of three months, there would be a prescriptive period of six months. People in business, in commerce and industry, and engaged in other activities in fact feel that there should be no time limit in this respect but that the right to effect such a change-over should be permitted over an indefinite period. I concede that from the point of view of the Commissioner for Customs and Excise there has to be a limit, there has to be some degree of finality, but three months is a bit short and I would suggest that the hon. the Deputy Minister should accept six months.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the member concedes that there must be a limit. Once one has conceded that, only with great difficulty will one find a reason for not accepting three months rather than six months. The fact is that this measure has been in force since 1976 and it works well.

*There are people who, with three months at their disposal, would not submit their claims in time, but I can now give hon. members the assurance that these same people would still be late even if they had six months at their disposal. There are too many people who always leave things to the last moment, and that is exactly what would happen here. I think that with the period of three months we would be imposing far better discipline on the importer than would be the case if we were to give him six months in which to submit his documentation. With the period of three months we would also finish dealing with the claims more quickly. For this reason I unfortunately cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, I want to move the following amendment—

The wording in itself does not mean an awful lot. It means in fact that the import levy which we were talking about a little earlier will be abolished. In other words, instead of it being at the level of 5% the levy will be zero. I think it is necessary to explain what this amendment means.

What is remarkable about the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reply to the debate in regard to the import levy is that he had only one answer to it. He said that if this levy were abolished now, about R270 million—I think that was the figure—would be lost and that that amount was not going to be passed on to the public. I think that is one of the most significant statements that has ever been made by a Minister. That means that no taxation can be reduced under this Government because the public are not going to get the benefit, because the Government is not able to ensure that the benefit goes to the public, because the Government allows exploitation to take place in these circumstances in South Africa and no benefit gets passed on to the consumer; in other words, if that argument is carried to its logical conclusion, this import levy should be increased. We should get the maximum amount out of it because it is not going to cost the public more. On the other hand, when we reduce it, it is not going to be passed on the public. This is the greatest confession of failure on the part of a Government that I have ever heard. The hon. the Minister of Finance has said repeatedly in the House that not only does the Government monitor the fact that it is to be passed on to the public, but if it is not passed on the public, action will, if necessary, be taken to ensure that it is passed on to the public. If in fact the hon. the Deputy Minister is right that these things are not passed on to the public then he is admitting that there are no fiscal tools which he can use in order to fight inflation. That cannot be right.

The market.

Well, we are back to the market mechanism, the free market. Now the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism comes into this as well. We are now in a game where one can do what one likes in regard to inflation. This Government concedes that there are no fiscal tools available to it which it is able to use. I find that strange. The hon. the Minister of Finance says he wants to use fiscal and monetary measures. The Governor of the Reserve Bank also wants to use fiscal and monetary measures. The hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism just loves the market. I do not know what market he loves, but whatever market he loves that is what he seems to be involved in. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance says one should not worry about fiscal measures because nothing is passed on to the consumer. With great respect, whatever theory one believes in, whether one is monetarist or a Keynesian, or whatever one happens to be, …

A socialist.

Yes, even a socialist. There are many socialists sitting on the Government benches in this House. Followers of any one of these theories will concede that the fiscal tools are some of the tools which one has to use to fight inflation. One of the ways to fight inflation is to do away with the import levy. We said right at the beginning, and we are going to say it throughout these financial debates, that we are going to demonstrate to the public of South Africa that this Government is unable to use fiscal tools adequately to fight inflation.

Physical?

Fiscal, not physical. I do not know what is on the hon. the Minister’s mind, but “fiscal” will not help him there either.

We will demonstrate it because the reality is that we are now in a recessionary period by anybody’s standards. In the second place, in a recessionary period one should bring down the rate of inflation. If one cannot bring it down during a recessionary period, what will happen if there is an upswing? We will then find ourselves in an inflationary position which will perhaps escalate to levels which none of us in this House wants to see and which nobody in South Africa can afford. If this Government is not going to use fiscal tools—that is what is being debated now—then there is a major difference between us in the Opposition and the Government because we believe that one must use these tools that are available to fight inflation.

Mr. Chairman, if those price decreases, as a result of the possible abolition of the surcharge, are to be pushed through to the consumer, and if the Government must ensure that this is done, there is surely only one way to do so and that is by way of price control. Those hon. members want price control.

†Is that what the hon. member wants?

What did you do about milk? You have allowed people to be exploited in regard to milk.

You are a socialist, Harry.

We are committed, as the hon. member for Yeoville is, to the free market system.

*That is why we do not look at ad hoc measures. We look at measures that really would work on a long-term basis. That is why we have the Maintenance and Promotion of Competition Act, because competition is the answer.

†I have often listened to the hon. member for Yeoville speaking about the exploitation of the public in this House. When the hon. member wants to spread our political bread for us he talks about exploitation, but outside this House the hon. member is very quiet about it.

That is not true.

The hon. member can show me a cutting if he does not mind.

I will show the hon. the Deputy Minister a cutting.

You are a free market socialist, Harry. [Interjections.]

Exploitation does, of course, take place. That is something I agree with the hon. member about, but then I do not want the hon. member merely to condemn that here; he must also condemn it on public platforms.

We can do it on television.

Do you want us to agree on television?

For the reasons I have already furnished, during the Second Reading debate, on the question of the abolition of the surcharge, let me just tell the hon. member that I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to express my disappointment at the attitude of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that I find his attitude remarkable because he will have to abolish this. There is no question about it. In fact, the hon. the Minister of Finance made a commitment to the IMF to abolish it. All the hon. the Deputy Minister is doing in the meantime is that he is not helping to fight inflation. Inflation will be allowed to reach a higher level where it will be more difficult to control. Every economist will tell you that the higher the inflation rate is the more difficult it is to bring it down, if, at all. Everybody will tell you that. The Governor of the Reserve Bank will tell you that. The secret is to nip it in the bud early. That is what the hon. the Deputy Minister is not prepared to do. He is going to allow this measure to remain on the Statute Book until the IMF says it must be withdrawn. Then it will be withdrawn and by that time the inflation rate will be higher so once again it will be more difficult to control. That is the tragedy of this whole thing. It is not that the hon. the Deputy Minister is arguing on a principle. The reality of the matter is that he is going to have to abolish it whether he likes it or not. That is what is so sad about this whole matter.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has said that we only talk about exploitation in the House and we do not talk about it outside. Surely what we say here is reported and read by people outside. I can assure the hon. the Deputy Minster that whatever I say here about exploitation is precisely what I say about it on public platforms outside this House. The only difference is that here we have the presiding officer who would restrain me if I were to try to use the language that I would perhaps prefer to use. For the rest, however, the terminology is the same.

I should like to invite the hon. the Deputy Minister to enter into a debate with us. If he does not wish to debate with me there are numbers of other hon. members on this side who are available to do so. I should like him to debate with us in public, on television and in eyes of the public, the issue of inflation and the issue of the so-called free market which I say is a bluff on the part of the Government. I say this because they do not in fact really practise what they preach. The only time that they talk about a free market is here. They talk about it but the reality of the matter is that there is no free market in South Africa and they do not want a free market in South Africa. That is just so much propaganda. I challenge the hon. the Deputy Minister to a public debate on these issues so that the public will be able to see where we stand.

On a slightly different note, I just want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he has conceded that R30 is not much for a gift parcel. I should like to hear what the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism has to say in regard to the value of R30 on a gift parcel. Perhaps he will get up here and tell us. I want to appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister not to be so mean to people receiving gifts. Let him be realistic in the light of current circumstances and tell us that he will reconsider this matter and that when things are quiet, he will talk to the people at the Department of Customs and Excise and place this matter on a more realistic basis.

Mr. Chairman, surely the hon. member for Yeoville has been here long enough to know that there is no such thing as a completely free market. When I had been here for about two years I read a report in a newspaper about the hon. member’s so-called “economic democracy”. It appeared under banner headlines. I hoped that the hon. member would develop it further as a possible alternative, but all the hon. member did was to fling about old, hackneyed political critical comments across the floor of this House and issue all kinds of challenges about debates on television. The hon. member did not, however, make any contribution whatever to the solution of the problem. The hon. member knows that the hon. the Minister of Finance has said that we were working towards phasing out this surcharge. We gave the IMF that undertaking. It is, however, surely in the country’s interests for us to do so in a manner and at a time best suited to the country’s needs. I want to repeat that I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The amending Bill now before the House relates to the functioning of the Rand Water Board which supplies water, on a large scale, for urban and industrial purposes in a large part of the Transvaal and also a part of the Free State. Water supplied by the board comes from the Vaal River system which, as everyone knows, is in the grip of an oppressive drought. The Rand Water Board obtains its revenue by charging standard rates which are determined on the basis set out in section 4 of the Principal Act.

†The basis on which standard tariffs are to be fixed allows for no flexibility in the determination of tariffs, and the purpose of the proposed amendment is to place the Rand Water Board the same footing as water boards established in terms of the Water Act, 1956. In this connection hon. members are referred to section 1(1)(vi) of the Water Act which allows water boards to take exceptional circumstances into account in determining tariffs. The proposed amendment will place the Rand Water Board in the position, for example, to promote the judicious use of water during periods of scarcity as being experienced at present or to take exceptional circumstances relating to technical aspects of the supply of water to a particular consumer into account.

Mr. Speaker, we intend supporting the Bill on the basis of two broad principles. Firstly there is the principle which is already incorporated in the Water Act, 1956, which gives other water boards the right to levy special charges in special circumstances. This Bill therefore brings the Rand Water Board into line with other water boards. This is a principle which we can accept. We also accept the board principle that fiscal measures can be powerful tools to implement environmental policy.

However, there are three potential problem areas with this proposal and I should like to refer to them briefly. The first is that we would not like to see this power being used for revenue-producing purposes. We certainly would not like that to arise from a special provision such as this which is designed to cater only for special circumstances. Let me point to an example. I do not know what the state of the Rand Water Board’s accounts is, but I believe they have made some injudicious investments in the past and one would not like to see this power being exploited to solve that kind of problem.

A second potential problem area is the potential which may be provided for here to discriminate against certain categories of consumers. The hon. the Minister has not spelt out what is envisaged by the provision in clause 1 allowing the levying of a special charge upon a certain category of consumers. One can imagine some form of objectionable discrimination in terms of that provision, and I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister would clarify for the House in his reply. What specifically the board has in mind by way of categories of consumers? Clearly we expect that it will not be on the basis of objectionable discrimination of any kind.

A third potential problem area is that if this is not going to be a penal provision and if the board is going to use this power to add only a marginal penalty to the cost of water, it could cause a situation where water is readily available to the rich who can afford it, while the poor who would be affected by such a penalty, would be constrained from using water. Obviously one would not want to provide water only for the rich.

Those are the three potential problem areas which we foresee. We do believe that it is not the hon. the Minister’s intention to allow any of those problem areas to develop. We would therefore be happy with the Bill if he would accept the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, which I shall be moving during the Committee Stage, to make this new power subject to the approval of the Minister. We feel that the Minister has wide public accountability and that he will not permit abuses of the kind that I have mentioned to take place. On that basis we will support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Constantia, who has just resumed his seat, indicated that the official Opposition would support this measure. They set the condition that the hon. the Minister must retain control over price fixing. I do not want to say anything on that score, since I think it is the hon. the Minister’s privilege to decide about that. I infer from that that the hon. member is implying that the Rand Water Board is not responsible enough to decide on the prices. However, I shall leave the hon. member at that, since he has indicated that his party will support the measure.

The purpose of this legislation is important and essential, and we consequently take pleasure in supporting this measure introduced by the hon. the Minister. The hon. member for Constantia said that it should not be used for revenue purposes, and that there should not be any unnecessary discrimination. I just want to say that water has become such an important necessity in this country today, particularly at present, because of the oppressive drought, that I think everyone realizes now, more than ever, how important water is to us in this country with its limited rainfall. Consequently, I think that we have reached the stage at which water tariffs should be adapted in such a way as to promote greater conservation and so that those who use water and earn money in the process, should pay tariffs that will deter them from wasting it unnecessarily.

I should like to address a request to the hon. the Minister. This legislation empowers the Rand Water Board to fix tariffs. It is not clear, however, whether the other water boards established in terms of the Water Act, have the legal power to impose differentiated tariffs without permission. I do not want there to be any doubt whatsoever as to whether the Goldfields Water Board, for example, is legally empowered …

The hon. the Minister spoke about that in his introductory speech. The same applies to other boards. Why do you not listen?

I left the Chamber for a moment, since I had another engagement, and I did not hear the hon. the Minister say that. In any case, this legislation only refers to the Rand Water Board, and I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us whether the other water boards also have the power.

I should like to say something further about the water used by the Rand Water Board. They draw their water mainly from the Vaal River. There are also other water boards that make use of the same source. We shall have to take due account of available water in our future planning. One area cannot be permitted to exploit the limited resources we have, thereby handicapping the development of other areas. I think there should be an equitable and reasonable distribution and utilization of the available water, and this can only be achieved through scientific planning. I want to state bluntly that the PWV areas should not be permitted to use all the water so that eventually the other areas that are dependent on the same source find themselves in trouble.

I want to refer once again to the Goldfields Water Board, which recently took over the task of the State water scheme of supplying water to the Goldfields. They also took over the assets, as well as a debt of approximately R12 million. Now they have had to instal a scheme which will cost approximately R55 million. I do not want to reproach anyone at this stage, but I do not think the projections and forward planning were very good, since problems have arisen recently in that sufficient quantities of water could not be supplied to that area. Moreover the department failed to take due account of the development of that area.

I also want to avail myself of this opportunity to tell the hon. the Minister that recently prices in that area have increased by approximately 60%. Last year too, benefits were adjusted to such an extent, that the consumers in that area are not at all happy. The mines in that area use approximately 70% of the water supplied by the Goldfields Water Board. The loans that apply in that regard extend over a period of 10 years. If the town councils were permitted to provide the capital themselves where possible, they could obtain it over much longer terms over 20 or 30 years, which would reduce the interest and redemption.

Order! I regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but what is before this House is the Rand Water Board Statutes (Private) Amendment Bill. However, the hon. member is now discussing the Goldfields Water Board.

Mr. Speaker, I shall abide by your ruling. The only reason I raise this matter is that in terms of this measure, the Rand Water Board is specifically being permitted to impose differentiated tariffs. The water scheme to which I refer is indeed a different scheme with a different name, yet both make use of the same water. The purpose and use of the water, too, are precisely the same. [Interjections.] However, I shall abide by your ruling. If you would permit me, I just want to ask the hon. the Minister please to subsidize that interest. That is all, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Welkom has done his duty by making a plea for his district and his people, Moreover he took the gap most adeptly.

It is the opinion of this party that the present Bill is a timeous and a necessary measure. We therefore take pleasure in supporting it. Of course, I personally take pleasure in supporting it, too, since the old water giant, the Vaal Dam, is situated in my constituency. Its correct name is, in fact, the Vaalbank Dam. The dam is situated on the farm Vaalbank. The largest water works of the Rand Water Board are also situated within the borders of my constituency.

It has been stated on various occasions that the Vaal Triangle, with its steel industries, could be seen as the Birmingham of South Africa. These industries obtain their water from the Rand Water Board. The Rand Water Board, the body this legislation pertains to, obtains its water from the Vaal Dam. The greater part of the population of the Republic is to be found in the PWV area. This region, as well as other regions, as the hon. the Minister rightly pointed out in his Second Reading speech, get their water from the Rand Water Board.

The demands made on the Rand Water Board for the supply of water are growing steadily. I have before me the latest book of statistics, from which I should like to quote a few extracts relating to the economically active section of the population. I should like to refer in this regard to four sectors of people who for the most part consume water supplied by the Rand Water Board. The number of economically active people in mining increased from 614 000 in 1960 to 680 000 in 1970, and to 820 000 in 1980. The number of economically active people in the manufacturing industry has increased from 640 000 in 1960 to 1 million in 1970, and to 1, 5 million in 1980. The number of people active in commerce and finance increased by 400 000 between 1970 and 1980. The number of economically active people in the electricity industry has increased from 28 000 in 1960 to 46 000 in 1970 and then to 79 000 in 1980. The overall number of economically active people in these four spheres has increased by one million in only 10 years. As I have already said, the largest number of people are to be found in the PWV area, which is dependent on the Rand Water Board for its water supply.

Consequently, I want to reiterate that this is a timeous and necessary measure. This measure will also contribute to making consumers, both large and small—domestic consumers, factory consumers, etc.—realize that water is very precious and that it must be used with the utmost care.

According to the latest information, the Vaal Dam is at present carrying only 26% of its full capacity. It is midwinter. Since the rainy season is still three to four months away, the situation could become extremely critical. It is therefore necessary that water be used as sparingly as possible now. We therefore trust that the Rand Water Board, with the new levies it is now being empowered to impose, will utilize its money in such a way that it will encourage the consumers of water to use that water sparingly.

I want to read a quotation in this regard …

As long as it is not from Die Patriot. [Interjections.]

I want to quote from Die Transvaler of 18 June. We read the following in a report entitled “Fabrieke moet die druppels tel”—

I am also going to avail myself of this opportunity to do a fine thing. There are various towns situated in the Vaal Triangle, for example, Vereeniging, Sasolburg, Vanderbijlpark and Meyerton. I have here a newspaper from the Vaal Triangle in which the following is stated under the headline “Twee Vaaldorpe klop die waterteiken”—

That was 5% better than the target aimed at.

Hear, hear!

Of course, Mr. Speaker, you and hon. members can see that the people of Meyerton are following the example of an exemplary Member of Parliament! [Interjections.] However, I take somewhat less pleasure in having to report that as far as two of my good neighbours are concerned, viz. the hon. members for Vereeniging and Vanderbijlpark, the newspaper reports as follows—

They will have to set a better example to their people, Sir. It would do them good.

As I have already said, this Bill will make consumers realize anew how precious water is. Water is life to man and beast. Water turns the power station turbines. Water turns the cogs of industry. Water allows the Scotsman to put a block of ice in his whisky. Water makes it possible for the farmer to sit and drink his coffee on his stoep, and for the Englishman to enjoy the pleasure of drinking his tea. This Bill will contribute towards our having, and always being able to use, the water which is so essential in every sphere of life, in the years ahead. We therefore take pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Constantia expressed his concern about three possible problem situations. I do not believe he need be concerned, since this Bill merely brings the Rand Water Board into line with other water boards established in terms of section 116 of the Water Act. The problems foreseen by the hon. member have not cropped up with regard to the other Water Boards that have been established in terms of the Water Act. Consequently, I think we can reassure him—I do not want to say that he is conjuring up spectres—that the Rand Water Board will not act irresponsibly concerning the matters he mentioned either.

Section 49 of the Act deals with the tariffs the Rand Water Board imposes for water supplied, but the basis of the tariffs laid down in this section is very inflexible, and the Bill before us merely aims at removing this inflexible basis and bringing it into line with the provisions of section 116 of the Water Act, in terms of which all other water boards in South Africa operate. For that this Bill deserves our support.

Secondly, it is necessary that the Rand Water Board should also have the right to impose differentiated tariffs, since we are experiencing a drought at present, and, as we are aware, in a dry country like South Africa, we could have more droughts in the future. That is why the Rand Water Board has to be equipped to deal with situations of this nature. Experience both here and abroad has taught us that the price the consumer has to pay for the water he uses could be an important conscious or unconscious factor which ultimately determines the amount of water used. There are many authorities that reticulate water and that have imposed tariffs in the past in terms of which the unit price drops as consumption increases. The present drought conditions in this country will compel us to reverse that pattern. The ideal way of combating these conditions is to impose a tariff which causes the unit price of water to increase as consumption increases. We shall not be able to get away from that. I think that Natal has set a wonderful example, in that a unit price that increases with the increased consumption of water has resulted directly in commendable water conservation. I am referring in particular to the water boards that handle the Durban and Pietermaritzburg water supplies. However, we can only do this if the authorities that control water and manage the reticulation of water have the powers to impose differentiated tariffs. Because this Bill aims at achieving that, I take pleasure in supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Ermelo for complimenting Durban and Pietermaritzburg. The saving in these two cities has, of course, been achieved because the man in charge of the campaign to conserve water is a member of the Executive Committee of Natal and a member of the NRP. He is providing the right guidance and inspiration!

It is very easy for the Transvalers to talk, since they, and the Rand water area in particular, have for too long been pumping water from Natal over the Drakensberg. They have been living on Natal’s water for a long time, but they are still lagging behind Natal. They have been filching our water for years. It is as well that they now suffer provisions which we are suffering in Natal!

The hon. member for Meyerton is proud that Meyerton has achieved a 25% saving as far as water is concerned, but Durban has achieved a saving of 55%.

At least you have the sea near you.

Yes, but one cannot use sea-water to make coffee or tea for the hon. member for Meyerton. In Natal, a family is restricted to 400 litres of water per day. That is very little water if one has a few children who play rugby. The dry-cleaning industry is growing as never before, but it is a little difficult to dry-clean children, however!

On a more serious note, I should like to pay tribute to the people of Durban, Pietermaritzburg and elsewhere who have kept their water consumption under control by making sacrifices, in this way achieving excellent results. This sets an example. We in the NRP therefore have no difficulty supporting this Bill. It grants the Rand Water Board the same powers to impose differentiated tariffs. Obviously it is necessary that penalties be imposed in respect of water consumption. It has been proved in practice— the hon. member for Meyerton also referred to this—that consumers in the Rand Water Board area are not prepared voluntarily to make the sacrifices necessary to achieve real savings on a large scale. If they do not wish to do so of their own accord, they must be compelled to do so by paying in hard cash, which is so scarce under this Government, since they are not prepared to save more water.

It is easy for the hon. member for Constantia to talk, but if the rain that fell today in Cape Town had fallen in the catchment area of the Midmar Dam and the other dams in Natal, we could have lifted the restrictions completely. All that is needed is one day’s rain, and that applies to the Transvaal as well. If that much rain could fall there, the powers this Bill is granting this board, would not be necessary. However, it is just as well to have those powers, in any case. It is easy for someone living in the Peninsula to speak about the misuse of money, etc., and to refer to technical points, but those experiencing the real tragedy of the drought see this matter from a different angle, since we realize what is means to have cities that have less than 13% of their water supply when the rainy season is still from 4 to 6 months away.

We therefore support this Bill, since we believe that it is necessary and we all pray that the drought will not last so long, that this measure will have to be implemented to a large scale, that we shall get the rain we need, which will make this unnecessary. We can only pray for that, however. We shall therefore be supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, to start with I want to thank all hon. members for the fine contributions they have made in this debate. It is true that at this time one’s heart goes out to the many people who have had to make tremendous sacrifices because their part of the country is experiencing a water crisis. I therefore appreciate hon. members’ contributions so much the more.

The hon. member for Constantia mentioned a few matters he was concerned about. I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Ermelo when replying to him on this. I have not yet been in this department a full year, but something that has really impressed me is the responsible way in which the various boards perform their task. I could give the hon. member many examples, and I can give him the absolute reassurance today that these boards co-operate very closely with the department. Liaison takes place on an almost daily basis. We have a managing engineer who works exclusively with the boards and is constantly in contact with them. Thus there is excellent co-operation between the officials of the department and these boards, and there is constant liaison. These boards do absolutely nothing before first consulting the department and the Minister. I can bear witness to that, and I therefore want to give the hon. member the assurance that there is continuous liaison and discussion between the Ministry, the department and these boards. If the hon. member were to read the Water Act, he would see that these boards were established to render a service, and not to make a profit. This also applies to the Rand Water Board. It renders a service to that enormous area that it has to supply with water. That board was not established on a profit basis either. It merely tries to balance its accounts. In accordance with the law, we permit them to incorporate a small reserve in their tariffs each year, which is a very sound principle, particularly when they have to undertake capital expansion. In this way the board has in the course of time managed to build up a relatively large reserve, but one would not like to make use of this reserve unless it is imperative that one should do so. One would want to use the reserve that has been built up mainly for capital works and expansion.

I want to tell the hon. member that I carefully considered his amendment to the effect that the Minister has to give his approval. If we were to accept this amendment, we would be discriminating against the Rand Water Board, since the Minister’s approval is not needed in the case of the other boards. They operate in terms of section 116 of the Water Act, and it is not necessary for them to obtain the Minister’s approval.

May I ask a question? Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that both sections 115 and 116 refer to the approval of the Minister. It would seem to me, therefore, that he does have that authority in terms of the Water Act whereas in terms of this Bill, unless my amendment is accepted, the opposite will be the case.

Mr. Speaker, the boards obtain the Minister’s approval as regards the imposition of tariffs. That applies to basic tariffs. However, when they introduce differentiated tariffs, they do so in terms of the scale of tariffs for which they have already received approval from the Minister. I am just afraid that we would upset the purpose of this legislation if they had to obtain the Minister’s approval for every tariff they wanted to introduce. In my opinion, this is a very minor, technical point as far as this legislation is concerned, and I do not want us to argue about that. It is really unnecessary. I do not want to argue with the hon. member about this, but I really do not want to discriminate against the Rand Water Board. That is the only reason I am telling the hon. member to consider his standpoint. Nor would I like this legislation to be committed, and if we are going to accept the hon. member’s amendment, we would have to do so. [Interjections.] I just want to warn the hon. member for Yeoville. He represents one of the areas on the Rand. It seems to me as if he mistrusts the Rand Water Board.

You are talking nonsense.

The hon. member for Yeoville was the one who raised objections here the other evening. We were in absolute agreement on this legislation, and I now feel compelled to say that the hon. member for Yeoville mistrusts the Rand Water Board.

You are talking nonsense.

No, I am not talking nonsense. It is true. Why must the Minister now give his approval? I do not want to become involved in a discussion with the hon. member for Yeoville. I shall tell the Rand Water Board that the reason this provision has been included in this legislation is that the hon. member for Yeoville insisted on it. If the hon. member for Yeoville wants to argue with me about that, I shall tell them so. [Interactions.] The Rand Water Board is situated in the area represented by the hon. member for Yeoville. In any case, I do not want to argue with the hon. member for Constantia either. I shall accept the amendment. That should also shut the hon. member for Yeoville up, since he has had so much to say about this.

The hon. member for Welkom spoke about how much water had been saved and he said that tariffs were the only means whereby even greater savings could be brought about. A representative of a very large advertising company visited this country recently and he came to see me. Hon. members are aware that there are various publicity agents in this country who have approached our department to launch advertising campaigns to save water. Of course, everyone wants to climb onto the bandwagon to try and make a profit out of it. This representative comes from London and he told me that there was only one effective way of saving water, and that was to load one’s tariffs. That is the only way. I shall come back to that in a moment, with reference to what the hon. member for Durban Point had to say.

I will probably not be permitted to react to what the hon. member for Welkom said with regard to the Goldfields Water Board. I want to ask the hon. member to discuss this with us personally, but I just want to tell him that all the other boards are empowered to introduce differentiated tariffs in terms of the Act.

The hon. member for Meyerton mentioned certain interesting statistics. He pointed out that the Vaal Dam is at present carrying only 26% of its capacity. I must just remind him that we still have some of Natal’s water in the Sterkfontein Dam. To tell the truth, there is quite a sizeable quantity of Natal’s water in that dam. I shall come back to that, however. I agree with the hon. member, and in this regard I also tend to wax lyrical, in saying that we are deeply grateful for the Vaal Dam, since the Vaal Dam has prevented our country from coming to a standstill. If we did not have the water from the Vaal Dam to pump into the Grootdraai Dam, 80% of the generation of our electricity would simply have come to a standstill. One could imagine what that would mean. As it happens, because would we would not have been able to convey electricity from the Eastern Transvaal to Natal, Natal, too, would come to a standstill. [Interjections.] We therefore owe the Vaal Dam a profound debt of thanks for what it means to us. I just want to point out to the hon. member that we have a large volume of water in the Sterkfontein Dam that we could release. As soon as the level of the Vaal Dam falls to less than 20%, we shall let the water from the Sterkfontein Dam flow into the Vaal Dam.

I congratulate the hon. member on Meyerton’s praiseworthy water conservation campaign. We shall have to save a great deal more, however. The hon. member compared Meyerton with other areas, but I think Meyerton is so “Nat” that it need not use any more water. [Interjections.]

I have already referred to the speech of the hon. member for Ermelo. He also pointed out that the price determined the degree of water economy. I agree with him.

That brings me to the hon. member for Durban Point. I want to point out that as far as the Vaal River complex and the area served by the Vaal are concerned, Natal has 40% of the surface water reserves but we do not even use 10% of that water in Natal, that is, if my figures are correct. The remainder flows to the sea or is pumped over the mountain. In my modest opinion—I am saying this evening with all the emphasis at my command—we are reaching the stage in our history where we shall simply have to call a halt to development in the Vaal Triangle. We shall have to take our industries to where there is water and labour. We shall have to refrain from pumping water to areas where there is no longer sufficient water, and from conveying labour to areas where there is no longer sufficient labour. I think this is a foolish thing to do, and I consequently agree with the hon. member, as well as with other hon. members from Natal, that we shall have to look into this matter. We shall have to implement the Government’s policy of decentralization as regards this very important commodity. We shall have to take our industries by the neck and compel them to establish themselves where there is water.

I do not believe anything remains for me to say. I thank hon. members for their fine contributions.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper as follows—

Mr. Chairman, I am merely rising to say that I accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

For a period of three consecutive years it was possible to avoid making any changes in the scales applicable to a wide variety of taxes levied in terms of the so-called revenue laws. Moderate adjustments to the scales in terms of which stamp duty is levied in respect of certain documents and transactions were, however, announced in the hon. the Minister of Finance’s recent budget speech. The Bill now before the House does not, however, only cover measures for increased taxation, but also contains concessions, amongst which that relating to estate duty will be welcomed by businessmen everywhere.

In the explanatory memorandum which, as is customary, has been made available to hon. members, an attempt is made to clearly set out the background to each of the many amendments. A few additional words would not, however, be amiss.

The exemption from marketable securities tax, which is being introduced by clause 1 of the Bill, and the concomitant exemption from stamp duty being introduced by clause 14(1)(c), have a two-fold purpose, i.e. the encouragement of a secondary market in interest-bearing securities and a limiting of the interest burden on companies which make use of the issuing of debentures and similar securities for the financing of new plant. Although the losses in taxation that will be suffered by the Exchequer as a result of this concession are slight, it is hoped that there will be marked savings for the institutions involved and that this would, to a certain extent, enable them to modify increases in the prices of their products.

The state duty concession, to which I have already referred, relates to life assurance policies which are, for example, taken out by one party on the life of another. The object of such a policy is to enable the person taking out the policy to purchase his partner’s interests in their undertaking if the partner should fall away. Although it is the surviving partner who derives the benefit of such a policy, for estate duty purposes the law required that the proceeds of the policy be regarded as property which forms part of the estate of the deceased partner. It has, however, for some time now been felt that the effect of the relevant principle could be unfair under these specific circumstances, and I therefore have the pleasure of being able to announce that it has been decided, in this connection, to make an exception to the rule.

A further amendment to the Estate Duty Act is being introduced in terms of clause 2(1)(c). As explained in the explanatory memorandum, this amendment confirms the way in which the Act has always been interpreted, i.e. that a cash benefit that is commuted under a pension or retirement annuity fund is regarded as being an asset of the deceased. It must therefore in no way be regarded as a newly imposed measure or as a penal provision.

Hon. members will have noticed that a new section is being introduced into the Diamond Export Duty Act. The purpose of that is to empower the Minister of Finance, when Parliament is in recess, to reduce the scale of this tax, or even to abolish the tax. If the Minister were to act in terms of this authorization, his decision would, of course, be subject to approval by this House. The reason why this authorization is being requested, is that at a time when the Government is doing everything in its power to encourage exports, and Parliament is voting large sums for that purpose, a tax on exports has become an anachronism and should therefore be abolished as quickly as possible. Because of financial pressure, however, the time is not ripe at present for the abolition of the tax, but as soon as circumstances permit, the Government wants to take the necessary steps.

†There still remain two matters I should like to touch on briefly, the first of which is stamp duty. Most of the clauses in that connection relate to the increases in tariffs proposed in March last year by the hon. the Minister of Finance. There is, however, the continuing problem of tax avoidance, and, as I stated last year in introducing the Revenue Laws Amendment Bill, we shall not hesitate to come back to this House again and again for authority to amend the Act, should ways and means be found of avoiding duty on transactions which effectively involve a change in the beneficial ownership of marketable securities. Our busy tax experts have in fact, since June last year, found yet another loophole in the provisions of the Stamp Duties Act, this time by making use of stipulations in the labyrinth of provisions contained in the Companies Act, which have not hitherto been resorted to. The amendment which clause 5(1)(a) effects to section 23(10) of the Act is designed to close this new loophole.

Hon. members will have noticed that clause 14(1)(b) of the Bill deletes an exemption from stamp duty which was introduced in 1972. In terms of that exemption the marketable securities held by a subsidiary company may, subject to compliance with certain conditions, be transferred free of stamp duty to the parent company of that subsidiary company. The Standing Commission on Taxation Policy recently had occasion to review this exemption and came to the unanimous conclusion that its existence could no longer be justified. The Commission’s recommendation that “Exemption (o)”, as it is usually known, be deleted has been accepted by the Minister. Hence this provision in the Bill.

The final matter dealt with in the Bill relates to the Small Business Development Corporation. Hon. members will recall that the 1982 Revenue Laws Amendment Bill provided an exemption from transfer duty in respect of assets passed by the Industrial Development Corporation Limited and by the Corporation for Economic Development Limited to the Small Business Development Corporation. It has since been ascertained that it will be necessary to transfer to the Corporation a considerable number of immovable properties which are at present registered in the names of companies which were formerly subsidiaries of the Development and Finance Corporation Limited, the Indian Industrial Development Corporation Limited and the Industrial Development Corporation Limited. The exemption from transfer duty granted in terms of clause 19 of the Bill is further evidence of the Government’s firm desire to see the Small Business Development Corporation established on a sound and viable basis.

The Bill contains measures which are both reasonable and necessary, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the House has indicated to me that I have only one minute in which to speak. I should therefore prefer to say something which is not of a contentious nature. [Interjections.] I should like to make the best possible use of that single minute I have, if hon. members do not mind, Mr. Speaker.

I want to state that we are very pleased indeed that the hon. the Deputy Minister is handling this particular piece of legislation. I believe it would be wrong not to say we feel sorry that the hon. the Minister of Finance is ill. We wish him a speedy recovery, and we hope he will soon be well enough to handle the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill next week.