Mr. Chairman, during his reply to the Second Reading debate the hon. the Minister made it quite clear that in spite of my attempting to assure him that I was not impugning his integrity he was still somewhat unhappy. I wish to make it further clear that I have every confidence in the integrity of the hon. the Minister, and of course also the integrity of the hon. the Prime Minister. I also want to make it clear that I referred to Hansard, where assurances had been given in respect of the provinces. I did point out, however, that this Bill did not seem to comply with those assurances in respect of consultation. The hon. the Minister has subsequently conceded that through administrative error appropriate consultation had not taken place.

I wish to further place on record therefore that I accept his explanation, and that I am also most appreciative of the steps he took to rectify the situation by having both speedy and most effective consultation. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will assess the situation and thus resolve the matter.

In his speech during Second Reading the hon. the Minister quoted from the minutes of a meeting held in March 1981, a meeting which I also attended. He quite rightly said that I had concurred with the concept covering the creation of this council. That is quite correct. There is no question about that. I do think, however, the hon. the Minister will agree that there can be a great deal of difference between accepting the original concept and executing that concept. In any sort of construction of anything the concept can well be totally different to the actual final building plans according to which one is supposed to erect the building. That is of course also the case with this Bill. I am sure the hon. the Minister will also remember that at that same meeting it was made clear by me and by others that many of the problems he wished to resolve were problems largely pertaining to other provinces, and were in areas that were largely controlled also by members of his particular political persuasion.

In Natal the provincial administration had already put into effect many of the solutions sought by the hon. the Minister. The provincial administration has already put into effect by way of provincial ordinances many of the solutions the hon. the Minister seeks to achieve by way of this legislation. At the time it was made clear that the problems he had with the other provinces were mainly that they had not advanced as far as Natal. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we accept, as we did at Second Reading the establishment and composition of the co-ordinating council. That is the main object of the Bill.

In so far as clause 1 of this Bill is concerned, however, the hon. the Minister accepts my comments and obviously, as a result of the consultations, the very strong objection that we had to the definition of “Administrator”, which has been amended both by an amendment of my own and by an amendment effected by the hon. the Minister himself, an amendment which I am very happy to accept. I only want to raise one query in this regard. That is in respect of the wording “the Administrator-in-executive committee of the province concerned”, in clause l(i). Is it really necessary to include there the first two words, “section 17”? I know I have made the same error in my own amendment, but I merely mention it because although I accept that the Administrator is only mentioned, apart from the two other clauses that are excluded, in what will become the new clause 17. It may well happen that there will be further amendments to this legislation from time to time, and wonder if it is strictly necessary or desirable to leave “section 17” in, in case at some stage in the future there is a reference to this. I submit it will make no difference to this Bill.

Order! Has the hon. member for Umbilo moved his amendments or not?

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

1. 1. On page 2, in lines 4 and 5, to omit the definition of “Administrator” and to substitute:
   1. (i) “Administrator” for the purposes of sections 3(2)(b) and (5) and 5(1)(a)(ii), means the Administrator of a province, and for the purposes of section 14 and 18 means the Administrator of a province acting on the advice and with the consent of the Executive Committee of that province; (i)
2. 2. On page 2, in line 16, to omit “person or”.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. member for Umbilo had already resumed his seat. I submit that he cannot move his amendments anymore. [Interjections.]

Order! I put the question to him.

Mr. Chairman, clause 1 of this Bill is the definitions clause, and we on this side of the House realize that this would not be the appropriate occasion for a rehash of the Second Reading debate. We listened to the hon. the Minister replying at length to that debate, and we want to state that the objections we raised at Second Reading remain as crystal-clear and as valid and as justified as they ever were before the hon. the Minister even spoke. That is one reason why we will not re-open the Second Reading debate.

The second reason why we will not reopen that debate is because we do not want to invite another two and a half hour reply by the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.] We had enough of that yesterday, and we believe we should leave it at that. Listening to any hon. Minister for two and a half hours— and particularly to the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning— is more than enough. [Interjections.]

We want to look at the definitions clause, and particularly at clause l(v), which deals with the definition of local authorities. The words “local authorities” occur right throughout the Bill. This Bill seeks to set up an advisory council which is to serve the Government with advice—the hon. the Minister pointed out himself that the council was not to serve the Minister with advice but the Government—in respect of the evolution of the whole system of local government in South Africa, and closely related to the evolution of a system of local government is the evolution of the system of second tier government. These definitions apply in particular to the setting up of the council which is to give the Government advice on the process of the evolutionary development of second and third tier government in South Africa.

What disturbs us, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that Blacks are not only excluded from membership of the council, which is the matter we will deal with under a separate clause. However, Black local government may not be the subject of analysis or recommendation by this council. It has to look to the development of local government generally in South Africa but it is precluded by the definition contained in clause l(v) in terms of which local government is confined to the definition of local government in terms of section 84 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act. Therefore, this particular provision makes it impossible for the new council to make recommendations other than in respect of White, Coloured and Indian local government. We believe that this is a serious void. We believe that it is futile to set up a body in South Africa today the terms of reference of which, let alone its membership, exclude reference to Blacks. I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that only last year this House passed the Black Local Government Bill. Black local government is a creature of this Parliament and elections are going to be held next year. However, matters relating to Black local government are specifically excluded by this definition from the terms of reference of this particular investigating committee.

In the second instance, we have very clear recommendations from the President’s Council. Their Constitutional Committee recommended that there should be co-ordination on a regional level of Black, White, Coloured and Indian local government. The Government’s own President’s Council has argued in favour of co-ordination and yet, when the Bill comes before this House, in terms of its definition Blacks may not be included in this co-ordination process.

In the third instance, during the course of the no-confidence debate the hon. the Prime Minister announced that a Cabinet Committee would be appointed to investigate the whole question of the non-homeland Black. From that one understood that that Cabinet Committee was going to consider points of irritation, points of difference and points of co-ordination involving Blacks at local government level and at the second tier level of government. Is it not entirely appropriate that while the Cabinet Committee is investigating this matter, this co-ordinating council that is being set up to advise the Government should be providing the Cabinet Committee with advice? What is the point of setting up a co-ordinating council which is by definition not allowed to serve the Government with advice? We believe that whatever advice may be valuable coming from Whites, Coloureds, Indians or Blacks separately, it is the collective advice of people sitting together who appreciate the interrelationship among their various communities and among their various authorities that is going to be of more benefit to the Government.

We argue, therefore, that the terms of reference of this co-ordinating council should include Black local authorities as set up under the Government’s own law, Black local government set up in terms of the Black Local Authorities Act of 1982. In order to make it clear wherever local government is referred to in this Bill that it includes Black local government and that the terms of reference of the particular commission or council or action committee or development board include taking into account the need for the co-ordination of Black affairs into the affairs of other communities at local government level, I wish to move the following amendment of which the hon. the Minister now has a copy—

The purport of this amendment is quite simply to ensure that wherever local government is the essence of the terms of reference of this council, that local government should not only be confined to Whites, Coloureds and Indians but that the needs of the Black community and the need to co-ordinate their needs together with the White, Coloured and Indian communities form part of the essential terms of reference of this council.

Order! I regret that I am unable to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Sea Point as it is in conflict with a principle of the Bill as read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The ruling that you have just given is of vital importance to the whole of the Committee Stage and we would appreciate your help. We did not understand that the principle of the Bill was to exclude Black local authorities. The Bill makes provision for local authorities and regional areas and a co-ordinating council. There is also the question of co-opting a number of people onto that council. With great respect, Sir, why does the proposed inclusion of Black local authorities now extend the principle of the Bill?

The whole principle of the Bill as read a Second Time, as debated and as widely discussed by hon. members of the House, does not make provision for the inclusion of Black local authorities. Consequently in terms of the whole tone of the debate, the whole content of the debate during the Second Reading, no provision is made for the inclusion of Black local authorities. For that reason I am left with no alternative but not to accept the amendment as moved. If I should accept the amendment, it would be an extension of the principle as put forward and as debated.

Sir, may I ask you, arising out of your ruling, whether you will permit any further argument relating to Black local authorities?

No, because the question of Black local authorities goes beyond the principle as put forward and debated in the House.

Mr. Chairman, today we have the astounding situation, where we are now dealing with the Committee Stage, that there are a great many amendments. We have almost enough amendments from the PFP to fill a book. I have not yet had an opportunity to count how many amendments there are. What is equally astounding is that there are also a great many amendments printed in the name of the hon. the Minister on the Order Paper. One could say that we are actually dealing with new legislation here. This is the impression one gains when one looks at all the amendments. One wonders what happened between 1 June and today. Did the hon. the Minister perhaps neglect to consult certain people he should have consulted? Did those people kick up such a fuss afterwards that the hon. the Minister had to satisfy them by means of the amendments he now intends to move? That is the only explanation I can find for this.

Both the hon. member for Newcastle and the hon. the Minister took it amiss of me and reproached me terribly yesterday because, according to them, I had quoted selectively from a so-called outdated memorandum of the TMA. Please note that I said outdated. It is a memorandum of August 1981 which is ostensibly outdated. It is a memorandum the TMA submitted to the President’s Council in which they adopted certain points of departure and standpoints of principle in connection with the concepts and definitions contained in clause 1. There are concepts such as “co-ordinating council”, “municipal development board” and “local authority”. I shall indicate in a moment how selectively the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Newcastle set about quoting from the comments of the TMA on certain proposals of the President’s Council.

They maintained that the passages I had quoted from the memorandum were no longer relevant because, so the hon. the Minister said, circumstances had changed and the TMA was now adopting a radically different standpoint. These are more or less his exact words. However, let me quote his exact words from the unrevised Hansard—

I beg to differ with the hon. the Minister. I think the hon. the Minister is insulting any organization if he says that within a period of two years it has substantially changed its standpoints of principle.

You did so.

No, it is that side of the Committee that did so.

The TMA’s executive committee met on Saturday, 18 June, but according to his unrevised Hansard the hon. the Minister gave the wrong date. I should like to know whether this is correct. The hon. the Minister said 28 July 1982; I assume it is 18 June 1983.

I rectified the matter in Hansard.

The hon. the Minister said that on 18 June 1983 the executive committee of the TMA met in Boksburg and that this Bill in its entirety was before that meeting, which was attended by about 50 people, including Mr. Fanie Ferreira, the MPC for Waterberg. The Minister went on to say that the Bill was discussed and that certain amendments were explained to the meeting by a senior official of the department who also attended the meeting. According to the hon. the Minister, there were no problems. What should one deduce from this? The hon. the Minister is therefore suggesting that the executive committee of the TMA agreed with the legislation. Is my assumption correct? The Minister is shaking his head.

I shall reply to that.

What are the facts? What are the true facts? On 18 June the executive committee did in fact meet and included for cognizance—please note: for cognizance under item 72 of their agenda was the Bill without the amendments, i.e. the Bill as we have it before us today. The official of the Minister’s department explained certain amendments, but he did not explain other amendments, and this includes the fact that two Indians are being added as members of the co-ordinating council in clause 3. This was not raised at all.

I now want to state categorically to the hon. the Minister that no resolution was adopted at that meeting by the executive committee of the TMA. How could they take a decision? They did not have the facts before them. They did not have the amendments before them; amendments that alter the essence of this legislation radically. Although the hon. the Minister therefore summed up the situation by saying that there had been no problems and created the impression that they were ad idem with this legislation, this is not the case. The Minister says this is the case.

No, I did not say that was the case. I shall reply to this.

The hon. member for Newcastle even read out a telex from the secretary of the UME dated 1 June 1983. Now he wants to link the MPC for Waterberg, Mr. Fanie Ferreira, to that telex, in which the UME gave a certain measure of support to this legislation—but again in its original form and not with all the amendments which are going to be moved today and which change the essential character of the legislation. Yesterday the hon. member wanted to do to Mr. Fanie Ferreira what that side of the House wanted to do to us when they said: “In 1977 you did after all accept the principle of power-sharing, you did accept a mixed government, you did accept the principle of integration.” As a matter of fact, we had no part in that and Mr. Fanie Ferreira had absolutely no part in this telex from the UME. As a matter of fact, he does not agree with it at all.

The hon. member for Newcastle also asked me to tell him whether the TMA supported the legislation under discussion. I want to state categorically that the TMA as a body will of course not unanimously and without further ado support this legislation which is nothing but a proposal for total integration at the local government level. After all, we know those people.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I maintain with all due respect that the hon. member is making a Second Reading speech. I maintain that the hon. member is wasting the time of this House.

Order! It is customary during the discussion of the first clause of a Bill that one speaker from each party may refer to certain aspects of principle. The hon. member for Pietersburg may proceed.

I therefore allege categorically that the Transvaal Municipal Association at a meeting of its executive committee on 18 June merely took cognizance of the legislation as it was at that stage and that it did not take any decision on the legislation with its innumerable amendments we are now discussing. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Hillbrow has obviously overlooked the fact that I do have additional turns to speak on this clause. However, I thank the hon. member for trying to be the Whip of this party as well as the Whip of his own party, but I also want to ask him not to do so, because he is making such a poor job of whipping his own party that I do not want him to mess up ours. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I now want to refer to the amendments put forward and which you have ruled out of order. I would just like to make one comment, because it is in reference to section 84(f) of the South Africa Act. Nowhere in section 84(f) of the South Africa Act are Black local authorities excluded. I just want to make that point clear, because if at some time in the future it is considered to be appropriate to bring them in, there is nothing in terms of the South Africa Act to preclude that. That was one of the problems when we had our Natal meeting, to try and accommodate the wishes of the different population groups in local government. We could not bring the Blacks into discussion, because provincial councils do not have control over Black local authorities. They are handled by administration boards, as I would have thought the hon. member for Hillbrow would have known.

And the hon. member for Sea Point.

Yes, the amendment is in his name. I just want to make this point in passing.

In so far as the amendments on the Order Paper are concerned, we have a problem in that the hon. the Minister’s amendments are at this stage inappropriately numbered if one assumes that clause 18 is going to be renumbered. My amendment is therefore at this stage more correct. Similarly, clause 14 has not yet been deleted at this stage and I am therefore not quite sure about the proper procedure to follow here. We have here an amendment which is technically correct at this stage …

You are never sure of anything. [Interjections.]

I am trying to get clarification on a point of procedure here and the hon. member for Hillbrow just does not seem to have the intelligence to understand proper debate. The point I am trying to make, is that I would like to move this amendment if it is in order. I am not quite sure about the procedure. I am not so stupid as to think that I know everything, as the hon. member for Hillbrow does.

In so far as the other amendment is concerned, we have a similar problem there in that the amendment that I have put on the Order Paper is correct in terms of the present numbering, but that the amendment of the hon. the Minister is correct in terms of the numbering that will, I assume, come into being in due course.

Mr. Chairman, I nevertheless stand by the two amendments I have moved.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to start by saying that I accept the assurances of the hon. member for Umbilo, and I think the matter can rest there.

The love affair is on again.

I might suggest it is not so bad.

Unfortunately, however, I cannot accept the amendments of the hon. member for Umbilo, although I understand the dilemma in this particular case. If we accept the hon. member’s amendment in relation to the definition of “Administrator” without reference to the clauses, then we will have a problem. If the amendment which I propose to move, amendment No. 3 on the Order Paper, is carried by the House, it would partly defeat the object of the hon. member’s amendment. The question therefore arises whether his amendments on this clause relating to definitions that refer to other clauses should not stand over until those clauses have been dealt with. I think that is the procedure that we should follow in this particular regard. Sir, I should like your ruling on this.

That is correct. The numbering is not of prime importance. Alterations to numbers are done administratively. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

In that case I accordingly move amendments Nos. 3 and 4 standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (a) sections 3 and 5, the Administrator of a province;
2. (b) section 17, the Administrator-in-executive committee of the province concerned;

Let me start again by referring to the amendments of the hon. member for Umbilo to clause 1. I would suggest that in view of the ruling now my amendment would suit the case because the numbers would then be included. I think the hon. member will agree with that. I am not trying to score a point now. I am merely stating the facts.

The hon. member’s second amendment relates to the definition of “Administrator”. I want to explain this matter to the hon. members, because this is, as I see it, a very important point that should be dealt with. In terms of the hon. member’s amendment the Administrator will act on the advice of the Executive Committee, whilst in terms of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act of 1961 the Administrator is part of the Executive Committee. He does not act on its advice; he is part of it. In our system the President acts on the advice of the executive, but in terms of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act the Administrator is a member of the Executive Committee. If the hon. member says he acts on the Executive Committee’s advice he excludes the fact that he has a vote there. The correct definition is therefore, again in terms of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, “Administrator-in-executive committee”. It is further provided in the Act what happens in the case of a difference of opinion. They vote on that matter. If, on the other hand, one says that he acts on its advice, he is not there or he need not be there. Therefore I suggest again that the definition which I have proposed is the correct one. I think he hon. member will accept my amendment in that spirit, because I want to attain exactly what he wants to achieve with his amendment.

The hon. member also raised a point in relation to the question of the necessity of referring to clause 17. I believe it is necessary in this Bill so as to explain the difference between the Administrator in his present capacity in one clause and acting in the capacity as Administrator-in-executive in clause 17. Therefore I believe that for practical purposes it should remain that way. I would suggest that if amendments were to be made to this Bill in future we could then deal with that subject-matter at that stage. The hon. member must please indicate whether he is satisfied with this arrangement.

Mr. Chairman, I am quite prepared to accept the recommendations of the hon. the Minister in this regard, but I would like to make the point that the wording that was chosen for the definition of “Administrator” was not chosen lightly. I have here a copy of the definition of “Administrator” that was sent to me from Natal. It states here that “Administrator” means—

That is the definition on which in fact we worked.

As far as the hon. the Minister’s second amendment is concerned, it is more comprehensive and satisfactory than my own amendment; so I shall be perfectly happy with that. I believe that the hon. the Minister’s amendment to insert the new paragraphs (a) en (b) is acceptable and therefore we in these benches are prepared to accept that.

I accordingly withdraw my amendments.

Amendments 1 and 2, with leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman, I now want to get to the hon. member for Pietersburg and I am not going to disturb the calm atmosphere of this House today except of course when it is necessary. I referred to the meeting of the executive committee of the Transvaal Municipal Association which was held on 18 June. If there is another date in my Hansard of the other day, I shall rectify it. The hon. member said that he had spoken to them the day before yesterday and that they had not discussed the amendment; which was not actually true. The hon. member’s information was incorrect in that respect. It is incorrect and I feel the hon. member will grant me this. Of course! Surely I never suggested that all the amendments had been discussed. That was not possible. We pass amendments in this House. I cannot make this House subject to another body. Surely that is, in all fairness, not possible. What did I argue? I said that the principles of the legislation in connection with the establishment of a co-ordinating council and development boards and the introduction of legislation to make provision for interim measures, which were the substantive provisions of this Bill, had been accepted. That is what I said. I went on to say that the hon. member had based his arguments on a document dated 1981 and which was submitted as evidence. After all that is the truth. The hon. member does not disagree with me about that. I went on to say that at their congress which took place in October 1982, the TMA adopted standpoints which differed from those in their memorandum of 1981. The hon. member will remember that document. That is also the truth. The hon. member knows that what I am saying is the truth. The only complaint I had in that specific connection—I have many others—was that the hon. member quoted the oldest document as his authority without in all fairness giving the TMA credit for the fact that at later congresses they adopted standpoints which corresponded to the principles of this legislation and which were not contained in the 1981 document. Surely the hon. member grants me this. After all it is correct. For that reason I do not want to elicit further argument on these matters. In any case, we are now discussing clause 1. Another fact is that on 17 June the Bill with all the amendments—I was not there myself, but am basing my statement on the information I have—was in the hands of Mr. Van Zyl, the council member for Randburg, if I remember correctly. Then there was either a meeting of the management committee, or the management committee got together. My information is that Mr. Ferreira is a member of the management committee. In all fairness, I find it difficult to imagine that when the management committee met on Friday, 17 June, Mr. Van Zyl who had already perused the legislation, did not inform his colleagues about it. I think the hon. member will admit that it is reasonable to assume that he would have done so. The amendment for the inclusion of Indians in the co-ordinating council was in Mr. Van Zyl’s possession. I cannot discuss the details of the next day’s meeting, except to say that the legislation was discussed and that there were no objections. After all, the hon. member will concede that if the legislation was on the management committee’s agenda, it was there for discussion. In any case, the fact that a senior official of the department explained amendments, surely proves that the legislation was discussed there. It is therefore reasonable to assume that if there had been any fundamental objections to the Bill and the proposed amendments, those objections would have been raised. Surely that is a reasonable assumption.

Likewise, surely it is not wrong of me to quote the decisions taken by the Transvaal Municipal Association at their 1982 congress. Under the circumstances prevailing in 1982 the TMA adopted resolutions which deviated from their 1981 resolutions and I want to add immediately that I have never considered it to be a crime to adopt another standpoint, or that this cannot be morally justified. It can happen, only then one should not deny that one has changed one’s standpoint. That is all I ask, in all fairness.

I maintain that the UME saw the Bill in its original form and was also informed about the amendments. But what did the hon. member do. He reproached me because there were so many amendments on the Order Paper and that I myself moved amendments. But, Sir, surely that is what we are here for. I should think that it is our collective responsibility to improve legislation if it can be improved, otherwise I do not know what we are here for. As far as I am concerned, I have always been prepared to accept any amendment, irrespective of which party it comes from, provided the legislation can be improved by it. The hon. member cannot accuse me of the contrary. If he does do so, then hon. members of this House have no part to play in the consideration of legislation. After all, I said yesterday already that I was making no apology what I had said. I also said yesterday that owing to an administrative error certain consultations did not take place. Because those consultations did not take place, I felt, as any reasonable person would expect to feel, that, as the responsible Minister, I had to rectify matters right, not so? Surely the hon. member should understand the fairness of that standpoint. If I am trying to put the matter right, and in the process I receive inputs from bodies with whom there has already been consultations through which improvements have been made, I move those amendments accordingly here in this House for consideration. However, then I have done my best to honour my undertakings. That is precisely what happened in this case.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to the hon. the Minister that I do not take it amiss of him for wanting to make a whole lot of amendments to the legislation under discussion. All I want to say is that I find it astounding that the hon. Minister first introduces legislation in this House and then consults people, only to return to this House with a whole series of amendments. This merely creates the impression that the hon. the Minister did not think the legislation through properly before he introduced it here.

He did not do his homework at all.

In addition, in regard to what supposedly happened at the TMA meeting, I should like to point out a thing or two. If the hon. the Minister were to tell me that the legislation and the amendments were at the disposal of the management committee, my reply to him would be that that was not correct either.

I did not say that. I said it was in the possession of Mr. Van Zyl.

Is it Mr. Van Zyl or Mr. Ferreira?

Yesterday the hon. the Minister said it was in the possession of Mr. Ferreira. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, let me put it as follows. It is of no avail for the hon. the Minister and I to continue arguing here about what happened on Friday, 17 June, or on Saturday, 18 June, at the meeting of the executive committee of the TMA, because neither the hon. the Minister nor I were present at that meeting. However, this brings me to the next statement I want to make. The hon. the Minister now maintains that he has proof that the TMA accepted the principle of the establishment of the co-ordinating council, as well as a development board and methods of communication. Mr. Chairman, allow me to tell the hon. the Minister at once that we on this side of the House do not have any problems with the mere principles involved, in the same way that we did not have any problem with the advisory councils of the universities and so on, but only within the framework and true to the principles of separate development.

It is also against that background that the TMA gave its approval to communication and to the establishment of the development board or a co-ordinating council. If this takes place within the framework of separate development, the TMA has no difficulties with it either. [Interjections.] At the TMA’s congress in Nelspruit, from 4 to 7 October last year, they again stated their standpoints of principle categorically, which amounted to the fact they supported autonomous local authorities; autonomous local authorities for each of the separate population groups. If the hon. the Minister were, for example, simply to delete clause 18(1) after the chairman of the Labour Party had stated categorically that they were not prepared to support this legislation on that basis, surely the hon. the Minister would be amending a clause in which he is deleting the principle of own local authorities. Does the hon. the Minister not think that in view of this we have every right to have grave misgivings about the direction in which he is moving as far as local authorities are concerned?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietersburg is looking for trouble now. [Interjections.] If he is looking for trouble, he will find it. [Interjections.] No, if he is looking for it he will find it. He is already going to make me angry. [Interjections.]

The fact is that the hon. member said yesterday that the TMA’s management committee did not consider this legislation. The hon. member said he had telephoned them the day before yesterday and had learned that no meeting had taken place on this legislation. [Interjections.] But that was what the hon. member said here yesterday.

No. I said … [Interjections.]

No, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member must not come with another story now. I thought that for the hon. member’s sake we should rather leave the matter at that. What is interesting, however, is that he is now saying that I want to delete clause 18(1) because the Government no longer advocates autonomous local authorities. How did he arrive at that conclusion? Subsection (1) does not make provision for the establishment of local authorities. The provisions for establishing local authorities for the various population groups are contained in other Acts, and the hon. member knows that. If the hon. member were to read through the amendment to subsection which is to become subsection (1)—which I shall move later, he would note that reference is being made to the Coloured and Indian Committees.

Yes, I know.

On what basis can the hon. member now say that I am no longer interested in autonomous local authorities for the groups? I refer to this in my amendment and the reason why I am referring to it in subsection (2), is because subsection (1) is falling away. What do I refer to in the new subsection? I refer to communication. What communication? It is communication between local government institutions for groups. [Interjections.] Yes, of course. I make no apology for that. On what basis is the hon. member for Pietersburg attacking me now? What is the hon. member saying? He is saying that what I had said was in fact true, namely that the TMA accepted the coordinating council. The TMA not only accepted the council, it subsequently accepted that representatives of the various groups would have representation on that council in the same way that they now participate on a national liaison committee in the UME on which Coloureds and Asians have representation and in the same way they now participate in the regional committees in which they also have representation.

In the second place there are also the development boards. The development boards are not there to establish or assist integrated boards. They are there to assist boards of whatever group that are developing and in need of assistance, with technical advice and so on.

The whole essence of this legislation is therefore to bring about co-ordination at the various levels of management and co-ordination among the various bodies at specific levels. The interim measures are concerned with the improvement of communication between institutions. There is therefore no deviation from the objective of autonomous primary local authorities and I do not disagree with the TMA on this. I maintain the closer the decision-making can get to the groups and the communities the better. In all fairness the TMA also supports the standpoint of an institution for rendering services jointly, which is constituted from the primary authorities in a way which has not yet been determined but which still has to be investigated.

In conclusion I want to repeat what I have already said. The vice-president of the TMA, Mr. Olaus van Zyl of Randburg, had the amendments—I posted the amendments to the UME—with him on Friday, 17 June 1983, at the management committee in Pretoria. All I said was that Mr. Ferreira was also present. No one from my department was present at that meeting. The legislation appeared the next day on the agenda of the executive committee, which is the larger body.

For cognizance?

No, wait a moment. I am not referring to cognizance. I am saying it was there. It was on that agenda. Whether it was for discussion or for cognizance is not the point I am now debating with the hon. member. He would surely have informed his colleagues on the management committee. I think that is a reasonable assumption. The hon. member will admit that it is a reasonable assumption.

The official from my department was not present at that meeting. I never suggested that he was. He was present the next day and he was asked whether he could explain the amendments to the executive committee. This he then proceeded to do. There were no objections. I think it is again reasonable to assume that if they asked someone to explain amendments, they had considered the Bill and the amendments.

But they were not satisfied.

I am telling the hon. member that they asked the official to explain things to them. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon. member if he had been present at the meeting and was dissatisfied with the Bill and the amendments, would he not have adopted a standpoint and said that he was dissatisfied with them. I think that I have now replied fully on this point.

Mr. Chairman, am I wrong when I say that the hon. the Minister made certain changes to satisfy the Coloureds? [Interjections.] Is the report in Die Transvaler of 7 June, the day after the meeting between Mr. Curry’s group and the hon. the Minister incorrect? The report reads—

This is the objection of Mr. Curry and his people—

Mr. Curry is then reported to have said—

The report goes on—the hon. the Minister must tell us if it is wrong—

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Where is reference made in this clause to any article which appeared in Die Transvaler?

You were not here to listen to the debate.

I have been here all the time. Sir, your ruling was that one hon. member from a party has one opportunity to refer to the Second Reading speeches, but now this discussion is being continued for the third time.

Order! The argument is concerned with clause 1 and the hon. member for Pietersburg is now making his third and final speech in connection with this clause. The hon. member for Pietersburg may proceed.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister categorically that although he says there is nothing in the clause to prevent the establishment of separate local authorities the only logical conclusion we can arrive at from the entire course of this legislation from 1 June to today is that the hon. the Minister is prepared to accede to the demands of the Labour Party that said it was not interested in the establishment of own local authorities. What other conclusion can we arrive at under these circumstances? I therefore put it to the hon. the Minister as a fact.

Mr. Chairman, this is utter rubbish. The hon. member’s party approached my department because they had doubts about clause 18(1) in the sense that there was some doubt as to whether it would be possible that local authorities could be established in terms of it. The hon. member knows this. Consequently the hon. member also knows that there are doubts regarding people’s interpretation of subsection (1). That doubt existed in his party. It also existed in the provincial administrations. It was argued that this could mean that the Minister was being given the power to establish local authorities. The hon. member can ask the hon. member for Umbilo whether this is a fact. It is a fact, Sir. I never wanted to take the power to establish local authorities in terms of the legislation because that is not my function. All I wanted to do was, at the request of all the bodies, to establish channels of communication among the primary local authorities. How did the hon. member arrive at his distorted interpretation?

It was an inference which Die Transvaler also made.

I am not talking about Die Transvaler now. [Interjections.] Wait. The hon. member knows that there were doubts about the interpretation of clause 18(1). His party also had doubts about it. He knows that they held talks with my department about this. The same doubts also existed on the ad hoc committee. There were also doubts about this in Natal. Because it was never the intention to establish local authorities in terms of this Bill, I eliminated this doubt. Whether it was in discussions with the hon. member for Pietersburg, with the ad hoc committee or with Natal, does not matter. All the hon. member is doing now is to indulge in a little cheap politicking.

Mr. Chairman, now that we are in the Committee Stage, perhaps we can just pin the hon. the Minister down to specifics. What we are creating in terms of the definitions in clause 1 is a new co-ordinating council and advisory boards. “Administrator” is also being defined. The hon. the Minister has moved an amendment to include the Administrator in Executive Committee and to that we have no objection. However, I think you will agree, Sir, that a co-ordinating body consisting of 42 members is rather large. We also have an action committee …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order Are we on clause 3 now? That is what the hon. member is discussing. [Interjections.]

Order! I should like to point out that one member of each of the Opposition parties has already been allowed to deal with the principles of the Bill. Therefore I cannot allow any further discussion of the principles but will have to limit the debate to the clauses. The hon. member for Hillbrow may proceed.

If the hon. member would just clean his ears, he would know exactly what I am referring to. With reference to the definition of what we are creating in view of the expense which will naturally be attached to having a large coordinating body, a council, etc., I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he sees this co-ordinating council as a temporary creation or as a permanent one. If it is to be permanent …

Order! The creation of the co-ordinating council is the subject of clause 2.

I am dealing with the reference to “co-ordinating council” in clause 1(ii).

If the hon. member wants to discuss the establishment of the council, he must do so under clause 2.

Sir, I am talking about the creation of the co-ordinating council in terms of the definition in subparagraph (ii).

The creation of the co-ordinating council is dealt with in clause 2.

Yes, I know that clause 2 deals with that, but a definition is also contained in clause 1. Clause 1 contains the definitions of a whole lot of bodies which are being created. With respect, Sir, with reference to subparagraph (ii), in which the body to be created is defined, I just want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this is to be a temporary affair or whether it will be a permanent affair. Does the hon. the Minister see this as permanent in view of the fact that, while there is also a definition of “Administrator”, there will be no Administrators if NP policy is carried out and the provinces disappear? So, are we creating a temporary body here or a permanent body? I should like the hon. the Minister to state specifically what the position is in that regard.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to come back, for the record, to what the hon. member for Pietersburg said. I have with me the statement made on the 6th to which the hon. member referred. I apologize to him for only having the English text with me. For his information, I just want to read what it says in the concluding paragraph. The discussions which we had were primarily concerned with the omission of consultation, which I explained. That was also the subject of the debate conducted in the newspapers, in which I did not participate.

†The statement reads—

I never received approval to take upon myself the function to establish local authorities from anyone—

Why is paragraph (1) being deleted?

Because many people began to have doubts about its interpretation.

†What are these guidelines in relation to the provincial system? Let me read them out to the hon. member again: The provincial boundaries remain unchanged. Provincial councils will exist…

Page 112?

I do not know what document the hon. member has there. Provincial councils will exist at least until the end of their present term of office.

That is the point.

I am coming to that. I am trying to reply to the hon. member’s question. In order to achieve self-determination of community interests and co-responsibility for common interests on all governmental levels, the provincial system will inevitably have to be adapted—not abolished, but adapted. You can only adapt something which exists, if my English serves me correctly. The Government undertakes not to bring changes in this regard, i.e. in regard to the adaptation and not the abolition. This will not be done without continuous consultation with provincial authorities. It is stated further that there must be a reallocation of functions, which requires technical investigation. The hon. member now calls this the death of provincial administrations.

What does paragraph (2) mean?

Paragraph (2) means that provincial councils will at least until the end of their present terms of office function as they are functioning now, but that if we have to adapt them, their composition, functions and authorities will change. This will only be after a technical investigation has taken place and consultation has taken place with the provincial administrations.

Let me give the hon. member one example. For many years the people in the Eastern Cape have argued that the Eastern Cape is situated too far from Cape Town and have pleaded for an Administrator in the Eastern Cape. So have the people in Kimberley over many years. If one should decide—I am not suggesting that we should decide to do so, but I am just giving an example to explain the position to the hon. member—to divide the province, we will be adapting the system. Is this not so?

Yes.

But adaptation does not necessarily mean abolition. All I am trying to point out, is that there is a proper liaison system of consultation with the provinces and with the Administrators. At the Administrators’ Conference which was held in Durban last year, if I remember correctly, a committee was appointed to investigate this question and to be the instrument of consultation. These are processes. I want to say quite candidly, because I do not want there to be any uncertainty about this—the hon. member’s party will agree with me—that whatever our objectives are and however our objectives may differ from those of other political parties, the hon. member’s own party in terms of its concept of reform accepts that the present system would have to be adapted. Not so? We may differ as to how it may be composed and how it should function. That is all this document says.

The hon. member also asked me whether this council is going to be permanent. Yes, I think it is going to be permanent, but naturally the composition and functions may change with the restructuring of local authorities and provincial systems. We will take the necessary steps at that stage. The fact is that the Indian Council exists. The fact also is that provincial councils exist and therefore they must be accommodated in a process of co-ordination, as we intend to do in this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, rightly or wrongly members of provincial councils have the impression that their days are numbered and that provincial councils are going to be phased out.

Order!

I am replying to the hon. the Minister.

I am very sorry but the hon. member is not dealing with clause 1 now. The hon. the Minister was replying to statements which the hon. member made.

But we are in Committee Stage on the Bill, Sir. I am merely replying to the debate.

What the hon. member is discussing, goes beyond the definitions enumerated in clause 1. I regret I cannot allow any further discussions on matters that are not dealt with in clause 1.

Amendments 3 and 4 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Chairman, this clause relates to the establishment of a council for the co-ordination of local authorities. We shall not oppose the clause because, as we indicated during the Second Reading, we believe there is need for co-ordination. The principle of co-ordination is therefore not at stake. We believe that there is need for co-ordination at local authority level. The hon. the Minister will know that we do not approve of the proposed composition of the council which he is trying to set up. We do not believe it goes far enough. But, as I have indicated, we are not opposed to the principle of co-ordination. When one deals with the establishment of this council, I think some of the hon. the Minister’s problems arise out of the way in which this legislation was handled and the background against which it must be seen. There is no clarity yet as to the direction in which the hon. the Minister is ultimately moving with regard to the establishment of these co-ordinating councils. The fear that we have expressed before remains, i.e. that this type of council can lead to a greater centralization of power. This is a problem that we have had with this right from the outset. It is true that the hon. the Minister’s amendments relating to the operation of the council which is to be established to improve the situation. But again one wonders why it was necessary for the Bill to appear in its original form and only to be amended later, because one is looking at intent, as to how the Minister is going to use the council which we are now establishing. This obviously raises the doubt as to the direction and intention of the Minister. When one establishes a council of this kind I think one must also see it against the background of the whole constitutional proposals. During the discussion on the previous clause the hon. the Minister dealt with the question of the future of provincial councils. It is true, as the hon. the Minister has said, that it is going to be an adjustment of their functions.

Not only that. It concerns the composition of the whole thing.

This is the problem. When the hon. the Minister tries to establish a council of this kind, we see it as a possible threat to the provincial system. If one looks at this against the background of the constitutional proposals, one sees that it is clear in the schedule and also in clause 15 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Bill. If one looks at the White Paper on page 25 relating to schedule 2, one finds—

Sir, this is not the occasion to go into all that, but clearly when it comes to own affairs and matters of that kind these can under the new dispensation be taken away from the authority of provincial councils. One thinks immediately of hospitals …

Order! Clause 2 does not deal with the functions of the proposed co-ordinating council.

I am trying to indicate, Sir, that while we agree that there is need for co-ordination, the background of this does have an influence on our attitude to the establishment of the council. However, I think I have made my point.

Order! I should also like to point out that the establishment of the council was approved when the Bill was read a Second Time. This clause consequently deals only with the formal establishment of the council and as such leaves very little scope for debate.

I appreciate that, Sir. As a matter of fact, I think I have covered all the scope there is. I have made the point that while we are not opposed to coordination in principle we are concerned about the manner in which it is going to be done and about the background against which it must be seen.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member will recall that the proposed constitution was read a Second Time and at present constitutes the subject of investigation by a Select Committee. It specifically provides that the provisions of the 1961 constitution relating to the provincial system remain unchanged and are being retained. However, I have persistently said, and I would like to repeat it again: Any reform, constitutionally, would affect all levels of government and governmental institutions on those levels. In this Bill a specific charge is being laid upon the proposed coordinating council to advise on functions which can be devolved upon local authorities. There is no doubt whatsoever where the Government wants to go. Because of the composition of the population of the country the Government believes that we must try to achieve the maximum devolution of power to autonomous institutions for the respective communities at the lowest level. Furthermore, I have said openly and consistently that there are many functions today being performed at higher levels of government that can very well go to local authorities. I have also said that there was too much administrative control over local authorities and that it must be replaced by other forms of control, e.g. by the Auditor-General. I have also said that there are functions which can be transferred from the public to the private sector, and in this Bill provision is made to charge the proposed council with that particular function, i.e. to investigate and report—not to the Minister but to the Government, and not only the central Government—as to how this can be achieved. The hon. member is quite correct. In the final analysis an investigation as to which institutions and at what levels will be responsible for particular functions will have to be investigated. I have said so. The norm is going to be primarily at what level those functions can be performed most effectively.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister’s reply goes some of the way but also serves to underline the problem. The Minister has said that what he is trying to achieve is greater devolution of power whereas in fact the establishment of this council gives power to the Minister. The hon. the Minister will have considerable authority in respect of the council and the council is there to advise the Minister …

No, to advise the Government.

Can the hon. the Minister give me the categorical answer that this in fact cannot be used to create greater centralization of power? That is the point, and this is where we have a problem. Of course I hope that I will be proved incorrect. However, when one looks at the background as I have indicated earlier, if one looks at the Bill and at the other legislation, the fear is there that the establishment of this council can lead to a greater centralization of power rather than to a devolution of power.

Mr. Chairman, the powers the Minister will have in terms of this Bill when it becomes law is to establish an advisory council. That is the only function which will devolve upon the Minister. Here I would like to refer the hon. member to the point raised by the hon. member for Sea Point yesterday. The Bill does not say that the council will advise the Minister. The Minister is to be a member of the council. The council will in fact advise the Government, and “the Government” implies government at central and provincial levels. Let us look at the background of the Bill and see whether we can draw any conclusions from that. Let me put this question to the hon. member: Does he believe that the provinces will be part of the centralization of power? Does he believe so? I don’t, and I think he agrees they won’t. Yet the provinces have approved of the Bill. Furthermore: Does the hon. member believe that local authorities would want centralization of power? Of course not. Yet the United Municipal Executive approved of the Bill. Sir, there is nothing in this Bill that gives any indication about a tendency to centralize. In fact, I hold that as a philosophy that we have to reduce the conflict areas on central level and bring them down to local level.

It sounds as if you are saying let us have local conflict instead of central conflict.

No, that is not what I say. Really, Mr. Chairman!

Another power which the Minister has in terms of this clause is in consultation with the Administrators of the provinces to promulgate regulations. That right is being given at the request of the Administrators and their executives, and for technical reasons. There again, however, once regulations have been promulgated, the people who will apply them will be the Administrators of the provinces, and not the Minister. Therefore there are no powers given to this Minister which detract from any function of any other body whatsoever.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, there are a number of amendments on the Order Paper in respect of clause 3, and I am sure that I will save time if I go through them seriatim. The hon. the Minister’s first amendment seems to be aimed at correcting the terminology “council” instead of “board”. That is of course quite acceptable to us. The hon. the Minister’s second amendment is aimed at appointing two members of the S.A. Indian Council to the co-ordinating board. We know that this is at the request of the S.A. Indian Council, as a result of further consultation, and therefore we are obviously going to be very happy to accept that amendment as well because it is the result of consultation.

The third amendment of the hon. the Minister is consequential upon the renumbering anticipated in the future clauses of this Bill.

One of our amendments relates to clause 3(9), and the hon. the Minister also has an amendment on the Order Paper which is almost identically worded. Nevertheless, I should request the hon. the Minister to accept our amendment. I therefore move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

In addition we have on the Order Paper a further amendment in respect of clause 3(11). This subsection deals with the payment of people who are serving on the board. If they are State employees they do of course not get paid. There are a number of people proposed to serve on that board, people who could be drawn either from provincial or local government ranks, and who are also paid by either the provinces or their local authorities. The purpose of the amendment which I have on the Order Paper is that in respect of those people too, and in exactly the same manner as in respect of State employees, there will be no necessity for any payment to accrue to them. I now move the following amendment—

Taking clause 3 as a whole, I feel that the hon. the Minister is going to have quite a time trying to accomplish any sort of consensus in a committee of this size. I was quite surprised to read the amendment which is printed on the Order Paper, I think, in the name of the hon. member for Berea. That would bring in another 19 members as far as I can gather, if it were accepted. As it stands now, it looks to me as though there are a minimum of 43 members, and a potential of several more because in terms of paragraph (f)—which is now to become paragraph (g), in terms of the new proposals—there will be additional people appointed as well. As I have already said, I feel the hon. the Minister is going to have quite a job with this, and I am just wondering whether in the light of experience he is not going to find that he will have to reduce the number of the members of this council because it will be just too big to work effectively.

Mr. Chairman, this clause relates to the co-ordinating council and the boards involved, as has been indicated. It provides for a large number of people from various bodies to be members of the council. This brings us back once again to the problem of what we are trying to achieve by means of this legislation and that is obviously co-ordination. That is why one has a council of this kind. However, we are not going to be able to confront the real problem in South Africa at local government level if we are going to exclude people other than Whites, Coloureds or Asians. That is going to be our problem.

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss that point because it is not covered by this clause. Moreover, the amendment printed in the name of the hon. member for Berea is not permissible because it is an extension of a principle of the Bill as read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, may I address you on this point? We have a totally different situation here. We have had to accept your ruling in respect of the definitions clause relating to Black local authorities. Here, however, one is dealing with individuals who may be appointed to a council. That cannot be a principle of this Bill. This clause relates to the composition of a council and I am merely indicating that the composition of that council should be extended in order to include certain other people. This is an entirely different point from the point in regard to which you gave a ruling on clause 1 of the Bill.

The hon. member for Berea has not yet moved his amendment. However, the amendment as printed is out of order because it is in conflict with a principle of the Bill as accepted at the Second Reading.

Mr. Chairman, may I please address you on this point? I wish to point out with great respect that it does not mean that a representative to be appointed to the council as suggested by the hon. member for Berea is going to be Black. It could be a White person.

Because the hon. member for Berea has not yet moved his amendment, I shall permit him to continue his argument, but he may not propose the inclusion of representatives of Black local authorities or representatives of any national Black States on the council because that would be in conflict with a principle that has already been accepted.

With great respect, Mr. Chairman, we are dealing here with a council consisting of various people. There is nothing in this Bill prohibiting the inclusion of a White representative of a Black administration area or of a Black State.

The hon. member for Berea may proceed but I shall listen very carefully to his argument.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is very reassuring. As I was saying, we are dealing here with a council whose function it is to co-ordinate the functions of local authorities. I want to point out a difficulty which should immediately be apparent to anybody who knows the South African situation. Let me refer to the city which I know best in South Africa, the city from which I come where local authorities are operating and where we have a vast community living adjacent to the borders of the so-called White local authority. I am thinking in terms of an Umlazi township or a KwaMashu. These are people who have common interests with most other people in regard to general services such as catching buses, using streets, water resources or whatever it is …

And beaches.

Yes, and beaches. I am glad the hon. member for Welkom mentioned that.

They hold strong views on beaches in Natal.

These are matters of common interest. How is a council that is set up for co-ordination purposes going to function unless it is able also to include people from areas of that kind? I believe this is a basic weakness in the Bill. All I am pleading for is that when one is dealing with this situation, one cannot, in the interest of proper co-ordination, exclude a very large section of the population who have a common interest in services in the metropolitan area concerned. There are situations in Durban which, as I have indicated, involve two large cities which are part of a national State as it so happens. There may be others in time to come. One talks of Inanda and others, but I do not want to go into that. One can also look at the situation where there are Black local authorities which, as has been pointed out, are the creation of the Government and Parliament. I believe that these boards cannot function efficiently and effectively unless they are extended to include other representation. I therefore move the following amendment—

I believe these amendments which relate to the composition of the board are not in any way in conflict with the principle of the Bill.

Order! A principle of the Bill provides for the co-ordination of functions of local authorities; in other words, existing local authorities in terms of the various local authorities ordinances. The proposed amendment seeks to extend that principle and therefore I am unable to accept it.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to this clause dealing with the composition of the council, I have the same misgivings as the hon. member for Umbilo, in the sense that this will be a large and in many respects a cumbersome body, because there will be approximately 43 members serving on it. The hon. member for Umbilo has rightly asked how the hon. the Minister is going to achieve consensus on such a council with such a widely divergent membership.

In subsection (2)(h), mention is made of one Coloured or Indian, in subsection (3)(e), provision is made for 10 Coloureds or Indians, and in terms of the hon. the Minister’s amendment, two members of the S.A. Indian Council will be added in terms of subsection (3)(g). Is the hon. the Minister going to build the general constitutional ratio of 4:2:1 with regard to the population groups into this council, with the result that there will be twice as many Coloureds as Indians on the co-ordinating council?

The hon. member for Umbilo wanted to know how one was going to achieve consensus on this enormous council, but I want to tell him that the answer probably lies in the next clause, in terms of which any member may be dismissed from or appointed to the board at the discretion of the hon. the Minister. If any person withholds his consent, the hon. the Minister has the right to show him the door.

The CP states categorically that it does not agree with this, for in view of the proposed constitutional dispensation under which the legislation will operate, and the fact that the hon. the Minister has just said that the constitutional reform at the central level should be extended to the lowest level of government, we shall be faced with mixed government at this level as well. We do not accept mixed government at a joint level. Nor do we accept one constitutional dispensation or one nationhood for Whites, Coloureds and Indians. Therefore we cannot vote for this clause either.

Mr. Chairman, subsection (9) provides—

I want to refer to the people to be appointed in terms of subsection (3). That subsection provides that the Minister shall appoint as members of the board 12 persons nominated by the United Municipal Executive and 10 members nominated by the Association of Coloured and Indian Management Committees. He shall appoint a whole number of people who are in turn nominees of parent bodies. We do not believe that it is appropriate that the Minister, if he is required to appoint as members of the board certain people who have been nominated by bodies referred to in this clause, should have the power at his total discretion to remove them from the council. We think it is only reasonable that, once they have been nominated, they should stay nominated for their period of office. The Minister is seeking advice and I am sure that he is not the kind of man who would want advice from yes-men. Yet this allows the situation that, whenever in his discretion he wants to remove someone from office, he may do so.

But there is an amendment proposed to that.

On which clause is that? Has the amendment been moved?

Yes, there is an amendment proposed to clause 9.

It is not clause 9, but subsection (9) of clause 3.

That is right.

There are two amendments to that on the Order Paper.

Has an amendment to that been moved?

Order! That amendment has not been moved, but notice of it has been given as printed on the Order Paper.

So it has not been moved yet.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: It has been moved. I moved it.

But you have just said, Sir, that it has not been moved.

I am sorry, Sir, but that is one of the amendments I moved when I spoke previously.

Order! I tender my apology. I was referring to amendments to be moved by the hon. the Minister.

What has then been moved, Sir?

The hon. member for Umbilo moved—

1. 1. On page 6, in line 17, after “State” to insert:
   , a provincial administration or a local authority
2. 2. On page 6, in line 5, after “may” to insert:
   , at the request of the institution or body of persons who nominated him as mentioned in subsection (3).

That deals with that particular aspect.

Are you satisfied with that, Colin? I am prepared to accept it.

Mr. Chairman, I first want to refer to this matter the hon. member for Sea Point has raised and then deal with a more serious matter. An amendment has been moved to the effect that a person may be removed at the request of the body which nominated him. The hon. member for Sea Point wants to omit the relevant provision so that, if a person is appointed by a body and that body becomes dissatisfied with his representation, it would not be possible to remove him. The hon. member therefore wants to force a person on the council against the wishes of the body which nominated him if that body wants to get rid of him as its representative. Let me give an example. Let us assume that a member of the PFP was nominated and he subsequently joined the CP. If the amendment of the hon. member for Sea Point is accepted, the PFP could not get the person they nominated removed because, once subsection (9) is omitted, one has removed the right to get rid of a person serving on the council who will then remain there for the period of his appointment, namely four years. I cannot understand the logic of the hon. member when he objects to an organization determining who shall represent it.

That is, however, not the point I stood up to raise. I allege—and I direct this at the hon. member for Sea Point—that that party is attempting deliberately to undermine the process of reform. That hon. member is aware that this issue which he and the hon. member for Berea have raised has been dealt with in a Select Committee of the House in respect of another matter. In that Select Committee this issue was discussed positively and was negotiated with some hope of resolving the problem of communication, consultation and co-operation with Black local authorities. Yet the hon. member raises it in this House in order to create a confrontation which will undermine the possibility of a negotiated agreement in a Select Committee. This is typical of what is going on. This is a confrontation approach which undermines the process of negotiated agreement. Even when an agreement is negotiated, one then gets allegations by that party accusing one of “boetie-boetie-ing” and of toadying, and shouts of “When are you going to join them?” The whole object of the proposed constitutional reform is aimed at a system of negotiated change in South Africa. My answer is loud and clear: This party is committed to negotiation. We will negotiate and accept what is in the interests of South Africa, as we accept this clause, and we will oppose what we disagree with. What I object to, is that where a matter dealt with in this clause, namely the composition of the body, is known to be under discussion in another forum, it is made an issue here. The position of Black local authorities in relation to equivalent White bodies is the subject of discussion. It may even have gone to higher authority by now, yet that party raises it here in order to force confrontation on the issue and create a situation where agreement becomes difficult. This is what I object to, namely that when we are in a process of change, when there is a step forward, when there is something which is genuinely in the interests of South Africa, namely a multiracial body with a multiracial composition, that party makes the one exclusion to that cause for rejecting the other progress that has been made. That party has to choose. This is a step forward in co-operation. Here is a body representing three communities, representative of all the possible bodies, town clerks, municipal treasurers, etc. This is a positive step and I want to know from that party whether they now reject this multiracial body because it is not exactly to their liking. Are they going to vote against this because it does not fit in with their ideology of a totally integrated majority-dominated society and majority rule at every level of government?

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer, firstly, to the amendments moved by the hon. member for Umbilo. I cannot accept his first amendment and I will explain why, but I am going to accept his second amendment. I am not going to move my own amendment No. 6 standing on the Order Paper, because I believe that the second amendment of the hon. member for Umbilo is better.

As regards amendment No. 1 of the hon. member for Umbilo, the amendment is unnecessary in respect of provincial administrations, because the officials of the provinces are in fact civil servants.

What about local authorities?

I am coming to that. Provincial officials are therefore covered by the present wording. As regards the officials of local authorities, I believe that amendment is undesirable, and let me explain why. The position as it is envisaged in clause 3(11) is that the State, in other words the central Government, will defray the costs of the expenses of the people involved. If the hon. member will refer to clause 3(11) he will see that the people who will participate in the council will be reimbursed by the State. I specifically wanted it that way because I do not believe that the local authorities should shoulder that expense. I believe the council members should be paid. I am not talking about officials now. Special provision is made for them. That includes local authorities. If I accept that amendment it would in fact mean that the local authorities would have to meet the expenditure involved through the participation of their officials in this body. I do not think that is right. Therefore I would be glad if the hon. member would accept that. As it stands at the moment, the reimbursement would be at the expense of the State. I think that is correct.

I want to indicate again that I will accept the hon. member’s second amendment.

I should like to move amendment No. 3 standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

The amendment merely corrects a title error.

I also want to move amendment No. 4 standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Acceptance of this amendment will result in representation for the South African Indian Council.

I should also like to move amendment No. 5 standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

This is merely a technical matter, the renumbering of a clause.

May I just briefly refer to the hon. member for Berea’s amendment which was ruled out of order. For the record I want to state that we discussed the position of the Black people outside national States and independent States when we discussed the legislation on development councils for Black communities. The hon. member for Sea Point will recall that. I am not debating this point. I merely want to record certain facts.

Are you referring to Blacks outside national States?

Yes, those outside national States and those outside independent States; in other words, people living in South Africa. We discussed that issue. I pointed out that the question of the position of these Black people was the subject matter of an investigation by a Cabinet Committee and that it would therefore be wrong to anticipate a report or any decision on the issue. I do not intend taking the point further at this stage. I do not think it falls within the ambit of this Bill. I think we must leave it at that.

*I now come to the hon. member for Pietersburg. I cannot comprehend the standpoint of hon. members in that party. I am trying very hard, but I cannot understand it. Yesterday the hon. member for Kuruman asked me not to establish this council, but rather to consult the President’s Council. The President’s Council, however, is also a multi-racial body.

But the President’s Council is already there, not so?

Wait a moment, steady on there. I am just trying to give the correct facts. The establishment and composition of the President’s Council were supported by all the hon. members who are at present members of the CP.

As an advisory body, but not in the role it is going to play in the new dispensation.

The co-ordinating council is surely also an advisory body.

What is going to happen to the President’s Council in the new dispensation?

The role of the President’s Council in the new dispensation is something quite different. We can debate that aspect at a later stage. Those hon. members, however, approved the establishment and composition of the President’s Council, which is an advisory body. Let us not argue with one another about that. That is, after all, a fact. [Interjections.] Did I not, a short while ago, speak ever so nicely to the hon. member for Pietersburg, telling him there is nothing wrong with one changing one’s opinion?

Surely I was not being nasty either?

A short while ago I spoke to the hon. member for Pietersburg ever so nicely and told him he could change his standpoint. I can understand that, but then he, or any other hon. member for that matter, must say that he has changed his standpoint. After all, he cannot oppose the co-ordinating council on the grounds that it consists of representatives from the various population groups, because did the hon. member not support the establishment of the President’s Council, which was constituted on precisely the same lines?

But this new council is going to operate in the new dispensation.

This council will be acting in an advisory capacity on all local government matters referred to it. Its terms of reference are set out in the Bill. Let us disagree about premises, but let us not adopt this kind of attitude in regard to each and every piece of legislation that comes before this House. It is unnecessary. What are the facts? At present the national liaison committee acts as a voluntary advisory body. All the provincial municipal associations agree with that. Their representatives serve on that body. The UME agrees with it, and those members serve on it. The provinces agree with it, and they serve on that body. It is a forum for discussion between people talking to one other in an adult fashion about problems of common concern, and after they have discussed matters with one another and have reached a certain standpoint, they convey that to the relevant decision-making executive body. Do hon. members know how much tension has already been defused as a result of that? And it has not affected anyone’s self-determination. It has not affected anyone’s identity. It has only created a much better climate, something we all want amongst our various population groups. Then the hon. member asks me whether we are going to constitute an advisory council on a 4:2:1 basis. Advisory bodies are not, however, constituted in that way. These councils are chiefly constituted from specific bodies and consist of people who wish to propagate specific interests. The hon. member must go and take a look at the Bill. Let me therefore say with great respect: Let us retain our respective standpoints. I have no argument about that. But let us not, in Heaven’s name, read things into the legislation that are not there at all.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for accepting my second amendment. In respect of my first amendment I would just like to make the point that I accept the attitude of the hon. the Minister in that he does not believe that local authorities should have to pay. I fully concur with that approach. However, the point I am trying to make is that regardless of the fact that they are municipal employees an employee’s salary will be paid by the local authority whilst he is away on trips.

There are two types of remuneration or compensation involved in being a member of this committee. The one is travel and subsistence if they are away from their homes, which obviously many of them will be, in fact, most of them will be. The other is either a reimbursive allowance or remuneration for the services that they have rendered. I happen to know that most local authorities have a clause in their conditions of employment to the effect that employees are entitled to reimbursement for expenses such as travel and subsistence, but remunerative expenses are paid to the local authority to compensate the local authority for the time of the employee lost to that municipality. This is why I feel that the employee concerned will not get the money in any case. It will go directly to the local authority. On that understanding I have no quarrel with the hon. the Minister. This is additional money that municipalities can get, small though the amount may be.

Mr. Chairman, the last thing the hon. member for Durban Point should do is to launch an attack on the PFP because as a member of a party which has no credibility he should not accuse us here in this House that we do not stand for reform. [Interjections.] If one talks about credibility in respect of this particular piece of legislation, I must point out that the chief spokesman on local government of the NRP gets up in this House telling us that this particular Bill is such a pernicious measure that they will oppose it tooth and nail, and then moves an amendment asking for the Bill to be read a Second Time this day six months. Immediately after that, however, he is repudiated by the aspirant leader of the NRP, the hon. member for Durban North … [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban North said … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must restrict his remarks to the contents of this clause.

Mr. Chairman, with great respect, the hon. member for Durban Point attacked us and stated that we were not in favour of reform. I submit that I am entitled to reply to that allegation because I believe that by saying that he indeed impugned our credibility. I want to tell him now, as I do indeed, that he has no credibility. The aspirant leader of the NRP repudiates what he says as chief spokesman. Then, however, the hon. member for Durban Point, the hon. leader of the NRP, in turn repudiates the aspirant leader of his party. The hon. member for Durban North then makes a statement… [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member has now made his point. He must now address the Committee on the contents of the clause under discussion.

All right, Mr. Chairman. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. the Minister has now included members of the S.A. Indian Council to serve on the co-ordinating board. That is obviously an improvement to the Bill. There is no problem about that. The hon. the Minister has also given an explanation in connection with a matter pertaining to local authorities, something which I also thought had been omitted. It relates to the advisory board. I do, however, accept the hon. the Minister’s explanation. I do happen to know that people employed by local authorities will all be paid the same remuneration. It is therefore not a question of their being paid twice. I therefore think that the original idea behind it is a good one.

In respect of clause 3(11), I now move the following amendment—

Subsection (11) of clause 3, as it stands, reads as follows—

What I ask for in my amendment is the deletion of the words “either in general or in any particular case”. Our rationale behind the moving of this amendment is that we do not want to see different rates of payment to apply to different people serving on the co-ordinating council at different times. There should be only one rate of payment, which will be applicable to everybody irrespective of who he is. In order to obviate any differentiation in this regard I have moved this amendment. We believe—and I think the hon. the Minister will agree with us—that it is better that everybody should receive the same remuneration and that everybody should be treated in the same way. There should be no distinction drawn between, for example, Coloureds, Indians and Whites, or even among people coming from different parts of the same province. I believe we should treat them all alike and that no distinction whatsoever should be drawn among them.

The hon. the Minister also referred to an amendment which was ruled by you, Mr. Chairman, to be out of order. That was an amendment in respect of representation. In the light of the hon. the Minister’s explanation that this will be considered at a later stage, our attitude is that we will not voice our full objection to this provision by calling for a division on this clause. We will simply have our objection recorded against that particular stipulation.

Somersault!

Mr. Chairman, hon. members of the NRP should not talk about somersaults. They have done a triple somersault, a backward flip, and are so full of their own acrobatics that they should in fact change the name of their party. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to refer briefly to the amendment that the hon. member for Hillbrow wanted to move.

Your amendment is better than his amendment.

No, I think that his is better for one reason and that is that it still gives the Minister discretion in the event of there being a malicious attempt to get rid of a person. I did not move my amendment because of that fact. I think that his amendment is an improvement over mine.

I want to tell the hon. member for Hillbrow that it is not at all the intention to pay various people different rates because of the particular group they represent. However, they may hold different positions. If I accept the hon. member’s amendment I shall be limiting the power in the process of decision making to distinguish between people of the same group. I am not referring here to group differentiation. These people may hold different positions. As far as I can remember, this sort of provision is included in many pieces of legislation. However, I want to give the hon. member the assurance now that this provision will not be used to differentiate on the basis of colour or group. I can give the hon. member that assurance now.

Thank you.

Amendment 1 negatived.

Amendments 2 to 5 agreed to.

Amendment 9 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Official Opposition and Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, the first amendment standing in my name to this clause deals with the fact that the co-ordinating council has to advise the Government on matters of co-ordination in respect of local authorities with a view to the drawing up of legislation. We cannot help but feel that this is a function that should be handled by the province. We feel that legislation relating to local government should be handled by the province. That is why we feel that in the first instance in any event the report should be submitted to the Minister and should then be submitted to the provincial administrations so that they can consider the matter, give it the benefit of their experience and also give appropriate advice on the matter. As I have said before, subsection (4)(f) gives the co-ordinating council the right to advise on the legislation for local authorities. It is going to cause an enormous amount of embarrassment if that legislation is parliamentary legislation. Not only is it going to cause a great deal of difficulty, it is also going to take an awfully long time because Parliament does not usually handle legislation as expeditiously as the provincial councils do.

Not always.

Yes, not always, but the provincial council, certainly again in Natal, has three sittings a year. In the other provinces it varies. When Parliament rises in normal circumstances, perhaps not this year, the Government is not in a position to prepare and introduce legislation for another seven months. There are therefore long delays. Apart from that the provincial administrations have the appropriate machinery and have an appropriate umbrella ordinance, the ordinance concerning local authorities, into which such legislation would easily fit. Therefore we believe it would be desirable to have this legislation, while provincial councils do exist, put through the provincial councils generally by means of the ordinances concerning local authorities, but there may of course well be circumstances where they come under other ordinances. I fully understand that.

This is not a political issue and I feel that it would be simpler for the local authorities to apply the ordinances from a provincial council than to have to get used to a whole new system of having direct Acts from Parliament. I therefore move the two amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. 1. On page 6, in line 25, after “Government” to insert “and the provincial administrations”.
2. 2. On page 6, in lines 46 and 47, to omit “legislation relating to the functions of local authorities” and to substitute:
   draft ordinances relating to the functions of local authorities and such empowering legislation and related regulations as may be necessary

Mr. Chairman, I rise to tell the hon. member for Umbilo that I share the sentiments he has expressed, but let us look at the clause as it is. One finds firstly that this council is not established to advise the Minister; it is established to advise the Government. I am now not getting at the hon. member for Sea Point, but I just want to explain that the council will advise the Government.

Effectively you are the channel.

I am only the central focal point and that is all. I am just part of a chain.

“Government” is defined in the legislation concerning the Public Service, for instance. Here I refer to Act 54 of 1957. It means the Government of the Republic and also includes the provincial administrations. The provincial administrations are therefore already included in the term “government”. The provincial administrations are in fact part of the Government of the country and therefore it is completely superfluous to write into the Bill “and the provinces”. I share the hon. member’s sentiments, but I can assure him that what he seeks to bring about is already the case at the moment.

By means of his second amendment the hon. member seeks to insert a reference to ordinances and other legislation. The position is that in terms of the Interpretation Act, 1957 …

Legislation includes ordinances.

Yes, ordinances and regulations. Ordinances and regulations are therefore already covered by the term “legislation” in the subsection.

I should like to put the hon. member’s mind at rest. Let us look at the composition of the council. In terms of clause 3 there are only four members representing the central Government. They are the Minister; the Director-General: Constitutional Development and Planning; the Director-General: Internal Affairs and a representative of the Department of Finance. The rest of the 43 members, i.e. 39, come from the provinces, the Indian Council, local authorities and professional bodies of officials of local authorities. I think the hon. member will concede that there is little danger of them recommending that central legislation instead of provincial legislation be adopted. Let me repeat that, as the position obtains today, there is no intention whatsoever to take the legislative powers away from the provinces. If there is a restructuring in future, we will have to look at the position again. So I should like to tell the hon. member that I think ample provision is made to cover the two points he has in mind. I also believe that the composition of the council itself and our intentions are indicative of the fact that fear can be allayed.

Mr. Chairman, in respect of my first amendment, I accept the hon. the Minister’s point without any query whatsoever. I am prepared to withdraw that amendment because I concede that the definition of “government” does include the provinces. That was something I Over looked when I drew up my amendment.

In so far as the second amendment is concerned, it is very nice to hear from the hon. the Minister that he accepts my sentiments in this regard. I presume that I can take it as an assurance from him that in respect of advice given the procedure to be followed will be that, if legislation is to come into being, it will in almost all circumstances go through the provincial administrations.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to explain very briefly that the co-ordinating council will be able to consider many matters affecting communities, matters which are not necessarily the responsibility of local authorities or provincial administrations. The hon. member will understand that. An example is housing as it affects communities within the area of jurisdiction of local authorities. If legislation is to flow from something like that, naturally it will be the function of the department to deal with that. That the hon. member will understand. It is, however, not the intention in terms of this Bill to abrogate any of the powers of the provinces. That assurance I can give him.

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a different matter relating specifically to clause 4(h), in terms of which the council may—

I just want to put some points to the hon. the Minister about the implementation of this. I think the hon. the Minister will readily concede that without the necessary cash the co-ordinating council is not going to get off the ground, nor is the local authority involved in assisting the co-ordinating council in this liaison going to get off the ground. I think that the hon. the Minister knows, and that it is not necessary for me to remind him, that local authorities are already struggling very much financially. I do not know whether it is his intention, or that of the Government to whom the recommendations are now going to be made, in fact to start the ball rolling by making available a substantial amount of money. I think this may be very necessary if the co-ordination is to take place. In terms of clause 3(3)(c) a member of the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants is going to be present and that is a very good thing. However, I just want to consider briefly the history of the Government’s involvement with the finances of local government. The Borckenhagen Committee sat for 14 years but nothing ever happened with regard to sources of revenue. After that there was the Niemand Commission, which in turn sat for a number of years and made certain recommendations. A few changes with regard to administration and services came out of that. However, that not being satisfactory, the Browne Committee was appointed and that committee sat for a long time and took a lot of evidence from local authorities. Then the matter was handed over to the Croeser Working Group. I think the Croeser working group is still cruising around with Sally Rider somewhere in space.

Do you have information I do not have?

The Croeser Working Group has now recommended that because of the proposed constitutional changes, it should not do anything further until those changes come about.

I would therefore like to hear the hon. the Minister’s ideas on how he intends getting this off the ground. Without money it is not going to function at all.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to reply very briefly. Let me say firstly that it is not anticipated that any institution or authority will be channelled through this council. This council has no executive powers whatsoever. It only has the power to advise. However, the paragraph is included for a specific reason, namely that if any advice is forthcoming from this council which may impose a new function or duty on a local authority, it must also be established what source of funding there is going to be to enable a local authority to perform such a function. I think the hon. member has made a valid point in this respect.

With regard to the second point, I would just like to say briefly that in many cases investigations are undertaken for purely technical reasons, not for any political reasons whatsoever. As the hon. member knows, the Borchenhagen Browne and Niemann Committees were appointed to investigate, among other things, the financial resources of local authorities. There were no politics involved. When the report was published and was referred to the Croeser working group, one of the problems that arose was the question of the rendering of common services between contiguous local authorities. They recommended—the Government did not accept or reject that recommendation—the establishment of joint services committees to handle the situation. The point I am trying to make, is that they were then not only looking for resources but at the institutional aspect as well. When the President’s Council recommended the establishment of these committees, it had a political flavour. We understand that. I am just stating the facts now. What I am trying to say, is that many investigations of this nature were undertaken for purely financial and economic reasons but that eventually they had political implications. An investigation into the financial resources of local authorities also has an institutional aspect. The hon. member will remember that local authorities, especially the larger ones, are adversely inclined towards the idea of these overriding institutions in respect of the rendering of services. I am not taking sides one way or the other but this question has to be resolved.

I want to conclude by saying that many positive recommendations flowing from the investigation of the Browne Committee were accepted by the Government; for example the rate ability of State property in local authority areas. I do not think this has solved the problem, but it has at least relieved the situation in that regard. My own view is therefore that if the council advises that local authorities must undertake certain functions, and it is acceptable to the Government, one will also have to look at the financial implications to fund those activities. I therefore agree with the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to conclude this aspect. I think it is very important. I imagine that what will happen now is that Coloured and Indian local authorities will be established, having risen from management committees. They will now become fully-fledged local authorities. One will therefore have a geographical area, a metropolitan or a regional area, with a White, Coloured and Indian local authority in terms of this provision. It is very hard for a newly established Coloured or Indian local authority to become viable on their own unless they have freehold property and unless they have proper sources of revenue. I think it was originally mooted that they would get direct financial assistance from White local authorities. There was obviously tremendous opposition from White local authorities because they could not afford to assist them. Therefore these Coloured and Indian local authorities would need direct financial assistance, but on a regional level where there is co-ordination. I am thinking here of sewerage, water supply, electricity supply, cemeteries and transport services, which are all managed on a regional basis. All the communities have to serve together. There will then have to be some kind of board in which they can serve together and co-ordinate their functions. This is why I am sorry that my amendment was ruled out of order. Eventually Black local authorities will have to be included as well. I am therefore glad to hear that the hon. the Minister has that in mind for a later stage.

The hon. member for Umbilo has already indicated that he wishes to withdraw amendment 1. Does he also wish to withdraw amendment 2?

Under the circumstances, yes, Sir.

Amendments, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, I am surprised that the hon. the Minister does not have an amendment on this clause. On discussing the matter with my colleagues in Natal I was given to understand that the hon. the Minister would not be averse to an amendment in this regard. The amendment which I have on the Order Paper, which I shall move in due course, reads as follows—

I have read the amendment because I believe it is important that everybody should know exactly what I have in mind. Chapter II enables the Minister to determine regions and to establish municipal development boards in each region for the rendering of development aid and advice to local authorities situated within the region in question. The purpose of this aid is to render such authorities as soon as is practicable as self-sufficient as possible. A municipal development board may to that end submit to the department proposals as to the steps which should be taken.

It would seem to me that in this Bill, in any case, no provision has been made to provide this board with staff or funds other than administrative assistance by officials of the department. No indication is given as to the form which the development aid is to take or how a board is to render it, other than that it may advise the department as to the steps that should be taken.

Without further amplification it is very difficult for me to understand what the proposed boards are supposed to do or how they will function. Moreover, it is difficult to understand what gap this provision of the Bill seeks to fill. With the ranges of specialized staff of the provincial local government divisions and the development and services board divisions in Natal—I am sure there are similar bodies in the other provinces—they surely have effective machinery to give practical aid and advice in almost every situation, as has been proven in the past. If it is thought that a future proliferation of local authorities will demand the stepping up of this service, surely it would be a simple matter to increase the staff establishment of the bodies that already exist. I believe therefore that the Bill should provide that the Minister may designate any authority or authorities to undertake the duties that presently exist. I know that the hon. the Minister has had discussions with the leader of the Provincial Council of Natal on this issue and, as I say, I am rather surprised that he is not moving an amendment in this regard.

The Development and Services Board which operates in Natal has been in existence for many, many years. Previously it was a health commission and it developed into this particular body to assist small local authorities and to assist in the development of the local affairs committees into local authorities. That is part of its function and when, as has happened on numerous occasions, local authorities have got themselves into severe trouble and have not had the medical staff, the engineering staff or any other professional staff to handle a function, the board has stepped in and, on a pro tem basis, has assisted them until they have found somebody to handle it.

In the event of a local authority getting itself into financial difficulties the Development and Services Board goes in either at the behest of the administrator-in-executive or at the request of the local authority, depending upon the circumstances, and it sorts out their problems and, through provincial funding to the Development and Services Board, it already assists them financially. I am trying to illustrate that a body certainly tailored identically to what appears to be wanted here, exists at present. I believe that it would be very, very wasteful indeed to establish a similar body to do this work when a body perfectly geared for it, does exist. Not only would it be wasteful in expenditure but it would also be wasteful in manpower of a particular type and calibre of which we are desperately short in South Africa. People skilled in local government are very few and far between. Commerce and industry has taken so many of the brighter people out of that field and we have a very large shortfall in this particular level of activity. I should therefore like to tell the hon. the Minister that my amendment has no other motive than the more efficient operation of what he really wants, because there is nobody that he could provide in Natal who would have the expertise and overall experience that this particular body has. I am given to understand that the other provinces do have similar bodies.

I therefore move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

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

In other words, before the hon. the Minister determines the regions that he is going to determine, we think it would be proper for him to do so on the advice of the co-ordinating council, of which he is the chairman, and with the consent of the Administrator-in-Executive. I say this because the regions are obviously going to fall within the jurisdiction of a provincial administration. The hon. the Minister accepts the whole concept now within the framework of provincial administrations and local government. The hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech that the regions that he had in mind were Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, Kimberley, Bloemfontein, Pietermartizburg, Nelspruit, Pietersburg and Pretoria. All those places, of course, are under local authorities, and I believe therefore that it would only be correct that the co-ordinating council should be party to this setting up of the region. Since it falls under a province, I believe it should be, and I have stated in my amendment, with the consent of the Administrator as well.

I believe that will bring the whole process of co-ordination together under one body so that the hon. the Minister will not, on his own and without prior consultation, suddenly declare a region to set up a development board in that particular region to co-ordinate without its fitting into the whole general scheme. I ask the hon. the Minister to consider accepting my amendment along those lines.

Mr. Chairman, I first want to deal with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umbilo. No, he should not be so surprised. There is no amendment moved in respect of this particular clause as a result of my discussions with Mr. Martin. What I explained to the Administrator and to Mr. Martin was that I did not intend to duplicate boards that already existed for the performance of the same functions. That was a general statement I made. If in a particular province or in a particular region there are boards that do perform the functions that we believe the development boards should perform, it would of course be stupid to duplicate those boards. That is what I said.

Therefore we will consider the position of the Natal Development and Services Board in the light of that assurance. Allow me to explain, Mr. Chairman, Firstly, the nature of the Natal Development and Services Board is different from what we have in mind in this instance because that board has indeed executive powers, as the hon. member has acknowledged. On the other hand we believe that these boards must be primarily of an advisory nature. Furthermore we believe that experts (engineers, town clerks, etc.) should serve on that board in order to give to local authorities that sort of advice which they need. Secondly, the composition of these boards may differ materially. What we have in mind in respect of these boards is that they should be composed of various professional disciplines, and that they should therefore have a multidisciplinary composition. I do, however, give the hon. member the assurance again which I have already given to the leader of the NRP in Natal. We will not establish these boards in an arbitrary way. The whole philosophy behind this Bill is one of co-operation. I hope the hon. member will accept my word for that because I am saying this in all sincerity.

Turning now to the hon. member for Hillbrow I must state that I do have a problem in his case. It is again a practical problem. I must state again that I believe it would be ill-advised for the department or the Minister to go along in an arbitrary manner and establish those boards without reference to the co-ordinating council. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow, however, is so absolute in its nature that it will deprive the Minister completely of his discretion. I must say in all fairness that it is possible that a particular provincial council—regardless of which one of them—may resist the establishment of such boards. The hon. member will understand that. It could happen for various reasons. Yet I shall give the hon. member the assurance again that it is not the intention to establish those boards in an arbitrary manner, and I give the undertaking that we will consult with either the coordinating council or the action committee in particular instances. The hon. member must understand, however, that one cannot leave the final decision in the hands of the Administrator or the board. That, I am sure, the hon. member will appreciate. Having given the hon. member this assurance I am sure he will be able now to accept the clause as it stands.

Mr. Chairman, quite obviously I would be very happy to accept the word of the hon. the Minister that his intentions are as he has indicated. Regrettably, however, Ministers come and go and a subsequent Minister administering this particular piece of legislation may not have the same approach as the hon. the Minister himself has indicated. The hon. the Minister himself has already said that it is not the intention to establish an institution if one already exists which is to all practical intents and purposes doing the job that is in any event required to be done. If that is the situation, then I really cannot see why it cannot be included in the legislation to indicate that that is the intention. I am sure that the hon. the Minister as the progenitor of this Bill would not like to see it spoilt by any successor and, if this were included in the Bill, one would have the assurance that it could not easily be removed. That it would require parliamentary action.

The hon. the Minister has told us that the function of the board per se is in fact advisory. To a very large extent it may well be just that. The Development and Services Board in some of its actions is purely advisory. However, when a local authority, particularly a small one, finds itself in difficulty, advice is all very well but sometimes somebody has to be put in to assist in a physical manner. This has had to be done in a number of cases. To be able both to give advice and physical assistance, this particular board has the fullest range of professional disciplines. There are medical officers, not health inspectors, but fully qualified doctors, and fully qualified and very highly trained engineers. In respect of almost every category that is required to run a local authority there are these professional disciplines available. I want therefore to suggest once again that while I fully and happily accept the bona fides and the good intentions of the hon. the Minister, I can see no reason at all why he should not wish to include this in the Bill because it will do what he wants.

Mr. Chairman, I have no particular knowledge of the function of that board. There may be all sorts of boards. For instance, there is some sort of development board in the Transvaal for peri-urban areas but they do not fulfil the same functions. We passed legislation yesterday to give local authorities, particularly in rural areas, the right to perform functions in areas not contiguous to them if that need exists.

We passed legislation of that nature years ago in Natal.

That might well be the case. All I am trying to say is that all development boards do not necessarily perform the same functions. Perhaps the Natal board fits into the pattern and, if that is so, I think it would be inadvisable to establish another. In any event, I have already given my reply to the hon. member for Hillbrow. We are not simply going to establish these boards. There will be consultation in regard to their establishment. For instance, no board will function without the co-operation of the province or the local authority. I want to obtain the expertise of the provinces and the local authorities. Therefore, I really feel that the hon. member need have no fears whatsoever about this situation.

Mr. Chairman, I have no hesitation whatsoever in accepting the hon. the Minister’s assurances. I am sure that he will carry out the necessary consultation. However, we are legislating on a long-term basis and, whilst we wish the hon. the Minister a long and healthy career in politics, perhaps he may not still be in charge of this particular portfolio at some future date.

I do not want to press for the acceptance of my amendment but I do want it and my remarks in that regard to remain on record.

Amendment 1 negatived (New Republic Party dissenting).

Amendment 2 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, I want to move an amendment which I am sure you will not rule out of order. I move the following amendment—

The debate today is taking place in a much calmer atmosphere than that of the Second Reading. Yesterday the hon. the Minister was particularly upset with me among others. Actually he was primarily upset with me because I had accused him of being arrogant. I want to suggest that his acceptance of this amendment will give some proof that he is not quite as arrogant as I thought he was. [Interjections.]

Here we are dealing with a municipal development board in respect of which the Minister has certain powers. He can appoint members of the development board, he can designate one of the members of the development board as chairman and so forth. In subsection (4) it is provided—

Then follows the proviso—

I believe that provision is entirely unnecessary. The Minister is going to appoint members of the board. He presumably satisfies himself or he receives advice as to their ability to become members of the board. He appoints them for a particular time, and I think it is totally unreasonable for the Minister to be able to fire them during the period of their service. This is really what it amounts to: At a whim the Minister can simply say that he has decided for good reasons that he terminates the membership of a particular member.

I do not believe the proviso is necessary. I believe if the hon. the Minister wants to give proof that he is not as arrogant as I thought he was, he will accept the amendment and have the proviso removed.

Order! Since the hon. member’s amendment is not in conflict with a principle of the Bill, it is permissible.

Mr. Chairman I agree with you that the hon. member’s amendment is not out of order. The functions of these boards are important. I have indicated that the people whom we want to appoint to these boards are people with specific professional training in relation to local authority development. We do not envisage that many of these appointments will be on a permanent basis in the sense that they occupy full-time positions. We have in mind that perhaps we shall ask the city council of Johannesburg, Pietermaritzburg or Durban to make available on a part-time basis an engineer or a town clerk to assist other local authorities as need be. I think the hon. member understands what I mean.

Yes, but then you appoint him for a specified period.

But initially one does not know how long that period is going to be. This differs from the co-ordinating council in respect of which I accepted the idea mooted by the hon. member for Sea Point, and that is not simply to dismiss a member, but to discuss the matter with the body who has recommended the appointment of the particular member. In the case of the development boards the Minister makes appointments without the advice of anybody. Therefore he should be able to terminate the membership of a member if his services are not required anymore. There is no point in retaining someone on the board if his services are no longer required. Surely this applies to any profession or business in the sense that one can terminate the services of someone whom one does not need anymore. There is nothing more in this than just that. I would really like to accommodate the hon. member, but I cannot.

Well, just accept his amendment.

But then I am in trouble.

Mr. Chairman, in respect of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Berea, I think that perhaps some of us do not even yet know quite what the hon. the Minister has in mind. As I see it, for these boards to be effective, one is almost going to require a two-level sort of operation. On the one level there will be the actual board and on the other the arm of the board to do whatever has to be done and to spend several days inspecting and examining a matter in order to be able to give advice on it. So, there are going to be two categories of persons involved as I see it. There will be the board itself, directing operations in the area, and there will be the other category getting in to do the work. If it is not done in that way, it seems to me from my knowledge of this sort of business—and with due respect, I have been handling this sort of affair for the last 11 years before I came to Parliament—that it is going to require virtually a full-time operation. People are going to be needed on a full-time basis. Especially if one starts creating, as I believe is the intention, an additional number of Coloured and Indian local authorities, I believe these people are going to be tied up. To sort out, for example, the financial affairs of a small local authority is going to take days and days of work just in respect of that one local authority. If there are then several requiring this kind of work, it is going to take a lot of time. This is why I say that it seems to me one is going to have a double-level operation.

In Natal the Development and Services Board does work on a double level. The Administrator-Executive Committee appoints a board, a small board of competent and very experienced people, and they themselves appoint staff covering all the various occupations. With due submission, Sir, I do not believe that these boards are going to serve any useful purpose whatsoever unless they have a full-time staff. Under those circumstances, with a full-time staff, quite obviously there must be the power to move them, summarily if necessary.

In so far as the top board, the directing body if you like, of the organization is concerned, one cannot necessarily always agree with them. I think that often the Executive Committee did not agree with the Development and Services Board either. We had to get together to thrash matters out to see who was right. They were usually sensible and accepted the advice of the executive Committee. [Interjections.] So we might well be in the same situation with a Government department. That is why I say this is not the simplistic thing it appears to be in this Bill. It is quite a complex business. This is why I am very perturbed that we are passing something that is not going to work. As I have said, I have had 11 years of experience of this sort of thing.

Mr. Chairman, I want to be brief. We will be led by circumstances. I have indicated that the administrative work of the board will be done by my department. Let me say what I have in mind initially. One of our great problems at the moment is the question of training for the various functions officials have to perform. Therefore, I have in mind to approach a Provincial Administration or a local authority and ask whether I can, for example, appoint the town clerk to the board to assist in training people. When such a person has completed his task, I must be able to terminate that. If it eventually appears that we need a controlling board plus services, then that must be developed, but that is not envisaged at this stage. If we need that eventually, we will come back here to discuss it.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? It is not quite clear to me whether the hon. the Minister said that he is not quite au fait with the functioning of the Natal Board, how it is constituted, what its functions are, etc. Does that also apply to the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-urban Areas? If that is the case, and the hon. the Minister is not completely au fait with the functions, aims and composition of these two boards—I do not want to fight with the hon. the Minister about that—he must surely concede that here there is a great danger of duplication.

I am not, of course, au fait with all the detail in connection with those boards. In reply to the hon. member a moment ago, I said that the functions of the Natal board were different to those I envisaged for the development boards. The Natal board has executive functions, with a control board and officials doing the development work. I do not foresee there being a control board and officials. That is why the clause provides that people serving on the board should be knowledgeable people.

I am also aware of the functions of the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-urban Areas. This board does not, however, cover the whole area.

What about the Cape?

No, the Cape does not have one. The Cape does not have a development board. The Free State board is quite different again. We shall, however, sort this matter out. These people are all represented on the co-ordinating council, which is also going to play a role in regard to the development board.

Mr. Chairman, I have taken note of what the hon. the Minister has said, but I want to reiterate what I said during the Second Reading debate, and that is that there are very knowledgeable people on these boards, amongst their officials. There are ex-town clerks, ex-MPC’s, serving on those boards. These people can definitely be made use of, and I hope the hon. the Minister will make use of them. That would satisfy me to some extent.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say at once that we shall not be duplicating anything that has already been done. If there are boards doing the work that we envisage, we would not want to establish another board, because there are too few officials as it is. If there are boards that can help us to do this work, we shall be making use of their services and those of their officials.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 14:

Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments on this clause standing in my name on the Order Paper while the hon. the Minister also has an amendment on the Order Paper to negative the clause.

Quite frankly, my amendments are not as satisfactory to me as the amendment of the hon. the Minister, and I am therefore quite happy not to move my amendments and to support the one of the hon. the Minister.

As far as this Bill is concerned, we think this clause is one of its more unhappy clauses. It reads as follows—

This to us was one of the worst aspects of this Bill. So we are very happy indeed that the hon. the Minister has proposed to negative this clause. Strangely enough, nobody has said what the hon. the Minister’s reasoning on this is, but I think I understand his reasoning, namely that in the event of there being a local authority declared and a council or appropriate body cannot be formed, the Minister can appoint somebody for that particular function. I think that is probably the reason.

Here again I have a copy of the appropriate section of the Natal Local Authorities’ Ordinance in terms of which the Administrator is empowered to appoint a commissioner to exercise powers and duties of a local authority. This in toto covers the needs of the Minister in this regard, so that if he does find himself faced with people who do not want to serve on a council he can easily enough arrange for somebody to be appointed to ensure that there is officially a local authority. This will quite certainly be the case in Natal. I am quite certain that the other provinces can resolve this matter equally to the way Natal resolved them. The person who is appointed as a commissioner has full power to operate that local authority, except that he cannot levy rates as such or alienate immovable property or an interest in immovable property or increase any charge fixed or levied by the local authority or levy any new charge. These he cannot do except with the consent of the provincial executive committee. This point has therefore been totally covered. We were worried about that one aspect, but it is in fact already covered.

We are also worried about another aspect, namely in the case of there being an attempt to create local authorities unnaterally, i.e. when they are not ready for it or not capable of handling it, thereby forcing the issue. I have every respect for the hon. the Minister, but these things can happen. Many of the authorities can be delegated, and in the hands of somebody who handles them indelicately I am afraid it could cause an enormous amount of trouble.

To avoid wasting any further time and having put our point of view across, I say that we are very happy that the hon. the Minister has proposed to negative this clause. We are perfectly happy to accept that.

Mr. Chairman, the intention of clause 14 was not to establish local authorities. One must look at the wording. The clause states—

I do not want to argue the point now.

[Inaudible.]

I understand that. That is why I have proposed to negative the clause. I do not want there to be any ambiguity about this aspect at all. The President’s Council in its recommendations suggested that institutions such as Escom or the Rand Water Board be included on such a co-ordinating council. All we intended to do in this clause was to make provision for that. There has been resistance by the provinces and I have accepted that. That is why I am withdrawing the clause. The amendment to clause 15 will make it possible for those persons to be appointed to the co-ordinating council.

Clause negatived.

Clause 15:

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

I do not think it is necessary for me to explain these amendments. I think they are self-explanatory.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 16 agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 18:

Mr. Chairman, this again is one of the more difficult parts of this Bill as far as we are concerned. The hon. the Minister’s first amendment is identical in all respects in this regard.

I have said that it is identical in all respects.

So obviously we shall not quarrel with this amendment. We are very glad indeed that the hon. the Minister has seen fit to effect this amendment because this was one of the clauses that most heavily antagonized the Indian and Coloured communities. This was the one whereby they felt that there was going to be a forced movement to establish unwilling ethnic local authorities. I know that this was one of the points. The only query that I have is that the hon. the Minister did make a point in his Second Reading speech to the effect that clause 18(1) was one of they key aspects of the Government’s local government policy. That was the hon. the Minister’s own terminology that he used. I hope that having to withdraw this now as he has done, is not going to cause any sort of embarrassment because it created the impression that it affected the principle and not the details. As far as we are concerned, we are very happy for it to be considered as detail, but I would not like there to be any confusion on the issue. As far as we are concerned this was a very unhappy clause. We know from experience of the difficulties that are involved in the establishment and development of local affairs committees into fully-fledged local authorities. We know of the times where one has almost to take them back under one’s control. We know of the arrangements that one has to make with the original parent local authority for the excision of land and the arguments there are over any public land and shares of public land that come in. This is why we are very happy that this subsection is being omitted. As far as we are concerned we are also prepared to accept the other amendments that the hon. the Minister has on the Order Paper.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. the Minister will realize that the fact that he had an amendment of this nature on the Order Paper, in a sense duplicating that of the hon. member for Umbilo, went a long way towards justifying the attitude of the PFP towards himself and towards this Bill at Second Reading. It was a cardinal thing because the hon. the Minister was trying to evolve a local government system on the basis of the management and liaison committees. That has now fallen away. However, I hope that the hon. the Minister has allowed it to fall away because he does not intend that local government should develop in that way. I hope that the hon. the Minister has not allowed it to fall away because he has found another way of skinning the cat. The fact that the hon. the Minister has allowed this not to be put forward really means that he is not going to follow the path that was anticipated by they original provision. We would like the assurance from the hon. the Minister that he has had a rethink and that it is not just that the provision is falling away, but that his intention as expressed in that provision has changed. We would like to know that because I think to fashion or build new local government structures on old structures which, for whatever reason, are sources of tension in the community, is no good for the new structure that is to be created. In that sense we are pleased that the hon. the Minister has supported our point of view in respect of clause 18(1). However, having given him the good news, I am afraid that that I shall have to inform him that we will be unable to support the amended clause as it stands. It is not because one does not want better liaison in a general sense. It is a kind of mother-love phrase. Everybody wants better liaison. In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister went to great lengths to explain why the particular provisions of subsections (2) and (3) have to apply. In the first instance, if there is need to force local authorities in this regard, we feel that that should be the direct responsibility of the province and not a formal responsibility of the Minister. When he tells us it is “the Minister in consultation with” we believe that provinces are entirely competent. If they need extra powers those powers should be given to them. They should not be given to the Minister who merely has to consult with them. The evidence as to his dominant position as far as the province is concerned is contained in subsection (4) in terms of which in the event of a conflict between a regulation of the Minister and a provincial regulation, the Minister’s regulation is going to have precedence. We think that is wrong. We feel that if it is necessary to do what the hon. the Minister wants to have done this should be done via the province and they should have the authority. It should not be done via the Minister merely in consultation with the province. We think the authority is the wrong authority.

The hon. the Minister has made it quite clear. He wants to make use of these powers in one or two limited cases. It may be limited only to one major local authority. He wants to force a particular local authority to enter into some form of relationship with management committees in that area. I can understand that quite often there are good relationships. There are good relationships up country and elsewhere. I think the hon. the Minister is perceptive enough to know that in the Cape Western Region which includes the whole of the Cape Flats the question of management committees and their relationship with local government is a very, very sensitive issue. I am not talking for the Cape Town City Council in the general sense. However, I would like to believe that if they felt that the Coloured people of the Cape Peninsula genuinely wanted management committees to represent them on the council, they would say so. I do not believe that they are excluding them because they, as a White council, do not like them per se. There is a history behind this. In fact, by and large the management committees in the peninsula could not muster enough votes to be elected. I believe that most of them are nominated people. All we ask is that the view of the Coloured people be respected and if there is evidence that the Coloured people of the Cape Peninsula area genuinely want liaison via the management committees, well and good. However, all the evidence that is available at the moment is that they do not want the management committees to be the link between themselves and the local authority. I want to issue a friendly warning to the hon. the Minister. The more this sort of thing is forced, the more the civic action committees and other bodies of that nature on the Cape Flats are going to come up in “opstand” against the whole situation. I want to caution the hon. the Minister: Let this thing ride. Come forward with new structures. Start a new tack but do not try to force liaison between a city council and a Coloured management committee if the Coloured people themselves do not say that that is the form of liaison that they want. All the evidence that I have is that because of the history of the taking away of the Coloured vote and all the rest of it, the management committees per se at the moment in this area are the wrong bodies to be forced into a liaison. It will not upset the Whites. The city council will do this if they are under pressure. However, what it will upset is the mass and the leadership of the Coloured people on the Cape Flats.

It is for these reasons that we say: Do not push this thing. Just as there was a rethink on the basis of the advice that we gave the hon. the Minister not to proceed with subsection (1), so we say: Listen to this advice. The hon. the Minister may have the power but he has shown that there is one thing that he does not necessarily have and that is all the wisdom to handle sensitive race relations and inter-group relations in this field.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sea Point told the hon. the Minister that the PFP is on the point of being happy about this measure. According to him the hon. the Minister has definitely been moving in the direction in which they would like to see him move. The PFP detects a certain change of opinion or attitude on the part of the hon. the Minister towards clause 18. I just want to point out what the hon. the Minister said about this clause in his reply to the Second Reading debate. He said, and I quote (Hansard, 22/6/83)—

To that the hon. member for Sea Point replied—

The hon. the Minister then replied—

And now, as far as I am concerned, the most significant part—

In other words, it gives expression to a resolve or an intention. The hon. the Minister has said that in terms of the existing legislation methods can be found for local authorities to come into being. This provision, however, gives expression to a resolve or intention, and in the light of this change of attitude on the part of the hon. the Minister, to which the hon. member for Sea Point referred, I want to draw the conclusion that the intention is that this reform at the central tier of Government is very clearly been carried through to the local authority level. After all, in clause 18(1), which is being deleted, one reads the following—

The conversion of those committees into self-governing local authorities is therefore being deleted here, and it is this very aspect that the Labour Party was very satisfied with. As a result of this they reached an understanding with the hon. the Minister.

In subsections (2) and (3), however, provision is made for improving communication between local authorities and certain committees. About the word “communication” I should just like to say a few words. As hon. members know, people have been playing around quite a bit with the concepts joint responsibility, joint decision-making, etc.

Also the concept of people having a “joint say”.

Yes, also with the concept of having a “joint say”. In the annual report of the hon. the Minister’s department—in paragraph 130, on page 21—we read the following words—

So here there is already the prospect of communication—according to this annual report—implying a meaningful say. It is therefore our standpoint on this side of the House that the hon. the Minister is also moving in the direction of joint decision-making and power-sharing, in the full sense of the word, at the level of local authorities.

Mr. Chairman, I want to state categorically—and let us agree to differ on that—that the guidelines of the Government are perfectly clear in respect of the position on the level of local government. The hon. member may well disagree with that. Allow me, Mr. Chairman, to read briefly to hon. members what those guidelines are.

Firstly the Government accepts the principle of the maximum devolution of power and of the decentralization of administration to government on the local level, and a minimum administrative control over local authorities. With that I think the hon. member will agree.

The Government is of the opinion that wherever possible local authorities should be established for the various population groups subject to adequate financial arrangements being made to ensure the viability of those authorities. [Interjections.] Does the hon. member for Sea Point disagree with my philosophy?

The issue is whether the present management committee system …

I am coming to that, but at the moment I am dealing with my philosophy regarding the establishment of separate local authorities for communities.

We have gone further and I have indicated that on metropolitan or regional levels joint services will probably—I stress the word “probably”—have to be rendered and for that purpose bodies will have to be established in which local authorities will have to be represented on some or other proportional basis, for example a financial basis, the representatives on those bodies to be appointed by the constituent local authorities themselves. This is a probable way in which the matter may be handled. The deletion of subsection (1) does not detract from that at all.

It is a great pity.

That may be so, but in my perception it is something good.

I want to reiterate as I said earlier this afternoon, that the clause was misinterpreted by the Natal Provincial Administration as though it empowered the establishment of a local authority. This, however, it is not intended to do. There was also a doubt in the minds—I am not saying this derogatorily—of hon. members of the CP as to the exact meaning of subsection (1). They consulted my department in this connection and apparently they had the same problem which the Provincial Administration of Natal had. They had the same problem which the members of the ad hoc committee had. I therefore undertook to withdraw the subsection to eliminate the doubt about the clause. The deletion of the subsection does not— this is unfortunate if one looks at it from the point of view of the hon. member for Sea Point—detract from what we want to achieve.

The other issue which the hon. member raised—I am merely replying and I do not want to start an argument about this—is that regulations should be promulgated by the provinces. I have explained that it was agreed at a meeting that the provinces would introduce the legislation empowering the promulgation of regulations to make provision for interim measures. The Administrators and MECs jointly decided that because of certain difficulties obtaining in certain provinces that I should be requested …

Who were they?

I do not have the information at hand, but I think all the Administrators and all the members of their executive committees agreed because they thought that the introduction of interim measures was important and that it should be done in terms of the Bill but on certain conditions. Firstly, that it be done in consultation with the Administrators and, secondly, that it be applied and implemented by the Administrators. Beyond that the Minister has no function whatsoever. The third condition relates to management committees. I do not want to identify particular city or town councils when I deal with this because I do not want to get involved in a fight with people who are not here to defend themselves, but it is a fact that management committees do not agree with the system. It would be untruthful of me to say that they all did, but the fact is that they function within that system and that in certain cases they have requested to be present in a consultative capacity. That has been refused, not only in the Cape Province, but in other provinces as well. I have pointed that out. Therefore the regulations to be promulgated will give a range of alternatives for the local communities to see whether they can resolve their problems themselves.

I have sat in the national liaison committee and, while many people have fears about whether it can function at all and whether one will be able to find consensus there, I can tell the hon. member that on no occasion was it ever necessary for that committee to take a vote at one of its meetings. [Interjections.] In all fairness, the people involved are genuinely seeking answers to the problems of this country within the limitations imposed by the composition of this country. So let us give them a chance. However, one does in certain cases come across the attitude that, because the law of the country does not make the necessary provisions, they are not prepared to co-operate. We cannot leave it at that. Regardless of what we eventually achieve, I think we must make provision for this. Quite seriously, I have high hopes in this regard. I am optimistic—and I am not saying this at anyone’s expense—about the capacity of people to work together. I believe that that represents progress.

*Now I come to the hon. member for Pietersburg. The hon. member’s conclusion is wrong. He must just look at the amendment I moved to subsection (2) which will become subsection (1) after this has been passed. It specifically makes provision for communication and consultation between White councils and Coloured and Indian management committees.

But here you are not expressing any specific intention in regard to what is to be established.

In all fairness, Sir, surely it is not customary to do this. One does not state it in legislation. The hon. member for Brakpan, however, was not present here during the previous debate. I just want to indicate to him what I said about the question of withdrawing subsection (1). I specifically said that statutory provisions to make provision for local authorities and communities already existed and that it was never the intention to embody this in the legislation. It was, however, interpreted as having been the intention, and for that reason I am withdrawing subsection (1). Its introduction does not detract from the statutory powers on the Statute Book. We have, on previous occasions, agreed with each other and with the local management organizations about the need for an institution that would deal with communal services. We do not know how it will be constituted. We do not yet know what the qualifications of such a body will be. Nor do we yet know in what way its members will be elected. That still has to be investigated. I suggest that when that investigation has been completed, it will be implemented by way of legislation, and on that occasion we can then debate the matter. In all fairness, Sir, that is all I am now asking.

†I now come to the hon. member for Umbilo. I think we have met all his problems and therefore I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. 2. On page 12, in lines 24 to 30, to omit subsection (1).
2. 3. On page 12, in lines 36 and 37, to omit “the committees mentioned in subsection (1)” and to substitute:
   Coloured and Indian consultative, local affairs and management committees
3. 4. On page 12, in line 39, to omit “(2)” and to substitute “(1)”.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Official Opposition and Conservative Party dissenting).

Title:

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend debating this issue. At this stage I want to thank hon. members for their co-operation during the Committee Stage. I consequently move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows, amendments which are consequential to the amendments already accepted—

1. 1. On page 2, in the tenth line, to omit all the words after “purpose” up to and including “Act” in the eleventh line.
2. 2. On page 2, in the eleventh line, after “Act;” to insert:
   the designation of persons or institutions for purposes of membership of the co-ordinating council;

Amendments agreed to.

Title, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Mr. Speaker, last night we were given one minute for this debate and tonight we have given six minutes. I am not sure how it reflects on how the House regards the importance of this measure, but I think that to the taxpaying public, who are affected in their ordinary lives by all of these things, these six minutes might be relatively important. For that reason I move as an amendment—

I said yesterday that we were going to show, throughout the discussion of these fiscal measures, that in each one of them the Government was demonstrating its inability to combat inflation, its inability to use the fiscal tools which are available to it and its failure actually to protect the public of South Africa against the impact of inflation. This particular Bill is another example of the helplessness of this Government in respect of these fiscal tools and its inability to use them. On the contrary, this particular measure is counter-productive in that there are in fact a number of cost inputs into the economy as a result of which the fires of inflation will be fanned and will cause inflation to go on and on.

The question one has to ask, is that if this Government is unable to deal with inflation in a time of recession, when it should be easy to deal with inflation, what is going to happen when there is an upswing? How is the Government going to act then? If one cannot deal with inflation during a recession, one is demonstrating one’s helplessness in dealing with it during an upswing. In such a situation one finds that inflation gets even more out of hand. I am going to draw attention to a number of these matters as we go along. Perhaps I should deal with some of the things which are not such bad news.

There is for instance a provision in this Bill which deals with the reduction of capital. Here we had hoped that ordinary reductions of capital would find themselves being immune from duty, but what has happened is that people—very substantial companies— have abused that privilege and have in fact used the loophole in the law to avoid the payment of duties which otherwise they should have paid. It is therefore correct that we should now endeavour to close that loophole. The difficulty is that by closing that loophole we are actually also penalizing some people who want to indulge in ordinary reductions of capital and who have no intention to avoid duties. I think after this we will have to take another look at this particular provision to see whether the innocent cannot be freed from this net which is being drawn so tight because of the abuse of which certain major corporations in particular have been guilty.

I come now to what is a perennial matter, namely the question of estate duty. We support the provision which deals with the question of excluding a policy which has been taken out by a person with his own money in order to provide for funds should he wish to buy out a partner or co-shareholder or pay off his loan account, and where there is no benefit to the deceased. However, there is also a further provision relating to annuities. The situation is that a normal annuity will not be included or deemed to be included in an estate, but in the case of a commutation of an annuity, the exemption does not apply. We have difficulty in supporting that provision. I certainly like to hear the hon. the Deputy Minister further on this. Many of the commutations which take place, take place because the cash amount can be better invested to produce a bigger income than the annuity itself. The purpose of commuting is not to have a cash amount available but to provide a source of income which is more attractive than the annuity itself. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that where the amount is reinvested in order to produce that kind of income, in order to produce a better income for, say, a widow in particular circumstances, the amount should then be exempted. In other words, if that sum of money is immediately reinvested, the exemption should be allowed to continue.

The next matter I want to touch on relates to clause 4. I want to deal with this issue before I deal—perhaps tomorrow—with some of the other inflationary matters. I want to now deal with the new section 11A which is to be inserted in the Diamond Export Duty Act of 1957. I regret that on this occasion the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs is not present—I understand he is away—because I think he is fundamentally concerned with this particular provision. Those people who have some knowledge of the diamond cutting industry in South Africa—let me disclose my interest in it; I have knowledge of it and I know something of this industry—know that the industry is presently experiencing one of the worst periods it has experienced. Unemployment is rife.

One should caress that industry.

Yes, one should caress the industry. I agree with the hon. member. The hon. member knows my interest in the matter, but I am concerned about people who are out of work. Many of the people who are out of work are actually voters in the hon. member for Jeppe’s constituency. Unemployment in the diamond cutting industry today is very substantial. The whole purpose of this particular provision was that we in South Africa should be able to establish a diamond cutting industry of substance, that we should be able to compete on the markets of the world in this field and, because the rough diamonds come from South Africa, we should have our own diamond cutting industry. I think we do have such an industry.