Mr Speaker, before the adjournment last night it was clear that there were problems in the ranks of all the opposition parties in this House regarding the fact that we are moving amendments to an Act before the instruments it has created have come into operation. The PFP, the CP and the HNP advanced this argument.

†The hon member for Walmer stated that he was experiencing grave problems relating to the so-called elegance of the Government’s reform process. I am sure, however, that if the PFP were to exercise the responsibilities pertaining to the executive function, we would undoubtedly also have problems with the elegance of their implementation of their executive functions.

*I can, of course, understand that the hon members of the right-wing opposition parties have problems and are unable to understand why amendments are being made to an Act before it has actually come into operation. I can understand this, because these hon members remind one very much of a leaping fountain that perpetually spurts the same water into the air, recirculates it and spurts it into the air again. We never get any new ideas from them—never any new thoughts. These hon members are in the unfortunate position that they have no experience of initiating politics. That is why they cannot understand that when one is busy with constitutional pioneering work one cannot do all the right things properly the first time.

The hon member Prof Olivier is staring at me. Surely he knows—if I may use this example—that when the first people trekked into the interior over the Hottentots Holland Mountains it was impossible for them to choose the best and the shortest way the first time. Nor is it true that these people never turned back. It is not true that they refused to send out scouts to look for better roads either.

The point is that when one is busy with pioneering work, whether it be geographic pioneering work or constitutional pioneering work, one must accept that one will make certain small mistakes from the beginning. When it comes to the implementation of what one has planned, one must make certain adjustments. I envisage that these amendments we are effecting to the Regional Services Council Act today will not be the last amendments to the Act. More changes will have to be effected. [Interjections.]

I now want to refer to the hon member for Sasolburg. Unfortunately he is not present this morning. Yesterday he referred to the comprehensive reform in a multiracial dispensation, and he accused this side of the House of inflating the hopes of Black people. The hon member for Rissik—in fact, all the hon members of the CP—advanced similar arguments, viz that we were creating expectations among Black people.

Are you not creating expectations among them?

Yes, we are creating expectations, but the problem with the hon member for Rissik is that he always speaks about the expectations of Black people as if Whites do not have expectations too. [Interjections.] All these hon members speak about concerning the Whites, is the fears, the anxiety and the negative aspects. [Interjections.]

Surely the Whites, too, have expectations concerning the new constitutional dispensation. They expect greater stability and greater justice. [Interjections.] The Whites have expectations or needs arising from the existence of grievances and poverty, and the absence of certain basic civil rights in Black communities, all of which should have been avoided. These expectations among Whites are the result of the indefensible forming of power and privilege here and there in the White community. Their needs also arise from the fact that the constitutional system does not offer Black people enough opportunities for participation today. However, the hon members of the right-wing parties are not prepared to address these expectations on the part of the Whites.

I want to conclude by making one final point. The accusation has been made here that the SA Agricultural Union had not been consulted in respect of these amendments. I cannot understand why the hon member for Kuruman and the hon member for Sasolburg, both of whom are absent this morning, did not consult the hon member for Ceres, because, as they know, he is a member of the executive of the SA Agricultural Union. I also fail to understand why the hon members did not consult the co-ordinating council. The long and the short of the matter, Sir, is that the SA Agricultural Union had in fact been consulted. In fact, they made many inputs.

Do they agree with this Bill?

The accusation that the SA Agricultural Union had not been consulted is utter nonsense.

Do they agree with this Bill?

That is not the point the hon member made. The point he made, was that they had not been consulted.

Sir, I support this Bill. I think the hon member’s argument that White money, as the hon member for Sasolburg put it, was being poured into the Black communities is nonsense. It is nonsense because, surely, the factories, the industries, the shops and the businesses which were initiated by the Whites employ millions of Black people who also contribute to the profitability of the businesses. Surely it is only fair that some of this money should be transferred. In fact, one of the elements of democracy is that the State takes money from certain communities and uses it for other communities who do not have the money. Surely this is one of the elements of the stability we need in this country.

As I said, I have pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I will in the course of my speech answer certain of the points put by the hon member for Caledon, particularly with reference to the submission of further amendments to this Bill. However, I would like to commence by referring to the history of the Regional Services Councils Act and the progress through this House of that legislation. We are becoming fairly traditional and in some ways we are developing a convention regarding the handling of Regional Services Councils Bills. After its first submission to this House, the Bill was debated on 11 July 1984, which was funnily enough the second last day of the session. It was debated and passed at Second Reading. Then the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning moved (Hansard: Assembly, Vol 115, col 11252):

In 1984 we therefore had a rushed debate on a Bill that we received late in the session and that Bill then went to a select committee of Parliament.

What happened in 1985? Again we received the Regional Services Councils Bill on the second last day of the session to debate and we passed it! We debated that measure on 18 June 1985. We are now again, on 24 June 1986, debating an amendment to that Act on the second last and possibly the last day of this part of this session. The point I am making—it was also made by the hon member Prof Olivier—is that this is no way to handle significant and major legislation. We are rushing it through in the last two days of this part of the session without sufficient debate and without sufficient discussion at standing committee level and with insufficient consideration of the consequences of the legislation that is being passed.

It is quite clear that this Act is going to be amended again. The hon member for Caledon said so. We raised this in the standing committee. The standing committee met on 18 and 19 June—that was Wednesday and Thursday of last week—to consider this legislation. It did so after some MPs on the standing committee had only had the Bill for a day. It had not been referred to other organisations like Assocom and FCI for their consideration. The telex that we have received from them indicates that quite clearly.

Far more important than merely not being referred to the other organisations outside is the fact that the non-implementation of the regional services councils cannot be ascribed solely to the procedural matters raised in this Bill or the financial matters that the hon the Minister of Finance is now handling. The non-implementation of regional services councils can also be ascribed to political matters that also should have been amended at this stage. It is interesting to reflect that in that standing committee there was a point at which it became very clear that the consensus or feeling was that this Bill should be deferred to the second part of this session. Again it is significant that, after receiving instructions or information from the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, the Nationalist MPs on that standing committee came back and said: “It has to go through now; there can be no delay.”

They were whipped to heel.

That is a good point. I want to thank the hon member. They were whipped to heel by the hon the Minister who was acting as master of the hounds at that stage. It was at that point that the PFP looked at the Bill and asked: “What is all this rush about?” Why is this being forced through at this stage? From nowhere have we heard a single argument to indicate why this has to be forced through today, in these dying hours of this part of the session, and not in the second part. In the speech of the hon Minister of Finance the argument was put forward, on behalf of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, that the Bloemfontein regional services council, incorporating Botshabelo, may well be established in October of this year. If that is the case, we should like a date. The indications that we have received, however, are that it will not be before 1987 that the major metroplitan areas in South Africa will see the development RSCs. Significantly, the argument regarding the political changes that are going to be made to the Regional Services Councils Act in the second part of the session have not even been mentioned by NP members who are supporting this Bill. They are, however, well aware of the fact that we are going to amend this Bill again before this session ends. So it is quite an extraordinary performance, on their part, that they should feel it to be so vital to rush this measure through when they know that they are going to be considering this issue a little later in the session.

I want to pick up some of the political aspects that we believe should be part of an amending Bill to the Regional Services Councils Act. The first one—and I referred to this in the standing committee—is the whole problem revolving round the National States at regional council level. National States in urban areas are excluded from the initial discussion of the composition of regional services councils. They are specifically excluded. They are involved at second remove, after a regional services council has been created. Last year, in the debates on this, this matter was raised and pooh-poohed. It is, however, a very real problem Let met just take the example of the regional services council in the Durban area, which will probably embrace 2½ million to 3 million people, the majority of whom, in that urban area, will be in the national State of kwaZulu, in kwaMashu, Umlazi, kwaNdengezi, Inanda and the surrounding areas, which are the areas that will be affected by the RSC. The Act, as it now stands, excludes kwaZulu from initial consultation and discussion on the creation of that RSC. So that part of the Act is going to be amended. We were told as much. It is going to be amended, so why is it not being done today? The argument is that there was insufficient time to prepare for it. I do not doubt that, but at the same time I do doubt that there was sufficient time to prepare all the arguments and consultations necessary on the Bill we have before us now.

The second political area that we believe very strongly is going to be affected in the RSC set-up is that of the basic local authority composition of the RSCs. We have heard the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning talk, both inside the outside this House, about how the position of local authorities in this country is going to have to change, how there are going to have to be more fully-fledged local authorities, composed of racial groups separated out on their own. The suggestion has been made that we may have many, many more local authorities. We in die PFP do not accept the concept of racial local authorities. We believe very definitely indeed that at local authority level organisational units of all the residents in a particular area should be created, whatever their colour. It is this racial base, on which the RSCs rest, which make them so shaky. My hon colleague from Walmer has pointed out that in the Eastern Cape the Black Local authorities simply do not exist in fact—they may exist in name, but they do not exist in fact. That may also well be the case in many areas of South Africa.

Let us now go back to the debates of last year on the Regional Services Councils Bill, and also to the previous year. If we go back to those debates, we find that the PFP spelled out explicitly that if the foundation of the RSCs is not a firm one, the RSCs themselves cannot be seen to be founded on rock. They will be founded on shifting sands and we know what the Bible says about á house built on such shifting sands—it will fall.

We also believe that the entire question of management bodies and LACs has not been though out properly and will also be part of amending legislation.

There were lengthy discussions in the standing committee on the position of the divisional councils. A suggestion was made in the standing committee that divisional councils as they are found in the Cape Province should immediately become fullyfledged regional services councils. There are arguments pro and con but all I want to illustrate is that it is again a political argument that has not been pursued in terms of amendments to this Act at this stage. The PFP believes that these political areas are the ones that should mainly be receiving attention in order to give RSCs strength and firmness.

The hon the Minister can possibly take up the whole question of the date of the introduction of the RSCs which is now becoming an issue. The hon member for Klip River last year made the point concerning the date of the introduction of RSCs that the term of office of RSCs will normally be five years but in view of the fact that provision is made in other legislation for general elections for local authorities to be held in 1988, provision is made in this Bill that the term of office of the first RSCs will be up to 1988.

I trust that the hon members on the other side of the House will consider the fact that if one introduces RSCs next year, which is 1987, the length of the term of office of the first RSCs will be one year or less. Can there be anything more ridiculous? Again it is a point where I do believe that the other side of the House will introduce amending legislation later this year.

What we have here is a rushed measure that excludes the major political areas that have caused problems with RSCs in this country. I do not believe that it should have been proceeded with and my colleague the hon member Prof Olivier has urged that this matter be referred back to the standing committee. This would not only be to consider the areas of financial problems—I will refer to that in a moment—but also to include the very areas of political change that that side of the House is going to introduce later this year. Can there be anything more ridiculous than having two amendments to one Act during the same session of Parliament? It smacks of gross negligence on the part of Government in getting their act together.

Incompetence!

I would like to turn to the financial matters with which the hon the Minister of Finance is particularly concerned. I would like to refer specifically to the definition of “enterprise” in clause 1(b). It was amended by the standing committee to include reference to certain exclusions.

As a member of the standing committee which discussed this I want to give full credit to the Department of Inland Revenue and others for the amendment that was brought before the standing committee. However, I am not convinced that that definition if it had been considered at greater length should not have been worded differently. Let us look very carefully at the Bill’s definition of “enterprise”:

I wonder whether this has been given sufficient consideration in the fulness of time. We raised certain questions in the standing committee, and I regret to say that there are still some questions in my mind regarding that definition.

I understand that the definition of the word “public” in the Income Tax Act determines whether the exclusion covers activities of a public nature, but—this is the point that was made—it would not cover section 21 companies, public utility companies or, I presume, any welfare organisation that is not registered. It may also, for example, not cover educational activities carried out by a non-public or closed institution.

I do not want to criticise those who drafted the Bill, but I do criticise the fact that the consideration of this amendment took place over a fairly rushed period of two days without receiving the fulness of consideration which was warranted. [Interjections.]

The second point which concerns me is the question of exemptions. The hon the Minister of Finance has said often enough that he dislikes allowing exemptions in regard to tax measures. The proposed new section 12(lA)(d) empowers the hon the Minister of Finance to:

I fear that the wording does not define exemptions sufficiently tightly and does not convey clearly the fact that RSCs themselves should be able to recommend exemptions to the hon the Minister.

A moment ago the hon member for Caledon made certain points regarding PFP opposition to the measure before us, and I would like to refer the hon the Minister to last year’s debates on the principle Act. It would be salutary for the hon the Minister to look at them, because he will find that the problems the Bill is intended to address were raised last year by the hon member for Yeoville. He said that there would be problems with the definition of “drawings” and with the general sales tax aspect. The hon the Minister can find these points in the hon member’s Hansard of last year.

Why then were these problems not addressed last year? Answering that question is an interesting exercise. The hon member for Yeoville offered to give evidence before the standing committee, but the standing committee refused to hear that evidence. [Interjections.] What have we gone through this year but the same thing again? Assocom and the FCI sent a telex conveying their wish to give evidence, but were told that the Bill had already gone through. I prophesy that we will find ourselves doing exactly the same thing again next year. [Interjections.]

There can be nothing more idiotic than refusing to allow those who have strong opinions and firm convictions on a particular measure the opportunity of giving evidence simply because that measure has to be seen to be pushed through in a short period of time.

I would like to quote from a speech made by the hon the Minister of Finance last year. It was quoted by the hon member for Yeoville during the debate on the Regional Services Councils Bill (Hansard: Assembly, 17 June 1985, col 7805):

I am sure the hon the Minister still stands by that.

Of course, yes.

Good. When is the Margo Commission going to report?

This month.

This month?

Possibly. [Interjections.]

Thank you. That is my point! A report of the Margo Commission will appear this month.

It is not a good point.

We have a standing committee which will be meeting in July and August to consider political amendments to the Act. [Interjections.] We are aware that that is going to happen. Sir, is there no reasonable sanity in the mind of the hon the Minister…

No! [Interjections.]

Is the hon the Minister not of the reasonable opinion that the Margo Commission report and any recommendations pertaining to a regional services levy and a regional establishment levy should be referred to that standing committee for consideration and the possible amendment of the Act? This is a reasonable request! However, what do we find? We have done it the other way around. We make the amendments, and then get the Margo Commission report and send it to the standing committee. It is very likely that we will have to amend the amendments which we are possibly going to pass today or tomorrow! I honestly cannot believe how such a procedure can be followed in respect of this legislation! [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of Finance raised the whole question of levies and the amount of levies. He spelt it out in his Budget Speech, and again in his introductory Second Reading speech delivered on behalf of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, that during the first financial year the regional establishment levy would not exceed 0,1% and the regional services levy would not exceed 0,25%.

In my mind this again raises problems. That is a maximum figure. However, which regional services council which is seeking to carry out the purpose of a regional service council, which is to redistribute income and wealth—if one wants to put it that way—within a particular metropolitan area, will choose a lower figure? I will make a prophecy that no Black, Coloured or Indian local authority will allow the RSC to set any figure other than the maximum figure. Therefore, by next year when we have RSCs, we will have common levies throughout South Africa. There cannot be anything else because the hon the Minister has set a maximum amount and because the Black, Coloured and Indian local authorities will want the maximum amount of moneys available.

In this regard I again want to quote from what the hon the Minister himself said (Hansard: Assembly, 17 June 1985, col 7854):

This was the hon the Minister talking! He continued:

That was what the hon the Minister said last year. However, that very hon Minister will actually not allow any RSCs to go over the maximum figures he has set. As I say, we are going to have those maximum figures for all RSCs next year.

The question which we on these benches again want to ask is: If there is going to be no practical differentiation—there will be no differentiation because they will all go for the maximum figure—why have we not rather gone for an added 0,5% or 1% to GST, to use the hon the Minister’s own words, “and got it over and done with”? [Interjections.] Now we have this complicated levy system being introduced.

There are so many problems with the legislation which we have before us that we really do urge the hon the Minister to consider, if necessary with reference to his colleague the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, referring this Bill back to the standing committee. The Act is going to be amended again this year. Let us at least come to Parliament in August or September with a single amending Bill which amends not only these minor financial details but the major political problems behind this Bill.

The PFP, through my colleague the hon member Prof Olivier, has recommended that this Bill be recommitted to the standing committee. However, if that is not possible and it appears that the NP is going to bulldoze this through, we support the amendment proposed by the hon member Prof Olivier.

Mr Speaker, this morning we have already listened to two hon members. One was the hon member for Caledon, whom I do not see in the House at the moment…

Where are all the CPs?

They are tired.

They are being freshened up. [Interjections.] I want to warn the hon members not to provoke us. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, would you please get the hon members at the back to keep quiet? The hon member for Caledon spoke, but he is not here at the moment. I think he has gone to take a rest. We also listened to the hon member for Pine-town and I want to tell him it was a very worthwhile contribution. He is an ex-teacher, and when one comes across an ex-teacher who was a good teacher, he has the ability to put across a case. [Interjections.]

This legislation package which the Government wants to rush through at the end of this part of the session, brings one thing very clearly into prominence and that is that the Government thinks it can get away with the argument that here in South Africa, in White politics, there are a group of extreme leftists and a group of extreme right-wingers to whom they need not pay any attention because they themselves are the would-be wider stream in the middle and they harbour the illusion that that means they are right. I am very glad that the hon the Minister is dealing with this legislation, because I think the hon the Minister will agree with me on one thing, namely that the relationship between us is a little on the chilly side, for very good reasons.

That is an understatement.

Yes, it is an understatement, but I wanted to put it mildly on this the last day. I want to concede to the hon the Minister, however, that he is one of the underrated Ministers as far as left-wing politics in South Africa is concerned. I am glad that the hon the Minister is dealing with the Bill, because if I read the political future correctly—the hon the Minister is a relatively young man and he seems healthy—he could emerge as one of the leaders in left-wing White politics in future. [Interjections.]

I say it because it is my conviction that in his approach to matters as far as the NP is concerned, he is a better candidate than the hon the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

That is Halley’s comet!

That is why I should very much like the hon the Minister, when he replies today, unlike all the other hon Ministers, to give very thorough attention and time to the reply to this debate and what has been said thus far. I therefore wish to speak briefly in order to give the hon the Minister an opportunity to give a complete analysis of the arguments we have advanced.

Daan, now you are becoming sensible.

Well, the hon the Deputy Minister will realise in due course how sensible I am.

There is only one matter I want to raise with the hon the Minister. He has already replied in the House when the right-wing, the Conservative side, the real Nationalists, have come forward and expressed their concern because money is being taken under financially difficult circumstances from Whites who are already heavily burdened by financial and economic problems, and given to other population groups. The problem I have however, is that that money is being taken and the White man’s own survival is being threatened.

I want to put it very directly to the hon the Minister that we on this side of the conservatives and the right-wingers experience no problem, when one looks at the population problems of Southern African, with money in fact being taken from the Whites to render assistance to other population groups in Southern Africa. At times a lot of money came from the pockets of the Whites in order to do it, and I personally have had no objections to it in principle, not during the years when I was in the NP, and not now either.

The difference now lies therein that money is being taken from Whites and poured into a political dispensation which is eventually going to mean the end of the White man. That is the difference. That is why we are so critical when the Government or the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning comes forward with this so-called reform package which we consider to be nothing but an application package. The White man is having to pay for his own abdication!

When we come to power, the CP, too, will definitely have to spend money, and large amounts of it, on the Black and Coloured communities and peoples if it is necessary, but then at least we shall spend it on a solution of the population question and the problems of Southern Africa in which the White man will eventually have sovereignty and the full right of self-determination.

That is why I say to the hon the Minister this morning he must not think that we do not want to give money because we feel hatred or contempt for them or because we begrudge Blacks everything. We want the money to be used in such a way that the various peoples of Southern Africa can receive their portion on the basis of the principle of partition or full self-determination.

Furthermore I also wish to point out to the hon the Minister that the liberal Whites have a kind of guilt complex in regard to the Blacks. The hon member for Caledon, who is still not here, also referred to that. He said that we did not care for the Blacks and their development. This afternoon he came up with the senseless argument that we were not creating any expectations for the Whites. That is in fact what we are doing. The parties on the right are the very parties who feel concern for the survival of the Whites, as we have done all these years.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, that is the point. My colleagues here on the left-hand side, the PFP, say the NP, that wants to reform, is not going about it in the right way. If I had to choose between the people who are the real exponents of reform on the basis of liberal principles, I choose these hon members of the PFP. They have a history of people who worked out the liberal idea at an early stage in South Africa. That is why I tell the hon the Minister that not only are they not satisfying the Whites whom we on this side of the House represent; they are not satisfying the PFP, and I want to point out to the hon the Minister that they are not going to satisfy the aspirations of the Blacks either.

The NP always reminds me of the Koos van der Merwe I was told about who had fallen from the 15th or the 20th storey of a building. When he fell past the 10th floor, he said to the people there: My friends, I am fine!”. But his destiny lay 10 storeys further down on the ground!

I want to point out to the hon the Minister of Finance that the Government has brought about tremendous changes in the country’s structures in the short space of time of the past few weeks. The general public does not know what is going to hit them. The Government must realise that if the consequences of this legislation are going to hit the public in all facets of their pattern of life, financially as well, then, after they have recovered from the shock, they will rise up and get rid of the Government just as quickly as they can. I have no doubt about that. Then the hon the Minister, who is an exponent of the left-wing movement in Southern Africa should know what is going to hit him.

With that I have spoken my few words.

Mr Speaker, firstly I should like to make a few observations and then return to the idea which the hon member for Rissik expressed here. The hon member should hold out a little while longer and not go and rest so soon, he can take a rest later on.

All the opposition parties are opposed to this Bill. Unfortunately they did not take cognisance of what the hon the Minister advocated in his Second Reading speech, namely that we should distinguish between the resources being utilised—to which the opposition is opposed, but which is contained in the principal Act—and the Bill which is at present before the House and which deals for the most part with procedural amendments. If these amendments are not passed now it is going to cause delays as far as the utilisation of the resources are concerned. That is probably why the hon members are opposing it. However, they are directing their arguments not at the amending Bill, but at the principal Act.

As an example of this I want to refer to clause 3, the new section 2A which makes it possible to take steps for the establishment of regional services councils. There is also the provision that the Minister may order certain city councils to take preparatory steps if they should be unwilling to do it. It also contains general financial provisions in terms of which regulations shall be made in order to utilise the sources. Notification must be given of this. To be able to implement this process it is necessary for this amending Bill to be dealt with and passed. It is true that still further amendments may be expected in August, but the legislative process is an on-going process and I think we should accept it as such. We ought not to think that once we have made a law; the matter has been dealt with. In fact, it is part of the criticism from the other side that we are trying to finish while one should in fact continually be engaged in a process and deal with problems as they arise.

But this is really a very ill-considered Bill.

Sir, the hon member says it is an ill-considered Bill. I do not want to discuss the merits of its finality. Like the whole House, we, too, feel unhappy about this. The hon member for Klip River, who was the main speaker on this side, did in fact point out that this Bill was submitted to the standing committee at a very late stage and that we had to debate it the very next day. We all objected to that, but that it is completely ill-considered is not true. It is only ill-considered in the sense that it has not been finalised and that amendments will still have to be effected to the principal Act.

There are a few arguments which I should like to deal with briefly. In his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister referred to the three main objectives of this Bill, namely to introduce joint decision-making, to render better and more effective service and to find additional sources which may be utilised. In my opinion the essence of this legislation is, however, that sources are being utilised which can make funds available to backward and poorer communities. In effect it is a kind of transfer payment from rich to poor. I shall come back to that when I refer to the arguments of the CP and specifically those of the hon member for Rissik.

The hon member Prof Olivier referred to the provisions of the old section 3 of the Physical Planning Act and said that the purpose of these levies would be to tax labour, specifically Black labour, in order to limit the influx to the cities in that no employment opportunities would not be developed. I do not know how he arrives at by that argument, but it is quite unthinkable. He also added that the levy on his wage sheet would place a tremendous burden on the employer, and that is not correct either. The hon the Minister said that it would be confined to 0,25% of the salaries, that means 25c on every R100 salary, in other words, R1 out of every R400 spent. It means that out of every 400 people on his establishment the employer carries one person who does not work for him. I do not think that will have any significant effect on the running of any enterprise.

The hon member for Umbilo developed an argument around the members of the regional services councils—those who occupy the positions there—who would ostensibly have no public accountability. In the first place these people are, however, elected people in their city councils. They operate openly, and the voters can act against them on the third tier of government since they are elected to the city councils. What is more important, they are nominated by other elected members within that council, and to the extent to which they do not conduct themselves correctly and do not do their work to the satisfaction of the elected members, those representatives have the right to withdraw their nomination at any time and substitute another. Public accountability therefore remains untouched.

The hon member for Kuruman also advanced an argument on the so-called urgency of this measure, and asked whether we could not keep it in abeyance for two months. I merely wish to remind hon members of the speech made by the hon the Deputy Minister responsible for the Bureau of Information during the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill last week, when he answered questions about when the state of emergency was going to be lifted and what was basically being borne in mind.

He said that there were three objectives that had to be attained before the state of emergency could be lifted. The first of these was that the level of intimidation had to abate. The second was that education should continue in a normal way—that children should return to school—and the third was that the local government system, especially in the Black communities, should also be functioning effectively once again.

Then we are going to have a state of emergency for ever.

The hon member says that we are going to have a state of emergency for ever. [Interjections.] It is possible that we shall not attain them, but those are the objectives. Those are the objectives and if they could be attained the state of emergency would be lifted. That is what the hon the Deputy Minister said.

It is therefore my standpoint as well as that of the hon members on this side of the House—I think hon members on the other side of the House should also concede it—that this Bill also creates the opportunity, since we now wish to make funds available urgently for Black urban areas to develop, to create infrastructures and to bring about the upgrading of facilities. To the extent to which this Bill is able to contribute to the attainment of these objectives we should support it. It is at least an attempt, and on the basis of that attempt on the part of the Government we have in my opinion no choice but to support it.

The hon member for Kuruman also remarked that the UDF would also be able to participate in the system now. It would now be possible for the UDF to become involved in regional services councils, and they would be able to serve on the executive committees. They would be able to become involved in important matters, including civil defence. The innuendo he was making, was that they would become involved in defence and in the general security concept, while civil defence in essence would be geared to the relief of distress. If we bear that in mind, too, we should in fact welcome the involvement of the UDF—if something of that nature were possible—and not be afraid of it.

Mr Chairman, can the hon member tell me whether he would be very pleased if the UDF were to participate in these political bodies?

Yes, of course, I would be terribly pleased. Our whole objective, and I think everyone’s objective in this country, is to involve everyone in the processes which have been constitutionally accepted and in which everyone can participate in order to have their interests represented and served. We keep on saying that we wish to involve the Blacks. The hon member in fact believes in that himself, and he accepts Black local government. If that Black local government were to function within the framework of the system and the UDF were also to participate in it, it is nothing to cry about; it is something to rejoice at. If the hon member were merely to bring himself to realise that it would be a positive choice on the part of those people to participate in a dispensation which can bring us all an objective, and in which we shall all be able to coexist…

Mr Chairman, is the hon member aware that the hon the Minister of Law and Order recently said that the leaders of the UDF are being monitored and that if it were deemed necessary to take action against them, he would in fact do so? [Interjections.] Is he aware of the classification to which the hon the Minister of Law and Order subjects the UDF?

I am thoroughly aware of it, and that is the way it should be. I think the Security Services ought to monitor the entire community on the basis of their statements and activities and see where these would affect or threaten the true interests of the State. Obviously I am aware of it, but the hon the Minister’s statement was not that people who are being monitored by him may not participate in the constitutional processes and in a democratic dispensation. In fact it is our objective that everyone should participate in the democratic dispensation.

And the ANC?

If the ANC wants to participate in this, then it must do so. It is on record that the State President said that he would welcome it if those people were to renounce violence and participate in the dispensation and the negotiating process. [Interjections.] That applies to everyone. We are speaking of participation in a peaceful manner in the constitutional processes, with the rejection of violence. [Interjections.]

Unfortunately I have limited time at my disposal and I should be glad if hon members would now grant me the opportunity to make just one further point. [Interjections.]

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

Mr Chairman, I should appreciate it if the hon member were to use the earphones, because I have already indicated that my time is limited and that I cannot react to any further questions. [Interjections.] I have just said so in all kindness, but the hon member did not hear it.

What about the SA Communist Party?

No, the SA Communist Party is a prohibited and a banned organisation, and at this stage there is no question whatsoever of talks with them. [Interjections.]

I just wish to return to the statements made by the hon members for Kuruman, Sasolburg and Rissik. They dealt mainly with the idea that the White man’s money is being offered to Blacks. Essentially the hon member for Kuruman objected to the principle, as did the hon member for Sasolburg. The hon member for Sasolburg went so far as to say that Whites had not, after all, stolen this money and wealth.

The hon member for Rissik adopted a somewhat different approach, for which I am grateful, and for a long time already I have had appreciation for him, and I think we are able to talk to one another—and I am saying this with very positive intentions. I am grateful for his statement that he has no objections, and that in fact it is quite right that funds should go from Whites to Blacks if Whites are rich and Blacks are poor and that one must therefore strive in that way for a reasonable dispensation in which everyone can live and under which everyone prospers.

Actually he made the point I wanted to make, but I want to associate myself with it nevertheless. We should try to move away from the idea of White money and Black money. Our essential premise should be, as the hon member for Rissik put it, that there are people who are wealthy and others who are poor and without money. Let us accept that as a premise and argue further on from there. Hon members can still proceed to argue about the future of the Whites, whether the dispensation is possibly going to mean their downfall, and about the objectives of the Government. Of course we must discuss that, because it is important. However, we simply must move away from the idea that the funds are White funds. We should talk instead of rich funds. They are not merely White funds; they are rich funds and this principle should apply throughout in all our thinking in our search for a reasonable dispensation in future.

When one argues with people about this, the dilemma is that they think from an ideological point of view. An argument with any person who is trapped in an ideology and approaches the system wearing blinkers, usually culminates in his asking one for the alternative.

You say the same thing to us.

Certainly we say the same thing to those hon members. Yet the point I wish to make is that the moment one ask someone what the alternative is and he tries to provide an answer in terms other than ideological, one cannot understand him, because one who thinks on an ideological basis is only prepared to distance himself from it.

Do you not have an ideology?

No, I do not have an ideology.

Not?

I hope not.

Do you have principles and a policy?

Yes, of course. I have principles and a policy, but I do not approach matters from an ideological angle. [Interjections.] Would the hon member give me an opportunity to make my point? If one has such a strong ideological point of view which is trapped in a framework, without possible internal movement and has the standpoint that something is pitch black or snow white, right or wrong, without degrees of right or wrong or choices between right and right as well as choices between wrong and wrong and one becomes involved in an argument, one asks what the alternative is. If the other person does not also reply to one strictly according to an ideological point of view, which can also give one that juxtaposition between White and Black, between what is absolutely right and absolutely wrong, one cannot understand it. I want to ask that we should try to disentangle ourselves from ideological thinking and that we think pragmatically and creatively and in terms of a wider approach to our goals, an overall approach in respect of the recognition of people. Let us not compartmentalise everything so that we cannot move beyond the walls of those compartments. That is a “compartmentality” if I may put it that way, out of which we shall have to move if we in any way want to have a future in this country.

Mr Chairman, before commencing my reply I just want to thank the hon member Dr Vilonel. I went home to Pretoria over the weekend and I left my glasses there. I thank him for the whole collection of R6 machines he gave me. One of them is particularly effective.

I want to make a few comments at the outset so that we may have greater clarity about where we disagree with one another. I think that after last year’s extensive debate on the principle of this measure we should simply agree to disagree with the opposition parties.

The whole concept, premise and objective of the measure may be summarised by the word “redistribution”. By means of this measure a dual redistribution process is to be implemented. Because of this, this legislation is extremely complicated and it is therefore not surprising at all that it is taking so long to implement the provisions of the legislation. The Bill in its original form underwent 80 amendments in the standing committee. When the stage was reached where the financial provisions had to be formulated and other facets of implementation investigated, we found out what the obstacles were, and this, in tern, resulted in a new round of amendments. Each amendment that was of any significance had to be clarified again over a wide front. It is true that this legislation involved extensive consultation. If one takes a stand on principle against the legislation from a commercial, industrial or political position, there is no way in which one could really make a contribution to neatly rounding off the legislation. For this reason I do not think it is fair for Assocom, in particular, to say that they have not had sufficient opportunity. I was present on a few occasions where we did not discuss this Bill per se, but where it did crop up during the course of the discussion. We also had an extensive discussion because of the fact that this legislation leapt from the agenda whenever we came into contact with the private sector.

I should therefore like to give a brief summary of how I see the concept of redistribution, on the basis of which I want to try to explain why this legislation is complicated and why I am justified in saying that there are still hon members in the opposition ranks who do not understand the basic premises of the legislation.

Firstly, there must be a redistribution of development within a particular area. There are certain areas which are well developed and there are also areas which are overdeveloped, whilst, within the same geographic area, there are other areas which are far behind as far as development is concerned, particularly as regards basic infrastructures and those matters—with which by this time we are all familiar—that a RSC will deal with. This is the first dimension of the redistribution that has to take place. In that respect we are merely in line with our general system of taxation which has been in operation in this country for decades and which was debated here once again, viz that we have a progressive income tax system, which means that any further income earned is taxed at a higher rate. If one has a system of taxation in a country such as the one we have had for decades, there is a redistribution of income from “rich funds”, as the hon member for Randburg said, to “poorer funds”, the have-nots.

It is a fundamental characteristic of every civilised country that that kind of redistribution of income takes place and that this takes place by means of its income tax system.

Our sensitivity—if I may put it that way—on this side of the House about this matter—the hon member for Sasolburg referred to this—lies in the fact that we do not necessarily refrain from talking about this matter, but that people talk about these finances and attach a colour connotation to them—associate them with a particular population or even race group in South Africa. As long as this vast difference between the haves and the have-nots in this country exists, there will be tension. In fact, that tension will increase on both sides if we persist in attaching a colour connotation to money accruing to the central Exchequer in order to indicate where it came from.

In attaching a colour connotation to this, hon members such as the hon member for Sasolburg, are making a serious mistake. They are making a serious mistake by simply saying that money obtained from companies is White money. It seems to me the hon member for Sasolburg is on an intimate footing with big business.

Oh no! What rubbish you are talking! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Sasolburg is looking only at the ownership—the majority ownership. [Interjections.] Surely the truth is that it could be said in general that most companies quoted on the Stock Exchange, as well as private companies, of course, are in the hands of White owners. That must surely be true. This is also the case in other parts of the world. However, there are also people of colour in South Africa who own shares. The truth is that the corps of workers that enables those companies to function is made up mostly of people of colour. Surely that is true. If the tax yield of companies must have a colour connotation, then surely it depends on how one is oriented. If one regards ownership and capitalism as the overriding and most crucial factor—as the hon member for Sasolburg apparently does—one would say that if the majority of the owners are White, it is White money. According to that notorious pamphlet of his it is said to amount to R22 billion.

However, when one considers the workers aspect realistically one comes to the inevitable conclusion that that is dangerous, that an attempt to attach a particular colour connotation to money is tantamount to the fanning of racism and racist feelings in South Africa. This is where our sensitivity lies, Sir.

Also as far as the question of regional services councils is concerned, we say that the redistribution of development by way of the redistribution of the income from services does not in the first place mean that there will be a flow from Whites to people of colour; what it does in fact mean, is that there will be a flow from the wealthy to the less wealthy. Of course, there are also people of colour who operate their businesses in the central business districts, or who own shares in businesses which operate in the central business districts and who, therefore, also make a contribution—on the strength of the fact that they are more wealthy—whereby other people, Black people, benefit. Surely there are also poor Whites in South Africa. So when we speak about a redistribution of development on the basis of the redistribution of income within the context of a regional services council, there are Whites, too, who enjoy the benefit of the redistribution of finances—finances taken from wealthy people of colour and channelled to them. This is where our basic problem lies as far as the approach of the hon member for Sasolburg is concerned.

Sir, I now want to dispose of the hon member for Sasolburg. I am astonished that this hon member—after we have pointed out to him on so many occasions in this House the absolutely banal untruths in his pamphlet—should have the audacity to lecture me about the truth in this House.

I find it equally astonishing that the hon the Minister does not reply to the letters I wrote to him! [Interjections.]

As a parting word from me to him I want to make the following statement to the hon member for Sasolburg. It is actually a valediction I want to convey to him at the end of this session. There is no fight between me and the HNP. The HNP has no quarrel with me, and I have no quarrel with the HNP. However, there is a fight. After all, their motto is the word “stryd”. The HNP is waging a struggle. That struggle is a fight against truth. The HNP’s struggle is a fight against truth.

Against truth?

The hon member has a definite duty to perform, Sir. The hon member for Sasolburg must stand up in this House and tell us how he can still show his face in public. We give him the truth about his pamphlet, but he apologises to nobody. He adheres to it as if it were true.

It is true.

I am no psychologist, but I should like to try to explain the hon member’s problem to him. For many years this hon member was in the political wilderness; and in that political wilderness where he found himself they stirred up one another to believe that certain stories were the absolute truth. That is why this hon member finds it difficult to cope with the truth and reality.

When are you going to speak the truth in this House?

I now come to the second point. Whereas the first dimension of this legislation is the redistribution within a region, the second dimension is a redistribution of development among regions. We all know that we have over-development in the PWV area. We all know that we must get water from Lesotho to keep the PWV area going. Now, it is interesting that the water problem we have in the PWV area does not in the first place lie with the industries, but with the people who live there. They are the biggest consumers of water. We are concerned about the quality of life of the people in an area such as the PWV area 10 to 30 years from now. What is the use of a beautiful garden, what is the use of living in a beautifully developed area if water ultimately becomes so expensive that one can no longer really enjoy the pleasure of one’s own garden and an environment that is beautifully developed as far as vegetation etc, is concerned?

Let me try to explain what we need in South Africa. Actually my colleague the hon the Minister of Trade and Industry deals with these matters. Anyway, whereas, in the past, we laid the green grass and hung out the carrot in the undeveloped areas so that people would go there, we can no longer do this. We must now incorporate a penalty. We must now actually make these areas unattractive in some way. When I speak about “penalty” and “unattractive”, I am not necessarily speaking about overloading. If, for instance, the PWV area should pay for its services on the basis of its consumption—the user charge the hon member for Klip River and the hon member for Helderkruin spoke about so eloquently—the cost of certain basic services will have to be increased drastically. However, we adopt the standpoint that it is basically unfair—I have used this example previously—that Tant Sannie de Beer of Koekenaap should contribute to the cost of, say, a passenger ticket in the PWV area. It is unfair to spread the burden of this over-concentration over the whole country. Therefore, this combination of a user charge and the redistribution of development among regions is a basic, important premise to us. These two concepts cannot be resolved with the arguments hon members on the opposition side advanced here.

Let us, for example, look at what the hon members said about GST. Even the hon member for Pietersburg agreed wholeheartedly with one of the hon members of the PFP that GST could be the solution. So these hon members adopt the standpoint that this is primarily a fundgenerating exercise. However, that is not the case. If we had to generate additional funds for the achievement of this objective we would have done this in an easier and more productive way. Then we would have increased GST. If we did not do that, we would have done something else, but this is by no means the easiest way to collect these funds. The other advantage is that we would achieve the two objectives I referred to earlier. The whole question of a user charge is linked to this. That is the main premise of this legislation and that is why neither GST nor customs and excise nor income tax can be used as an instrument to achieve this.

†The hon member for Umbilo argued against a bureaucracy that would now according to his own opinion be established in order to deal with this issue. In the first place it will not be a large bureaucracy. It will as far as possible be handled by existing staff and facilities. The Commissioner for Inland Revenue will also certainly carry out his inspections. From that point of view we will perhaps need a few more inspectors. The fact is, however, that that is part of the price we pay for this specific very peculiar and particular type of revenue generation.

I like the “peculiar” part!

It surely is a peculiar type of generating revenue because it was designed to address a specific process and to satisfy the specific needs that we have in South Africa as far as the redistribution of development within regions and between regions is concerned.

*This brings me to the hon member for Pietersburg and other hon members—the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke sent me a note—who spoke about the whole question of agriculture. Among other things they spoke about what was going to happen to the farmers now and when they were going to pay. The Bill clearly states that there can also be differentiation within a region as far as tariffs are concerned. There must be differentiation among regions, but there can also be differentiation within a region. The criterion that is used, is very simply the benefit a person derives from the services offered in that region. Surely it is logical that one cannot charge farm workers the same levies as people in the nearest town or in a metropolitan area if no or very few services are provided to the farm worker. Surely this is obvious, because the whole point is that the users must pay and that people must not be overburdened.

I want to thank my colleague the hon member for Randburg for his explanation of how companies will now be taxed—if I may put it that way—and in respect of the allegation that people will lose their jobs. That is simply not true. In any case, the Government has already proved its bona fides in regard to this whole issue. When we imposed a levy—ultimately of 7%—on individual tax, we did not do this in respect of companies, because we hoped that regional services councils would be introduced in that year and because, from a general fiscal point of view, we did not wish to overtax the companies. That is a fact. So, also as far as this matter is concerned, the Minister of Finance must have a very firm hand, because this imposes an additional burden on companies, even when one talks about a levy of this kind that is deductible for tax purposes. That is the truth. So it does have an influence on the general capacity of businesses to contribute to the Exchequer. The Minister of Finance must approve these different tariffs. If he or the Government allows tariffs in certain areas to escalate, it would not only be unfair to those particular businesses in that area, but it would also be unfair to the interests of taxpayers throughout South Africa. That is why one must maintain a delicate balance between the achievement of one’s objectives both within and among regions on the one hand—as I said earlier—and the general interests of the country as a whole on the other.

Mr Speaker, I can understand that there must be different levies within regions and that the agricultural sector and people such as the farmers will possibly pay a smaller levy. May I, however, ask the hon the Minister whether it is true that even a farmer who has had a crop failure and is therefore not taxable during that specific year, will still be liable to pay the levy in respect of his wage package?

Mr Speaker, that is quite correct and it is only fair that if the levy on a farmer’s labourers is related to the services they receive—if that basic relationship was determined fairly—that those Black workers, or whatever their colour may be, will use those services in the course of that year—irrespective of whether the farmer has had a crop failure or not. If that farmer should fail to make his contribution, even in that difficult year, other people will have to subsidise it.

The same goes for defence and everything else.

We must just remember one thing: The whole concept of a user charge—even though its application may be imperfect—applies here. Whether it be a farmer or an undertaking of whatever nature that is involved, once the tariff has been determined on a reasonable basis he will have to remain responsible for it. That is only fair. Therefore—with reference to the question asked by the hon member for Pietersburg—if it should happen that due to a crop failure that particular farmer has to receive some kind of help from somewhere, that remains part of his costs, in the same way that the basic wages paid to the Black man as well as fuel are part of the costs in respect of which relief must be provided from another source. This Government has once again proved its bona fides—also recently when, in spite of our difficult circumstances, R100 million was made available to farmers in the worst-hit areas. So the Government has not turned away from the farmer who really struggles and suffers crop failures. However, the relevant items then becomes a basic cost item which has to be dealt with in the same way as all other cost items.

Mr Speaker, may I just ask the hon the Minister whether he could perhaps give us a few examples of services which will justify that levy—only one or two examples.

That is a difficult question. I am not involved with the detail, but my common sense suggests to me perhaps a regional hospital of a facility of that nature, or perhaps a regional transport service going deep into the rural areas and transporting people to specific places once a week or once a day. That is a second example. I think the principle involved here is that there should be a direct connection between the quantification of the levy and the services that exist. I think that is the basis on which we should deal with this matter. Presumably if the figure is nought and it becomes totally impractical to apply the levy, the economic aspect and the productivity of the levy could be considered. I think this should be a guideline for us in dealing with this matter.

I want to hurry and refer to a few important points made by hon members. The hon member Prof Olivier repeated his fundamental objections. We had an extensive debate on that subject last year and, as was also indicated in the second reading speech, the idea was not to discuss the whole Act again, but only what is relevant. So he has already put his case on record. I want to argue that the powers that are being vested in the Minister of Finance are not autocratic powers, but merely powers that are needed for the orderly implementation of fiscal and monetary policy in South Africa. Therefore, I cannot really accept that argument. The hon member said the regional services councils were based on race and colour. Once again I find myself in the difficult position that the PFP says it is apartheid and the CP says it is complete integration. In other words, that whole argument rests on political attunement and cannot really be argued on a factual basis. There is only one point that I should like to make in this regard. This legislation on regional services councils does not attempt to change reality. It attempts instead to change the system whereby people’s everyday interests are affected, the system of participation and of the acceptance of responsibility. That is its purpose.

Mr Speaker, it is undoubtedly correct to say that the regional services councils per se are not uniracial—we know that. Will the hon the Minister, however, concede that the sub-structure of those regional services councils, ie those bodies which will be represented in those regional services councils via the various local authorities, does have a racial basis and that that is the Government’s fundamental premise at this stage?

Of course it is true that the composition of the regional services councils is on a differentiated basis.

A racial basis, not a differentiated basis!

No, it is on a differentiated basis.

Say the words racial basis. Say them!

I cannot accept the implication of the hon member Prof Olivier’s argument that the PFP will only support an issue such as this once the reality has been changed.

Not the reality, but the system!

I am not going to pursue the matter any further, because there are many points of view concerning this issue. If one really wants to bedevil an issue such as this one must try to do it on the basis of a completely integrated single local authority. [Interjections.] That basic conflict will then be introduced and it will bedevil the whole purpose of regional services councils.

The hon member Prof Olivier and other hon members asked why we were proceeding with this tax at this stage, when the Margo Commission was going to hand in its report within weeks or even days. I think I have replied to that question. The hon member for Pinetown is shaking his head as if he has not received a reply, so I just want to remind him of the reply I gave him. I said that primarily, the Margo Commission had to take cognisance of this new type of levy the Government wishes to introduce in South Africa. This new type of levy must comply with the requirements I mentioned earlier, viz two dimensions of redistribution on the basis of user charges.

If, therefore, in view of the fact that the Government wants this type of tax and is not merely interested in revenue, the Margo Commission has a better idea as to how the revenue may be generated within this framework and according to these principles, we shall consider it. However, we can no longer delay the establishment of regional services councils and their collecting of funds in order to ensure that we are following the right path in the opinion of the Margo Commission. The simple truth is that over these two financial years we are already behind with development costing about R1,2 to R1,5 billion because it is taking so long to establish the regional services councils. We really do not see our way clear to delaying this any longer.

We are, therefore, not in contempt of the Margo Commission. They have been instructed to give their opinion about the generation of funds by means of levies imposed by the regional services councils.

I just want to emphasise something I mentioned briefly earlier on, and that is that I do not think it is fair to suggest that sufficient consultation had not taken place as far as the effecting of this legislation is concerned. That really is not a reasonable standpoint for anybody to adopt. The Agricultural Union, to which the hon CP members referred, had also been consulted extensively about the whole issue.

Did they agree?

I cannot say whether they agreed or not, but they were given an opportunity to make inputs. At the end of the day someone has to govern, and it is not possible to determine taxes on a basis of consensus. If we were to have a referendum in the country tomorrow on whether people should pay income or any other type of tax, I can predict now that the result will be that nobody wants to pay taxes.

Hear, hear!

Therefore, if one has to decide about taxes, one has as much consultation as possible, one takes the economic and financial aspects into consideration, one looks at the objectives, and then one decides on a tax.

The hon member for Pietersburg asked me about control boards and so forth, and I shall come to that in a minute.

The hon member Prof Olivier, the hon member for Pietersburg and other hon members asked a lot of questions about the details. I really do not even want to try to react to questions about percentages, prosecutions and that sort of thing, because those are details which will be dealt with in the regulations, and I do not want to speculate about them or deal with them at any length today. I really do not think this is the right place to do that.

†I think I have dealt with the main points raised by the hon member for Umbilo save one matter.

It was a jolly good speech.

I do not agree with what the hon member said, but I can still appreciate that it was a good speech.

The collection of levies for the regional services councils has two aspects. The first is to devolve that responsibility as far as possible, and that is why we feel it should be undertaken at the lowest possible level. The second aspect concerns the symbolism of collection by the Receiver of Revenue. The Receiver of Revenue feels that this levy which is a completely different animal from an ordinary tax should not be tarnished by people having to pay it at his offices.

That will not tarnish it!

The public should not be allowed to become confused as to whether the import is a tax or a levy. That is why the Receiver will maintain control through his inspectors while not actually collecting it.

[Inaudible.]

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister, with regard to the mechanics involved in the collection of these levies to core cities, whether the Receiver of Revenue will issue a list of those liable to pay or whether individuals will have to find out for themselves whether or not they are liable?

If I understood the hon member’s question correctly, it is a matter of self-assessment. I presume the responsibility will lie with the individual.

May I clarify my question, Mr Speaker? The current definition of “enterprise” excludes partnerships but can include firms. The Receiver of Revenue does not levy tax upon partnerships of accountants and attorneys, for example, as each partner is liable individually. How will the core city assess levies from such partnerships?

I cannot answer the hon member in detail. I will provide him with the details later. I presume this matter will also be dealt with in the regulations.

I would like to conclude my comments on the speech of the hon member for Umbilo. He has a very wide vocabulary which I personally find most stimulating, particularly when it is flavoured by the hon member’s particular accent. He used the word “obnoxious” to describe the Regional Services Councils Act. According to Hansard of Tuesday 18, June 1985, the hon member and his party supported the Government in two divisions. He therefore associated himself with the Act he called “obnoxious” by voting for it last year.

Yes, I associated myself with the principle of regional services councils.

I cannot understand what has changed the hon member’s attitude towards the Act since then. He certainly did not use the opportunity he had to motivate this change of heart.

There is nothing wrong with regional services councils, but there is with the crazy way you are dealing with them.

We voted for the principle!

Come on, Barend! At least you have the grace to laugh. Bless you!

I had to get my own back on the hon member! [Interjections.]

At least you have the grace to smile!

I thank the hon member for Klip River for the neat way in which he dealt with several matters of principle.

The hon member for Kuruman complained about the fact that Escom would have to pay. However, it is only logical that Escom should pay for the services its workers receive. It is also true that this will eventually reach the consumer. If the legislation in respect of Escom remains unchanged and Escom is not allowed to make a profit or a loss, its tariffs will have to be increased if its books are to balance.

I want to come back to the hon member for Sasolburg; I forgot to refer to a certain aspect. He said that ultimately it would be the consumer in South Africa who would have to pay. Now I want to ask, who are the consumers in South Africa? Are they only Whites? Surely the answer is “no”. According to a finding, the Black people in South Africa will soon represent more than 50% of the total buying power in the country, if they do not represent it already. They are consumers too. As I understood the hon member for Kuruman, he maintained that the cost increases which may result from this legislation would only affect the White consumer. I think it is simply not fair to see it this way, because it is not true.

Some of my other hon colleagues, such as the hon member for Randburg, have already replied to other points and therefore I shall not refer to them again now.

†The hon member for Hillbrow asked me an awful number of detailed questions in his speech. I cannot respond to all of those in detail now. I do not think this is the correct opportunity to do so and I do not have the regulations before me. However, we will certainly take note of what the hon member said in the process of drafting the regulations.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister a general question? Does he not think the whole purpose of regional services councils can collapse if local authorities, especially Black local authorities and certain White local authorities, decline to nominate members to the RSCs?

Sir, as I read the Bill, the Administrator can instruct the establishment of regional service councils. If those local authorities are not represented there, some mechanism will have to be found in order to continue with that council. There is no way in which we can allow political filibustering to sabotage this vital service and platform that is to be created.

The hon member for Hillbrow said this was the worst time to introduce a Bill like this, but I can tell him that there is never an opportune time for taxation! The same point was raised when we introduced the new tables on fringe-benefit taxation but we just had to bite the bullet and get it over with.

The hon member also talked about withdrawals. That particular issue is under scrutiny right now. There is no way in which it can be demanded of a particular person to eat into his capital in order to pay his levy. It is ascertainable through his books whether he would have to use his capital. The idea is certainly not to be unfair in this whole process.

*I thank the hon member for Helderkruin, who reacted most effectively to some of the preceding speeches. He argued very knowledgeably about this issue and I am right behind him as regard the argument he advanced.

I just want to say to the hon member for Pietersburg that I really fail to see how he can describe this legislation as precipitate. I do not think it is fair. The road we have travelled as far as this legislation is concerned, goes back to 1980, and as I have said, 80 amendments were moved before the Bill was actually placed before us for the first time. Thus it really was not precipitate.

The previous time it was precipitate.

The hon member asked about the representation of Blacks, and I should like to place on record what the conditions for representations are. In terms of the definition of “representative body” a body such as an agricultural association may be granted representation in a RSC if the following conditions are observed:

1. (i) One or more members of the executive body must be elected;
2. (ii) the members of the body must reside outside the area of jurisdiction of any local authority in the region;
3. (iii) the body must, in relation to certain affairs such as water or electricity, manage the interests of its members;
4. (iv) some regional service must be provided to the members against payment and
5. (v) the Administrator must recognise the body as a representative body

Where there are divisional councils, the requirements contained in subparagraph (ii) cannot be met, since the members are resident within the area of jurisdiction of a local authority in that particular divisional council, and therefore obtain representation in the RSC through the divisional council. The hon member referred to what he regards as cost increases, and we have already discussed that. As far as the representation of Black farm workers is concerned, and particularly if he fears powersharing, I must say to him that I know many farmers who share a great deal of their power on the farm with their Blacks. [Interjections.] In other words, I think that every farmer, whether he be a cheque-book farmer or a bona fide farmer, who entrusts his farm to a Black man, shares a great deal of that power with that Black man. [Interjections.] However, I do not wish to take that argument any further.

Mr Speaker, in his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister indicated that there were about five regional services councils which are now getting off the ground, and I want to ask the hon the Minister if he could give us an indication at this stage of how many regional councils altogether would be provided, for example, in the Transvaal.

The answer to that is “no”. As far as I know the demarcation board has not yet completed its assignment in this regard. If the officials can provide me with more recent information, I shall obtain it and convey it to him.

†I want to indicate to the hon member for Pinetown that we regard the discretion in the hands of the Minister as sufficient to handle those grey areas to which he referred when he spoke about what is an enterprise and what is not. It is impossible to formulate regulations adequately so as to handle all these grey areas. However, the whole purpose of this Bill was to build into it as much discretion as possible in order to be as fair as possible in the application of its provisions.

*The hon member for Rissik made an important point and I am pleased that he made it, because, personally, this is not the way I interpreted the standpoint of the CP. I am pleased that he put it beyond any doubt that the CP has no objection to the principle of the redistribution of income. That is what I understood him to say. If I misunderstood him, he must correct me by means of a question.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he heard me when I said that we had no objections to giving money to non-White peoples for the ultimate implementation of our policy of partition. I did not use the term “redistribution”.

It may be true that the hon member did not use the term “redistribution”, but what he is talking about is in fact a type of redistribution. However, I do not wish to fight with him about the terminology.

Aid!

The hon member told a story about a fellow who jumped from a building, and when he reached the tenth floor he said he was feeling wonderful, but he was not so sure about what lay ahead. However, there is a similar story about a fellow who jumped from the fiftieth floor of the Carlton Centre, and when he reached the fortieth floor and looked down, someone looked through a window and asked him: “Why have you done this?” He replied in passing: “It seemed to be a good idea at the t-i-m-e!” [Interjections.] I want to issue a warning in all friendliness to the hon member today and say to him that partition “seemed to be a good idea at the time”. Also as far as partition is concerned, the worst is yet to come. [Interjections.] Partition is the best idea, but the best idea also depends on its practicability and its short-term feasibility.

Our argument on this side of the House is this: When you are driving in your Mercedes and you see an elephant in the road, it does not help to say that there is no such thing. If you do not swerve, you will redesign your Mercedes completely! [Interjections.] In our opinion, we on this side of the House got as far as we could with separate development in its compartmental form of absolute independence. The option is still open, but time is catching up with us. In our opinion, the expectations we have created through our guardianship over Blacks, are here and now. Someone once said a very fine thing. I cannot remember where I heard it.

From Pik!

Oh yes, that is quite correct. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said this in the course of his speech at Pietersburg. He said he could understand that children could be afraid of the dark, but he could not understand that grown-ups could be afraid of the light. [Interjections.] The light of our sound common sense shines on the realities of South Africa. We say to the CP over and over again that our common dream of a fully partitioned South Africa—if that is the right word—cannot be realised. The economic realities and the financial implications involved say to us that it is not possible to realise it in that manner.

Because in terms of our Christian guardianship we have invested in the training and the education and the Christianisation of other people in South Africa, we are prepared to extend a hand to those people who share our ideals. The truth is that if one adheres to impracticable policies, then all that remains is the option of violence. That is why the ultimate division in South Africa is between the people who want to seize power and who will have to seize power if they persist in adhering to impracticable policies, and those who introduce meaningful structures in time in order to create a structure, together with people who can share our basic principles and value systems, capable of ensuring a safe future for us. It does not help to bang one’s head against the realities, even though it seemed like the best idea at the time and even if one keeps that option open. [Interjections.] There is really no way in which a practicable plan or a plan for the financing of partition can be devised. No such possibility exists.

Therefore, if the hon member for Rissik maintains that a redistribution of income or of development can only take place on the express condition that it be based on partition, I say to him that such a redistribution will never take place. We on this side of the House believe that we have faced this problem squarely and that the regional services councils constitute one of the meaningful instruments we are going to use to implement our policy. We do not suggest for a moment that it is perfect, just as no law in this world is perfect. After all, we are only ordinary people.

Someone once sat in a gallery, looking at the legislators, and said: “I do not believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.” By that I do not wish to imply that members of Parliament are ignorant, but a perfect law has never been made anywhere in the world. There is only one perfect law, and that is in the Bible, but someone calculated that 300 million laws will have to be made in the world to give effect to the basic law of the Bible. Also with this legislation we shall recognise our human weakness next year and we shall have to come back and rectify it, as is the case with the other laws.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister when he is hoping to publish the financial regulations?

Mr Speaker, all I can say is that we will do that absolutely as soon as possible. It is receiving top priority. We must get those councils established because we need the funds to start financing the projects that we have in mind.

Question put: That the word “now” stand part of the Question,

Mr Chairman, I move:

We have before us today a Bill which comprises an important part of the Government’s reform initiatives. For the most part two matters are being specifically addressed in this Bill, namely:

1. (a) Property ownership for Black people in their own residential areas; and
2. (b) private township establishment in an effort to involve the private sector in the key sphere of Black housing.

While these matters are being dealt with the opportunity is also taken to rectify confusing terminology by bringing it into line with generally accepted concepts as used in other relevant laws. Specific procedures are also being simplified.

I wish to remind hon members that during his opening address to Parliament in 1985 the State President said the following, and I quote:

Hon members are aware of the numerous obstacles which have existed for years as far as ownership rights in urban Black townships are concerned. While it is unnecessary to retrace the entire course of events it will be interesting, however, to pay attention to some of the historic events in connection with ownership.

Even in the period before Union different approaches were adopted in the Cape Colony and in the northern territories. The Cape Colony took a broader view. In the Free State the policy was that Black people could not obtain title to land. Transvaal and Natal, too, were reluctant to grant ownership rights.

Even before Union the Lagden Commission was appointed from 1903 to 1905 to enquire into the residence of Black people outside their traditional areas. One of the recommendations was in favour of land segregation. The Land Act of 1913 contained the first legal provisions aimed at implementing the segregation policy. Areas were identified where Blacks could own land. However, the question of Black land ownership in White areas remained undecided. Policy—and not legislation—regulated the matter. After several enquiries by commissions the Select Committee on Native Affairs recommended in 1923 that ownership of land should not be granted to Blacks in urban areas. Subsequently a prohibition on such granting was included in the Statute Book, a prohibition that lapsed when section 6 of the Urban Areas Act of 1945 was repealed in 1984.

However, a scheme was designed whereby a person could become the owner of improvements on land while in practice retaining a semi-permanent leasehold right on the land. Although leasehold had a strong element of uncertainty, it is and was particularly popular in certain areas. However, because those involved did not obtain a real right in the land together with the improvements, no registrations could be effected. Therefore financing by financing institutions was not available either.

This led the Government to introduce the leasehold system in 1978. It established a real right in land for 99 years. For all practical purposes this system had all the characteristics of property ownership with the exception of the period of validity. Owing to the denigration of the leasehold system by people who regarded it as an inferior title, the Government decided to make it a perpetual title in 1984.

This was accordingly the government’s policy at the time of the announcement by the State President which I have just quoted. Since this announcement, discussions have taken place over a wide front. It is evident from the contents of the Bill before hon members that the government is in earnest as regards its stated policy of abolishing all discriminatory measures. The Government is not creating a new kind of ownership right. Nor is it creating new methods of registration. It is not creating anything that is different, new or strange. The approach is to bring the whole procedure into line with existing legal requirements and procedures. However, where it is advantageous to be different, we are retaining those advantages.

Despite initial uncertainties and efforts at casting suspicion it has become clear that the leasehold system does entail benefits. We are therefore leaving that system on the Statute Book and the people themselves must in due course indicate their need for it by making use of the system or not.

There must please be no misunderstanding of the intentions behind this Bill. Shortly after the aims of the draft Bill had been released the Sowetan reported as follows, and I quote:

To prevent this type of misconception I therefore wish to explain once again how the question of ownership rights has been dealt with in the Bill.

The Bill in question removes certain restrictions with regard to the alienation of land in towns that were embodied in section 41 of the principal Act. In terms of the new section 41 any competent person may obtain land in a development area. The term “acquire” in relation to land as defined means “to acquire in any manner or to hire”. Since the “acquisition of land” includes “acquisition of ownership” it is unnecessary to refer specifically to “acquisition of ownership” in the relevant clause of the Bill.

Apart from that, as the legal principles applicable to ownership are to be found in our common law it would be inappropriate to deal expressly with those principles in the Bill. The Bill does not employ the term “freehold title”. The expression is often used colloquially to refer to ownership rights in immovable property. It is also used for the sake of convenience to distinguish between ownership and leasehold title, eg in the titles of certain older laws that provide for the conversion of leasehold title to freehold title.

Despite the fairly widespread colloquial usage of the expression “freehold title” it is not a term from South African common law but one which originated in the English legal system. It existed in that legal system in various forms and was linked to the feudal system of land tenure. These are facts that anyone who is in any way acquainted with the law will be able to confirm. Among the most important clauses in this Bill is undoubtedly the one which provides which person is competent to acquire ownership rights or leasehold title. Linked to this provision is the fact that Black people who possess such a right may also occupy the relevant land. Clearly, however, this does not mean that anyone who is in the Republic illegally in terms of any statutory provision is able to reside in the Republic as a result of these provisions.

The second key aspect of the Bill is the endeavour to involve the private sector in Black housing by adapting certain procedures and creating new possibilities. It is no longer news to hon members or to myself that in accordance with the previous approach the State was exclusively responsible for township establishment, township development and the provision of housing. We know today that this was a mistake. We know now that the role of the private sector is of cardinal importance and that the existing backlogs are partly the result of reluctance at an earlier stage to involve the private sector or to create conditions that would encourage private sector involvement.

In this Bill an effort has been made to pave the way for private township development on land identified for Black township development. The clause reads that any interested person is free to negotiate with me or my department about the identification of land for such township development.

A few months ago I held a discussion in Cape Town with a broad spectrum of leaders from the private sector on their involvement in the privatisation of the existing housing stock and their role in attempting to overcome the well-known housing problems. During this and many other discussions that were conducted a willingness was expressed to become actively involved in the development of the Black communities. Since we are making a consistent effort, reflected in particular in the amending Bill, to facilitate private sector involvement to the greatest possible extent, I trust that the positive attitude displayed during discussions will be confirmed in practice.

The most important part of the private sector has not yet been addressed, namely the individual himself. People can no longer look to the Government for the satisfaction of their housing needs. Every person will have to recognise and accept his own responsibilities. He owes this to himself and his family. For its part, the Government is spending increasing amounts on the acquisition of land and the provision of serviced plots where people can establish themselves. Where there are still difficulties in obtaining suitable and sufficient land the matter is receiving active attention and the Government undertakes to do all it can with the means at its disposal.

Hon members will note that the transfer of land to Black local authorities is dealt with in the Bill. The previous procedure resulted in many delays in practice and has been amended drastically. I am convinced that the new streamlined procedure will give new momentum to the transfers that have not yet been finalised. The abolition of certain mechanisms for the removal of people in specific circumstances is of great importance.

The Government has expressed its opposition to forced removals on an ideological basis and is hereby proving that it is in earnest in this regard. You will understand, however, that the repeal of these measures does not mean that the Government will condone disorder and unlawful residence. The ordinary laws of the country will still be applied where people establish themselves in conflict with the established rights of other people.

Hon members will note that the Bill is larded with amendments of words or expressions. In the laws regulating Black township establishment it is chiefly a matter of using the same terminology as is found in legislation regulating similar matters. In the draft regulations which the department is at present drawing up with the assistance of the private sector, the same approach is being adopted and this ought to promote private sector involvement.

There are people who do not want to or cannot associate themselves with the positive steps such as those dealt with in this Bill. These are the people who try to put the cart before the horse. All that is achieved in this way is broken yoke-pins and confused animals that trample upon one another. As far as the Government is concerned we are now at the point where we should have been a long time ago, viz of having everyone participate in his own development in the interests of the country with the security and peace of mind that stability will entail.

Mr Speaker, this Bill deals with four very important matters in particular. The first is the property rights for Black people in urban areas, whereby it is now made possible for Blacks to acquire full property rights to land in urban areas. It also deals with the transfer of land in Black townships to the Black local authorities, and with the creation of development areas in giving effect to the Government’s urbanization strategy. Then it also deals with the repeal of those provisions contained in the existing legislation concerning compulsory removals.

It is quite impossible for me to give my attention to all these aspects in one speech; the Bill is far too comprehensive and wide-ranging for that. I am grateful that my colleague, the hon member for Pinetown, will discuss those aspects. I shall be unable to deal with, and more particularly the development aspects which are of great importance in connection with this whole Bill, and of which this House must take note. I should therefore primarily like to concern myself with the other aspects of the property rights of Black people and also the question of removals.

The history of the problem concerning the property rights for Blacks in South Africa is an accumulation of tragedies. We have made one tragic mistake after another over the past 80 years and more.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I would just very much like to know which hon Minister is in charge of this particular Bill. Whom are we addressing? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs is in charge of the Bill. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I must say I am somewhat surprised because this Bill mainly concerns urban areas and I have always associated the hon the Deputy Minister more specifically with land affairs affecting the rural areas. [Interjections.] That is, however, in the hands of the Government, and it is not something upon which I can decide. It surprises me nevertheless.

Let me come back to the subject, because the import of what I will be saying in the next few minutes indeed concerns the portfolio of the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs.

The history in South Africa with regard to the property rights of Blacks is a history of one mistake being heaped upon another and of one tragedy after another, and I am counting my words when I say that. I can think of no greater tragedy in the history of our country than the measures we have introduced over the past 70 or 80 years in respect of property rights for Blacks. Apart from the “dompas” and the resistance and resentment that created, nothing has given rise to more bitterness, hatred and resentment than these measures which we have introduced one after another over the years and as a result of which the rights of the total Black population, seen as a whole, to own and acquire land have been restricted.

Yes, it is a scandal.

Looking back over this period of 70 years, one is astonished that we were so stupid, ignorant, short-sighted, incompetent and totally lacking in sensitivity that we were unable to understand what we were doing to those people. Anyone who really looks at this situation and took note of the reaction of our Black people to these restrictions is really left dumbfounded. The things we have done in this country sadden one.

In this connection I want to associate myself with the Second Reading speech of the hon the Minister who also referred to the fact that before 1913 in Transvaal there was no restriction placed on the rights of Blacks to acquire land. That land had to be registered in the name of the Commission for Black Affairs, in modern terminology, and that arrangement existed until the court decided, in ex parte Tsewu, that that arrangement was invalid. Until 1913 there was therefore no restriction on the rights of Blacks to obtain land in Transvaal. There was no restriction in the Cape either. There was such a restriction in the Free State in that Blacks were granted the right to acquire land only in the vicinity of Thaba Nchu, but I do not want to elaborate on that.

Before 1910 land was set aside for Black occupation in all four of the then colonies. In the Cape, for instance, more than 6 million morgen were made available. In Natal approximately 2,5 million ha were made available by the passing of the Native Trust legislation of 1964 and subsequently by the creation of the Zululand Trust. Limited areas of land were also made available in the Free State, mainly in the vicinity of Thaba Nchu. Despite the great need for land in Transvaal, a minimal area was made available for Black occupation.

To support my argument I should just like to cite the following facts. When the legislation was passed in 1913, there were more than 70 000 Black people residing on private land in the Cape Province, but that legislation imposed severe restrictions on the occupation of private land by Blacks. In Natal there were 380 000 settled on private land, of whom 57 000 lived on Crown land. In Transvaal there were 316 000 on private land and 65 000 on Crown land and in the Orange Free State there were 80 000 on private land.

The Act of 1913, following up on the land set aside before 1910, reserved approximately 10,5 million morgen of land for Black occupation. In addition, the Act of 1913 contained the provision that no Black would obtain any property rights outside those areas. That Act created a bitterness amongst Blacks that is indescribable. Before the time there were no real restrictions on property ownership by Blacks, other than in the Free State. With the passing of the Act of 1913, however, it was realised that the area of land made available for Blacks was completely inadequate even to meet their basic requirements, particularly also in the light of the large numbers to which I have just referred. The Act therefore provided that the prohibition it placed on the acquisition of land by Blacks outside of the demarcated areas would remain in force until Parliament introduced different provisions. The Act made provision for the appointment of the Beaumont Commission which had to report within two years. In the light of the fact that only such a limited area of land had been made available and that a prohibition had been placed on the acquisition of further land, the feeling of injustice in Parliament was so strong that the commission was instructed to report within two years, which it finally did three years later. However, Parliament did not accept the recommendations of that commission and the matter was referred to local committees. Those local committees submitted reports during 1918/1919, but once again Parliament said that no further land would be made available to Blacks. Not before 1936, 23 years after the previous Act, did Parliament finally in the Native Trust and Land Act of the time make provision for an additional 7,25 morgen. In the meantime the pressure from the side of the Blacks, particularly as a result of population growth, became unbearable. After it became apparent to the Government of that time that Parliament was unwilling to pass legislation to set aside land for Black occupation in those areas which the Beaumont Commission and later the local committees recommended should be Black areas, Blacks were granted the right to purchase land in these areas. Many Blacks made use of this right.

They took the vote away from them at the same time.

It is interesting that the Act of 1913 contains a provision that, as regards the Blacks in the Cape, the Act would not apply if as a result it would be impossible for them to satisfy the voting qualifications. At that stage a prerequisite for a Black to have the vote was that he should occupy or own land. In an Appeal Court judgment of 1917 in the case Thompson and Stillwell vs Khama the court decided that, in the light of the provisions of section 35 of the Constitution and because the Act of 1913 had not been passed with a two-thirds majority, the restrictions imposed by that Act would not apply in the Cape. Until 1936, therefore, the Blacks in the Cape had the right to own land. From 1936 that was changed when Blacks were removed from the voters’ roll and the qualifications of sections 35 and 152 in respect of Blacks in the Cape fell away. Those are all steps we took. I am not now speaking of us sitting here, but of the past.

In 1936 the Act was passed in terms of which an additional 7,25 million morgen of land was set aside. Of that land only 5,75 million morgen had to be purchased, because the other 1,5 million morgen was State-owned land which was immediately transferred to the Trust. It was about 3 to 4 years ago that we met those quota requirements for the first time. One excuse after another was proffered why those quota requirements were not met all those years.

Viewed objectively—I am not now making accusations—it took us 70 years to keep the promise of 1913 even to that limited extent. Interjections.] Sir, how do we expect people to react if it takes 70 years to keep an elementary promise made in an Act. One can then understand the bitterness and resentment that resulted. Whatever the intention may have been with the provisions made in 1913 and 1936, on the grounds of population figures alone the hope cherished that the land hunger of the Blacks would thereby be satisfied came to nothing. As regards that problem, it became totally irrelevant. It became totally irrelevant as regards the land requirements for Blacks. [Interjections.]

This Bill does not address the problem of the land hunger of Blacks. In his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister referred to the Act of 1913, and therefore I shall also take the liberty of discussing it here. We cannot proceed with the restrictions placed by the Act of 1913 and the Act of 1936 on the acquisition of land by Blacks. When we speak in South Africa of reform and of a new dispensation and a new vision for South Africa, one of the first things we must address is the question of rural land for Blacks. We cannot proceed with the provision that, apart from those 18 or 19 million morgen set aside for Blacks in 1913 and 1936, a Black may not acquire land in the rural areas. We cannot proceed with that. We cannot speak of reform and hold out hopes for a new South Africa if we allow that restriction to remain in force. I want to put it very clearly: Until we address that problem, our talk of a new dispensation will remain unacceptable to Blacks. If we can introduce changes in respect of this matter, more than of any other, Black people in South Africa will indeed be convinced that there is a new approach in South Africa. I shall leave that matter there.

I now want to come to the question of property rights for Blacks in urban areas. That is the main problem dealt with in this Bill. Section 8(l)(g) of the Act of 1913 specifically provided that the restrictions imposed by the Act in connection with the acquisition of property rights by Blacks would not apply in urban areas—would therefore not apply in areas under the jurisdiction of a municipal authority. Until 1937 Black people were at liberty to obtain property rights in urban areas. There were certain restrictions in terms of Act 21 of 1923, but we in fact saw Black urban complexes, in which Blacks enjoyed property rights, developing at that time—actually since the beginning of this century. There was, for instance, Lady Selborne, at Pretoria, Martindale, Sophiatown, Newclare, the Fingo township at Grahams-town, and also others.

Then, in 1937, the Government introduced the provision that no Black could acquire ownership of land in an urban area without the approval of the Governor-General. That therefore means a prohibition on the acquisition of property rights in urban areas. That was provided for by way of an amendment in terms of a section of Act 46 of 1937, which amended the Blacks (Urban Areas) Act of 1923.

That is of course a part of history. That legislation of 1937 brought the Government at the time into direct conflict with the body that was known as the Natives Representative Council. Act 12 of 1936, which established the Natives Representative Council, contained a provision that no legislation would be considered by Parliament or by a provincial council if that legislation had not first been referred to that council. The Act of 1937 was not referred to that council. The reason advanced by the Government of the time why it was not necessary to refer that legislation to the Natives Representative Council was that, as they said, it was merely a factor of time because the 1936 parliamentary session did not last long enough to finalise that legislation. Therefore, there was not enough time also to introduce in Parliament in 1936 the legislation which was subsequently passed in 1937. That reminds one very strongly, Sir, of what is happening in our midst at this moment, in this very session of Parliament of 1986. The excuse of the Government at the time was that the legislation of 1937 formed part of a trilogy of Acts, namely Act 12 of 1936, which concerned the political representation for Blacks, Act 18 of 1936, which concerned the release of land, and Act 46 of 1937.

However, that experiment, of which the potentiality was so great, the experiment of the establishment of a council for Blacks to advise the Government, started off on the wrong footing right from the outset. We are, however, all to blame for that. When we look at which Blacks were prepared to serve on that council at the time, we see that they included all the leading political figures in the Black population in the thirties. They were the ones who served on that council. Well, Mr Speaker, that is now history, of course. I nevertheless believe that it is still a tragedy that in subsequent years the governments of the day found it impossible to accede to what can now be seen to have been nothing less than the patently fair demands and requests of that council.

That was the position until that council of its own accord adjourned sine die in 1946 because, out of frustration, they had become convinced that things could not continue in that way any longer; that they could no longer continue to advise the Government and to submit requests to the Government while nothing at all was done. If only we had had the wisdom at the time just to say, “Let us first just wait and see”; if only we had at the time cast an eye at the future of our country and decided that we could not allow those people to become estranged from us, the subsequent history of South Africa would have been completely different.

So, as regards the acquisition of land in urban areas, the determining Act was Act 46 of 1937, the Native Laws Amendment Act. We were however not satisfied merely to place that prohibition on the acquisition of land in urban areas by Blacks. Just as in the case of the 1936 Act, this Act was also a tragedy. If only we had left it at that and accepted that that was all the land we would give them, but what happened? After the 1936 Act came into effect—I am now speaking of the rural Blacks—hundreds of thousands of Blacks were removed from areas outside of those released areas and crammed into those released areas. There is no other word for it.

You should moderate your language a bit, Professor.

I can think of no other word to use for it. Nor do I have to moderate that language, because what I am saying is true.

No.

You know it is true.

I am sorry, but…

Hundreds of thousands of people were crammed into those released areas. We then used the 1936 Act, which was primarily intended to revoke the prohibition introduced in 1913, in order through forced removals to put hundreds of thousands of Blacks in those areas.

The 1937 Act, which placed the prohibition on the acquisition of land in urban areas by Blacks, was applied by us in exactly the same way. We used the 1937 Act also to take away from the Blacks those areas where they still had property rights.

Yes.

The hon member for Houghton knows what we did with the removals from Sophiatown, Martindale, Alexandra, wherever.

It is not pleasant for me to say this, but hon members will remember that when the Johannesburg City Council refused to co-operate with the Government over the forced removals of those people, this Parliament passed legislation concerning the Board for the Resettlement of Blacks and made provision for the forced removal of those people. Some hon members will remember how those people were removed one fine morning. Government trucks arrived there—2 000 policemen and members of the Army came along behind them—to pick up and remove those people and their possessions. [Interjections.] The tragic joke in connection with this whole matter is that that area vacated by the Blacks was then called Triomf. [Interjections.]

A triumph for whom?

We can indeed ask for whom it was a triumph. We called that area Triomf, the area which we then made available for White occupation.

You were also a Nat at the time. [Interjections.]

I really do not want to react to that, Sir. Such a remark, coming from the hon member for Turffontein, I cannot understand at all. I am really not going to comment on it. [Interjections.]

What was the outcome of all this? With the exception of the Fingo township in Grahamstown virtually not a single urban area where Blacks previously enjoyed property rights survived this onslaught. Even in the case of the Fingos in Grahamstown, as hon members know, they were told as recently as two or three years ago that they too would be moved to the mouth of the Kei River. I must say I am grateful that that decision was reversed, but for years those poor people of Grahamstown lived with that sword of Damocles hanging over their heads in that they expected to be moved at any time.

The sword of Damocles is today hanging over the head of the White man in South Africa.

That is his own fault. [Interjections.]

In this way we in fact created a situation in which the Black man felt he was a stranger in his own country.

This is not his own country. It is our country.

I really do not intend wasting my time and that of the House on that argument.

Did the Zulus also have property rights in the Karoo?

Why is your argument right and mine wrong? [Interjections.]

I leave it at that. I think that in this regard I must associate myself with the hon member for Randburg who said one cannot argue with people on the basis of logic when their arguments are based on an ideological approach. [Interjections.]

In that sense we indeed find ourselves today with this Bill on the threshold of a new era. I am thankful that we can today at least close that tragic chapter concerning the Blacks in the urban areas.

Only to a tiny extent.

Yes, I am still coming to that. The hon member for Houghton must just be patient a little longer. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I listened very attentively and with deep gratitude to the hon member Prof Olivier. He referred to historical matters and mentioned many things of which I, and I think many other hon members, were not aware. He spoke with great earnestness and candour and he also said that he was looking back with nostalgia. At one stage he was deeply moved and I think we all appreciate that precisely because we respect him as being a serious and straightforward person.

Unfortunately we all see things from our own perspective when we listen to others and we see accusations in everything that comes our way. I tried to disentangle myself and really listen. Nowhere in his entire argument did I hear him passing any judgement on any specific party or group. He tried to make a historical evaluation and in fact pointed out mistakes that were made by various governments. That applies to the NP, the UP and coalition governments such as the Hertzog-Smuts government circa 1936-37. I am tremendously grateful that he could examine the past in this way. We also know him to be a person who tries to look ahead and in that regard his speech was in fact quite an unusual contribution. When he said that we should now look ahead since we were on the threshold of a new era his time had unfortunately expired. I should very much have liked to have listened to that part of his contribution as well because I also want to say something about that subject.

Before I do that, I just want to refer to a few aspects which are crowning achievements in the Bill before us. As the hon member Prof Olivier said, it is not possible to do justice to all these subjects by dealing with them in the short time which is available to us as individuals and even as Parliament. Many important new aspects come into prominence here.

The first aspect I want to refer to is the acceptance of property rights. It is in fact more than a restoration and it is an acceptance in the widest possible sense of the word and in the definition which exists in common law without being defined in the Bill. That is why acquisition is also spoken of. Concepts such as freehold of “vrypag” are not found, nor any that we have already begun to develop in the spoken language, but which has not manifested itself anywhere in our law. It is actually such a pity that the message does not come across, or comes across incorrectly. The hon the Deputy Minister referred in his Second Reading speech to the article in the Sowetan—I think it was a main article to which he referred—on how it was erroneously perceived as another example of discrimination, precisely because it was not defined. Precisely because it is not defined, it is traced back to the essence of property rights and basic land rights.

The second point I want to refer to is concerned with a statement made by the hon the Deputy Minister in his Second Reading speech. He referred to land being made available, and I quote:

I merely wish to make a few observations concerning this reference to “undertake to do all it can with the means at its disposal.” It has been quite some time now that all parties in this House have been speaking about land being made available to Black communities to launch development projects, but also to allow them to undertake their own development. That is a priority which I cannot emphasise enough. Since the Government has committed itself to do all it can, it must not make the mistake of thinking within its financial capabilities only, but also within its capabilities of bringing about adjustments to the system. In this regard—once again without going into its merits—I merely wish to refer to the enquiry of the President’s Council in regard to the Group Areas Act. They have to report soon, and I really hope they have been able to analyse this problem properly and that they will come forward with recommendations which will also make it possible for Blacks as individuals to contribute from the private sector to development, to the acquisition of land and everything that goes with it.

Are you now talking about rural farms now?

I am speaking of all land in respect of which needs exists. Added to that there is still another important point in this Bill which deals with the concept of township establishment and specifically with the definition of an urban developer. I think that the standing committee, with the help of the officials of the department, have come forward with a new definition which now makes it possible for every individual, every Black individual who is able to make a contribution—as it is already possible for White individuals—to undertake development, to promote housing and township development.

The following landmark in this Bill is clause 11 which deals with the deletion of section 38 of the Act. The hon member Prof Olivier referred to it only briefly. Section 38 of the principal Act is the section which makes it possible to move people against their will for reasons of policy reasons, the so-called forced removal of communities. On previous occasions the State President referred to it and did away with the policy—in fact gave undertakings in respect of forced removals. Here the specific power of implementing such removals is being rescinded, and I am very greatful that this has been done.

But Blacks are allowed to move from the homelands to the White areas.

I really do not want to quarrel with the hon member for Rissik now, but there is one thing I should like to tell him. I cannot reconcile myself to large communities having to be removed by force…

But communities are allowed to move to White areas.

If people move in and establish themselves in places where they are not allowed to establish themselves, there are sufficient legal measures to counteract it. The fact that they are going to live in areas where they may not live, can be dealt with in terms of legislation on squatting. Action can in fact be taken. What is being removed here, however, is a measure which made it possible to cause population removals to occur on an ideological basis, not according to the choice of the communities, but according to the choice of those who did not like the idea of them being there. I am grateful for this development. It is a positive step and I think we can rejoice that we have accomplished it.

Are they all sitting in New York? [Interjections.]

Certain hon members are making it very difficult for me to communicate. [Interjections.] I do wish we could get away from confrontation for confrontation’s sake. There must of course be confrontation, but these inflexible standpoints of White versus Black, of parliamentary versus extra-parliamentary, of we and they—it is always a question of we are right and they are wrong…

We are right and you are wrong!

Yes, everyone thinks they are right. Now the hon member is saying “We are right”. He means however that only he is right.

I am right; I know I am right.

The man who knows that he is really right, is better than a mere human being. I do not think anyone can know that they are right. He can believe, he can believe according to the best of his judgement, he can always look for and he can in fact believe that he is doing the best thing, but to say “I know I am right” as though one were the creator and master of everything that happens, is going too far. [Interjections.]

Was it not frightening to find out that you were wrong for 36 years?

I wish to appeal to everyone in the House to try to think more broadly.

No one is right!

Please, if hon members would only give me an opportunity to put my point across. The hon member for Sasolburg reacted to what the hon member Prof Olivier said about whether the country belonged to the Blacks’ or to us. The hon member Prof Olivier in his choice of words said “the Blacks are in their own country” which if one was wilful—perhaps not wilful either, but if one had interpreted it quickly—one could regard him as having said the country belonged to the Blacks and not the Whites.

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

Please, allow me to conclude my point. I shall give the hon member an opportunity to put a question later.

On the other hand to say that this country belongs to the Whites and not the Blacks would also be wrong.

What is right then?

Let us try to regard this country as our country. Let us say our country, let us speak of everyone in this country: Black, White, Coloured, pink or whatever colour people whatsoever. It is the country of the people who live here. Let us see from that point of view how we can coexist in this country. Let us try to acquire a broader vision.

In fact I want to make a plea that we try to resolve the conflict which exists between parliamentary and extra-parliamentary politics. Can we not speak of politics within South Africa and develop a positive political approach? In saying that, I refer not only to us who find ourselves in the internal parliamentary political system, but I also make an appeal to people who see themselves as being “outside” the system and who want nothing to do with it. Let us take a look at where we stand in the context of a broader South Africa.

Here we have legislation which deals with the development of Black communities. I also want to advocate that we see development in a broader context. We must really look to the future, as the hon member Prof Olivier said.

My eldest child is 13 today and she is the apple of my eye. [Interjections.] When I think about how I feel about this daughter of mine, then I know how other members feel about their children and I know that the people outside this House feel about their children in the same way as we do about all our children. Everyone is looking to the future.

Let us look at development as the development of people. Let us look to it as the development of a being, an existence, an essence. It is concerned with the development of individuals and individuals in their relations with one another.

In developmental economics it is said that one is dealing with a revolution. It is not a revolution of possession or of having, but of being. It is well expressed in English: “A revolution of being not one of having.” Let us search and work together beyond the dividing lines. Everyone must have his own standpoint, but everyone should also be prepared to search for a revolution of being within the whole. The hon member for Langlaagte may put his question.

What about my question?

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member with whose standpoint that people have certain rights I agree, whether, when man is considered in his environment as we consider him, he should receive all our privileges, we who inhabit the country as one nation, in that everything is transferred to him, and whether he, who is a member of another nation, should have the same rights in our country as each one of us has?

Yes, according to the premise that each person is entitled to basic rights emanating from the fact of his creation. We are all created as individuals with certain existential possibilities. If we speak as Christian to Christian, that philosophy expects of us not only that each one of us should have the right to realise our existential possibilities but also that we, to the extent to which our neighbours cannot realise their potential, should help him to make it possible. The rights should in fact be the same. [Interjections.]

If we speak about how this is to happen, we must come forward with practical, pragmatic, creative ideas on the development of communities.

Then we should be Christian and sincere with one another. [Interjections.]

I am answering the hon member’s question, but he does not want to give me the opportunity. [Interjections.]

If we are going to discuss how we must achieve this, let us try to think creatively and not ideologically in terms of confrontation and isolation.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member whether the land of the Venda is also the land of the Zulu?

No, Sir, I would say it is not their land in the same way as…

That is all! [Interjections.]

I hope the hon member will allow me to continue. [Interjections.] Venda does not belong to the Zulus.

Very nice! That is creative thinking!

It is not only creative thinking. [Interjections.] Is the hon member going to allow me to complete my reply? Pretoria does not belong to the inhabitants of Johannesburg, and Johannesburg is not the city of the inhabitants of Pretoria. In accordance with the constitution as it is, Venda has certain powers which it can exercise, to the exclusion of others. In other words, it can control its immigration. To say that Venda is the land of the Vendas and all Vendas, also those who find themselves in Johannesburg and Pretoria and that they should now move there and go and live there because it is their land, or to give the right to the inhabitants of Soweto or Johannesburg to expel the Venda living there and to say: “Go and live in Venda; that is your land”, would also be completely erroneous ideological thinking. [Interjections.]

We and the independent TBVC states are part of South Africa, which is still a part of a greater whole. We are engaged in bilateral and multilateral discussions and negotiations in order to seek and move towards a constitution and a model according to which we can coexist, but the premise still remains—the hon member will concede it to me—that also as far as the TBVC states and not only the self-governing states are concerned, there is a viewpoint and an acceptance that we all find ourselves together in one great whole and have a responsibility towards each other which is greater than the responsibility which we have towards others outside that whole.

I am very grateful for the many positive things which are addressed in the Bill, and I gladly support it.

Mr Speaker, I move as an amendment:

I want to begin by congratulating the hon member for Randburg on his daughter’s 13th birthday. Tomorrow it is my son Henri’s 14th birthday, and I hope a very propitious future awaits them both in this country.

Perhaps they will become black.

I want to add that the hon member for De Aar also has a birthday today, and I hope that a propitious future also awaits him in this country. Interjections.]

Is he 13 or 14?

He is a little older than 14! [Interjections.]

Today the hon member for Randburg touched upon a few very interesting points that I should like to react to. He said, amonst other things, that he was tremendously grateful for the fact that the hon member Prof Olivier could examine the future in this way.

In his survey of the past, the hon member Prof Olivier spoke, amongst other things, of how we Whites had been brainless, stupid and myopic as far as the position of the Blacks was concerned. [Interjections.] What I find so incomprehensible is that the cornerstones of what was built up by the Whites, over a period of decades, is today regarded by the NP as the product of stupidity and myopia. [Interjections.]

There is one thing the hon member said, however, with which I do agree, with great conviction, and that is that it is not right, in such a brief span of time, to be discussing legislation as important as this. It is just a pity that yesterday, when this was voted on, he did not vote with us. It is indeed shameful for us, in the last part of this session, to have to hurry through all this important legislation in so short a period of time!

The hon member made one mistake. After his review of the past, he also wanted to cast his eye over the future. He did not, however, get round to that. At a later stage I shall be asking a few questions about that. What he did say, however, is that everyone’s rights should be the same, and with his creative thinking he came up against that very good question posed by the hon member for Rissik. After having said that a Zulu did not have any right to Vendaland, he realized that he was in some difficulties. He very ingeniously backed down, but did not quite manage to extricate himself. The gist of the whole question is that if there is a portion of South Africa allocated to the Venda, why is there not a portion allocated for the Whites too? [Interjections.]

The hon member also spoke about the question of the White-Black opposition. He said that we in the CP were obsessed with the idea of White-Black confrontation, but surely that is not true! We specifically have a policy catering for the various peoples. We distinguish, for example—merely as far as the Blacks are concerned—between 12 separate peoples. Does the hon member want to imply that we do not have a standpoint as far as the Coloureds or the Asians are concerned?

Yes!

We place the emphasis on what is owing to the Whites. Let the other people look after themselves for a change, and work out their own future! I should like to have a portion of South Africa where I, as a White person, can look after my own welfare, just as the inhabitants of Transkei are able to do so. [Interjections.]

What I also found very interesting, when the hon member Prof Olivier was speaking and saying hurtful things about the NP’s past, was that it was the CP which then tackled him and gave him a bit of a drubbing. Hon members of the NP applauded him!

The hon member Prof Olivier says he cannot understand how, for a period of 70 years, we were so stupid, brainless and myopic that we could not perceive what we were doing to those people. The hon member is, of course, also castigating himself, because at a certain stage he also believed in this! [Interjections.] I find it very commendable—it is a very honest approach—that he should also castigate himself in this regard.

Even today, however, we come across people such as Pres Matanzima praising the NP of 1948—this falls within the 70-year period to which the hon member Prof Olivier referred, a period in which the Whites were supposedly stupid, brainless and myopic—for the policy which gave him and his people independence.

There is one thing, in fact, that the hon member Prof Olivier highlighted very succinctly, and that was the ideological gulf that exists between the CP and the PFP, and of course also the gulf that exists between the CP on the one hand, and the NP in conjunction with the PFP on the other. The salient question is whether South Africa is one, undivided country or whether there are several countries in South Africa. That is what it is all about! That hon member’s philosophy would have South Africa become one, because it is one country.

That is also the NP’s standpoint. The hon member for Randburg speaks of “our” country. If the “our” include the Zulu, Sotho, Xhosa, Coloureds, Indians, Venda and Whites, let me ask him: Where is the part exclusive to the Whites? There is now this endeavour to make South Africa one, to place its various components on an equal footing, in accordance with hon members’ wishes. My question today is: What happens then to the right to self-determination of the White? Why is the right to self-determination a golden principle embodied in the preamble of the old league of nations charter and also in the preamble of the present UN charter? So why does the right to self-determination of peoples not apply to the Whites as well? Why is it a good thing, according to the hon member for Randburg, for the Vendas to have a right to self-determination in their own country? Why may the others have that right? Why may the Whites not have such a right?

Self-determination is not a one-sided term like partition.

But we do, after all, have self-determination by way of partition. It is interesting that the hon member for Helderkruin said that the excision of the TBVC countries from South Africa was not partition. Then I do not know what partition is!

After all, we thereby gave substance to the right of self-determination of the Xhosa, for example. I now want to take up the point raised by the hon member for Krugersdorp. We did, after all, in consultation with Transkei, give Transkeians their right to self-determination. They accepted it of their own free will and we are commended for that fact today. It was not, after all, forced onto them.

The hon member Prof Olivier spoke of the land-hunger of the Blacks. We can argue the historical factors here today and see how South Africa happened to develop as it did. Hon members know the history of the three large Black groups which, approximately five centuries ago, migrated from the central parts of Africa. They moved to the south and settled in certain areas. The Whites, on the other hand, trekked northwards from Cape Town and settled themselves in certain areas.

Do you believe that?

Of course I believe it.

Do you not believe it?

No.

Does the hon member not believe that? Heavens, the hon Balaam of Hercules. He does not believe what the NP’s Department of Information puts into its publications. Now he does not believe South African history. He does not believe what the major historians of the world have to say. He merely puts his pen through it. He puts me in mind of a discussion I had with two communists in East Berlin. They said to me: “Your whole history is a fable.” That is what he is saying today. He says that our experiencing these things in this country is part of a fable. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether he agrees that the history of how the various peoples settled themselves in South Africa is a fable, as that fable of an hon member alleges. I believe the history of my country and the given settlement pattern of the various peoples. What happened is that the Blacks took certain parts for themselves and that the Whites took other parts for themselves. That is the historic background.

As far as the land-hunger is concerned—the land-hunger about the hon member Prof Olivier spoke—let me ask whether that means that we must simply go on satisfying that insatiable land-hunger of the Blacks by relinquishing all our land.

And give it away for nothing.

And give it away for nothing! [Interjections.] I could even, on the strength of legislation, indicate to hon members that they are even exempt from paying rent and from paying for health services. It is a socialist principle that has been introduced—give, give, give! It is a good thing the hon member makes few speeches, or actually a bad thing, because if he made more speeches, the CP would have to pay him a salary, because he is our best organiser.

The hon member Dr Vilonel is not in the House at the moment, but he supported the hon member Prof Olivier with as much enthusiasm. [Interjections.]

The effect of this Bill is that Blacks will be obtaining proprietary rights in regard to immovable property in White South Africa. We must not see the granting of proprietary rights in isolation. We cannot do so, because it is part of the package. The Government is engaged on a process of reform, with this legislation being only one part of that reform. Influx control has now been abolished, and that means that the old South Africa is being destroyed and that a new South Africa is taking shape. The abolition of influx control means that there will be free influx from the traditionally Black South Africa to what I call White South Africa.

In this package, citizenship and political rights are being granted to approximately 2 million of those Blacks, not in their traditional areas, but in areas which are, in my opinion, our areas. As far as we are concerned the whole package is ultimately a question of the principle of political rights. That is the important thing. That is what oppresses us about the future. The State President said that Blacks were obtaining political rights up to the very highest level. We were speaking about regional services councils. This package has now seen to it that regional services councils will, in effect, be third-tier multiracial government.

The package has had a second effect. We have abolished provincial councils and replaced them with second-tier multiracial government.

The State President said that there would also be mixed first-tier government in the sense that the Blacks would have representation up to the highest level.

What this package amounts to, therefore, is that there will be mixed government at all three levels. This legislation, granting proprietary rights to Blacks in White South Africa, is also giving substance to the new South Africa being created by the NP. This legislation is an important cornerstone in that process.

On the question of proprietary rights let me just quote to hon members the judicial meaning of the term “ownership” from The Law of Property by A J Oosthuizen. On page 27, where he speaks of the “Nature and Contents” of ownership, there is the following:

He goes on to say:

In saying so he was quoting Maasdorp II, 27. The passage goes on to state:

His reference is Hahlo and Kahn, 578:

The ultimate right to something that one can obtain in our legal system is now being given to Blacks in regard to immovable property within South Africa. We say that is the gist of the problem, because we are building a new South Africa. This new South Africa will, even now, be accommodating approximately 2 million Black citizens who have the right to vote, and now they will be obtaining proprietary rights. The discussion of the question of “no taxation without representation” now falls away, of course.

It is true!

The whole question falls away, because it is no longer relevant. The hon member for Pinetown says it is true. Of course it is true. If one pays taxes, one wants the right to vote. That is irrelevant now, however, and do hon members know why? The NP is, in any event, granting the Blacks the franchise.

This means, therefore, that the package we have been debating during the past week, the package of which this measure is an indivisible part, will be creating political rights for, and legally sanctioning the presence, at this stage, of virtually 2 million Blacks. And what of the future? What about the land-hunger and the political appetite of the increasing numbers of people who will be coming from their areas to the increasingly smaller White South Africa? What does the future hold as far as this is concerned?

The consequences of this package, in particular of this legislation, for White politics is of fundamental importance as far as I am concerned. I contend that it is absolutely inevitable that this package will lead to Black government in South Africa. Black political domination and other forms of domination of the white component of South Africa by millions of Blacks is therefore inevitable.

We have asked repeated questions about this. We asked questions, and are again doing so in this fifth debate. What is disturbing is the fact that I have already put these same two questions in four debates. I am briefly going to repeat them, because we did not get an answer in any of the four debates. I do not know what more I must do in an effort to get the answers. I am forced to say to myself: Either the NP has the answers, but does not want to give them to me, in which case let me say that it is unfair; the NP must give us the answers because, if not, the NP has linked up a secret agenda to a dictatorship, or—and I think this is the truth of the matter—they do not have a specific plan. They decided strictly in accordance with the Huntington recipe:

Now the process has been started and the NP is straddling a snorting rhinoceros. Where it will end up, whether it will keep its seat or fall off, is no longer of any importance.

Since we now have another Deputy Minister here, perhaps he can pluck up the courage to answer the questions which the hon the Minister of Home Affairs and a whole series of other Ministers do not want to answer. My first question is whether the package, and the inclusion of people of colour in the franchise pattern, embodies the possibility of the Whites being governed by Blacks. That is a fair question. Those people are now obtaining proprietary rights here, business rights and the right to vote. My question is therefore: Does this embody the possibility of a Black government coming into being? I have asked this previously and am now doing so again: Is there one hon member of the NP here who has the courage to tell me that we are not going to have a Black government.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether the fact that black people already have the right to vote at the third tier of government has adversely affected his position as a White man? [Interjections.]

Of course it has, because that was the beginning of power-sharing, a process in which I can only be the loser because of the numerical preponderance of others. That is the beginning of the growth process of a political tumour which has been implanted in the body of the Whites and which must destroy White political rights. That is my answer to the hon member. I do, however, also want to put a question to that hon member. Is he opposed to Whites being dominated by a Black government at the first tier of government?

Our policy is that no domination of any kind whatsoever will be tolerated. [Interjections.]

I am glad of that reply. In his new South Africa 85% of the people will be Black and 15% will be White. According to my grade-I arithmetic, 85 is more than 15. I now want to know from the hon member if it is not only fair for the 85 to designate who the State President shall be and not the 15. Sir, do you know how easy it is to change an NP member into a Madame Tussaud wax doll? Just ask him whether the country will one day have a Black State President. He immediately turns to wax.

The State President said they were not allowed to ask that question.

Yes. That is fundamentally what the package is all about. If the NP could have given us an answer to this central issue two or three days ago, this debate could have taken a different turn. However, we are struggling and floundering—I cannot understand it—in an endeavour to find out whether the NP forsees any possibility of a Black man governing Whites at the first tier of government. Since the inception of this package the hon member for Winburg has been relying increasingly on his hearing-aid and has only made the occasional inaudible interjection. Let me now ask that hon member—and one of these days I shall be holding a meeting in Winburg and then I am going to bring this copy of Hansard with me—whether he is in favour of South Africa obtaining a Black president.

As long as the NP is governing there will not be a Black president. [Interjections.]

Well I never! Sir, a former member for Soutpansberg, ex Minister Fanie Botha, said: You do not need to worry, because as long as I am in the Cabinet, there will not be any Coloureds and Indians in Parliament. Mrs Martina Botha also said: You do not need to worry, because as long as Oom Fanie is there, there will not be any Coloureds and Indians in the Cabinet. The hon Leader of the House, who is writing things down so diligently—he probably felt I was moving in his direction—said at Bulgerivier that no Coloured or Indian would be included in the Cabinet. I spoke to five people who are prepared to make sworn statement to that effect. I am now telling the hon member for Winburg that the mistake he makes is in thinking that he is still a member of the NP. He is, however, a member of the National Progressive Party, because even in his day there was chaos in regard to the elections we held, and along the NP’s path there is a whole string of the bleached bones of defunct guarantees given to the Whites. [Interjections.] That is the truth, is it not?

As far as the hon member Mr Vermeulen is concerned, there is something I cannot understand. When I speak in this House about who is going to govern my people in the future—as far as I am concerned there is no more important question than that about whether we are going to get a Black state president—he offers me a chocolate! [Interjections.] Then the hon member for Kimberley South laughs too. They sit there laughing. [Interjections.]

What about a banana?

The hon member for De Kuilen is now offering me a banana. Let me just tell him that if it is of no importance to him who will be governing his people tomorrow or the next day, for the CP it is a matter of the utmost importance. We do not joke about this; on the contrary, this is the fifth time in one week that I have stood up and put certain questions to the NP. The first question is: Is there a possibility of our having a Black state president? They do not want to answer.

Except Daantjie Scott.

Yes, but we cannot take much notice of the hon member for Winburg. [Interjections.] I now come to the second question.

Mr Chairman, I just want to ask the hon member whether he does not agree that it was our policy—when they were here too—that there should be joint responsibility in regard to general affairs and a maximum say in regard to own affairs. That is the principle.

Yes, the hon member is correct…

Order! The hon member is allowing himself to be side-tracked into a discussion of matters far removed from the subject of the Bill.

Sir, let me just make a brief stop there. [Interjections.] The hon member put a question to me, and I just want to give him the following answer: There was never any question of power-sharing in those proposals. I am going to content myself with the following explanation…

And the election of the President?

Mr Chairman, you must permit me to be diverted for a moment. I just want to ask the hon member: If one has 50 people in an electoral college, there being 37 others, if those 50 vote in a bloc, is that power-sharing?

Of course!

Good heavens, the hon member must go back to university and tear up his doctoral thesis. It is one thing, and one thing only, and that is a majority vote. It is nothing short of domination, and that’s that! [Interjections.]

But one does not, after all, vote alone. [Interjections.]

Let me ask a second question, and I would appreciate it if the hon the Deputy Minister would listen to this. [Interjections.] Would the hon the Deputy Minister do his job and listen for a moment? We are speaking about what this package deal holds in store for him. He does not want to speak about a Black state president, but I now want to put a question to him. We are, are we not, going to be working on a group basis. There are going to be various groups—the White group, the Coloured group and the Indian group)—and we already have representation in a tricameral Parliament. My first question relates to the Blacks. Does he regard the Blacks as one group, or as various groups, ethnically speaking? Could he perhaps tell me that? A deathly silence! He is the Madame Tussaud of the Western Transvaal. [Interjections.]

The point is that if he says it is one South Africa, he is agreeing with the hon member for Randburg and the other hon members. He is then saying that apartheid is dead. If he says there are going to be various groups for the various Black people, he is saying that apartheid is alive. I do not know which of the two it is, but let me tell him that with his group dispensation he is, in any event, in trouble. Let me tell him why.

If he wants to establish this on a group basis, he cannot ensure a White majority in that new South Africa of his unless he does it by way of blatant domination. There is no way, because from a numerical point of view, there are 5 million Whites and 25 million to 30 million Blacks.

As far as groups are concerned, the Whites constitute one group. There is also a Coloured group and an Indian group, and if there is only one Black group, it would be three against one, although there will probably be ten Black groups. He therefore loses out, both on a group basis and on a numerical basis. [Interjections.] The hon member for Winburg, however, says the President stays White. The NP has to stay in power. [Interjections.] What I am now asking the hon the Deputy Minister is: How is he going to prevent one group from dominating another? [Interjections.]

The hon member for Rustenburg is apparently so upset about the fact that Dr Ipland is going to oppose him and that he is going to become the next MP for Rustenburg, I have heard, that he is quite on edge. I think he should go and consult a doctor to calm him down about his political future. [Interjections.]

I just want to link my argument to the Bill once more. The issue here involves the proprietary and political rights, and all I am asking in this fifth debate, is how the hon the Minister is going to prevent one group from dominating another. [Interjections.]

I referred to the fact that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning had already referred to a possible constitution and certain legal remedies as possible protective measures, but there has been no further development. We want to have a package approved by Parliament in terms of which we shall be replacing the whole of the old South African apartheid concept and other concepts by a new system we wish to embark upon.

Is it then not only fair to ask what the new South Africa will look like? The Government takes us by the hand to lead us into a new world, but only tells us what that world looks like and what dangers it embodies for us as Whites. I want to turn from this subject by putting two questions to the hon the Minister. Can a Black Government come into power, and how is it going to ensure that one group does not dominate another?

I just want to raise one further point, and this relates to clause 17(b) of the Bill before us, which is replacing section 44(5) of the principal Act. Let me quote the new subsection (5):

In other words, the new council, which will be a kind of city council, can remit the following in regard to any indigent Blacks in the relevant area:

What does that mean? It means that we are introducing a purely socialistic principle here. We are hereby saying that Blacks within the relevant development area who cannot pay their rent or pay for their residential services, do not have to do so. We shall then remit all those charges, because they are indigent. Mention is also made, however, of medical services. In other words, if such a person becomes ill and must go to hospital for treatment, even for maternity and related purposes, the accounts will be paid. The new subsection also refers to other services, but what possible other services are there? What, for example, of bus transport and funeral expenses? What else is there?

No guidelines are laid down to indicate when someone would be regarded as being indigent or not. If the council were to decide that someone was indigent, such a person would be subsidised by the State in the sense of giving for a house, paying burial costs, paying maternity costs and doing all that sort of thing, probably supplying food as well. What nonsense is that?

I reiterate that this is the inclusion of a socialistic provision, and this links up directly with the hon the Minister of Finance’s debate on the re-distribution of wealth. During the previous debate the hon the Minister of Finance said that the re-distribution of wealth was a fundamental principle in every country. [Interjections.] He was also concerned about the fact that tensions would be created if we did not accede to that principle.

I now want to take that point further. The redistribution of wealth, as he sees it, is that one takes from one person and gives to another. Our principle, as very succinctly put by the hon member for Rissik, is that we are prepared to grant assistance within the bounds of our discretion. If we have money in the Bank, and it is therefore within our capabilities, we shall give it to the needy, or we shall lend it to them, but the redistribution of wealth means “robbing Peter to pay Paul”.

The hon the Minister said that this could give rise to tensions amongst people of colour. People of colour feel they are having a hard time of it, and are now bringing pressure to bear. They will say that their people are having a difficult time of it and that they do not have funds with which to pay rent and service charges. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I shall react in due course to certain aspects of the speech by the hon member for Jeppe. Firstly, however, I wish to make use of the opportunity to refer to the proceedings of the standing committee. The Bill before the House was extensively discussed by the standing committee and I should like to make mention of the many valuable inputs made by the departmental officials in the person of Mr Flip van den Heerden and Mr Stopforth. There was also Prof Tager of the Law Revision Project who assisted us with jurisprudential advice, Miss Strelitz, a planner of the Urban Foundation and Mr Johan Latsky, an attorney who assisted the standing committee with considerable expertise in preparing this legislation, in connection with a very important matter, in its present form.

I wish to react briefly to two matters which the hon member for Jeppe raised. Naturally I cannot reply now to all the questions he put.

You can furnish a reply concerning the Black president.

I shall reply to that question. Nowhere in any previous debate has an aspect of CP policy emerged so clearly as in this debate, namely that when the CP speaks about Black policy, it is an ethnic policy (volkerebeleid). But the moment they talk about Whites it becomes a racial policy (rassebeleid). Do the hon members of the CP acknowledge that? [Interjections.] Here the entire policy of the CP falls to pieces. If the CP had an ethnic policy with regard to Whites, then they would also have to distinguish between Whites, because there are Italians, Spaniards, David Lewises, etc. They must then be consistent. [Interjections.] That is the only conclusion one can arrive at. When they speak of Whites it is a racial policy. What also irks me is the reply which the hon member for Rissik gave the hon member for Randburg. He says that in terms of their White policy, a racial policy, they know best what ought to be done and that their policy is better. It seems to me if one is dealing with a kind of White arrogance which eventually can culminate only in bloodshed and conflict in South Africa.

Are the hon members for Jeppe and for Rissik saying that property rights were granted to Blacks in terms of the previous legislation under the 99-year leasehold system and the 30-year home-owner’s scheme? Blacks in South Africa have established property rights. If Blacks according to the CP’s partition policy which they should spell out for us, fall within the designated area for Whites, Coloureds or Indians, what are the CP going to do with those Blacks’ property rights? Are those hon members going to forcibly dispossess them? What are they going to do with them? Are those hon members going to dispossess them forcibly or forcibly remove them? Are they going to use violence?

We shall restore White rights in this country.

If those hon members do that, are they going to use force? It is a very important question which requires to be answered in the politics of South Africa today.

I also want to make a third point in reaction to the speech made by the hon member for Jeppe. My hon friends in the CP must admit that as far as property ownership by Blacks is concerned, they have changed their policy.

We?

Yes. The CP has changed its policy. Has it always been the CP’s standpoint that Blacks may not require property rights within White South Africa?

Yes.

Does leasehold not entail property rights?

No. I shall indicate in a moment why it does not.

The hon leader of the CP supported the principle of property rights for Blacks in South Africa in 1981 when he was a member of the Cabinet.

In the report on constitutional matters of the President’s Council the question of property rights for Blacks in South Africa was extensively discussed. I should like to quote what appears on page 111 of the report, and I take it to be an authentic quotation. I quote:

Bull’s eye!

It is not even a hit.

Let us not score debating points off each other now. Times in South Africa are too serious that we should be trying to score points by saying that it was not so. Let us admit to one another that we have changed our policy or standpoint.

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

First let me finish my argument. Let us admit to one another that we may in the past have adhered to other standpoints, but that the realities of South Africa have changed our perceptions and that we are courageous enough to admit it. We must co-operate in the creation of a new South Africa with those, regardless of race or colour, who also define these realities in this way.

Mr Chairman, I should like to know whether the hon member considers property rights, leasehold and ownership as one and the same thing?

I gladly reply to that. I am not a constitutional expert, but leasehold and ownership are in my opinion basically the same thing. [Interjections.] I am not going to allow myself to be sidetracked by that.

Mr Chairman, is the hon member for Bellville able to say to us whether in his perception, a person who has the right to be in an area for 99 years does not have the right as well to be there permanently?

I shall reply to the question of the hon member for Krugersdorp with pleasure. [Interjections.] The Black is there permanently, and especially the fact that when a change in the person of the holder of the 99-year leasehold, the purchaser of that leasehold acquires a new 99-year leasehold right, indicating that the leasehold right is in fact a permanent right.

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

No, Mr Chairman, I am sorry. I am not going to reply to any further questions now. [Interjections.]

The land issue in the history of South Africa is fraught with conflict, bloodshed, hope and despair. It is a fact!

We bought our land with our blood!

The aspirations and the prospects and the hope of peoples and nations revolve around the whole issue of land. It is a fact! The whole question of and of people’s views in regard to land determines their political philosophy, their economic philosophy and their social philosophy. The activities and actions of all people in every sphere of life are reduced to and can in fact be reduced to the land and their view of land. That is why the Government has come up with the measure before us…

Franchise as well?

Yes, franchise as well. That is why the Government has now come forward with this measure, in terms of which we have taken cognisance of the fact that land can bring about conflict and bloodshed. With this measure the Government is also indicating its preparedness to offer land in such a way—as is in fact being done in terms of this measure—that we shall prevent White and Black coming into conflict with one another on the land issue.

The redistribution of land is in fact one of the biggest political issues of our day. The redistribution of land in South Africa is one of the biggest political issues of our time. It causes the establishment of constitutional structures to be that much more urgent, so that White and Black and all interested persons can negotiate with one another concerning the redistribution of land in South Africa. At the moment there is an unequal distribution of land in South Africa, and structures should therefore be made operational so that White and Black can negotiate with one another concerning the redistribution of land in this country.

Presently land is distributed unilaterally by means of the process of consolidation. It is a fruitless exercise, seen from an economic point of view, and a new dimension must therefore be given to the redistribution of land.

This Bill defines a competent person, and opens the door to all Blacks, regardless of whether they are citizens of the TBVC countries or of the national states, to acquire ownership in so-called White South Africa. Furthermore the measure before us creates the possibility for township developers, for associations and for employers to move into the field of the tremendous backlog which has been built up as a result of a specific, dated political philosophy concerning Blacks outside the independent national states, in order to provide them with housing as well as granting them the opportunity to acquire property rights.

This Bill is essential for two reasons. The first one is that urban Black residential areas are being tormented by a wave of urban terror unprecedented in South African history. The primary cause of this unrest is in my opinion the lack of stability—emotional stability, social stability and stability in terms of structures. This lack of stability also arises from the absence of property rights. By introducing property rights in a destabilised Black community, the Government is attempting to make a contribution to bringing about stability in these unrest-ridden Black areas.

The second reason why this legislation is very essential, is the tremendous backlog which has been built up in respect of Black housing. I can quote some figures in this regard to hon members.

What about the tremendous population growth?

According to official waiting lists, the backlog was approximately 196 000 housing units in 1984. The shortage in housing in Black urban areas in South Africa in 1984 was 260 000. I do not want to burden hon members too much with figures, but it has been calculated that 1,5 million housing units will be required by the year 2 000 in order to house Blacks effectively. The Government cannot do it alone, and the private sector must therefore also make a contribution in this regard. This Bill makes provision for that.

Mr Chairman, having taken into consideration the confirmation of Blacks’ property rights, is the hon member able to tell me whether a Black, according to the present NP policy, can become president of the RSA? [Interjections.]

According to the present policy of the NP it is not possible.

When are you going to change that policy? [Interjections.]

I have answered the quesion. I told the hon member that I would answer his question, and I have answered his question. [Interjections.]

In conclusion I can mention that the prevention of full property rights for Blacks fitted into a specific political philosophy. The non allocation of property rights to Blacks was born in a philosophy which believed that the Black person outside the national states did not belong here, and should return to the independent states. As a result, because it was presumed that he was not here, the Blacks’ existence was cultivated (losgeskoffel) by the subsidies on housing, rent, etc. By means of this whole subsidy policy we have in fact made it very much easier for Blacks to be here in South Africa than it was for them to establish themselves in their homelands as we had envisaged it.

This obsolete philosophy now lies behind us. We are now looking ahead with a new perspective and a new vision, and we are doing so for all the people in South Africa—Whites, Blacks, Coloureds and Indians. Because this Bill is a positive instrument which cuts off this old philosophy, I gladly support it.

Mr Chairman, I find it very difficult to react to the hon member for Bellville other than to say that I could do nothing but support him when he was referring to the Bill. However, when he was involved in the family fracas with the CP on what constitutes a “ras” and what constitutes a “volk” I was a little out of my depth. I really do believe this has come up so many times that perhaps the three or four top hon members of each party should get together somewhere and thrash this out so that we do not have to keep on listening to what constitutes a “ras” and what constitutes a “volk”. I am sure it is of inestimable interest to the Afrikaner people—I carefully avoid using “volk” or “ras”—but I believe it is a little confusing to everybody else.

If I may be excused I would like to talk on the Bill. I apologise for doing so because it does not seem to be the fashion! When this Bill was introduced it was not a very good Bill; so much so that it required a terrific number of amendments like so many of the Bills that are introduced these days. In fact, in this case there were 25 amendments in the standing committee including the fact that one clause was negatived. This does make one scratch one’s head a little. I wonder what used to happen before we had standing committees. It is no wonder so many bad Bills were passed by this Parliament. There was not a full discussion with everybody concerned to get rid of the rougher edges of the Bills. Nonetheless, however, this Bill did go through the standing committee and the Bill that came out at the other end of that particular sausage machine is an infinitely better one than the one that went in.

The main object of this Bill as I read it is to remove the restrictions on Blacks owning land in urban areas, thus providing them with real rights in these areas. It also gives them a base for the generation of wealth because the ownership of property is one of the prime fundamentals in the generation of wealth. Without that right it has been virtually impossible for any person really to generate wealth. When one owns land or property one can raise loans on that and use that money for various purposes including the generating of additional wealth. By this measure we are therefore definitely bringing the Black community in the urban areas into the capitalist orbit. I think this is of course a good thing.

In terms of this Bill Blacks can now buy land in their own areas in the same manner as any other South African. There are no additional restrictions as I understand it to them buying land in their own areas. At the same time the 99-year leasehold system has been retained and I think this is a very wise move. There are many Blacks who have aspirations towards home ownership but do not have the funds to pay big deposits and registration, transfer and the other legal costs involved in home ownership. It is therefore an excellent idea to retain that system with the option ultimately of converting those leaseholds into freeholds. I think this is sound.

However, I do have one problem in this regard. Perhaps it is something that should have been raised in the other hon Houses of this Parliament, because it has been made very clear by both the Coloured and the Indian communities that they are totally opposed to group areas. I therefore wonder whether it was strictly necessary to confine this, as far as Blacks are concerned, to group areas that have been set aside for them. I wonder, in fact, if it would not have been a wise move to have consulted with the Coloured and Indian communities to see whether they would like to have the total abolition of group areas applied to their areas. I realise that this would not have been universally accepted in the White community, but in view of the statements by every political party in the House of Representatives and in the House of Delegates, I feel that this could possibly have been something that could have gone a long way towards ameliorating the problems of those particular communities, also extending the home-building and home-buying opportunities of the more affluent individuals in the communities.

Homelands for Coloureds or Indians even.

Oh, little fellow, why do you not keep your big mouth shut! [Interjections.] There are enabling provisions in this Bill which, I believe, will have the effect of streamlining the procedures for township establishment. The Government seems t me to have the idea that private developers will be encouraged to invest risk capital in housing development. Obviously any moves to streamline the procedure for making serviced land available for immediate sale are to be welcomed, and the streamlining is vitally important, because in almost any development project in South Africa one has to wade through an enormous number of procedural stages to be able to get the project off the ground. I am therefore pleased that efforts are being made to streamline this procedure, but I do want to make one comment. If it is hoped, by this system of streamlining and home-ownership, to bring the private entrepreneur, the building societies and the like into this project on a large scale, I think we may well have problems, because if the properties are bonded—if loans have been granted for this purpose—there will be a very limited clientele indeed, since they are strictly confined to being sold to other Black people.

Again, in the times in which we are living, there seems to be an unfortunate proclivity, among various people in the Black community who have differing political opinions, to use somewhat rough methods of expressing their opinions by burning their opponents’ houses down. Since one has a whole mass of people living together in one community, this manifestation is, I feel, likely to be prevalent for some time to come. I cannot help but feel that private entrepreneurs put money into housing projects to make a profit, or at least, when they are assisting in the development of homes, they want to ensure that their investments are secure. I would suggest that this is an aspect that may well have to be looked at, possibly having some sort of reinsurance for the private entrepreneur who is prepared to put money into these projects if the properties are subjected to the kind of treatment that I have mentioned. I feel that if there is some such insurance, that would certainly encourage the private sector to enter this field to a far greater degree than would otherwise be the case.

A further aspect here which I find very agreeable and which involves something that I have advocated on a number of occasions in respect of all communities including the Coloured, Indian and White communities, is that land will be made available at reasonable prices. I would go so far as to say that, if possible, it should be made available at historic prices. To that must be added, of course, the cost of developing the land.

On a number of occasions I have seen in urban areas large tracts of land that have been left unoccupied although the infrastructural services had been provided in some cases. This happened because the local authorities who own the land would persist in trying to get the full economic rate for the land and services. I believe that they are substantial losers in this regard in the long term because, while that land is owned by the local authority and not by a private occupier or owner, it does not produce rates. The consequence is that that land increases in value year after year, in terms of what has to be spent on the maintenance of even the original services, without the local authorities receiving any income from it. One also finds that the cost of land for home ownership is still rising.

This aspect of making the land available at a very reasonable price—as cheap as possible, in fact—is a very sound idea and one of the few points on which I really can commend the hon the Deputy Minister.

We have obviously waited for this Bill for a long time. When the 99-year leasehold situation was developed some years ago many of us had hopes that the Government would be wise at that time and not merely have the leasehold but also permit home-ownership. However, unfortunately they did not allow this and as a consequence a certain antagonism was built up. I do hope that this will help to alleviate that antagonism. This being the case, we in these benches are very happy to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I found the hon member Prof Olivier’s speech an extension of the Second Reading speech of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. One could actually say it was halfway to being a Second Reading speech. If one were listening afterwards when the hon member for Randburg affirmed it with enthusiasm, one wondered why the hon member Prof Olivier had not made the Second Reading speech instead.

As far as I am concerned, the hon member Prof Olivier argued from certain false premises. Firstly, in his speech he proceeded from a Pan-African premise in his argument on the Black peoples of Southern Africa. He argued as if the whole of South Africa were inhabited by a single Black nation.

Secondly, the contended that, concerning the presence of Whites in this country and land affairs, this was actually negative on the one hand and irrelevant on the other. Thirdly, he asserted that the findings of Parliament on land over the years had been dishonest, exploitative and self-enriching. Fourthly, he said the cleaning up of places like Sophiatown, Lady Selborne and others he mentioned but of which I have no personal knowledge was actually criminal.

I wish to tell the hon member that he is known as a scientist and that I was actually surprised to hear such arguments issuing from his scientific lips today. The hon member for Randburg spoke like a typical Houghton Prog. One asks oneself how a man like him ever offered himself as a candidate for the NP in 1977 or whenever it was.

Even in 1981!

It is unthinkable that he could have offered himself as an NP candidate even in 1981. He is one of those gentlemen speaking from his own charming secluded place which he can afford. In my eyes he could regain his credibility if he placed himself with his family like an Albert Schweizer or a Mother Therésa among people whose cause he pleads. He knows, however, what Blacks think of people like him and the hon member for Houghton.

The hon member for Randburg affirmed the content and spirit of the hon member Prof Olivier’s speech. Both hon members artlessly overlooked the realities according to which the old NP worked.

The first matter on which I want to tackle the hon member Prof Olivier is the fact that the South African Black community is not Pan-African in spirit or by nature. They do not form a single whole.

Tom, you are putting up your own windmills!

But that was the hon member’s argument! The hon member totally ignored the poly-ethnic nature of South Africa. The orientation of the Black South African community is toward its own people and it has remained like this over all the decades so greatly mourned by the hon member Prof Olivier. [Interjections.]

The old NP recognised the poly-ethnicity and distinctive ethnicity of the Black people of South Africa, respected these aspects and also promoted them inter alia by means of land regulations. They added land and, where this was not practically located, took it away and permitted those peoples themselves to decide on the land added to theirs. The African peoples certainly have their own principles of land tenure in their legal and social systems.

I now want to ask the hon member Prof Olivier whether at the moment there is more or less land available to the Blacks of South Africa than in 1948 and whether that land is in a better or poorer condition now. Is its quality poorer or better?

In speaking of land, the most important facet is not so much its quantity but the way in which it is utilised. A good example of this is the manner in which the Taiwanese have converted a small island into a powerhouse of industry, agriculture and food production. [Interjections.] There is also the trite example of what the Hollanders have done with their small surface area.

In comparison with these, there is the fortunate example of Africa and the Near East where land was plentiful but was exploited and ultimately became desert.

I wish to refer to other points in the Bill as well. As the hon member for Jeppe has already said, the Bill provides for the writing-off of debt and attendant matters. It is obviously in line with Government philosophy regarding the redistribution of wealth which includes the redistribution of property now too.

I think, however, there is one verity we should note. It is something we, and specifically the Government with its so-called politics of renewal, should examine much more urgently. I think it was Abraham Lincoln who said: “You cannot make a poor man rich by making a rich man poor.” I regard the mentality of the Government as very dangerous—it came to light again in the arguing of hon members who have just spoken—to deprive one in order to improve the position of another. South Africa will become an impossibly expensive country if that is the approach regarding the development of the other peoples.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I wish to ask you whether there is a quorum present in the House.

I shall request the Secretary to ascertain whether there is a quorum.

Quorum:

The attention of the presiding officer having been called to the absence of a quorum, the division bells were rung.

A quorum being present, debate resumed.

Sir, South Africa will become an impossibly expensive country, perhaps not to the same extent for the people of Randburg and Houghton but for the stabilising White middle and working classes. They are the people who will be impoverished in this process. These are the people whose tax contributions affect them most and they are the ones who will ultimately be driven from this country in consequence of the financial exploitation by this White Government for the sake of the so-called development and upliftment of the other peoples. [Interjections.]

If one makes legal provision for something which I believe already exists inherently in the case of any council, such as the writing-off for good reason of debt of whatever nature arising from the provision of municipal services, one is creating channels in advance for the evasion of payment of debts. [Interjections.] By doing this, one is actually telling people that, if they merely phrase their reasons correctly, this duty which actually arises from a privilege will not be imposed upon them. I think even socialists do not believe in such an approach!

To my mind, future generations in this country will be very severely affected by the results of this mentality. As we are now occupied in development for a new South Africa, I think emphasis should fall on the responsibility of all inhabitants of the so-called new South Africa to honour their financial obligations. I think we already have to do with a situation in which millions upon millions are owing in outstanding debts for services provided in Black municipal areas on the Rand. On whom are the financial obligations for the provision of those services to be dumped? They are not only passed onto the other people living in the same municipal areas but ripple outwards increasingly.

The ethnic policy of the old NP, the first NP, provided every people with a country in which it could make what arrangements it wished about land. Today the Blacks are free to buy land in Venda. People working for me own land there and they build houses on it. Black people can buy land in Lebowa and do hon members know on what conditions they are able to acquire that land? They obtain quite a large piece of land—I think one may call it an acre or more—for R60, they pay an immediate R10 and the rest in instalments of R10 per annum. That is what is happening at present. Where else in the world could one purchase the type of land they are able to obtain at that reasonable price? It is being given away. It is certainly a fact that they are not only able to buy land today but, to all intents and purposes, receive it as a present. They obtain land for the price of five dozen bottles of Coca Cola. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Bellville said CP members had accepted the concept of property rights and I want to ask him where we did that. He uttered a witticism and said that, if one accepted leasehold, one accepted property rights.

Yes.

I want to ask him why leasehold and property rights both exist in that case. Why does he make such a fuss about leasehold it it actually signifies full rights of ownership? Why? If he claims leasehold and property rights are the same, why does he not let leasehold suffice? [Interjections.]

Leasehold is a cheaper form of the ownership of property.

I think the hon member was present at a meeting of Dr Piet Koornhof’s caucus group when he was still a Minister. I think this took place during the week before they put us out of the NP. [Interjections.] The Minister at the time came to the caucus group with a Bill by means of which he wanted to grant property rights to Black local authorities in White areas. That was a meeting of the caucus group which attracted a very large attendance. I do not know whether the hon member was there…

I was there.

He was there. I was one of the members who took a strong line at the meeting of the caucus group against the right of Black local authorities to own land in White areas. I cannot recall that the hon member for Bellville opposed me that day. To tell the truth, I do not think any of the members of the caucus expressed very strong views against my standpoint. [Interjections.]

That Friday I encountered the Minister concerned in a lift and then he said to me: “I shall never be able to get property rights for the Blacks through the caucus now as a result of your standpoint.” That was our point of view in the that NP caucus and it was accepted as such—to the extent that it was probably a contributory factor to our being manoeuvred out.

Tom, are you sure all those members with you over there agree or agreed?

Well, I do not know. They sit with me in the same party and we do not have a new CP and an old CP; there is not a leftist CP and a rightist CP. [Interjections.] The CP is not like the NP which has 38 identified members known as the New Nationalists and whose photographs are taken. [Interjections.] When one looks at the hon member for Randburg’s smug face, one sees him basking in self-satisfaction as a new Prog Nationalist in the NP. [Interjections.] That was my standpoint and that of my colleagues on Black land tenure in White areas.

I wish to respond to the hon member Prof Olivier’s reference to Sophiatown and Lady Selborne which he phrased here today as if the NP had supposedly committed a crime at the time when they cleaned up those places. I do not know how many hon members were at all well informed on what places like Lady Selborne and Sophiatown looked like. If the hon member Prof Olivier presents those places as examples of private land ownership for Blacks, he should advocate that there never again be private land tenure for Blacks—if he is a sociologist. Some of the most horrendous social conditions on earth in which human beings could find themselves existed there. I do not think there was anything like health services, health facilities and hygienic conditions; the septic was prominent there. They were cesspools of crime but, above all, they were places in which economic exploitation of the most atrocious nature occurred. Someone who wants to present Sophiatown or Lady Selborne as the ideal is no agent for those people.

I was talking about property rights!

I am getting to property rights. Those people formed part of the process of property rights and could therefore own property but as a result were plunged into those appalling conditions. How many of them had property rights in the sense that they had a clear title and deeds of transfer? [Interjections.] If Sophiatown and Lady Selborne had still existed today, most of those people would still have been paying off those properties to the third and fourth generations. Black people came to me in my professional capacity with deeds of transfer in terms of which they had already paid hundreds of pounds, more than the initial price. If they made enquiries about this, they discovered various errors in their deeds or they owed more than the original purchase price because of some interest clause or other in such a deed of transfer or mortgage bond. They knew nothing about this and just paid their instalments tamely. Many people grew very rich on the expectations they created among others. I think hon members are also aware of such matters.

The hon member Prof Olivier spoke mockingly about Triomf—to say the least of it. Triomf was a black spot. If Triomf had been developed for Black people again, it would have fallen within White residential areas without doubt. [Interjections.] Which of the two would the hon member have preferred? Would he have preferred a Black residential area among the Whites or would he have wished for those Black slum areas to remain adjacent to a White residential area?

That is the problem with leftists like the hon gentleman Prof Olivier. They rise so easily and make such eloquent, stirring and reproachful speeches which are as far removed from reality as the East from the West. [Interjections.] And then he is praised internationally and internally for his excellent words. He had no inkling, however, of the realities behind his pronouncements and criticisms.

With this legislation, this Government is putting the clock back by about 50 to 60 years in South Africa. This Bill also provides for private township developers. I assume this is in line with its policy of privatisation. Private individuals and therefore companies and consortiums of Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks as well will be able to develop Black towns now. We had sufficient experience of that in the past, however. Such people were the greatest exploiters of the Blacks and were responsible for the most atrocious conditions and concentrations of people yet to have arisen in South Africa. I am afraid this legislation is putting back the clock and creating opportunities as regards a repetition of this too.

When a conservative government comes to power again, when a truly national government like those of Prime Ministers before Mr P W Botha is in control again, we shall have to start afresh on this work—as they did.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Soutpansberg remarked that South Africa would become an expensive country in future. He added that this would necessarily result in the impoverishment of the Whites. I think that one will have to accept that impoverishment, specifically of the Whites, is to an extent the inevitable result of efforts to maintain order and stability in a country in which the First and Third Worlds meet. However I want to point out to the hon member for Soutpansberg that it is not solely the consequence of the policy applied by the NP. If the CP were to apply its policy of partition a price would have to be paid too. I do not object to paying a price for a policy, but the fact is that any future policy in South Africa will be expensive. I repeat however that no price is too much to pay for order and stability.

I want to reply to a second argument of the hon member for Soutpansberg. He referred to the phenomenon that there are people in Black communities who, owing to intimidation, do not meet their financial commitments. That is true. However, there is another side to the situation as well. I want to refer specifically to the Black town in Randfontein where despite intimidation the Black people have gone out of their way to negotiate for themselves ways and means of meeting their obligations.

That is because Connie Mulder is there.

No, Sir, it is on the initiative of that Black town council of Mohlakeng that has remained in close contact with its people.

I think that if one has a good cause one needs only a few minutes to state it and that is what I am going to do now. I support this Bill for two main reasons. Autonomous Black local government bodies are stated NP policy. This was also the case under the previous Prime Minister, Mr Vorster. However it seems to me that property rights are an essential prerequisite to give effect to this policy of autonomous Black local government bodies.

Do not talk nonsense now.

It is not nonsense. How can it be nonsense? [Interjections.]

Without a healthy, stable community basis this idea of an autonomous Black local government is an idea that hangs in the air. [Interjections.] A healthy, stable community basis is in my opinion totally dependent on the granting of property rights. No White local government body could function as such without a basis of property rights as an infrastructure and the same goes for any other government body. Strictly speaking the ideal situation would in my opinion be for the policy of separate local government bodies to be preceded by property rights.

I want to compare this with what happened in the homelands. When the homeland policy was announced the Tomlinson Commission stated that its success would be subject to the development of those areas. The Tomlinson Commission recommended that £104 000 should immediately be appropriated for this purpose at the time. It was then argued that that was too expensive, that development was delayed, and today we are paying the price for that. Once again I want to say that I think that if property rights were to be granted to Black people now in their own residential areas then that would prevent this policy of separate Black government bodies from coming to grief too.

A second point I wish to raise to explain why I support this Bill is the fact that the private sector is now also being involved in the provision of housing for Black people in Black residential areas. I think it is unfair that this aspect should always be regarded as the sole responsibility of the State. On one occasion some years ago someone said that the persons or bodies who made large-scale use of the labour of Natives should be obliged to contribute towards housing as well. That person was Dr Verwoerd and I believe that this Bill also gives specific effect to that idea.

It is also the case that in about 1979 the Black people invested a total of R150 million in building societies but were unable to make use of loans to build houses in their own residential areas. I think that this matter is also being rectified by this Bill because Black people too may now turn to building societies to meet their own housing needs.

I take pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Randfontein began by saying that whether one had a policy of partition in South Africa or the policy in the direction in which the Government is now moving, one would have to pay a price but that one had to be prepared to make the sacrafice for the sake of order and stability. Those are true words, and we cannot argue with the hon member about that. However, does he want the order and stability for the Whites that the Whites have in Zimbabwe at present or does he want the order and stability that the Whites have in, say, a European country? To which of those positions would he give preference?

Do not be so simplistic. [Interjections.]

The Government has simply not learned from what has happened to the Whites north of the Limpopo.

Shortsighted people learn nothing.

Apart from shortsightedness, these are people who were schooled in the tradition and idiom of the NP and who grew up in it. Those matters which we have discussed with one another in the past few decades—those highlights in the history of the NP—are now being disposed of by the stroke of a pen and they are behaving as if they never existed, and this for the sake of an uncertain, dark future that the NP is moving towards now. For the rest, no one sitting on that side of the House can give us an answer as to the direction they are moving in. I cannot understand how an intelligent man like the hon member for Randfontein can accept that without further ado. It astonishes me to encounter that attitude on the part of a man who thinks in terms of principles as he does and who, judging from my discussions with him over the years, has stood so firmly by and dedicated himself to what we all suffered and battled for. When one thinks of the sacrifices people have made for that NP throughout their lives, and those of one’s parents, their family and friends, and one sees that that is what they are making of it, one must be careful not to use the words that occur to one.

The hon member said that property rights were a prerequisite for participation in local governments. The latest figures I have for Germiston in this regard indicate that between 30% and 40% of the inhabitants of that city are owners of the land on which they reside; but Germiston functions. The main problem that hon members of the NP are trying to address is that of rates. However, I shall come back to that in a moment. It is a question of rates required to generate funds to administer those towns. That is the underlying motive; it is not the great, noble motive of property rights for Blacks. It is a matter of rates that they want to impose and as such it is an evil.

Are rates an evil?

I say they are an evil.

Must they be abolished?

Does the hon member want to put a question to me in that regard? I just want to say to the hon member for Randburg that rates constitute tax on a capital asset a tax which continue to grow. In other words, there is no justification for it. Tax should be levied on revenue. A land-owner who leases his property to someone can pay tax because that property affords him an income, but property that one occupies oneself, the value of which increases every two years, is another matter. I think that the hon member made his maiden speech about that. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, if it is the standpoint of the hon member that tax should be levied on income, does he reject all other tax based on capital assets, on expenditure, such as sales tax, and so on?

The position is that there are various types of tax, including sales tax. [Interjections.] The fact is that sales tax is more acceptable to me than rates, because that means that one voluntarily goes to the shop to buy something which perhaps in normal circumstances one would not need.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is today regarded as the end of the session? [Interjections.]

Order! I would not be able to comment on that, but the rule is that anybody can at any time wear a hat, provided that he sits in his seat [Interjections.] The hon member may proceed. [Interjections.]

I should like to argue that point further with the hon member for Randburg but I think that he would do well to go and read his maiden speech and I think he will agree with me.

But that is in the past. [Interjections.]

It is a method used to squeeze the poor taxpayer in the residential areas of South Africa. I said a moment ago that that property is inevitably revalued at a higher rate every two years irrespective of rises or falls in the market. Then additional rates are imposed on that value but the services offered are not in relation to the increase in rates. Therefore the situation is that whereas previously one paid, say, R30 to R50 per month in income tax, what it now amounts to is that owing to rates and levies on refuse removal, sewage, sanitary facilities and so on, one is increasingly renting one’s house from the local authorities. [Interjections.] It is a fact, but in any event I want to come back to that. I am pleased that the hon member for Randburg is in such a good mood. I only wish that I, too, could be in such a good mood. One day, when we were both in the NP, he and I held a discussion about this matter when discussions were being conducted with Assocom. We were asked whether Black people should have property rights in White South Africa. The hon member for Randburg then said: “Yes, of course!” That was still in Mr Vorster’s time.

He was right.

Yes, he was right, but at the time the hon members for Water-kloof, Schweizer Reneke and others such as the hon the Deputy Minister would have crucified him for that. He said it in very confidential circumstances and not in open meetings. Like a shy Prog he has derived a great deal of pleasure over the past two weeks from the abandonment, at a stroke of a pen, of the traditional and recognised policy of the NP. However, what I find troubling and regrettable is that the hon the Deputy Minister who dealt with the Bill today was entrusted with it, because I cannot believe that his heart and soul is in this legislation. He is merely doing work entrusted to him. Even if he were to tell me so, he must excuse me if I believe the contrary. I shall read a quotation and then the hon the Deputy Minister must tell me whether this is terminology that he would use:

I do not know how one does it, but those are the words someone uses who has probably never seen a team of oxen drawing a wagon. I quote further:

I cannot believe that the hon the Deputy Minister would use such language. There is only one person from whom I would expect such language and that is why I prepared my speech in those terms as well.

He is only accustomed to working with mules.

Once again the Government thinks that if it uses the word “reform” then that will be the magic wand which, upon being waved, all of a sudden makes unacceptable measures acceptable. All that is necessary is that something must be done in the name of reform. If one capitulates, if one sells out the rights of the Whites, if one abandons what one has believed in for decades, but does so in the name of reform, then one’s sins are forgiven. That is, as it were, the sugar on the pill.

I do not know whether the hon member for Bellville is present now but I just want to reply to him on the issue of leasehold and ownership rights. If he says that leasehold and ownership rights are the same—and here I want to associate myself with the hon member for Soutpansberg—then he had better go and have a look at the Bill itself. The Bill itself distinguishes between ownership rights and leasehold. If, then, one still says that it is the same thing, then you must go and read the Bill again or tell us why leasehold is a separate chapter in the Bill. The hon member also wants to take into consideration the situation in Hong Kong. At the end of the decade Hong Kong has to be returned to Red China, but negotiations are being conducted in this regard at present in order to find a method to try to retain Britain’s hold on Hong Kong. Surely that is not ownership, or does the hon the Deputy Minister of Trade and Industry think it is.

No.

Very well then, we need argue no further about the matter.

Mr Chairman, will the hon member not concede that the hon member for Bellville said that the 99-year period of leasehold, which always begins anew, has precisely the same effect as ownership rights?

What its legal meaning is is one question, and its practical significance is something else. [Interjections.] The fact remains that when one grants leasehold to a person the bare title is still on one’s own name. That land belongs to White South Africa.

If the situation is as the hon member for Randburg and hon members of the PFP want it to be—that is the next point I want to make—then is the Government going to permit Whites to acquire property rights on land in the national states? Will that be permitted? Will all those sacrifices made by so many Whites in South Africa over such a long period, in that they had to forfeit their land for the sake of an ideal, be for nothing so that that land in the national states may be bought back? This is the question of discrimination. We made 7,25 million morgen of land available to provide further land for Blacks in terms of the 1936 Act. Now Black people are getting ownership rights over still more land in White South Africa and we are not getting, in return, the opportunity to purchase land in the national states. After all, discrimination is not discrimination when it operates against the Whites!

Let the hon the Deputy Minister reply to that.

Yes, I should be obliged. If the hon the Minister of Trade and Industry would only give him a chance to listen to me. That hon Deputy Minister, together with former Minister Braam Raubenheimer and others, experienced the entire history of the tension and heartache that was experienced and the sacrifices made over the years to make that 7,25 million morgen of land available for the provision of national states. They lost those ownership rights, and here the matter is being taken further in that ownership rights are now being granted to Blacks in the White areas as well. Is the hon the Deputy Minister going to give Whites the right to purchase land in the national states again? [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members are conversing too loudly in this House. I can hear every word hon members at the back of the House are saying. The hon member for Brakpan may proceed.

In the name of reform South Africa is being sacrified, no longer systematically, but hastily, half nervously, desperately, without resistance and without bloodshed. In these dying moments—this word has been used before—of the first part of this session this exceptionally important legislation is being pushed through this House in dictatorial fashion while in the process the Government is not even getting the credit from the left wing that they are supposed to get and there is no interest in this kind of thing in the public galleries or the Press. Merely for the edification of a certain hon Minister we have to sit here hour after hour, day and night, to satisfy his new way of thinking so as to give South Africa away to a Black majority hastily, nervously, desperately, without resistance or bloodshed.

The hon the Minister who made this second reading speech here, himself cast a brief glance at history, which is at least evidence of the consistent approach of Governments over the years in regard to property rights for Blacks in the White area. According to this dictatorial and intolerant Minister South Africa’s leaders in all four of the provinces have been in their years of puberty all this time since our first contact with Blacks. It is only he who has attained to omniscient maturity. All his other predecessors in the National Party—right from General Hertzog, in 1914—were pubescents.

Adolescents!

This policy of withholding property rights in White areas all those years… [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, I do not know what the problem of the hon the Minister of Trade and Industry is.

He feels guilty!

If he wants to participate in the debate then he is free to do so. [Interjections.] Sir, is it not priceless that only one of the present leaders of the National Party wants to present himself as mature? However, all the people over the years, since 1912, who built up the National Party were then adolescents, as the hon member for Sasolburg puts it. Adolescents! Now all of a sudden the National Party is omniscient. Those principles in which we believed and that we professed while we were still in the National Party are principles that they now laugh at. That is why there are no longer even quorums in this House when those things are being discussed. They are of course unable to discuss them any more, Sir. They cannot, because they can no longer speak with conviction. Only the enlightened among them can still speak with conviction. The hon the Minister of Trade and Industry can still speak with conviction—as can the hon member for Helderkruin, the hon member for Randburg, the hon member for Krugersdorp and so on. Only they can still speak with conviction about this. The vast majority of those hon members, who in fact give the party its strength, cannot participate in this debate. They cannot participate in this debate without…

Without denying themselves!

Without their eyes getting moist or without denying themselves.

What is more, they do not even have the strength any more!

They do not know where they are going. They barely know where they come from any more.

Oom Koot even has his funeral hat on!

Yes! [Interjections.] Sir, that hon Minister reminds me of what Adolf Hitler once said. He said: “I cannot escape destiny; it haunts me night and day.” The whole world knows what Adlof Hitler’s eventual destiny was—“I cannot escape destiny; it haunts me night and day.”

In his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister repeats the words uttered by the State President in 1985, and I believe it is desirable that we place them on record here once again:

In reply to this I just want to say to the hon the Minister—apart from what the hon member for Jeppe said—that already political rights have been given to the Black people and this of course means that what the hon the Minister said in his speech has become irrelevant. Therefore I just want to put this to the hon the Minister for his consideration. When one gives property rights to two or three million Black people in the White areas it is inevitable that those demands for political rights will increase and that the momentum in the direction of a unitary state ultimately cannot be checked.

That is undoubtedly true!

It is simply logical that this has to happen. However, before it granted property rights to the Blacks, the Government promised them power-sharing in a unitary state. It promises them powersharing and joint decision-making at a level even higher than that of the Cabinet.

In the Bill, the memorandum and the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech an effort is also made to bring about so-called orderly urbanisation. Once again, however, the terminology used is woolly. Such terms are used as greater streamlining in order to bring about township development. Of course this is said without it really being set out clearly, and without account being taken of the problems that have caused powerful township developers to end up in the insolvency and liquidation courts in the past.

Do hon members know why large companies such as Glen Anil, S L van Agterberg and Corlett Drive Estates and that type of township developing company were liquidated? In fact they went bankrupt specifically because there were so many problems in connection with the laying of roads, electricity wires and other overhead development. They were simply unable to carry on with their township development and bring it to completion quickly so that they could get their money back more quickly. The donations they made to local authorities earned no interest for years and years. Large and powerful companies were liquidated specifically as a result of all the problems they experienced due to the red tape of local as well as central Government. We should now like to see what the hon the Deputy Minister suggests as to how this red tape—it is not indicated in the Bill—will be eliminated by way of visits to the offices of the Ministry.

I should now like to refer to a second letter. It appears in Die Burger of 24 June 1986 and was written by someone from Stellenbosch who calls himself “Vrae wat Pla”. This reader has a few very interesting remarks about the issue of influx control and orderly urbanisation that I should like to quote to the hon the Deputy Minister. He writes:

He is referring to the comments made by the Minister on a previous letter by this reader—

In the same way there are many South Africans walking about the streets of South Africa at this stage who are also saying that the things that worry them have by no means been dealt with.

Yes, and they are Nationalists too.

The letter goes on:

Later on in his letter he writes about orderly urbanisation:

With reference to a statement made by a Nationalist MP on Monday, 9 June, in the House of Assembly to the effect that apartheid had been finally buried, the reader said:

He was referring here to the Group Areas Act. He continued:

Here he also replied to the hon member for Randfontein:

Then he says that the Government should not approach academics and extra parliamentary groups who sit in ivory towers, and in that way work out solutions to our problems.

Dr Andreas Van Wyk, among others.

He says the hon the Minister should ask an ordinary voter in Maitland, Parow and Goodwood. He only does not speak about Ventersdorp, but I think that in July the hon the Deputy Minister and I can go and speak to the ordinary voter in Ventersdorp a little. We can then go and tell that voter what has happened in the House of Assembly over the past ten days.

Are you ready for that, Ben?

The hon the Deputy Minister must go and speak to the people with whom he has lost contact, and he must stay away from the ivory towers and the academics that are driving South Africa into the abyss. [Interjections.]

I now come to Clause 6 which is in fact the crux of this Bill. We should in fact link what I have just said to what appears in Clause 6. In fact it forms part of the White Paper on Urbanisation. In this regard I want the hon the Minister to spell out for us how this so-called “orderly urbanisation” is in fact going to be achieved. Once again—or so it seems—there is going to be discrimination against the Whites. In the proposed new Clause 33 as contained in Clause 6 the following appears:

1. (2) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Black Local Authorities Act, 1982 (Act No. 102 of 1982), or any other law, land in a development area may be acquired by—
   1. (a) a local authority which requires such land for the present or future exercise of its powers and the present or future performance of its functions;

It is also provided—I do not know whether it is in this specific clause—that the township developers are not obliged to deal with certain red tape and that matters are being made easier for them. I have already pointed this out.

My friend, the hon member for Jeppe, referred to Clause 17(b) which authorises the local authority to write off the account in respect of services and so forth. I would like to know whether the hon the Deputy Minister can show me incidents or places where the same has been done in respect of White people. If he cannot do so, then this is once again an example of reverse discrimination. This legislation is now being hailed as the end of certain discriminatory measures, since it is contended that Black people are now able to acquire land in White areas. Mercifully, at this stage this is not yet the case with all White areas. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I listened attentively to the hon member for Brakpan, and it is very clear that he put an enormous amount of work into his preparation for the discussion of this Bill. I must honestly say that I think it is a good thing that he, and not I, won in Brakpan in 1972. Just think what we would have missed if the hon member had not been in the House today. [Interjections.] That was an enjoyable by-election, but I would never have dreamt that he and I would be waging this struggle together as we are doing today. It only goes to show once again that one need only give things a little time and certain things will happen which—so we believe, in any event—are for the salvation of our people and fatherland. [Interjections.]

This legislation repudiates Dr Verwoerd. The hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid…

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member, on the basis of the statements he has just made, whether it is he or the hon member for Brakpan who has changed since that time?

No, we differed at that time, but today we are in agreement.

Who changed, then? [Interjections.]

Today we vote together on all the important issues, and hon members know for themselves what the issue was at that time. Today, however, the hon member and I fully endorse the important issues in South African politics—in that context we are on the same side. [Interjections.]

Who changed?

That hon member has just cut me a little short. [Interjections.] This legislation repudiates Dr Verwoerd. It is not the first time during this session that something like this has happened. A little while ago the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid repudiated Dr Verwoerd’s Black education policy, and that caused quite a stir. There were articles in the Press about it. Here, however, we have a repudiation of an even more fundamental standpoint of the late Dr Verwoerd, namely that the Black man should not have any land rights in White South Africa, that the Black man would receive and retain his land rights where he had always had them, in his own fatherland or homeland. On the other hand, Dr Verwoerd said, the White man alone—I am leaving aside the Coloureds for the moment—would possess all the land in White South Africa. We also extended Dr Verwoerd’s principle—I stress the word “principle”—to the Coloureds, something which Dr Verwoerd did not do in his time, by saying that if we were to come to power, we would make the Verwoerd policy in respect of Black peoples applicable to the Coloured people as well, and that the Coloured people would be given a homeland. The broad outline of this principle was published in Die Burger after the by-election in George. Die Burger approached me, I described it to them in broad outline, and they reported it absolutely correctly. I do not believe I need elaborate on it. We who have not been in this House for a long time, sometimes gain the impression that there are two categories of hon member sitting on the other side of this House. Some of them know full well what Dr Verwoerd’s policy was, but they have betrayed it. They did endorse it once, as I endorsed it and in fact still endorse it. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is one of them. [Interjections.] He once congratulated me in the Cape Provincial Council when I outlined Dr Verwoerd’s homeland policy there. He wished me luck and said that my speech had been worth listening to. [Interjections.] There was never the slightest indication, at all those congresses, that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning did not endorse Dr Verwoerd’s stand-points wholeheartedly. [Interjections.] Not the slightest, Mr chairman! I do not suspect him of having been dishonest at that time. In my opinion he really did endorse it. I believe he stood by it just as I stood by it. He paid his NP membership fees every year just as I paid mine in the conviction that the policy of his party and mine was correct. Today, of course, we also have members like the hon member Mr Van Staden. He knows what Dr Verwoerd’s policy was. There are quite a number of other hon members like that sitting on that side of the House. However, there is another category in the National Party as well. There is another category of which I have become aware now, at the end of this session.

Whether they were busy courting in those years, or furthering their careers or getting married, I do not know, but they never really knew what Dr Verwoerd’s policy was. The hon member for Randburg is one of them. The hon member for Innesdal is another. The hon member for Krugersdorp is one of them par excellence. They are apparently a new generation who grew up without any knowledge of the fundamental basis of the late Dr Verwoerd’s policy for South Africa. [Interjections.] Therefore, we on this side of the House now have the task of enlightening those gentlemen. I cannot expound Dr Verwoerd’s policy of a South Africa of Father-lands in minute detail today. Just as Gen De Gaulle spoke of a Europe of Fatherlands, Dr Verwoerd spoke of a South Africa of Father-lands, by which he meant that the various Black peoples and the White people would each have a fatherland of their own in which all the land would belong to the specific people concerned.

And the Coloured people and the Indian people?

I have already stated the Coloured homeland policy, and as for the Indians we differ with the CP. We shall discuss that further in due course. [Interjections.]

In what year was that?

It does not matter what year it was! A truth or a policy stand-point was to Dr Verwoerd a perennial truth. Dr Verwoerd never said—and no one else, not even the English Press, said in his time—that his policy was only for the time in which he was living. Who has just said in this House that it was only for a certain period?

It was I!

Yes, the hon member Dr Vilonel said it.

Dr Verwoerd never said it!

Yes, he never said it. Nor did other people say it about him. Now hon members who were not in the NP at that time are saying these things. I do not know where the hon member Dr Vilonel was—perhaps he was still at school in Paarl. Dr Verwoerd’s policy was a policy for all eternity. [Interjections.] He never said his policy could be manipulated. He did not know that there were people in the ranks of his party who would later twist his policy into a policy of integration. I do not want to go into this matter any further; hon members are free to read Dr Verwoerd’s work and speeches.

If I remember correctly, the hon member Prof Olivier admitted this morning what Dr Verwoerd’s standpoint was. We know of course what the standpoint of that hon member and his party is. He said it gradually became apparent that the land which the Blacks had received, was inadequate. He said the fact that they had a smaller amount of land than the Whites, caused bitterness among the Black people.

In this regard I just want to raise two points: These are points with which one attains a great measure of success among foreigners. It may well be true that the Blacks have less land, but they have the best land in South Africa. With all due respect, the Blacks cannot make of the Western Transvaal what the Afrikaner farmer has made of it.

Or of the Karoo!

Yes, or of the Karoo. This does not mean that we are saying to the Black people that in the light of what we have made of the Karoo and the Western Transvaal, they must now give us the Eastern Seaboard so that they may see what we can make of that. We never claim the Black people’s heartlands or fatherlands.

We know that they are occupying the best land. It has the most fertile soil, and the highest rainfall. The hon member for King William’s Town has in the past told me that I should come and see what the Transkei really looks like, because I have only driven through it a few times. Then I would possibly be able to form a mental picture of what a White farmer could make of the Transkei. Even though we could make a heavenly paradise of it, even though we could make more of it than the rest of South Africa put together, we shall not do it, we do not want to do it and we are not going to do it, because it is the Black man’s. We shall defend the Black man’s right to his fatherland, just as the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North said the other evening that he would defend my right to state my standpoint in this country “to the death”, as Voltaire put it, if it came to that.

We must understand each other perfectly today. The hon member Prof Olivier waxed lyrical here today about inadequacy, but what is the cause of that inadequacy? It arises inter alia out of the Black man’s population growth. We are not making him multiply; he is multiplying of his own volition. Morever it is his right to multiply as he wishes, but then he must accept responsibility for every Black baby born in South Africa. He may become as bitter as he wishes, but his bitterness does not impose the responsibility for keeping his population growth in check, upon me and my people.

In the same way, the hon member for Hillbrow will not accept responsibility for the population growth of the Arabs in Israel. The Arabs multiply far more quickly than the Israeli’s. The hon member for Hillbrow is not going to accept responsibility for them. He will never do so, and I can understand why he will not do so. In the same way, he must understand why I will not do it for the Black man.

The hon member is an adherent of the Jewish faith, and I assume he is very sympathetic towards Israel. He can very well understand Israel’s fear about the tremendous increase in numbers in the Islamic world and their concern about the population growth among those Arabs who are still in Israel. If the hon member understands that, then I ask him also to understand how we Afrikaners feel. What are Israel’s problems in comparison to ours? They are a drop in the ocean!

No, we do not accept responsibility for the population growth of the Blacks; we only accept responsibility for our own population growth. Like the White man and the Afrikaner, the Black man is subject to the laws of nature. If he does not work, he will die of hunger. If he multiplies at a faster rate than his land can accommodate the people, then he, not I, must pay the price. I am under no obligation to relinquish land to the Blacks if they are multiplying so rapidly that they cannot bear their own responsibilities.

Following in the footsteps of the hon member Prof Olivier, the hon member for Randburg, who is one of the “New Nats”, referred sure enough to the mistakes of the past. If the hon member is right, then Kruger, Hertzog, Malan, Strijdom and Verwoerd were wrong, because they all stood for a policy of separation in South Africa. That basic principle was endorsed by them all.

The hon member for Randburg is emphatic that in a cultural sense he feels very strongly about his Afrikanerdom. I must agree with him. It is almost impossible for me to understand, but I do not doubt his sincerity as an Afrikaner.

However, I want to ask him to look in a mirror and to ask himself: “Hon member for Randburg, is it a trait of Afrikanerdom to want to share your fatherland with the Black man at all costs?” I am now talking about ethnicity and nationality; I am even leaving aside the question of race for the moment. How is the hon member going to appear if he looks in a morror and asks himself that question? [Interjections.] He must know that we are asking ourselves the question: How does the hon member for Randburg reconcile the story that he is a staunch Afrikaner—I accept it—with the fact that he is prepared to share his entire fatherland with all the Blacks? It is beyond me.

Just as with the English-speaking people!

As far as the question of the population growth of the Blacks is concerned, I want to quote examples which have been used time and again in the past by political commentators such as Piet Cillié, Schalk Pienaar and Dirk de Villiers. China today has more than 1 000 million people, and Russia 270 million. Russia has approximately four times as much land as China. China is telling Russia: Aside from the fact that I have so many inhabitants and poorer land than you, while you have few people and a lot of land, large parts of Soviet Russia were mine for long periods. As a result of this, there is tension between Russia and China. If we set aside the claims regarding who possessed what, we must ask whether China has the right to tell Russia that it must relinquish Siberia because China has so many people and Russia so few. Of course not!

We can also leave those two communist countries out of this. Belgium has the highest population density in Europe. Does that give Belgium the right to tell West Germany that it must cede land to it because Belgium has so many more people? If Belgium were to do that, West Germany would box its ears. Belgium does not even have the right to send its citizens into West Germany in search of work. [Interjections.]

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

I shall give the hon member an opportunity later on, Sir.

I also want to say something about the mighty USA with its way of thinking and liberal philosophy of life and world view, but first I should just like to refer once again to the hon member for Randburg. He said the other evening that he did not have an ideology. It may be that he does not know he has one, but he does in fact have one. Everyone has a philosophy of life and a world view. It may be tatty or in a muddle, and it may consist of bits and pieces; it may even be self-contradictory—but everyone has a philosophy according to which he orders his life, and according to which he attaches value to and explains his actions. [Interjections.]

The hon member should look into the mirror a second time and tell himself: “Wynand”—I beg your pardon—“Hon member for Randburg, see what a man without an ideology looks like; it is you!” I feel sure that he could turn away from that mirror and say: “Mirror, mirror on the wall, you did not tell the truth today; the hon member for Sasolburg told the truth.” [Interjections.] He does have an ideology; it is just that he still has to find out what it is.

I shall explain what the problem with his ideology is.

Seer Stofberg!

There is a fundamental split in his ideology.

That is schizophrenia!

I am not saying he suffers from schizophrenia, because he does not seem that sort of person to me, but in his fundamental thinking he has not succeeded in integrating his principles. No single pattern has emerged from it, and there is an absence of the conherence which exists in most people. That is not to say that there is something wrong with him in the bad sense of the word, but I just want to tell him that he does have an ideology. It is a very sad thing, however, that it is not the sort of ideology upon which South Africa can build its future. South Africa’s future cannot be built upon a divided philosophy of life and world-view. The ideal in relation to South Africa and the Afrikaner people’s future must be deeply rooted in the philosophy of life and world-view of the people. In fact, this is something that has always been true of the Afrikaner people.

According to the hon member Prof Olivier there is some bitterness among the Black people because they do not have as much land as we do. The Government has now accepted the principle that all the Blacks throughout South Africa may own land, apart from in the White areas for the time being. What I am talking about, is the principle that they will not be prevented from owning land in Soweto, Babalegi, Zamdela, or wherever. If that is the approach, it means that the White man does not have any land exclusively for himself, unless the Government places this on a numerical basis and tells the White man that 15% of the land will remain his, but his population growth rate is at present so low that within a short space of time he would probably represent only 11% of the country’s population, and as his numbers dwindle, so his claim to land in South Africa will dwindle as well. [Interjections.]

That is what the hon members are doing! [Interjections.] If the measures in this Bill are accepted—hon members must not try to contradict me in this regard—then the door will be opened for a Black man in the existing Black residential areas, and in due course throughout South Africa, to obtain property rights on any piece of land. [Interjections.] In this way the White man is being pushed further and further back. He is being broken by being told that his right is based only upon his numerical position.

In that case, Sir, the White man lost before he started! [Interjections.] In that case he had already lost the day he stepped ashore in the Cape! The Trekkers who took part in the Great Trek were in the minority in comparison to the Blacks, and yet in respect of the latter some people still say today that it was a raid. They do not say it was a Great Trek out of which the Afrikaner people was born; they say it was a raid into Africa! For us it was the birth of a nation. [Interjections.] After all, during the Second War of Independence we might then just as well have surrendered at the beginning of the struggle due to our numerical position. No, I am sorry; it does not work like that.

Those people who are basing the Afrikaner’s right to a fatherland in South Africa on his inferior numbers, are, as it were, thrusting a dagger into the heart of their own nation! [Interjections.] What is more, it is not being done from the front; it is being done from behind! People are stabbing a knife into the back of the Afrikaner people in adopting that standpoint.

That is an untruth!

Sir, one may listen to the speeches of people such as the hon member Dr Vilonel, the hon member Prof Olivier and the hon member for Randburg or any other left-wing spokesman in this House, and one will note that the point of departure in each case is the numerical basis.

I have never said that.

It is true that they do not say it, Sir—I know they will argue and claim that they did not say so—but one has to read that message in the light of an underlying principle. It is not something which the spokesman keeps repeating! Furthermore, we are not so stupid that we cannot see that it is a left-winger who advocates a numerical basis as the guideline for division of land in Southern Africa, and a rightwinger who protests against it! That is how simple it is!

I now come to another matter, namely the question of finance. The hon member for Randburg said, for example—I am glad he is here—that we should stop talking about White money and Black money; we should rather speak of rich and poor money.

Daan also said that. [Interjections.]

No, wait a moment! That is what the hon member for Randburg said. Of course, he said it in response to the standpoint voiced by the HNP and the other right-wingers that the White man is becoming impoverished in his own fatherland as a result of this Government’s economic policy. We point out that a transfer of riches is in progress from the White man to the non-Whites—of course it is also flowing to that small group of people with big money, but let us leave them aside for the time being—as a consequence of the Government’s taxation policy and the high inflation rate, for example. Unfortunately, I cannot go into the details now.

The appeal that it is the rich people’s money that should go to the poor people, is once again a play on the sickly sentimentality of the left-wingers. The left-wingers are forever full of compassion for the next man. In my opinion there is something psychologically wrong with such a person. [Interjections.] We should all love our neighbours, but we should love them as we love ourselves. They forget about self-love. They ignore it completely and do not take it into consideration. [Interjections.] One cannot really love one’s neighbour if one does not also love oneself. The command is not that one must love only one’s neighbour. That is not what is written. [Interjections.] There is a sickly, sentimental pity for the other man, whilst they set aside pity and compassion for their own people.

The point is—in this regard I also want to come to the hon the Minister of Finance who stood in here this morning—that it is only the White man who is becoming impoverished in South Africa. That is the objection. As the hon member for Rissik said, we have no objection—we have never objected to it, not in Verwoerd’s time and not now either, nor shall we do so in the future—to money being spent by the Whites in order to help the Blacks to develop, as long as it is within strictly controlled limits. [Interjections.] Wait a moment! Dr Verwoerd imposed a limitation by way of legislation on the amount of money that could be spent on Black education. [Interjections.] I want to say here today that in the relationship between peoples and nations in this country, it will only be possible to spend that money if at the same time it is also an act in the interests of the survival of the Afrikaner and the White man.

We shall help to consolidate the Black areas and we shall even add land to them. We have already added land to the Black areas, but it must fall within a pattern which will increase and not diminish the White man’s assurance of survival in South Africa. That is why I am telling the hon the Minister of Finance once again that he must not tell me these things are not true. We have given him the proof, and we have quoted the newspapers. Surely they do not all lie. Moreover, it was not just newspapers that we quoted. We quoted Volkskas and other financial institutions, and he has already received two letters from Mr Jaap Marais on this matter. We are not going to leave him alone. That hon Minister is wrong, and hon members should take note of how he has calmed down. He is now singing a different tune entirely. At the beginning of the year he said they were blatant lies. Now he says they are untruths, and this morning—well, I assume he has received Mr Marais’ second letter—he has been treating me in a far more reasonable manner than was the case until recently. We are not going to let this point rest. The Afrikaners, the White people, is the only people in South Africa which is becoming impoverished.

I do not mind the Blacks and the other non-White peoples becoming relatively more prosperous. We do not object to that, but it must not be at the expense of the White man’s progress. Must the White man alone pay the price for their economic progress? Nonsense! That is drivel, and we will not allow it. We have no objection to them improving their economic position by their own efforts and with a certain amount of help from us, but at the moment this Government and the hon the Minister of Finance are implementing an economic policy in South Africa which is only impoverishing White people. All the others are prospering, relatively and absolutely, while it is only the White population group that is becoming impoverished.

The hon the Minister of Finance then went on to say here that the problem with us right-wingers—of course he was alluding to me in particular—was that we had been in the wilderness for so long, that we had sat brooding there and had stuck together and told each other the same story over and over again; and that consequently we were wrong. [Interjections.] I now want to tell the hon the Minister that in the years I was in the wilderness, I travelled not much less than 800 000 km in the interests of the HNP. There is not a town in South West Africa where I have not held a meeting. [Interjections.] Apart from Omaruru there is not a town in South West Africa where I have not held a meeting. There is not a part of the country that I did not come to know. I who am a former Bolander, even learnt how to find my way in the Bushveld of the Transvaal. During all those years we spoke to the people and the people spoke to us by way of questions. [Interjections.]

When we left the NP, Dr Hertzog said to us: “My friends, things were destined to be this way. We must go and learn afresh, understand afresh and discover anew the problematic nature are of the Afrikaner people’s struggle for survival in Southern Africa.” We did so by holding meetings for every community—English and Afrikaans-speaking people, students and all other categories of people. They spoke to us by asking questions and, as hon members know, many other discussions were held as well.

The ones who sat brooding were those who continued to sit in the NP in this House. It is they who are still sitting in the NP. The CPs broke away and today they are waging a struggle, as they have been doing for the past few years, of an intensity of which those men in the NP are entirely unaware.

I include the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs when I say that not one of them has any idea of what it entails to establish a political party in public life, maintain and carry on the fight. We did everything but sit and brood in the wilderness. Those hon members in the NP are keeping each other warm. That is all they have left keeping them together, namely the heat they are giving off to each other. As long as they are keeping each other warm in the caucus, they will vote for everything and let everything through, but that is all. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of Finance drew my attention to the fact that the HNP’s watchword is “struggle”. That is correct, but it is not just a struggle for its own sake. We are not so pugnacious that we are fighting for the sake of fighting. We are waging a struggle for the survival of the Afrikaner and the Whites in South Africa.

There was some speculation here this morning as to what the truth was. It was said that the left-wingers were telling the truth, but not us. The left-wingers in the NP, particularly the hon members for Randburg, Johannesburg West and Krugersdorp, will not, for the sake of their convictions, embark upon the difficult road which we have negotiated. [Interjections.] They will remain in the NP and keep each other warm, and yet they are casting doubt upon our struggle! [Interjections.]

We have come to the end of this part of the session. If I were able to bring one thing home to these hon members, it would be that we have been waging a struggle for 17 years now. We are still waging a struggle, and we shall continue waging it until the Afrikaner people and the Whites have regained their own fatherland and are once again in control of it. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of Finance spoke this morning about the “redistribution of development”. I have never heard anything more absurd. How does one redistribute development? Is one to take one half of the University of Pretoria and slap it down in a Black community? [Interjections.] How does one distribute development? One cannot transfer the Afrikaner and the White man’s capacity for self development just like that! [Interjections.] One cannot simply transfer to another community my ability, or the ability of any other hon members, to run a business, and the development that goes with that ability. That is an absurd statement! [Interjections.] What the hon the Minister meant by that, however, is that they want to create Black communities so that the big moneyed interests may also go and make money in those Black communities just as they are making money in the White communities. They want to have the way clear so that they may buy and sell properties, grant loans and earn interest on invested money. Those big moneyed interests make a tremendous amount of money. It was said the other day that Anglo-American had R1 600 million in cash at its disposal. They are looking for investment opportunities. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I must apologise to you and the other hon members immediately because undoubtedly my speech will not have the same entertainment value as the hon member for Sasolburg’s. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Sasolburg said he had covered 800 000 kilometres in the 16 or 17 years he had been in the desert. The miracle of that party is that they covered 800 000 kilometres, but did not make an inch of progress in the process.

But here he is in Parliament! [Interjections.]

The hon member also spoke about Dr Verwoerd’s eternal policy, and about hon members in this House who had betrayed Dr Verwoerd’s policy. When they broke away 17 years ago, they said the NP had betrayed the policy. But today a number of those people who betrayed Dr Verwoerd’s policy are his allies today.

Unless I am mistaken, the hon member for Sasolburg said in the puberty debate he conducted with the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning the other day, that the Afrikaner people had been mature as early as the time of the Great Trek. Today he said the people had been born in the Great Trek. [Interjections.]

I do not quite know how to reconcile these two things.

Go and read that speech, then you will see what I said.

Order!

The hon member also spoke about the unchangeability of Dr Verwoerd’s policy. The NP has had the policy of independent homelands for some time. In 1951 Dr Verwoerd denied that homelands could become independent, however. I am not sure when he changed his opinion, but the independence of the homelands was later accepted and is generally regarded as Verwoerdian today. Dr Verwoerd also changed his policy, therefore.

I also read an exposition by the leader of the HNP in a publication that has its origin with the hon member for Sasolburg, which said:

How can our dispensation be everlasting? He also said:

I do not know why the hon member is so adamant on this matter. Surely it is true that a policy can only be applicable as long as the circumstances it is meant for, remain constant. After all, a policy is a way of bringing about a specific ideal in specific circumstances. If the circumstances change, however, and one persists with the same policy, one is going to fail. If circumstances change, therefore, and one still wants to reach the same ideal, one simply has to change one’s policy.

But you have changed your ideal.

No, Sir, we have not changed our ideal.

The hon member for Brakpan drew a comparison between the position of Blacks who are going to obtain right of ownership in South Africa, and that of Whites. He asked us whether Whites would get the right to own property in Black homelands now. Unless I am mistaken, there are Whites who already have right of ownership in Black states.

But we do not give it to them there.

The hon member spoke about the land the Whites had had to cede to the Black homelands—large tracts of farmland—and set this off against the land the Blacks may own in Black towns in White areas now. One cannot compare those two things at all. The land of one farm can accommodate thousands of people in an urbanised form, after all.

There are towns on those farms. It cannot all remain farmland.

That has nothing to do with the argument. The hon member spoke about White farmland while we are talking about Black people who can possess land in urban areas.

We are talking about land in general.

If the hon member goes and reads his argument properly, as he set it out in his speech, he will see that he confused his concepts as far as these matters are concerned.

I just want to come back to a point put by the hon member for Jeppe, even if he is not here at the moment. He once again put the two questions he puts so incessantly. Can South Africa have a Black State President or a Black government, and how are we going to prevent one group from dominating another? In this connection I merely want to say the following: Apparently the hon members still think only in terms of known constitutional models, and that is why all they can see is that numbers or a president must hold the balance of power. That is the kind of concept they have. [Interjections.] We think in other concepts, and we are developing those concepts. There will be no point in anticipating matters, but—and this relates to the second point made by the hon member: How are we going to prevent one group from dominating another? The point is, we regard it as an absolute requirement that the future dispensation should make it impossible for one group to dominate another. The hon member wants to know how we are going to do this. I do not want to elaborate now, but the point is that if that future dispensation does not have this characteristic, we shall not implement it before we are sure that the dispensation we are going to develop will comply with the requirements.

If you do not implement it, what will you do then?

Then we shall remain where we are. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Jeppe also advanced a great argument here about the remittance of fees in terms of clause 17(b). That is merely a technical amendment to an existing section, and it changes nothing in respect of that provision. The provision already exists in the Act that local authorities are entitled to come to the aid of indigent people, which simply means that those authorities can also be humane in their action. That is all it does.

In addition it is rich Black money that goes to poor Blacks. He need not worry about that.

Yes. In conclusion I merely want to take a brief look at the history of the Bill before us today.

This Bill is not something new which had its origin recently. One can take it back to January 1975, when the Prime Minister at the time, Adv John Vorster, conducted discussions with the homeland leaders during which they discussed a whole number of affairs concerning the weal and woe of Blacks in South Africa. He subsequently issued a statement in which he said the Government would give favourable consideration to a leasehold system for Blacks. That took place approximately two or three years later when the first legislation concerning leasehold was instituted. No matter how we reason, that institution of leasehold was no less than a transitional period to full property rights. No matter how one reasons, it was clear even then that it would have to lead to full property rights. The essential right on land which is granted to someone by means of leasehold is in effect no less than right of ownership. The most important difference is the emotional content of the distinction between right of ownership and leasehold. That is why this Bill does not really introduce anything new, in the sense that those who had leasehold before, can now convert it into right of ownership and nothing will change. They will still have exactly the same rights as they had before. Whether they have those rights for a period of 99 years, which is renewed in any case every time the lease on that land is transferred and a new term of 99 years begins, and whether they own that land without the 99-year restriction, the rights in respect of the land remain exactly the same. The granting of leasehold was therefore a de facto recognition of the Blacks’ permanence here. We in fact recognised their permanence, although we did not want to say it out loud. What we have here is a de jure recognition of their permanence. The matter is being legalised, and that is really the big difference.

I am very pleased that we could reach this point, and I think this legislation will make an important contribution to the establishment of stable communities with an interest in their own property so that we shall also be able to look forward to peace among the communities in future.

Mr Chairman, I received very strict instructions from my Whips to speak very briefly. [Interjections.]

I wish to react briefly to certain statements made by the hon member for Helderkruin. He tried to spell out clearly that the NP would under no circumstances accept majority rule in South Africa, least of all a Black majority rule. Then he was asked by means of an interjection what would happen if the Government were not to succeed in reaching an agreement with the other groups. His categorical reply to that was that things would remain as they were, what a stunning reply!

We should not bluff one another today. We have in the present White South Africa to all intents and purposes a de facto White Government. No the hon member comes along and says he is going forward to meet a future in which he is going to negotiate, but if he cannot negotiate his conditions, then as far as he is concerned things remain as they are today. What strange reform?

Can you believe it?

That brings me to my real objection to all the latest so-called reform steps which the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has launched. It is the destruction of one pillar after the other which we instituted as essential instruments for the achievement of the ideal of separate development, precisely in order to prevent domination of one group or people by another. Those pillars are being tom down, without the NP being able to tell us or themselves what the final destination is, if I understand the hon member for Helderkruin correctly.

It does not suit today’s debate.

It arises from the hon member’s words. [Interjections.]

This Bill adds further stimulus to the already accelerated urbanisation of the Black masses in South Africa, especially when one reads it in conjunction with the legislation concerning the abolition of influx control. It is not a stimulus for the urbanisation to their own fatherlands, but to our fatherland. If one allows and plans this without having clarity oneself about one’s own political destination, I cannot regard it as anything but a reckless gamble with the future of one’s own people and their survival. [Interjections.] I cannot describe it in any other way. Then on top of that the hon member for Randburg was so grateful for the speeches of the PFP, in particular the moving speech made by the hon member Prof Olivier.

He waxed lyrical.

if he speaks about the injustice which we as sinful Whites are supposed to have committed because we did not give the Black his fair share of Southern Africa, I invite hon members to my constituency, where the Lomati River forms the division between the White and Black areas. East of the Nkomati River are the plains of Lebombo which have a great potential for irrigation and which are one of the few frost-free areas in South Africa. That land has tremendous potential and had it been under White management, it would have been a paradise. Go and see what it looks like. The part west of the river which is in fact under White management, is a paradise. Must I as a White plead guilty for another man’s inability to achieve what I have achieved? Is it therefore my task—if he does not have the ability, within the boundaries which he occupied when my ancestors occupied my part of Africa, to develop the land so that he can make a—decent livelihood there—to increasingly allow him to occupy my fatherland?

An hon member, I think it was the hon member for Randfontein, said that whatever the policy or the solution, a price would have to be paid.

I concede that a price will have to be paid, a high price, but what is the reward going to be for the price which you have to pay, either to one side or the other? The price which the NP is prepared to pay by allowing Blacks to live in White South Africa in increasing numbers—also in terms of the new citizenship legislation, and not thousands or hundreds of thousands of them, but almost two million, causes me to ask the question what the reward for those hon members is going to be. They do not have the assurance that they will be able to maintain themselves in that situation. Witticisms aside, on the day of reckoning it will be numbers, naked numbers, which will provide the results. Let us not have illusions about that. [Interjections.]

I want to conclude and not waste any more time. I want to repeat that we on this side of the House, as our friends in the HNP and all right-wingers, are prepared to pay a high price, also as far as economic prosperity is concerned…

That is lip-service.

Lip-service. Is it not typical of these new liberals that only they speak the truth? All other people are liars.

That is what Daan said.

When the hon member for Krugersdorp was still wearing nappies, I walked the streets for the NP and for the ideal of freedom. It was not in the days when Dr Verwoerd had become a term of abuse for the NP, which is the case today. Then there still was idealism in the NP and we believed what we said and we did not pay lip-service to things and then did something else in practice from what we had told the voters.

Cas, you are doing your intelligence an injustice.

No. I am very sorry to say that if a party which today is not only diminishing the options of the White man for the future, but is also eliminating them one by one, is not able to reach consensus with the Black majority, he will try at that late stage to maintain White domination in a mixed South Africa. That party is gambling recklessly with the White man’s future.

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

No, please don’t.

You will never have to reach consensus.

You know, Sir, there are some Nationalists who have acquired a new malady, the malady of consensus. The Afrikaner—and let us not bluff one another about this—has governed this country for decades without those members sitting on the other side having made the effort to reach consensus with the English-speaking people. We have gradually grown into each other. Let us not now become too sanctimonious. To come and tell me now that that side of the House succeeded in reaching consensus with eight Black peoples, of which the Zulus are by far the majority—as it happens I know the Zulus—is…

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

Please sit down! That hon member has had a lifetime to ask me questions. He should not come and do it now.

Mr Chairman, how people who are in their right minds can think that they will be able to reach consensus in one shared father-land, is beyond me. How they are going to have 6 million Zulus agree that 500 000 Swazis to whom they are closely related, receive a minority veto right over the decision of 6 million Zulus? It is beyond me. My common sense cannot understand how something like that can work in practice.

I wish to conclude. In the end numbers are going to be decisive. At least the NP is still saying today that homelands are part of the solution, but instead of our implementing urbanisation mechanisms, propagating property rights within Black homelands…

Of course we are doing that as well.

But very halfheartedly. Instead of us promoting that, instead of us making sacrifices for it, we are now making it all the more attractive and easier for Blacks to stream into South Africa in their thousands. That is why we cannot support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I hope you will allow me a remark or two regarding the hon member for Barberton’s emotional address. [Interjections.]

It was not emotional.

I merely posed it in historical context. I certainly agree with him that as an individual I certainly do not feel guilty that I have achieved and the man next to me has not. I take it he would agree with that, irrespective of the colour of his skin. If the English succeed and the Afrikaners do not, he will not feel guilty and I as an Englishman will not feel guilty. In the 1920s and 1930s that very argument was used by the NP against the fact that the English had achieved and the Afrikaners had not had the opportunity to achieve.

What the position is today historically is that this remnant of the NP of the 1920s is arguing that it wishes to retain the domination that it gathered in politically in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s and not to have what we are all moving towards in South Africa, namely a common fatherland, and not a “my vaderland.” It should be a “vaderland vir almal.” Mr Chairman, I use the hon member’s words: “As die dag van afrekening kom, sal naakte getalle tel.” Now, Sir, where have I heard those words before? I hear them from the ANC! That is where I hear them! Numbers will dominate! That is what is important! [Interjections.] Hon members of the Conservative Party should not continue to say what the hon member for Soutpansberg said a little earlier—that when they come to power they will go back and repeal all these measures passed now. Mr Chairman, that is never going to happen.

You are still going to swallow those words of yours!

You will come crawling on your knees and beg us to protect your white skin!

We echo the question asked here earlier by the hon member for Jeppe: Where is White South Africa? There is no White South Africa.

There has never been a White South Africa!

You would be surprised!

There has never been a White South Africa! There will also never be a White South Africa!

Do you agree with him, Leon?

If the hon member will go back to the history to which he referred when he said that while the Blacks had moved south the Whites had moved north and that consequently the Whites and Blacks had been here about the same length of time, he will find that archeological research proves that to be absolute nonsense. If he does not accept that he needs to go back and study history once more.

This is Lord Roberts talking like this!

Give me a single reference on that!

Yes, do!

There are scores of references to texts which I can give the hon members. [Interjections.]

You will of course consult with Mandela again!

And suppose Lord Milner, too!

If we had hours and days I would give hon members all those references, Sir.

Give them to us then! We should like to have them!

I should like to turn now to the Bill itself.

Yes, discretion is the better part of valour; not so?

You are just looking for trouble now.

I find it unfortunate that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is not in the House now. I do trust, however, that the hon the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs will convey this to him. I should just like to express a personal word of thanks concerning a certain issue affecting parts of my constituency and surrounding areas where the hon the Minister has been of great help. It directly affects the St Wendolin’s area, Klaarwater and the greater area of Mariannhill, in connection with which the hon the Minister and I have corresponded for something like a year or eighteen months, and in relation to which the hon the Minister has received and listened to a delegation from the Mariannhill Mission Institute and from the St Wendolin’s residents and from the Klaarwater residents, in order, Sir, to do one thing—to grant people what they want, viz freehold rights in order to purchase, to build and to set up their own development area; their own township. Why has this been a problem, Mr Chairman? It has been a problem because, after the Group Areas Act began to divide up South Africa the area of greater Mariannhill was divided into a White area, an Indian area and a Coloured area. There was, however, no Black group area. Meanwhile, there were large numbers of Black people resident in that area who had lived there for centuries. I make that point—for centuries. The intention was, in terms of the Group Areas Act and other measures, to move people, and people were moved indeed. They were moved to townships in the vicinity such as KwaNdengezi, KwaDebeka and Clermont. They were moved out of the greater Mariannhill and St Wendolin’s areas. The people held on, however. They held on to two things. They held on to their family life and they held on to their Christianity and to their church—and, I must add, a lot of the people in that area are very staunch Catholics. They held on to that community that is so necessary for all of us in this life and in the world today—our sense of community.

Repeatedly, Mr Chairman, they made requests to various Government departments, and as Ministers changed and as functions changed they were shunted back and forth. Finally, however, rightly or wrongly, they ended up in the hands of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. He saw them. He listened to them. And they have been granted what they have been looking for—freehold rights so that they can develop an area. Not all is happiness, however, Mr Chairman. I do not want you to think that. In that particular set of circumstances, however, a situation has been reached in which what is desired—freehold rights—has been granted.

We do, however, have a Bill before us today, one of the clauses of which does away with the question of forced removals. It makes an end to that. I am going to refer to that in a moment.

In the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech he makes a point of saying the following:

This leads me to the next point I want to make. The abolition of certain restrictions of the acquisition of land by Blacks provided for in this legislation must inevitably be followed by a reconsideration of the Group Areas Act, as the hon member for Randburg has said, and also by a reconsideration of the restrictions on the purchase of rural land by Black persons. That is going to happen as surely as day follows night.

Ah, I see the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs is parading about with the hat of the hon member Mr Van Staden. I know it is traditional for long-serving members to wear hats on the last day of session, but with that hat on his head the hon the Minister looks rather like a member of the Mafia! [Interjections.]

A thing of beauty is a joy forever! [Interjections.]

Those restrictions that have been imposed in terms of the Group Areas Act, the Development Trust and Land Act and the Physical Planning Act, are going to have to be revised. I am certain that the hon the Deputy Minister, being more acquainted than I with rural land issues, is going to be the one who is going to have to address the question of the acquisition of rural agriculture land by Black persons. That question is going to have to be addressed, Sir, and it is going to have to be addressed fairly soon.

I was very pleased to read in the hon the Minister’s introductory speech to this legislation an acknowledgement that mistakes have been made in the past. My colleague, the hon member Prof Olivier has reviewed the entire situation regarding the ownership of land in South Africa, and I do not wish to dwell on it. I merely wish to repeat what the hon the Minister has said in his introductory speech:

Quite clearly, it was a mistake. I quote further:

Reluctance on the part of the Government, that is—

I want to tie that in specifically with the clause in the Bill that changes the definition of “competent person”. In more ways than one this is one of the most important aspects of this Bill. A “competent person” includes a person who may develop or participate in the development of a township. The Blacks may, therefore, also be “competent persons” as was previously provided for in the Act. As is provided for in clause 1(b), “competent person” also includes—

1. (c) a township developer;
2. (d) an association;
3. (e) an employer…

And I think this is something we must publicise—

1. (e) an employer, for the purposes only of acquiring land or premises in a township for disposal to or occupation by Blacks in his employ…

I want to emphasise those three. A township developer may develop this land, and it is very important that the private sector does become involved. It is simply nonsense that the State can or should do this on its own.

As I have said, I also want to emphasise the provision about the employer. Whether it is a company or a private individual, the employer needs to become linked with his employees’ needs. We see changes in the definitions of the words “town” and “township”. We also see changes regarding the local authority that will control these development areas. The difficulty we have in this party is that we believe the Bill goes just so far. It is true that it does good things but we need to have supporting measures to go with it.

When we talk about development and the running of local authorities I find it interesting that it is exactly in this area—the Government says it is going to give freehold rights and we are going to have settled communities—that the Government does not provide a political infrastructure at local level to allow the communities themselves to decide on their leadership and on what kind of relationship they want with people in the areas around them. One can provide examples. One can add to this the question of the leadership of these local communities. What is happening to the leadership of local communities? Some of them, I have little doubt, are today in detention. One can consider a man such as Tobile Dunjwa, principal shop steward at General Motors in Port Elizabeth…

Order! The hon member knows that that has nothing to do with this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the question of leadership in local communities I would argue is in fact directly related to the granting of freehold rights.

Order! The hon member may argue about freehold rights but not about the issue that he was about to raise now.

Why not? [Interjections.]

The question of freehold rights, the question of forced removals, and the question of local authorities controlling development areas are all directly related to this Bill. Whether the community has leadership and whether the community accepts the concept of freehold rights is directly related to the acceptability or not of the leadership of that community. I am trying relevantly to argue that there is a dichotomy in the thinking of the Government between accepting the reform moves such as we see and support here, and the fact that they then detain the leadership that they need to implement these very measures.

Not even the revolutionaries; just everybody.

Mr Chairman, I respect your ruling, if it is a ruling, that I may not—may I ask you whether it is a ruling?

It is a ruling.

… mention the names… [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may speak on the issue of the Bill. He may proceed.

I would wish then to turn to forced removals and raise the entire issue of forced removals in the Western Cape, particularly with relation to Crossroads, KTC and Khayelitsha.

It is not sub judice any more.

We are very pleased to see that the hon the Minister has spoken out against forced removals in his introductory speech. We are also very pleased to see that he and his colleague the hon the Deputy Minister have made reference in their answers to questions on Tuesday to the development of the areas of Crossroads and KTC. However, we have very grave doubts on the allocation of those development areas. We believe that the acquisition of additional land in that area is possible and that the development should be taking place. What we are concerned about is that what happened in Crossroads and KTC was in fact nothing more than a forced removal. That forced removal has in fact resulted in certain people being forcibly removed to Khayelitsha. To that can be added those individuals who are today being removed from churches and mosques and sent to Khayelitsha. It is very interesting to read the words of the Commissioner for the Western Cape, Mr Timo Bezuidenhout, in the lunchtime Argus calling on the private sector to participate in looking after the refugees. Mr Chairman, have you ever! Here we have individuals who are being looked after by churches, religious organisations and other individuals that are persecuted and prosecuted, and then Timo Bezuidenhout comes along and says the private sector should help. What nonsense! [Interjections.]

I should like to turn my attention from forced removals and again put a direct question to the hon the Minister, and I quote from the hon the Minister’s speech: Forced removals are gone. What about Mathopestad? Has he an answer for us yet?

Louis Trichardt.

The whole question of the change in freehold land purchase, as far as the Black community is concerned, is obviously going to precipitate a situation in which the market economy will, for the first time, become evident in regard to land and buildings in the Black areas of South Africa. Here I just want to issue a word of warning. There is the area of Clermont, next to Pine-town. This is land that has been freehold land in perpetuity and Blacks have acquired the land and lived there with title deeds for many years, but in terms of a market economy it has created certain problems, and I want to highlight these to the hon the Minister, particularly in the light of clause 28(g) of the Bill which is designed to create regulations concerning the terms and conditions of the first grant of a right of leasehold or the first alienation of land, concerning a portion of the purchase price, etc. What happened in Clermont is that because land is very limited, people holding that land are very loath to sell it. So although in the White area of New Germany, exactly adjacent to Clermont, land is available at a price of between R7 000 and R10 000, in Clermont, the Black area, the very same measured area of land is on the market at R22 000 to R25 000—that is vacant land in a Black area! I merely want to issue a warning in this connection. When we do move into a market situation, both in terms of land and property, we should not simply say that we are going to keep the price of land down and let the price of developed properties increase, or conversely to say that we are going to allow the price of vacant land to increase and peg the price of the houses that are being built, because either would be an infringement [of the free-market economic system which would allow the best possible option. What we urge is that in the consideration of the application of clause 28(g), the Government take into consideration not only the limited factors of the Black residential areas, but also factors relating to the broader availability of development land in the area. I must urge this most strongly. The whole question, which we have tried to highlight in this party, is that the history of land use in South Africa is a history almost etched in blood. Particularly over the last few years, with forced removals—one can refer to the surplus people’s projects—volumes have been written on this issue in South Africa, volumes written in blood and conscience. We are very pleased that freehold has been granted, but we say that it is not going to be enough simply to pass this measure and say that all is well. Tied to it, inevitably, are the Group Areas Act, rural agricultural land and the rights of individuals on that freehold land to have political rights in their own communities and in greater South Africa.

Mr Chairman, if the times in which we are living in South Africa were not so critical as they are today, and if the things at stake in South Africa were not of so fundamental a nature, we may well have derived far greater enjoyment from these political debates that have been held over the past few days on the legislation before us.

A few years ago the NP drove my colleagues and myself out of that party. A few years earlier the same group which drove us out, had also driven out the hon member for Sasolburg and those friends of ours. At the time South Africa was told that we were entering a period of peace, calm and prosperity and that it was going to be a highly civilised time. However, while we are standing here and delivering speeches, I read the following in the Ekonomiese Verslag of June this year:

There is thus an escalation in the condemnation of this Government in the outside world. I quote further:

I then read the following in yesterday’s issue of Die Vaderland, that is Tuesday 24 June, under the banner headline, “Vaderland-on-dersoek: Duisende wyk uit Suid-Afrika”:

I mention these things today because a few years ago the NP embarked upon a course of power-sharing. Initially it was power-sharing with the Coloureds and the Indians, and now with the Blacks as well. At that time we were promised that a prosperous period was about to begin in South Africa.

It still comes as a shock to us every time these things happen, despite the fact that we sounded a warning in this regard and that in a certain sense we should really be thankful today that it has in fact happened, otherwise the predictions we made a few years ago would have been needlessly incorrect.

Sir, I shall probably delight you and hon members on that side of the House when I say that I am the CP’s last spokesman on this Bill.

None of the fundamental questions which we have recently put to the NP has been answered. At the end of this debate and practically at the end of a whole sequence of legislation, we are further from an answer and from a solution in respect of policies in South Africa than we were at the beginning of the discussion of this legislation or even at the beginning of the session.

I have already told the NP that the first NP—one might call it NP No 1—won the election in 1948 on the strength of the policy of apartheid. In spite of everything the world and the PFP and its predecessors said, there was unprecedented progress, growth and peace in Southern Africa, also as compared to the rest of Africa and many other countries in the world.

We told the NP that they were riding for a fall with their policy of power-sharing. We have now come to the end of the debate, but we have also come to the end of the existence of the NP. [Interjections.] It is very easy for the NP, which is in the majority here, to sit there and make interjections as the commentator, the hon member Dr Vilonel, is now doing. It was precisely because of that hon member’s liberal thoughts that he was driven out by the hon member for Krugersdorp. [Interjections.] I know what I am talking about! The hon member for Krugersdorp approached one of those people who was very close to me at the time for help in driving out the hon member Dr Vilonel. I shall leave the matter at that, however. I just wanted to mention it to the hon member. [Interjections.]

Today I say again that the NP is riding for a fall with power-sharing. We are now writing the final chapters on this particular party; they are done for! The NP will not be able to satisfy the electorate with the standpoints that were stated here, the debating points which they scored here and the diversity of arguments they used. [Interjections.] As the general public—particularly the Whites, but also the non-Whites—experience the full impact of the consequences of this legislation, they will, after they have been knocked almost senseless by it, stand up and reject the NP, and it will be a worse rejection than that suffered by the UP Government in 1948.

In a certain sense it is fortunate that the hon member for Wellington is not here, because he is a new hon member who pipes up with the voice of a cricket. There is a song with the words: “My voete gaan na Wellington, maar ek gaan Worcester toe.” The NP is also singing a song like that. They say they are going to a country in which the Whites can live, but meanwhile they are moving via the Progs to a country in which there is no longer any place for the Whites.

I asked the hon member for Randburg whether the Zulus could acquire the territory of the Vendas. He said no, because it was the Vendas’ land.

He also said that Pretoria was not Johannesburg.

I want to take this point further. I also did some research in Soweto. If the hon member is now telling the man in Soweto that he has the franchise, citizenship, proprietary rights and everything else in South Africa, why may the member, the citizen who has only one citizenship, not go and live in the White area of Krugersdorp? [Interjections.]

Hon members said that we were in a period of consensus politics and that the measure we are discussing today, was an example of this. I therefore want to ask how they are achieving consensus with the left wing in Black politics in respect of separate residential areas. Can one of the hon members, the hon member for Bellville for example, tell me how the NP is going to achieve consensus with those Blacks who now have citizenship, proprietary rights and the franchise within specific structures, when they reject separate residential areas? [Interjections.]

How are you going achieve consensus with the Blacks? [Interjections.]

When I talk to a Black government, I shall not ask it to achieve consensus with me about my own fatherland. I shall only discuss those matters which are of common concern. [Interjections.]

I want to come back to the hon member Prof Olivier and the hon member for Pine-town. When compatriots in South Africa start to differ over politics, and when one debates politics in Southern Africa, one cannot but go to the roots of the existence of Southern Africa and of the people present here.

I want to tell the hon member for Pine-town something in this regard. It is very easy for you to say that there is no White man’s land here, but you are in fact descended from an imperialistic nation which subjugated and enslaved the independent peoples of Southern Africa. You must not come and talk sanctimoniously here.

I am not sanctimonious! [Interjections.]

You are descended from the people who took the Cape from the Dutch East India Company for the first time in 1795, and who again in 1806…

Order! I just want to point out to the hon member that it confuses the debate when he refers to an hon member as “you”. The hon member may proceed.

When I say “you”, I mean “the hon member”

The hon member should not stand up here in a sanctimonious way and say that there is no territory for the Whites. As far as his forefathers are concerned, he need only consider the territory which belonged to the Transkeians, the Xhosas, the Zulus, the Swazis, the Sothos and the Tswanas. He should also take a look at Northern Africa and other parts of the world.

At one stage it was said that the sun never set on the British Empire, and someone added that it was because the Lord did not trust them in the dark. [Interjections.] However, the hon member said the Afrikaner did not have a country. He also said that the Vendas and Swazis did not have a country.

South Africa is their country.

No, and that is what the debate is about. The boundaries that were drawn here by the hon member’s forefathers, were drawn with no regard to the indigenous population groups. The hon member’s standpoints are part and parcel of British imperialism, which in fact caused the problems in Africa.

I want to come back to the hon member Prof Olivier. I can remember that about 20 years ago a young student from England was visiting me in my study. He told me: “You have stolen this country from the Black people.” From my pocket I took a coin, on which at that time there was still an image of the Queen’s head, and asked him which country’s coin it was, the young student said it was South Africa’s. In response to the question whose head was depicted on it, he said it was the Queen’s. I am therefore glad that the hon member referred to these things. As far as the Whites in South Africa are concerned, we must once again attain some historical depth in the country.

Daan, are you sick?

What did the hon member say? He may stand up and put his question to me. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I remind the hon member for Rissik that he also owes us an answer to a question?

He asked whether you were sick!

No, I do not know what the hon member is trying to ask. Will the hon member not stand up and ask me a question in the proper manner?

Were you sick when Stoffie walked out?

Order! This matter has nothing to do with the debate. The hon member for Rissik may proceed.

Lately, the hon member for Krugersdorp has also begun to make rather acrimonious remarks and ostensibly ranks himself among the great champions of justice. [Interjections.] He said certain things here about the hon member for Soutpansberg and me, on the basis of a piece of gossip. He should rather feel guilty about the way in which he drove the hon member Dr Vilonel from his constituency. He ought to be ashamed of that, and would do well to give it some thought. [Interjections.]

I want to come back to the hon member Prof Olivier. My professor of classical languages under whom I once studied Greek, was Prof Flippie Pistorius. If I remember correctly, he was the first Afrikaner to become a member of the executive committee of the old Progressive Party. I frequently had arguments with him, very often about politics. A few weeks before his death I bumped into him again. He told me that he had left the Progressive Party because they did not have a solution for South Africa’s problems either. I want to tell the PFP today…

What was his solution?

He told me there was no solution.

*I want to tell the PFP—I also said this when Dr Van Zyl Slabbert became their leader—that one cannot trust an Afrikaner who does not care about his descent, his nationhood and his identity, to become one’s leader.

The hon member Prof Olivier became very emotional today when he spoke about the history of the occupation of land in Southern Africa. I want to tell him that if one makes a comparative analysis in relation to the occupation of land in Southern Africa, particularly by the Afrikaner, and that by other peoples, not only White peoples, but also Black peoples—just compare it to the history of America, Australia, Canada and many other places—it becomes clear that the Afrikaner in particular need not feel ashamed about his occupation of Southern Africa. In our northward movement, which was in fact to escape the bondage to which the hon member’s predecessors had subjected us—they took our country away from us and hoisted the Union Jack here—we occupied land which did not belong to anybody.

Were there any Afrikaners who stayed here in the Cape?

Yes, of course people stayed behind here! [Interjections.] If we were to have a Great Trek today, most of the NP members would stay behind. However, some of their grandchildren would later return to the country which we had established. [Interjections.]

Since the hon member has now interrupted me, I want to repeat that another Great Trek will take place in South Africa, but then the liberalists who do not want the Whites to continue to remain here, will have to remove themselves from the ranks of the Whites. [Interjections.] They may choose to go and live in any of the other countries. Not only do we want Whites in South Africa but we at least want Whites here who want to remain White. [Interjections.]

I want to come back to the hon member Prof Olivier once again. He referred to the legislation which was accepted here at the beginning of the century. I want to tell him that one of the finest pieces of legislation that was promulgated in South Africa, was that legislation in terms of which Gen Hertzog and his people stated that they were reserving land for the Blacks. Unlike White people in other countries of the world, they reserved land for the Blacks. In that way they acknowledged the sovereignty and the territorial boundaries of the other peoples. [Interjections.] The Afrikaner did this. We were never an imperialistic power moving northwards, but when our territory was attacked and our sovereignty assailed, we fought fiercely.

We are not a militaristic, aggressive people. Our origins and background indicate that we are not that type of people. I want to tell the hon member, however, that he who was one of those people who helped to turn Stellenbosch into a left-wing institution and who sees before him today the consequences of his propaganda and his lectures, is one of that kind of Afrikaner whom we fought against.

The hon member referred to the 1936 laws. We did in fact say in 1936 that we were designating additional land for the Blacks. Adv Strydom and his people were not always happy about it, but it was accepted that additional land had to be given to the Blacks. That is what subsequently happened. After 1948 we asked how we were going to solve this country’s problems. British imperialism had crammed a variety of peoples into this southern region. How does one solve the problems? When one desires freedom for one’s own people, one solves those problems by giving those peoples a territory.

I want to say something else today about this story that we have 83% of the land in South Africa while the Blacks own only 17% of it. I personally was present, Mr Chairman, when you told us how you had to explain to people abroad how the occupation took place here. One cannot compare pieces of land with each other inch by inch.

The hon member also spoke about numbers. The Black peoples numbers simply keep on increasing. One will therefore have to make further adjustments in five to 10 years time. This means that the people which multiplies at the greatest rate and which has the most children on this earth, may simply take over the whole globe. In that case, we should start talking Chinese now. [Interjections.] The hon member’s interpretation of history is incorrect and he is doing his own forefathers a disservice in trying to create the impression that the Whites stole Southern Africa from the Blacks.

A good friend of mine who was a member of the Cabinet—he is now no longer there nor is he in the CP; I do not know what his political views are—told me on one occasion that Chief Buthelezi had told him that he wanted more land. My friend then said to him: “But Gatsha, you cannot even cultivate the land you have, and yet you want more!”

I sometimes feel obliged to say that even if the Good Lord were to create another seven earths, it would not be enough for many Blacks.

Land-hunger.

The hon member is speaking about land-hunger. We do have a situation today in which mankind as such is concerned about his growing numbers. The problem with Blacks, however, is that they do not have the capacity to cultivate the land they have with Western techniques, as the White man does, thereby generating income. For that reason there is a hunger for land and the people are simply drawn toward us.

One of the consequences of this tendency is that the NP is now saying that there is no difference between leasehold, freehold and proprietary rights. [Interjections.] I was in the NP caucus and in the NP study groups with Dr Connie Mulder when these things came up for discussion for the first time. After all, I did not sit there with closed ears. I knew what it was about.

Do you believe Dr Mulder?

I did believe Dr Mulder. That is why Dr Mulder is not in the NP today. [Interjections.] I do not have time for hon members’ questions now. I shall sketch the background to that study group. People like Mr Dirk Richard who for many years had formed part of the left wing of the NP, which was too ashamed or too afraid to say that it actually belonged among the Progs, said the urban Blacks had to be accepted as permanent. They said that the Black peoples’ permanence would mean that they would have to be accorded proprietary rights. Moreover, it would also mean political rights. After all, that stream existed within the NP; Willem de Klerk and a whole host of the country’s left-wing writers propagated those things. That is why I was prepared—just as I was prepared for the term “power sharing” in 1977—for the eventuality that leasehold could be the beginning of a process which might ultimately mean that Black people would have to be afforded proprietary rights. Who stood up in that caucus and discussed this matter? It was the late Mr Willem Delport.

He stood up and, as a legal expert, explained to us in that caucus that it did not in any way imply proprietary rights, nor would it lead to proprietary rights. One of the big mistakes I have made in my life was to trust leaders, and I believe that when everyone said it. [Interjections.]

And now?

Now I no longer trust them. [Interjections.] Dr Piet Koornhof arrived at the very last NP study group meeting on Black affairs which I attended. I told him in that study group that he was betraying us. He turned all the colours of the rainbow, as often happened. I left, and he followed me down the stairs to where our post boxes are, and told me that he was going to talk to the Prime Minister straight away and tell him that I had insulted him and had said he was betraying us. I told him then that the NP had begun with freehold rights, and that now proprietary rights were being given to them as well. I said I no longer trusted the NP, and a few weeks after that we were out of the NP.

That is why I refer to the NP’s salami policy and its frog policy. Perhaps I may explain that in passing. If one puts a frog into hot water, it jumps out, but if one places that same frog into a pot of cold water on a stove and one heats the water slowly, that frog boils without even noticing it. That is what happened to the NP caucus. They are boiled frogs. They were gradually boiled and conditioned to these things.

The hon the Deputy Minister is lending himself to this today, and he is the obedient and willing servant of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning in simply pushing these matters through. The hon the Minister said that the reform plans would only end long after his death. The hon the Deputy Minister is lending himself to that. I do not resent the left wing of the NP—and that includes the hon members for Bellville and Randburg; I could name them all in this way—for having changed. However, I do hold it against them for having upheld PFP principles all these years while they remained members of the NP.

That is what you did to the HNP, Daan!

Why, then, did you not leave with Louis Stofberg right at the start?

I want to reply to the hon member for Krugersdorp’s allegation. I aired my views on this issue in the NP caucus. I went to discuss my views with Mr Vorster. There was a stage when I voted against a motion of confidence in Mr Vorster in the NP caucus. [Interjections.] He did not throw me out. [Interjections.] No, I did not fall sick either, but that hon member is making me sick! [Interjections.] A people does not go under very easily but a people can go under when its leaders tell them they are going to Wellington, while their feet are taking them to Worcester. [Interjections.] The State President spoke about the total onslaught on South Africa. The total onslaught is sitting here in front of me. [Interjections.] The immoral thing about the “New Nats” is that they continue to sit there. They are sitting in the NP of Verwoerd, Strydom, Vorster and Malan, and in the name of the NP…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Rissik is raising a number of very interesting political issues which cover a very wide spectrum. Just before you took the Chair, the hon member for Pinetown wanted to raise a matter which was far more relevant to the Bill than some of the issues the hon member for Rissik has raised, and the hon member for Pinetown was ruled out of order. I believe that if we are going to have rulings, there must be some kind of consistency.

Order! The hon member for Rissik should please take note of what has been said. He may proceed but I shall listen to what he is saying.

Mr Chairman, I merely wanted to say that I thought we and the Progs had the same opponent: I am hitting them from the right and they are hitting them from the left, and now you are preventing me from hitting them.

Then he will have to stop us both! [Interjections.]

The interesting thing is of course that if we get at the Nats too much, the Progs react. [Interjections.]

This is one of the last pieces of legislation we are now going to debate. The CP adopts a very strong standpoint in principle in this regard. We shall go hence and debate it further in consultation with the electorate. This is not the end of the debate; it is only the beginning.

Mr Chairman, I want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon members who have taken part in the debate. In particular, I want to thank the hon member Prof Olivier and his colleague for their party’s support of the legislation. The same applies to the hon member for Umbilo and his party.

A wide spectrum of subjects have been touched on, most of which go far beyond the legislation itself. Some may have a bearing on possible consequences of the Bill, but not on the Bill as such. Some dealt with specific clauses in the Bill, and the principles of the Bill were discussed, as well as aspects which may have a bearing on the broad political spectrum in the country.

The hon member Prof Olivier’s historical survey of ownership and the deprivation of ownership and legislation in this connection was very interesting. I do not have much comment to make on that. He also objected to the deprivation of ownership and the subsequent course of events. Furthermore, he spoke about the accompanying deprivation of political rights. I do not wish to argue with him about that at this stage. What I found regrettable about his whole approach, though, was that he created the impression that everything done by leaders and parties in the past had been wrong. It seems that they never did anything right, by means of legislation and in other ways, such as clearing up Martindale and Sophiatown. He emphasised only the negative aspects. I just want to say that the NP is not ashamed today of who and what it was in the past. [Interjections.]

I want to add, though, that if mistakes were made and things were tried in the past that are no longer attainable and no longer correct in the light of today’s events, we must have the courage of our convictions to admit that and to adapt to the circumstances of our times. And that is precisely what is being done in terms of this legislation. I know the hon member agrees with it, but I want to correct the spirit in which it may be put across.

After the war, extreme slum conditions existed in many of the Black areas. Those areas were cleared and far better social conditions were created for those people. This must also be recognised. As far as the principle of ownership is concerned, I want to say that this party now believes that the matter should be rectified and that it was a mistake to have deprived these people of their ownership and not to have introduced this Bill at an earlier stage.

The hon member for Pinetown also mentioned a few aspects that are closely related to what the hon member Prof Olivier said. As far as the principle is concerned, I also take it amiss of him that he tries to emphasise the negative side of everything that happens in South Africa. He did give his support and he said that he agreed with the idea and the acquisition of ownership. However, I did not like the remarks he made about the events in KTC and Crossroads. Surely we have made tremendous progress with the removals that have been taking place there lately, and we must not only emphasise the negative side; we must draw attention to the positive side as well.

He also made a point about the implementation of the free market system. I agree with him; it is a good and correct principle. I also agree that there will be teething troubles that will have to be taken into consideration in the course of its introduction and implementation. One principle that we want to uphold in that respect as well is the process of price formation that may take place, which it will not be possible to address in its totality at first, but which will have to take place over a period of years. In that connection I believe that such a freemarket system will in fact come into being in the course of time, with regard to the township developer as well as the price structures that will have to be created.

He mentioned another aspect and said, “They must have political rights.” At that stage Mr Speaker called him to order and said that he was not allowed to pursue that line of thought. I just want to point out to him that the ownership which he may acquire in a specific area of a community is identified here. The Bill which is now before the House, as well as the next Bill on the Order Paper, are in fact aimed at enabling us to address the other problem involved here. So he will in fact be able to acquire ownership as well as political rights in that Black community in which he lives, political rights also on the third level of government, and he will be able to lay claim to those rights. [Interjections.] So this matter has in fact been addressed, I think, and it will be done.

Furthermore, he made the point that this right of ownership should be linked to wider political rights. In the Second Reading speech, the State President’s standpoint in connection with the linking of broader political rights to the right of ownership was very clearly spelt out. It was also spelt out that this was not the standpoint of the Government and that it was not correct that this should be associated with a wider spectrum of political rights. I think I should have that placed on record again in this debate. [Interjections.] I come now to the hon member for Umbilo.

†I think that of all the speakers he more than anyone confined himself to the Bill as such and addressed himself directly to it. [Interjections.] He mentioned real estate, the creation of wealth and the raising of loans. I do not want to expand on those issues as I think he has dealt with them adequately. As to the benefit people may derive from the conversion of leasehold to freehold rights, it is correct to say that those issues are addressed within the Bill as such.

He also asked whether it would not be wise to abolish the Group Areas Act as such.

In respect of the Coloured and Indian areas.

In respect of the Coloured and Indian areas? The possibility of scrapping the Group Areas Act over a broad spectrum was raised in the other Houses. Our attitude is that this is not an aspect covered by this Bill. Moreover, in its broadest aspects the attitude of the South African Government is that it is not possible, and we are not going to scrap the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.]

As regards home building, home-ownership and the streamlining thereof, I think that is also a process as I indicated with reference to the hon member for Pinetown, which will give us some teething problems. However, I think that with the involvement of private enterprise as well as that of the Government, we will be able to streamline that as well. The main fact in all this, however, is that we must also get the Black entrepreneurship involved within this whole situation. That is very important within the broader aspects of the Bill as such.

The other problem he raised was that of historical values, sales and the creation of a land-ownership market. The first point he raised in this regard was the creation of wealth. With the creation of land-ownership, the increase in the value of real estate over a period of years will also increase the wealth of the person concerned. This gives him a pride in what he owns, and I cannot agree more fully with what the hon member said in this regard. I thank him for his support for the Bill.

*Then we come to hon members on this side of the House, namely the hon members for Randburg, Bellville and Randfontein, as well as the hon member for Helderkruin. I want to thank them for their support and their contributions to this debate. I also thank them for their explanations and their replies to arguments that were advanced and to certain objections raised by the CP. In the course of the debate, in reply to questions asked by hon members of the CP, I shall probably come back to certain aspects raised by hon members individually.

The hon member for Bellville conveyed a special word of thanks to the staff of the department who had assisted with the drafting and preparation of the legislation. I know the hon member for Randburg wanted to do so too. The hon member for Bellville mentioned the names of certain members of staff. I want to thank those people, not only for having drafted the legislation and for their assistance on the standing committee, but also for their contribution in general and their diligence in dealing with the legislation and the amendments. In the other Houses, too, they received a special word of thanks for their efforts. The hon members there said that they had received excellent co-operation at all levels. A special word of thanks to them. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, right at the beginning an hon member objected to the fact that the responsible Minister or Deputy Minister was not here to deal with this legislation. There was a note of reproach in an hon member’s voice when he referred to the fact that the hon the Minister was not handling the measure himself. [Interjections.]

The name of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning appears on the Order Paper.

It is normal procedure for legislation and questions to appear under the name of the responsible Minister until such time as he has delegated it to a Deputy Minister. Then it appears under the name of the Deputy Minister concerned. [Interjections.] As Deputy Minister I am also involved in constitutional development and planning, so the hon the Minister has the right to do so. I think it was absolutely wrong, therefore, to have behaved like that to the hon the Minister right at the start.

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

No, Mr Chairman, the hon member will have to ask his question at a later stage. [Interjections.]

During the debate, reproaches were repeatedly made and questions were asked about my involvement with this legislation and my beliefs in this connection. I want to make it quite clear that historically it was not the NP’s policy to grant the right of ownership or leasehold to Blacks outside the national states. That used to be the standpoint of the Government.

I think it is important that I should quote the late Dr Verwoerd in this connection. I have a copy here of a debate in which Dr Verwoerd was quoted. He referred to the political future of the Bantu areas and the six million Bantu who would be living in the White areas by the year 2000. He said that there were no grounds for stating that it would always be the same persons who would be permanently resident in White areas. He went on to say that he foresaw instead an interaction between White and Bantu areas. He said that those who acquired expertise within the White area through experience, training and knowledge would be used in their own areas, where this expertise could be developed and put to good use.

It is also correct that Dr Verwoerd believed at the time that they should have no right of ownership in the White area. This was always the policy of the NP. This is true, and we do not wish to deny if. As the hon member Prof Olivier pointed out, Blacks were deprived of ownership in the White area in the past. However, what are the facts today? I wholeheartedly support the Bill and the principles contained in it and I am not being used as an instrument for doing the work of others. I believe that that allegation is wrong and that it is unfair to say that in this House.

As far as ownership is concerned, we discussed the question of leasehold. Hon members asked whether leasehold and ownership were the same thing. Technically speaking, they are not the same, but in both cases we are dealing with a real right, because a right to property is acquired. The hon member for Randburg made it very clear that the effect of these two rights was that people would have the same right of use with regard to land. The law of succession will also be applicable to leasehold.

The CP asked certain questions in connection with Hong Kong. As far as Hong Kong is concerned, England did not obtain leasehold; it leased that territory. When the lease expires, England will have to renegotiate a new lease. In the light of this, one cannot compare the situation which we are discussing here with the one in Hong Kong.

Dr Verwoerd said that by the year 2000, 6 million Bantu would be living in the White area to sell their labour here. It is interesting that in 1986 there are already more than 10 million Blacks living in White South Africa.

That is because you did not enforce the laws.

No, the Influx Control Act was passed in 1956, when Dr Verwoerd was a member of the Cabinet. That policy was consistently implemented by the NP, but in spite of that, there has been this increase in the number of Blacks. An other aspect which has a bearing on this is the fact that apart from the increase in numbers, there has also been a change in the duration of their residence here. Arising from the Rikhoto judgement, one may say that the argument that they are only resident here for short periods is not always valid. This has happened because those people have been employed by White industries and White companies. Because of that they had to have a place to live. The 30-year home ownership scheme was introduced so that people could enjoy greater permanence with regard to their residence in this country. This is basically a contradiction of the assumption that they would only be here for a year and would then return to their respective areas. Subsequently the 99-year leasehold system was introduced, which provides for the leasehold right to pass by inheritance. I am convinced that if we have order and stability, as the hon member for Randfontein said, we must give these people rights so as to create more orderly conditions in the community. Then they will develop a sense of pride because they will have something to protect, something which belongs to them and which is a financial asset to them. One can only do this if one gives such a person more permanent rights to the land on which it is built.

Why did you not listen to the United Party ten years ago? The United Party said this ten years ago.

I could come to that, but let us first have the principles and the facts placed on record. If that side is not going to recognise the permanence of Blacks in the White area and give them ownership there, will they ever manage to have Soweto inhabited by people other than Blacks? Will they be able to have the other Black areas inhabited by people other than Blacks? The basic argument which is now being advanced is that ownership remains in the hands of the Whites, but that there is de facto occupation by Blacks in an unstable Black community.

Two further aspects are highlighted, namely local political rights and financial circumstances. What responsibilities are involved here? As far as local political rights are concerned, I want to ask the hon member for Rissik: Is he opposed to those people being granted third-tier political rights in those areas with regard to matters affecting themselves? [Interjections.] In principle it is only right that they should receive these rights. If they have to receive them, where are the funds to come from to provide the total infrastructure and services for those people? Where is that local community to obtain the funds? Must they obtain the money from the White taxpayer or the central Government, or should it be obtained by imposing a levy on those to whom the services are rendered? The hon members opposite will have to answer that question. [Interjections.] They cannot answer it, for if there is no ownership, they have to get it from the central Government. If they get it from the central Government, where does the principle of the distribution of wealth, “the granting of aid”, as they call it, come in? Where does that principle come in? These are funds that are obtained from one source in order to be used for a different function. [Interjections.]

Now those hon members must not have a private conversation; now they must listen.

The United Party said that long ago.

It does not matter whether the United Party or the Progs said it long ago. [Interjections.] I want to say this to the hon member for Rissik: One of the basic lessons I learnt when I arrived on the farm for the first time was when my father told me that although I had been to university, I should never be too clever to learn something from the most humble Black man on the farm. [Interjections.] I have even been prepared to learn from the United Party, that party to which the hon member for Rissik also belonged at one time. The United Party gave him his schooling, unless he got some of his education from other sources.

Your father was a UP supporter too.

Yes, and I am proud of him. If my father was a UP supporter—and I am proud of that—I do not find it humiliating to talk about that today, as the hon member for Rissik does. [Interjections.]

Order! Volumes have been written about the history of ancestors and we are not going to conduct a debate on one another’s ancestors now. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, with all due respect, when one is talking about Black people and their history, the ancestral spirits are always important.

I want to tell the hon member for Rissik that there is another aspect over and above the funds obtained from the Black Local communities. I am referring to the creation of infrastructure for township development and the building of houses. The Black communities are now being afforded the opportunity of undertaking this themselves. The Government has done this up until this stage. The Government has used the taxpayers’ money to pay for the development of it. As it is the shortage of finances is the result of the backlog which arose due to various factors which generally created problems. The granting of proprietary rights is therefore an economic advantage. Now the question naturally arises as far as the third tier of government is concerned—this is the political aspect—also as far as the economic and personal aspects are concerned, whether it is merely to the advantage of White South Africa and the government of the Republic, or whether the Blacks do not benefit by it either. Through this we are surely not going to relinquish our political rights in the future, although this is a matter which in itself has to be faced up to. If this is how everything in fact is—and I think it is indeed so—we have during this whole process only gained by the legislation concerned.

The most important thing, however, is the fact that within those Black communities we can through this bring about tremendous acceptance and goodwill and co-operation, which again will lead to a greater measure of order in that whole system. This surely is very important. This is what we can bring about through this process as opposed to—on the other hand—rejection, confrontation and conflict.

Sir, I want to refer to a second aspect which was also raised here. Several hon members referred to the possibility of writing off debts or abolishing levies. The provision which is related to this, is taken verbatim from the legislation on leasehold rights which was passed in this House in 1984. I accept that hon members of the Conservative Party, if they interpreted it correctly in the past, would have voted against it then. According to my knowledge, however, they did not register any objections at that stage during the Second Reading debate. I nonetheless accept that they will now possibly object to it. That provision in the legislation on leasehold rights of 1984 was taken over in its identical form from the Blacks (Urban Areas) Act, 1945. It therefore means that in this connection this specific provision has continuously been applicable in our legislation from as far back as 1945. This was the case throughout the terms of office of Dr Malan, Adv Strijdom, Dr Verwoerd and Adv Vorster. Even the hon member for Sasolburg therefore did not have any objection to it at one stage.

The question of the future situation as far as the Whites are concerned therefore arises of necessity. I have here with me a copy of Local Government Law, and in paragraph 56 and 57 of this publication, under the heading “Bad Debts”, it is stated that in Natal, the Cape and the Free State it is possible in White local authorities to write off certain debt which cannot be collected under certain circumstances. The principle that bad debt can in fact be written off under certain circumstances therefore already exists in the case of White local authorities. It was taken over in exactly the same form in the legislation under discussion, and in the way which I have already described here.

The wording is not identical.

Mr Chairman, that is certainly correct. The hon member for Barberton is right when he says that the wording is not exactly the same. I will concede that argument. The wording in regard to Whites is not exactly the same as far as Blacks are concerned. The principle concerning the writing-off of bad debts which cannot be collected, however, is contained in both pieces of legislation. But it is a fact that since the National Party came into power in 1948, the principle has still been maintained in the same way as we find it in the legislation of 1945. It was taken over in the same form in the Act of 1984, and we once again find it, virtually in its identical form, in the legislation under discussion.

What is important—and that is what retaining this principle is all about to us—is that under all circumstances there are certain indigent people from whom it is not possible to collect levies. The number of exceptions which will therefore have to be made, will simply be legion. It is after all a fact that we will always have poor people somewhere, who under certain circumstances will have to be treated according to merit. I think I have now dealt with the principle of ownership as well as the necessity of it.

I now want to make a few points relating to the broader aspects of the matter. The hon member for Jeppe asked if our history is a fable then. No, Sir, our history is not a fable. Our history is factual, and we are proud of it.

It was Lukas van Vuuren who said that; not I.

What is in fact true, is that even the historians differ with each other from time to time about the events which shape history. It is a fact, and one must take it into account. [Interjections.]

As far as ownership and citizenship are concerned, Blacks can obtain ownership in the RSA. This is part of the process of reform. When the Bill concerning the restoration of citizenship of the RSA to Blacks was discussed, it was argued that things are just being given to Blacks while the Whites have to give up things. It was argued that this whole matter of ownership within Black local communities concerns political rights.

The hon member also put specific questions, most of which were answered by the NP speakers. One of the questions is what the Government is doing to prevent the one group from dominating the other. As far as this specific Bill which relates to Black ownership is concerned, I want to tell the hon member we accept the Black residential areas of the different people who are involved in this. As far as those Black residential areas in those local communities are concerned, the Blacks cannot dominate the Whites, because they are organised within their own areas.

As far as the regional services councils are concerned, the services that are controlled by the regional services boards, are ones which are provided jointly, and therefore this principle is also incorporated in the case of regional services councils. As far as the specific legislation is concerned, whether one group is going to dominate another is irrelevant.

If the hon member perhaps wants to argue that this Bill is a precedent for wide political rights, I can assure him that this is not the case.

It is part of the package.

This specific Bill is limited to ownership. The fact that Blacks now obtain ownership does not mean that they can lay claim to greater political rights.

Why not?

This point has after all been argued on various levels. I want to make it very clear to the hon member for Sasolburg that someone who enters South Africa, even someone who lives in Germany and has his domicile in Germany, can at this stage own land and other property in Cape Town… [Interjections.]… although he is not a citizen of this country. Because he is not a citizen of this country, he does not have political rights in this country. In that regard one’s political rights are therefore not linked to ownership per se. [Interjections.] On these grounds it is a foregone conclusion. The State President has after all said this on various occasions. The hon member for Sasolburg therefore makes a mistake in his thinking if he wants to link ownership per se to political rights. It is dangerous to blazen untruths abroad in connection with this, because people are brought under the wrong impression in the process. [Interjections.]

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

No, I am busy now. [Interjections.]

There is one point which the hon member for Soutpansberg made which I now want to react to, but he is not here now. There are nonetheless other members who made the same point. The hon member for Soutpansberg let me know that he would not be here, and I shall therefore leave the rest of my arguments at that.

I just want to say, as far as redistribution is concerned, a few other hon members also touched on the matter. The hon member for Rissik, for example, specifically said that they do not believe in the redistribution of wealth, but in granting aid as far as that is concerned. I just want to know from this hon member where he is going to find the funds from to finance aid to underprivileged Blacks. Is he going to get it from the tax structure, for example, or where is he going to get it from? He can only obtain money from the contributions which people who are in the position to pay, and in so doing make it possible for him to give assistance to other people.

The hon member for Brakpan said he is against rates. He also said that there are White communities who are poor and cannot come up with rates. That is why is is opposed to property rates. If he does not levy those rates, where is he going to find the money to provide those poor people with tarred roads, services and an infrastructure in those townships? He has to get it from another community who is in a position to pay. That is aid, and therefore a redistribution of wealth to take something from a wealthy man to give it to a poor man. This is how the hon member for Randburg reasoned it out. In essence and effect there is no difference between these two cases.

If in this debate—it being almost too late for us to solve our problems in this country—we try to score political points for a particular party in this way, or fail to understand what things are really about, we have indeed reached a serious point in our debates.

It is much later for you people who do not reply to questions.

I therefore do not want to argue any further about any aspects of the redistribution of wealth. [Interjections.]

I just want to refer to the hon member for Brakpan again. He argued about a few very good points and he stuck relatively close to the Bill as such. He said that an orderly process of urbanisation is being implemented. He also referred to township developers who in the course of time went bankrupt within White communities. According to him we must not use the private developers for that purpose because they go bankrupt. Due to the fact that people go bankrupt in the private sector because the costs are too high, the State should see to the township development. With whose money should the State do this?

It is the red tape which bankrupts him.

It is the red tape of the private sector.

No! No! [Interjections.]

There are cases of bankruptcy of private township developers, which are connected with a slump in the market and the poor economic conditions in the country.

You do not have any idea of what you are talking about.

I have much more comprehension than the hon member for Rissik who in the past did not know in the caucus what the difference between leasehold and ownership was. He had to be given explanations by other people about what it was. When things were told to him, he accepted them and noticed later on that it was wrong. It took him two years to notice his mistake.

When I do not know something, I at least ask about it.

Now he tells me we do not know what is going on.

You understand so well that you left with us, but then went back to the NP.

No, I merely realised I had made a mistake.

I also want to tell the hon member for Rissik that it does not help to become emotional about a matter, to come along with a great many recriminations and to say that I do not know anything. I am trying with all respect to point out certain facts to the hon member which are relevant. I am asking him to listen to it without vindictiveness.

As far as township development is concerned, there is red tape which can also play a role in the escalation of costs. [Interjections.] This concerns cost escalation in general. One can eliminate it in one or two ways. The entire Public Service should be involved in certain services. During the discussion about this legislation, also in the other Houses, it was pointed out that the development within the milieu and the financial possibilities of the Black community should generally take place. If this cannot take place, we are also going to have problems. From the direction of the department and the Government we shall put everything into operation to make it possible for these people and not to make it too expensive. It should not be beyond the financial reach to enable it to take place.

About power-sharing and all the other political aspects I do not want to argue about any further. [Interjections.] The hon member for Brakpan said that political rights, such as these in Black communities, lead to increasing demands. [Interjections.] It is not these rights which lead to more claims. [Interjections.] It is not these rights which lead to more demands. The demands as such are there already. The Black communities in any case make these demands, and they also still have much greater demands. But there is one thing which is in fact true. As co-operation becomes less and confrontation increases, the possibility of finding a solution in regard to these demands becomes less and less. In this process the National Party and the Government are not in a position to reduce the rights of Whites and they are not going to do so either. Not one of the pieces of legislation on Black communities before us here, will affect for the worse one single right of the Whites. Not one single right of the Whites is being affected by this legislation. [Interjections.] A second argument which was raised here, deals with the issue of the land which is available. Whether the Blacks receive or do not receive ownership of the land, the need for labour in the White metropolises will always be there and the availability of land will have to be adjusted accordingly. There is something which I want to put very clearly. The influx control measures have appeared to be ineffective over the years. In connection with this these hon members now want to refuse ownership, something which is not possible as such.

There is one hon member whose questions I have not replied to.

You have not replied to my questions.

I have replied to all the questions which the hon member put. [Interjections.] I have answered the hon member’s questions on the political rights of the individual, as well as on rights in the wider context. But I shall reply to them again. [Interjections.] If the hon member would just keep quiet, he will be able to hear what I say. Said with all respect, he should just keep quiet. [Interjections.] The political rights of Blacks in the Black communities here—those in connection with local authorities—do not affect any White rights. They exercise their rights within their Black residential areas, within their local communities. [Interjections.] That is reply number one. Now I come to reply number two.

Nought out of ten for that answer.

This is the reply which covers the wider perspective, that of the country as a whole. This Bill is not relevant to it. It is all part of the process which is now being negotiated are now taking place. The hon member for Helderkruin spelt out why that question cannot be answered now, because it is part of a process which is still unfolding.

Then you should not ask us to go along with you.

The hon member for Bellville has already replied to the question about a Black president. He indicated that it is not NP policy at this stage that there should be a Black president. [Interjections.] Anything is possible in the future—anything! But it is only possible if the NP through its own initiative, and with the approval of its people on the whole, agrees to it. This is the process which is involved in it. [Interjections.] Now the hon member for Rissik knows what the answer is.

What about the protection of minority rights?

The hon member for Sasolburg…

I also still asked how you are going to protect minority rights.

The hon member for Sasolburg said Dr Verwoerd’s policy was a policy which fitted in at that time and is a policy for all eternity. [Interjections.]

He regarded it as a policy for all eternity.

I want to refer to the standpoint that he believed that it applied for all eternity. If the HNP really believes this, I just want to say: The man who in himself believes that his policy is a policy which will apply for all eternity, cannot be called a statesman, and I do not want to place Dr Verwoerd in that category. I have too high a regard for Dr Verwoerd to accept that he believed that nothing in his policy could change. [Interjections.] Something like that does not exist. [Interjections.]

He then changed his own policy! [Interjections.]

Order! Too many interjections are being made. The hon the Deputy Minister may continue if he has not finished.

No, I have finished, Sir.

Question put: That the word “now” stand part of the Question,

Mr Chairman, I move:

This amending Bill is a further step in the process of introducing a new dispensation for local authorities in which all population groups will obtain their rightful share and also be in a position to contribute to the decision-making process.

When the original Bill was introduced in Parliament in 1983 the hon the Minister said, during the Second Reading debate, that everything possible should be done to enable community leaders, by a process of negotiation, to improve and adapt the country’s constitutional dispensation. The Co-ordinating Council is today a striking example of what can be achieved by negotiation.

Looking back at the past three years of the Co-ordinating Council’s existence, particularly at the various investigations and recommendations carried out and submitted to the Government on matters such as the joint provision of services, electoral qualifications and the rationalisation of institutions providing services at local government level, I can rightly say this morning that the Co-ordinating Council has, over this period of time, achieved greater unanimity in regard to local government matters.

In order to ensure better, more rational and more functional representation on the Co-ordinating Council and its action committee, it is now necessary to amend sections 3 and 5 of the Promotion of Local Government Affairs Act, 1983, the principal Act. As a result of the transfer of specific Black local authority functions from the then Department of Co-operation and Development to the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning during May, 1985, the membership of the Minister of Co-operation, Development and Education and the Director-General of Co-operation and Development are no longer necessary. At the same time, however, a need developed for the hon the Minister of Finance to be a member of the Co-ordinating Council in view of the numerous matters with financial implications which are being considered by the council.

The Act is therefore being amended by deleting the references to the Minister of Co-operation, Development and Education and the Director-General: Co-operation and Development and replacing them with that of the Minister of Finance as a member of the council. Because of the fact that an official of the Department of Finance is already a member of the Co-ordinating Council in terms of section 3(2)(f), it is not necessary to make further provision for an additional representative from that department.

In view of the aforementioned, I want to express my sincere gratitude to the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid and the Director-General of the Department of Co-operation and Development for their valuable contribution to the successful functioning of the Co-ordinating Council.

During the 1985 parliamentary session the Act was amended in such a way as to permit the Urban Councils Association of South Africa—which is abbreviated as Ucasa—to obtain representation, as the recognised mouthpiece of Black local authorities, on the Co-ordinating Council. Provision was then made in the Act for the representation of the Director of Ucasa and two other members of the association of the Co-ordinating Council, and also for one member of the action committee. The reason why Ucasa could not, at that stage, obtain the same representation as the United Municipal Executive and the National ad hoc committee was that at that stage Ucasa had not yet been established nationwide. Now, however, the position has improved to such an extent that Ucasa can claim the same representation as the other two associations.

Another important aspect which must be borne in mind is that by means of the Black Local Authorities Amendment Bill, which was recently passed by Parliament, the approximately 190 community councils will be transformed into a form of local authority, something which will also justify the increased representation of Ucasa on the Coordinating Council. This is an important step forward in the constitutional processes currently being initiated by the Government to facilitate power-sharing through joint deliberation and decision-making amongst all the population groups, without one group dominating another.

In the Promotion of Local Government Affairs Amendment Act, Act No 110 of 1985, provision was made for the establishment of a Demarcation Board for Local Government Areas. Section 7(A)(2) of the principal Act provides that the Demarcation Board shall consist of a maximum of seven members appointed by the hon the Minister after consultation with the action committee of the Co-ordinating Council and with the concurrence of the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture. Under the chairmanship of a judge of the Supreme Court, the Demarcation Board has already instituted an investigation into the delimitation of four regional services council areas and given attention to adjusting the boundaries of a number of local authority areas.

In the implementation of its functions the Demarcation Board, with only seven members, could apparently not deal with all the requests with the necessary promptness. It should be borne in mind that the respective administrators are already giving consideration to the demarcation of a number of other areas for the purposes of regional services councils. What is more, in terms of section 9(1) of the Regional Services Council Act, 1985, the Demarcation Board shall attend to the demarcation of commercial and business areas which are not taken into consideration for the purposes of the apportionment of votes in a regional services council.

In clause 3 of the proposed Bill provision is made for a number of members who can be appointed by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, after consultation with the action committee of the Co-ordinating Council and with the concurrence of the respective Ministers responsible for local government matters.

Thus it is possible to appoint a sufficient number of persons to establish committees, in terms of section 7(D) of the principal Act, for the purpose of undertaking local investigations on behalf of the Demarcation Board. Thus the investigations can be finalised expeditiously, with the use of local members contributing to a reduction in the costs of the investigations.

In terms of section 7F(l)(a) of the principal Act, at the request of the administrator the Demarcation Board must carry out an investigation into the desirability or otherwise of the demarcation, alteration or withdrawal of the demarcation of the area of jurisdiction of a local authority. The proposed amendment is only applicable to one of the above-mentioned functions of the Demarcation Board, ie that of the alteration of the area of jurisdiction of a local authority. The clause which, under certain circumstances, obviates the necessity for an investigation by the Demarcation Board, can therefore not be applied when the area of jurisdiction of a new local authority is being demarcated. In such a case an investigation by the Demarcation Board, with recommendations to the administrator, remains a requirement that has to be met in terms of the provisions of the principal Act.

In many cases these alterations affect only one local authority or embody smaller alterations between two adjacent local authorities to ensure a more efficient rendering of services. The said alterations must be advertised in terms of provincial ordinances, thus enabling interested parties to submit comments or lodge objections. The requirement necessitating an investigation in all cases by the Demarcation Board unnecessarily delays the process. The proposed amendment, effected by the insertion of subsection (4), will expedite the finalisation of minor alterations to local authority areas when the relevant local authorities agree and when no objections to the proposed alterations are received.

In conclusion I want to express my thanks and appreciation to the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning for the important contributions made to the proposed amendments. The amendments, particularly those in clause 4, attest to a concerted interest in developing procedures to ensure efficient administration.

Mr Chairman, this is a short Bill which should not in fact take up much of the House’s time. I am rising merely to pledge our support for the Bill.

I briefly wish to point out, as has in fact been indicated in the explanatory memorandum, that clause 1(a) and clause 2 contain mere terminological changes in order to substitute references to the Minister of Finance for references to the Minister of Co-operation, Development and Education with regard to the composition of the co-ordinating council and the action committee of that council.

We also support the expansion of the coordinating council to 10 members representing Ucasa. The only difficulty with that, which was stated very clearly on the standing committee, especially by the hon member for Umbilo, is that the council is so large that one wonders whether it will be able to function effectively.

In clause 4 it mainly concerns the question of the right of the Administrator to demarcate areas, and that the demarcation board does not always have to hold public meetings. The circumstances in which the demarcation board does not consider public meetings necessary, are spelt out in the clause. The standing committee also brought about an improvement in this regard.

We gladly support all the provisions in the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I rise simply to thank the hon member Prof Olivier for his support of this measure. Here it is solely a matter of the correction of a legal technicality in the principal Act in the sense that in terms of Clause 1 the Minister of Finance will now also have a seat on the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs. The fact that the hon the Minister of Finance dealt with the Regional Services Councils Amendment Bill this morning is an indication of the close contact he has with local government affairs.

Other clauses are concerned with the composition of the demarcation board, as well as with the extension of the representation of Ucasa on the Co-ordinating Council. These are all amendments that are introduced to make the whole process of the establishment of local authorities, and in particular, the demarcation of the areas of jurisdiction of regional services councils, more meaningful.

Basically that is all that is embodied in this measure. There should not be anything contentious in it, and I gladly support the measure.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to express our opposition to this measure. [Interjections.] Even if only a few smaller amendments are at issue here, they have reference to legislation that affects the essence of our standpoint. The issue here is powersharing on the third tier of Government. I want to single out one paragraph from the hon the Deputy Minister’s Second Reading speech which illustrates this point very well. He said:

The last phrase in this quotation “without one group dominating another”, forms part of the essential question we have asked the Government in all these debates. We asked how the Government was going to effect this. To use the term used by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, it is not attainable. [Interjections.]

When my friend, the hon member for Brakpan, quoted a moment ago from a letter that appeared in Die Burger yesterday, the hon the Minister was not present in the House. I want to ask him to read that whole letter. We predicted that the reply of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to the earlier letter written by the same writer…

You have referred to it 20 times already!

No, we have not referred to it 20 times! From the letter that appeared yesterday, it will be clear to the hon the Minister that the writer of the letter is not at all satisfied with the reply he received. I am going to quote only two sentences from it.

You are upset about it, we are not! [Interjections.]

The writer of the letter, with the pseudonym “Vrae wat Pla op S”—that must be Stellenbosch—wrote:

That is the problem situation we have to contend with!

In England!

In England! Oh, my goodness, Sir. [Interjections.] The next paragraph reads:

With the writer of the letter, I want to say the Government should rather seek other solutions. They must consider the solutions from this side of the House, viz partition and separate third tier authorities for the various peoples of Southern Africa.

When the legislation about the Council for the co-ordination of Local Government Affairs was originally submitted to this House, the hon the Minister said on Wednesday, 1 June 1983 (Hansard: House of Assembly, vol 107, col 8292):

We said in that debate that it reminded us a great deal of the President’s Council which was also only to advise the Government. We had reservations about that. I want to quote from my Hansard at that time (col 8315):

Order! The hon member is straying too far from this amending Bill. This is an amending Bill. That is all it is and the principles of the original Act have nothing to do with it. The hon member must therefore confine himself to the contents of this Bill.

Sir, I shall not go into it in any more detail, except to say that amendments were introduced to the legislation in 1984 and 1985, and that Blacks were also involved in the legislation in 1985—something that hon Minister and the Government said would never happen.

I shall confine myself to your ruling, and look at the Bill itself. Section 3 of the Promotion of Local Government Affairs Act which makes provision for the composition of the co-ordinating council, is amended by clause 1 and the Minister of Co-operation, Development and Education and his Director-General are being omitted completely. As I pointed out yesterday, that is a further dismantling of that particular ministry. I predict that even Black education will be taken away and that in the end nothing will remain of that department.

Clause 1(c) makes provision for the increase in the representation of the Urban Councils Association of South Africa, Ucasa, to 10 members in accordance with the representation of the national ad hoc committee of management committees. According to the memorandum, approximately 190 community councils will now be converted into local authorities. These local authorities that are to be established are being given exactly the same representation as White local authorities.

That has been done already. It is in the Act already.

I merely want to single out this principle, viz that other legislation lays a great deal of emphasis on financial contributions as a basis for representation. In the case of regional services councils and even for franchise on local government level, financial contributions or the value of property ownership are used as the basis for representation. Equal representation is being given in this case, however. [Interjections.] Why is there a departure in this case from that accepted principle of financial contribution or of property value?

The original section 7A of the principal Act makes provision for the Demarcation Board for Local Government Areas to consist of not more than seven members. This provision is being amended in terms of clause 3 so that the membership of the demarcation board can be extended because it will be their duty to demarcate regions for regional services councils. This will entail quite a lot of additional work and this increase in the membership is probably necessary. I should just like the hon the Deputy Minister to tell me how many members this Demarcation Board is going to consist of in future, since this is not specified in the Bill.

Clause 4 introduces an amendment so that it is no longer necessary for an enquiry in connection with the removal or changing of boundaries to be referred to the whole demarcation board once again. This can be done by the Administrator as long as a local authority has given a written indication that it has no objection and the Minister and the Ministers of Local Government agree that a report from the demarcation board is not necessary. I merely want to make one remark about this amendment, viz that provision is now being made for the boundaries of regional services councils to extend beyond the boundaries of national states.

What?

Yes, that is true. The boundaries of regional services councils can therefore cross the borders of Lebowa or kwaZulu, depending on the particular case. In my opinion this is a mechanism which can be used to blur and eventually eradicate the relevant boundaries to. If one was eventually to let the areas of regional services councils and even those of local authorities extend over other boundaries, the latter boundaries would, in the end no longer exist constitutionally. I cannot see how the Minister can still envisage that self-governing areas can develop into independent areas under circumstances of this nature for which provision is being made here. This applies to the third tier of government. This will also be the case on the second tier of government in terms of the legislation which we were to have discussed just after this, that there are indications in the case of kwaZulu and Natal that eventually there will be one representative body which will control the province of Natal and kwaZulu together. The same applies to the first tier of government where this objective is envisaged as well, by means of the statutory council. This therefore amounts to a fully integrated government on the first, second and third tiers of government. We on this side of the House are most strongly opposed to this.

A co-worker of the South African Bureau for Racial Affairs, Mr N J Jonker, said in the April edition of their publication that from his enquiry into this specific legislation as it is being amended, it is clear that general and own affairs are becoming inseparable. A heterogeneous society such as the one in South Africa is faced by a turning point time and again in which one has to choose between unification and separation. The Government is choosing unification here. The CP and the HNP choose the policy of separation, because separation is the only way of retaining self-determination and of securing the future. For that reason, in the case of every measure, we shall choose separation instead of integration and the unification of all peoples in South Africa. That is why we shall oppose this legislation before us most strongly.

Mr Chairman, right at the outset I want to indicate that we are also not very happy with this Bill, but not for the same reasons as the hon members of the CP. In fact, we are unhappy about it for very different reasons indeed. Apart from anything else we are, as usual, being consistent in this matter. Right from the very creation of this Council for the Coordination of Local Government Affairs we have been very unhappy about the large numbers of people involved in this council.

As far as we can see the main motivation for this Bill is that Black local authorities, as they are now being transformed into virtually the same sort of local authorities as White local authorities and others, should have representation. We cannot disagree with that.

Again there is the replacement of the hon the Minister of Co-operation, Development and Education by the hon the Minister of Finance. That makes some sense because as the functions have been transferred to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning it is quite logical that the hon the Minister of Co-operation, Development and Education—his designation has now been changed—should no longer remain as the Minister on this particular committee.

But what you really mean is that you would like him to vanish forever.

Well, that would help.

As I said earlier it is quite reasonable for Ucasa to have representation. However, I believe that the numbers we are talking about are quite ridiculous. To have 10 members in respect of Ucasa is in my opinion totally excessive as is, in fact, the number on the committee altogether. I do not know whether hon members are aware of how many people there are on this committee. There are 23 ex officio members, 32 nominated members plus any other members that the Minister may have nominated in the meantime under section 14, plus these 10 new members and all the officials who are involved. That is between 65 and 80 people. This is ridiculous! It is not a committee any more when one is dealing with that sort of number. We are very unhappy about this. Hon members must remember that the hon the Minister has not quite finished I am quite sure because he may possibly have overlooked the fact that as yet he does not have representation by the regional services councils. They still have to come and there will obviously have to be one member from each regional services council or, at the very least, one from each province. Heaven alone knows, therefore, how many members there are ultimately going to be on this committee.

Furthermore from what one has seen from the legislation that has emanated from the deliberations of that committee I do not think that they are doing a terribly good job. So I should like to ask whether we really need this large number. I want to suggest that if the committee has to continue—and I would assume the hon the Minister believes it has to—I would be inclined to suggest that instead of putting additional members on, give these people the right to a certain number of members, say one for each province, and then reduce the numbers of other people, for example, from the UME, to one from each province, plus the secretary. One does not need 10 or 12 from each province. I do not know whether anybody realises just how much it costs every time this committee meets. People have to come from all over South Africa sometimes just to meet for an hour. Committee members are supposed to be consulted but friends of mine who have attended these meetings have informed me that they are sometimes asked for their opinion but are subsequently simply told what the decision will be. So, as far as I can see, there will be an advantage in substantially reducing the numbers of this committee.

I suggest that if one were to reduce the representation of the UME from 12 plus the secretary to four, and those of the ad hoc committee which deals with local affairs committees and so forth, from 11 to four—again one from each province—and those of UCASA to one from each province—although even then it is a moot point whether they should be a separate entity—one would then have 12 members from these three bodies instead of the present 35 members. One wonders whether the Government ever stops to think who the deuce is paying for this little lot. [Interjections.] It is the public that is paying for it. All of this nonsensical expenditure is highly inflationary and I honestly do not think that the hon the Minister concerned is really one bit worried about it. In other words, the attitude is: “It does not matter what it costs. It is not coming out of my pocket. It is public money.”

Clause 3 is another one which rather worries me. In terms of the original Bill, seven members were to be appointed to the Demarcation Board, and that is fair enough. I believe that if one has to have regional councils, then one will also have to have demarcation boards. I cannot query or quarrel with that as a concept, having accepted the principle. Here again, however, in this particular Bill they are calling for more members of the Demarcation Board. There is no indication—not even a proper motivation—in respect of how many people we are likely to be needing. It is an open-ended, unlimited number.

Jobs for pals.

Here again, as my hon colleague to my left indicates, there is another good opening for jobs for pals.

I realise that if they are to get all these regional councils operational simultaneously, they will have to have people operating in all four provinces in order to get things moving. Additional members may well be needed. I would like to be fair and reasonable about this. Additional members may be needed on a temporary basis. However, here again there was no attempt to think in terms of curbing expenditure and there was no attempt to indicate the maximum number that might be involved. I therefore believe that this blatant disregard for public expenditure cannot be supported.

Clause 4 in the original Bill was totally unacceptable, as it gave the new provincial Gauleiters who will be taking over on 1 July total powers to alter the areas of jurisdiction of local authorities without an inquiry if, in the opinion of the Administrator, other local authorities in the area did not have an interest in the proposed alteration. Mark well that it was in the Administrator’s opinion. There was no apology for anything other than that he could decide whether there was to be a proper inquiry where people could give evidence and so forth. Fortunately, however, that went before the standing committee and was picked up and thrashed out and made a lot more democratic, fair and acceptable. However, the very concept of it in its original form was so autocratic, and what infuriates hon members of this House—certainly hon members on these benches—is the fact that so much of the legislation coming out these days has this autocratic approach to it. I grant that it was amended in the standing committees because the members of the various political parties would not tolerate this autocratic approach. Even on this issue, however, they say that if the local authorities do not object. No one who has any understanding of local authority affairs would even dream of putting such legislation as this before one, because a person who is moved out of one local authority into another by virtue of a relocation of boundaries, can be faced with enormous expenditure. The rates, the service charges and all sorts of things can materially change if one has the boundaries changed. Therefore the public must be given this right. In the Bill this has in fact been done and that is the one saving grace in this Bill, as we see it. That has been improved, but as far as the rest of the Bill is concerned I am afraid we cannot accept it and therefore we will not be supporting the Bill—however, and I emphasise this again before I sit down, for totally different reasons to those of the CP.

Mr Chairman, the essence of the hon member for Umbilo’s argument was that the number of members serving on the Co-ordinating Council was unacceptable to him. When, however, one bears in mind the great responsibility that rests on this council, and one considers what this council, with its knowledgeable members, has achieved in the field of local government during the past three years, one can only have appreciation for it. I acknowledge that the hon member for Umbilo is quite right when he says that we are engaged in a process of reform and that the number of members serving on the Co-ordinating Council could be reduced in future. This is quite possible, but I should like to tell the hon member that, considering that local governments throughout the country were previously inclined to act in isolation and that the taxpayers in our cities and towns had to pay for that, and also considering that a process of urbanisation is taking place in our country—and, in fact, throughout the world—the proposals of the Co-ordinating Council will in future bring about a great saving.

The 1983 Constitution heralded a new constitutional dispensation. It led to a White Parliament making room for a tricameral parliament in which Whites, Asians and Coloureds sit together. In the process we also made provision for independent, autonomous local governments for each group. We have just passed amending legislation in respect of regional services councils, by means of which we are affording other groups in our country an opportunity to participate at that level. We abolished provincial councils in order to make provision for another structure in which we will accommodate all the groups in our country.

I can understand that the hon member for Pietersburg does not agree with this for the simple reason that people of colour will take their place on this Co-ordinating Council.

Not in its present form.

We simply have to accept that the hon members of the CP will differ with us in this regard, but with all due respect to the hon member for Pietersburg, on what basis is he going to deny these people the right to participation, especially when one considers the work being done by these people, particularly at local government level? [Interjections.] We cannot deny them that opportunity.

I should like to come back to the measure that is before the House today. The object of this measure is first of all to increase the number of members serving on the Co-ordinating Council. In so doing we will also grant the Urban Councils Association (Ucasa)—those are our Black people—the opportunity to have an equal number of members serving on the Co-ordinating Council in order to bring it in line with the United Municipal Executive. That is what is happening here. The number of members of the action committee is also being increased and the primary aim of this is to give these people an equal say as well.

The hon member for Umbilo mentioned that the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid and his Director-General would no longer serve on the Co-ordinating Council and now had to make way for the hon the Minister of Finance and his Director-General. I think this is a wise move because now the Black people themselves will accept the responsibility of rendering those services.

The last measure to which I want to refer is the provision that the membership of the Demarcation Board may now be increased. In terms of the Act in its present form, the Demarcation Board consists of seven members, but the Minister is now being empowered to expand the membership of this board. The object is exclusively to expedite the demarcation of territories falling under the control of the regional services councils. We know that the Demarcation Board is currently demarcating four territories for regional services councils. In order to establish regional services councils the process of demarcation must be accelerated. In terms of this measure the Minister may now appoint as many members the Demarcation Board as he deems necessary. What is important is that this will still take place in consultation with the action committee and the own affairs Minister dealing with local government affairs.

I have pleasure in supporting the Bill and wish the members of the Co-ordinating Council well. I also want to express my appreciation to those knowledgeable people for the good work that they are doing in coordinating local governments to the advantage of all the taxpayers of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, the HNP is opposed to this legislation and I shall vote against it. This Bill forms part of the legislation that is being passed these days specifically to make South Africa a totally racially mixed society in which the various peoples will ultimately become completely intertwined.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon member for Witbank sincerely for the very clear explanation he gave of the amendments contained in the Bill. The Bill amends the principal Act and the principles have already been laid down in that Act. Hon members will therefore pardon me if I do not follow up certain statements they made here.

The hon member for Witbank gave a very clear exposition of the amendments and I agree with him wholeheartedly. I want to thank the hon member prof Olivier very much for his support for the amendments. He referred to the ten members of Ucasa who will serve on the council and he asked whether the council would not now be too large still to be effective. My experience of the council has been that it is very effective. I have had no experience of local government and I did not grow up with it, but I have always found it interesting to see how effectively people work together on local government level and how much enthusiasm they have for it. I have great appreciation for people who serve on local authorities. The hon member need not be concerned. Even though the council is big, it will be very effective.

The hon member for Bellville referred to the Minister of Finance who will now become a member of the co-ordinating council and to the Minister also dealing with the financial aspects of regional services councils. That gives us a clear indication that the Minister of Finance could make a major contribution to the functioning of the co-ordinating council. As is the case with all bodies, especially at local government level, finances pose a big problem. If the Minister of Finance is involved in a body, so much the better.

The hon member for Pietersburg referred to the demarcation board and pointed out that more members could now serve on that board. He asked how many more members would now serve on it. The answer is, as many members as are necessary to do the work. As the hon member for Witbank correctly stated, and as I also said in my Second Reading speech, the Bill provides in clause 3 for a number of members whom the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning may appoint after consultation with the action committee of the co-ordinating council and—this is very important—with the concurrence of the respective Ministers who are responsible for local government affairs. It is therefore not, as the hon member for Umbilo implied, that we are acting autocratically and that the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is now a total autocrat. He can only enlarge the demarcation board after consultation with the action committee of the co-ordinating council and after the respective Ministers charged with local government in the various administrations have given their approval.

The hon member for Pietersburg said that a regional services council could operate across boundaries. That is so, but it does not mean that boundaries are now being done away with. It does not mean an abolition of a particular boundary. It only means that the regional services council would render services on both sides of the boundary, but the boundary, as fixed, will continue to exist. As far as the regional services council is concerned, it is only concerned with the rendering of services to communities. Therefore it is not an abolition of the country’s boundaries that have already been fixed.

I should also like to tell the hon member for Pietersburg that the co-ordinating council continues to be solely an advisory body. Through the amendments that have been moved here the composition of the council is being changed, but not the function. The powers of the council are not being changed. It continues to remain an advisory council only. The co-ordinating council can give equal representation to bodies because it has not executive powers whatsoever. If we in South Africa cannot even come together on an advisory body and if we also see it a danger to our survival, I really do not know whether we still have the backbone to survive.

The hon member for Pietersburg referred to the words “without one group dominating another” that I used in my Second Reading speech. He wanted to know that it means. I want to invite him to come to that very same co-ordinating council because just like me I do not think he has any experience of local government. It is precisely on that level that we find the various communities with their own local authorities. We find that the local authorities could be represented on a regional services council that has to supply services to a community which local authorities are unable to supply. These local authorities are also represented on the co-ordinating council which provides the Government with advice. Here we see how the various communities of South Africa can deliberate jointly and reach consensus on a matter.

†Mr Chairman, the hon member for Umbilo is unhappy, but I want to inform him that the associations involved requested that the membership of Ucasa be increased to 10. I want to quote from the minutes of an ad hoc committee meeting between the United Municipal Executive of South Africa and Ucasa which was held in Bloemfontein on Saturday, 7 December 1985. I quote from page four of the minutes, as follows:

That was a request from the associations involved in the co-ordinating council. [Interjections.] It does not come from the Minister. We are not acting in an autocratic manner at all. This is a request on the part of the organisations involved in the co-ordinating council. I can also inform the hon member that the co-ordinating council only meets twice a year—in March and again in October. It is quite clear therefore that council meetings do not really involve vast amounts of money.

About R80 000 per meeting!

Well, Mr Chairman, it is easy for me, too, simply to mention any amount at random. I am not sure of what it really costs but I am quite sure the amount the hon member for Umbilo has just mentioned is not correct. Be that as it may, Sir, one must never fail to appreciate the value of the work done by the coordinating council. I should also like to inform the hon member for Umbilo that the action committee meets more often, and is composed of far fewer members than the coordinating council. The members of the action committee are actually doing the work. It is not correct, therefore, to allege that vast amounts of money are being spent on the coordinating council.

*Mr Chairman, I believe I have now replied fully to all the questions and arguments of hon members in respect of the envisaged amendments. I want to thank the hon member prof Olivier again for his support for this measure. It is quite understandable that the Conservative Party and the HNP will not of course support it.

I just have to say that it is definitely a pity that the hon member for Umbilo is so difficult and irritable today. I do not know why he is being so difficult. He is usually such a friendly person. Yet he made such vehement attacks here today. However, I want to give him the assurance that we shall nevertheless proceed with this course in order to establish a healthy system of local government in South Africa.

Question put,

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, on 28 October 1985, the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs appointed the following four committees of enquiry to investigate and report on the role of various institutions concerned with development at the local authority level, taking into consideration functions which could be transferred to the regional services councils viz the Committee of Enquiry into the future of the 38 divisional councils of the Cape in the new constitutional dispensation under the chairmanship of the Administrator of the Orange Free State, Mr L J Botha; the Committee of Enquiry into the future of the Development and Services Board in Natal and the seven regional water services corporations under the chairmanship of the Administrator of the Cape Province, Mr E Louw; the Committee of Enquiry into the future of the 13 development boards in the new constitutional dispensation under the chairmanship of the Administrator of Transvaal, Mr W A Cruywagen; and the Committee of Enquiry into the future of the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas under the chairmanship of the Administrator of Natal, Mr R M Cadman. Representatives of all the development bodies concerned were involved from the start of the investigations.

On 13 December 1985 the reports of the committees of enquiry were considered by the action committee of the co-ordinating council and, with a few amendments these reports were approved in principle and submitted to the full co-ordinating council.

Had full effect been given to the recommendations of the four committees of enquiry as accepted by the action committee of the co-ordinating council the aforementioned development bodies would have been abolished at some or other stage and the functions transferred to other institutions.

As far as personnel matters are concerned, the action committee consequently approved the appointment of a subcommittee of inquiry under the chairmanship of an official of the Commission for Administration. The terms of reference of the committee were to investigate the position of the personnel of the aforementioned development bodies. The committee therefore had to consider the position of the personnel should the existing institutions be abolished and the functions and personnel be transferred to other bodies.

Three alternative proposals regarding personnel matters were submitted by the subcommittee to the full co-ordinating council in Cape Town on 10 March 1986, when the reports of the four committees of inquiry were considered. At the request of the South African Association of Municipal Employees (Saame) representatives of the association were afforded the opportunity to address the co-ordinating council regarding the implications of the proposals for the members of the association.

The recommendations of the co-ordinating council were then submitted to the Government and the Minister of Constitutional De velopment and Planning announced the decisions of the Government in the House of Assembly on Monday, 12 May 1986.

Any adaptations to structures inevitably result in the personnel of those structures being affected. As it is imperative to give due attention to the human element, the personnel committee was directed to give detailed consideration to all aspects of personnel administration.

The historical development of the various actions has been described in detail to emphasise that as far as possible all the interested parties were acknowledged and involved in all the investigations concerning the future of the development bodies and their personnel.

As appears from the provisions of the Bill, the Government will also involve the personnel association and trade unions directly concerning the question of how the transformation should take place, and more specifically the permanent placement of staff. Thus these associations and unions will be afforded the opportunity to make recommendations on behalf of their members regarding the practical application of the provisions of the Bill regarding the placement of the personnel in the service of appropriate public authorities.

The Government is fully aware of the expertise development over decades by the personnel of the various development bodies. To ensure the retention of such expertise and continuity in the rendering of services it is absolutely necessary, irrespective of the future of the institutions to which the personnel are attached, to guarantee that the employees will be dealt with in a fair and reasonable manner and also humanely. To give effect to this approach to personnel matters, the following underlying principles are to be found in the Bill:

1. (a) Continuity in the rendering of services with as little disruption as possible of the personnel involved;
2. (b) to treat personnel when transferred to other institutions as individuals with peculiar preferences, skills and abilities;
3. (c) as far as possible to simultaneously transfer the functions and officials responsible for them to the appropriate receiving institution. For example, more or less 540 officials in the employment of development boards previously responsible for labour regulation will be transferred to the Department of Manpower where they will continue with similar work, but under new employers. In a like manner, a number of officials of development boards who had previously been responsible for influx control will most probably be transferred to the Department of Home Affairs to take responsibility for controlling migration from adjacent countries and the issuing of the new uniform identity documents;
4. (d) to guarantee certain conditions of service such as salaries, pension privileges and accumulated leave, as set out in clauses 4(6), (7) and (8) of the Bill;
5. (e) to obtain finality and security as soon as possible regarding the future of the personnel; and
6. (f) to retain officials rather than let them leave the employment of the public service or to declare them redundant.

Mr Chairman, the Bill deals with the abolition of five categories of development bodies which, because of unique circumstances pertaining to the various provinces, are not all to be abolished on the same date.

The five categories of development bodies are dealt with as follows in terms of the provisions of the Bill:

A. Development Boards

The 13 existing all-White development boards—formerly known as administration boards—will be abolished in terms of clause 2(1) with effect from 1 July 1986. The 13 chairmen and approximately 78 board members will thus in terms of clause 2(4) vacate their offices with effect from 1 July 1986.

In terms of clause 4(1), the provincial Administrators and their executive committees are placed in control of the administrative components—the employees—of the former development boards with effect from 1 July 1986.

All assets, rights, duties and obligations of the boards will be vested in the Administrators in terms of clause 3(l)(a). In order to ensure continuity in the rendering of services, the administrative units are provisionally retained as intact components and added to the various provincial administrations under the authority of the four provincial secretaries who become the accounting officers in terms of clause 3(l)(b).

Although the original employers will no longer exist, all employees of the former development boards will, in terms of clause 4(4)(a), retain the conditions of service at present applicable to them during the transitional period and during that period they will, in terms of clause 5(3), continue to render services normally rendered by them and will remain in the posts presently occupied by them.

During the transitional period, which will probably end before the beginning of the next financial year on 1 April 1987, functions will be transferred and employees will, in terms of clause 4(5), be placed in posts with the assistance of the Commission for Administration. Clauses 4(6), (7) and (8) protect certain conditions of service of the employees who are to be placed in the employment of public authorities.

An important amendment to clause 4(5)(b) was brought about by the standing committee to the effect that a person may be transferred to a local authority only with his consent.

The various personnel associations to which the employees belong can assist the staff and see to their interests regarding placement in posts etc during the transitional period.

Clause 4(6) is applicable to persons transferred to the Public Service. In this clause specific provision is made for conditions of service which do not normally apply in the Public Service to be retained on the recommendation of the Commission for Administration and with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance. Should any employee be appointed as a public servant, the provisions of the Public Service Act, 1984, will become applicable to him instead of the provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1956.

Clause 4(7) is applicable to persons who are to be transferred to local authorities or to regional services councils. The same provisions which are contained in section 4(2) of the Regional Services Councils Act, No 109, 1985, apply here. A person is therefore transferred subject to such rights and privileges as are applicable to him at the time of his transfer.

Clause 4(8) is applicable to persons who are to be transferred to other statutory bodies such as the Industrial Development Corporation, which will probably temporarily take over the sorghum beer industry during the process of privatisation.

To avoid any misunderstanding regarding decision-making after 1 July 1986, the provincial secretaries—in collaboration with all the parties concerned have already determined the line of authority and communication to the provincial secretary and the Administrator which will be in operation after 1 July 1986.

The Administrators and their executive committees, as composed after 1 July 1986, will, in terms of clause 7, be entitled to make use of advisers to assist them in the execution of their new duties.

The abolition of the boards and the addition of the development function to the provincial administrations confirm the fact that the provincial administrations are destined to increasingly become agents for development. With this step their development capability is enhanced. The development actions will, however, not be limited to one population group only but will include all the communities in a specific province.

In view of the fact that the provincial administrations will be responsible for general affairs and that the members of the executive committee can belong to any population group, this step makes it possible also to include Black political office bearers in the decision-making process which pertinently affects the interests of their communities.

B. Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas

The Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas is also being abolished in terms of clause 2(1) with effect from 1 July 1986, and the chairman and members of the board vacate their offices with effect from the date in terms of clause 2(4).

The Administrator of the Transvaal and his executive committee are placed in control of the administrative component—the employees—of the former Peri-Urban Areas Development Board for the Transvaal.

Personnel will be treated as has already been fully explained with regard to the development board personnel.

Considering the fact that the bulk of the functions of the board is aimed at the provision of services to White communities, part of the administrative component might possibly in due course be transferred to the Administration: House of Assembly when the own affairs aspects of local authorities are transferred from the Transvaal Provincial Administration to the various Ministers’ Councils.

C. Cape Divisional Councils

Divisional councils will temporarily continue to exist until a date not later than 30 June 1987, which date was inserted in clause 2(2) by the standing committee after lengthy deliberations.

It was previously announced that for the interim period until the abolition of the divisional councils the employees would be attached to the Cape Provincial Administration with the retention of their existing conditions of service. This would be done to remove any doubt as to their security of tenure.

Clause 4(10) makes this possible but in view of the fact that contradictory representations were received from the employees of the divisional councils, a decision in this regard will still have to be taken.

Written representations were subsequently received from the Association of Divisional Councils to transform the 38 divisional councils in the Cape Province into regional services councils. This request can only be implemented by way of appropriate amendments to the Regional Services Councils Act, which might be submitted to Parliament in August, after consultation with interested parties.

D. Natal Development and Services Board and regional water services corporations

The Natal Development and Services Board will continue to exist provisionally, with only a few adjustments, in its present form until its functions can be rationalised with those of the regional services councils. As agreed upon, the own affairs administrations will be given representation on the board.

The seven Natal regional water services corporations will also continue to exist provisionally, except in cases where a corporation’s service area falls completely within the area of a regional services council.

In terms of the standing committee’s insertion of the date of 30 June 1987 in clause 2(2), these matters will have to be finalised before that day.

I conclude by saying that the Bill will result in improved rationalisation of services and will also result in all communities being given a direct voice in matters affecting their daily lives.

The process of constitutional reform takes another stride ahead. To the persons affected, I wish to express my thanks for understanding that the interests of our country and all its peoples weigh more heavily than the interests of any institution or body.

I thank those who have rendered a service, but above all I thank those who are still prepared to render service in the interests of a better South Africa.

Mr Chairman, this is the fourth measure before Parliament this year which affects the position of Blacks in a very fundamental way. In fact, two of those measures influenced the position of Blacks in an active way. They were the Abolition of Influx Control Bill and the Bill we dealt with this morning, the Black Communities Development Amendment Bill. The other two Bills deal mainly with the instruments or mechanisms in terms of which the policy of the past few years has been implemented. They are the Identification Bill which abolished the “dompas”, the passbook system, which was applicable to Blacks; and this Bill in which provision is being made for the abolition of the bodies that were responsible mainly for the administration of urban Blacks and in particular for the application of those other measures, the so-called influx control measures. When we consider these Bills, I have no doubt that this session is one of the most important yet experienced by Parliament as far as legislation with reference to Blacks is concerned.

Naturally this side of the House supports this Bill. As the Bill indicates, provision is being made here for the abolition of a whole number of bodies. In the first place there are the development boards which were formerly known as administration boards; secondly, the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas; thirdly, divisional councils which may be abolished; and in addition those two specific bodies in Natal.

Provision is also being made for the transfer of the assets and liabilities of the various bodies and for the transfer of their staff. The method that will be applied with reference to all three these matters in terms of the Bill—the transfer of assets and liabilities, the transfer of staff, and the application of legislation—is that all these things will be transferred to the Administrator first, and that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning will be able to take steps later to transfer the officials and the assets and liabilities to the other bodies, to one of the controlling bodies mentioned in the Bill.

The various controlling bodies are explained in the definition under the words “public authority” in clause 1. They are a Minister of the Republic—this is a reference to the Public Service—an Administrator, who represent the new executive authority in the provinces; a regional services council; a local authority; and “any other body” established in terms of law.

Until such time as the final transfer of assets, liabilities and staff has taken place, the Administrator and the executive authority of each province will have a kind of interim position. The Administrator is the employer as well as the owner of the assets and liabilities until the Minister has made a final arrangement in this connection.

In general this looks like a practical arrangement. The development boards and the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas will be abolished on 1 July 1986. The other bodies will be abolished by means of proclamation later, however. It appears that the interim steps that have to be done are imperative in the implementation of this Bill. We have spent a great deal of time, particularly on the question of the provision that has been made for the employees of the various bodies, especially of the development boards. According to the information given to us, approximately 7 000 Whites and approximately 12 000 Blacks are employed by these development boards. Great concern was expressed about the provision made in the Bill for their position, the securing of future employment, etc.

In general it looks as though the provision that is being made in the Bill is reasonably good. We do have a problem, however, especially in connection with the Black employees. We are not quite convinced of the fact that the interests of Black employees are receiving sufficient protection. We say this with reference to the fact that whereas White employees are all members of a trade union, most Black employees are not really represented.

I am grateful that the chairman of the standing committee agreed that the representatives of the White employees and of the boards of the development boards could appear before the standing committee and put their case there. We also tried to get representatives of the Black employees there—the hon chairman tried, the hon member for Bellville tried and so did others—but because of circumstances it was not possible to get a representative of the Black employees to give evidence before the standing committee.

Probably all in detention.

Yes, indeed. My colleague, the hon member for Pinetown, will elaborate on the question of the use of the labour legislation to protect the interests of those employees this afternoon.

In general, as I said, we agree with the legislation. I am referring to clause 5(l)(b) and the proviso there in particular, and clause 7 in which provision is made for the Administrator to be assisted by members serving in a advisory capacity.

I want to dwell on the question of the abolition of the development boards for just a moment. I must be honest in admitting that I am grateful—that I am pleased—that we have come to the end of the existence of these bodies. There is no doubt in my mind that the relationship between the greater majority of Blacks in this country and these development boards has deteriorated consistently through the years. I want to indicate why this has been the case. One of the reasons was that some of these boards’ officials were expected to apply a policy which the Blacks found onerous and which were essentially unacceptable to the Black population. We can have no illusions about that, surely. As a result, as I said, the image of these boards has deteriorated increasingly through the years. I want to add something, however. Naturally it also depends on how officials implement a policy, and there certainly were a number of officials—and I wish to express appreciation for that—who did their work as directors and officials of the development boards in a responsible and balanced way, in a way which really served the interests of the Blacks. I think we all know individuals of this kind in the development boards. There is talk about the poor image of the development boards that developed among the Blacks, but I want to say there were definitely many exceptions in respect of individuals who served on those development boards. It is not necessary to mention names; I think some of those people are known to us. I can mention the name of Mr Knoetze of the West Rand Development Board, for example, and those of other people.

We must have no illusions that, because of the position of authority they have over Blacks, and because of the legislation they applied, the great majority of the officials have really become a thorn in the flesh of many Blacks. In that respect I am also pleased that we have come to the end of the existence of the mechanisms that had to apply that policy mainly in respect of the urban Blacks.

In saying that, I want to address a serious request to the hon the Minister and the department, because eventually they have to decide where these people have to go to. I want to tell the hon the Minister there is a great fear that when these employees are transferred, they will merely be placed in other positions in which the Blacks will necessarily be subject to their authority in some form or another again. That fear does exist.

It would be completely useless to pass this legislation if a Black man was to walk into an office for some or other reason—to pay his rent or in connection with housing problems and so on—and see exactly the same officials he had got to know through the years as inspectors and other officials, people who had subjected him to their authority.

This fear that I am talking about is not a figment of my imagination. I have had appeals from throughout the country recently from people who say they are pleased the development boards are being abolished, but that in heaven’s name one must ensure that those officials are not placed in their former positions again. It should not be necessary for the Blacks to come into contact with those officials again. I am not talking about the officials I excluded earlier.

I want to make a very serious proposal—and I was asked this as well—and have it placed in black on white, whether one should not consider transferring officials from one province to another to prevent that possibility from occurring. That is how strong the fear is that what we are trying to achieve with this legislation will be undone.

It is particularly important in view of the intention in the new dispensation that Black affairs be transferred to the new provincial governments. Those provincial governments will in turn be in charge of regional services councils and local governments. That is why it is of the utmost importance that we ensure that this danger in people’s minds is not realised. I want to make a serious appeal to the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister to ensure that this does not happen.

I am not going to go into detail about the provisions that are being made for the transfer of the assets and liabilities, except to ask what the Government plans to do in respect of the liabilities of the development boards. How will the accumulated deficits in their accounts be dealt with? I shall be grateful if we can get details in this connection.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning I was involved with a great deal of this legislation during this session. Allow me in conclusion to express my appreciation to the chairman of the standing committee whom I always found exceptionally indulgent, helpful and understanding. I also want to express my appreciation for the spirit that prevailed in the standing committee among members of all groups and parties, including the hon member for Kuruman who represented the CP. Although we differed in principle, those differences were always expressed in the most courteous spirit and without bitterness. This also applied to the hon member’s reaction to other members of the standing committee. In this connection I also want to mention the exceptional contribution made by all members of the standing committee, including those representing the other two Houses.

In conclusion, I want to express my appreciation for the immense quantity of work done by the officials of the department in respect of all the legislation that was before the standing committee. I was impressed by the amount of work they did and the dedication they displayed. When one thinks of what exactly this Bill entailed, the task they performed was obviously an enormous one. I also want to express my thanks to them once again for the spirit they displayed. I am sure it impressed every member of the committee.

Without going into any more detail, I just want to reaffirm that we should like to support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, permit me firstly to express my appreciation to the hon member Prof Olivier for the kind words he addressed to me. I should also like to express my appreciation to all the hon members from all parties and from all three Houses who served on the standing committee. It was a pleasure to have had their cooperation there, and that the differences of opinion could always be discussed in a good spirit and attitude, with the purpose of trying to convey the opinions of the various parties while at the same time acting positively to promote the interests we represented in accordance with our mandate from the voters.

I should also like to mention that many of the members of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates diligently ensured that the interests of their voters were not ignored with regard to the legislation referred to and discussed on the standing committee. The whole purpose of the standing committee system is at least to raise and discuss the interests of the respective parties there and to give attention to such interests in a wide-ranging discussion so that a diversity of interests are not ignored. That is the value of these standing committees on which members of all the parties of all three the Houses serve.

This particular Bill, the Abolition of Development Bodies Bill, has a long history. Many years ago the municipalities dealt with Black affairs. A great variety of approaches were adopted to these functions in the various provinces. In due course it was decided that there should be a greater degree of rationalisation. As far as that work was concerned, the responsibilities were initially transferred to 28 administration boards. In time the number of administration boards gradually decreased until eventually there were 13. They were no longer called administration boards, but development boards because it was felt that greater emphasis should be placed on the development orientation of the boards.

Naturally these boards were often involved in the application of Acts and measures which were not popular, to put it mildly. This often caused the personnel to become involved in a relations situation which, through no fault of their own, made them very unpopular among the people they had to deal with.

I nevertheless think that we cannot accept the Bill at this stage without mentioning the fact that these boards also did positive and good work. Naturally there were incidents which caused problems, but the vast majority of the functions of these boards were of a positive and useful nature in the development situation in South Africa.

We have now reached a point, particularly in view of the fact that influx control is now being abolished, at which the whole matter has to be rationalised further. It was indicated last year that the boards as such, which consist of nominated persons, would cease to exist on 30 June this year, that is next Monday. In this Bill provision is being made for all the personnel whose interests are of course at stake—there are several thousand White and Black staff members—who will initially be working in transito, as it were, in the new controlling bodies. The first transfer of responsibilities will take place under the personal control of the Administrator. Thereafter further attention will gradually be given to the whole matter and certain responsibilities will be transferred to other bodies.

These development boards had an important task with regard to the provision of jobs. Thousands of Blacks came looking for jobs there. The task of providing jobs will most probably be transferred to the Department of Manpower, because there is a need for labour bureaus which can place people who report that they are unemployed and to which employers can apply when they need employees. Consequently, that section will probably be transferred to the Department of Manpower.

It was decided a number of years ago that the handling, brewing and sale of sorghum beer, had eventually to be phased out, because there was a kind of moral conviction that it was undesirable to sell liquor in order to render services to the Black community. The two simply do not go together, although the income derived from it, was very useful for doing positive work.

It reminds me of the story of the collection box standing in a bar with the purpose of collecting money for church work. The people in the bar contributed generously because they also salved their consciences by doing so. When the money was eventually handed to the minister, he was in a moral quandary as to whether or not he should accept that money which had been collected in a bar. Eventually the minister decided that if he could use the devil’s money in order to fight the devil, he would do so. In the same way he made a profit from sorghum beer in order to finance certain development work.

Other functions which can be transferred, are probably functions that will eventually be handled by the regional services councils. I am thinking of the handling of the infrastructure in many of the Black local government areas. Then there are aspects which in turn can be transferred to local authorities, to which personnel can also be transferred. However, I must add that as far as the transfer of personnel to local authorities is concerned, the Bill provides that these transfers may only be effected with their permission. So personnel cannot simply be transferred or sent to any local authority in any place in the country without taking the circumstances of personnel previously connected with the development boards into consideration. It will in fact be possible to effect transfers to other bodies besides local authorities.

There were many development functions, such as the erection of housing, which were undertaken by these development bodies. In all probability such development functions will now be undertaken mainly by either local authorities or utility companies and by private development undertakings.

One of the problems which surfaced during the discussions on this Bill was that personnel from the previous development bodies were very worried about their personnel rights. This matter was gone into properly, and despite the little time available for the discussion in the standing committee, we summoned the representatives of the directors and the chairman of the development boards at very short notice, as well as the legal representatives of the personnel association, the union of which many of the personnel are members. We carefully listened to their representations and certain amendments were effected in order to accommodate the problems which they had mentioned.

As the hon member Prof Olivier indicated, there were also four other types of bodies which are simultaneously being addressed by this Bill. The functions and the personnel of the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-urban Areas as well as the personnel of the development boards will immediately be transferred to the various provinces on 1 July 1986. The other three bodies, the divisional councils of the Cape Province, the Development and Services Board in Natal and the regional water services corporations will also be transferred. It was decided that that transfer would be effected not later than 30 June 1987. It was felt that an open-ended situation should not arise, allowing this matter to drag on for an unspecified time. It was decided that there should be a deadline for the transfer to be effected.

As far as the divisional councils of the Cape Province were concerned, the idea was expressed by the president of the Association of Divisional Councils—attention was subsequently given to this possibility by the divisional councils themselves—whether it would not perhaps be practical to convert these divisional councils into regional services councils automatically.

The standing committee took note of this request, but felt that the time was not yet ripe to do so. The idea must first be discussed properly, a further enquiry must be conducted, and an opportunity must be presented for representations to be made and evidence to be heard before this aspect can be accepted by the standing committee at such short notice. This resolution was adopted and I understand that the department is now drawing up a draft Bill to serve as a basis for consultation, negotiation and further discussions.

In general the Development and Service Board in Natal as well as the regional water services corporations did a lot of positive work over the years. It was also found that while the functions and personnel of these other organisations were now being transferred to the provincial administrations, it could be planned simultaneously. Naturally the functions of the regional water services corporations could in practice be transferred to the regional services councils when they come into operation. In this case the opportunity was nevertheless offered for an enquiry over 12 months so that attention could be given to this matter. This can however happen before the 12 months have elapsed. Attention was given to the possible closing date of the financial year of these bodies, which is at present 30 June. The State’s financial year for budgetary purposes closes on 31 March and it is possible that the transfer of functions and personnel can then coincide with the closing of the financial year of either of the two categories of bodies.

With regard to personnel, the fear was expressed that they would lose their rights. They were members of a union, namely Saame, and the fear arose that their rights might be prejudiced in some way or another. Firstly they are now being transferred, in transito, to other bodies while under the control of the Administrator, and they will continue to retain their rights. After they have been transferred to other bodies, for example as officials of the regional services councils, they may nevertheless remain members of Saame and enjoy the benefits of representation by the union. But if they are kept in the Public Service or in the provincial administrations, they will of course be incorporated into the Public Service personnel and fall under the control of the Commission for Administration. It goes without saying that any member experiencing problems has the right to make representations to the Commission for Administration.

Clause 4 of this Bill provides that no member may be discharged as a result of the transfer of the functions of these various boards to the four provincial administrations. No member loses out as regards salary or promotion rights. All those rights are to be retained.

Naturally any change causes a feeling of uncertainty and that uncertainty has been expressed in various places. Many members of Parliament were also approached by staff members of these boards who were worried about their future.

There is also the case of people whose present functions may change radically in future. I am referring to functions undertaken by the development boards with regard to influx control. Since influx control has now been abolished, that particular function falls away. We must pay attention to the fact that these people will nevertheless have to be guaranteed employment and a salary. These matters will be clarified in due course.

I gladly support this Bill, and I hope that this transfer will be effected in a positive way and to the benefit of all those involved.

Mr Chairman, it sometimes happens that an hon member of this House has to be absent on account of urgent obligations, and that is the case today with our representative on the standing committee, the hon member for Kuruman. We therefore have to place his apology in this respect on record.

I shall also deal in turn with each of the matters referred to by the hon member for Kliprivier and also those referred to by the hon member Prof Olivier. To begin with, however, I just want to say that the hon the Minister stated in his Second Reading speech that the process of constitutional reform was taking yet another step forward with the introduction of this Bill. The essence of this Bill, therefore, just like other Bills with which we have dealt recently, is the Government’s process of constitutional reform. The word “reform” is, of course, just a fine word the Government is using to bluff people into believing in the Government’s power-sharing and the policy of political integration which it is currently applying. Mr Chairman, you should not be shaking your head, because I am talking about the Bill when I refer to the reform process of the Government.

Order! The reform process of the Government is not under consideration at the moment. The hon member must deal more specifically with the Bill.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member was quoting from and discussing the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech. I wish to ask you to allow us to do that at least.

The hon member for Koedoespoort himself elicited the ruling by referring to the Chairman shaking his head. If the hon member for Koedoespoort had not done that, there might not have been a ruling. The hon member may proceed.

The fact of the matter is that this Bill is part of the Government’s reform process. This reform process means the introduction of power-sharing and political integration. It means, and this has been said repeatedly, the destruction of the policy of separate development or apartheid. We have already dealt with a series of laws which all culminate in this Bill. It is thus a consequential Bill which has to give effect to certain Bills that have already been passed. Inter alia there is that whole package to which the hon member for Jeppe referred earlier today. This Bill is probably the last which will be dealt with during this session.

When one reads this Bill and the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech, one faces the problem that this Bill is introducing reform for which the government is not ready at this stage. So we are actually dealing with an unplanned situation. In the first place, I want to point out to hon members that development boards are now being abolished and their functions are being transferred on 1 July to the envisaged administrator-in-executive committee or the new provincial system. At this stage I am not yet sure if that system can become operative on 1 July. I do not know whether all the Administrators and Executive Committees have as yet been nominated.

The functions of the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas are also being transferred to the envisaged provincial council. That brings us to the Cape divisional councils. Absolutely no more transfers are being done here. These councils will remain in existence until a date not later than 30 June 1987. That is a year from now. The Government is, therefore, not ready to carry out this transfer as far as divisional councils are concerned.

They are also not ready to transfer the Natal Development and Services Board and the regional water services corporation. In that respect, provision has been made for the transfer thereof on a date not later than 30 June 1987. It has been said specifically that this Development and Services Board will be transferred to the regional services councils. The regional services councils have not yet, however, got off the ground and that is the reason why the planning of this transfer cannot yet be finalised. A year must be allowed for that. This entire package of councils which now have to be done away with cannot be implemented, because the Government did not undertake the planning that would have enabled it to be ready for the transfer of these bodies, as in the case of these development boards.

What we are dealing with here is an imperfect, incomplete situation. In this respect we have the same problem as the one we had with the abolition of the provincial councils. The Government is abolishing the provincial councils, but it has not done its planning and is not ready for those functions to be transferred precisely on the intended date.

Rather flattering remarks have been made concerning the development boards which are now being abolished, but negative things have also been said about them. I just want to say today that the positive work done by these development boards can by no means be diminished by all kinds of problems regarding personnel who were not particularly dedicated or who did not behave as they should have. We must just remember that these development boards formed an essential part of the old NP’s policy of separate development, and those officials were confronted by the fact that they had to carry out the policy of the Government within the White part of South Africa where these Black people found themselves. We obviously had a situation in which there were certain elements who, because they were opposed to the policy of separate development, continually sowed seeds of dissatisfaction among the Black people. When an official had to carry out this policy, therefore, he had to contend with a party with whom he had to work who was not prepared to accept the policy and, therefore, was not prepared to give effect to what had to be carried out by the official in terms of this policy. Therefore I do not think it is very fair to come here today and blame the official for the bad relations which might have developed while he was doing his duty. To what extent should they rather have been laid at the door of the people with whom he worked and who, possibly due to provocation by liberals, were not prepared to accept this policy and what had to be done as far as they were concerned? [Interjections.]

The fact of the matter is that these development boards also did very important organisational work as far as urban Blacks were concerned. I also want to emphasise that they did a great deal to defuse situations. We cannot get away from the fact that these were skilled people. They knew the Blacks. They were well versed in the science of Blacks, if I may put it like that, or in knowledge of the Bantu, and consequently knew with whom they were dealing. They used their knowledge, skill and experience in more than one respect to defuse situations which might well have developed differently had it not been for certain actions taken by these officials, especially considering the provocation of liberal elements who motivated these people not to go along with the policy and the legal requirements these officials had to implement. Because this Bill is part of the Government’s reform process, which means power-sharing and political integration, and because it is unplanned and unprepared, the CP is not prepared to support it and agree to its Second Reading.

According to this Bill, one also has the situation that their assets, liabilities, rights and also their obligations are to be handed over to the province and to the Administrator and executive committee in embryo—in other words, the new provincial authority. This provincial authority is actually a body which deals with general affairs. The functions which the development boards have performed until now with regard to matters concerning, in the main, the local administration of urban Blacks will now become a general affairs since they are to be left in the hands of the provincial authority. It is clear, in view of Government policy and the implementation of its integration policy, that this will not be the end of the matter. It is very clear to me that some of these policies will have to be transferred to Black city councils and regional services councils. This transfer is thus a transitional phase during which one makes all Black affairs in that field general affairs, and after which one will have to channel them into the regional services councils and the Black city councils. It will indeed happen, as the State President said, that when blacks are also involved, general affairs will also become own affairs as far as those things are concerned which will then have to be channelled to the regional services councils and the Black city councils. On page 7 of the speech of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, however, I read the following:

That remark of the hon the Minister does not invalidate my argument that affairs handed over to the provinces by means of this transfer will become general affairs, and will then become own affairs later when they are transferred to the regional services councils and Black city councils. It does not change my argument at all.

We are now saddled with the situation that this transfer is coupled with the position of a great number of White and non-White officials, and I still have a few problems in this respect. I want to express a few thoughts on a number of matters concerning the personnel firstly that clause 4(1) provides that the personnel as on 30 June will be transferred to the Administrator on 1 July. The personnel will thus be placed under the authority of the Administrator. Clause 4(2) provides that there personnel may be not leave the service during this transitional phase. A total ban is therefore being imposed on leaving the service. The whole of the personnel is therefore being transferred and remains in service, and they retain all their privileges, etc.

In clause 4(3), however, we find that the Labour Relations Act, 1956 is referred to, and it is stipulated that all the officials who until now could have recourse to that Act and all who were members of the SAAME will become public servants and fall under the Public Service Commission the moment they are transferred from the Administrator to a Government department in terms of clause 5. They will then no longer be members of that trade union, and will no longer be able to have recourse to the provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1956. A stage will thus be reached at which there will be a breach between the officials and the privileges and rights which they enjoyed previously. One group will join the public service and lose their rights and privileges, while the other group will remain, either in regional services councils or in local authorities, and retain their rights and privileges. We are building discrimination in here with regard to a group of officials the moment they are transferred to a different Government body.

The Bill also provides that, when someone is transferred, he has to give his consent. Supposing an official does not give his consent to his transfer to some or other Government body, what will his position be then?

That clause refers to local authorities only.

The clause does not make that clear. In any case, then, I want to ask what the position would be of such a person who does not want to be transferred.

He stays where he is.

If he cannot be accomodated there, what will they do with him? Surely he will be transferred because he is redundant. Will his refusal to be transferred prejudice his position at any stage? Is he likely to be penalised in future? It is not clear to me that, if someone refuses, he will still enjoy the protection he enjoyed before he was asked to accept another post.

There is another reason for my saying that the provisions of this Bill are not ready to be put into practice. There are thousands of officials in these boards who are to be transferred to the Administrator temporarily for a period of nine months. During this period, they will again have to be allocated to some or other Government body, whether a regional services council, a city council or a Government department. Nine months is a long time for an official. We are at the moment struggling with the question of productivity, and now we have this long period of nine months as a transitional phase. People will not know precisely what is going to happen to them, because the State is not ready. If they had been ready to relocate him, a period of nine months would not have been required. Because they are not, in fact, ready to relocate him, such a long period is being created and such a person, and this applies particularly to those who are the last to be placed, finds himself in the uncertain position of not knowing where he is going to work in future.

That side of the House will argue that people who are transferred to Government departments will have greater opportunities of promotion, but I want to suggest that the opposite could also be true. Because he will experience more competition, it might well be more difficult for someone to gain promotion there than was the case in his previous post. To what degree can such a person have the certainty of promotion when he has joined the public service and works in a Government department, while some of his rights have already been removed in the process?

I am one of those who are really very concerned about our public servants, but also about all officials in the public or semi-public sectors. We have to realise that one has here to do with an official who also has his own aspirations and who would also like to make progress, and we must be very sure that what we insert in this legislation for the protection of the official does not have a loophole anywhere through which these people can be prejudiced. If this should happen, it would mean that we were actually guilty of a breach of faith against the officials who are now, in good faith, prepared to be transferred, and who actually have no choice.

The boards for which they used to work have now been summarily abolished by the Government, and the officials have no choice. They simply have to go where they have been posted. It is on account of this that I am making a plea that we make very sure that no loophole is left in any part of this legislation in respect of the matters which I mentioned as a result of which officials might possibly be at a disadvantage in the future. We cannot afford to make ourselves guilty of a breach of faith with White workers, whom we represent here, by the sort of steps which we are taking in order to implement the Government’s policy of integration.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Koedoespoort raised quite a number of points to which I should like to return during the course of my speech. I should like to associate myself with his concluding remarks about the position of the personnel in the Public Service. I want to confirm and emphasise what the hon member said. We on this side of the House, of course, share that view that we must examine the position of the individuals involved in this matter with great circumspection and responsibility. One feels compassionate towards them. [Interjections.]

The hon member was not a member of the standing committee, but I want to tell him that most of the discussion on the standing committee dealt with this specific point. The amendments to the legislation which were affected by the standing committee deal exclusively with the position of personnel, to provide them, as far as possible, with the necessary security. I do not want to say that the amendments were effected to oblige the personnel or in order to accommodate them, for that would sound as though they were all that mattered. The object was rather to afford the personnel the necessary security, as far as possible, in their positions, where risks and uncertainty were involved. That was the point of departure of the standing committee in this connection. I shall come back to this later.

I hope the hon member was not trying to suggest that there were a catch somewhere in the legislation as far as the personnel were concerned. I hope that was not what he was suggesting in his concluding words.

I did not say that.

The hon member said that there must be no loophole in the legislation. [Interjections.] I am merely saying that I hope that was not the hon member’s intention. I do not want to stand here quarrelling with him now. I want to speak to him in a decent manner. I believe that both the officials who were responsible for preparing the legislation under discussion as well as the hon the Minister, as well as the standing committee that dealt with the legislation, maintained the premise throughout that we should try to treat the personnel involved as well as possible under the circumstances.

I believe furthermore that every individual involved in the changes that are being discussed will concede that in the long run preference should be given to the interests of the country over the interests of the individual. I do not think we need be concerned that this was not also the premise of the officials who were involved. Consequently I want to emphasise once again—I am not alleging that this was the premise of the hon member for Koedoespoort—that it is definitely not necessary for us to try to score political debating points off one another in regard to this aspect. All the parties involved were completely unanimous in regard to aspects affecting the interests of the personnel. I shall come back later to the specific arguments with reference to this.

Next I should first like to refer to the hon member for Klip River, the chairman of the standing committee. Previous speakers also referred to him—inter alia the hon member Prof Olivier. On behalf of hon members on this side of the House I should like to thank the hon member for Klip River for the way in which, in his capacity as chairman of the standing committee in question, be acquitted himself of his task. I must honestly say that I think that as chairman of the standing committee he was frequently under heavy pressure, particularly during the past few weeks. He was under heavy pressure owing, in the first place, to the period of time within which he had to dispose of his work and the obligations that have been imposed on him to ensure that the standing committee disposed of the Bills in question within the specified time and, in the second, owing to the contentious nature of the legislation before the standing committee. I think it is only right and fair that we on this side of the House should convey our thanks and appreciation to him as chairman of the standing committee for his guidance, as well as for the way in which he persuaded all the members of the standing committee to reflect on the legislation in a responsible way. We convey our sincere thanks to him for that, Sir.

Furthermore I should also like to convey our thanks to the personnel, particularly to the officials of the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning who were extremely helpful throughout, particularly in regard to the legislation under discussion.

To come to the Bill itself now, I want to point out that we are dealing here with a Bill which seeks to do two things. In the first place this measure abolishes certain development bodies. In the second place something new is being brought into existence in terms of this measure. A new system is being brought into existence, to which the functions under discussion here, which previously fell under a variety of bodies, are now being transferred to the new system of provincial government. In this way this measure also creates new opportunities and new functions, and it is in fact not true that those things which are being abolished are simply disappearing. In the creative process under this measure something new is also emerging. I should like to express a few ideas on these two aspects.

In the first place I should like to thank those bodies that are being abolished in this process for the services they rendered, and I should also like to thank those who were involved. When we take note of the position of the personnel, I should like to make a few specific remarks about these aspects. I want to emphasise once again that great care was taken in considering the position of the personnel. The probing talks on this aspect conducted on the standing committee testify to this fact. I think the best evidence the standing committee was able to obtain on the method of dealing with the development boards in particular came from the South African Association of Municipal Employees itself, through their witness who appeared before the standing committee, Mr Leon Grobler, the legal adviser to this body. He informed the standing committee—and I have the permission of the chairman to disclose this information in the House—that the executive committee of SAAME feels entirely happy about the negotiations that were conducted between the office bearers of the department—specifically Mr Len Dekker—and the office bearer of the Commission for Administration, Mr Raath. They intimated that they were quite happy about what was conveyed to them by the officials during the negotiating process, and that they were satisfied in regard to the dispensation which is being provided for them. I am saying this specifically because feelings have been stirred up over a very wide front concerning the alleged unhappiness which ostensibly existed among the ranks of the officials of the development boards. During the past few weeks and months feelings have been stirred up in this regard over a very wide front. I am making this point specifically so that cognisance can be taken of the general satisfaction which SAAME—the South African Municipal Employees’ Association—expressed in regard to the handling of the personnel, and also in regard to what has been included in the Bill with regard to their position.

There were three matters—SAAME also referred to this—that were problem-areas throughout. The SAAME embodied those three points in a telex to the standing committee, and Mr Grobler dealt with them in his evidence before the standing committee. I want to refer to them briefly. While I am doing so I shall also reply to what the hon member for Koedoespoort said on this aspect. May I please have the hon member’s attention? One of the problem-areas—it is still a problem-area—to which Mr Grobler referred was the position of officials who are being moved. At present they fall under the Labour Relations Act, but in future they will fall under the Public Service Act. In that respect a great measure of relief has already been afforded.

Let us consider the actual position. Firstly, at this juncture, and up to 30 June, these officials enjoy “cover” in terms of the Labour Relations Act. After 1 July—during the so-called transitional phase—those officials will still continue to enjoy a certain measure of cover under the Labour Relations Act. However, they will no longer be able to negotiate salary improvements in terms of this Act. Instead of that they will be able to make representations to the Commission for Administration by means of their employees’ association. Therefore they retain at least that aspect of their rights. They may make representations to the authorities concerned, who will decide what should be done. After they have been placed in permanent positions, it is possible that certain of those officials could be occupying positions on the regional services councils. Then they are covered by the Labour Relations Act in any case.

You do not have a great deal to say about SAAME.

I am coming to them now.

What I am trying to say is that we should not in general create the idea that these employees will suddenly cease to be covered by the Labour Relations Act. A large number of them could in future be accommodated in the regional services councils, and then they will automatically fall under that Act. [Interjections.] Those who fall under the Public Service Act, and who will therefore no longer fall directly under the Labour Relations Act, will continue to enjoy the necessary protection in terms of the Public Service Act. In future they will also enjoy that protection which is essential in respect of their conditions of service. Furthermore they will be able to appeal—this is important because of the argument put forward by the hon member for Koedoespoort—to the Commission for Administration. I do not think any one of us can cast any suspicion on the Commission for Administration in this respect. In fact I think that the Commission for Administration has in the past proved itself to have the interest of public servants at heart. It is implicit throughout that those officials may all appeal to the Commission for Administration when their interests are at stake.

The argument concerning rescinding of the rights of these officials in terms of the Labour Relations Act, and the transfer of such rights so that they fall under the Public Service Act, does not create the right image, because these officials are never going to be without protection.

The second point made by SAAME, was concerned with the job content of the positions which might be in question. In that respect SAAME made an appeal and asked all officials, when they changed their positions so that the job contents of the new positions do not comply at all with the previous job description, are being accorded the right to apply to be declared redundant by the Administrator. That was the proposal put forward by the SAAME in this connection, namely that the official who was changing his job, was accorded the right to make representation to the Administrator to declare him redundant.

Where is that stated in the Bill?

Oh please, Sir, that hon member is not listening to me. If he wants to continue his conversation over there, and does not want to listen to what I am telling him, then … I am telling the hon member that these are the representations made to the standing committee by SAAME. That is what I am trying to explain to the hon member. He must please listen. [Interjections.]

In respect of these specific representations I think it is important to take into account—I am saying this on the evidence of SAAME itself—that a very limited number of officials will fall into this category. SAAME itself says in any event that it would probably not be justified for the officials in the age category of 30 to 40 years, and even up to 55 years, to apply to be declared redundant in this sense. It would only be a limited and very small number of officials who would be interested in that. Of course it is difficult to determine in advance. I think it is very difficult to determine in any way where to draw the line. Should it be an 55, 50 or 45 years? That is why the standing committee took trouble to be specifically accommodating in respect of this request from the SAAME. I think that we too, during the hearing of evidence, pointed out to the SAAME that a further problem existed in determining when a specific job description no longer complied with the same requirements as a previous job description. This is very difficult, because two job descriptions are, in the nature of things, never going to present the same appearance when one has this kind of relocation. Where must one draw the line? What are the criteria one should apply to say that they do not comply with previous job descriptions at all, or that they do? According to the proposal made by the SAAME, that discretion was to have been placed in the hands of the Administrator, and I think that in this particular case it would have been an impossible discretion. I think this was the only actual representation to which the standing committee was unable to give effect in all respects.

The third point with which the representations dealt was that it should be explicitly written into the Bill that representations could be directed to the Commission for Administration by officials who would in future fall under the Public Service Act. The point of departure of the standing committee was that it was not necessary to include such a provision because it was already implicitly contained in the Bill. In this regard I think we can safely say that the points raised by the SAAME in the interests of their members were either dealt with completely, or to a large extent. In only one case was effect not given to the point they wanted dealt with. I think we can say with certainty that as regards the position of the personnel, their requests were complied with. As far as this point is concerned, I have been arguing specifically about the position of the personnel of the development boards.

I want to touch upon one final point as far as personnel are concerned. This is something to which the hon member for Koedoespoort also referred. It is the position of divisional councils, that are also involved in the abolition. When hon members read the original Bill they will see that originally no provision was made for any period within which the divisional councils were to be abolished.

The standing committee wrote the date 30 June 1987 into the Bill because the committee deemed it important to specify a final date in this Bill. The hon member also asked why the divisional councils were not being summarily converted into regional services councils. He then went on to say that it was because the regional services councils did not exist yet. That is not the answer. The answer lies therein that the request to convert divisional councils summarily into regional services councils has just been made by the Association of Divisional Councils in the Cape. That specific request was made a few days before the standing committee discussed the Bill. It would not have been advisable to force the request through, at such short notice, by means of this legislation.

That is why the hon the Minister anticipated in his Second Reading speech that this matter would be thoroughly considered and that it could possibly receive further attention during the session in August, by way of a further statutory amendment. This may then happen, if it is deemed fit at that juncture, and if it is considered that the conversion of divisional councils into regional services councils is feasible.

I am not blaming the hon member for that now, because he was not a member of the standing committee that discussed the matter, but I am furnishing him with the information. That was the issue here, and that is why it was decided to specify it in the Bill now. It was not possible to give proper consideration to the request of the divisional councils. That is all I want to say about the abolition aspect of this Bill.

I just want to refer to the second point I made in the beginning, which has a bearing on the creation of new things. With this legislation we have to a large extent completed a debate which has more or less been taking place in this House for the past two weeks, a debate on a whole series of reform laws, dealing with second-tier, and in a certain sense, third-tier government. I want to argue that this has perhaps been some of the most important legislation we have dealt with during this session, perhaps some of the most important legislation we have discussed in a very long while in this Parliament, because on the one hand it was drastic legislation, but also tremendously…

Destructive.

… concentrated on development. The hon member for Sasolburg is so fond of using crude expressions! He said destructive.

Bulldozing.

Bulldozing as well—there we now have the two opponents who speak the same language, the hon member for Sasolburg and the hon member for Brakpan. That just shows you how they are driving together in the same jalopy. In my opinion this legislation we have been discussing here for the past week or two is among the most development-orientated and dynamic legislation in respect of new systems of government in South Africa, because what does this legislation entail in essence? It brings with it a broadening of the decision-making process for the people affected by it and involved in it.

Let us consider the development boards. Up to this stage the development boards were bodies composed exclusively of Whites, but they took decisions which related exclusively to Black people. I think we should at least ask ourselves this one question: Was it ever feasible that we could proceed with it? Of course not! That is why I say that this Bill which is now under discussion, together with the other legislation that has been discussed during the past week, is the completion of a process which was essential to grant broader participation in decision-making to people when it dealt with their own interests. That is why one can support this legislation very readily, because it is in fact a broadening in the sense that all communities are being involved in it and Black political office-bearers are also receiving a share in the decisionmaking process affecting their people.

There is a further point I should like to make. The hon the Minister in his Second Reading speech, pointed out that in this way a development task was also being conferred upon the provincial government, something which could give a new dimension to a provincial government, and which definitely will. In connection with this development task, and since the change is taking place now, I want to express the hope that we will allow the initiative to develop so that in future we shall not necessarily remain bogged down in the conduct and practices of the development boards in the past, no matter how well that work was done. I want to express the hope that, with the development task in future—particularly now that it is shifting to a new dispensation—we shall place the emphasis on a new dynamic initiative to the benefit of the people for whom it is intended. I think this is important. Whereas, in the past, there was frequently a misconception concerning the development boards and their function, with a negative view of their task, I hope that we, since this change is now taking place, will make certain in future that the development task is seen in its correct perspective, and experienced correctly by the people affected by it.

I gladly support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Johannesburg West indicated towards the end of his speech that this was part of a new deal, the change and so on and so forth. We all, of course, realise and appreciate that change was necessary and desirable, but as I have said, many a time before, whenever this Government does the right thing, somehow or other it finds the wrong way of doing it, and this is again part of the wrong way of doing it, in my opinion.

The main object of this Bill, as I see it, is to abolish a substantial number of development boards, divisional councils, water corporations… [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. You said “Order” so I stopped. I am very well disciplined! [Interjections.] These bodies have done an excellent job—some of them going back for decades.

I believe that the original intention behind this Bill when it was first devised was to get rid of the development boards under the Black Communities Development Act. In the process of doing that it was thought that it would be a good idea to get rid of a few others as well with the result that they slapped in a few others as well.

I believe that they will have some problem. I am perfectly aware of the fact that only two of these groups of boards are scheduled to disappear on July 1. These two are the ones that I referred to under the Black Communities Development Act and the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas. The others such as the Cape divisional councils, the Natal Development and Services Board, the Regional Water Services Corporations and the like are all under sentence of demise and are only holding office and continuing to exist at the pleasure of the hon the Minister.

I have something of a problem when I try to work out how it will all operate. I gather that the intention is that the regional services boards will be taking over the functions of these various development boards. I refer in particular to the Development and Services Board situation in Natal as I know it best.

I believe that as the law presently stands the regional services councils could not undertake the functions of the Natal Development and Services Board because the regional services councils are specifically precluded by the Act from collecting rates. The Natal Development and Services Board does collect rates from a number of small groups of homes in various parts of the province that are not big enough to qualify for local authority status at any level. That is one problem that I can foresee with the Development and Services Boards.

Another problem may well be that in so far as the Natal ordinance is concerned, when any local authority gets itself into trouble, the body that acts in a caretaker capacity is the Development and Services Board. They do not merely undertake the provisions of services but they undertake the provision of the full local authority activities until such time as that local authority has become re-established.

As I understand the Regional Services Councils Act that does not appear to be part of the functions of regional services councils. They are there purely and simply to provide certain specific services and not the broad activities of running a local authority. Again, under the Natal Ordinance as I know it there is no alternative way in which the province can run matters at this stage.

As I gather, the Peri-Urban Board of the Transvaal performed a somewhat similar function. I understand that the Cape divisional councils perform similar functions to some degree—they levy rates, etc. They perform somewhat similar functions, and I fear it is another activity which is being brought forward prematurely in the name of the “nuwe bedeling”. It worries me intensely.

In principle I considered the abolition of the Development of Black Communities Act a sound and reasonable move, and I could have supported it 100%, but I am perturbed by the fact that these other bodies are being brought in before the regional services councils have come into being and before there has been an adequate check as to whether the ordinances of the provinces provide them with the necessary facilities and power to take over the functions of certain of these boards. I am almost certain that Natal does not have any such provisions. This means to indicate rather loose and careless preparation of legislation.

The changes we are witnessing in second-tier and third-tier government are necessary in many respects, and we are not against change per se. We are not even against any of the particular changes which are being made, but we are unhappy at the way in which they are being brought about. Certain changes seem to be premature, among them those embodied in this Bill.

Considering the mass of legislation that has come forward in this and last year’s sessions relative to local and provincial government, I rather suspect that the people involved in these levels of government, when taking dates as a benchmark, will stop using the Gregorian Calendar of years AD and BC and refer instead to the years BH and AH, or in full, Before Heunis and After Heunis. There has been such a mass of legislation that the whole system has been changed. I am convinced that when people look back on the period BH in a historical perspective, they will recall the period with nostalgia as those glorious, halcyon days which may return one day when a new Minister arises out of the ashes of the existing NP. [Interjections.]

And it won’t be that hon Deputy Minister!

Clause 4(2) makes it arrogantly clear that employees will remain in service. This aspect has been dealt with thoroughly by the hon member for Koedoespoort. That sounds a bit Freudian, does it not? [Interjections.]

The hon member for Johannesburg West did try to persuade the hon member for Koedoespoort that he had no reason to worry, and that this was not a hard and fast measure. Perhaps I did not listen to him properly, but I remain unconvinced that this clause is satisfactory.

As I have said before, I believe that the existing Act is perfectly satisfactory and is being ruined by the premature addition of certain provisions and because the question of employees has not been examined as thoroughly as should have been the case. If the Bill had simply set about abolishing the boards which exist in terms of the Black Communities Development Act, I do not think there would have been any problems, because that was what was originally wanted. As far as the Black communities are concerned, those boards are the most detested boards in the country, and I think it would have been an excellent thing to have gotten rid of them.

As we consider the Bill to be bad legislation, we cannot support it.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Umbilo said at the start of his speech that he agreed that reform had to take place. He also made a statement which he has made in the past. This is that we are engaged in incorrect reform. Our programme does not meet with his approval. The opposition will always accuse us either of prematurity or of postmaturity! The Government is always in a difficult position. [Interjections.] If we had waited with this legislation, until next year the hon member would probably have said it was postmature. [Interjections.] The hon member spoke about the pre- and post-Heunis period. I just want to tell him I think we will have a better South Africa in the post-Watterson period!

While we were discussing this legislation during the past few days—it can rightly be considered a package of legislation—various hon members of the CP have used a word which has become a regular part of their vocabulary, namely the word “destroy”. When he spoke about the Regional Services Councils Amendment Bill the hon member for Kuruman said we were destroying the White development bodies. The hon member for Jeppe said the old South Africa was being destroyed, and the hon member for Koedoespoort said separate development was being destroyed.

When the hon the Minister of Finance dealt with the debate on the Regional Services Councils Amendment Bill, he said the keyword in that respect was redistribution. I submit that the keyword in this Bill is rearrangement—a rearrangement for the sake of a prosperous South Africa.

The hon member for Barberton said divisively that we suffered from a consensus syndrome. It is really strange that people who think they may be in the Government benches in future can say such a thing! I do not know which of the hon members of the CP attended those specific discussions, but I want to ask them what they did when they went and spoke to the King of the Zulus. What did they do when they went to the office of the HNP?

Order! I did not hear the hon member for Barberton speak in this debate, but I cannot relate the matter the hon member for Rustenburg is talking about now to the Bill under discussion. However, the hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. I need therefore not even explain why I mentioned this, because you are giving me a chance to continue!

The point I want to make is that those hon members have had very good experience of what the concepts of consensus or agreement-seeking programmes involve. When this legislation is applied in practice they will have to go a long way with consensus, otherwise they are going to get into difficulties.

As you did with the security legislation!

It is good to know that the hon member for Pietersburg said with reference to all this legislation, including the legislation we are dealing with now, that if some of their members are appointed to these multiracial councils, they will be instructed to take their seats and to negotiate within the guidelines of the CP’s policy. They are entitled to do this, but the question is what does it mean to negotiate in a council? It means that one must seek agreement there, and that one is going to come into contact with people in that council with whom one must try to reach consensus.

And if you do not get it, what do you do then?

The hon member for Sasolburg will have to do so too!

The hon member for Koedoespoort said the trick word was reform; but the trick word is partition! After all, those hon members all know that they will never be able to implement their partition in the way they have spelled it out here in practice. [Interjections.] These organisations we have in mind and which are listed in the schedule have to a greater or lesser extent contributed positively to the effective administration of the country. The hon member Prof Olivier rightly pointed out that on occasion some of these councils did not function all that well or that there was opposition to the councils, but the point is if we think of that part of the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-urban Areas which rendered a service in the field of health which was divided into regions and rendered a service over a very large area of jurisdiction, it is clear that they exercised long distance control very effectively and did very good work.

We want to thank the councillors who will now have to vacate their posts most sincerely for the work they have done. We can ask why these councils or bodies that have apparently done good work must be tampered with. The answer to this was also given by hon members on the other side, namely that it is part of the reform package.

The moment one embarks on the road to reform, one must also be prepared to make adjustments to put right those things that must be put right. In the same way the CP or any other party that may come into power, if they want to continue with reform—after all they agree with this; even the hon member for Sasolburg said there had to be change—will also have to make adjustments in this connection. There is only one constant factor, namely good government based on certain principles. The variable factor is the changing circumstances which one must take into account. The hon member for Sasolburg knows as well as I do how circumstances have changed since the time he absconded from Mr Vorster’s group.

I did not abscond.

Of course the hon member absconded. [Interjections.] As regards the structures and bodies we have talked about and which have functioned well, I want to express the hope that everything possible will be done to prevent a crumbling of the firm foundation which has been laid, in order to ensure continuity of service. The single determining factor which will play a very important role is the expert staff who have given years of service.

I agree with the hon member Prof Olivier that this looks like a practical arrangement. Interested persons to whom I have spoken, people who are in the employ of these bodies, are also of the opinion that our approach in this connection is practical. As a matter of fact these people are excited about the implications of that development on the various tiers of Government. They know that this is bringing the government closer to those people whose interests are really at stake and this strengthens the foundations of democracy. This means that one has a more effective say and that those bodies are getting greater powers and legitimacy. In other words this means that we can co-ordinate and rationalise as part of the reform process.

But there is not only excitement among those people. There is also a degree of uncertainty among the employees because it concerns their work, their prospects, their conditions of service, etc. But in clause 4 very clear and specific provision is made for this. In his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister also specifically said that the interests of those persons at present employed by these bodies will be looked after. But change brings uncertainty and this will not be painless. There is trauma involved. In the process bureaucratic castles were built some of which will probably be damaged.

Such a change-over, whether to regional services councils, to local authorities, or to other government institutions, cannot take place overnight and must be done circumspectly. In the process time is lost and people are worried about what is happening to them. Consequently I want to ask the hon the Minister that everything possible must be done to reassure those people and that he must not take over-hasty decisions. I am referring, for example, to the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-urban Areas. An interim measure must preferably be introduced to incorporate that board with the Administrator and executive committee instead of transferring it to the own administrations immediately. Eventually, if one measures that board by its definition and the functions it performs, one sees that it is dealing with own affairs. But the own administrations do not yet have the infrastructure and machinery to carry out those functions, and this may create even greater problems for these people if they are transferred immediately to their own administrations.

I take pleasure in supporting this legislation.

Mr Chairman, as has been indicated by my colleague the hon member Prof Olivier, we will be supporting this measure. It does, however, give us certain problems with regard to one or two clauses to which I will come in a moment.

Before I do so, however, I want to make some initial remarks concerning development boards and their functions. I want to refer in particular to the Natalia Development Board and the control it exercises over the area of Chesterville. Chesterville is an area located right next to my constituency; in fact, the houses of Chesterville and the houses of Berea West and Westville are within 100 metres of one another. I think one of the problems in Chesterville has been the underdevelopment of the area. I do not claim this particularly to be the Natalia Development Boards’s fault, but ascribe it rather to the policy of the government in not expending certain of the reserve funds that should have been spent in upgrading Chesterville.

Since November of last year there have been continuing incidents between groups of communities within the Chesterville area who have been killing one another at a very rapid rate. It is not my intention to label any group right or wrong, but these incidents have led to tensions within the Chesterville area, exacerbated by the conditions in Chesterville which the development board should have been attending to. The question I am going to be posing is the following: When the development boards disappear next week on 1 July, who is going to look after Chesterville?

My particular problem relates to an incident that took place in Chesterville last week in which four people were killed.

Order! I am not going to allow any hon member to discuss any incidents that may have occurred. We are dealing with a Bill to abolish the development boards and I cannot allow other matters to be discussed.

May I address you on that matter, Mr Chairman? The hon member for Rustenburg who spoke before me devoted at least 15 minutes of his address to matters which bear no resemblance whatsoever to the Bill under discussion.

Hear, hear!

I am attempting to, and will, relate every word that I say to what is happening in the development board area of Chesterville. I do not intend mentioning any names. Rightly or wrongly I am having a meeting next Friday with a member of the Natalia Development Board who will be employed by a different person next week. I am going to be discussing Chesterville with him. In the abolition of the Natalia Development Board there must be some understanding as to who is going to take over those functions. We understand quite clearly from the Bill itself that it is going to be the executive committee. All I want to say is that there was an incident last week and there have been a lot of killings, and we in the PFP believe there should be a judicial commission of inquiry so that that matter…

Order! The Bill does not provide for judicial commissions. [Interjections.] The hon member is at liberty to discuss any situation in Chesterville or elsewhere, which should have been dealt with by the development board. The hon member may also discuss the authority which will represent or replace the development board. However, I cannot allow the hon member or any other hon member to dwell on any incidents that occurred recently which do not fall within the ambit of the Bill. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Chesterville, if I may describe it to you, is an area where 14 000 people live in close proximity to the White community of Westville. It is separated from the White community of Westville in that the roads which should run from Westville through Chesterville to Durban have been blocked off. Effectively there is no entry, no access, and therefore very few if any White persons travel through Chesterville. Consequently it is a closed community.

Order!

Secondly, in the area of Chesterville that abuts on the White area of Westville there is fairly dense scrub; the land is covered over and has not been cleared for some time. Thirdly, Chesterville itself has received very little by way of development. It has received very little additional lighting; it has received very little by way of maintenance of houses and properties; and thirdly there has been a development of shacks. All these are conditions which, I would argue, lead to crime.

Crime is exactly the subject that I am addressing. We are merely saying that the circumstances surrounding the underdevelopment of Chesterville have led to the criminal conditions that we find there. We believe that, in order to prevent the criminal elements from carrying on their activities, the development board functions that have not been carried out should now be carried out by the province. There should be free access to Chesterville, there should be a clearing of the bush, there should be more development and there should be more lights provided in order to rid the area of the type of criminal activity that is masquerading, if you like, behind political or so-called political motives. That is why we have called for a judicial commission of inquiry to look into what is happening in Chesterville. That is all.

I should now like to turn to this Bill and the transfer of the functions, and particularly the transfer of the employees, of the development boards. I make particular reference to clause 4 of the Bill because of an argument that we had in the standing committee. The PFP opposed this clause in the standing committee although we support the Bill as a whole. We voted against clause 4 because there are several significant aspects of this clause that we think offend against the legitimate demands or rights of trade union members. I should like to pick these out. The first one, obviously, is subsection (11)—and I want to quote that:

What is the effect of this? I am going to trace the events of next week as they are going to affect people. On 1 July, as clause 4 indicates, those persons who—and I read from the first section of clause 4—

That is next week, 1 July—

So, on 1 July the development board personnel will be transferred to the administration board. With what proviso? Let me read clause 4(3)(a):

What does that mean? It means that a person who moves from a development board to a provincial administration can use the Labour Relations Act, if he so wishes, to justify unfair labour practices. He can appeal to the Industrial Court. He can do all the things that the Labour Relations Act allows him to do as a fully paid-up trade union member. However, what happens then? Once he is in the service of the provincial administration and subsections (5), (6), (8) and (10) come into effect, and he moves from the provincial administration to another body such as a local authority or the Public Service—I think the regional services councils are excluded—then this Bill is designed to prevent him from using the Labour Relations Act. Can there be anything more unreasonable? First of all he is designedly allowed by the legislation to use it in the first case—on 1 July—but on 2 July, if he is transferred from the provincial administration to another body, he is not allowed to use it. Can anything be more unreasonable? We believe that subsection (11) of clause 4 is a basic infringement of the manpower rights of individuals.

Secondly, in subsections (6) and (8) provision is made for disciplinary steps that are in process or have already been instituted against persons and development boards not to be considered under the laws of the development boards but under the laws of the body to which that person is going. In this regard I quote subsection (6)(f) of clause 4, as follows:

We therefore again have a difficult position in law where a charge may have been laid or disciplinary steps may be in progress. Effectively, what do we do? We change the very authority under which that person is being disciplined. I do not wish to pursue this at length. It has been discussed and the officials are well aware of it, as is the standing committee. I must, however, repeat what I said in the standing committee. I personally have little doubt at all that clause 4, as it is presently worded, is actually going to cause fairly considerable problems in its application to the movement of staff, simply because it does not provide for fair and equitable treatment of those individuals who currently fall under one disciplinary and legal system in terms of the trade union rights and who are being moved and will now fall under a different legal system.

Finally, I would like to turn to the report of the committee which was contained in the Minutes of this House on Thursday 19 June. I should just like to quote a section from it, and it appears that I must address my words to the hon member for Klip River. He might care to take a look at these Minutes as there appears to be an error in them. The Sixth Report dealt with the subject of the Abolition of Development bodies Bill, and the Bill is reported with amendments. However, a section of the Seventh Report pertaining to regional services councils should actually be contained in the Sixth Report and not in the Seventh. I quote as follows:

What is the implication of this recommendation? The implication is, if we look at the Bill, that the recommendation of the standing committee is that as soon as possible the committee will consider expending the following bodies to contain all communities: The divisional councils of the Cape, the Development and Services Board of Natal and the Regional Water Services Corporations of Natal. That is the recommendation from the committee. It obviously falls together with the following recommendation contained in the speech of the hon the Minister:

That was the argument I used a little while ago, regarding the last piece of legislation we considered, which is that it should take place after consultation with the interested parties.

The point I wish to make concerns the bodies that are not being abolished next week. We know 30 June next year is the final date for their abolition. All that I am requesting is that the committee does in fact address itself to either the expansion of these bodies to incorporate members of all communities or their incorporation into regional services councils as soon as possible. I obviously refer to the ones closest to my constituency’s heart, the Regional Water Services Corporations, where they will be an integral part of any regional services council that is to be drawn up. What we believe most strongly is that the remaining bodies which will not in fact disappear on 1 July should either disappear as quickly as possible—hopefully by 1 January, if regional services councils will be introduced at that stage—or be expanded so that all communities, White, Coloured, Indian and Black, will be represented on them. As I say, with the doubts that we have and the problems we expressed concerning clause 4 of this Bill, we will support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, one aspect which runs like an undercurrent through this debate is the problems experienced or anticipated with regard to the personnel of the various boards which are now going to be abolished.

The fact that it was also mentioned by NP speakers served as proof that they were also particularly concerned about the future of those board members and about the personnel of the various boards in particular. It also shows that they are concerned about the personnel of the various boards who have not yet been accommodated at this stage. While the hon member Prof Olivier and other hon members thought fit to attack the personnel of the old administration boards and the development boards in certain respects, we want to break a lance for them this evening.

Hear, hear!

The hon member for Springs arrived on the scene at a later stage, but the hon member for Kempton Park and others from the East Rand will recall what invaluable work these people—with whom I have been very closely associated—did since 1973. I am now referring to the East Rand Administration Board which later became the East Rand Development Board. I therefore want to say without fear of contradiction that one would not find more dedicated people than those serving in the directorate, the personnel and the board members of the bodies concerned whom we met there and who served an ideal in which all of us believed. Not only am I referring to the developments boards now but also to the health boards and I shall return to this aspect later. It is a pity that in a certain sense these people will be largely lost to South Africa as far as the joint functions which they undertook on a co-ordinated basis are concerned. I shall return to this.

Firstly I want to refer to the concluding remark made in the Second Reading speech as follows:

I do not know where in the Bill there is an indication that communities now will have a greater say in matters affecting their daily lives. In the old health boards and development boards there was interaction between the voters and those boards and that is precisely what is now being abolished. In the course of our co-operation with these boards we continually found the best of relations between the boards and the Black communities with whom they negotiated and worked. Those communities were entirely at liberty to have a say in these boards and in this regard I want to refer in particular to the development boards. In this morning’s edition of Business Day a leading article appeared under the headline “Hold your Horses” in which another appeal was made to the Government to leave this legislation in abeyance for a while, just as the hon members for Koedoespoort, Umbilo and others requested. I quote the following from the article:

The concluding paragraph reads as follows:

Before I read any further, I want to emphasise a certain aspect. All these sacrifices with regard to the boards that are being abolished and these so-called renewals are being made for the sake of something else of which we are unaware. We do not know what the contents are, what the future in this regard is going to offer, or what chances of success the new bodies will have. All we know is that certain boards are now being abolished. In the case of the development boards, they have been doing excellent work since 1973. As far as the Transvaal Peri-urban Health Board is concerned, it has done excellent work for more than 40 years—the ordinance dates from 1941. It is strange that the functions of these boards are now being taken away from them and transferred to the provinces. As far as the health boards are concerned, the provinces in fact created them to carry out their particular functions. Their functions resulted from the functions of the provincial councils after it was felt that there was a need for such boards. These boards carried out particular functions. They created health committees which are towns today. They started Halfway House, for example, which is known as Midrand today. I think they also started Verwoerdburg. There are other towns and health board areas which they developed and which developed into towns and larger complexes later on. They are now being swept off the board. [Interjections.] The hon member for Roodeplaat must not tell me again that I am speaking an untruth, because Northern Transvaal will lose again. That hon member must remain seated, because when he leaves, Northern Transvaal loses. He must sit here now until Saturday.

What I find so astonishing, is that these bodies were established as a result of the fact that the provinces and their advisors perceived that this task had to be transferred to them. The administration boards and development boards were established in a similar fashion because Parliament had concluded that there was a function that could be assigned to certain boards, and these boards did excellent work for 13 years.

The budget of the East Rand Administration Board is in the region of R120 million per year. This board is one of the four largest. There are also nine other smaller boards with budgets amounting to approximately R70 million per year. These boards passed annual budgets which totalled approximately R1,1 billion. For whose benefit? for the benefit of the policy of separate development. For the benefit of that ideal which inspired all of us.

I have here a confidential document from which I unfortunately cannot quote, which the East Rand Development Board sent to all members of this House who represent the East Rand. It gives us a clear picture of the circumstances in the Black townships on the East Rand. Certain recommendations were also made in this document. The state of emergency was announced at the same time that this document was delivered to my post box. Sir, it shows one what excellent work is being done by these people.

I want to refer next to labour zoning and to liaison. The East Rand liaised with Lebowa and kwaNdebele. Resulting from the functioning of the East Rand Administration Board, industrial development at Bronkhorstspruit took place, Lebowakgomo came into being and it succeeded in obtaining funds from the White town and city councils of the East Rand to develop those complexes in the Black urban areas.

In the same way liaison took place between the Orange Vaal Administration board and Qwa-Qwa, between the Eastern Cape Administration Board and Ciskei and between the Lowveld Administration Board and KangwaNgwane. Not only did liaison take place with regard to labour zoning, but also with regard to technical aspects, development and housing. This all took place under one blanket. The hon member for Klip River referred to the fact that initially there were 22 bodies of this kind. Now there are 13 and they co-operated with one another right across the country. Their chairmen and general directors often met and identified their problems and discussed constraints regarding the channelling of Blacks in White areas back to their homelands. That was the main task with which these people were involved.

No, that is not the case.

That was one of the most important functions. The East Rand Administration Board, with which I was closely associated, was actively involved in that. They developed a farm near kwaNdebele for example—I referred to it the other day—where young Black vagrants in the urban areas were taken during the week or over weekends to be introduced to and trained in their own religion, traditions and culture, and afterwards they either wanted to stay there or go to kwaNdebele, but they did not want to return to the urban areas. These are things that happened!

He knows nothing about it!

The hon member for Bellville must just not tell me he knows nothing about it!

That is correct! He knows nothing about it! [Interjections.]

He must not tell me he knows nothing about it. I see he is sitting there and smirking with the hon the Minister. If the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning does not know about it either, he ought not to be occupying his present position.

What is more, he does not belong there!

This was the position with Lebowakgomo, too. We paid a visit there together with the members of the administration boards. It is a pity there are no hon members from the East Rand present in the House at the moment. They know what those people’s activities involved, what ideals they cherished, and what inspired them. The chairmen and chief directors of those administration boards were in personal contact with the leaders and the chief ministers of the national states and of the independent states.

They founded technical colleges, too.

For example, together with the members of the East Rand Administration Board we met Chief Minister Sebe one afternoon and had lunch with him. It was in this way that we bid farewell to Mr Hans Abraham at that time, in co-operation with the East Rand Administration Board and the management of the East Rand Black townships. Those people did wonderful work. Now they are simply being dismissed. On account of what?

Yes, on account of what?

On account of integration!

On account of a so-called greater rationalisation and also ostensibly on account of giving communities a say in the daily affairs concerning their lives. This is exactly what those boards did.

No Blacks served on those boards!

The position was that the boards served as liaison bodies.

Oh?

Yes. What difference would it have made if Blacks had served on those boards?

Do you maintain it would not have made a difference? [Interjections.]

What about their efficiency? What about their usefulness? The hon member for Bellville has no conception of the work those people did—for example, in 1976 and thereafter—specifically in order to defuse the unrest. The hon member is welcome to question the hon member for Pietersburg in this regard. The hon member for Koedoespoort referred to it. Whereas it was actually the task of the Police to quell the unrest, it was the task of the officials to attempt to restore peace. The hon member for Rustenburg talks about rubbing shoulders. That is exactly what they were doing. Altogether 7 000 Whites—some of them for 24 hours every day—were engaged in liaising and rubbing shoulders, as the hon member for Rustenburg put it. Now, however, it is maintained that we are opposed to rubbing shoulders.

While I am referring to the hon member for Rustenburg, Sir, I should just like to add something that I believe would be most appropriate at this point. Another thing hon members of the National Party are doing—and I want to bring this to the attention of the National Party Whips—is to fire off shots and then simply to disappear. One would expect an hon member, having completed his speech, to remain here to listen to the reaction to what he said, particularly if he had been as obstreperous and provocative as the hon member for Rustenburg was earlier. [Interjections.] No, he simply walks out of the Chamber! [Interjections.] He wants to know from us, inter alia, why the hon leader of my party went to see the King of the Zulus.

The bush telegraph works quickly!

Oh, really?

Oh, just listen to it. The head boy! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Brakpan is trying to make a speech!

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Rustenburg asked why the hon leader of my party went to see the King of the Zulus. I just want to ask him, then, why the State President went to see Mrs Maggie Thatcher. Why did the State President pay a visit to the Chancellor of West Germany?

And why did Tutu pay a visit to the State President? [Interjections.]

Tutu said to him: “Toe, toe, PW!” [Interjections.]

It was simply a goodwill visit! So why the hon member is making such a fuss about it, only he knows. He then asked us what would happen if we did not reach consensus. He is asking us in the Conservative Party this! What happened a week ago when the National Party could not reach consensus with their hon friends in the House of Representatives?

Yes, and with Cabinet members, too!

Even with fellow Cabinet members, Sir! What happened then? Could that hon member perhaps tell us what happened then?

Oh, and the SABC said Oom PW did not want to approve it! [Interjections.]

What a macabre game!

I continue with reference to the close liaison and the co-operation that existed between the development boards and the Black national states. In the Northern Transvaal, Gazankulu, Venda and Lebowa all the Black workers that worked in White areas, except for those in Nylstroom and Phalaborwa, lived in the national states. This was as a result of the activities of the Northern Transvaal Development Board. The hon the Deputy Minister will remember how, at the time that Dr Vosloo was the Deputy Minister, Pietersburg’s Development Board came to show us films of the amenities complex and the bus terminus that had been built there. These films showed how happily these workers from Lebowa and other national states journeyed to do their work in Pietersburg. These were the monuments built by the development boards. The Government, however, leans so hard on the other leg of the NP to accommodate the Black people in the White areas that they completely forget about the other most important leg on which the whole policy rests. [Interjections.]

The hon member Prof Olivier said, among other things, that it would be preferable to transfer these officials. The Transvaal officials could, for example, be transferred to the Orange Free State, and so on, so that the people did not see the same faces again. It is an absolute disgrace for an hon member of this House to paint such a picture of these people who, next to the Police, have performed such an exceptional task for South Africa. [Interjections.] I find it disturbing that an hon member of this House is able to say such things. Hon members know that, according to the evidence I have at my disposal, the various community councils of that time asked the Government to afford administration boards greater powers. There are Black inspectors who have approached these boards’ representatives and asked: “Sir, where are we going to work now? We do not want to go to another place. We were very happy here with you. We also felt protected here.” Apart from that the State is also losing very senior Whites—key workers. I have here the name of an employer on the East Rand, who was of inestimable value. He is gone. He is not going to allow himself to be shoved into any little opening here or there in which the Government in its arrogance can decide to place him.

You are now being opportunistic.

I have the facts. I shall give the name of the man to the hon member in private if he wants it. I am not trying to be opportunistic. I speak from personal experience gained over a period of 13 years. I do not know if the hon member was as an integral part at the Central Administration Board as I and my hon members were at the East Rand Administration Board. We were constantly kept informed of what was going on. Apart from that we held discussions with them at least once a year, as well as visiting some of the national states with them once a year. Then the hon member says I am an opportunist. What is he talking about?

I was on the West Rand Administration Board, and there we worked well together.

Yes, but the Government is abolishing these bodies and the hon member agrees that they should be abolished. [Interjections.]

Furtheremore the hon member Prof Olivier says that these administration boards’ offices and buildings were the targets of stone throwing.

I never said that.

Or rather, the hon member said these offices and buildings were the object of aversion.

[Inaudible.]

He said that the employees of those administration boards administered the policy of the Government, and that is why Blacks disliked them. [Interjections.] Now that dislike is simply going to be transferred to the provinces. That is all that is going to happen. [Interjections.] What are the provinces going to do with those elegant buildings, like those which are standing in Germiston at the moment for example? How are they going to be used to fit in with these grandiose ideas of the Government? [Interjections.] How are those buildings going to be used productively? Does the hon the Deputy Minister think that, for the sake of their pipedream, an improved situation can arise here now, regardless of the practical experience which we have gained during the years with the previous system?

I want to go on and quote from the last paragraph of Business Day’s lead story:

This is exactly how the Blacks react. That is a good quote.

Why is the hon member voting for this Bill?

Precisely for that reason. These are structures which we Whites have forced on the Blacks. [Interjections.]

I do not understand this. We have worked with the Blacks as far as the structures of separate development are concerned, from the time they first made contact with us. Hon members can think of the Sundays River, the Fish River, the Step-stone Commission in Natal, and the Tomlinson Commission. All those things existed in the past, during 300 years of contact with Blacks.

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

I just want to finish reading this quote, Sir, then the hon member may put a question to me. What I am now going to read, is the best part of the article:

[Interjections.] The hon member may now put his question.

Mr Chairman, may I first refer…

You have to ask a question.

As I have indicated, there were apparently good officials as well; I did not say they were all bad. I want to ask the hon member whether he was here in the Western Cape when the officials of the Administration Board razed Modderdam and Unibell?

No, Sir, I was not there, but I do know of Mr Timo Bezuidenhout…

He is not from the Administration Board.

Of course he was involved with the Administration Board.

He is an official of the department.

Mr Timo Bezuidenhout was involved with the Administration Board for many years. He is a specific example, and I can mention other examples.

He came onto the scene after Modderdam.

I was not at Modderdam. I cannot discuss it with the hon member. [Interjections.] We again have the experience of Meadowlands and Triomf, and we know what happened on the East Rand.

It is really only the Capetonians who cannot handle things.

He is just in the mud…

The hon the Minister says I am only in the mud; not at Modderdam. This just goes to prove how miserably petty he is. [Interjections.] We reject this legislation.

Mr Chairman, it is with pleasure that I rise to support this Bill.

To begin with I want to point out to the hon member for Brakpan that the work that has been done by the officials concerned, which he mentioned, will in future be at the disposal of the other communities as well—including the White communities. I think it is a good effect of this legislation that this expertise which he discussed can also be used for the benefit of the White community.

Furthermore it is a pleasure for me to say that I received a mandate from my voters for power-sharing in the sense that all the population groups should be included up to the highest level of the Government in order to be given a say in this regard. This evening I have no problem with exercising that mandate by supporting this Bill.

The abolition of development bodies such as development boards and divisional councils has been necessitated by the constitutional reform process which has self-determination and co-responsibility as its objective. It is unthinkable that development boards can continue to exist alongside regional services councils and Black local governments. That there ought to be nothing but a local government and a regional council for the provision of services, is not only a matter of the rationalisation of bodies, but also a matter of common sense. Even the CP say in their Programme of Principles that regional councils for Blacks should be established by the Government to deal with the administration and provision of services of a number of townships on a regional basis. The only real point of controversy between this side of the House and the hon members of the CP is the inclusion of members of the various population groups in the same regional council for the joint provision of services.

Furthermore I concede that the regional council as envisaged by the CP most probably points to the continuation of the present development boards where a White board provides Black local governments with services on a regional basis. The self-determination of each population group on local government level is realised through each one’s own local government, while these local governments accept co-responsibility in a regional services council when it comes to matters of common concern. Since all population groups have an interest in the optimum provision of services in their region, it is only fair that all should be given a say in any council or body taking decisions in this regard. Co-responsibility for the provision of services—that is to say, joint decision-making which naturally includes power-sharing—is not only an old concept: Joint decisionmaking on matters of common concern was also part of the mandate which the National Party requested and also received in the 1977 and 1981 elections. I am surprised that hon members of the CP broke away from the NP while they, too, in 1977 and 1981… [Interjections.]… voted for joint decisionmaking by the various population groups. [Interjections.] I want to refer to Promt, dated November 1977, in which the following was put before the voters:

[Interjections.] When the NP said in 1977 that we were voting for joint decision-making … [Interjections.] If the hon member for Barberton would only speak softer while I am speaking he might also be able to hear what I have to say to him. [Interjections.] When the National Party decided that one of the basic aspects of the new constitutional dispensation would be joint decision-making, all the hon members of the CP were members of the NP and they also voted in favour of it. [Interjections.]

Even the HNP mentions in its Programme of Principles or constitution…

Order! Hon members turn their backs to me, but keep on making remarks! The hon member may proceed.

The HNP says:

In other words, for longer than one can foresee, there will always be a large number of Blacks living in our area. Then it is said that those people should be treated fairly and justly. [Interjections.] By saying that the matter should be fair and just, means in the first instance that there must be an objective assessment of the prevailing circumstances. Then the needs of the Blacks themselves must be taken into consideration. We often speak about the political future of the Blacks, but the hon members of the CP have never tried to gratify the need of the Blacks to have a say as urban Blacks in their own area within the constitutional framework of South Africa. It will be fair and just conduct if self-determination is granted with a joint say in matters of common concern without domination taking place. That is the principle of this party and structures will also be included in this as is now being envisaged by this Bill.

I should like to refer to what Dr Connie Mulder said in 1978 while he still was a member of the NP. I refer to Hansard: Assembly, vol 72, col 230. I quote him as follows:

He mentioned 10 constraints of which I am going to elaborate on the tenth one. He said:

In other words, this deals with the political say of Blacks in matters of national interest to South Africa. He said further:

Dr Connie Mulder said that he wanted to address the aspirations and needs of Blacks to be given a say in matters of national interest to South Africa. He considered it to be very important. I shall quote him further:

He was referring to his five-year plan—

Dr Connie Mulder said that we should eliminate this problem—it is only one of ten which he mentioned—by doing something about it.

Fair and just treatment must take place on the same basis for all the communities affected by it.

Finally I want to refer to the divisional councils. In the Cape Province the divisional councils rendered very good service to the communities that elected them. They have personnel with a high degree of expertise and they rendered a very wide range of services. I should like to make an appeal for the divisional councils to be converted into regional services councils or otherwise included in them.

I am aware of the problems experienced in accommodating Blacks, Coloureds and Indians living in the rural areas, but I think it will be possible to solve those problems on the basis of the wide-ranging and fair reforms and constitutional principles according to which the NP is prepared to deal with this matter. If possible, it will not be necessary to create another structure with which to replace the divisional councils. I should therefore like to make an appeal that the expertise of the officials in the divisional councils be used in the same way as the expertise of the officials in the development boards is going to be used to serve a wider community. Furthermore these divisional councils inspired confidence in the people they served.

I should like to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, this legislation deals with the abolition of the development boards. There is a report about this in Die Burger of 13 May, with an accompanying photograph of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

Is it a good photograph?

Yes, he looks very youthful. In the report it is written that the boards were established in the early 1970s and were called Bantu Administration Boards. I am quoting from the report:

It is said that they were “fiercely controversial”. Surely they did not become controversial of their own accord.

Who made them fiercely controversial? The leftist forces, namely the PFP, the left-wing Press, the leftist forces abroad, the ANC, the UDF and so on. It is this whole choir that made constant attacks on the administration boards, in spite of the excellent services they rendered to South Africa and to the Blacks. The reason for doing so was to set up a target for the Black revolutionaries and insurgents, and for the rioters. The boards had to be an embodiment, as it were, of the Government’s policy. These people were opposed to the Government, to the policy of the Whites in South Africa and to a policy of separation, but the Bantu Administration Boards, which subsequently became the administration boards and even later the development boards, had to become the target.

The problem, therefore, is not the officials themselves, but the political significance these leftist forces attached to the buildings, conduct and so on, of everything in and around the development boards and the administration boards.

I was astonished by the attitude of the hon member Prof Olivier, who was himself in his day a lecturer in Native Administration and who had no objection then to the subject’s name. He lectured in that subject at the University of Stellenbosch.

Is it not true?

It is correct.

At the time one may as well have made him a symbol of Native Administration and said that he was not a good man because he was lecturing in a subject with the erroneous or unattractive name of Native Administration.

Of course that would not have detracted from the standard of the work Prof Olivier did at Stellenbosch. I know what I am talking about, because we attended Latin classes together. That is why I want to emphasise here that the hon member Prof Olivier should really apologise to those Whites—almost all of them Afrikaners—who rendered these services for many years. When he was urged to explain why he said these bodies had given the Blacks so much offence, had been such a source of frustration and had generated the wrong attitude in them, he merely mentioned the bulldozing of Modderdam, and one other matter.

Is the hon member Prof Olivier trying to imply here today that those officials did that for fun, or because they had nothing else to do? Did they simply take it into their heads to do that? Is he alleging that they sat in an office and conspired, and decided it was time to bulldoze these buildings? Surely there must have been a directive from a Minister. I have no knowledge of that matter. Perhaps I had already left for the Transvaal, but I cannot remember these Bantu Administration Buildings at Modderdam being raged to the ground and so on.

It was probably Piet Koornhof!

It could not have been the officials’ decision. I do not believe for one moment that the officials, who bore the responsibility all those years, would do the kind of thing the hon member Prof Olivier implied here, if there had not been a directive or decision from above. That is why I say I think the hon member ought to withdraw what he said here today in connection with the officials.

Who in South Africa, Whites, Coloureds, Indians or Blacks, would have done the work which the Whites did in the Bantu Administration Boards, subsequently the development boards and so on, better? From which population group would people have come who could have done the work better? No, Sir! We really do want to break a lance here today for these men by saying that even though the boards are now being abolished, the good work they did will always remain. Perhaps there were a few among them who erred, but in the HNP I also had one or two organisers who were not entirely of the right standard. [Interjections.]

In every organisation there are people who fall short, but by saying what he said about a whole large group of people, a whole institution and a whole sector of our State Administration, I think the hon member Prof Olivier, at the end of this part of the session, went much too far.

The abolition of the development boards is taking place because they played a part in the implementation of Verwoerdian policy. In fact, they are monuments to the Verwoerdian policy of racial separation in South Africa. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, for example, said he repudiated the Verwoerdian education policy. In the time in which we are living, the act of abolishing these boards, testifies, however, in a far more tangible way to the destruction of Verwoerdian policy.

I want to associate myself with the hon member for Brakpan and say that it is not going to make an ounce of difference to the attitude among the Blacks who administers their affairs in White South Africa. After the abolition of these boards the Blacks are once again going to be inflamed, incited and egged on by the leftists in an effort to get at whatever other body comes in its place. [Interjections.]

It is simply the provincial administrations that are now going to become the target! According to the report which appeared in Die Burger on 13 May, in which the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning announced the abolition of these boards, he went on to say—at least, the report implies that he said—

Consequently we are dealing here with the incorporation, on a multiracial basis, of Black administration, Black local authorities, into the provincial system. It could shortly perhaps be a Black Administrator who will in future issue instructions for certain buildings to be razed to the ground!

The problem I want to consider for a moment is that the Black man, to a far greater extent than members of the White race, does not know how to compromise. Far more than is the case of a member of the White Race, it is for the Black man a case of everything or nothing. The Black man is not familiar with the democratic institutions that have developed over a period of hundreds of years in Europe. He does not know the art of reasoning, the give and take in arguments, as in the case of a White community. As far as he is concerned if something is right, it is right, and if in his opinion it is wrong, he is for the most part inclined to adopt the attitude that it is entirely wrong.

That is where these hon members and their Government are making a terrible mistake by approaching the Black man with the concept of consensus. Pre-eminently the Black man is not a person who seeks consensus or compromise! That is why the English-speaking persons in South Africa, who are persons who are thoroughly versed in compromise, misunderstand the Blacks, and why the Afrikaners have always understood them better. [Interjections.] In the world of American and English politics one finds great men, such as Adlai Stevenson, who wrote brilliant articles on the value, usefulness and attractiveness of compromise in politics. I do not begrudge them that attitude; I am not quarrelling with them. Sometimes it is a very fine trait, but I now want to mention another reason why this new system is not going to work. Since the Black local governments are now being involved in the regional services councils, on which the Black representatives must consult with the Whites and take decisions, it is being assumed in the new system that the Black people will react as White people do. It is not in their nature!

I am not condemning them today, not at all! I think that a great deal could be said in favour of this approach of the Black man! As far as he is concerned, that is in any event what is fit and proper. If it is fit and proper for him, it is not for me to say that he should change his nature and character! I must accept him as he is with his character and make-up, and try to see what is good in it.

However, I must not allow myself to be trapped by reality. I must not allow myself to be led into a dispensation in which the wrong assumptions are made about the mental make-up of the Black man. That is why we say this new dispensation is not going to succeed either. The previous one did not succeed because the leftists rebelled against it. Now the leftists are going to rebel against this dispensation as well, but this one has the additional defect that it assumes that the Black man is a person who is capable of compromise. If we look at Africa, right up as far as Ethiopia, we see the remains of all the constitutions which the British in particular have tried to make for Black communities in Africa on the basis of compromise, on the basis of give and take.

In spite of all their cleverness and wisdom—Lord Carrington was not a fool—the British could not perceive that Black people were not people for democracy as we know it. Let us consider the question of kwaZulu and the composition of that council of which Chief Buthelezi is the head. Approximately 60% of that legislative council of the Zulus consist of chiefs who are there on the basis of their position in the tribal structure, while approximately 30% of them are elected. Now we cannot tell the Zulus that it is wrong, or bad democracy, because for the Zulus it is the best kind of democracy. As far as the Zulus are concerned, it is their form of democracy…

Ethnocracy.

Ethnocracy. That is how they make up their government, and that is what they find fit and proper.

Order! For a considerable time now the hon member has been drifting away from the Bill.

I am merely saying that that approach and attitude which led to their having such a composition, is going to be carried by the Black people in South Africa into the new regional services councils and into the local government…

Order! The legislation deals with the abolition of development bodies. Does the Bill establish other bodies in their place?

I beg your pardon, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.] As the development bodies are abolished, their duties are transferred to other bodies. It was a slip of the tongue on my part, and I am sorry. What I actually meant was that it is possible, in the case of bodies that will take over those functions from these development boards.

The final point I want to make is that the hon members of the CP and I, throughout the many debates over the past five months, have been telling the governing party that we understand their approach in the measure before us and the others which we have been discussing recently—the entire package of measures to which the hon member for Johannesburg West referred—but the one major question we have continually been asking is where are they heading. We told them that they could find fault with our ultimate objectives, but that they could not say that they did not know what we were heading for.

A disaster.

The hon member says for a disaster, but the fact of the matter is that in one’s mind’s eye one can make a reasonably clear supposition of what we are heading for with our policy. We have been asking them, all this time, what they were heading for.

For the first time the hon member for Helderkruin said in this debate what they could possibly be heading for. He said they were engaged in a process. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, the hon the Minister of Finance, who officiated in another debate and the hon the Deputy Minister all said this. They said they were engaged in a process. The hon the Minister of Law and Order said that order had to be maintained so that they could continue the process and reach their final destination, even though they did not know when, or where it was, or what it was going to look like.

Then the hon member for Helderkruin is reply to a question today said that if they were standing in front of the door at the end of this road and they discovered what they had been heading for was not what they wanted or were prepared to accept, the position would remain exactly as it was. [Interjections.]

It is the most impossible position and the greatest disaster which can strike South Africa if things are then going to remain just as they are. Then they have embarked South Africa on a course of power-sharing, of reform, of a process—whatever they want to call it—and just when the process has to reach its final destination, they dig in their heels. They cannot adhere to that point of view then, because we are all agreed that South Africa must change. South Africa cannot remain as it is at present. There is unanimity at present on this matter in this House. [Interjections.]

The HNP and the CP say, however, that South Africa should be heading for a diversity of fatherlands. The NP say they are looking for a course.

The hon member for Helderkruin, who was a professor at the university and who is a thinker in the NP, did the debate in South Africa and South Africa itself a service by that honest and openhearted statement he made this morning.

In public meetings throughout South Africa we are going to tell the people that the NP says that when they arrive at a door which does not lead to what they were negotiating for, they are going to stop right there.

Then South Africa is in a crisis, however, because if the NP then has to turn around at that closed door because they cannot get what they wanted, do they think the people are going to follow them back?

Order! Once again the hon member is drifting away from the subject. I have already told the hon member he is drifting away. If I remember correctly, the hon member for Helderkruin made that speech of his in a previous debate. The hon member may proceed, but he must come back to the Bill.

If the NP takes the steps they are envisaging in this Bill, together with all the other steps they want to take, and find that they have not succeeded and are not getting what they thought they were going to get at the end of that road, they cannot turn back and reinstate these boards. [Interjections.] They cannot then say that they want to reinstate the development boards, and if they realise they are not succeeding, go back to the Bantu Administration Boards, and if they do not work, go back to yet other boards. The NP cannot go back in its tracks.

That is why we are warning the NP today: Because they do not know what their ultimate destination looks like—and they admit that they may perhaps have to turn around when they arrive at that door, because they are not getting what they wanted—they are now destroying the constitutional structures in South Africa, the result of which will be that the bodies that have to succeed these bodies are going to find it more difficult to restore order in South Africa. They are creating an extremely dangerous situation with the step that is being taken in this Bill.

I want to conclude, however, by saying that the people will know when the NP arrives at that closed door. Then there is only one alternative for them, and that lies with the right-wing parties in South Africa. Then they will only be able to turn to the right-wing parties. They cannot go to the ANC, nor will they. They will not go to the South African Communist Party either. Then only one alternative remains, and that is the policy of Dr Hendrik Verwoerd.

Now I shall conclude with this one sentence: If that is the reason why the NP deviated and why the policy of Dr Verwoerd, like a grain of wheat in the soil, first had to die in order to grow again, then we understand and accept that the policy of Dr Verwoerd first has to die, and that we first have to observe the horrors of integration and the destruction of these boards, so that the people can realise and know that this is not what they want, and then it will be possible for Dr Verwoerd’s policy to be implemented throughout the whole of Southern Africa in a way that has up to now appeared inconceivable to many people. The instrument to do that can only be the right-wing political parties in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sasolburg will pardon me for not reacting to his political tirade now. All the same, I have been sitting here listening to him during this session. Tonight he mentioned the name of Dr Verwoerd quite a few times, yet during the whole of the session I never once heard him mention the name of Mr Vorster. It seems to me he does not feel too happy in his heart about that great leader South Africa also had. It really seems to me there is something inside of him which is not right, something he will eventually have to rectify, because we cannot remain bogged down in a specific period in South Africa’s history. We will simply have to keep moving forward. No, the hon member for Sasolburg must not gesticulate at me now. He must listen to what I am saying to him. He talked a lot during this session but he never mentioned the name of that other great leader, Mr Vorster, because in the hon member’s heart he holds a grudge against him. [Interjections.]

This week, while we were discussing the extended hours, the hon member said that they would be strong and take pills in order to stay awake. We have now reached the end and when I look around me it does not seem to me as if any of the members or the officials require any pills. To me it seems the only people who have collapsed are the Press! [Interjections.]

I want to assure hon members that I will not after all extend the speech, as Paul did, until someone falls out the window, but I do not think any hon members will begrudge me a reasonable speech of approximately two hours.

I want to begin by saying that this legislation before us tonight did not come into existence yesterday or the day before. Nor did it materialise out of thin air. It is true that this legislation came before us at a rather late stage of the session but there were very good reasons for that. Backing up this legislation and in support of it there has been a tremendous amount of negotiation. In the first instance I want to convey my sincere thanks tonight to the standing committee for the extremely thorough work that they did. I want to thank the chairman of the standing committee very sincerely. It was a difficult task, which he handled very efficiently, and I hope his reward will be that there might be better days ahead of him. I wish to thank the hon member Prof Olivier sincerely for placing his knowledge at the disposal of the committee, and I also want to thank all the other hon members. I also want to thank the officials of the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning for spending many hours, days and nights on end on this legislation to ensure that a thorough piece of legislation was submitted to this House.

I wish to pay tribute tonight to the committees of enquiry that were instituted by the coordinating council and that went into all the bodies mentioned in this Bill very thoroughly. These committees were under the chairmanship of our four administrators. There was the committee of enquiry into the Cape divisional councils which was chaired by the Administrator of the Orange Free State; the committee of enquiry into the Development and Services Board in Natal and the seven regional water services corporations, which was chaired by the Administrator of the Cape, Mr Louw; the 13 development boards were investigated by a committee of enquiry chaired by the Administrator of the Transvaal, Mr Cruywagen, and the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-urban Areas was investigated by a committee under the chairmanship of Mr Cadman, the Administrator of Natal. Tonight I wish to thank the committees of enquiry, their chairmen and members sincerely for doing such a very thorough job.

I also wish to associate myself with all hon members who paid tribute here tonight to the 13 development boards. I want to agree, and no-one on this side of the House thinks differently, that along the road of South Africa there are also very fine monuments for which these development boards were responsible. The hon member Prof Olivier said that there were officials who did their work extremely efficiently. Earlier this week, when I addressed the other House, the House of Delegates, I was moved when the chairman of the House and the hon member for Reservoir Hills paid tribute in that House to the development boards and the work that was done by those people. Tonight I also want to pay tribute to them. We are thankful for what they accomplished, sometimes under very difficult circumstances. However, it is simply a fact that circumstances were often against them, especially as regards the laws they had to implement.

They had to do their work under extremely difficult circumstances and in this regard the hon member for Sasolburg may be right, because those boards acquired a political connotation and political connotations were attached to their buildings. It is also so, that they had to deal with acrimony from whatever source it came.

Tonight I wish to say that I know many of the members of the development boards personally. Actually I was supposed to have been attending a dinner of the Central Transvaal Development Board in Pretoria at this very moment.

I know the Chief Directors and officials and I want to tell hon members that after talking to these people you simply came to the conclusion that they themselves did not feel that they could continue this work in the same manner under the designation of a development board.

There may be some of them who do not agree with the Bill that is before this house tonight. There may be some of them who would have liked to continue in the same manner, but I wish to say tonight that I believe the majority of them are in favour of the abolition of the development boards and incorporation into the provincial administrations.

In that regard the hon member for Vryburg emphasised a very important point in his speech and that way that the expertise of the development boards’ officials could be used for all the communities in future and not only for the Black communities. Since they will therefore be rendering services in the provincial administrations, all the communities in South Africa will be able to use the expertise of those people.

Great concern has been expressed about the personnel. I should like to point out to hon members that during my Second Reading speech I devoted almost three pages—from page 2 to almost the end of page 4—to the personnel. There I strongly emphasized quite a few premises and I want to refer to them briefly. I said that in order to ensure continuity in the delivering of services there should be as little disruption of the personnel as possible. Our approach is that there should be no disruption of the personnel.

Furthermore I emphasised the importance of handling people and their placement with other institutions as individuals with their own preferences, aptitudes and capacities. After all we cannot simply take a person and place him in a particular body where he would, not be suitable at all. The capacities, skills and expertise of individuals will be taken into consideration.

I also emphasised that we will transfer the functions, and the persons performing those functions, in unison to a suitable authority. After all it is our aim to ensure that people are happy in their work. I said further that certain service conditions such as salaries, pension benefits and accumulated leave would be protected as set out in the Bill.

Furthermore I said in regard to the personnel that certainty and security for the personnel would be ensured as soon a possible and that employees would rather be retained than to allow them to leave the service or be declared redundant. That is our aim. We want to keep the personnel and we want to see to it that they are all happily placed in other employment.

Tonight I once again want to give the personnel the assurance—I have already done it on many occasions outside when I addressed the development boards and others—that not one of them need feel concerned. I want to give them the assurance that they have nothing to lose and that we will do everything in our power to ensure that each one of them is happily placed in other employment. I have already given them that assurance. They accepted that from me and I know that they will once again fully accept my word tonight. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon member that it is simply wonderful how certain people are under the impression that their word has been accepted and that they can always speak on behalf of other people. [Interjections.] I want to say tonight that I have spoken to those people. Those hon members have sat here, but I went and spoke to them. [Interjections.]

Let me rather confine myself to the more serious hon members in this House, such as the hon member Prof Olivier, who spoke about the burdens of the development boards. Tonight here they spoke with great praise of the development boards, but I wish to tell the hon member for Brakpan that we also have to accept the losses and take responsibility for them. The liabilities which the hon member Prof Olivier mentioned and the financial need which the development boards are experiencing, will be sorted out with the concurrence of the hon Minister of Finance, as is provided in clause 3(3). There will be negotiations with the hon the Minister of Finance about this matter.

I have already thanked the hon member for Klip River as chairman of the standing committee sincerely for the work he did. He referred to the development boards that did positive work. He also referred to the transfer of personnel and said that we would deal with that matter effectively. I am in full agreement with him.

As far as the divisional councils of the Cape are concerned, I just want to say tonight that draft legislation has already been prepared by the department in order to utilise the administrative components of divisional councils as the crux of regional services councils. Such draft legislation will be published in the Gazette on Friday, 4 July, with the request that representations in that regard be addressed to the department. Then we also trust that Parliament will be able to attend to this matter during its session in August and September. Constant attention is being given to this matter and the public—especially the people in the Cape Province—will be given an opportunity to make inputs.

I want to tell the hon member for Koedoespoort that clause 4(2) is not a total prohibition on breach of service, as he suggested. If members of the personnel want to resign they may do so. The clause surely prohibits “golden handshakes”, as we call it, when a member of the personnel wishes to have himself declared redundant. If a person wishes to terminate his services, however, he is free to do so. [Interjections.] The hon member for Koedoespoort also complained about things about which not even the trade union itself made representations to us.

I wish to also thank the hon member for Johannesburg West for his contribution. I think he dealt with the representations which were made by SAAME very effectively. SAAME was given every opportunity on the standing committee and also on the co-ordinating council to make its representations. We listened to them and their representations were attended to.

The hon member also made the important point that two sets of interests were under discussion in this whole set-up. Firstly there are the interests of the personnel, which I have already discussed. Secondly there are the interests of the State. After all, it is not only the interests of the personnel which have to be protected, but those of the State as well. In this whole process we must see to it that both interests are protected and a balance is struck and maintained so that the interests of both the personnel and the State are protected. I think we have done that rather well in this legislation.

The hon member for Umbilo is not present now, but I cannot understand him today.

He is coming now.

At first I thought that it was Friday, the 13th, and then I remembered that today is Wednesday. The hon member seems to be on the war-path today. He said “we are doing it the wrong way”, implying that we have got into a rut of doing things in the wrong way.

†I want to inform the hon member for Umbilo that the question of the rates to be collected will be investigated when the divisional councils and their possible transformation into RSCs are investigated. That will take place in the period before the next session of Parliament. All the matters mentioned by the hon member will be fully investigated during the year of grace which the standing committee provided for in clause 2(2). The NRP finds itself in a strange position this evening having the CP as bedfellows. The NRP opposes this Bill even though the PFP is supporting it.

*The hon member for Rustenburg made a sturdy contribution. He said that change brought insecurity, but we will do everything possible to bring tranquillity. It is true that whenever change takes place there is a degree of uncertainty, but with the right handling of and approach to the situation, peace and stability will be restored, and that is exactly what we wish to do.

The hon member for Pinetown asked who was going to take over Chesterville and then spoke about the incidence of crime in Chesterville. It is very clear to me that the Natalia Development Board which is to be incorporated into the Natal Provincial Administration will continue to attend to Chesterville. There are problems in Natal because many of the Black areas were frozen and consequently no upgrading or development could take place there. The situation has now been rectified and attention will be given to those areas. A process of upgrading is going to take place in those areas.

†The hon member also posed the question who will replace the Natalia Development Board in Chesterville. Politically, it will be the Administrator and the Executive Committee of Natal, and the hon member will find this in clauses 4(1) and 5(1). Administratively it will be the provincial secretary, and the hon member will find that in clause 3(l)(b). The Natal employees are covered by clause 5(3).

*The hon member for Brakpan expressed his concern about the personnel. I believe that I reassured the hon member by telling him… [Interjections.] I did not give him too much reassurance, but I reassured… [Interjections.] I would be so glad if the hon member for Rissik would regain a bit of his former sense of humour because he looks so grim and surly. Life does not weigh so heavily on one that one cannot laugh a little now and again. The hon member for Brakpan spoke about dedicated people who had worked to attain an ideal. Nobody questioned that and I believe that that ideal will live on in those officials and in all of us so that we can continue with the development of the whole of South Africa.

The hon member referred to a sentence which I used in my Second Reading speech namely “all communities will have a say in the daily matters concerning their lives”. We cannot deny the fact that the development boards were wholly White boards and that the senior personnel of the boards were practically all White. As regards provincial councils, we shall now have the position that other population groups will also be represented on executive committees, and in that way the other population groups will also have a say in the matters concerning their daily lives. That is what I meant by that sentence.

The hon member for Brakpan quoted from Business Day but I want to ask him to rather not do it. When I travel by air I also read Business Day occassionally, but I wish to point out to him that that newspaper speaks one language only, that of the PFP. They have a different reason for not wanting regional services councils to be instituted. They do not want separate local authorities for the various population groups. [Interjections.] Now I can understand why the hon member for Rissik left the NP. He never understood our policy. [Interjections.] Let me explain. Surely it is the policy of the NP and of the Government that every population group should have its own local government. If I could only lay my hands on the figures I would tell the hon member how many local governments there are in the Black communities and how many are functioning today. We also have local committees for the Coloureds, the Indians as well as the Whites. [Interjections.] We have had this system for many years and we are creating its own local government for every population group.

The hon member for Brakpan spoke earlier about the “White national states” but I do not know where they are. [Interjections.]

Order! Let us at this late hour give the hon Deputy Minister an opportunity to complete his speech. The hon Deputy Minister may proceed.

Sir, earlier in his speech the hon member for Brakpan spoke about “White national states”, and I should like to ascertain where they are. The hon member also suggested in his speech that the people who worked for the development boards have now been lost to us. All the necessary steps have actually been taken in order to retain these people rather than to lose them. I referred to my Second Reading speech to the fact that there would be a say for communities.

The hon member also referred to the urban board in the Transvaal. I wish to point out to the hon member that the board will continue to do its work. It will not be swept off the table, but it will be transferred to Administration: White Own Affairs and continue to do its work as it did in the past.

Sir, I believe I have now answered all hon members. I want to thank everybody who took part in the debate very sincerely.

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

No, I do not have the time. I wish to tell the hon member for Pinetown that if he still does not know these things in these last moments of the session, he will never learn them.

Sir, I want to conclude.

Hear, hear!

Sir, it is actually wonderful. When I was a Minister and said “amen” nobody said anything, but now after making a good speech they say “hear, hear”. I want to thank the hon member for Jeppe very much.

Mr Chairman, 1 July 1986 is an extremely important date in our history. On that day, next Tuesday, the new provincial dispensation starts, influx control is being abolished, Blacks acquire ownership and on that same date development boards will be abolished. Tonight I want to request South Africans to discharge their obligations with responsibility and to look after the interests of our country with dedication. I am not afraid of the future. I look forward to it with great courage and faith. Let us follow the path of the future and make a great success of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Question put,

Mr Chairman, I move:

[Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, if I may put a question to you, Sir, do I understand the hon the Minister as having moved that this House adjourn until tomorrow morning at 09h00? [Interjections.]

Order! Should this motion be agreed to, the House will adjourn until the appropriate time and date in August pursuant to the relevant Resolution adopted.

If hon members will permit me, I should like to say a few words to them before I put the question. Harold Wilson once said: “A week is a long time in politics.” I think the past week has indeed felt like a long time for all of us.

†On behalf of the Chair I wish hon members a very agreeable, though short, recess. While I am doing it, I recall the words of Aldous Huxley and I hope hon members will, when they go home in the recess, search for the mysterious, independent variable of the political calculation—the public opinion. I also hope they will find it in their constituencies.

Mr Chairman, I propose that we sing “Auld Lang Syne” before we adjourn! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I am sorry to have to do this and I realise I shall probably be most unpopular with all the hon members in this House, but we will be opposing…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Mr Chairman, is any debate allowed on a motion for the adjournment? [Interjections.]

Order! Yes, it is allowed. The hon member for Umhlanga may proceed.

Yes, Sir, I can assure that hon member that a debate is permitted in terms of the rules, and if he wants to know how long the debate may endure, I can tell him that I may stand here and speak for 30 minutes and the debate can endure all night. [Interjections.] So the hon member should feel free to join us in the debate that is about to ensue. [Interjections.] Perhaps the hon member for Sandton could even be the PFP’s leading spokesman in the debate.

We oppose this motion to adjourn, Sir, because we believe it is inopportune. We do not believe that it is correct for this House now to adjourn until 18 August because there is a matter before this House—in fact, it is the next item on the Order Paper—which is of vital importance and which, we believe, should be dealt with before the House adjourns. [Interjections.]

We understood quite clearly that we may have had to sit here this evening until an hour approaching midnight, if necessary—indeed, we are quite happy still to do so—and then to adjourn and to return tomorrow morning and continue the debate. The next matter on the Order Paper is the Joint Executive Authority for kwaZulu and Natal Bill. [Interjections.] I am quite happy to stand here for half an hour.

Well, stand there!

I will do it! I am quite happy and quite prepared to do it. [Interjections.] However, I do ask, Mr Chairman, that I be allowed to address you and address the House.

Order! The hon member is addressing the Chair and the House.

This Bill in our opinion can be considered to be an integral part of the local government legislation which has been passed…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May I ask you for a ruling in respect of the hon members of the Government party because we cannot hear what the hon member is saying? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member who is speaking is a senior member of that party; he is putting the case of his party and he is entitled to do it. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. As I was saying, this Bill we believe can be considered to be an integral part of the local government legislation which has been passed not only by this House but also by the other two Houses that comprise our Parliament. This Bill, I might add, has also been passed by both other Houses. Let us look at this Bill and see what we are looking at. It is a Bill that in its title seeks to “provide for the joint and co-ordinating exercise of powers…”

On a point of order, Sir, is there not such a thing as a rule of anticipation?

Order! There is a rule of anticipation. I am not sure whether this Bill has been fully discussed in this House.

Mr Chairman, with respect, this Bill has been discussed and actually the adjournment was taken by the hon member for Pietersburg and his name appears on the Order Paper as having the adjournment.

The title of this Bill states that it is:

On the 1st of next month—I am sorry that the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is not with us—there comes into being a new provincial authority, a new provincial executive. The hon the Deputy Minister has only just within the past 10 or 20 minutes regaled this House with all the wonderful things that are going to take place on 1 July. He made much of the fact that there is to be a new provincial executive in each of the provincial councils. This of course applies to Natal as it does to each of the provinces. Is the action of this House in not considering the Bill now and not allowing it a passage within this parliamentary session, not a slap in the face for those who are the architects of this Bill? I ask all reasonable men in this House how they would feel if they had been architects of this Bill. Has consideration been given to the feelings of the like of people like Mr Frank Martin, Dr Oscar Dhlomo—I think he had much to do with this Bill—or for that matter, Mr Radclyffe Cadman or Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi? Has sufficient thought been given to how they will feel with this Bill just being in a somewhat cavalier way—I do not say that in any derogatory fashion—passed over with the Government implying: “We will come back on 18 August and pass it.” It is part and parcel of what is to happen on 1 July 1986.

I look across the floor and see the hon member for South Coast, an old provincial councillor of Natal, and I wonder whether he would not agree that this is an affront to those gentlemen, a team of which he was once part, that has worked so hard towards finding accord on these matters with the government of kwaZulu. I wonder how the hon member for Umlazi feels. He also is a gentleman who has served that provincial council very well and was party to a lot of the good attitudes and feelings that exist between the provincial government of Natal and the government of kwaZulu. I turn to the hon member for Vryheid and ask him how he feels about this. What about my old colleague and friend whom I have known for many years, the hon member for Amanzimtoti? I think that he feels a little hurt that this should be happening here, and I think that the hon member for Newcastle feels the same, as I am sure…

Order! The hon member is ranging too widely and is repeating himself.

Mr Chairman, I shall then conclude—which everybody will no doubt be happy to hear—by making an observation which I should like to have noted for the record. We are proud of the fact that the New Republic Party is sitting here tonight and taking up this issue on behalf of the people of Natal. All five of us are present in this House in order to do so. [Interjections.] Every member of this party is here in order to do this, because each one of us believes that we have an obligation to the province of Natal and to kwaZulu. We believe that the adjournment of this debate will be seen as an insult and will break faith with those who have worked so long and so hard to achieve this outstanding example of what can truly be called consensus. We speak glibly of consensus in this place. I submit to this House that if one wants to see what consensus is all about, this is consensus, because this is consensus with a Black government! This is consensus that has been achieved by all the members of our community. This is something that has been agreed to by the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives, and the House of Assembly should also be agreeing to it…

Order! I can understand that the hon member feels strongly about this, but he is deviating from the motion.

I accept your ruling, Sir. I ask all men, in the name of just ordinary decency, not to allow us to simply walk away tonight and slap even the smallest of our provinces in the face the way that we would do if we simply think selfishly of ourselves, instead of granting them, before the due date, the passage of a Bill for which they have striven so long and so hard.

Mr Chairman, in terms of the resolution passed yesterday, the House will adjourn until 18 August. The hon the Minister is now simply supporting that, but we also protest against this adjournment, but on the strength of a bigger issue than the kwaZulu-Natal issue, which we are obviously also concerned about. I must say, however, that if ever there were crocodile tears, we are now seeing them from that hon member. I believe that the kwaZulu-Natal Bill, which is the next Bill to be debated if we do not adjourn the House now, is the direct result of the abolition of the provincial councils in the real sense, which those hon members supported by voting yes in the referendum. [Interjections.] Those hon members are furious about all their Exco members having been fired by the State President…

You are most objectionable!

I believe that those gentlemen are simply venting their fury on this hon Minister.

Order! The hon member has made that point.

As I see it, the adjournment of this House, in a situation where there are thousands of people being detained, where all normal democratic functions have been suspended in our society, is in my view irresponsible, a dereliction of our duty to democracy and to the role of this Parliament in this place, reducing us to irrelevance. [Interjections.]

You always have been.

We object strongly to this Parliament being adjourned now, at this time in South Africa’s history.

We shall therefore vote against the hon the Minister’s proposal.

Mr Chairman, yesterday the CP took a very strong stand against the adjournment of the House and the fact that it was only possible for us to reconvene at a later stage. We made it very clear to you yesterday. I want to tell the hon member for Umhlanga that I understand the fact that the hon member and his party feel very strongly about this particular legislation. Therefore, when I tell him that we do not want to debate the legislation now, I do not do so because I do not want the hon member to state his standpoint. Our standpoint was in principle that the Bill in question be read this day six months, and tonight we are very grateful that it is not going to be read for at least two of the six months. [Interjections.]

I want to remind the House of the story of two men in jail, both of whom had been sentenced to death. One of them was summoned by the sultan who told him that he would repeal the death sentence on certain conditions. That man went back to his friend in the death cell and told him of the conversation with the sultan. He said the sultan had told him that if he could teach his beautiful horse to speak, he could go free. The prisoner had then told him that it was impossible; he could not do it.

The next day the other prisoner went in to the sultan and came back with a broad smile. He said the sultan had said the same thing to him, and that he had told the sultan that he needed a year to do it. When the other prisoner told him that he knew it was impossible, he answered: “Yes, but the sultan or the horse may die.” [Interjections.]

In conclusion I want to say that the CP has now received two months’ reprieve as far as this Bill is concerned. I do not want anything to happen to the hon the Minister, but in two months many things may happen. The hon the Minister may change his standpoint, because the Government often changes its standpoint. Therefore, I want to tell my friend the hon member for Pinetown in all fondness that we should like the debate to continue, but not about this particular Bill.

Mr Chairman, let me react at once to the hon member for Rissik. I do not think that what the hon member said was quite true, because I see on the following Order of the Day that the hon member for Pietersburg would have been the speaker. It seems to me he is recovering from his inability to speak tonight. [Interjections.]

†I want to say to the hon member for Umhlanga that I understand his deep concern. I would like to suggest to him in all fairness that his objection to this Bill has no relation whatsoever to the possible establishment of co-operation with kwaZulu.

I am not objecting to the Bill, but to the adjournment!

I know, but with due respect I must say that the hon member is objecting to the adjournment because of the next item on the Order Paper. That is all that I am trying to say.

*I now come to the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. He objects because of the fact that if we adjourn, they cannot use Parliament to abuse the emergency regulations. [Interjections.]

Question put,